Here's where the gun debate should go!

[bae]

Just wanted to repeat this just in case anyone has any doubts as to the agenda of the NRA. There you go.

I'm unclear what you mean by that. I agreed that property owners ought to be able to control the use of their property. I'm not sure what that has to do with the NRA or their secret agenda.

[freein05]

You realize that the best-selling hunting guns over the past decade have been based on the AR-15 platform? And that's where the market is moving? And that even very traditional hunting arms producers have AR-15-based offerings now? And that there are top-notch hunting arms based on the AK platform as well?

The reasons are simple - reliability, ease of maintenance, easy configurability, and so on.



There is very little difference, objectively, between a scary black military-looking semi-automatic rifle, and a modern hunting rifle. Often they are exactly the same item.

For instance, I do a great portion of my varmint control here with a FN P90 rifle, which is a scary-looking very modern semi-auto firearm that has a 50-round magazine, and that the media often breathlessly portrays as the choice of drug cartels because of its alleged armor-piercing capabilities. The reason I use it is because it is tremendously accurate, very light and compact, easy to mount anti-varmint optics on, and can shoot some very nice frangible ammunition that turns into harmless powder when it contacts a hard surface, so there is very little danger of rounds richochetting or travelling any distance through the woods here.

Do those man eating rodents ever shoot back. 50 round magizene you must have an army of rodents in your neighborhood.

You also forgot to add that the AR15 is the in weapon. You can play army and look like a real solder.

[bae]

Do those man eating rodents ever shoot back. 50 round magizene you must have an army of rodents in your neighborhood.

They devour my livestock and crops, and cause operational safety issues at the airstrip here.

You also forgot to add that the AR15 is the in weapon. You can play army and look like a real solder.

I believe I mentioned previously that the AR-15 platform was the top-selling rifle in the USA, and has been for some time. And mentioned a few reasons why, which have nothing to do with "playing army", a task for which artillery and air support is advised.

[Gregg]

How many people would have been killed in that theater with a hunting gun? It doesn't have to be all or nothing.

James Holmes used 4 guns in the shooting. Two were Glock, .40 caliber hand guns. Those are very popular for all the reasons bae listed earlier, but I will grant that they would not usually be considered hunting guns.

The rifle used was a Smith & Wesson made version of Colt's AR-15. It is a military style rifle that is essentially the civilian version of the M-16 carried by most of our troops. As bae also said that is a very popular platform for hunting rifles for the same reason it works well in military operations, and he is exactly correct. It is lightweight, accurate, fairly dependable and easy to work on. I have several friends who routinely use them in ranching duties, so yes, they can be considered a hunting gun.

The shotgun was a Remington 870. That is a pump action shotgun designed specifically for hunting and target shooting. There are models available that have more defensive characteristics (shorter barrels, larger magazines, etc.), but I don't know which version was used in Colorado. I do know that I received one of these as a Christmas present when I was 12 years old. I still have it and it still works great. My kids learned to shoot with guns that were specifically made for young marksmen, but all of them graduated to the Remington at some point in their instruction. My Grandma had 2 of them in her closet when she passed away and I know my Mom still has a couple of Dad's around. Those are all hunting guns in every respect.

Any legally purchased gun I know of can be used for sporting pursuits just like any car can be used to go get bread at the store. Any gun can be misused if the owner has evil intent or is mentally disturbed just like any car can kill someone if the driver is drunk or texting. I do understand the idea that it could be helpful to limit certain types of guns. Its a logical thought if you're not completely familiar with how they all work. With the car analogy comparing hunting guns to "assault weapons" is like comparing a Civic to a Suburban. Both have all the same parts, just different styles and sizes. There isn't much difference at all regarding how they work.

A driver in a Civic or in a Subruban that loses control for whatever reason is a threat to those around him, but deciding which one could inflict more damage depends on any number of other conditions that constantly vary. I'd rather be hit by the Suburban going 5 mph in a parking lot than by the Civic doing 100 mph with a driver hellbent on running me down. A more sensible solution than outlawing either is to properly train the driver of both so accidents are avoided as often as possible.

[freein05]

It is already tightly controlled, and has been since 1934. The NRA helped write that law.

Did you read the quote I posted from the NRA rep in 2008. She indicates that it would be acceptable for individuals to have machine guns in their homes. The NRA is a lot different today then when I was a member 30 years ago. Once a gun nut not always a gun nut. That is me.

[Gregg]

To those who think gun ownership and carrying is a positive thing - do you think private businesses and property owners should have the right to ban guns on their own businesses/properties? I see arguments of carry as a positive thing - however the theatre chain banned weapons from their theatres.

Absolutely they should have the right to ban guns on their property. If you ask me that might even include guns carried by uniformed law enforcement, but that's a different thread. The theater did, as I understand it, have a no gun policy. I don't think James Holmes was inclined to abide by any of society's rules that night, including theater policy.

[bae]

Did you read the quote I posted from the NRA rep in 2008. She indicates that it would be acceptable for individuals to have machine guns in their homes. The NRA is a lot different today then when I was a member 30 years ago. Once a gun nut not always a gun nut. That is me.

Did you read my responses? It *is* acceptable for individuals to have machine guns in the home, and has been, well, forever. They have been regulated heavily since 1934, under legislation the NRA helped to write. Legally owned machine guns are used in essentially zero crimes by civilians. The NRA representative was speaking in the context of current law, not arguing that we should pass some new law to hand out machine guns on street corners. You probably know that.

Then you throw "gun nut" out, so I know you are interested more in cultural warfare than fact or reasoned discourse.

[San Onofre Guy]

I was at an Officer Involved Shooting Saturday evening that turned into a mob riot scene. I was then awakened last night at 2:00 to respond to another Officer Involved Shooting. It isn't pretty when someone shoots at a cop. The cop wasn't shot but there is another gang member that has assumed room temperature.

People say that they need guns for protection! From whom or what?

[freein05]

Bae as stated I meant me. When I was a lot younger I read the NRA magazine, Guns &Amo, and other weapons publications. I had by today's standards a small arsenal.

Pistols: Ruger single six, S&W 44 mag, US Army 45 auto loader.

Rifles: Remington 30-06 auto loader, 30 caliber carbine with 30 round mag, military Sprignfield 30-06, 22 cal bolt action rifle.

Shotguns: two 12 gauge pump shoot guns, and Winchester model 101 over and under 12 gauge shotgun.

I now have the 22 because it was a present from my parents on my 16th birthday and a 12 gauge shotgun for protection from what I don't know. But since I have not shot anything in so many years I would need a shotgun to hit anything.

Again I was only talking about me.

[peggy]

I'm unclear what you mean by that. I agreed that property owners ought to be able to control the use of their property. I'm not sure what that has to do with the NRA or their secret agenda.

http://lezgetreal.com/2012/05/mo-no-...iscrimination/

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/g...428565de7.html

from this article:
"The National Rifle Association is pushing similar gun owner discrimination bills in other states, including Alabama and Tennessee, where the proposal has put lawmakers in a crossfire between gun activists and some of the state's largest employers. Some of the state's largest corporations, including FedEx, Bridgestone and Volkswagen, testified against the legislation and companion gun bills earlier this month."

The way you just casually drop in that not allowing guns in businesses is discrimination fits right in.