AR 15 and 10 type rifles

[Deleted member 28227]

My point was historical context. Yeah the figure includes accidents and suicides, just as war deaths include starvation, gangrene, hypothermia, etc. the point is one year versus a war. There were maybe 2.5 million people in the colonies in 1776... the founders would likely have wanted us to decide our fate in the manner they did with rational debate of ideas and a democratic process.

I guess if they come for my sniper rifle I will move to Japan, even though they have the most restrictive gun laws in the world bolt guns are still legal there... plus the skiing is arguably better.

 

[Cogreeny]

My point was historical context. Yeah the figure includes accidents and suicides, just as war deaths include starvation, gangrene, hypothermia, etc. the point is one year versus a war. There were maybe 2.5 million people in the colonies in 1776... the founders would likely have wanted us to decide our fate in the manner they did with rational debate of ideas and a democratic process.

I guess if they come for my sniper rifle I will move to Japan, even though they have the most restrictive gun laws in the world bolt guns are still legal there... plus the skiing is arguably better.

Hahaha I don’t ski so I reckon I’ll stay here and fight for your right and mine to keep the damn bolt gun.

 

[Sytes]

Wllm,

First let's take population of the U.S. at the time of the Revolutionary War:
2.5 mil.

2018 U.S. population: 330 mil.

Revolutionary War deaths - total, as you shared: 23k.

2018 Total deaths U.S. to firearms 39k.

Per capital deaths U.S. 1780: 1 death for every 108 Americans.
Per capita deaths U.S. 2018: 1 death for every 8,462 Americans.

You've countered your own position. Our founding fathers knew full well the liberty and loss.

Waters and Feinstein are looking for a new bullshiter to join their PR campaign.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Wllm,

First let's take population of the U.S. at the time of the Revolutionary War:
2.5 mil.

2018 U.S. population: 330 mil.

Revolutionary War deaths - total, as you shared: 23k.

2018 Total deaths U.S. to firearms 39k.

Per capital deaths U.S. 1780: 1 death for every 108 Americans.
Per capita deaths U.S. 2018: 1 death for every 8,462 Americans.

You've countered your own position. Our founding fathers knew full well the liberty and loss.

Waters and Feinstein are looking for a new bullshiter to join their PR campaign.

Totally agree with you the numbers and ratios + the context between then and now is very different. Guess we have to figure out what to do that’s best in 2019 and not speculate about what some dead dudes thought was best for America in 1776.

I’d probably suck at PR... I love to debate myself, comes off as wishy washy at times... also I’m not sure stoked about curtailing rights when the results of said action are unknown. Well that and I think people should be allowed to own ARs...but ... the rhetoric from our side is often pretty lame.

 

[FLS]

ARs are low hanging fruit. The idea that banning them will fix these mass murders is whistling through the graveyard. Seeing some of you willing to sell out your fellow law abiding citizens rights to save your own interest is disappointing.
The majority of “mass shootings” are criminals killing each other with handguns. To fix that, you’ll have to address poverty, a culture of violence, breakdown of the family, a lack of opportunity in minority communities,, and that’s just a start. Those are some complex problems that will force some uncomfortable conversations. Banning semi auto rifles and high capacity magazines is easier. It won’t do a damn thing to fix the problem, but it will look like we’re doing something.
Let’s take a look at the handful of mass murders where some deranged individual decides to kill total strangers. Will banning semi auto rifles and high capacity magazines fix that? No it won’t. Well have to address mental health issues, the effect of social media on developing minds, the possible over prescription of psychotropic drugs, and other reasons that a person decides to take a weapon and kill innocent people. More big expensive problems that will need to be addressed. But banning scary guns might make us feel better till the next nut walks into a mall, school , church etc and commits multiple homocides. What will we ban then???

 

[RockinU]

Here is my idea. Yes I know it will not stop future mass shooting but it may make a difference.
AR/AK type weapons should be regulated just like fully automatic machine guns. Anyone who can pass a background check and wants to pay the $200 yearly tax would be able to legally keep one.
I guarantee you would eliminate a very large potion of these clowns, like this one who think they're barney bad-@$$ just because they have one to spray bullets all over the desert.
I for one have no use or need for one so I really don't care if someone's "right" might be infringed if it could make a difference.

View attachment 113764

I'm not really looking to debate your position, other than to say I disagree, but I would like to point out that the $200 nfa tax stamps are not annual, it's a one time thing.

 

[nrpate05]

I wonder why most politicians do not want to look further into this. When politicians are asked how to get the existing AR rifles of the streets nobody has any clue. Some people suggest a buy back but admit that that is un-American and probably wouldn't work anyway. We have failed to recognize that these weapons have been available to the public for at least a half century. Why are these shootings so frequent now?

 

[ignorethefringes]

ARs are low hanging fruit. The idea that banning them will fix these mass murders is whistling through the graveyard. Seeing some of you willing to sell out your fellow law abiding citizens rights to save your own interest is disappointing.
The majority of “mass shootings” are criminals killing each other with handguns. To fix that, you’ll have to address poverty, a culture of violence, breakdown of the family, a lack of opportunity in minority communities,, and that’s just a start. Those are some complex problems that will force some uncomfortable conversations. Banning semi auto rifles and high capacity magazines is easier. It won’t do a damn thing to fix the problem, but it will look like we’re doing something.
Let’s take a look at the handful of mass murders where some deranged individual decides to kill total strangers. Will banning semi auto rifles and high capacity magazines fix that? No it won’t. Well have to address mental health issues, the effect of social media on developing minds, the possible over prescription of psychotropic drugs, and other reasons that a person decides to take a weapon and kill innocent people. More big expensive problems that will need to be addressed. But banning scary guns might make us feel better till the next nut walks into a mall, school , church etc and commits multiple homocides. What will we ban then???

Since it seems like some people are jumping to the end of the discussion here rather than reading the previous 11+ pages, I'd like to point out that some people on this thread have been here a long time and made many other statements than the few someone might be reading in the last couple, or first couple, pages. If you find yourself disappointed with a fellow HTer, maybe go see what else is going on elsewhere in the forum. Especially if said HTer has 1,000+ other posts on a variety of topics. You might just be misunderstanding their position.

The vast majority of us here are level headed with opinions formed by various life experiences rather than jumping to "solutions" out of fear. Take a few minutes, all of us, and read through the thread to see if your comment/idea/thought/insult/etc. has been hashed out before. If we go around in circles with each other over the same nonsense we certainly aren't going to be able to present a cohesive front to anyone else.

 

[Sytes]

Any thread of this nature by any seasoned HT'er is well aware it's a brick wall debate.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

ARs are low hanging fruit. The idea that banning them will fix these mass murders is whistling through the graveyard. Seeing some of you willing to sell out your fellow law abiding citizens rights to save your own interest is disappointing.
The majority of “mass shootings” are criminals killing each other with handguns. To fix that, you’ll have to address poverty, a culture of violence, breakdown of the family, a lack of opportunity in minority communities,, and that’s just a start. Those are some complex problems that will force some uncomfortable conversations. Banning semi auto rifles and high capacity magazines is easier. It won’t do a damn thing to fix the problem, but it will look like we’re doing something.
Let’s take a look at the handful of mass murders where some deranged individual decides to kill total strangers. Will banning semi auto rifles and high capacity magazines fix that? No it won’t. Well have to address mental health issues, the effect of social media on developing minds, the possible over prescription of psychotropic drugs, and other reasons that a person decides to take a weapon and kill innocent people. More big expensive problems that will need to be addressed. But banning scary guns might make us feel better till the next nut walks into a mall, school , church etc and commits multiple homocides. What will we ban then???

This is pretty close to how I feel about the issue. I think the thing to keep in mind on these type threads on the forum is that to some extent you are talking to like minded folks. It's the modern day coffee house, where a community (hunters) talks about ideas. I don't think anyone on this thread want's to sell out fellow sportsmen and women, but we would like to discuss ideas with our community. I'm not going to express the opinions I have on this thread to my anti-gun friends and family, but I will express them here because I think it's healthy to exam my notions and find the wholes in them. When I posit, maybe banning AR's would work, I'm not saying that as part of a left wing agenda, but because I want to explore the positive effects it might have and those limitations. This in no way shape or form means that if a ballot initiative came up I would vote in favor of banning them.

What jerks my chain is people throwing out terms like: liberal, sheeple, right wing, left wing, commie, etc etc because it's attempting to silence an opinion by putting someone in a box. This isn't facebook, we all sought out this forum for a reason, I think it's important to treat all the members with respect and talk about the ideas, refute them with facts, share personal ancedotes etc.


Europe's original open ended question:

"Some wondered, aloud, why dont the hunters in America agree to ban these types of weapons for hunting, or to the general public. Some felt that giving these rifles up would appease the masses that want to take away firearms completely. I felt and stated that this is a slippery slope. First you take away the Ar.s, then automatic rifles and shotguns, etc. Others wondered if it would appease the masses and take the focus of off gun ownership."


-------------------------------
I think this forum is a great place for deliberative dialogue, it's why HT feels so different from other sites.

"We deliberate not about ends but about means."- Aristotle, Nicomachean Ethics

Part 3-5, worth the read.

The Internet Classics Archive | Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle

Nicomachean Ethics by Aristotle, part of the Internet Classics Archive

classics.mit.edu

 

[antelopedundee]

We have failed to recognize that these weapons have been available to the public for at least a half century. Why are these shootings so frequent now?

Good question and a part of the answer is that something in or about society has changed and not for the better. In my youth someone might threaten to get the old man's gun and shoot someone, but nobody actually did it.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Good question and a part of the answer is that something in or about society has changed and not for the better. In my youth someone might threaten to get the old man's gun and shoot someone, but nobody actually did it.

I'm not sure if this is entirely true, probably the first mass shooting that kinda matches the modern use of the term was perpetrated by Howard Unruh in 1949, he walked down the street randomly killing people. Even earlier than this there were mass killings and/or mass murderers, I'm thinking of old west desparado style killings, guys murdering native Americans, and then there are the cases like the Harpe brothers, John Johnson, Bill Longley, etc etc.

I doubt that in the human experience this is actually a new phenomena. There were probably some psychopathic vikings that went on killing sprees, it was just channeled and they killed their "enemies" so there fellow vikings didn't really care or see it as problematic.

One thing to keep in mind is that until the FBI was created no one was really looking killings nation wide, codifying them, researching motive etc. until the 1970s we really hadn't come up with the idea of a serial killer (Ressler didn't coin the term till 74'). Further, media has changed dramatically, if 8 people were killed by a murder in Kansas in 1908 news might not have gotten to new york. Further, people got away with stuff much easier back in the day, there were mass killings that were never solved/pursued, see Osage murders in Oklahoma.

I wonder if our hyper focused media + the ease of communication + population size makes us think its a bigger thing than it is.... I believe that per capital murder rates are at an all time low in human history.

 

[FLS]

I think the 24 hour news cycle, photo op, click bait mentality is hampering serious conversation in this country. Face book is a dumpster fire. It’s mob mentality at its worst. You can’t disagree without people immediately splitting into tribes hurling insults. People dig their heels in and nothing gets resolved.

 

[antelopedundee]

I'm not sure if this is entirely true, probably the first mass shooting that kinda matches the modern use of the term was perpetrated by Howard Unruh in 1949, he walked down the street randomly killing people. Even earlier than this there were mass killings and/or mass murderers, I'm thinking of old west desparado style killings, guys murdering native Americans, and then there are the cases like the Harpe brothers, John Johnson, Bill Longley, etc etc.

I doubt that in the human experience this is actually a new phenomena. There were probably some psychopathic vikings that went on killing sprees, it was just channeled and they killed their "enemies" so there fellow vikings didn't really care or see it as problematic.

One thing to keep in mind is that until the FBI was created no one was really looking killings nation wide, codifying them, researching motive etc. until the 1970s we really hadn't come up with the idea of a serial killer (Ressler didn't coin the term till 74'). Further, media has changed dramatically, if 8 people were killed by a murder in Kansas in 1908 news might not have gotten to new york. Further, people got away with stuff much easier back in the day, there were mass killings that were never solved/pursued, see Osage murders in Oklahoma.

I wonder if our hyper focused media + the ease of communication + population size makes us think its a bigger thing than it is.... I believe that per capital murder rates are at an all time low in human history.

I never said it was entirely true. People die every day for a myriad of reasons. Hell, one woman was even killed due to interaction with a PECKER! Shootings like what happened in Texas are really IMO unnecessary, but for some it appears to be an acceptable cost or price to pay for the right to own a firearm.

 

[RockinU]

I never said it was entirely true. People die every day for a myriad of reasons. Hell, one woman was even killed due to interaction with a PECKER! Shootings like what happened in Texas are really IMO unnecessary, but for some it appears to be an acceptable cost or price to pay for the right to own a firearm.

I'm short of time, so I can't really go all the way down the rabbit hole on this one, but I have to point out that of course shootings like that are unnecessary, and nobody sees it as an acceptable price to pay for owning anything. I get that you are using that as a dig at AR rifles, but that's disingenuous at best, and completely ignores similar events that are perpetrated with other guns. It also ignores all the unnecessary shootings that take place across the country that aren't of the nature of the most recent tragedies, and are committed with handguns of various sorts. The number of those, and the casualties they produce dwarf the numbers from what we now call mass shootings. Does that mean that "for some" those shootings are an acceptable price? Of course not. Be consistent.

 

[Schaaf]

Too long; Did not read.

 

[Gr8bawana]

By all means then, let's continue to do NOTHING. I'll ask this question AGAIN since nobody had the bollocks to answer the first time I asked.
How many of you are willing to include YOUR loved ones in the body count in the name of continuing to do nothing.
I am not and I hope would hope none of you are.

 

[3855WIN]

Given that more Americans died from firearms last year than were killed in the reveloutionary war, including those killed by disease and starvation during the winter, I’m not sure if anything the founding said or wrote fathers is relevant.

The one relevant thing our founding fathers did do was to make our constitution a living document, each generation has the ability to think for themselves.

Plenty the founders said was relevant. Even about guns.

 

[3855WIN]

I also wonder when the left deems your bolt action rifle a “sniper” rifle and it’s a danger to society what will you do then? I’m just assuming you own a bolt gun

That will be the next one.

 

[3855WIN]

By all means then, let's continue to do NOTHING. I'll ask this question AGAIN since nobody had the bollocks to answer the first time I asked.
How many of you are willing to include YOUR loved ones in the body count in the name of continuing to do nothing.
I am not and I hope would hope none of you are.

So what is your “do something?”

The Odessa shooter had numerous phone calls with LEOs/FBI.
The Orlando night club shooter was on the FBI radar.
School shooter in South Florida had numerous run in’s with law enforcement.
Can law enforcement do more within the confines of the law and personal rights?
No one wants to lose a loved one, but most realize that the odds are low that they’ll be shot by a semi auto rifle.