Assault Ban Fini

[callmeslick]

please refresh my memory, because you never came up, that I recall, with ONE real example of a case where such had happened. In fact, none has even been presented to the Senate committees by any person to dateI(I just checked).

[Will Robinson]

You are either in serious mental illness level denial or lying like a Clinton.
You go back and find it if you are genuinely wanting to have it.
Two examples I can recall from memory was a Dallas security guard who killed two gunmen, hitting the second guman with his eleventh shot from his rifle. The accuracy, speed and the greater than 10 rounds are why he won the fight even though they shot first and out numbered him.

The other one, the one that I posted for you was a young kid aprox 11 yrs old at home with his little sister and used an AR-15 to shoot a couple of home invaders. Again the inherent/handling accuracy of the AR probably was the difference for him.

I'm not surprised at your denial. That's been your standard operating procedure in this debate from day one. You are extremely dishonest.

[woodchip]

One other thing slickster, when the report says a homeowner used a "gun" does that mean he used a pistol?

[callmeslick]

You are either in serious mental illness level denial or lying like a Clinton.
You go back and find it if you are genuinely wanting to have it.
Two examples I can recall from memory was a Dallas security guard who killed two gunmen, hitting the second guman with his eleventh shot from his rifle. The accuracy, speed and the greater than 10 rounds are why he won the fight even though they shot first and out numbered him.

The other one, the one that I posted for you was a young kid aprox 11 yrs old at home with his little sister and used an AR-15 to shoot a couple of home invaders. Again the inherent/handling accuracy of the AR probably was the difference for him.

I'm not surprised at your denial. That's been your standard operating procedure in this debate from day one. You are extremely dishonest.

the first was not an example of a civilian in a home situation, the second one has been sort of debunked on the net.

[callmeslick]

One other thing slickster, when the report says a homeowner used a "gun" does that mean he used a pistol?

the other two articles I read on that case indicate nothing beyond handguns were used. Re-reading the specific article above is unclear for one participant. As I stated to Will, to date, exactly ZERO valid examples of civilian use of assault-type weaponry for self defense by a civilian has been brought to any legislative panel. NONE.

edit--I even read this thread on a very sympathetic forum, and they were struggling and dancing. Came up with the one above, which has been, at best disputed, and NOTHING ELSE.
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread. ... 198&page=2

[woodchip]

Care to show us where the 2nd one was debunked? I just tried to google "11 year defends home assault rifle debunked" and came up with nothing for 3 pages.

[callmeslick]

now, my memory is refreshed.....the 'debunking' was around the fact that the kid could have used any available weapon, and that no one has been able to demonstrate where the nature of an assault weapon OR a high-cap magazine were ESSENTIAL to the self-defense. So, yes, there are, in fact two examples of such weapons being used for home defense(both by teenagers), but no examples given to date where such types of weapons were necessary to success.

in other words, the teens used the gun laying around the house(well, hopefully stored properly but......) and would have had exactly the same success had that weapon been a standard hunting rifle or handgun.

[woodchip]

One other thing slickster, when the report says a homeowner used a "gun" does that mean he used a pistol?

the other two articles I read on that case indicate nothing beyond handguns were used. Re-reading the specific article above is unclear for one participant. As I stated to Will, to date, exactly ZERO valid examples of civilian use of assault-type weaponry for self defense by a civilian has been brought to any legislative panel. NONE.

edit--I even read this thread on a very sympathetic forum, and they were struggling and dancing. Came up with the one above, which has been, at best disputed, and NOTHING ELSE.
http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread. ... 198&page=2

Not sure if you are refering to my link, but on the first page alone there were 40 articles, 15 of which said only "a gun" was used. At the bottom there are 164 more pages linked.

Also read your link and how you get they were "dancing " is beyond me.

[woodchip]

now, my memory is refreshed.....the 'debunking' was around the fact that the kid could have used any available weapon, and that no one has been able to demonstrate where the nature of an assault weapon OR a high-cap magazine were ESSENTIAL to the self-defense. So, yes, there are, in fact two examples of such weapons being used for home defense(both by teenagers), but no examples given to date where such types of weapons were necessary to success.

in other words, the teens used the gun laying around the house(well, hopefully stored properly but......) and would have had exactly the same success had that weapon been a standard hunting rifle or handgun.

Now who's dancing.

[callmeslick]

You are either in serious mental illness level denial or lying like a Clinton.
You go back and find it if you are genuinely wanting to have it.
Two examples I can recall from memory was a Dallas security guard who killed two gunmen, hitting the second guman with his eleventh shot from his rifle. The accuracy, speed and the greater than 10 rounds are why he won the fight even though they shot first and out numbered him.

that was his job, for crying out loud, that wasn't an example of private citizen need whatsoever. Oh, and thanks for the gratuitous insult about mental health.....mine is just fine, thanks.

The other one, the one that I posted for you was a young kid aprox 11 yrs old at home with his little sister and used an AR-15 to shoot a couple of home invaders. Again the inherent/handling accuracy of the AR probably was the difference for him.

nonsense, are you suggesting that the handling/accuracy was any way superior to any of a number of guns that are perfectly legal under the proposed legislation? Come on....

I'm not surprised at your denial. That's been your standard operating procedure in this debate from day one. You are extremely dishonest.

[/quote]
actually, I'm as honest as the day is long....I just don't suffer fools gladly, nor bogus arguments.

[callmeslick]

now, my memory is refreshed.....the 'debunking' was around the fact that the kid could have used any available weapon, and that no one has been able to demonstrate where the nature of an assault weapon OR a high-cap magazine were ESSENTIAL to the self-defense. So, yes, there are, in fact two examples of such weapons being used for home defense(both by teenagers), but no examples given to date where such types of weapons were necessary to success.

in other words, the teens used the gun laying around the house(well, hopefully stored properly but......) and would have had exactly the same success had that weapon been a standard hunting rifle or handgun.

Now who's dancing.

not dancing a bit.....as I stated, no one was able to present to the Senate ONE CASE where an assault-style weapon was demonstrably needed and used for personal defense. And, let's face it, were such examples available, they WOULD have been presented.

[woodchip]

Problem with your premise is any semi-auto rifle with a detachable mag., is considered a "assault" rifle. Even my Browning semi-auto .22mag would be illegal. Looks of the rifle don't make it a killing piece of gear, it's the guy holding it that does. And you do know a standard .22 sem-auto with a tube under the barrel holds 15 rounds so that would be a assault rifle also. Your problem slick is your ability to rationalize is severely limited when it comes to the latest liberal project.

[Will Robinson]

...

in other words, the teens used the gun laying around the house(well, hopefully stored properly but......) and would have had exactly the same success had that weapon been a standard hunting rifle or handgun.

You are really weak.
First off, why would anyone want to be the one who goes on TV in the wake of the post Sandy Hook assault on assault weapons and be the guy who says "But assault weapons are good too"!
Especially since that tactic isn't the way to kill the bill....as we have now seen....
Your stupid movement of the goalposts again is weak as always.

Now on to your failed premise.
If a hunting rifle was just as effective at acquiring and hitting a human target there wouldn't be an evolution of the rifle from an animal ambushing weapon used where men climb into deer stands, spread corn bait on the ground, wait silently for hours until a deer walks slowly, unarmed into view....you get the picture.....an evolution from that design into what is a much improved weapon designed for armed human versus armed human combat. That is the truth of it plain and simple.

They weren't called assault rifle by the designers, but they certainly were conceived of and designed to meet a serious need that was left by the poor design of a hunting rifle when used for helping a man withstand an armed assault.

Regardless of the silly rationalizing you apparently need to go through to protect your ego from accepting that reality the fact remains that any legislation that only limits magazines to ten rounds and eliminates the features that fit the arbitrarily arrived at definition for 'assault rifle' does almost nothing to effect the body count in ANY scenario we have experienced.
More people die from being beaten with bare hands and feet than die from ANY kind of rifle!
And by comparison handguns (which are not eliminated at all by the legislation), are Pol Pot and assault rifles are Mother Theresa!
So even if you magically destroy ALL rifles, not just tweak the features of SOME of them you haven't changed a damn thing worth talking about.
Unless of course you are a lying two faced piece of ★■◆● politician talking to a bunch of complete idiots who are oh so easily manipulated as the dumb masses who think you make sense are.

[Krom]

Problem with your premise is any semi-auto rifle with a detachable mag., is considered a "assault" rifle. Even my Browning semi-auto .22mag would be illegal. Looks of the rifle don't make it a killing piece of gear, it's the guy holding it that does. And you do know a standard .22 sem-auto with a tube under the barrel holds 15 rounds so that would be a assault rifle also. Your problem slick is your ability to rationalize is severely limited when it comes to the latest liberal project.

Would be somewhat amusing to call my Marlin model 60 an assault rifle. It isn't exactly the kind of gun I'd think of as ideal for defense, first it would probably take me a couple minutes to get the ammo and get it loaded. Then while it isn't huge or particularly heavy, it also isn't exactly easy to move about with in confined spaces. For home defense I'd probably lean towards a small shotgun, but I could definitely see a solid case for an AR-15 variant too. I wouldn't bother with a large caliber model though, its all about velocity not mass. I'd probably want a revolver or some other low maintenance handgun as a backup though.

Basically for home defense, I think the primary goals would be something that is compact, light, decently powerful, and easy to load/operate even if you are nearly in a panic state. So carefully feeding rounds into a cylinder magazine on the gun is automatically out, even if it holds 14+1 rounds. Hell, even when I was hunting squirrels, I often skipped putting more than a couple rounds in the gun (and pocketed a few more) because filling it to capacity took too long and I usually only needed one shot.

Although I have no intention of actually buying any other guns, just thinking through the scenario that is most likely what I would want. Since we moved to the city, obviously we can't just step out the door and shoot the rabbits/squirrels/skunks anymore like we could out in the sticks, so my aim probably isn't what it used to be. So the Marlin doesn't even get used anymore, it is actually in storage with some of my brothers stuff, not even in the house.

And before you ask, we didn't always shoot squirrels. We got started on it when one of them decided it would be a good idea to chew a hole in our PVC water line into the house, partially flooding the basement and requiring us to move the 100 gallon LP fuel cylinder out of the way then dig a 6 foot deep hole in the mud to patch it up. After that, we declared war on the little bastards. Rabbits were good for occasional target practice, because you will never run out of them. Skunks...Well, if they set up some nice burrows and nest near your house, you can let them stay if you really want, but I won't be held responsible for what your dog will smell like the next day. Or you can trap em too if you want, but I won't be held responsible for what you will smell like the next day either. I also put 9 rounds in what was likely an aggressively rabid fisher once, wild animal like that starts hanging around outside your door and snarling / approaching you, shoot first and ask dumb questions later. Ammo is cheap, rabies is fatal. I guess that does highlight the difference between hunting and defense though, for hunting one or two shots was generally good enough, but when some aggressive animal is approaching you, 9 rounds in 3 seconds seemed pretty reasonable.

[callmeslick]

Ammo is cheap, rabies is fatal. I guess that does highlight the difference between hunting and defense though, for hunting one or two shots was generally good enough, but when some aggressive animal is approaching you, 9 rounds in 3 seconds seemed pretty reasonable.

or, for a very agressive animal like a 6 year old child, it's always useful to be able to run off about 150 rounds in 5 minutes.....
http://www.policymic.com/articles/31401 ... -5-minutes

assault rifles FTW, eh?

[Will Robinson]

Ammo is cheap, rabies is fatal. I guess that does highlight the difference between hunting and defense though, for hunting one or two shots was generally good enough, but when some aggressive animal is approaching you, 9 rounds in 3 seconds seemed pretty reasonable.

or, for a very agressive animal like a 6 year old child, it's always useful to be able to run off about 150 rounds in 5 minutes.....
http://www.policymic.com/articles/31401 ... -5-minutes

assault rifles FTW, eh?

You can do it faster than that if need be without using an 'assault rifle'!

And in spite of the governments attempt to hide the facts it is obvious that Lanza was aware of all that and prepared himself quite well to get the job done efficiently.

There should be no doubt in any ones mind that the proposed assault weapons ban wouldn't have stopped him from bringing more Glocks, for one of hundreds of examples, and no assault weapons if they had been unavailable to him.

So its logic for the win and your implications can be filed in the political rhetoric bin.

[callmeslick]

denial is so funny, yet so sad to see.........let's just keep on having nuts accessing more weapons, faster weapons and higher capacity weapons. That will help address that overpopulation business discussed on the other thread, I suppose........

[Foil]

Were it not for the weightiness of the subject, I'd find it amusing that you guys are alternately making the same point:

"Look at [example of self-defense]."
"No, it wasn't the assault rifle. He could have done the same with other guns."

"Look at [example of mass murder]."
"No, it wasn't the assault rifle. He could have done the same with other guns."

[callmeslick]

fair enough point, Foil, but my point was precisely that it WAS the existence of such weapons that made it possible for Adam Lanza, and the Aurora shooter, and others, to do what they did. Sure, the VA Tech shooter used handguns(Glock, iirc), and certainly, mass murder is POSSIBLE via other means, but I still see NO justification to make assault type weapons as readily available and most especially unregulated and without very stringent background checks, as is currently the case. Further, I find it borders on obscene how some folks are so willing to look the other way and make excuses as to why such commonsense things as magazine size limits and background check reform aren't clearly beneficial to all law abiding citizens.

[woodchip]

In the other thread I provided examples of mass killers that didn't use a assault looking firearm. Background check reform will be hung up on the mental health aspect. Liberals for years actively opposed any records of people participating in a mental health program being available to the public. Now they face the conundrum of having those very same records being made public to somehow salve the passage of a "commonsense" background check to buy a firearm.

[callmeslick]

well, this supposed 'liberal' never saw a problem in either case, so long as persons are not discriminated against in terms of employment, housing or other tangible benefit. Gun ownership is NOT a benefit that should be unrestricted.

[Will Robinson]

fair enough point, Foil, but my point was precisely that it WAS the existence of such weapons that made it possible for Adam Lanza, and the Aurora shooter, and others, to do what they did.

That is just an absolute lie. And you even acknowledge it in your next sentence! Why even say it?!? You are always misrepresenting reality

Sure, the VA Tech shooter used handguns(Glock, iirc), and certainly, mass murder is POSSIBLE via other means, but I still see NO justification to make assault type weapons as readily available and most especially unregulated and without very stringent background checks, as is currently the case.

"assault weapons" are not any less regulated than non-assault weapons so you, once again, have no justification for singling them out. Give us a legitimate reason and we can have a discussion about them but you aren't offering any kind of substantive, reality based reasoning to remove them from our supposedly government approved choice of weapons.

Further, I find it borders on obscene how some folks are so willing to look the other way and make excuses as to why such commonsense things as magazine size limits and background check reform aren't clearly beneficial to all law abiding citizens.

Magazine size limits are really not a factor. Two ten rounders equals one 20 rounder and as you pointed out, although you didn't recognize it, Lanza fired at a very slow rate...easily accomplished by a bag of 10 rounders or using a few of the millions of 15, 20 and 30 rounders that are going to be available for centuries and totally legal because they are already here and thus exempt from the proposed legislation!

As for background check reform...fine...but no national registry...the current system works just fine, we individuals can use it just like a gun store does. We can file our sales just like the store does but no national registry is needed to accomplish the things you 'claim' to want to accomplish.

**************
@foil:
slick and others try to claim the average hunting rifle is just as good as the AR-15 so there is no need for it. I obviously disagree, it is better but it isn't better in the way they claim it is. It isn't the only way the Sandy Hook body count, or any of the others, could be achieved. So you should ask, why do they feel like that falsehood needs to be perpetrated.

I think it is important to note that the argument used to justify banning the AR-15 type weapons is a false premise designed to sound reasonable and narrow enough to leave other 'more reasonable' weapons free from the ban when in fact the definition in the actual Bill does encompass almost all of them and ANY weapon can be included after the Bill is passed.
I think it is reasonable to suggest that if there truly isn't a huge public safety advantage to banning the "assault" rifle then it should be left as a viable choice because it is a perfect defense weapon in many situations. And because we shoukldn't be in the business of passing bad law to fool voters into thinking you did something!!
The statistics over many decades prove that the rifle is hardly a factor in firearms related deaths in America so it is really just a Trojan horse for their Bill's true intent to hide in facilitated by the 'scary black rifle' isn't-good-for-anything-but-massacres campaign.

[callmeslick]

well, if we cannot find national pols with a spine, we'll just have to go state by state.......
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc ... 1094.story

[woodchip]

And that shows what? Knee jerk politicians are your hero? Now tell us if those laws enacted by Ct, NY or Co would of prevented any the killings in the last 20 years

[Will Robinson]

well, if we cannot find national pols with a spine, we'll just have to go state by state.......
http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc ... 1094.story

Nothing in their new laws would have changed a single thing on the day Adam Lanza's mother enabled her bat-crap-crazy-son to take guns she provided him over to the school to slaughter those poor children after he murdered her. Nor will those new laws cause the next Connecticut crazy shooter to have a lower body count.

So Wow! Let your celebrations begin!

Maybe they should consider mandating everyone lose one eye because screwy depth perception would work better than that pile of political bullcrap.

[woodchip]

Welp, it would seem the bastion of liberal death by litigation the ACLU is getting in on the act:

"As Senate Democrats struggle to build support for new gun control legislation, the American Civil Liberties Union now says it’s among those who have “serious concerns” about the bill."

"In an exclusive interview with The Daily Caller, a top lobbyist for the ACLU announced that the group thinks Reid’s current gun bill could threaten both privacy rights and civil liberties."

This will turn a few more Senate votes against the bill.

[woodchip]

And the Senate bill dies a ignominious death:

"The Senate delivered a devastating blow to President Obama’s agenda to regulate guns Wednesday by defeating a bipartisan proposal to expand background checks."

Perhaps the Senators have been keeping a eye on the Gallup polls where:

"Only 4% of Americans say that gun violence or gun issues constitute the most important problem facing the country today, based on our April 4-7 monthly update of the "most important problem" measure. "

So it would seem Obama and the Dems, after Obama's unceasingly campaign efforts to get the camels nose under the tent walls, failed miserably and looks like 2014 will gain more tea party (only viable choice for conservative minded republicans) seats.

With the Boston massacre, the question is now ban magazines or ban pressure cookers?

[Top Gun]

Funny, because I saw a similar poll stating that almost 9 out of 10 Americans support an expansion of background check requirements. But I guess with how many lawmakers the NRA is currently sucking off, that was out of the question.

[callmeslick]

the vote today will be a matter for 2014, but I suspect(except for pockets of hard core conservatism) will lead to the complete wipeout of the pro gun candidates. A massive amount of money will be spent doing so. Now, for Woody's polls, he is correct TG. His poll numbers cite the fact that gun issues are not seen as pre-eminent. Your polling is also accurate.....overwhelming numbers of Americans wanted at least to see universal background checks. The pols used the Woody pols to justify that today's vote will not be remembered. The 2014 campaign will remind voters that TGs polling was utterly ignored. The result will likely be a Tea Party-type backlash, but against incumbant Congresspeople. Time will tell.

[woodchip]

Slick I'm not so sure about a backlash. While I may have been a bit tongue in cheek about mags versus pressure cookers, what the public just had a demonstration of is it doesn't matter what mechanical object it is, mags and cookers are not the danger, it is the people who use them for evil purposes that one has to be concerned about. I suspect when the people responsible for Boston are found they will be mentally sound and thus more scary than the the Sandy Hook killer.

[Will Robinson]

slick, if the vast majority favor something the politicians vote for it. The fact they didn't vote for it tells us the media's characterization of what the vast majority want was unfounded.
I believe you could easily put through numerous changes that the vast majority would support and the politicians would vote for *if* the proposed legislation didn't also include some very bad sections that go much further than the left will admit.
So don't go implying the 'will of the people' has been ignored. The truth lies closer to, the will of the people, having been wrapped around a poison pill, has been recognized as more of a trojan horse than a reasonable measure...

[callmeslick]

time will tell.......and, on that note, it's off for a week of fly fishing for trout! Stay well, stay sane, and stay safe.

[Sergeant Thorne]

I hope those are anadromous trout.

The "will of the people" being ignored is the line to tow...

[flip]

With people being attacked while fishing, jogging, trapped inside of their own houses or sometimes even having wild hogs crash into their house, I think this is a very good reason in itself for AR15's and high capacity mags, since there will at times be 40 or more running together. Having been hog hunting before and shooting one with a Sabot slug right across both lungs, I can attest that these guys are no joke. He was still able to run about 35 yards and lived for at least 10 minutes after being shot.

http://www.marinecorpstimes.com/article ... s-in-Texas

[Sergeant Thorne]

It is a good reason. I heard it used as an example the other day when I watched a video of that Texas range owner showing Pierce Morgan around and giving him a demo and some experience with various firearms, while Peirce constantly tried to spin it his way. On the other hand I'm a little uneasy about the example, because it certainly isn't the best reason not to be disarmed as a an individual, a people, or a country.

[Top Gun]

I can see why you'd want a bigass gun to deal with something as nasty as feral hogs, but what miniscule percentage of the total US population has that issue? The most threatening wild things around here are ★■◆● squirrels who keep going after the bird feeders.

[flip]

Well, I mainly posted it for people who can see no reason for anyone to have them, and I imagine more exist. The feral hog "pig bomb" is a definite growing problem and likely to spread.

“What’s amazing about hogs is the reproductive capability,” said Jaworowski, who has made feral hogs presentations to wildlife-related groups around the nation. “If you start with two boars and two sows, they’ll have two litters a year, but three in 14 months. Their litter size ranges anywhere from four to 14 with an average of six to eight. So if you started with two boars and two sows with six piglets in each litter with a 50-50 sex ratio, how many would you have in three years? You do the math and you end up with 16,000 pigs. The bad thing is that number increases exponentially every six months. Feral hogs become sexually mature at six months of age. So every six months, that number will go up by a factor of four. Of course, that’s with no mortality at all. There is some natural mortality on the hogs, but not enough to have an effect. And six in a litter is a very conservative estimate.

the pig wars are moving north. In Michigan, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota, Ohio, Oregon and Pennsylvania — states where not long ago the only pigs were of the “Charlotte’s Web” variety — state officials are scrambling to deal with an invasion of roaming behemoths that rototill fields, dig up lawns, decimate wetlands, kill livestock, spread diseases like pseudo-rabies and, occasionally, attack humans.

In 1990, fewer than two million wild pigs inhabited 20 states, according to John J. Mayer, the manager of the environmental science group at the Savannah River National Laboratory in Aiken, S.C., who tracked the state populations. That number has now risen to six million, with sightings in 47 states and established populations in 38 — “a national explosion of pigs,” as Dr. Mayer put it.

These things are dangerous and usually attack without any provocation at all. Seems they will become a widespread pestilence within the next 10-20 years.

[Top Gun]

Well ★■◆●...I think it's time we organized a Bacon Brigade and got to eating these bastards.

[woodchip]

mmmmmm...bacon

[flip]

Hehe, they say the meat is just as tasty. I thought the same thing. Could very well help ease food shortages, although like I said, they are mean, nasty bastids too. They will bullrush you from out of nowhere.