What does "gun control" mean at this point?

originally posted by: NightSkyeB4Dawn
a reply to: Wayfarer

When I was younger I owned several guns. I live in the woods and thought they may come in handy. When my vision went dodgy, I gave up my weapons because I would never shoot at something that I was not sure I was seeing.

To date, I have not had a reason to use a gun. Everything that lives in the woods runs from me faster than I could ever run from it, and I hope they continue to do so.

Guns serve a purpose for many, and they can be lethal in the wrong hands, but I don't understand why people think that changing the gun laws or ridding the world of guns is going to stop the killing of children, single or in mass. If anything I would think it would make the situation far more lethal.

A quick Google of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, will show you that guns are not the only items that can cause mass deaths of children. By the way there were 19 children in that building at the time.

We have a problem and guns are not it.

Well, first, you sound like you have a sensible understanding and approach to guns (like almost all the posters here), so I appreciate you taking the time to share your opinion.

However, the overall argument as I see it is not to stop/prevent all killing, but to work to find solutions that limit the ability of folks to kill others (kids being the most egregious example) - and I don't think anyone's implying that is solely in the purview of guns. In the United States, because of the 2nd amendment being an ingrained right there is an extreme barrier to gun control, and there are several other factors that have limited the erosion of the 2nd amendment (as many of its supporters believe), such as lobbying to limit studies on the affect of gun violence, etc. These peculiarities have contributed to the unique situation the US finds itself in regarding gun control.

In reference to your example about McVey, didn't that attack cause a pretty substantial limiting of fertilizer purchases as well as the associated elements used to make that bomb?

In regards to those who think that ridding the world of guns would stop killings; I believe many think that because there are ample examples around the world of places banning/limiting guns and a concurrent substantial drop in gun deaths (and in many cases total deaths). The idea was not born in a vacuum.

In my opinion I would correct your final statement to read: We have a problem, and guns are a part of that multifaceted whole.

originally posted by: Wayfarer

However, the overall argument as I see it is not to stop/prevent all killing, but to work to find solutions that limit the ability of folks to kill others

I know I am interested in finding out why in this day and time people have the will to take other lives in the quantities that they do. As I have stated many time, when I was a kid, this kind of thing just didn't happen, and we still had plenty of guns.

Something drastic has happened, and if we don't find out what it is, and find a way to fix it, the killings will continue. Even if we pass all sorts of laws. Remember, long before any gun fires it's first bullet, somebody has to pick it up with the intent to point it at another person and pull the trigger.

I can completely empathize with all those who don't agree with guns and consider them the root of the problem, I just don't agree.

a reply to: network dude

I too wonder what is going through people's minds. Its like we took a giant leap backwards. All I hear on the news now is about banning assault rifles. Its almost a Mandela effect in that no one seems to understand that the AR15 is not an assault rifle. I hear one after another referring to the AR15 as a weapon of war and a military assault rifle. Which makes no sense when you consider that not one organized military force uses the AR15. Its just a civilian issue semi-auto rifle. Nothing more.

When the left talks about gun control they use words like "common sense legislation" and "compromise" and "closing loopholes" to sell their side of the story to the general public. Those words sound nice but what do they really mean?

Common sense legislation sounds like a good thing. Laws should make sense. But what doesn't make sense is repeating the same law over and over again knowing that is has failed to achieve its goals every time. When someone uses a gun to commit a crime numerous laws are actually broken, most of them felonies. Murder, unlawful use of a weapon, discharging a weapon within city limits, unlawfully owned or concealed weapons, etc, etc, etc. Between 10 and 15 laws are broken every time someone uses a gun to commit a crime. Murder is illegal 15 different ways yet we are powerless to stop it. I wish someone would explain to me why if it were illegal 16 different ways that would change. And remember, when it was illegal 3 different ways we thought 4 would solve the problem, and so on.

Compromise is the buzzword of the left. We hear it over and over. "Why won't you compromise?" Compromise is both sides giving something up in exchange for an agreement. What is the left giving up? What was their compromise in 1934? In 1968? Or any other year some form of ban was legislated? The right, the pro-gun side, has settled for losing some of our rights every time. The only thing the left has settled for is taking away some of our rights instead of all of them. That is not compromise. That is the constant erosion of Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

The last observation I would like to make is that when something like this happens the very first response of the students, parents, law enforcement, and the community in general, is to get together at the school where it happened and pray. I can't help but wonder if this would happen less often if people besides muslims were allowed pray in school whenever they wanted to...

a reply to: Shamrock6

According to a Wash Post/ABC poll 51% of all Adults support a ban on semi-automatic handguns, 65% want to ban all magazines that carry more than 10 rounds, and 58% support a ban assault weapons. IMO someone supporting those things isn't in the middle of the issue.

a reply to: nancyliedersdeaddog

All adults polled, you mean. I wasn't polled, nor was anyone I know. How many were polled? Where are they located--are they even in this country, is a question I sometimes ask myself.

Polls are hardly conclusive proof of anything. If they were, we wouldn't have people suffering from Trump fever, and melting down all over the place.

a reply to: seagull
Indeed. Where I live and I am not really that far from Parkland, I would guess by the conversations I have overheard, that about 25% support a ban on semi-automatic handguns, 5% want to ban all magazines that carry more than 10 rounds, and 5% support a ban assault weapons.

I think that sank home for me when I heard all the target practicing going on just yesterday. I live in the woods and it is not uncommon to hear folk out target practicing, but it is mainly a weekend thing. Almost never do you hear it the middle of the week. It is also uncommon to hear rapid gun fire, but you could always hear a short gap between rounds. Yesterday was the first time I ever heard gun fire were there seemed to be no gap, and in burst so long. I am guessing folk are stocking up on items that may soon be a collector's item.

originally posted by: Vroomfondel
a reply to: network dude

I too wonder what is going through people's minds. Its like we took a giant leap backwards. All I hear on the news now is about banning assault rifles. Its almost a Mandela effect in that no one seems to understand that the AR15 is not an assault rifle. I hear one after another referring to the AR15 as a weapon of war and a military assault rifle. Which makes no sense when you consider that not one organized military force uses the AR15. Its just a civilian issue semi-auto rifle. Nothing more.....

I'm actually genuinely curious how the AR-15 differs from its military counterpart the M-16 (aside from the selective fire option found on the M-16's). Would you mind educating us?

a reply to: Wayfarer

the select fire option is the major difference. Same magazine, same ammo, same barrel. there are variants like the M4, which are made to add things to them. But overall, it's the same weapon. The Mini 14, is a weapon made by Ruger, which has different parts, but shoots the same ammo, in the same way the AR-15 does, but it has a wooden stock and doesn't look much different than most other rifles.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn

I am guessing folk are stocking up on items that may soon be a collector's item.

Don't be such a pessimist. I ref paintball on the weekends where a neighbor who owns property shoots for hours at a time. None of the kids or their parents who are shooting paint at each other all day even flinch or ask about it.

Broward county and politicians of the area are disgustingly taking advantage of the students of a tragedy, and the Floridian citizens are clearly aware and will not be swayed by such repulsive political hackery.

a reply to: worldstarcountry

I can assure you that the gun shots that I hear every weekend, is not paint ball. Some actually use manufactured targets, which they discard as litter, some use just makeshift, which generates even more litter, and the amount of shell casing left behind, could pay for my vacation at $1.80 to $2.00 a pound, if I wasn't old and my back resistant.

I have lived in these woods a long time. The shooting has been going on longer than the time I have been hear. Like the cicada, the frogs, and the Limpkins, it just another sound you get used to.

I agree that the government and the media are having a field day with the tragedy, and I hope you are right that the Florida citizens, and hopefully all American citizen will not fall for the hackery.

a reply to: seagull

You are right I should of said adults polled instead of "all adults". I believe the number polled was a little over a 1,000 adults.

a reply to: NightSkyeB4Dawn
I was saying that the neighboring property owner shoots his firearms, while everybody plays paintball outside. We always like to play a game of guess what weapon type and caliber he is using. None of us have ever actually bothered to ask him, as you have you have to go up like a half mile, turn east, and then follow like a 400 meter path to get up to his house. Suffice it to say, nobody wants to take that risk lol.

He owns A LOT of property out there. We just ensure to clarify nobody is to leave the woods into the land surrounding. It helps when he shoots, drives the message home.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Wayfarer

the select fire option is the major difference. Same magazine, same ammo, same barrel. there are variants like the M4, which are made to add things to them. But overall, it's the same weapon. The Mini 14, is a weapon made by Ruger, which has different parts, but shoots the same ammo, in the same way the AR-15 does, but it has a wooden stock and doesn't look much different than most other rifles.

So if the M-16 is an 'assault rifle', and the AR-15 is functionally identical to the basic M-16 version the average GI Joe is equipped with, doesn't that transitively classify the AR-15 as an 'assault rifle'?

a reply to: Wayfarer

They look the same...they fire a completely different amount of rounds per minute. The M16 is capable of 700 - 950 rounds per minute....an AR15 is about 45 - 60 rounds per minute.


BIG difference.

If the kid in FL had an "assault rifle" there would have been way more victims.

That being said - I completely agree that there should be some measures that people like this sick and evil little murderer should not have been able to get an assualt style weapon.

I personally would not be opposed to a special permit be required for semi auto. Alot of rifles, shotguns and revolvers still available without it.

ETA - These are just standard model comparisons ( I know there are people who can out perform the standard rate of fire and other options and mods like the goofy bump stock, etc).

originally posted by: ronjer
a reply to: Wayfarer

They look the same...they fire a completely different amount of rounds per minute. The M16 is capable of 700 - 950 rounds per minute....an AR15 is about 45 - 60 rounds per minute.



BIG difference.

Is the 700-950 rounds per minute under full auto conditions? My previous post specified that since the M-16 is an 'assault rifle' even when in semi-auto select fire mode, wouldn't the AR-15 be considered one as well?

a reply to: Wayfarer

Assault rifle is a very vague term and a lot of people casually toss it about. Many anti-gun or firearms illiterate people tend to want to group any semi-automatic rifle that doesn't look or work like a traditional hunting rifle into that group.

Many pro-gun and people who learn about firearms tend to accept the definition that an assault rifle is a select-fire rifle that has fully automatic as a selectable firing option or any rifle that only fires in a fully automatic mode.

But even then some people on both sides, in general, can't agree on even this.

While it is true most parts of the M16 and AR15 are interchangeable, the differences are in the FCG (fire control group) and BCG (bolt carrier group) and a slightly modified lower receiver.

They are very slim, but important differences and so not actually functionally identical.

a reply to: Wayfarer

The select fire and option of full auto is what defines it as an assualt weapon. Without full auto / select fire is is a semi auto rifle. It is styled after an assualt rifle.It is the same as if I put a bunch of Penzoil stickers and KFC logo 's on my Chevy Monte Carlo. It looks like a NASCAR racer...but it is not under the hood, suspension, tires, etc

Not trying to argue...just pointing out the differences.

As I mentioned above, if they put a requirement on semi-auto...it would not matter if it was assault styled or not, even the small magazine / wood stock guns. That is just my personal idea to help stem this...I know it may not be seen popular.

I know others posted this before but it is true...if you google a ruger mini-14 it is a very similar rifle to the AR 15 but it looks like a hunting rifle. If you add a pistol grip, folding stock anda big magazine it is now an assualt styled (looking) weapon...but you have changed nothing on the functional parts of the gun...or better yet a 10/22. Those can get pretty beefed up and tactical looking, but exact same gun / black parts added.

a reply to: Wayfarer

700-950 rpm is under full auto conditions with a magazine or belt feed capable of holding that many bullets. M16 only.

Semi-automatic mode would be for both M16 and AR15 and that would be the 45-60 rpm with a magazine capable of holding that many bullets.

Also providing for no jams or missfires.

And the answer still depends on how you want to define assault rifle.

Well I can understand that select fire - full auto could be used as the defining criteria of what constitutes an 'Assault Rifle' under those clear definitions. In that case, do you think things like auto-trigger gloves and bump stocks should be readily available to bypass the definitive restriction?

a reply to: Wayfarer

I've never heard of an auto-trigger glove but I will go Google that. I am on my phone and multi interneting is awkward for me.

I am generally against banning things. Especially since I think banning a bump stock is useless since you can duplicate the effect with a rubber band, some cut wood or a belt buckle. It's using the natural laws of physics to achieve the effect.

The banning of the bump stock will be a feel-good law that just erodes rights more. It shows they are doing something, anything to appease people. Thats poor leadership in my opinion.

Do these modifications truly make semi-automatics fire as fast and accurate as real machine guns? I don't know the answer to that.

What that tells me if such laws are so usless that simple physics and common items can defeat them then we need a better system in place from the ground up.