Great time to be in public schools in San Antonio

[darthtang aw]

Larger capacity mags or drums can be made for just about any gun. What is it about these so called "military grade" weapons that they are somehow special in anyway that only they are designed for larger mags? You simply make a larger mag for any gun. There are 100 round drums designed for glock 9mm for instance. Should we ban your wife's gun the moment someone with designs a 50 round mag for it?They make a fifty round drum magazine for a glock. Stupidest thing i have ever seen.

 

[darthtang aw]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=F1BwUJ4--Qw
Not an assault weapon. Yet how many shots were fired in the short amount time still hitting their target?

 

[2quills]

They make a fifty round drum magazine for a glock. Stupidest thing i have ever seen.
Tell me this isn't compensation...

 

[reefraff]

You could ban the 10 most common guns used in gun crimes and there wouldn't be a single assault weapon banned. That is what is so ridiculous about this paranoia about them.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/397599/great-time-to-be-in-public-schools-in-san-antonio/60#post_3544591


So it's ok for someone to be killed with anything but a gun. You need help LOL!
It's not OK to be killed needlessly by anything. The difference is when someone does die by getting shot, it was because that's was it's sole intention to do so. Of the thousands of motor vehicle deaths each year, how many of those were due to someone intentionally wanting to use their car as a weapon to kill someone? Of all those drownings you claim there are, how many were intentionally done to kill the victim? Accidental deaths by being shot are a small percentage of those types of deaths. So if anyone needs help it's you and your skewed theories and logic.


So if there are so few deaths in this country every year from using guns, then why do you need a gun to protect yourself from getting killed by one? By your theories, you're more likely to drown in your bath tub than someone breaking into your home and shooting you.

 

[darthtang aw]

You keep bringing up the word "need". Why is there a need to justify ownership of anything? Sure a vehicles intent is transportation. But there are laws against driving really fast. Yet cars are not governed. Why is there a need to own a corvette?
As soon as you grant a need to drive 150mph i will give a need to owning your dreaded assault weapon. Which incidentally under your definition your wife felt the need to own.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/397599/great-time-to-be-in-public-schools-in-san-antonio/60#post_3544602
Larger capacity mags or drums can be made for just about any gun. What is it about these so called "military grade" weapons that they are somehow special in anyway that only they are designed for larger mags? You simply make a larger mag for any gun. There are 100 round drums designed for glock 9mm for instance. Should we ban your wife's gun the moment someone with designs a 50 round mag for it?
So you rationalize owning a firearm that was initially designed for the sole purpose to be used by the military because some Sons Of Guns idiot can modify a firearm to hold excessive amounts of ammo to make it fit into the same category? Would the Pentagon approve your 100 round Glock to be used as a standard issued weapon for a soldier serving in Iraq, or would it be more practical to hand them an AR-15, SKS, or Bushmaster if those were the only options available between the four? The latter three are "special" because they were designed specifically to be used in a military combat situation. They are lightweight compared to carbines, their higher capacities allow the soldier to fire more rounds before reloading, they are accurate up to 100 yards or more (you think you could hit a target a 100 yards away with your 100 round Glock?), you can stick accessories on them like grenade launchers if the combat situation justifies it. People who've used, or would intend to use these types of firearms for mass shootings aren't sitting around looking for ways to modify guns that aren't designed for that purpose. They simply go down to a gun show, or buy one of these guns from classified ads and stock up on the standard accessories designed for them.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bang Guy http:///t/397599/great-time-to-be-in-public-schools-in-san-antonio/60#post_3544603

Sorry, I was only referring to your definition. If you look at the government's definition it's basically any firearm that looks scary with no factual basis. At least you actually have some logical reasoning behind you definition and that's a heck of a lot better than "it looks scary". Mossberg shotguns are near the top of the list for murder weapons and yet they are not scary looking enough to be assault weapons.

Base the weapon bans on statistically factual information and you'll make a lot more headway than "nobody needs ten shots to kill a deer".

Also keep in mind that the criminals are not affected by the gun laws. It seems this fact never hits home with the lawmakers. I'm not an NRA puppet, I have not been a member since the 70's when they decided that it's our right to have Teflon bullets. I'm fine with required training, actually a good idea. I'm against registration simply because of the Cuomo type politicians that have no respect for our Constitution.
The statistical facts are that in every one of the mass shootings over the last couple of years where the assailant used one of these "assault weapons", multiple deaths occurred. Yes, you can rationalize that these same people could've used two semi-auto pistols, or some drum shot gun, but the facts remain that anytime someone intentionally wants to kill a bunch of people in a short period of time, AR-15's and Bushmasters seem to be the weapons of choice. Why is that?

I don't see where you can say criminals aren't affected by gun laws. Why do people keep thinking there's these special gun shops where any person wanting to commit a crime can obtain an illegal firearm? Criminals buy their firearms the same places you do. You don't want gun registration, but then you say criminals find ways to purchase guns illegally, or even through legal channels like gun shows, classified ads, or purchases from individuals like friends, acquaintances, or even family members. If every gun was registered, and there was a way to track the location of every firearm owned, you don't think a criminal would have second thoughts of using a gun to kill someone if they knew the weapon could be tracked back to them? You have all these crimes occurring on the Internet these days. How many of those "criminals" are caught by the authorities when the criminal thought there was no way to trace the emails or text messages back to them?

 

[reefraff]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/397599/great-time-to-be-in-public-schools-in-san-antonio/80#post_3544620
It's not OK to be killed needlessly by anything. The difference is when someone does die by getting shot, it was because that's was it's sole intention to do so. Of the thousands of motor vehicle deaths each year, how many of those were due to someone intentionally wanting to use their car as a weapon to kill someone? Of all those drownings you claim there are, how many were intentionally done to kill the victim? Accidental deaths by being shot are a small percentage of those types of deaths. So if anyone needs help it's you and your skewed theories and logic.


So if there are so few deaths in this country every year from using guns, then why do you need a gun to protect yourself from getting killed by one? By your theories, you're more likely to drown in your bath tub than someone breaking into your home and shooting you.

Is somebody less dead if they are killed by a Louisville Slugger instead of a Ruger? Lame argument.


Do you know what the most common weapon used in assaults is? A club. Number 2 is a knife. In fact more people are killed with clubs than rifles and shotguns combined. That's why we need guns.

 

[darthtang aw]

So you rationalize owning a firearm that was initially designed for the sole purpose to be used by the military because some Sons Of Guns idiot can modify a firearm to hold excessive amounts of ammo to make it fit into the same category?
The musket was initially designed for the sole purpose of a military weapon. So we can strike the rest of this point.

 

[darthtang aw]

The statistical facts are that in every one of the mass shootings over the last couple of years where the assailant used one of these "assault weapons", multiple deaths occurred

The statistical facts are that in every one of the mass shootings over the last couple of years where the assailant used a handgun or shotgun, multiple deaths occurred.

 

[darthtang aw]

You keep bringing up the word "need". Why is there a need to justify ownership of anything? Sure a vehicles intent is transportation. But there are laws against driving really fast. Yet cars are not governed. Why is there a need to own a corvette?
As soon as you grant a need to drive 150mph i will give a need to owning your dreaded assault weapon. Which incidentally under your definition your wife felt the need to own.
still waiting for a response for this.

 

[darthtang aw]

You defined an assault weapon as any weapon capable of firing thirty or more rounds. You have eliminated, shotguns, handguns, and many rifles. You yourself own an assault weapon under YOUR definition. Why is your assault weapon in the hands of a nutjob more safe than my assault weapon in the hands of a nut job?
You use the point any weapon designed for the sole purpose of killing is not "needed" Yet you own a weapon designed for such an action. You aren't hunting with that handgun. That handgun was designed with military in mind and designed originally for the military and police. Handguns are not hunting guns in 95% of the categories. Yet you own one of the vicious and vile things. Its sole purpose is to kill people as you state. Yet you own one. Why are you allowed to own a killing machine but we are not?

 

[bang guy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by AggieAlum http:///t/397599/great-time-to-be-in-public-schools-in-san-antonio/80#post_3544623
The statistical facts are that in every one of the mass shootings over the last couple of years where the assailant used one of these "assault weapons", multiple deaths occurred. Yes, you can rationalize that these same people could've used two semi-auto pistols, or some drum shot gun, but the facts remain that anytime someone intentionally wants to kill a bunch of people in a short period of time, AR-15's and Bushmasters seem to be the weapons of choice. Why is that?

I don't see where you can say criminals aren't affected by gun laws. Why do people keep thinking there's these special gun shops where any person wanting to commit a crime can obtain an illegal firearm? Criminals buy their firearms the same places you do. You don't want gun registration, but then you say criminals find ways to purchase guns illegally, or even through legal channels like gun shows, classified ads, or purchases from individuals like friends, acquaintances, or even family members. If every gun was registered, and there was a way to track the location of every firearm owned, you don't think a criminal would have second thoughts of using a gun to kill someone if they knew the weapon could be tracked back to them? You have all these crimes occurring on the Internet these days. How many of those "criminals" are caught by the authorities when the criminal thought there was no way to trace the emails or text messages back to them?

The statistics show that "assault rifles" are used in a much lower number of murders than many other weapons and yet are at the top of the list for scary looking. Cheap handguns are what is used by criminals.

If you believe weapons bans affect criminals how would you explain the handgun homicide rate in Washington DC?

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't all handguns need to be registered? How's that working out?

 

[darthtang aw]

The statistics show that "assault rifles" are used in a much lower number of murders than many other weapons and yet are at the top of the list for scary looking.   Cheap handguns are what is used by criminals. 
If you believe weapons bans affect criminals how would you explain the handgun homicide rate in Washington DC?
Correct me if I'm wrong but don't all handguns need to be registered?  How's that working out?
Here is the problem most anti assault or anti handgun people don't get. To curb the Murder rate with these weapons you have to change the constitution and ban all of them. Do that and you will affect these statistics in a large manner. Until that point any legislation is just simply symbolic and "feel good" legislation. What is truly sad is as a society we have become used to accepting "feel good" legislation. The argument goes, well atleast they tried something. I could try pushing a car up a cliff. But it isnt going to be pushed very far. Was I successful because I tried? No. But trying now days equates success. And that is what is truly wrong with our politics. Do or do not, there is no try. Ban them all or ban none of them. That is the only options.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/397599/great-time-to-be-in-public-schools-in-san-antonio/80#post_3544624

Is somebody less dead if they are killed by a Louisville Slugger instead of a Ruger? Lame argument.


Do you know what the most common weapon used in assaults is? A club. Number 2 is a knife. In fact more people are killed with clubs than rifles and shotguns combined. That's why we need guns.
Why do you need guns again? If someone sneaks up behind you with a club or knife, a gun is useless. Someone has a chance to survive being hit with a Louisville Slugger, less likely with a gun. You have a better chance at escaping someone swinging a bat or a knife at you. Someone pointing a gun at you can hit you as far away as 30 feet. Can you hit someone the same distance away with a bat or knife? That kid who ran through the school with two kitchen knives injured 20 people. If I remember, there were no fatalities. Same kind of person ran through Sandy Hook with a Bushmaster. How many kids died in that melee again? If he'd only had a couple knives or a bat, do you think the same number of kids would've died?

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397599/great-time-to-be-in-public-schools-in-san-antonio/80#post_3544628
The musket was initially designed for the sole purpose of a military weapon. So we can strike the rest of this point.
Please. If that's not the weakest excuse I've ever heard to justify owning an assault weapon, I don't know what is. You actually want to compare a musket to an AR-15? Oh wait, don't tell me. In another 10 or 20 years, we'll have our soldiers carrying ray guns or phasers like they had in Star Trek, so then the AR-15 will be considered antiquated and not as dealy than those weapons.

 

[darthtang aw]

Yo
Please.  If that's not the weakest excuse I've ever heard to justify owning an assault weapon, I don't know what is.  You actually want to compare a musket to an AR-15?  Oh wait, don't tell me.  In another 10 or 20 years, we'll have our soldiers carrying ray guns or phasers like they had in Star Trek, so then the AR-15 will be considered antiquated and not as dealy than those weapons.
you argue that ar-15 was designed only for the military at the time. The same stipulation applies for the musket. That was your argument. Not mine. I wasnt comparing effectiveness. Just removing yet another of your of "justified" reasons for banning.

 

[aggiealum]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/397599/great-time-to-be-in-public-schools-in-san-antonio/80#post_3544639
Here is the problem most anti assault or anti handgun people don't get. To curb the Murder rate with these weapons you have to change the constitution and ban all of them. Do that and you will affect these statistics in a large manner. Until that point any legislation is just simply symbolic and "feel good" legislation. What is truly sad is as a society we have become used to accepting "feel good" legislation. The argument goes, well atleast they tried something. I could try pushing a car up a cliff. But it isnt going to be pushed very far. Was I successful because I tried? No. But trying now days equates success. And that is what is truly wrong with our politics. Do or do not, there is no try. Ban them all or ban none of them. That is the only options.
The Constitution doesn't have to be changed, simply the skewed interpretation the NRA gun zealots think the 2nd is supposed to me. Your Constitutional rights to own a gun are not infringed as long as you own those firearms for the purpose of joining a militia. THAT'S the intent of that Amendment when the Founding Fathers wrote it. They wanted to insure that American citizens could always be prepared to arm themselves in case another tyrannical government formed in this country similar to house the British wanted to rule this country. People like you twist the meaning to mean you can own any and all firearms imaginable regardless if you're willing to join a militia or not. You change the meaning simply due to some punctuation.

Feel good legislation? So do you think seat belt laws are "feel good legislation"? How about 'banning' open alcohol containers while driving? At least we tried something. Look at the statistics after those laws were implemented and tell me whether they were beneficial to the overall safety of our society. How about banning cell phones while driving? It's been proven that texting while driving has the same effects on a driver's ability to concentrate on driving as a driver who pops a .2 on a breathalyzer test. So we shouldn't enact laws to restrict cell phone usage while driving because "At least we tried to do something to curb needless automobile accidents:? Sometimes you have to experiment with certain legal restrictions to see if they can be effective or not. Unfortunately, we as a society no longer accepts that as an option. They want this "all or nothing" legislation, and in most cases it's not practical.

You can't have an "all or nothing" attitude when it comes to gun legislation. It's too late for that. There's what, 200 million privately owned guns in this country? 89 guns per 100 residents? It's a virtual impossibility to account for and register every single gun in existence in this country. The gun nuts that own 50 in one house would never admit they have that many. We never required registration or tracking from the onset, so what's the point in trying now? The only way you could curb the usage is regulate the ammunition and the materials used to make your own ammo. You can own all the guns you want. You just have to register the ammo you use in them.

 

[2quills]

So you rationalize owning a firearm that was initially designed for the sole purpose to be used by the military because some Sons Of Guns idiot can modify a firearm to hold excessive amounts of ammo to make it fit into the same category?  Would the Pentagon approve your 100 round Glock to be used as a standard issued weapon for a soldier serving in Iraq, or would it be more practical to hand them an AR-15, SKS, or Bushmaster if those were the only options available between the four?  The latter three are "special" because they were designed specifically to be used in a military combat situation.  They are lightweight compared to carbines, their higher capacities allow the soldier to fire more rounds before reloading, they are accurate up to 100 yards or more (you think you could hit a target a 100 yards away with your 100 round Glock?), you can stick accessories on them like grenade launchers if the combat situation justifies it.  People who've used, or would intend to use these types of firearms for mass shootings aren't sitting around looking for ways to modify guns that aren't designed for that purpose.  They simply go down to a gun show, or buy one of these guns from classified ads and stock up on the standard accessories designed for them. 
I wasn't arguing performance. You were talking about banning those weapons because of their capacity. I was simply asking a simple question which was should we ban your wife's gun if someone made a 30+ capacity magazine for it? Because you argued that the time between mag changes could be enough to save someone's life so I thought it was a valid question.