Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

@Farseer Anath'lan

Mass shootings have been perpetrated by single action weapons. A ban on semi-automatic long arms wouldn't really curb America's gun violence much or even prevent mass-shootings.

Besides, aren't pistols the biggest cause of gun-related deaths in the U.S.?

 Farseer Anath'lan wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Farseer Anath'lan wrote:
I meant why would anyone need a semi auto over a magfed single action.

Myriad reasons, not least of which is that semi-automatics often allow for a more effective defensive weapon. Some competition events require use of semi-automatics. Some people like to use them for hunting. Some people prefer them for recreational target shooting, skeet, clays, etc. Whatever the case may be, it is a valid option that the individual can decide whether or not is appropriate for themselves. I would not like to see that option removed because of a tiny percentage of madmen.

I'm aware of that, hence my 'case-by-case' basis.
However, longarm's don't exactly make excellent defensive weapons. Competitions fall under 'case-by-case', and can, in any event be changed. Hunting, same deal, but you don't go general hunting with a semi-auto. Usually reserved for boar, or larger game, or aerial culling, which isn't a citizens vocation. Semi-auto for target shooting, seems weird, but I get the appeal of not having to faff around.
Semi-autos shouldn't really be easily available, very few real genuine reasons. But as to removing choice, that's a whole different ballpark, something I've got no ground to stand on.

The tens of millions of people in the US that collectively own hundreds of millions of semi auto rifles and never commit crimes with them contradicts your stance that they're too dangerous to be privately owned. People have been hunting with semi autos here in the US for over 100 years.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

I'm not going to get into a semantics argument or quibble about the specific numbers. What I'm saying is there's defiantly some things that the average gun owner doesn't really need. I can't tell you where the line is exactly, but when you have 3 modified AR-15s with 30+ round clips and 20000 rounds sitting in your closet just because, I think you are over the line.

I'm not arguing banning that stuff. I'm arguing that if that is really want you want. Get the Class 3 collectors licence and pay the tax penalty for it.

What I want to see is these kinds of insecure nut jobs not be able to build an arsenal for the cool factor.

Nothing you mention justifies a Class 3 license.

What I want to see is insecure nut jobs quit trying to infringe on anyone's existing rights.

 CaulynDarr wrote:
I'm not going to get into a semantics argument or quibble about the specific numbers.

So your arguement is just based on "the feels" rather than any specific facts or solutions. Gotcha. Gotta do "something", right?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
What I'm saying is there's defiantly some things that the average gun owner doesn't really need.

Like what? Or would that be too specific for you to go into?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
I can't tell you where the line is exactly,

So another anti-gun voice who doesn't know what he's talking about saying that "something must be done, but I have no specific recommendations, solutions or opinions".

 CaulynDarr wrote:
but when you have 3 modified AR-15s with 30+ round clips and 20000 rounds sitting in your closet just because,

"Modified" AR-15s? Of course, saying exactly what "modifications" are evil would be too specific. 30 round "clips" are standard for many rifles. Bulk ammo purchasing and storage is common among gun owners. It's clear you don't know what you're talking about and are just another voice in the echo chamber of "something must be done!".

 CaulynDarr wrote:
I think you are over the line.

I thought you couldn't tell me where "the line" is?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
I'm not arguing banning that stuff. I'm arguing that if that is really want you want. Get the Class 3 collectors licence and pay the tax penalty for it.

I disagree that tens of millions of law abiding citizens should need special licensing and taxation because a tiny percentage of violent madmen do bad things.

 Frazzled wrote:

Spoiler:

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
However, I don't see the harm in limiting high-capacity mags,

What do you deem "high capacity"? Standard capacity for many modern rifles is 30 rounds. So are you against anything higher than that?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
certain assault-weapon characteristics,

"Assault" weapons are already highly regulated. Or are you referring to semi-automatic rifles that have a certain aesthetic? What characteristics do you feel should be limited? How will the omission of these characteristics help prevent these events?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
and large ammunition transactions

What qualifies as a "large" transaction? What arbitrary number would you use as the transaction limit? What is to stop people from making multiple transactions to get the amount of ammunition they want to purchase?

I'm not going to get into a semantics argument or quibble about the specific numbers. What I'm saying is there's defiantly some things that the average gun owner doesn't really need. I can't tell you where the line is exactly, but when you have 3 modified AR-15s with 30+ round clips and 20000 rounds sitting in your closet just because, I think you are over the line.

I'm not arguing banning that stuff. I'm arguing that if that is really want you want. Get the Class 3 collectors licence and pay the tax penalty for it.

What I want to see is these kinds of insecure nut jobs not be able to build an arsenal for the cool factor.

What does having a lot of ammo do to prevent crime or when was it involved in such? The only one I can think of was Waco, and thats because the Feds attacked.

This is the problem. Typically responses fall to something like this, which has no impact or is barely even related to the issue at hand.

I think the hoarding is a red flag. I don't think having more rounds than you can carry makes an actual difference in the attack.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Spoiler:

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
However, I don't see the harm in limiting high-capacity mags,

What do you deem "high capacity"? Standard capacity for many modern rifles is 30 rounds. So are you against anything higher than that?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
certain assault-weapon characteristics,

"Assault" weapons are already highly regulated. Or are you referring to semi-automatic rifles that have a certain aesthetic? What characteristics do you feel should be limited? How will the omission of these characteristics help prevent these events?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
and large ammunition transactions

What qualifies as a "large" transaction? What arbitrary number would you use as the transaction limit? What is to stop people from making multiple transactions to get the amount of ammunition they want to purchase?

I'm not going to get into a semantics argument or quibble about the specific numbers. What I'm saying is there's defiantly some things that the average gun owner doesn't really need. I can't tell you where the line is exactly, but when you have 3 modified AR-15s with 30+ round clips and 20000 rounds sitting in your closet just because, I think you are over the line.

I'm not arguing banning that stuff. I'm arguing that if that is really want you want. Get the Class 3 collectors licence and pay the tax penalty for it.

What I want to see is these kinds of insecure nut jobs not be able to build an arsenal for the cool factor.

What does having a lot of ammo do to prevent crime or when was it involved in such? The only one I can think of was Waco, and thats because the Feds attacked.

This is the problem. Typically responses fall to something like this, which has no impact or is barely even related to the issue at hand.

I think the hoarding is a red flag. I don't think having more rounds than you can carry makes an actual difference in the attack.

How is buying in bulk a red flag for anything? It's much more practical to buy in bulk when you see a good deal on the ammo you want than it is to buy a few more boxes every time you go to the range. Frugality and pragmatism shouldn't put you on some sort of terror watch list.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
However, I don't see the harm in limiting high-capacity mags,

What do you deem "high capacity"? Standard capacity for many modern rifles is 30 rounds. So are you against anything higher than that?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
certain assault-weapon characteristics,

"Assault" weapons are already highly regulated. Or are you referring to semi-automatic rifles that have a certain aesthetic? What characteristics do you feel should be limited? How will the omission of these characteristics help prevent these events?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
and large ammunition transactions

What qualifies as a "large" transaction? What arbitrary number would you use as the transaction limit? What is to stop people from making multiple transactions to get the amount of ammunition they want to purchase?

I'm not going to get into a semantics argument or quibble about the specific numbers. What I'm saying is there's defiantly some things that the average gun owner doesn't really need. I can't tell you where the line is exactly, but when you have 3 modified AR-15s with 30+ round clips and 20000 rounds sitting in your closet just because, I think you are over the line.

I'm not arguing banning that stuff. I'm arguing that if that is really want you want. Get the Class 3 collectors licence and pay the tax penalty for it.

What I want to see is these kinds of insecure nut jobs not be able to build an arsenal for the cool factor.

The purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow the populace to commit an armed uprising against the government - in the event it becomes tyrannical. This might sound crazy to you living in such a stable country now but take a look at history and what can happen when a radical government takes control of it's people. I'm pretty sure the US government has tanks, aircraft, automatic weapons, machine guns, automatic grenade launchers, anti tank weapons, anti aircraft weapons, artillery, and much more. An AR-15 with a large stock of ammo is the bare minimum you'd need to start an effective resistance. There is an element of cool factor involved for sure but the overwhelming majority of these people believe it is their civic duty to own weapons and stocks of ammo like this. I assure you these people are not the problem.

 CaulynDarr wrote:


I think the hoarding is a red flag. I don't think having more rounds than you can carry makes an actual difference in the attack.

100% of the gun owners I know in my area HOARD ammo because they fear the legislation (which will come to MD first) limiting or regulating purchase. Also... you know... the apocalypse.

I think the hoarding is a red flag. I don't think having more rounds than you can carry makes an actual difference in the attack.

Thats nonsensical. Please show proof that hoarding is in any way related, or further any way related to one of these crimes. Its FeelGoodz nonsense.

You've said thousands of rounds. No one can carry thousands of rounds-which seems to be what you are talking about.

Any more reports or truth to do with the vest/device he was carrying ?

I've only heard about 2 weapons -- rifle and a pistol AFAIK -- being recovered, assuming the vest/whatever was a fake or a misidentification ?

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Farseer Anath'lan wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 Farseer Anath'lan wrote:
I meant why would anyone need a semi auto over a magfed single action.

Spoiler:

Myriad reasons, not least of which is that semi-automatics often allow for a more effective defensive weapon. Some competition events require use of semi-automatics. Some people like to use them for hunting. Some people prefer them for recreational target shooting, skeet, clays, etc. Whatever the case may be, it is a valid option that the individual can decide whether or not is appropriate for themselves. I would not like to see that option removed because of a tiny percentage of madmen.

I'm aware of that, hence my 'case-by-case' basis.
However, longarm's don't exactly make excellent defensive weapons. Competitions fall under 'case-by-case', and can, in any event be changed. Hunting, same deal, but you don't go general hunting with a semi-auto. Usually reserved for boar, or larger game, or aerial culling, which isn't a citizens vocation. Semi-auto for target shooting, seems weird, but I get the appeal of not having to faff around.
Semi-autos shouldn't really be easily available, very few real genuine reasons. But as to removing choice, that's a whole different ballpark, something I've got no ground to stand on.

The tens of millions of people in the US that collectively own hundreds of millions of semi auto rifles and never commit crimes with them contradicts your stance that they're too dangerous to be privately owned. People have been hunting with semi autos here in the US for over 100 years.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Spoiler:

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
However, I don't see the harm in limiting high-capacity mags,

What do you deem "high capacity"? Standard capacity for many modern rifles is 30 rounds. So are you against anything higher than that?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
certain assault-weapon characteristics,

"Assault" weapons are already highly regulated. Or are you referring to semi-automatic rifles that have a certain aesthetic? What characteristics do you feel should be limited? How will the omission of these characteristics help prevent these events?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
and large ammunition transactions

What qualifies as a "large" transaction? What arbitrary number would you use as the transaction limit? What is to stop people from making multiple transactions to get the amount of ammunition they want to purchase?

I'm not going to get into a semantics argument or quibble about the specific numbers. What I'm saying is there's defiantly some things that the average gun owner doesn't really need. I can't tell you where the line is exactly, but when you have 3 modified AR-15s with 30+ round clips and 20000 rounds sitting in your closet just because, I think you are over the line.

I'm not arguing banning that stuff. I'm arguing that if that is really want you want. Get the Class 3 collectors licence and pay the tax penalty for it.

What I want to see is these kinds of insecure nut jobs not be able to build an arsenal for the cool factor.

What does having a lot of ammo do to prevent crime or when was it involved in such? The only one I can think of was Waco, and thats because the Feds attacked.

This is the problem. Typically responses fall to something like this, which has no impact or is barely even related to the issue at hand.

I think the hoarding is a red flag. I don't think having more rounds than you can carry makes an actual difference in the attack.

How is buying in bulk a red flag for anything? It's much more practical to buy in bulk when you see a good deal on the ammo you want than it is to buy a few more boxes every time you go to the range. Frugality and pragmatism shouldn't put you on some sort of terror watch list.

Additionally many buy "in bulk" because of ammunition shortages. When there was a steady supply I owned less. Now there isn't and I own more (plus I shoot more).
I usually run through 500 or so in a session of shooting and I know people who will make a day of it and shoot thousands of rounds. Its a sport.

 reds8n wrote:
Any more reports or truth to do with the vest/device he was carrying ?

I've only heard about 2 weapons -- rifle and a pistol AFAIK -- being recovered, assuming the vest/whatever was a fake or a misidentification ?

Have the rifle and pistol been identified? I see a lot of the typical AR hate rising up, but has it been confirmed he was using such a firearm?

 reds8n wrote:
Any more reports or truth to do with the vest/device he was carrying ?

I've only heard about 2 weapons -- rifle and a pistol AFAIK -- being recovered, assuming the vest/whatever was a fake or a misidentification ?

Nothing other than they investigated it. It may have been a vest to hold ammunition ???

 Nostromodamus wrote:

Spoiler:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
I'm not going to get into a semantics argument or quibble about the specific numbers.

So your arguement is just based on "the feels" rather than any specific facts or solutions. Gotcha. Gotta do "something", right?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
What I'm saying is there's defiantly some things that the average gun owner doesn't really need.

Like what? Or would that be too specific for you to go into?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
I can't tell you where the line is exactly,

So another anti-gun voice who doesn't know what he's talking about saying that "something must be done, but I have no specific recommendations, solutions or opinions".

 CaulynDarr wrote:
but when you have 3 modified AR-15s with 30+ round clips and 20000 rounds sitting in your closet just because,

"Modified" AR-15s? Of course, saying exactly what "modifications" are evil would be too specific. 30 round "clips" are standard for many rifles. Bulk ammo purchasing and storage is common among gun owners. It's clear you don't know what you're talking about and are just another voice in the echo chamber of "something must be done!".

 CaulynDarr wrote:
I think you are over the line.

I thought you couldn't tell me where "the line" is?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
I'm not arguing banning that stuff. I'm arguing that if that is really want you want. Get the Class 3 collectors licence and pay the tax penalty for it.

I disagree that tens of millions of law abiding citizens should need special licensing and taxation because a tiny percentage of violent madmen do bad things.

I do know a fair bit about guns. Enough to know getting into semantic arguments about the difference in 25 round clips vs. 30 and what exactly constitutes an "assault" weapon is a trap. I'll say sometime about picatinny rails, and you'll counter with" what's the harm in mounting a flash light." Finding the perfect definition get's in the way of figuring out the broad strokes of a meaningful set of guidelines.

I have no issues with gun ownership in general. I just think we should broaden what falls into the collector classification. In the general sense. If you own a few hunting rifles and a pistol or two and sensible amount of ammunition for range days, I've got no problem with that. I don't see the point in the average person casually owning something like an AK-47 or AR-15 even as a semi-automatic as being needed. If you really-really-really want one, then sure I support a path to do that. What I'm against is the guy who's marginally mentally stable buying an AR-15 cause they are relatively cheap and easily accessed.

You don't know about guns but you're willing to pass laws on your lack of knowledge.

..Really asking the wrong guy with regards to make or type, my classifications pretty much run along the rapid fire/assault/salvo/heavy/torrent etc etc and that's it

It was just a lot was made of the vest/bomb and then haven't heard anything since or recently.

It not being a bomb/similar and having been wrongly identified is quite understandable.

Was curious as if there was such a device it would , to me anyway, be indicative of more forethought and planning than we've seen as being likely, perhaps even the assistance of other people with regards to blueprints, construction etc etc.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It's worth mentioning that Islam teaches that martyrdom while killing infidels grants you multiple virgins in paradise. This might be a great place to start.

No it isn't worth mentioning, as it has very little to do with why young men become radicals. The only reason you might bring it up, at all, is if you were some kind of reactionary bigot trying to demonize a religion that you know nothing about, in a situation that you clearly have a very limited understanding of. The bible also has violent passages which advocate killing homosexuals, but it has very little to do with what actually makes people turn violent.

Sorry for my limited understanding but where in the bible does it promise you virgins and access to heaven for killing non Christians? This is specifically what I'm talking about - as this probably the best lie you can tell young men to get them to die for you. I am an atheist BTW and am pretty much opposed to all religions but Islam is an especially messed up religion that actually commands violence on others and offers you a reward for it.

You're either moving the goalposts or making a strawman. Either way you're not doing yourself any favours.

Actually I did nothing of the sort. I put forth an argument that Islamic's kill infidels because their holy book grants them virgins in heaven for doing so (their holy book actually says this). I was then called an ignorant bigot and some sort of contrast was made between Islam and Christianity that didn't address the point I was making. I restated my point by asking a question that still hasn't been addressed. Now another has stepped in an claimed I'm making a logical fallacy.

 Ouze wrote:

Col. Dash wrote:
This is not a gun control issue, although is this is gun related. Its about damn time we got rid of Gun Free Zones for the murder zones they actually are.

This is a fun talking point, but there is no evidence that even a single mass shooting was selected upon the basis it was a gun free zone.

Atop that, the majority of mass shootings happen in venues where firearms are lawful to possess.

Finally, no mass shooting, ever, has been stopped by an armed civilian.

I think gun free zones are goofy but let's not forge a narrative.

Remember: plastic signs on doors stop crimes, except when they don't.

 CaulynDarr wrote:
I do know a fair bit about guns. Enough to know getting into semantic arguments about the difference in 25 round clips vs. 30 and what exactly constitutes an "assault" weapon is a trap.

I just wanted your opinion on what constitutes "high capacity", because many rifles have a standard capacity of 30 yet this is often mistakenly referred to as "high capacity" because it's above some arbitrary number that a politician has set. What exactly constitutes an "assault" weapon is already defined as one that has select-fire capabilities, yet this is again often misused to refer to many semi-automatic firearms to make them sound scary and further an agenda. It's only a trap if you don't know what you're talking about, which is the case with many anti-gun advocates.

 CaulynDarr wrote:
I'll say sometime about picatinny rails, and you'll counter with" what's the harm in mounting a flash light."

Ok, so what can a person mount to a pic rail to make a firearm deadlier? Lights? Lasers? Grips? Sights? Flare launchers? Sure, lots of those can aid in someone's ability to shoot well, but those things were being put on guns long before pic rails were common.

 CaulynDarr wrote:
Finding the perfect definition get's in the way of figuring out the broad strokes of a meaningful set of guidelines.

Meaningful guidelines must have specifics to be meaningful, otherwise it's more "we gotta do something" hot air.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

Spoiler:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
I'm not going to get into a semantics argument or quibble about the specific numbers.

So your arguement is just based on "the feels" rather than any specific facts or solutions. Gotcha. Gotta do "something", right?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
What I'm saying is there's defiantly some things that the average gun owner doesn't really need.

Like what? Or would that be too specific for you to go into?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
I can't tell you where the line is exactly,

So another anti-gun voice who doesn't know what he's talking about saying that "something must be done, but I have no specific recommendations, solutions or opinions".

 CaulynDarr wrote:
but when you have 3 modified AR-15s with 30+ round clips and 20000 rounds sitting in your closet just because,

"Modified" AR-15s? Of course, saying exactly what "modifications" are evil would be too specific. 30 round "clips" are standard for many rifles. Bulk ammo purchasing and storage is common among gun owners. It's clear you don't know what you're talking about and are just another voice in the echo chamber of "something must be done!".

 CaulynDarr wrote:
I think you are over the line.

I thought you couldn't tell me where "the line" is?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
I'm not arguing banning that stuff. I'm arguing that if that is really want you want. Get the Class 3 collectors licence and pay the tax penalty for it.

I disagree that tens of millions of law abiding citizens should need special licensing and taxation because a tiny percentage of violent madmen do bad things.

I do know a fair bit about guns. Enough to know getting into semantic arguments about the difference in 25 round clips vs. 30 and what exactly constitutes an "assault" weapon is a trap. I'll say sometime about picatinny rails, and you'll counter with" what's the harm in mounting a flash light." Finding the perfect definition get's in the way of figuring out the broad strokes of a meaningful set of guidelines.

I have no issues with gun ownership in general. I just think we should broaden what falls into the collector classification. In the general sense. If you own a few hunting rifles and a pistol or two and sensible amount of ammunition for range days, I've got no problem with that. I don't see the point in the average person casually owning something like an AK-47 or AR-15 even as a semi-automatic as being needed. If you really-really-really want one, then sure I support a path to do that. What I'm against is the guy who's marginally mentally stable buying an AR-15 cause they are relatively cheap and easily accessed.

You want to remove the most commonly owned type of rilfe in the US, semi autos, from private ownership because of a handful of crimes? We already had the Assault Weapons Ban and studies of it have shown it did nothing to change crime stats. Even if something similar got passed again it's impossible to take away all the semi autos that are already privately owned. You can't violate ex post facto protections to suddenly criminalize tens of millions of gun owners for owning semi autos.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

Spoiler:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
I'm not going to get into a semantics argument or quibble about the specific numbers.

So your arguement is just based on "the feels" rather than any specific facts or solutions. Gotcha. Gotta do "something", right?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
What I'm saying is there's defiantly some things that the average gun owner doesn't really need.

Like what? Or would that be too specific for you to go into?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
I can't tell you where the line is exactly,

So another anti-gun voice who doesn't know what he's talking about saying that "something must be done, but I have no specific recommendations, solutions or opinions".

 CaulynDarr wrote:
but when you have 3 modified AR-15s with 30+ round clips and 20000 rounds sitting in your closet just because,

"Modified" AR-15s? Of course, saying exactly what "modifications" are evil would be too specific. 30 round "clips" are standard for many rifles. Bulk ammo purchasing and storage is common among gun owners. It's clear you don't know what you're talking about and are just another voice in the echo chamber of "something must be done!".

 CaulynDarr wrote:
I think you are over the line.

I thought you couldn't tell me where "the line" is?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
I'm not arguing banning that stuff. I'm arguing that if that is really want you want. Get the Class 3 collectors licence and pay the tax penalty for it.

I disagree that tens of millions of law abiding citizens should need special licensing and taxation because a tiny percentage of violent madmen do bad things.

I do know a fair bit about guns. Enough to know getting into semantic arguments about the difference in 25 round clips vs. 30 and what exactly constitutes an "assault" weapon is a trap. I'll say sometime about picatinny rails, and you'll counter with" what's the harm in mounting a flash light." Finding the perfect definition get's in the way of figuring out the broad strokes of a meaningful set of guidelines.

I have no issues with gun ownership in general. I just think we should broaden what falls into the collector classification. In the general sense. If you own a few hunting rifles and a pistol or two and sensible amount of ammunition for range days, I've got no problem with that. I don't see the point in the average person casually owning something like an AK-47 or AR-15 even as a semi-automatic as being needed. If you really-really-really want one, then sure I support a path to do that. What I'm against is the guy who's marginally mentally stable buying an AR-15 cause they are relatively cheap and easily accessed.

So, you're cool with someone owning an M14 with three 10 round mags but you think it should be difficult to acquire an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?

 d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Col. Dash wrote:
This is not a gun control issue, although is this is gun related. Its about damn time we got rid of Gun Free Zones for the murder zones they actually are.

This is a fun talking point, but there is no evidence that even a single mass shooting was selected upon the basis it was a gun free zone.

Atop that, the majority of mass shootings happen in venues where firearms are lawful to possess.

Finally, no mass shooting, ever, has been stopped by an armed civilian.

I think gun free zones are goofy but let's not forge a narrative.

Remember: plastic signs on doors stop crimes, except when they don't.

The Aurora shooter.

..Really asking the wrong guy with regards to make or type, my classifications pretty much run along the rapid fire/assault/salvo/heavy/torrent etc etc and that's it

It was just a lot was made of the vest/bomb and then haven't heard anything since or recently.

It not being a bomb/similar and having been wrongly identified is quite understandable.

Was curious as if there was such a device it would , to me anyway, be indicative of more forethought and planning than we've seen as being likely, perhaps even the assistance of other people with regards to blueprints, construction etc etc.

Indeed. I believe they investigated it further, including with remote robots (they had lots of helicopter pics) but determined it was not a bomb vest. That would have fit the modis operandi though.

http://www.justaskislam.com/32/does-islam-say-kill-the-infidels/

 Frazzled wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

Col. Dash wrote:
This is not a gun control issue, although is this is gun related. Its about damn time we got rid of Gun Free Zones for the murder zones they actually are.

This is a fun talking point, but there is no evidence that even a single mass shooting was selected upon the basis it was a gun free zone.

Atop that, the majority of mass shootings happen in venues where firearms are lawful to possess.

Finally, no mass shooting, ever, has been stopped by an armed civilian.

I think gun free zones are goofy but let's not forge a narrative.

Remember: plastic signs on doors stop crimes, except when they don't.

The Aurora shooter.

Rapes and sexual assaults.

 Xenomancers wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:

 Smacks wrote:

 Xenomancers wrote:
It's worth mentioning that Islam teaches that martyrdom while killing infidels grants you multiple virgins in paradise. This might be a great place to start.

No it isn't worth mentioning, as it has very little to do with why young men become radicals. The only reason you might bring it up, at all, is if you were some kind of reactionary bigot trying to demonize a religion that you know nothing about, in a situation that you clearly have a very limited understanding of. The bible also has violent passages which advocate killing homosexuals, but it has very little to do with what actually makes people turn violent.

Sorry for my limited understanding but where in the bible does it promise you virgins and access to heaven for killing non Christians? This is specifically what I'm talking about - as this probably the best lie you can tell young men to get them to die for you. I am an atheist BTW and am pretty much opposed to all religions but Islam is an especially messed up religion that actually commands violence on others and offers you a reward for it.

You're either moving the goalposts or making a strawman. Either way you're not doing yourself any favours.

Actually I did nothing of the sort. I put forth an argument that Islamic's kill infidels because their holy book grants them virgins in heaven for doing so (their holy book actually says this). I was then called an ignorant bigot and some sort of contrast was made between Islam and Christianity that didn't address the point I was making. I restated my point by asking a question that still hasn't been addressed. Now another has stepped in an claimed I'm making a logical fallacy.

Smacks said that:

 Smacks wrote:
The bible also has violent passages which advocate killing homosexuals, but it has very little to do with what actually makes people turn violent.

You responded with:

 Xenomancers wrote:
Sorry for my limited understanding but where in the bible does it promise you virgins and access to heaven for killing non Christians?

The claim was never that the Bible contains such passages, only that it contains "violent passages which advocate killing homosexuals". Responding to that with a request for something that has never been claimed is a Strawman, demanding such examples to accept the similarity between Islam and Christianity on this point is moving the goalposts. Either way it's a logical fallacy.

Rapes and sexual assaults.

what?

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

Spoiler:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
I'm not going to get into a semantics argument or quibble about the specific numbers.

So your arguement is just based on "the feels" rather than any specific facts or solutions. Gotcha. Gotta do "something", right?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
What I'm saying is there's defiantly some things that the average gun owner doesn't really need.

Like what? Or would that be too specific for you to go into?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
I can't tell you where the line is exactly,

So another anti-gun voice who doesn't know what he's talking about saying that "something must be done, but I have no specific recommendations, solutions or opinions".

 CaulynDarr wrote:
but when you have 3 modified AR-15s with 30+ round clips and 20000 rounds sitting in your closet just because,

"Modified" AR-15s? Of course, saying exactly what "modifications" are evil would be too specific. 30 round "clips" are standard for many rifles. Bulk ammo purchasing and storage is common among gun owners. It's clear you don't know what you're talking about and are just another voice in the echo chamber of "something must be done!".

 CaulynDarr wrote:
I think you are over the line.

I thought you couldn't tell me where "the line" is?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
I'm not arguing banning that stuff. I'm arguing that if that is really want you want. Get the Class 3 collectors licence and pay the tax penalty for it.

I disagree that tens of millions of law abiding citizens should need special licensing and taxation because a tiny percentage of violent madmen do bad things.

I do know a fair bit about guns. Enough to know getting into semantic arguments about the difference in 25 round clips vs. 30 and what exactly constitutes an "assault" weapon is a trap. I'll say sometime about picatinny rails, and you'll counter with" what's the harm in mounting a flash light." Finding the perfect definition get's in the way of figuring out the broad strokes of a meaningful set of guidelines.

I have no issues with gun ownership in general. I just think we should broaden what falls into the collector classification. In the general sense. If you own a few hunting rifles and a pistol or two and sensible amount of ammunition for range days, I've got no problem with that. I don't see the point in the average person casually owning something like an AK-47 or AR-15 even as a semi-automatic as being needed. If you really-really-really want one, then sure I support a path to do that. What I'm against is the guy who's marginally mentally stable buying an AR-15 cause they are relatively cheap and easily accessed.

So, you're cool with someone owning an M14 with three 10 round mags but you think it should be difficult to acquire an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?

In the sense that when you write laws you often create weird arbitrary distinction, yes. But, there's a reason that the US military doesn't equip the average soldier with M14s for combat anymore. The M-16 is a more efficient battlefield weapon. Yes I know the AR-15 isn't exactly the same as the M-16, but it's close enough especially if you throw on enough aftermarket modification.

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:

 CaulynDarr wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:

Spoiler:

 CaulynDarr wrote:
I'm not going to get into a semantics argument or quibble about the specific numbers.

So your arguement is just based on "the feels" rather than any specific facts or solutions. Gotcha. Gotta do "something", right?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
What I'm saying is there's defiantly some things that the average gun owner doesn't really need.

Like what? Or would that be too specific for you to go into?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
I can't tell you where the line is exactly,

So another anti-gun voice who doesn't know what he's talking about saying that "something must be done, but I have no specific recommendations, solutions or opinions".

 CaulynDarr wrote:
but when you have 3 modified AR-15s with 30+ round clips and 20000 rounds sitting in your closet just because,

"Modified" AR-15s? Of course, saying exactly what "modifications" are evil would be too specific. 30 round "clips" are standard for many rifles. Bulk ammo purchasing and storage is common among gun owners. It's clear you don't know what you're talking about and are just another voice in the echo chamber of "something must be done!".

 CaulynDarr wrote:
I think you are over the line.

I thought you couldn't tell me where "the line" is?

 CaulynDarr wrote:
I'm not arguing banning that stuff. I'm arguing that if that is really want you want. Get the Class 3 collectors licence and pay the tax penalty for it.

I disagree that tens of millions of law abiding citizens should need special licensing and taxation because a tiny percentage of violent madmen do bad things.

I do know a fair bit about guns. Enough to know getting into semantic arguments about the difference in 25 round clips vs. 30 and what exactly constitutes an "assault" weapon is a trap. I'll say sometime about picatinny rails, and you'll counter with" what's the harm in mounting a flash light." Finding the perfect definition get's in the way of figuring out the broad strokes of a meaningful set of guidelines.

I have no issues with gun ownership in general. I just think we should broaden what falls into the collector classification. In the general sense. If you own a few hunting rifles and a pistol or two and sensible amount of ammunition for range days, I've got no problem with that. I don't see the point in the average person casually owning something like an AK-47 or AR-15 even as a semi-automatic as being needed. If you really-really-really want one, then sure I support a path to do that. What I'm against is the guy who's marginally mentally stable buying an AR-15 cause they are relatively cheap and easily accessed.

So, you're cool with someone owning an M14 with three 10 round mags but you think it should be difficult to acquire an AR-15 with a 30 round mag?

In the sense that when you write laws you often create weird arbitrary distinction, yes. But, there's a reason that the US military doesn't equip the average soldier with M14s for combat anymore. The M-16 is a more efficient battlefield weapon. Yes I know the AR-14 isn't exactly the same as the M-16, but it's close enough especially if you throw on enough aftermarket modification.

But someone with an M14 with multiple magazines could still conceivably rack up a high body count, yes?

Yes I know the AR-14 isn't exactly the same as the M-16, but it's close enough especially if you throw on enough aftermarket modification.

Except ones a select fire machine gun and one isn't.

Note I don't have a dog in the AR hunt. I don't own one, nor do I want one. But the previous bans were stupid, and accelerated in several states to effectively banning them completely, which did nothing for San Bernadino.
We have an open border, with cartels running drugs and having full access to military (not military grade but military) firearms procured from the Mexican military and other militaries. If terrorists want them, they will get them. When I lived in Cali I could have procured genuine Cuban made AKs care of Nicaragua if I had wanted and that was decades ago.