DuckSouth.com

I like where matador is going with his question. I am also not condoning the laws that just got put on the fast track to legislature, but I think we all know its coming.

matador1 wrote:I'm going to play devils advocate here and ask a question. Without going into a tirade of "it opens doors to stricter gun control later" why should assault type weapons be available to the general public? I'm not condoning outlawing them I just want opinions.
I'm of the mindset that sooner or later (probably sooner) gun owners are going to have to make some concessions on guns, how they are obtained, who can obtain them, what they can obtain, etc. Seems to me that assaulkt type weapons will be the first atatcked and I'm not sure I understand the logic of the common citizen and why they need one. John Q public's perception will that of if the shooter Friday had only the two pistols or even the two pistols and a hunting rifle the damage could have been less.

Again, I'm asking for enlightenemnt, not an argument. Would especially like to hear from LEO who have to worry about these type weapons being used against them.

Here's a scenario...If the Laws are changed and Guns are outlawed...What changes? People break laws everyday. What's one more? If i wanted to kill someone with a knife, i can promise you. i could go into a school and kill 5 or 6 without even breaking a sweat. I just don't see what changing the laws will change in our society. That's just my opinion

The Sandy Hook shooter broke an estimated 41 laws. Maybe #42 would stop it? Riiiiiiiiiiight.

Maybe double the recipe and make it 82 laws? That'll do it.

Buckwabit wrote:

matador1 wrote:I'm going to play devils advocate here and ask a question. Without going into a tirade of "it opens doors to stricter gun control later" why should assault type weapons be available to the general public? I'm not condoning outlawing them I just want opinions.
I'm of the mindset that sooner or later (probably sooner) gun owners are going to have to make some concessions on guns, how they are obtained, who can obtain them, what they can obtain, etc. Seems to me that assaulkt type weapons will be the first atatcked and I'm not sure I understand the logic of the common citizen and why they need one. John Q public's perception will that of if the shooter Friday had only the two pistols or even the two pistols and a hunting rifle the damage could have been less.

Again, I'm asking for enlightenemnt, not an argument. Would especially like to hear from LEO who have to worry about these type weapons being used against them.

Here's a scenario...If the Laws are changed and Guns are outlawed...What changes? People break laws everyday. What's one more? If i wanted to kill someone with a knife, i can promise you. i could go into a school and kill 5 or 6 without even breaking a sweat. I just don't see what changing the laws will change in our society. That's just my opinion

Actually that's not correct. Studies have been done. It's easier to pull a trigger than physically stab someone.

matador1 wrote:

Buckwabit wrote:

matador1 wrote:I'm going to play devils advocate here and ask a question. Without going into a tirade of "it opens doors to stricter gun control later" why should assault type weapons be available to the general public? I'm not condoning outlawing them I just want opinions.
I'm of the mindset that sooner or later (probably sooner) gun owners are going to have to make some concessions on guns, how they are obtained, who can obtain them, what they can obtain, etc. Seems to me that assaulkt type weapons will be the first atatcked and I'm not sure I understand the logic of the common citizen and why they need one. John Q public's perception will that of if the shooter Friday had only the two pistols or even the two pistols and a hunting rifle the damage could have been less.

Again, I'm asking for enlightenemnt, not an argument. Would especially like to hear from LEO who have to worry about these type weapons being used against them.

Here's a scenario...If the Laws are changed and Guns are outlawed...What changes? People break laws everyday. What's one more? If i wanted to kill someone with a knife, i can promise you. i could go into a school and kill 5 or 6 without even breaking a sweat. I just don't see what changing the laws will change in our society. That's just my opinion

Actually that's not correct. Studies have been done. It's easier to pull a trigger than physically stab someone.

9/11 killed thousands and with ZERO guns. It was the dreaded box cutter that started it.

Buckwabit wrote:

matador1 wrote:I'm going to play devils advocate here and ask a question. Without going into a tirade of "it opens doors to stricter gun control later" why should assault type weapons be available to the general public? I'm not condoning outlawing them I just want opinions.
I'm of the mindset that sooner or later (probably sooner) gun owners are going to have to make some concessions on guns, how they are obtained, who can obtain them, what they can obtain, etc. Seems to me that assaulkt type weapons will be the first atatcked and I'm not sure I understand the logic of the common citizen and why they need one. John Q public's perception will that of if the shooter Friday had only the two pistols or even the two pistols and a hunting rifle the damage could have been less.

Again, I'm asking for enlightenemnt, not an argument. Would especially like to hear from LEO who have to worry about these type weapons being used against them.

Here's a scenario...If the Laws are changed and Guns are outlawed...What changes? People break laws everyday. What's one more? If i wanted to kill someone with a knife, i can promise you. i could go into a school and kill 5 or 6 without even breaking a sweat. I just don't see what changing the laws will change in our society. That's just my opinion

Buckwabit, he didn't say "guns are outlawed" which would include all guns. He said assault rifles. And he specifically asked to lay aside, for a moment, the reasoning that it would be the first step towards outlawing guns altogether. I, for one, am interested in hearing reasons. An AR is not even the best weapon to use in most home defense situations and is certainly not practical to carry on your person for self defense. I get that several of you guys like to play with them mostly as they are great guns to customize and good for a variety of sporting opportunities.

I for one, see this problem. Do we really want the citizens to be outgunned by their government more than they already are? I mean, we already don't have F-18's and long range missiles, not to mention fully automatic weapons (not that I think that's a good idea). But if it is a legitimate argument that freedom means the citizens not being defenseless even against their own government's attempt at tyranny, then it stands to reason that the guns allowed for citizens to have should be a legitimate threat. Just a thought.

matador1 wrote:I'm going to play devils advocate here and ask a question. Without going into a tirade of "it opens doors to stricter gun control later" why should assault type weapons be available to the general public? I'm not condoning outlawing them I just want opinions.
I'm of the mindset that sooner or later (probably sooner) gun owners are going to have to make some concessions on guns, how they are obtained, who can obtain them, what they can obtain, etc. Seems to me that assaulkt type weapons will be the first atatcked and I'm not sure I understand the logic of the common citizen and why they need one. John Q public's perception will that of if the shooter Friday had only the two pistols or even the two pistols and a hunting rifle the damage could have been less.

Again, I'm asking for enlightenemnt, not an argument. Would especially like to hear from LEO who have to worry about these type weapons being used against them.

It's a legitimate question, but just because it looks like an assault rifle does not mean it is. An assault rifle is selective fire of automatic or burst, which none of the the guns bought off the shelf today are... The assault weapons ban was a MUCH broader piece of legislation

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine


The push that I heard is to limit the magazine size to 10 or less, but the problem is that when they right these bill they leave it broad based to exclude much more than the original intent. The last push was to ban armor piercing rounds. Sounds great, but they defined armor peircing as anything that is more than about 2500 fps.. Well there goes the 243, 30-06 and so on..

Do I need a semi auto that holds 30 rounds of 223? No, but I have one and it is fun to shoot...Would it be ok with me if they ban large capacity magazines, yeah I guess so... But semi auto pistols and rifles are designed to reload quickly, so it doesn't matter if they have 3 magazines with 30 rounds in it, or 9 with 10 rounds in it.. Those that are pro gun control will use the terminology to push through changes that sound good on the surface, but have bigger effects than what us gun owners will know.

Here's a scenario...If the Laws are changed and Guns are outlawed...What changes? People break laws everyday. What's one more? If i wanted to kill someone with a knife, i can promise you. i could go into a school and kill 5 or 6 without even breaking a sweat. I just don't see what changing the laws will change in our society. That's just my opinion[/quote]

Actually that's not correct. Studies have been done. It's easier to pull a trigger than physically stab someone.[/quote]


9/11 killed thousands and with ZERO guns. It was the dreaded box cutter that started it.[/quote]

Again, good try but off topic. Killers were there to do the most destruction possible and were part of an organized crime spree. The average meantally ill Joe Schmoe in the US won't have the training or foresight to perform 9/11 type things. Too much planning and cooperation/ cohersion involved.

It's a legitimate question, but just because it looks like an assault rifle does not mean it is. An assault rifle is selective fire of automatic or burst, which none of the the guns bought off the shelf today are... The assault weapons ban was a MUCH broader piece of legislation

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine


The push that I heard is to limit the magazine size to 10 or less, but the problem is that when they right these bill they leave it broad based to exclude much more than the original intent. The last push was to ban armor piercing rounds. Sounds great, but they defined armor peircing as anything that is more than about 2500 fps.. Well there goes the 243, 30-06 and so on..

Do I need a semi auto that holds 30 rounds of 223? No, but I have one and it is fun to shoot...Would it be ok with me if they ban large capacity magazines, yeah I guess so... But semi auto pistols and rifles are designed to reload quickly, so it doesn't matter if they have 3 magazines with 30 rounds in it, or 9 with 10 rounds in it.. Those that are pro gun control will use the terminology to push through changes that sound good on the surface, but have bigger effects than what us gun owners will know.[/quote]


Very good stuff, thsi is what I was looking for, thanks. So my rebuttal if I were on the other side would be.

"The last push was to ban armor piercing rounds." You're right, it's irrelevant. The problem is piercing armor, it's piercng innocent people.

"Would it be ok with me if they ban large capacity magazines, yeah I guess so" This is what I see happening sooner than later. Let's be honest. Other than fun, what do you need it for. Close quarters fighting, defending your home I'd rather have 5 loads of buckshot in a shotgun than 30 rounds of 223. Average person is not going to stand their long enough to empty the 5 much less 30. The flight instinct is going to take over.


"But semi auto pistols and rifles are designed to reload quickly, so it doesn't matter if they have 3 magazines with 30 rounds in it, or 9 with 10 rounds in it.." Not entirely true. Again, the average person is not trained in combat therefore the flight instinct takes over or the realization of what is happening takes over with every clip being emptied. Sort of the same principal of the knife attack mentioned above. The more humans see blood the more most relent and withdraw.

I'm more scared as you are that it's not what's written into th elaw as much as what will be percieved once it is passed. Scares me bad!

cwink wrote:

matador1 wrote:I'm going to play devils advocate here and ask a question. Without going into a tirade of "it opens doors to stricter gun control later" why should assault type weapons be available to the general public? I'm not condoning outlawing them I just want opinions.
I'm of the mindset that sooner or later (probably sooner) gun owners are going to have to make some concessions on guns, how they are obtained, who can obtain them, what they can obtain, etc. Seems to me that assaulkt type weapons will be the first atatcked and I'm not sure I understand the logic of the common citizen and why they need one. John Q public's perception will that of if the shooter Friday had only the two pistols or even the two pistols and a hunting rifle the damage could have been less.

Again, I'm asking for enlightenemnt, not an argument. Would especially like to hear from LEO who have to worry about these type weapons being used against them.

It's a legitimate question, but just because it looks like an assault rifle does not mean it is. An assault rifle is selective fire of automatic or burst, which none of the the guns bought off the shelf today are... The assault weapons ban was a MUCH broader piece of legislation

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine


The push that I heard is to limit the magazine size to 10 or less, but the problem is that when they right these bill they leave it broad based to exclude much more than the original intent. The last push was to ban armor piercing rounds. Sounds great, but they defined armor peircing as anything that is more than about 2500 fps.. Well there goes the 243, 30-06 and so on..

Do I need a semi auto that holds 30 rounds of 223? No, but I have one and it is fun to shoot...Would it be ok with me if they ban large capacity magazines, yeah I guess so... But semi auto pistols and rifles are designed to reload quickly, so it doesn't matter if they have 3 magazines with 30 rounds in it, or 9 with 10 rounds in it.. Those that are pro gun control will use the terminology to push through changes that sound good on the surface, but have bigger effects than what us gun owners will know.

I do not want to sound disrespectful but I must ask why the technical specs on a weapon are a concern when 1st graders and teachers are the target. Slow, reduced capacity weapons can harm MANY unarmed innocent people. Box cutters can and have been used to take over planes and crash them into buildings.
Maybe you can possibly reduce the number of slain but the root problem is not the gun and never will be.

tica-tica wrote:

cwink wrote:

matador1 wrote:I'm going to play devils advocate here and ask a question. Without going into a tirade of "it opens doors to stricter gun control later" why should assault type weapons be available to the general public? I'm not condoning outlawing them I just want opinions.
I'm of the mindset that sooner or later (probably sooner) gun owners are going to have to make some concessions on guns, how they are obtained, who can obtain them, what they can obtain, etc. Seems to me that assaulkt type weapons will be the first atatcked and I'm not sure I understand the logic of the common citizen and why they need one. John Q public's perception will that of if the shooter Friday had only the two pistols or even the two pistols and a hunting rifle the damage could have been less.

Again, I'm asking for enlightenemnt, not an argument. Would especially like to hear from LEO who have to worry about these type weapons being used against them.

It's a legitimate question, but just because it looks like an assault rifle does not mean it is. An assault rifle is selective fire of automatic or burst, which none of the the guns bought off the shelf today are... The assault weapons ban was a MUCH broader piece of legislation

Semi-automatic rifles able to accept detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Flash suppressor, or threaded barrel designed to accommodate one
Grenade launcher (more precisely, a muzzle device that enables launching or firing rifle grenades, though this applies only to muzzle mounted grenade launchers and not those mounted externally).
Semi-automatic pistols with detachable magazines and two or more of the following: Magazine that attaches outside the pistol grip
Threaded barrel to attach barrel extender, flash suppressor, handgrip, or suppressor
Barrel shroud that can be used as a hand-hold
Unloaded weight of 50 oz (1.4 kg) or more
A semi-automatic version of a fully automatic firearm.
Semi-automatic shotguns with two or more of the following: Folding or telescoping stock
Pistol grip
Fixed capacity of more than 5 rounds
Detachable magazine


The push that I heard is to limit the magazine size to 10 or less, but the problem is that when they right these bill they leave it broad based to exclude much more than the original intent. The last push was to ban armor piercing rounds. Sounds great, but they defined armor peircing as anything that is more than about 2500 fps.. Well there goes the 243, 30-06 and so on..

Do I need a semi auto that holds 30 rounds of 223? No, but I have one and it is fun to shoot...Would it be ok with me if they ban large capacity magazines, yeah I guess so... But semi auto pistols and rifles are designed to reload quickly, so it doesn't matter if they have 3 magazines with 30 rounds in it, or 9 with 10 rounds in it.. Those that are pro gun control will use the terminology to push through changes that sound good on the surface, but have bigger effects than what us gun owners will know.

I do not want to sound disrespectful but I must ask why the technical specs on a weapon are a concern when 1st graders and teachers are the target. Slow, reduced capacity weapons can harm MANY unarmed innocent people. Box cutters can and have been used to take over planes and crash them into buildings.
Maybe you can possibly reduce the number of slain but the root problem is not the gun and never will be.

I agree, it's not the gun, it's the person behind it.. My point was that in the wake of this tragedy, some people might give in on certain laws that the might otherwise not have, and the net effect will be no different.

I will definitely have to respond to this thread when I get home. Too much to type on a smartphone right now.

I totally agree it's the person not the gun. However, let's be honest, had this guy not had access to a Bushmaster there is a really good chance we might ot be mourning as many children's death right now.

And again, I'm as scared as anyoone as to where the line gets drawn once gun control starts tightening. But I know that sooner or later as gun owners we are goign o be pressed to give up somehting. I for one would give up a weekend of plinking with a 100 round clip than giving up my hunting rifles. It's a long hard road that never bends.

matador1 wrote:I totally agree it's the person not the gun. However, let's be honest, had this guy not had access to a Bushmaster there is a really good chance we might ot be mourning as many children's death right now.

And again, I'm as scared as anyoone as to where the line gets drawn once gun control starts tightening. But I know that sooner or later as gun owners we are goign o be pressed to give up somehting. I for one would give up a weekend of plinking with a 100 round clip than giving up my hunting rifles. It's a long hard road that never bends.

I agree. I just relate it to seat belt laws. It might reduce the number of deaths but is only a band aid on a HUGE cultural problem.

That boys poor mother is to blame, IMO, I would like to think, if that was my kid, he would not have access to those guns..

Its easy to say what you would do or not.