Oh those pesky assult rifles......

[Basementdweller]

Well it is pretty obvious that gun nutts aren't gonna give an inch.

 

Done with this conversation.

 

 

I wonder how many more times Aurora, Columbine and Connecticut have to happen again before the people have had enough.

 

The gun lobby should ban together and present their own plan. Before someone else does for ya.

[ntrog8r]

I carry often. The only time times I remember being afraid was for the safety of my wife and son when I was absent - overseas. I carry as part of my profession. I carry as part of my second job. I carry when I go to certain population centers - of course I also don't go to those places unless I "need" to. I've never carried in fear. Having a tool does not equate to fear.

 

If I knew I was going rafting I would have a PFD; if I knew I was building a tree house, I'd carry a hammer; if I knew I was going into the woods I'd have a means to collect and purify water. I always have first aid materials; I am CPR and AED certified - and take that knowledge with me everywhere. I don't think any of these things equal living in fear. To be honest, I've used CPR far less times than I've drawn and fired aimed shots at someone. Thankfully, most people don't have to say that. I've never had to present a weapon while shopping, going to church, at a school, at a restaurant. I have had a McDonald's manager come out and thank us when a group of male teens left when we came in with our firearms openly holstered on our hips (we were coming back from the range). Apparently he felt threatened by their behavior and they felt threatened by us. We barely noticed them except they cleared away from the counter so we could order sooner. But we were also wearing Police Academy polos - maybe that's why they left.

 

I make choices on information, training, and equipment that _I_ consider reasonable based on the activity/location. I do have a pretty fair understanding of what my fellow man is capable of when things are not going the way we think they should. Some resort to some terrible, hard to imagine things. Others reach out to take care of the community around them. I have never carried firearms for protection on a Scouting activity. I have had (law enforcement) parents carry and was glad they were. I have carried (and will again at the Jambo) as part of shooting activities, of course my black powder muzzle loader takes awhile to reload.

 

I don't really like the comparison of bearing arms to driving or any other activity. After all, it is not a RIGHT to drive on a public road. On the other hand, I've always said individual liberty lasts only so long as there is individual responsibility. If a "liberty" is abused it is sure to be restricted. Why are there laws that restrict yelling "fire" in a crowded place or talking about "bombs" in a plane? Because some person thought it would be funny and then defended their actions by talking about the "Freedom of Speech" - the same argument the Westboro people use to defend calling fallen Soldiers "Faggots" at their funerals, while simultaneously claiming to be a "church".

 

In the end, I'd rather figure out how to stop crimes by addressing the person rather than the thing they use. I read an article that the CT shooter tried to purchase a firearm and was denied because of the mandatory wait period for background check. Instead he left and later STOLE a weapon and MURDERED the owner - his own mother before going on a killing spree. The thing about people bent on destruction is they always find a way. Lock all firearms in a gun safe - guy breaks in, holds your wife at knife point and has you unlock the safe. No easy answers exist for such a complicated, and emotional, issue.

 

 

[gsdad]

More posts of, "I only need two rounds for hunting, so go ahead and ban what I don't use".

 

Give an inch, they take a mile. I find it hard to have people who themselves, and their families are guarded by men and women carrying the same type of firearms they don't trust me to own.

 

For those regurgitating the "military grade" desctiption, bolt action rifles were once the standard rifle issued to soldiers. Your revolver was once the issued sidearm for the military. Lever action rifles, were once carried by soldiers.

 

What is reasonable to you, is not reasonable to me. You may be comfortable with allowing out-of-touch politicians who live under a blanket of secuirty telling me what I need to keep my family safe.

 

You can label me paranoid if you wish. I can live with a bunch of anonymous internet Scouters disagreeing with me.

 

You(collective) can say you have common sense while you label me a gun nut. "Gun nuts" are the one fighting to keep the gun rights of the FUDDs.

[packsaddle]

HICO_Eagle, to be precise I quit the NRA in 1975 when they established the Institute for Legislative Action. I joined long before because I had been interested in making modified bolt actions and prior to that I had been unaware of any political action. Then later when, for the first time ever, they endorsed a candidate for President, that really iced it for me. NRA had moved away from technical aspects and the art and engineering, to the world of suits and politics.

 

Basementdweller, did you expect them to give up anything? Really?

Just be satisfied that if your unit and this unit ever happen to meet up out in the woods someplace, we'll probably just have a great time doing scouting stuff and none of this conversation will matter at all.(This message has been edited by packsaddle)

[Beavah]

Beav, so first my quotes were from "nutters" and now you say they're "out of context" but offer no proof.

 

Yah, Eagle732, I'm not sure a forum is da proper place to go through a line-by-line refutation. But if yeh copy your whole quote set into Google yeh immediately pop up with a whole mess of this excerpted quote stuff written by savvy lobbying groups to motivate da gullible. I presume that's where yeh got da stuff, rather than actually listenin' to da speeches themselves. I've sadly known a fair number of folks in da special interest lobbyin' world, and this is da sort of pablum they put out for a living. They do focus groups to test which quotes and which order make people da most emotional and alarmed. Often enough they "tweak" individual quotes for better effect. It's a deliberate effort to manipulate people.

 

So da question yeh have to ask yourself for any stuff like this is "Who wrote it, and for what likely purpose?" Then, if yeh don't want to be one of those folks who is easily manipulated by lobbyist hacks, yeh have to do your own research. Go pull the actual full speeches the quote came from, and consider da audience da person was speaking to. Then pull some other stuff from that person speakin' to different audiences. Then consider da stated positions of the group, because within each group some people are always tasked to keep the "base" (meaning da extreme nutters) happy and energized, but it doesn't mean that da group has any interest in goin' there. Or just apply a healthy amount of skepticism to all lobbyist rubbish.

 

If yeh really want to believe that George W. Bush is stupid, yeh can certainly find stuff that takes a whole mess of out of context fumbling and bumbling and makes it look like he was da dumbest fellow to ever hold office. That's exactly what somebody is doin' to yeh here with this bunch of quotes. They're playin' you.

 

It's not the rifle, it was the mentally disturbed person wielding it.

 

Yah, HICO_Eagle, I agree with yeh. Da primary focus here should be on what is goin' on with our young male youth and da inability of our education and mental health systems to identify and support kids and families like this one. We have in many states been dismantlin' da mental health infrastructure for reasons that haven't made a lot of sense to me, but mostly seem to turn on da issue that da folks most in need of mental health services are those that have limited economic means.

 

At da same time, we have to also be honest and admit that weapons of da sort used in Sandy Hook are a substantial force multiplier, eh? That's what they were designed for, after all. They can help an octogenarian fight off a young, strong mugger and so it's no surprise that they enable a gangly 20 year old to wreak far more havoc than he could have with most other tools. Comin' in with a baseball bat he could have been tackled by da several staff people who tried to intervene, instead of bein' able to snap 4-5 high energy frangible rounds into each without slowin' down.

 

We do regulate other force-multiplier tools, eh? We mandate seat belts and airbags and a whole mess of other safety features in cars, and we require licensure to use which must be renewed on a regular basis. Bigger, more dangerous vehicles like trucks require additional licensure levels and more regulation and monitoring. We mandate safety features in all varieties of power tools.

 

Oh, yah, and by da way, the right to use da public roads is in fact a right. Da state can't confine yeh to your own property by denyin' yeh the right to access da public arteries which would allow yeh to go anywhere else. That's just nonsense. But like any right, da right to use da public roadways can be subject to reasonable limits in da public interest.

 

Beavah

 

[FScouter]

It would be useful for the rest of us if the gun enthusiasts could put forth a few convincing arguments as to why big guns and big ammo magazines etc have a useful purpose in our society. We seem to hear only that the second amendment permits every kind of "arm" you can think of, or that if we dont have them a dictatorship or worse might result. What-if scenarios are easy to describe, but have any of them ever played out?

 

What are the demonstrated benefits today, or in the past, of having such weapons? Until the gun folks can present a believable case, the pressure to regulate will not go away. Meanwhile we can look forward to the next mass shooting.

 

[CalicoPenn]

"guarded by men and women carrying the same type of firearms they don't trust me to own."

 

 

When you join the military, they don't hand you an M-16 right out of the gate. You are trained and observed first to make sure you have the judgment to be trusted with an M-16 (if you join and all you talk about is how you can't wait to get your hands on an M-16, you'll never get your hands on one, you'll be released from the military before it happens). When you're given an M-16, you aren't given ammunition. You learn to tear it apart, put it together, clean it, care for it and are observed. When you do get ammunition, you're given blanks - and you are intently observed and trained on how to load, unload, shoot, and handle the weapon. Only after intense training and observation are you allowed to live fire the gun.

 

Those men and women guarding us are well-trained, and well vetted. Yeah, I'll trust them over some guy who has never gone through that kind of training walking off the street and buying a civilian version of that weapon.

 

[Eagledad]

>>It would be useful for the rest of us if the gun enthusiasts could put forth a few convincing arguments as to why big guns and big ammo magazines etc have a useful purpose in our society.

[gsdad]

So Calico, is it safe to say the politicians' lives are more important than yours or mine, or that of our respective families?

 

Many gun enthusiasts, myself included have paid for our own training to ensure we are proficient and justified should the need arise to use our firearms.

 

Conversely, a right is not something we should be required to ask permission or prove proficiency to exercise.

[Stosh]

Personally, I don't think this issue can be resolved with legitimate argument/debate. It is so totally subjective, that nothing can be concluded.

 

Like EagleDad points out, people who once were totally against guns are now carrying. That doesn't make any sense. My Ex wouldn't let me keep my weapons anyplace under lock/key in my closet and that occurred only after lengthy arguments. Now she carries.

 

It's a personal choice. I prefer to be prepared to a certain extent. I have toyed with the idea of conceal-carry, but I don't necessarily want the government to have my fingerprints, etc. If I need to carry a gun in my state it is okay to open carry without a permit. You have to pay $100, get a background check, give up fingerprints, and do training in order to wear a coat.

 

Given the choice of a legal conceal carry person with their training, background checks, evidence comparison, etc. vs. some young punk with a stolen gun who's only interested in my money, I'm going to feel safer with the option #1.

 

A lot of these points remain arguable in many respects, and until one finds themselves confronted by an armed individual, are rather moot. I can sit in the safety of my environment and feel quite secure, but given a confrontation, I really don't think any amount of persuasive argumentation is going to be of much value. Either I have a gun to defend myself or I don't. I really don't like the idea of someone else making that choice for me.

 

Stosh

[perdidochas]

Connecticut has an assault weapon ban. The gun in question was legal according to that ban.

[Basementdweller]

So what would have happened in Aurora if say 20% of the folks in that movie theater were armed??? Would the death toll been higher or lower? What about the people in the neighboring theaters?????

[Eagledad]

>>So what would have happened in Aurora if say 20% of the folks in that movie theater were armed???

[gsdad]

There are seven movie theaters, the Aurora shooter picked the only one that was posted as a gun free zone, not the closest one to his house.

[scoutingagain]

First, I hear very few talking about banning all firearms for civilians. Most are talking about restricting access to military style rifles and/or high capacity magazines/clips. How many rounds does one need for target shooting, hunting or basic self/home defense? What's reasonable? 6, 10, 30, 50? Just asking?

 

Like I said, I somehow manage to live in an urban environment totally unarmed, but manage to maintain my manhood anyway.

 

Next, as a first responder, a report comes in that an active shooter is at the local movie complex. You show up to find three people shooting at each other, who do you shoot first?

 

Just asking?

 

SA