AR 15 and 10 type rifles

[Deleted member 28227]

That will be the next one.

I'm not sure I know of a case were a slippery slope argument has actually been realized for either firearms or hunting. Seriously, I don't think their is a country or place that had firearms and/or an established hunting culture that actually saw either disappear. Sure things became incredibly stringent to the point that it pushes most out of the sport, but even in my example of Japan where guns are incredibly difficult to get you can still get them and hunt.

I am interested if there are cases I'm unaware of... but basically I think it's disingenuous to use this style of argument and in general that it's pretty flimsy. Also sure PETA wants to... but would PETA ever be able to do.... no so why are we even talking about it.

 

[HuntTalk Freak]

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.

I've given a lot of thought to this in the past and contemplated how I would feel if a member of my family was murdered in any way and these are the conclusions I came up with.
If a person whacks my wife over the head with a hammer, I blame the person.
If a person stabs my mother to death with a fork, I blame the person.
If a drunk driver kills my brother, I blame the drunk driver.

When I was in highschool one of my classmates was killed in one of the first mass shootings that I remember, this was a bit before Columbine. A crazy guy walked into a church yelling about religion and started shooting people. My first thought was how did someone get that crazy to do that with no one noticing, not "well, we better ban 10rd mags and semi auto handguns".

My wife is a school teacher and two of her students have already been kicked out of school during the first week for threatening to come kill people at school. My first thought was "yeah they need to be kicked out and kept an eye on" not "well I better go turn my guns in so these kids wont kill somebody".

 

[3855WIN]

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.

Mom started putting them in timeout and dad quit whipping their butt.

 

[HuntTalk Freak]

So.....has anyone changed their opinions or beliefs from all the purse swinging in the thread yet?

I'm betting not.

 

[3855WIN]

I'm not sure I know of a case were a slippery slope argument has actually been realized for either firearms or hunting. Seriously, I don't think their is a country or place that had firearms and/or an established hunting culture that actually saw either disappear. Sure things became incredibly stringent to the point that it pushes most out of the sport, but even in my example of Japan where guns are incredibly difficult to get you can still get them and hunt.

I am interested if there are cases I'm unaware of... but basically I think it's disingenuous to use this style of argument and in general that it's pretty flimsy. Also sure PETA wants to... but would PETA ever be able to do.... no so why are we even talking about it.

You are worried about hunting and I’m worried about FREEDOM. There’s a difference.
I think the Aussies lost their semi auto shotguns. They sure are fun for wing shooting.

 

[Gr8bawana]

My question is a yes or no question. What is your answer to my question?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

You are worried about hunting and I’m worried about FREEDOM. There’s a difference.
I think the Aussies lost their semi auto shotguns. They sure are fun for wing shooting.

Fair point, I'm certainly not coming at the issue from someone who wants to own something just to own something. Which in and of-itself is valid...I can understand that libertarian-esk argument for say drugs, but then you are impacting yourself not others... but I guess it could be argued that addicts, cause accidents, put more strain on medical services, etc... so maybe it's a fair comparison.

I'm not sure how you pragmatically or objectively defend libertarian ideals?

 

[bushman13]

Get a grip, your concern is obliviously misdirected. When solving a problem do you start with the outliers or the majority? The majority of mass shootings are gang and criminal related and have nothing to do with A.R.s. Where is your outrage about criminal elements blasting each other in the inner cities?
The majority of gun deaths are suicides, where is your concern?

Some of us don't believe the majority of what is reported through MSM about this issue. We have a different understanding and therefore come up different conclusions.

It's not about "doing nothing", it's about not doing the wrong thing because of a limited understanding.

My question is a yes or no question. What is your answer to my question?

 

[antelopedundee]

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.

I don't really have anything against the ARs tho I neither want one nor need one. When paired with high capacity magazines is when they're at their worst. Everytime the gun debate seems to calm a bit some ASSHOLE with an AR and high capacity mag lets loose and starts the furor all over again. So why does anyone need more than a 5 round magazine? And yes other firearms kill everyday but usually not with the impact or drama or associated misery associated with the AR and high capacity mags. If firearms are responsible in 40,000 deaths a year then that's a problem. If we cut that by 20% to 32,000 it's still a problem. Countries that don't allow unfettered access to firearms don't have 40,000 gun related deaths every year. With many millions in the hands of the public, there's probably not going to be much that can be done to change that. You can make laws that end up making gun ownership a PITA or really expensive, but you can't end up putting half of the population in jail if they don't comply.

 

[bushman13]

"Everytime the gun debate seems to calm a bit some ASSHOLE with an AR and high capacity mag lets loose and starts the furor all over again. "

Funny how that happens, must be a big fat coincidence.

I don't really have anything against the ARs tho I neither want one nor need one. When paired with high capacity magazines is when they're at their worst. Everytime the gun debate seems to calm a bit some ASSHOLE with an AR and high capacity mag lets loose and starts the furor all over again. So why does anyone need more than a 5 round magazine? And yes other firearms kill everyday but usually not with the impact or drama or associated misery associated with the AR and high capacity mags. If firearms are responsible in 40,000 deaths a year then that's a problem. If we cut that by 20% to 32,000 it's still a problem. Countries that don't allow unfettered access to firearms don't have 40,000 gun related deaths every year. With many millions in the hands of the public, there's probably not going to be much that can be done to change that. You can make laws that end up making gun ownership a PITA or really expensive, but you can't end up putting half of the population in jail if they don't comply.

 

[Scuda20]

To the question of "why don't the hunters in America agree to ban these types of weapons for hunting, or to the general public".. why would we?

I forget who said it but "there are lies, damn lies, and then there is statistics"! Most of the specious arguments are derived from someones statistics. Its funny though that when pressed many don't know the source of the stats or outright refuse to provide the data. The graphic showing the overlay of the AWB with mass shooting deaths is downright disingenuous. The data not the poster! I tracked that chart down and it comes from a data set at "Mother Jones". I downloaded it and then removed all of the incidents that did not include an AR-15/variant, AK-47 or SKS. I gave the benefit of the doubt and left in the unknowns, unreported or blanks. This is the new graph from 1989-2019. Now the spike is in deaths, not necessarily # of incidents and we have had several large body counts for a relatively few incidents. I didn't overlay the AWB but you can see from the data that 1994,95,96,98,99,00,04 I believe had NO mass shootings with that particular type of weapon(s) according to the government data sets.


Another statistic that gets thrown around is 40K/year by "firearm violence". I guess philosophically you could say that suicides are self-violence but there is some conflating going on there to include suicide with homicide because the numbers just don't look as bad if you leave them out. CDC latest stats for 2017 is 14,542 firearm homicides.

Taking the FBI stats for the largest 50 cities is 5,738 that leaves 6,804 firearm homicides for the rest of the approximately 280-300 million people. If we can agree that the governments statistics are correct, that means that .00004544375 of the people committed the firearm homicides in 2017. Total homicides in 2017 was 17,284 so 84% by firearm. So is the argument really that because .000045% of the population is evil/psychotic/bad seed whatever we need to restrict or take away 319,985,458 peoples rights. Can anyone really argue that? Oh, and when you actually dig into the stats provided by the CDC and other government agencies, they are for a very broad range of ages.. FYI teens according to the CDC are 16-24 year olds. Why do you think that is???? The last time I checked, the age of majority in 34+ states is 18, a few 19, and a few 21. If the states legally classify on average 18+ to be adults, why is the CDC including adults with teens?

But there are restrictions on the first amendment some will say. You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater! True and you also can't libel someone. There are laws for both. There are also laws against murder, endangerment, etc... If one were to shoot their gun in the back yard where houses are nearly touching each other, you will get in trouble. Banning classes of weapons would be like banning classes of words. Yelling fire outside in broad daylight is not going to infringe on someone else s rights or harm them. Someone owning an AR-15 with a standard magazine (30 rounds) is not going to harm someone. It's the person and the intent, not the method.

 

[Gr8bawana]

Get a grip, your concern is obliviously misdirected. When solving a problem do you start with the outliers or the majority? The majority of mass shootings are gang and criminal related and have nothing to do with A.R.s. Where is your outrage about criminal elements blasting each other in the inner cities?
The majority of gun deaths are suicides, where is your concern?

Some of us don't believe the majority of what is reported through MSM about this issue. We have a different understanding and therefore come up different conclusions.

It's not about "doing nothing", it's about not doing the wrong thing because of a limited understanding.

So you're still not willing to answer the question.

 

[VikingsGuy]

So you're still not willing to answer the question.

If you set the rule (as you did above) that only a "yes" or "no" is an allowed answer it's a "so, when did you stop beating your wife? You can only give me a date for an answer" type question. Or how about, "Yes or No, are you willing to have your wife raped and murdered when access to a recently banned semi-auto hand gun would have saved her?"

If you want an actual answer to a reasonable question . . . I am willing to seriously consider (and probably would support) a law(s) based upon reasonable evidence that show a significant number of mass shootings would in fact be prevented by the given law (in the real world), and where such law is drawn to minimize the encumbrances on the rights of the millions of law abiding sportsmen/women in the process . . . I see no evidence that an outright ban on the AR15 platform meets those standards.

 

[mtmuley]

. I see no evidence that an outright ban on the AR15 platform meets those standards.

Me neither. And I don't understand gun owners that would support a ban. mtmuley

 

[Cogreeny]

Me neither. And I don't understand gun owners that would support a ban. mtmuley

I’m with ya 100%

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Me neither. And I don't understand gun owners that would support a ban. mtmuley

Trying to figure out how to articulate this so bare with me if It comes out poorly, but I guess that it’s because there is a spectrum of what any of us think an individual should be able to own. On the furthest extreme would be someone who thinks a tatical nuke should be legal and on the other end are people who think a 6 inch knife should be illegal. We all are drawing our lines somewhere, personally I think my minimum line is pump guns and bolt actions, not 100% sure on my max certainly I don’t think we should have RPGs, shoulder fired missiles, etc.

 

[mtmuley]

Trying to figure out how to articulate this so bare with me if It comes out poorly, but I guess that it’s because there is a spectrum of what any of us think an individual should be able to own. On the furthest extreme would be someone who thinks a tatical nuke should be legal and on the other end are people who think a 6 inch knife should be illegal. We all are drawing our lines somewhere, personally I think my minimum line is pump guns and bolt actions, not 100% sure on my max certainly I don’t think we should have RPGs, shoulder fired missiles, etc.

I think I follow. But, to me I'm not willing to give up the right to own a semi automatic rifle, AR platform or otherwise. Nor am I willing to give up the right to own a high capacity magazine. While I own neither an AR or the magazines, if I ever decide to, it's my right. mtmuley

 

[Cogreeny]

I’d take a fully functional abrams if I could get my hands on it and put it in the 4th of July parade and give all the youngsters a ride in it. Hahaha

 

[Pucky Freak]

I will not buy the "whatabout all the mass shootings by gang members" argument. That is a social problem that cannot be influenced by laws, or mental health care, so let's completely set aside that phenomenon for a minute. We now live in a culture where disaffected young men who legally buy semi auto weapons and large capacity mags, and then go on suicide murder rampages like they're in some fictional first person shooter game. This is ridiculous. I am well aware that dramatically cutting off access to this type of equipment will not dramatically reduce gun deaths overall in America, but it has the potential to seriously cut into this type of domestic terrorism. I'm fully aware 99.9% of legally owned semiautomatic guns are not misused, but our freedom to own such things is not worth the cost of even one more of these types of mass shootings in my opinion. This will leave these cowards to use pump shotguns or rent trucks and drive them into crowds. So be it. You can't cause as much damage doing that than the Vegas shooter.

furthermore, semiautomatic guns serve no practical civilian purpose. You dont need them to defend your home. Get a pump shotgun and buckshot. You also can't practically use them to guard against the tyranny of the government in this day and age.

I was a slippery slope advocate for a long time. I've dropped this. At this point I don't even care if it is a slippery slope or not. I'm sick of living with all this needless gun violence in our country and if that means I have to do a background check for private gun sale, register my guns, get a FOID card, use a smart handgun, whatever - sign me up if it will help solve our gun violence problem. I know this will cost me more and be a hassle too. I'm fine with all that.

to those of you who think such ideas betray 2nd amendment, solidarity with all gun owners, etc know that I respect your opinions too and I am open to being persuade differently. I just will not accept the line "people kill people, not guns." It really is both. It's far to easy for bad people to do the bad things they are going to anyways by how cheap, easily accessible, and quick it is to amass a personal mass murder kit.

 

[Cogreeny]

I will not buy the "whatabout all the mass shootings by gang members" argument. That is a social problem that cannot be influenced by laws, or mental health care, so let's completely set aside that phenomenon for a minute. We now live in a culture where disaffected young men who legally buy semi auto weapons and large capacity mags, and then go on suicide murder rampages like they're in some fictional first person shooter game. This is ridiculous. I am well aware that dramatically cutting off access to this type of equipment will not dramatically reduce gun deaths overall in America, but it has the potential to seriously cut into this type of domestic terrorism. I'm fully aware 99.9% of legally owned semiautomatic guns are not misused, but our freedom to own such things is not worth the cost of even one more of these types of mass shootings in my opinion. This will leave these cowards to use pump shotguns or rent trucks and drive them into crowds. So be it. You can't cause as much damage doing that than the Vegas shooter.

furthermore, semiautomatic guns serve no practical civilian purpose. You dont need them to defend your home. Get a pump shotgun and buckshot. You also can't practically use them to guard against the tyranny of the government in this day and age.

I was a slippery slope advocate for a long time. I've dropped this. At this point I don't even care if it is a slippery slope or not. I'm sick of living with all this needless gun violence in our country and if that means I have to do a background check for private gun sale, register my guns, get a FOID card, use a smart handgun, whatever - sign me up if it will help solve our gun violence problem. I know this will cost me more and be a hassle too. I'm fine with all that.

to those of you who think such ideas betray 2nd amendment, solidarity with all gun owners, etc know that I respect your opinions too and I am open to being persuade differently. I just will not accept the line "people kill people, not guns." It really is both. It's far to easy for bad people to do the bad things they are going to anyways by how cheap, easily accessible, and quick it is to amass a personal mass murder kit.

You don’t need a bolt action either but you like it. I love my black guns I have a really great time at our local range hooting it up with our local law enforcement guys shooting. They don’t see a problem with me or my rifles