Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

The BUSHAMASTER 223 , which came out POST BAN DATE,

When I first addressed this, I was unfamiliar with Bushmaster, and could only point out that they were being made in the early 1980s.

Having now become more familiar with the brand, I can now say that Bushmaster began making guns in 1973.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

The Bushmaster 223 was actually made AFTER the 94 assault weapon ban.

When I first addressed this, I was unfamiliar with Bushmaster, and could only point out that they were being made in the early 1980s.

Having now become more familiar with the brand, I can now say that Bushmaster began making guns in 1973.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

The BUSHMASTER 223 is NOT a varmint gun. It is not really accurate nd its a "spray and pray" type of a weapon that I dont think any sport hunter would choose a
s a weapon of choice.

farmerman wrote:

Its not accurate and long range enough for big game,

When I first addressed this, I was unfamiliar with Bushmaster, and could only point out that the AR-15 family was in general very accurate.

Having now become more familiar with the brand, I can now say that they sure seemed to be pretty accurate when the DC sniper was using a Bushmaster to make long-ranges shots about 10 years ago.

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

Second, I find LaPierre's position, and the NRA position, and the gun-nut position that "more guns will make us safer" to be an absurd proposition, which is what I pointed out.

Better to leave children defenseless?

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

It might be important to realise Mac that the supporters of the NRA and its versions of freedom, civil rights and Constitutional rectitude will make this issue their No 1 priority in deciding where to cast their votes. They have said so often enough.

On the other hand opponents of the NRA are unorganised and will cast their votes on the basis of their economic self interest. Their concern for the safety of kids being merely a fleeting emotional response the energy of which will dissipate just as soon as the bodies are buried and the incident drops out of the news. It may even be that the incident provides opportunities to be "holier than thou" and to demonstrate knowledge of tin-pot psychiatry, or, to be more cynical still, to sell more guns. If the gun shops are being cleaned out then it is likely that manufacturers are on overtime and that discounts are not being offered at the sales point. Economies of scale coupled with no discounts will create a substantial increase in profits which feed into pension funds and other investments. " We all have a share", Minderbinder said.

Politicians, being politicians, will take note of such considerations and, as Oralloy keeps reminding us, will not commit political suicide by supporting any significant restrictions on guns.

The end result will be that all the hand-wringing and emotional hot air being expended by the anti-gun rabble, and it is a rabble as this thread proves to anybody who can read it sensibly, causes a large increase in gun sales and is self-defeating.

It should be noted that a ban on assault weapons is not a significant restriction. It is merely an unconstitutional restriction.

Assault weapons are merely guns with certain harmless cosmetic features. The only reason to ban a harmless cosmetic feature is to be spiteful towards someone who wishes to have a gun with that appearance. Such a ban on harmless cosmetics would certainly have no impact on the lethality of the weapons.

It should also be noted that in addition to politicians not wanting to commit political suicide, the fact that there is no legitimate reason for banning harmless cosmetic features means it would be a violation of Rational Basis Review to do so, so the courts would simply strike down the ban even it it were actually passed.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

In light of experience with recent shootings, I would hardly call large capacity magazines, a harmless cosmetic feature.

Rap

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

See? More imagination from killmore.

Code:Sober up, with such consumption you'll kill your brain before you kill your liver. Try again when you're sober and you may have better luck coming up with a good comeback.

You shouldn't worry about my liver; you should, however, worry about your brain that is already calcified, and I'm not sure there's any cure for it.

You can do better than that. Did you listen to me and wait till you're sober before responding to me?

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

First, let me say that I find it absurd to be arguing this issue with someone who uses a screen name of "kill more."

Second, I find LaPierre's position, and the NRA position, and the gun-nut position that "more guns will make us safer" to be an absurd proposition, which is what I pointed out.

I did not suggest banning guns, however, which makes your response a strawman.

Your analogy was a strawman. You took LaPierre's statement that putting trained and armed security in schools will prevent future tragedies to your analogy that suggests "more guns will make us safer." When in reality, LaPierre's suggestion was more guns in the hands of good responsible people will make us safer. You misrepresented LaPierre's statement after the Connecticut shooting. I already pointed out that my irrelevant reply to yours is a strawman. My response is a strawman, your response is a strawman. Are you happy with the straw baby it created?

I don't have persecution complex, and guns don't make me feel "more" safe. The idea of using them for self-defense in the back of my mind. I'm very well trained in the use of many firearms, and I don't think I would have any compunction against using them against an attacker, but really, that sort of thing doesn't come up too often. On the other hand feeling blissfully safe is an absurd idea, I think. There are all sorts of things that want to kill me beside people with hostility towards me. Based on statistics, most of the people who want to kill me are driving cars, and no gun I could hold would reliably stop one. Apart from that, there are microbes that are too small to get a good sight picture on, who also wants to kill me and you and all kinds of children and people.

1 Reply

@McTag,

McTag wrote:

Maybe I could sum this up as follows: the USA could

1. Maintain the status quo,
2. Increase gun supply, or
3. Reduce gun supply

These options are

1. Intolerable, as evidenced this week and on many recent painful occasions.
2. Plainly crazy, ask any competent person.

and that leaves option 3.

I choose option 5, Maintain the status quo, and either enforce the laws already in place more strictly or make a small change in the gun regulation to better keep the guns out of the hands of irresponsible individuals, so long as it doesn't infringe the critical clause in the Bill of Rights.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Val Killmore wrote:

The problem in America which makes it different from Switzerland on the the subject of guns is the large illegal drug industry in America. Another big difference is its unique defense system consisting of all able males conscripted into a national militia of sorts with recruits continuing training intermittently through the years.
America can learn a lot from Switzerland. I'm ok with a program setup so that only responsible individuals are allowed to own fire arms, such as a license regime to own a gun, not just for concealed carry (so long as it doesn’t infringe on the right to keep and bear arms). I'm also ok with a program which requires individuals to take and pass a test, and mandatory training, intermittently throughout the years to keep the license for concealed carry or open carry.

So you would agree that the USA gets the same gun and weapon restricting laws as they've got in Switzerland?

I'm ok with regulation to keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible individuals. I'm not ok with banning all semi automatic weapons or all assault rifles.

0 Replies

@raprap,

Quote:

I would hardly call large capacity magazines, a harmless cosmetic feature.

And such have little to nothing to with so call assaults rifles.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

DC sniper was using a Bushmaster to make long-ranges shots about 10 years ago.

Hardly what I would call long range for a rifle.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

Agreed, I have a nice .308 gas gun that's capable of sub MOA groups @ 1000 yards
and by modern military sniper standards that's not even long range for a rifle.

0 Replies

@BillRM,

As I said before " This is just a side-show, and it's being conducted with people who don't know the terminology."

0 Replies

@Val Killmore,

Let's look at what I actually said:

Drewdad wrote:

The suggestion that we need "more good guys with guns" is like suggesting the Titanic should hit another iceberg, but on the other side of the ship.

You will see that I did not misrepresent LaPierre's position, so I did not make a strawman argument.

I disagreed with LaPierre's position, and I ridiculed LaPierre's idea, and I ridiculed his language.

And the reason is this: The Sandy Hook shooter didn't own his own guns. He got them from another source. The Columbine shooters didn't own their own guns. They got them from another source.

The real straw man around here is you. Please, go see the Wizard and get yourself a brain.

2 Replies

@Val Killmore,

A strawman fallacy requires that an argument be misrepresented and then that argument attacked.

DrewDad listed LaPierre's actual statement and then made an analogy. The analogy can't be both a misrepresentation AND an attack on that misrepresentation at the same time. DrewDad didn't use a strawman because he didn't meet both requirements of the fallacy.

You on the other hand misrepresented DrewDad's argument when you claimed he wanted to ban guns and then your analogy was an attack on the banning guns argument. When it comes to rituals you seem to be out standing in your straw field

1 Reply

@BillRM,

Granted nor are all large capacity magazines used in 'wanna be assault rifles'.

I agree that the term 'assault rifle' has a fuzzy definition, but other fuzzy definitions abound; 'theory' and 'organic' immediately come to mind.

Until such time as the definition becomes clear, I consider any firearm modeled to appear to be a military 'assault rifle' as a 'wanna be assault rifle.'

Rap

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Quote:

The Sandy Hook shooter didn't own his own guns. He got them from another source.
The Columbine shooters didn't own their own guns. They got them from another source.

It sounds like 1st offender thieves should be dealt with more severely so it doesn't escalate.

Ban the usual 'slap on the wrist' response to thievery.

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

How about we jail any gun owner that commits any crime for 3 years?

Would you agree to that Spurt?

1 Reply

@raprap,

Quote:

I consider any firearm modeled to appear to be a military 'assault rifle' as a 'wanna be assault rifle.'

What the rifle looks like has very little to do with it's capabilities.
A traditional old school muzzle loader is just as capable at killing as the AR-15, probably more so.

'Assault rifle' is a very specific term applied to a specific group of weapon designed for a fairly specific job.
The only 'fuzziness' is with politicians, the press and the under informed.

2 Replies

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know