|
|
Pistol grip does nothing to make it easier to conceal, and the majority of collapsible stocks shorten the gun by 4-5 inches total. If someone wants to conceal a gun, 4-5 inches isn't going to make a huge difference.Originally Posted by SpankyNek
Not to mention that this is a weak argument. How does easier to conceal = more dangerous? Should folding knives be outlawed because they're easier to conceal?
We live in an aggressive society. We are taught throughout our lives that stealing from the rich to give to the poor is good and isn't really stealing just because the rich can afford it. We allow government to violate individual rights violently to go against things like drugs or whatever other things are taboo or not liked by certain groups. We allow government with no real vote most of the time now, to do whatever it wants with our military. We are basically taught at a young age to accept violence or aggression throughout society is a good thing and it starts right at the top and works it's way down. We expect government to be able to get rid of all this aggression through aggressive actions.
The following users like this post: Sooner5030
I guess it depends on which cases you are talking about a pistol grip...a police model 870 that has a grip in place of a stock is easier to conceal.
Nope, but it is already unlawful to conceal a gun (in most cases).
I will agree that the idea of ****ault weapons is largely overinflated, however, the movement toward tactical weaponry is somewhat alarming.
The difference between a cheeseburger and a gun is that if the wrong person gets a hold of a cheeseburger, they can't fat someone to death with it.
I get what you're saying, and I agree that it is a right and a gun is a gun. The person is the one who kills someone, not the gun.
I agree, there should be a real effort to advise anyone getting a gun that it is a HUGE responsibility.
Only FFL dealers are required to do background checks.
Like anything else in life we have to have a balanced approach to gun. I am against being totally liberal or totally conservative when it comes to gun laws. I used to think Oklahoma had perfect gun laws until they came out with open carry, which is a silly law. If you can carry, what difference does it make if someone else can see your gun? The downside of this silly law is the fact that more and more businesses are placing "no-guns" signs because generally people hate to see guns in the open.
The following users like this post: Boognish
I've had my license since the very first ones were issued. Originally, the bill was written in a way that you could be penalized if your weapon came out of concealment. I really think that was the beginning of open carry. I honestly don't know why anyone would prefer to carry openly.
The following users like this post: ImTheDude
They just passed it where I live and the expected percentage of folks wet themselves. They were predicting the Wild Wild West. In the couple of months since passage I haven't heard of one issue and I haven't seen one person carrying. I don't do so either. I like a little mystery in my carry.
The deadliest school massacre in US history didn't even involve hand guns or ****ault rifles.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster
It also happened in 1927.
Well I am not giving up anything and there are hundreds of thousands that feel the same way. So best of luck with any type of gun control.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Beware: bruthaman will be coming to your house first and he will be leading the way...he will level your house if need be.
Oh I know, he has told me so. Should be interesting.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
I support people have the right to protect themselves.I do believe there should be sensible tweaks to the system in acquiring guns and the type of guns that can be acquired on the free market.
2 users like usaosooner's post: Boognish, IndySooner
What types of guns? "AR's"? Handguns? Shotguns (Remington 870, 1100)? All are one shot per trigger pull.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Easier to conceal, but harder to control.
CT has some of the strictest gunlaws in the country. The shooter tried to buy a gun a few days before and was denied. That didn't stop him. He was determined to kill and all the gun laws in the world would not have stopped him. He did what all criminals will do when they want a gun and can't buy it legally, he stole them. How are more restrictive gun laws going to stop that?
The following users like this post: JDShellnutt
The notion is the less high powered weapons on the free market the less high power semi automatics weapons on the black market. The dude was going to kill regardless that is true.He would have had a tragedy regardless
And that notion is a false one. Ask mexico.
Me, me, me, me, me, me, me ...................
Not really. Most have just thought thru the long term consequences of an unarmed citizenry.
The CT Med Examiner said all of the victims were shot by the 223. Each victim was shot multiple times, one was shot 11 times.
I have said it before and I will say it again, there is absolutely zero need for any non military person to have a weapon like that. I have read that the magazine held 30 rounds. Thirty ****ing rounds? Are you kidding me? Why do you need that many rounds? Either you are ****ty shot or you want to kill as many people as possible.
This guys mother was a survivalist gun nut who had her guns for "protection."
I cannot believe you ****ing gun nuts are still defending these hideous guns. These guns should not be available to general public and action needs to start now.
No one is asking anyone to unarm tho... or atleast to the point of not being able to protect their house.
LOL yeah I would feel the same way if I had guns. It is a right, after all, granted by the USA. I just think that there should be more control over who gets guns, and perhaps stricter limitations and regulations for those that do. Not sure if it would change anything, as there will always be psychos and there will always be other ways of killing people in masses. Its a strange world we live in.
The bad guys will still buy on the black market, steal them, etc. you want to ban a weapon because some sociopath used it to kill. I'll ask it again, if he had thrown 10 gallons of fuel, a propane tank in the school, chained all the exits doors and lit a match, would you be calling for the ban of all sales of gasoline, gas canisters, propane tanks and matches?
The problem is not ****ing guns but going after them instead of the real problem is so much easier and it promotes political agendas.
This problem is about guns. Guns will never be fully taken away, but IMO these ridiculous ****ault rifles and other excessive clip guns/pistols should be banned and forced to the black market, where there will eventually be less of them and the price will exorbitant.
There is no good reason for any non military person to have a gun with an excessive clip count.
2 users like SG1's post: Boognish, IndySooner
The problem with certain guns is that they serve no purpose other than to kill. Your comparison to gas, propane, matches doesn't hold up when you consider that those things are used for other purposes and needs. No one is arguing the right to bear arms to an extent, but weapons like an AR should in no way be available to the public.
2 users like Boognish's post: BernieMadoff, IndySooner
If you look at the number of spree gun killings in the world.America leads the way in # of them. The reason being guns are readily available in the usa. Political agenda or not the # in comparison to other countries is astounding
and again. I support people owning reasonable means of protection. I just want tweaks on the system
I'm done with the topic I'll just be moving posts from now
The following users like this post: Boognish
They are uses for other needs. Competitive shooting, hunting, home defense, target shooting. 99.9% of legal gun owners who own an AR will never use it to kill any human being.
The following users like this post: Sooner Bob
Would the situation in the school have been better had he gone in w/a shotgun loaded w/00 buck?
Those lamenting the sizes of magazines for firearms--please consider this:
Additionally, you're trying to blame the tool used, when the problem isn't the tool--it's what led to the action. How do we fix the problems that lead to him going to the school in the first place? That's the question we should be asking--not how do we minimize the mayhem and death visited after the shooting starts.
Ok well let's just agree to disagree on this one... automatic rifles were manufactured for military use. If you were arguing about a hunting rifle, or any other gun, I would agree. I don't think anyone would want to hunt with an AR unless they didn't mind spraying bullets all through their kill. And as stated numerous times, an AR should not be necessary for home defense.
You don't understand what an AR is. It's not an automatic weapon. It fires the same as most other rifles--every time you pull the trigger, it fires once. If you hold the trigger down, nothing happens after the first round is fired.
2 users like oucub23's post: Sooner Bob, sooner68
Well if you consider that he would have had time between each round fired, perhaps someone could have tackled him from behind or something. With a machine gun, one can spray bullets all around him and keep others at a distance. So yes, I'd say it could have been better with a shotgun.
Anything that keeps myself and my family safe and alive is necessary for home defense. My weapon i use use for home defense doesn't leave my home. My handgun does.
20 kids were gunned down and you come back with this ****? None of those are a good reason.
You don't understand what he was using. A non-pump action shotgun fires at the same rate as an AR-15. You have more rounds with an AR, but a buckshot loaded shotgun does far more damage with each round fired.
I don't believe there's any proof he used anything but the handguns. And the rifle he had wasn't a fully automatic military weapon.
What if I told you that you cannot just go buy an automatic weapon? Would that change anything you're saying?
This is what people don't understand.
Okay. So you pull the trigger what, 5x per second? It was developed for use by military and has a large magazine that is unnecessary. Those are things I would say should be controlled and kept from the public as much as possible.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oklahoma_City_bombing
We should probably ban fertilizer and Ryder trucks.
2 users like Dexa's post: Lake_Bum, MudcrkSooner
The kind of gun doesn't matter. He could have done far more damage with a couple cans of gasoline and a Zippo...or a '72 Buick.
Blah blah blah. You have zero understanding of the entire purpose of the second amendment. As I said before good luck getting hundreds of thousands of individuals to bow to a liberal gun grabbing agenda.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
The only people you can "keep them from" are the people who don't go on killing sprees.
For ****s sakes. What machine gun? Dude please educate yourself on firearms before spewing such nonsense. He an AR15 and that is NOT a machine gun. There is time between each round fired.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
You pull the trigger at the same rate you do with a pistol. Or a semi-automatic shotgun. Or a semi-auto hunting rifle.
This is a semi-auto hunting rifle.
This is an AR-15. They both fire at the same rate.
They both fire the same ammunition. One looks scarier than the other though.
Should probably regulate and control jeeps too.
You completely ignore anything anyone is telling you if it doesn't jive with your already imprinted opinion.
People are telling you the "****ault" part of the weapon is not what made it any more deadly than any other hunting rifles. ****.. Most HUNTING rifles are MORE deadly. Dude might not have put multiple rounds in someone if he was using 30-06 or 308
You're letting your already established opinion stonewall any attempt of rational discussion.
"Black gun = scary and bad"
That's all I'm hearing.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
