We don't need guns

[Isaac]

EDIT: I now realizes that many of you are misreading what I've written here, so I've made a simple version here for those that are having trouble with the text in the original post. http://descentbb.net/viewtopic.php?p=325972#p325972

I like guns, but..

The vast majority of people do not need a gun. I don't need one either. 99.99999% of the time, you can handle a bad situation without a gun. If you can use mace, use mace. And I'd rather hand over my cash than get into a gunfight. "Fine, keep my 30 bucks..." But if you get shot or are getting shot at, I think at that moment you need a gun and you need to shoot back. You only need a gun in circumstances that absolutely need something to be shot. I hope I never need one.

Guns are a waste of money. Unless you use them for hunting, they're probably a waste of money. However, you never want to get your money's worth out of a gun kept for self defense, because it would mean the worse case scenario actually happened.

People don't need to keep a round in the chamber. And if you actually think you need to keep a round in your semi-auto, cocked and locked, you're a moron. Get a double action semi-auto or a revolver. People that carry a Glock with a round in the chamber are idiots. They think that racking the slide will take too much time. Practice your draw-rack-shoot technique if you own a Glock. If you can't, carry your revolver as your primary carry and keep your glock 26 on your ankle. And with that being said:

Modern Revolvers are the greatest kind handgun ever made.

We need more gun control. I just have no idea what would work for the United States. If you thought banning hard-core drugs was hard, just imagine how many people have metal shops in their garage. Just imagine how many gunsmiths there are in this country. Those tools and knowledge will not go away. What works on British people will not work on Americans. But maybe it would; I don't know. I just assume the average American is more comfortable building stuff than the average Brit. But I don't know any Brits, so my opinion isn't worth much.

Take away the toy guns from your kids, because they pretend to shoot each other. Take them away until they pass your own safety test, which includes "I will never point my toy gun at anyone", "If I find a metal gun I should get an adult", and maybe "I will keep my finger out of the trigger guard until I'm about to shoot my toy gun". They can shoot imaginary monsters/bad guys all they want, but if you catch him/her aiming at another, they lose their toy gun for a period of time. You might even issue them a little toy gun license, which they might think is cool. With practicing good habits, if they ever encounter a real gun, they might not point it at each other.

People don't need "assult rifles" and I have lots of trouble arguing against banning them. What I call an assault rifle is any semi-automatic rifle that has magazine extensions available. I don't want them to be banned even though I can't say I'd ever buy a semi-automatic. I will say, if you buy a gun, make sure it's the right one for you; I can't recommend a Smith Airweight to just anyone, because it's a hard gun to shoot. And some people would be better off with a Semi-automatic rifle, because they're easier in a lot of ways. Imagine if you only had one arm, for example.

[Will Robinson]

With regard to a round in the chamber...what's the difference between a gun like the Glock and a revolver (assuming you have all cylinders full in the revolver)?

Both guns fire with a measured trigger pull and have no safety. Racking the slide on a Glock does not leave the striker under enough tension, nor pulled back enough, to be able to strike the primer. Neither the Glock nor a revolver has a hammer or striker that is poised to fall on the primer or pin until the trigger is pulled through a range of motion against the spring tension.

No difference.

Most modern semi auto pistols have fewer moving parts than a revolver, are much easier to field strip and clean/maintain and can carry more rounds in a more ergonomic form.

If I could have only one handgun it would be my Glock 17 or something very much like it.

[Isaac]

Because there's a big difference between a 10lbs trigger that moves a whole inch and a 5lbs trigger that barely moves. If you don't own a revolver go rent one and see the difference next to your Glock. As a side note, the Gen 4s have a heavier trigger because they're aware people carry it cocked and loaded.

Field strip a revolver? Just open the cylinder knock out anything that's a problem and reload. There's no need to field strip a revolver. I've seen revolvers shoot underwater better than glocks, because they don't depend on the ammo to cycle. Your glock is only as good as its ammo. But a Glock is good, don't get me wrong.

[callmeslick]

Issac's initial post is one of the most even-handed, balanced and thoughful pieces of writing on this subject which I've read. Kudos!

[flip]

What you need to do is setup a range in the woods and fire 3 shot bursts running to the left, right and backwards, and while your at it, start shooting with your weak hand.

[Krom]

I am against gun control for one simple reason: it doesn't work.

If you want me on board for a change to gun ownership in America, the only change I would support is a total and complete ban on firearms including the police and military held weapons. Either every law abiding citizen can have weapons, or nobody can have them. There is no happy middle ground when it comes to guns, gradually chipping away at who can own guns and creating ever stronger "controls" just serves to make guns even more dangerous in the meantime.

So basically the only way I could feel comfortable telling a law abiding citizen to give up their guns is if I could honestly guarantee to them that no matter what happens or what situations they face in the future; they will never see another gun anywhere for the rest of their lives for any reason period. But for so long as there is this "I want you to give up your gun(s), but I'm going to keep mine." behavior coming from the government, I'm going to reject gun control.

[Will Robinson]

Because there's a big difference between a 10lbs trigger that moves a whole inch and a 5lbs trigger that barely moves.

The factory specs for glock are 5.5 lbs pull weight and .49 inches of travel, so "barely moves" certainly is wrong.

I don't know exactly what mishap you think you are safe from with a 10 pound pull vs a 5.5 pound pull....or an extra bit of travel but I think based on those specs you are either hyper-concerned with the Glock trigger or far too confident in the safety of a revolver trigger.

Generally speaking no one should carry any handgun without a holster custom fit for the specific weapon that completely encases the trigger.
If you follow that rule then I'm guessing any realistic accidental fire scenarios you can propose would be covered. Any negligent fire scenarios are due to user failure because you shouldn't be handling a loaded weapon if you haven't trained to have good muscle memory of finger being kept out of the trigger guard when drawing the weapon from the holster etc.
A 5.5 pound pull with a .49" travel is not anything close to the proverbial "hair trigger".

Any panic/fumbling/injured draw of the weapon is going to increase the risk of negligent discharge due to a finger going in the trigger guard prematurely by an EXTREMELY large margin. At that point the extra fractions of inch in travel or couple pounds of extra pull are going to be an insignificant safety factor. If you are panicked and snatching your weapon out with a finger on the trigger those differences are nothing but a wish.

I'm very familiar with the differences between revolvers and semi autos. I've owned more of both than I can remember covering 40+ years. Fired thousands of rounds through most of the guns I've owned. Under controlled conditions I don't find one or the other type to be more accurate for the kind of target and range I shoot. I do find the semi auto to be far superior for concealed carry if I want to have more than 5 shots before reload in any kind of caliber I'd choose to carry for defense. And I much prefer a magazine for reload and concealment than a speed loader or speed strip for a revolver.

I carry a Kahr CM9 it holds six 9mm rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber. I usually have it inside my front pocket in a form fitted leather holster designed for pocket carry. Even a 5 shot small Smith J frame is longer, yet has a shorter barrel, fatter and heavier than the Kahr and a good self defense load for 9mm is easier to find than a .38 special loaded hot enough to compete with a good 9mm load.

I love revolvers but I think your assessment of the revolver being somehow safer than a good semi-auto is off base.

[Spidey]

Yes Isaac, we don’t need guns, and here is a short list of other things that are a waste of money.

First Aid Kit
Spare Tire
Fire Escape Ladder
Flood Insurance
Data Backup

[flip]

I agree with Isaac on the revolver. Based mainly on the rarity of even needing it and the fact that you can have more confidence it fires reliably with any brand of ammo you can find. They may not hold as much as a semi, but you can just about be guaranteed it will fire all 5-6 shots every time. May even be slightly more safe, considering the mechanics. Plus I don't like 9mil's, they have much less knock down power than even a .38 in my opinion.

[Isaac]

Issac's initial post is one of the most even-handed, balanced and thoughful pieces of writing on this subject which I've read. Kudos!

Thank you. I did my best.

Yes Isaac, we don’t need guns, and here is a short list of other things that are a waste of money.

First Aid Kit
Spare Tire
Fire Escape Ladder
Flood Insurance
Data Backup

Awww... come on. You skimmed my post...

I am against gun control for one simple reason: it doesn't work.

If you want me on board for a change to gun ownership in America, the only change I would support is a total and complete ban on firearms including the police and military held weapons. Either every law abiding citizen can have weapons, or nobody can have them. There is no happy middle ground when it comes to guns, gradually chipping away at who can own guns and creating ever stronger "controls" just serves to make guns even more dangerous in the meantime.

So basically the only way I could feel comfortable telling a law abiding citizen to give up their guns is if I could honestly guarantee to them that no matter what happens or what situations they face in the future; they will never see another gun anywhere for the rest of their lives for any reason period. But for so long as there is this "I want you to give up your gun(s), but I'm going to keep mine." behavior coming from the government, I'm going to reject gun control.

I completely agree. I don't think a gun ban of any kind would actually work in this country.

I agree with Isaac on the revolver. Based mainly on the rarity of even needing it and the fact that you can have more confidence it fires reliably with any brand of ammo you can find. They may not hold as much as a semi, but you can just about be guaranteed it will fire all 5-6 shots every time. May even be slightly more safe, considering the mechanics. Plus I don't like 9mil's, they have much less knock down power than even a .38 in my opinion.

I'm glad to see another wheel gun guy on here. I like what you said. Let me just add something to the ammo part: There's plenty of power in a 9mm if you get hollow points. But most people seem to carry 9mm FMJs which over penetrate and don't kill the bad guy for hours. On the other hand, if you shot me with a 9mm FMJ, I assume I'd die.

Because there's a big difference between a 10lbs trigger that moves a whole inch and a 5lbs trigger that barely moves.

The factory specs for glock are 5.5 lbs pull weight and .49 inches of travel, so "barely moves" certainly is wrong.

Before I argue, I'm not anti-glock. They are proven and over 90% of cops carry them. You really can't go wrong with a Glock.

I also trust you with your Glock. If you and me were at the range, I would trust you to practice safety even with a round in the chamber; I don't think you'd ever carelessly point it at me or anyone or put your finger in the trigger guard until you're on target.

I don't know exactly what mishap you think you are safe from with a 10 pound pull vs a 5.5 pound pull....or an extra bit of travel but I think based on those specs you are either hyper-concerned with the Glock trigger or far too confident in the safety of a revolver trigger.

...

A 5.5 pound pull with a .49" travel is not anything close to the proverbial "hair trigger".

Let's be clear about something. The ~5.5 lbs is when the trigger "breaks" to fire the Glock. Your .49 inches is just the slack in your trigger. In a revolver your 10lbs trigger is a constant weight that you have to endure for an inch before you trigger "breaks". To me, that's a huge difference.

And anyone is more likely to have a negligent discharge with an out-of-thebox glock than with an out-of-the-box Ruger GP 100.

Generally speaking no one should carry any handgun without a holster custom fit for the specific weapon that completely encases the trigger.

I agree and do know two people the pocket carry a revolver with no holster. One of them leaves three chambers empty before the rotation of the cylinder cycles a live round to the firing pin. The other fully loads and carries hot 357 magnum rounds. I wouldn't do it; holsters are better.

If you follow that rule then I'm guessing any realistic accidental fire scenarios you can propose would be covered. Any negligent fire scenarios are due to user failure because you shouldn't be handling a loaded weapon if you haven't trained to have good muscle memory of finger being kept out of the trigger guard when drawing the weapon from the holster etc.

I agree.

Any panic/fumbling/injured draw of the weapon is going to increase the risk of negligent discharge due to a finger going in the trigger guard prematurely by an EXTREMELY large margin. At that point the extra fractions of inch in travel or couple pounds of extra pull are going to be an insignificant safety factor. If you are panicked and snatching your weapon out with a finger on the trigger those differences are nothing but a wish.

If the pounds are insignificant and you want to reduce a negligent discharge, I think a revolver might be better. And when I say I think, I really think a revolver is better as far as a negligent discharge is concerned.

I'm very familiar with the differences between revolvers and semi autos. I've owned more of both than I can remember covering 40+ years. Fired thousands of rounds through most of the guns I've owned. Under controlled conditions I don't find one or the other type to be more accurate for the kind of target and range I shoot. I do find the semi auto to be far superior for concealed carry if I want to have more than 5 shots before reload in any kind of caliber I'd choose to carry for defense. And I much prefer a magazine for reload and concealment than a speed loader or speed strip for a revolver.

Those two parts I underlined are why the semi-auto is king in our country. Many people would like to carry their revolvers, but because of tough CHL laws, printing is even an offence. If we were allowed to open carry revolvers, more people would carry those, and I think we'd have fewer negligent discharges; our gun laws do not promote revolvers.

I carry a Kahr CM9 it holds six 9mm rounds in the magazine and one in the chamber. I usually have it inside my front pocket in a form fitted leather holster designed for pocket carry. Even a 5 shot small Smith J frame is longer, yet has a shorter barrel, fatter and heavier than the Kahr and a good self defense load for 9mm is easier to find than a .38 special loaded hot enough to compete with a good 9mm load.

I think you've got a great gun for the right reasons.

I love revolvers but I think your assessment of the revolver being somehow safer than a good semi-auto is off base.

It might be, since people do have negligent discharges with revolvers.

[Top Gun]

I am against gun control for one simple reason: it doesn't work.

If you want me on board for a change to gun ownership in America, the only change I would support is a total and complete ban on firearms including the police and military held weapons. Either every law abiding citizen can have weapons, or nobody can have them. There is no happy middle ground when it comes to guns, gradually chipping away at who can own guns and creating ever stronger "controls" just serves to make guns even more dangerous in the meantime.

So basically the only way I could feel comfortable telling a law abiding citizen to give up their guns is if I could honestly guarantee to them that no matter what happens or what situations they face in the future; they will never see another gun anywhere for the rest of their lives for any reason period. But for so long as there is this "I want you to give up your gun(s), but I'm going to keep mine." behavior coming from the government, I'm going to reject gun control.

Here's the big thing for me, though: I'm comfortable with the police and the military and the like carrying firearms because these groups are subject to strict training on the safe and proper ways and times to use firearms, and drill frequently to reinforce those practices. The same cannot be said of your everyday gun owner. Hell, I don't hold the average intelligence of my fellow countrymen in high enough regard to trust most of them with motor vehicles, much less weaponry. If the day comes when every prospective gun owner is required to go through a rigorous training program before purchase, then I fully support the right of anyone who passes it to own any weapons they desire. But as it stands, it's more difficult to legally ride a motorcycle than it is to fire a gun, which is just asinine.

[Isaac]

Top Gun, cops are responders, so they need lots of special training to respond with a team. On bad days, cops have to go into a bad place and fight until more help arrives.

As a citizen, we train only for the worst case scenario, which, on average, only lasts 3 to 10 seconds and at five to fifteen feet away. Why would that require the same amount of training?

[Tunnelcat]

Issac, I've got only one thing to say for only my situation. I own a semi-automatic handgun. I know how to shoot accurately and maintain it. I don't take it with me in public, although I'd get a concealed carry permit if I had to drive long distances alone. It stays in my house and it does have a round chambered and a loaded magazine. I consider it my intruder insurance policy. Someone breaks in and they come after me, they get shot, period, no questions asked. Why? Because I'm a woman and it takes at least 5 minutes for the police to get here, if I could even get the chance to call in the first place. Too much time for bad things to happen, and the world has become a very bad place anymore. The police can't be everywhere all the time.

[Top Gun]

You're certainly right that the scenarios in play are somewhat different, so I guess I should clarify. I would want citizens to undergo training appropriate for that scenario: a certain amount of time on a range under the study of a certified instructor, classroom time to drill basic safety measures into your head, things along those lines. Enough to make sure that they know what they're doing before they even think of opening fire.

[Will Robinson]

You're certainly right that the scenarios in play are somewhat different, so I guess I should clarify. I would want citizens to undergo training appropriate for that scenario: a certain amount of time on a range under the study of a certified instructor, classroom time to drill basic safety measures into your head, things along those lines. Enough to make sure that they know what they're doing before they even think of opening fire.

I've often thought the same thing. It's weird that you get more instruction and have to prove your ability and knowledge of the laws to qualify for a drivers license than you do to get a gun
Part of that is from the very beginning, before there really was any law there were guns and most people that had them were taught how to use them as a matter of course, like the way they were taught how to build a fire or skin a rabbit. In that era the history of government restricting them in any way was the result of protecting the governing elite, not the everyday citizen.

Fast forward to today. If you were to suggest government should restrict our right to a drivers license to mopeds and scooters inside urban environments, that only certain special cases had any need for a truck...that no one should have a vehicle with a gas tank larger than a 50 mile range between fill ups....no one needed to carry more than 4.2 passengers without special permission...no one needs any vehicle with more horse power than it takes to make it up a steep hill at 20 miles per hour...etc. etc.

Try including those kind of restrictions into the current drivers license, automobile regulation and see if you don't find one party or the other get bought up by the automobile lobby.
And don't forget, those restrictions would save lives. More lives than are killed by guns every year probably.

If you could get the anti-gun political operatives to abandon any attempt to restrict-into-obsolescence most/all guns you would find us law abiding gun owners on the side of reasonable regulation. But there is no political victory or payoff in reasonable regulation due to the way the voters have been polarized into opposing sides and the way the issue has been defined by the ruling class.

[Isaac]

tunnelcat, that's excellent, but I don't think you really read my whole post, since it sounds like you're arguing only against only the title of my post. So here's a tl:dr version of the first section: You need a gun for the worst case scenario.


That's true,Top Gun, and I think people need classes on how to be safe with a gun when they're not in a gun fight. I mean, the shooting part only requires practice in drawing, reloading, and shooting, like while crouched, backing away, or on the ground. People never think about "what happens after I shoot someone in self defence?" Or "when is it ok to draw my weapon?" Or "do I have the proper security on my weapons when I leave them at home?" People seem to only think that being able to hit a target and knowing where they can carry is enough, when in fact that's only the tip of the iceberg.

[Tunnelcat]

What's your definition of worst case scenario? The odds of getting your house broken into on any given night, or day, is pretty common. The odds of getting robbed or attacked at night if your car breaks down on a lonely stretch of road is also pretty common. In both those situations, what started out as a normal day or night, quickly became a really bad scenario that could end up as life or death. If I lived out in a rural, isolated area, I'd want to own a semi-automatic rifle and shotgun as well.

[Isaac]

I give an example here: http://descentbb.net/viewtopic.php?p=325924#p325924 Now, there are other words after the bold letters, that should be read too. Also, if you don't read every word I wrote, try not to argue against me if you don't even know what my point is, which is normally the last sentence of each paragraph.

[flip]

I keep my pistol loaded, locked in a filing cabinet. Shotgun is unloaded, shells in the filing cabinet. If somebody busts in my door I'm gonna beat them to death with my guitar. Mostly I figure I'll have time to open the filing cabinet and there's always the guitar

Let's be clear about something. The ~5.5 lbs is when the trigger "breaks" to fire the Glock. Your .49 inches is just the slack in your trigger. In a revolver your 10lbs trigger is a constant weight that you have to endure for an inch before you trigger "breaks". To me, that's a huge difference.

You can get just as quick pulling the hammer back.

[Isaac]

Don't get me wrong, double action is plenty quick.

[Tunnelcat]

I give an example here: http://descentbb.net/viewtopic.php?p=325924#p325924 Now, there are other words after the bold letters, that should be read too. Also, if you don't read every word I wrote, try not to argue against me if you don't even know what my point is, which is normally the last sentence of each paragraph.

OK, here goes. I agree with 1,4 and 6. Not sure about 5. I disagree with 2 and 3.

1. I agree, most people don't need a gun because they don't have the intelligence, stability or patience to not misuse it against themselves or others.

2. I disagree. It's not a waste of money for me personally.

3. I disagree. I like to keep a round in the chamber because the gun makes noise when I chamber the round. I know it's a stupid reason, but if I want to surprise an intruder, I don't want to make noise doing it. If I get attacked in bed, I won't have time TO chamber the round at all.

4. I agree. We need to keep guns out of the hands of gang bangers, criminals and mentally ill people.

5. Not sure about kids with toy guns. I played with squirt guns as a kid. Is that bad?

6. I agree. Assault weapons are weapons of war, meant to kill only one thing, humans in large numbers. Only the military needs them.

[Isaac]

Is what I wrote really that cryptic???

What I actually said (heavily simplified):

1. Buy a gun because you might need one. Maybe not for the first two years, but some day you might.

2. Don't worry about the money. It's worth it.

3. Buy a revolver

4. Buy a revolver

5. Gun bans won't work.

6. Educate your kids about gun safety.

7. The term assault-rifle doesn't actually mean what the media calls it / People should have the right to buy a semi auto rifle.

[sdfgeoff]

If you're in a country where most people have guns, then it may be advisable to have one. As for where I live, I know two people who have guns. Neither are pistols, one is an air-rifle and the other a .22 for hunting.

Statistically, there are 4.51 million people in New Zealand, of which only 230,000 have licensed guns. (according to some brief wikipedia and google searching). There are few enough guns that no-one will attack you with one, so having one as self defence is pointless.
Hence, guns are self-buying. If lot's of people have them, then lot's of people need them to protect themselves. If few people have them, then few people need them.

Interesting Fact: Pepper spray is a 'restricted weapon'!

[Isaac]

Yeah, I don't think you've read my whole original post, word for word... Here's the simple version: http://descentbb.net/viewtopic.php?p=325972#p325972

[sdfgeoff]

I have read it, and am expressing my own opinion on the matter.

[Isaac]

Sorry, if I over reacted to you. TC and Spidey both skimmed my post, so I just assumed most people would.

Anyway, you live in a nice place. Your homicide rate is very low as a result of having fewer violent people.

[Sergeant Thorne]

If you're in a country where most people have guns, then it may be advisable to have one. As for where I live, I know two people who have guns. Neither are pistols, one is an air-rifle and the other a .22 for hunting.

Statistically, there are 4.51 million people in New Zealand, of which only 230,000 have licensed guns. (according to some brief wikipedia and google searching). There are few enough guns that no-one will attack you with one, so having one as self defence is pointless.
Hence, guns are self-buying. If lot's of people have them, then lot's of people need them to protect themselves. If few people have them, then few people need them.

Guns are not simply the answer to gun violence. A gun is the great equalizer. A gun allows a woman to defend herself against 2 attackers who are bigger and stronger. A gun does not require any special level of strength to manipulate, only training. This is the underlying reason for their popularity.

[Spidey]

I didn’t skim anything.

I guess I misunderstood your “cryptic” message.

I never skim the OP if I have any intention of replying.

[BUBBALOU]

I had to stop half way through this thread, when someone is comparing info they found online to someone's 40 years experience and attempting to debate it... Smh

[Isaac]

I had to stop half way through this thread, when someone is comparing info they found online to someone's 40 years experience and attempting to debate it... Smh

If you have an issue with something I said, point it out. I can't be right about everything, but I don't think I've been wrong in this thread.

[jermleenats]

With the continued push by the Democratic Party to disarm the law-abiding citizens of our country, the question is, why do they want us defenseless? The New Jersey Legislature is now deciding whether or not to impose more gun-control laws over and above the ones that already exist. Why are Democratic politicians afraid of law-abiding gun owners? Do they have an ulterior motive for wanting to have a defenseless populace? Why do they want only the criminals to have guns?

[Burlyman]

An ant has no quarrel with a boot. LOL

There's nothing your guns can do to those who have real power.

[Spidey]

You mean like magneto...

[callmeslick]

With the continued push by the Democratic Party to disarm the law-abiding citizens of our country, the question is, why do they want us defenseless? The New Jersey Legislature is now deciding whether or not to impose more gun-control laws over and above the ones that already exist. Why are Democratic politicians afraid of law-abiding gun owners? Do they have an ulterior motive for wanting to have a defenseless populace? Why do they want only the criminals to have guns?

what a crock of crap. Regulation is not denial of ownership. Nice first post.

[Will Robinson]

With the continued push by the Democratic Party to disarm the law-abiding citizens of our country, the question is, why do they want us defenseless? The New Jersey Legislature is now deciding whether or not to impose more gun-control laws over and above the ones that already exist. Why are Democratic politicians afraid of law-abiding gun owners? Do they have an ulterior motive for wanting to have a defenseless populace? Why do they want only the criminals to have guns?

what a crock of crap. Regulation is not denial of ownership. Nice first post.

Lol, right back at you. What a load of crap you just dumped. Dems use regulation to shut down activity that they fail to legislate in one move.

Another example Obama threatening to do exactly what I described: "“If somebody wants to build a coal-fired power plant, they can...

They are trying to do it in all sorts of ways. IRS to shut down opposition political groups etc. etc.

[callmeslick]

paranoia rears it's ugly head. Good start to a Tuesday!

[Will Robinson]

paranoia rears it's ugly head. Good start to a Tuesday!

I cite the truth and slick calls it paranoia.

[callmeslick]

the Truth is not extrapolation of a set of words and then guessing that someone or some group is going to take those words to extremes.

[Will Robinson]

the Truth is not extrapolation of a set of words and then guessing that someone or some group is going to take those words to extremes.

A lie is implying things that have happened have not.

[callmeslick]

get back to me when guns are being confiscated, or law-abiding citizens cannot buy a handgun.