DreamLyrics™ Play-by-Post Forums Front of House Our Community Review Film TV Firearms

OK ... it just struck me ... with so many people in movies 'dumping' perfectly good guns of all sorts ... why go to the gun store? Just go down to the dump, spend a bit of time ... and you have a gun that 1.) didn't cost you anything and 2.) one that cannot be traced back to you <vbg>

We're likely on far opposite ends of this discussion. I've never fired a firearm and intend to leave this planet having never done so.

I'm with Neptune!

I have never had a gun ... don't =plan= to get one, but ya never know. With the way things seem to be going here ... <sigh>

As part of my involvement with BSA I shoot long guns with teens and adults all the time. Always comes with a safety course first and always with a licensed instructor present. We do archery as well so not just firearms.

Guns are tools. Like knives, lawn mowers, hammers, and screwdrivers. They have no mind of their own. They have the potential to be dangerous if handled improperly and like any other tool have the potential to be used to harm someone else. However that is on the person using them.

It is very important for youth to understand the danger guns can pose if handled improperly and how to treat them with caution and respect as (especially here in the US) they are likely to come into contact with firearms during their life and having learned how to handle them safely could save their own life as well as others.

I don't hunt and I don't own any guns, but I can tell you that target shooting, especially with black powder muzzle loaders and flintlocks, is a ton of fun.

<sigh> yeah all of the 'tools' you mentioned can kill people. But ... so ya know ... even a bar stool or a pencil can be lethal.

And yeah, education is very important!!

FWIW, I have shot muzzle loaders and a 1911 a couple of times over the years. Doesn't make me want to have one around the house though <wink>

I taught archery and target practice for the BSA as well when Michael was young. Always heavy emphasis on safety.


I own a 12 gauge shotgun that I bought years ago. Deputy told me one time that you pump a 12 gauge and 99% of home invaders will leave. No one wants to mess with a shotgun.

I also own the .38 that my dad carried as an F-man which was a civilian police group deputized to help patrol out in the country in rural Illinois where I grew up.

I've done my share of clay pigeon shooting. Mostly with under-and-overs. Shot pumps, pistols, revolvers, SMGs and rifles, full auto, burst fire on holiday.

If I was allowed, I'd definitely own an MP5K-PDW. That thing was such a joy to shoot and very handy.

My dad ... ummmm ... 'retained' the 1911 auto from his time in the service (just after ww2). My brother and I ... borrowed ... it a couple of times to 'kill' the evil trees in our yard <chuckle> That was my only experience with a 'hand gun'.

I 'learned' 'long guns' mostly at Culver where I was in a 'competition' rifle group <g> It was only 22s though <wink>

Yeah, 22s are what we use in scouts mostly for target shooting. Although there is also Skeet shooting using shotguns. No pistols.

I have gotten to use black powder rifles a few times at special events and it was a blast.

There is a 'site' here called 'The Old Fort' (as in Fort Wayne <g>). It is a recreation of the fort that was here until 1819 (=if= memory serves <g>) Not sure if it is still manned and open for 'visitors', but 'back in the day' they had 'actors' (like me <g>) who 'played' notable people that manned the fort.

We were lucky enough (in my day) to be given some 'training' on the loading and firing of the 'breach load' muskets that were used there. It was 'educational' and fun <wink>

There is a distinct difference between rural and urban need for guns.

Some groups should have guns, like police, soldiers and security guards. As most have stated, safety and maintenance training are critical. The issue is really about "civilians". If you are a hunter - especially if you consume the animals that you shot, I understand and I sure hope you've been trained and are not a lunatic. I was vocally anti-guns after Sandy Hook but after a conversation with a colleague, my position softened.

Urban and suburban communities do not need guns but those who live in a rural community do. It's a matter of how long it takes for police to get to you when there is trouble. In a residential suburb or city, it's a matter of a few minutes. In a rural area it could take 20 minutes or more for help to arrive. Otherwise, the argument that a gun makes you safer doesn't hold water for me.

I am OK with gun ownership as long as there is mandatory training and testing as well as a certification process that includes psychological evaluations and criminal background checks.

As for military grade weapons, <sheesh>

I should note that me and my household have been felony crime victims 9 times in my life. 4 autos stolen, 4 burglaries and one pickpocketing. One of the burglaries was a break-in to my apartment. My wife was at home with one of my sons asleep in his crib. A man broke in through the kitchen window and my wife confronted him. Had she had a gun, she would be dead. The police explained that burglar, seeing an unarmed person, decided to bolt out the door. She was safe because she was not a threat to him other than to turn him in. Most thieves are looking for money, not life in prison.

It's interesting to note that my wife had to unlock the door for him!

I disagree ... a bit <wink>

If you could keep guns out of the hands of the 'bad guys' ... I would have less of a problem with 'gun control'. The problem is that ... if there are guns, the bad guys will have them. In that sense, urbans probably need them more than rural folks. Have you ever had to get a 'police response'?? In the time it takes them to 'get there' ... you could all be dead <shrug>

I agree with the 'licensing' thing though. I mean ... ya gotta git a license to operate a car for crying out loud ... of course you can still kill a lot of people with a car <sigh>

Yeah. Here's a question regarding the need for guns for self-protection in rural versus urban areas. When was the last time you were mugged in a forest?

The stories of armed people protecting themselves and others from criminals (even, in fact, stories of armed civilians saving police officers) are endless. But of course so are the stories of people hurting themselves or others with guns, which simply points out my original point. A gun is a tool. It should not be used in untrained hands. If you are afraid of it, or not willing to become trained in its use, and practice often to ensure you know how to use it, you are better off not having one.

And all of the above aside, I was not speaking about pistols or even using guns for hunting or for self-defense. I was talking about target shooting, which I should be able to do no matter where I live.

Just because I have not been mugged doesn't mean that it isn't happening to others <shrug>

I agreed that something along the lines of a 'driver's license' for gun owners would be good. Oh!! Wait!! Almost every place in the US =does= require a 'permit' to carry a hand gun and ... at least where I have lived ... you had to 'pass' a test to get it.

So where have you lived that did not allow 'gun ranges' where you could shoot??

Never mind MikeD. You're not following what I was saying, which was basically agreeing with you. But talking about handguns for self-protection, it is more than having safety training and getting a license. You have to practice all the time, and have the right mind-set. You can't be afraid of the gun and think others will also be afraid and all you have to do is waive it around like a magic talisman and criminals will run away. If you take it out you must be prepared to use it. Once you hesitate, that is when the criminal can take it away from you and use it on you. If you are not willing to use it you shouldn't have it.

There is no legal handgun ownership or handgun shooting ranges in the UK. And rifles (and rifled shotguns) are limited to bolt-action, lever-action only.

You can get pretty much any kind of smooth-bore shotgun though, and for those you don't need a full firearms licence, only a basic shotgun licence.

Hunting is remarkably bureaucratic. The cartridge you're allowed to use is linked to the largest quarry you're hunting.

So if your firearms licence grants you permission to use your 7.62mm rifle to hunt deer primarily, it can be extended to hunt smaller quarry with the same 7.62mm rifle.

However, if you want to shoot smaller quarry only, such as fox, you would need a .223 rifle and would not be granted permission for a 7.62mm. Phew!

Also, a slightly funny note from an American perspective. In the UK your rifle will generally be illegal without a suppressor.

And how effective is your gun control? FWIW, it pretty much sux in the US :-/

It's very effective at keeping guns out of the hands of everybody tbh. Getting a firearms licence is a pain in the jacksy and you can only get a hunting rifle with it anyway, so what's the fun in that!

There are target shooters and hunters who enjoy their sports, so I shouldn't complain. Neither really appeals to me but I do enjoy shooting more high octane firearms. Still, if it really bothers me I can travel to Prague or Las Vegas for that sort of thing.

As for criminals, firearms offences in the UK are very rare compared to the US and the weapons available on the black market are usually shoddy quality, Eastern European surplus. So that's the benefit of tight gun controls.

In 2019 (latest data), UK had 0.0049 gun murders per 100,000. The USA by comparison had 4.6 gun murders per 100,000 in 2017 (latest data).

UK-style controls wouldn't work in the States though. Too many weapons already in circulation and porous borders North and South.

Just so ya know ... a =large= percentage of the guns in the US that are used for 'bad things' are 'illegal'. Bad guys don't seem to have any problem getting guns <sigh>

Absolutely. You can only have effective gun control if you can control gun availability. Controlling gun ownership is the easier and more minor problem to solve.

Yes, Neal. Rabbit has already escaped from the hat here. There are more guns than people in the US. Additionally, there's the pesky Constitutional issue guaranteeing people a right to own guns. Because of that the gun control arguments here are not about eliminating private ownership, they are more about trying to prevent Felons and people with mental health issues from getting them. Most other discussion is just about where you can carry your gun and where you can't. Automatic (so called 'assault') weapons have always been illegal, but some people like the look and feel of semi-automatic weapons that look like assault weapons. Personally I don't see the appeal, but some do.

Differently than in the UK, since it is so easy here for criminals to get high quality guns (whether legally or illegally) there is a secondary argument about people who want to have a concealed handgun for self-protection. Where can they carry it? What licensing and training do they need? etc.

And to make it all the more complicated, here in the US every state has its own laws. There are a few Federal laws but most firearm laws are local. What is legal here in TN is illegal in NY or CA forex.

Fwiw, if you vote for me as president, not only would it be highly improbable and a waste of your vote but I would ban all manufacture and sale of handguns and handgun ammunition in all States. Private citizens would only be allowed to own shotguns or rifles. They could be fully automatic assault rifles for all I care, so 2nd Amendment nuts can shut up. They just couldn't be under certain dimensions and neither could their cartridges.

No one wants to lug a rifle around everywhere unless they really have to; just ask infantry grunts!

Nem ... yeah, pretty much like everything ... for example, the people driving around in cars with out a license and/or ... more often ... the appropriate insurance <sigh>

However, if it was as simple as enacting 'laws' ... how is it that there are so many 'unregistered' illegal firearms on the streets ... when (as far as I know) ... there are not many places in the US where you can =legally= have an unregistered firearm ... and yet they 'abound' (at least here in the US <g>) :-/

Zeim, yeah, I appreciate my 'right' to own a firearm for the protection of me and my family. And I don't particularly like the idea of folks being able to legally wander around with automatic assault rifles and the like. But I =do= get why some people don't 'trust' the 'establishment' to 'protect then' while there are so many 'illegal' weapons out there. And I also get that it is a 'land of confusion' for those that want to have 'legal' protection.

Nem - You would need to get a constitutional amendment, ratified by a majority of those gun toting wackos (as well as regular folks), to implement that sort of change. And keep in mind ... that would just mean that only the 'bad guys' and the ... never around when you need 'em ... 'authorities' would have them <shrug> While I am not 'enthusiastic' about our current situation ... it =could= be a lot worse!!!

Well, put in this way, the War in Afghanistan averaged 10 violent deaths per 100,000 over its 20 year span. And that's with Taliban, al-Quaeda vs the might of the NATO armed forces using every conventional weapon at their disposal including air power.

So given the scale of the problem in the USA, I think bold measures would be required whilst protecting the 2nd Amendment, with the understanding that you wouldn't be lopping off the problem in one fell swoop, rather strangling it off slowly but surely.

Vote NEM! "We don't need to make America great again, it already is great!"

Well ... while there is a lot of 'violence' in both ... I don't think the two are the same.

So what is your proposal ... to have 'law enforcement' 'strip search' every home in the US looking for 'illegal' fire arms??

Neal - Problem with your proposal is it is illegal. The Federal government only has control over interstate commerce. They cannot do anything about gun sales or manufacture if it occurs wholly within a state. Not to mention the Supreme Court would never allow it. They've already ruled the 2nd Amendment covers handguns.

Now, for manufacture it might have some effect as it would be very hard for a gun manufacturer to have 100% of all of its parts be provided in a single state, but sales are State by State and controlled by the State laws. At best it could impact interstate sales.

Federal Government here has limited powers, on purpose. Each individual State has a lot of control over what happens within its borders. The name of the country is a little more than just a name. In many ways it is a collection of individual Sovereign States who have granted the Federal government powers to act in their name in specific instances but who maintain, and guard, their sovereignty much of the time.

Zeim,

Legal or not today, Nem's proposal is good law. States rights are a huge problem. 50 extra governments, 50 different tax structures, 50 different social laws. It's a big reason why this country is ripping apart at the seams. Legal doesn't mean good or right. Laws are made to be broken and changed. This democracy is in shambles and it'll be difficult to convince me otherwise. The UK has proven to be much more sensible about guns and a lot of things than the US.

I don't know Zeim. The 'US government' has passed laws that supersede state laws. Federal Income Tax comes to mind <g> Now whether they could get enough support from the states for some sort of 'National Gun Laws' ... I am not hopeful <shrug>

Nep- Yes, we've always disagreed on that. I see State Law as one of the BEST parts of the US structure. No "Tyranny of the Majority", or at least a bit less, this way. For example, if I like guns I can move to a State with very few gun laws. If I hate guns I can move to a state with very strict gun laws. You can't do that if the whole country had homogenous laws. Then is becomes the majority imposing its will on the minority. That's great when you agree with the majority. Not so great when you are in the minority camp. And of course today's Majority can be tomorrow's minority so be careful what you wish for.

As a member of a minority group with a long history of abuse (including sanctioned murder) by the majority I am particularly sensitive to anything that would allow trampling on minority rights and opinions.

Without State Laws we'd never have seen LGBTQ rights advance. We'd never have seen Marijuana becoming legalized. These movements started at the State level and progressed from there. In fact Marijuana is still listed as a Schedule 1 Drug Federally (i.e. a highly addictive drug with no recognized medical use, even though there have clearly been shown to be medical uses for it.) If you had to wait for a National majority to pass anything we would not have any of those advances yet.

And of course there is realism. Beyond the fact the Supreme Court has ruled multiple times you can't do what Neal and you are suggesting with handguns, you would never be able to confiscate hundreds of millions of guns from their owners. In fact if you tried you would likely see an actual insurrection.

MikeD - Yes, they have. But this particular proposed one is Unconstitutional and when the Feds try that the law is typically negated by the court. Just as they negated gun laws in Washington D.C. as too restrictive. Additionally, we see States passing their own Marijuana laws in direct defiance of Federal law.

We will always disagree.
You call it tyranny of the majority but it's tyranny when the minority denies the majority. That is not Democracy, but we've discussed that before. The US is not a true democracy. The tyranny you note was an autocratic nationalistic movement (Nazi's) and it's a longer discussion we will not get into here.

Back to the discussion at hand. The constitution allows for itself to be amended. A new amendment is needed to make gun ownership illegal like it is in the UK but assault weapon bans and strict rules around gun ownership and use can be applied by congress and is well within the criteria of "well regulated militia" clause of the 2nd amendment. Starting with an assault weapon ban, strict licensing regulations, firearm tracking, etc. are where it can start. And as for the guns out there possession of an unregistered weapon would become a crime. Going forward, new weapons would

As for marijuana, it will be legal before the midterm elections. It's the one issue that has bipartisan support and which the majority of the public overwhelmingly supports.

Yeah Zeim. There has always been a conflict between state and national level 'laws'. It is one of the things that makes this such a great country ... as you point out. I can go live where the 'laws' are more in line with what I want.

Nep, I think you are taking too narrow a view. If you think 'majority rules' are so great ... take a look at feudal Japan or the southern US when slavery was being ... 'debated'. Actually ... those were really 'power rules' ... which reminds me of the old saw "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"

As to 'illegalizing' personal ownership of guns ... a couple of points.

1.) It goes against the 'gun ownership' items in almost all the early 'policy' and 'lawmaking' in the US. The founders got it!!! If you illegalize personal ownership ... then only the bad guys have guns. Not the world I wanna live in!!

2.) If you could manage to implement your 'plan', then ... only bad guys have guns ... so it would much easier for them to do pretty much what ever they want in pursuit of their illegal activities against 'the common man'.

And ... finally ... nep ... Are you suggesting that bands of 'enforcers' should roam the country side breaking down doors to search for firearms?? Hmmmm ... maybe you should move to one of those nations that =STRICTLY= limits personal freedoms <weg>

Two points, Nep. Assault weapons have always been banned and are now. You cannot legally obtain a fully automatic weapon. Just because something looks like a military weapon doesn't make it one. Second, I am not talking about just Nazi's. The tyranny of the majority that led to the government sanctioned murder, rape, and pillage I am talking about goes back well over 1000 years. The Nazi's were just the latest ones, and the worst. You have Russian Pogroms, the Spanish Inquisition, the Crusaders, King Edwards Edict in England, and more. All of those occurred because the majority got to decide without any check-and-balance from the minority.

Lastly, the Constitution indeed can be amended, but it takes a Super Majority to do so, specifically to prevent the Tyranny of Majority. It takes a 2/3 Vote of either a Constitutional Convention or by 2/3 of the States to amend. That is in place to ensure a true Democracy (where 50%+1 get to decide) does NOT happen.

Well, I honestly think America is a great place. Not without its problems, but where is?

A lot of those problems come from wanting personal liberty at any cost and despite the problems it causes, it's better to be wrestling with too much personal liberty than not enough. Or to put it another way, if you asked me where I'd rather live, USA or Afghanistan, I'd say USA. Obviously. Right now hundreds of thousands of Afghanis would probably agree with me.

America has plenty of problems but you can air them in public and are bold enough do so. Can the same be said for China, Russia... actually, most places in the world? I don't think so.

Imo the biggest lie politicians have told the American people is that America is no longer great. They want to convince voters that the country is broken so they can sell themselves as the fix.

I don't think America needs saviours, all it needs from its politicians are capable, diligent administrators and parties with regularly reviewed manifestos.

Yeah. Could not agree more. Especially this, the biggest danger to this country comes from those who want to stifle free speech because they don't like what others are saying.

"I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It." - Voltaire

There is a dangerous movement on college campuses (not only here) to create 'safe spaces' for students and stifle free speech that may be controversial. That is not the purpose of a University. It is to expose students to those views they may not like so they can critically examine all opinions.

"A Ship in Harbor Is Safe, But that Is Not What Ships Are Built For." - Admiral Grace Hopper

You can say the same thing about a mind. A mind protected behind walls of intolerance is safe in a cocoon of ignorance. But that is not what minds are made for.

I blame social media. I've said for a decade now that social media is poison and what is happening in this country with the hardening of divisions is fed by the social media bubbles and echo chambers people encase themselves in. It leads to cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias and is a root cause of what is happening.

Social media CAN be used for good things, like bringing people together and celebrating accomplishments, but like most technology it can also be used for bad ends and it has been.

Zeim,
You are incorrect about assault weapons. They are legal. California had banned assault weapons but the ban was overturned by the courts and reinstated as litigation continues Appeals Court Blocks Ruling That Overturned California’s Assault Weapons Ban. This was the only ban in place. You can still buy an AR15 at your local arms show.

I disagree with your conclusions based entirely on your own arguments against the majority. The examples that you provide are in fact argue against your premise. It wasn't the "majority" it was evil governments. What "majority" voted for the czar? What majority voted for the King Ferdinand and Queen Isabela? It is autocratic rule that created the Inquisition and Progroms.

MikeD, I disagree with both your points
1) Gun ownership conceived by our founding fathers called for a "regulated" militia and the weapon of the day was the musket not Uzzi's and AR15's
2) Japan, Germany, Australia and the UK are examples where strict gun controls work.

Nem, I like what you said, " all it needs from its politicians are capable, diligent administrators and parties with regularly reviewed manifestos" but sadly, I think America is a place where the politicians are concerned only with their own personal power and wealth.

Nep ... so

1.) where is this 'militia' you speak of and who is 'regulating' them??

2.) If you like the 'laws' in those countries ... and dislike how things are done in the US ... pick one of those countries and move there <shrug>

Nep - An AR-15 is not really an assault weapon. An assault weapon really is a fully automatic weapon, which has ALWAYS been illegal. The term "Assault Weapon" has been redefined for political purposes to include silly things like semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines (which handguns have too). It is a red herring used for political purposes. If you have to pull the trigger to fire every bullet, good luck using that to "Assault" an enemy in combat. Assault weapons should be defined as combat weapons, but they're not so I guess so be it.

California's law was mostly political theatre, banning something mostly for how it looked not how it functioned. And of course since the number of people harmed by handguns is exponentially greater than the number of people harmed by rifles, again it was mostly political pandering. If they wanted to have a real impact on gun control they'd ban handguns. I have little problem with that idea, btw, but I am a realist and it would never pass the Supreme Court so I don't waste time fantasizing.

As for your comment to MikeD, Militia was defined at the time of the signing as every able bodied man, so ALL male citizens were considered as part of a militia. It was not like today's National/State Guard where a "Militia" is some sort of official organization. In times of conflict every man grabbed his gun from the mantle in his home and rushed out to fight.

And the weapons allowed were purposely intended to be exactly what the military was using, so if you want to use that argument the people should be allowed to own machine guns and tanks. The point of the Amendment was ensuring the people had the same weapons as the military and could fight an oppressive government. It was not about hunting.

Remember the context. The founders, having just finished a revolution, were concerned with ensuring the people could fight a tyrannical government, meaning they had to have equal weapons. The States were still very hesitant about forming a National Government and wanted to make sure they and their people could defend themselves against the Federal government. In fact the whole reason for the Bill of Rights was that many of the States refused to sign the Constitution without it. We've moved beyond that idea today by limiting people to semi-automatic weapons only.

And finally, your point about majority is playing with words. In those places at those times people who "counted" were in power and only those people could make decisions. Peasants in Russia and Spain and during the middle ages had no power, regardless that they outnumbered the Lords and Royals. They counted for nothing in national decision making. The majority of those who did have power were tyrannical and oppressive to a minority they disliked because the minority voices in government had no power to intervene.

Our government, in the US, has always worked best when power is split between the parties. When one party controls both Houses of Congress and the Presidency, that has usually been a very bad thing. Regardless of whether it is Republicans or Democrats. You don't want to to give the power to ram thru every wish list item to either ideologically opposed group. Checks and Balances are always best.

You missed the =real= problem with laws that ban hand guns ... that would mean that only the 'bad guys' will have guns!! Not something that =I= want to see :-/

And keep in mind that those 'laws' originated when the available 'weapons' were muskets and hand guns that could only fire once before 'reloading'.

Yes. Although the argument that when the law was passed guns were single shot muzzle loaders misses the point. The point was to ensure civilians had access to the same weapons as the military. Nothing it in limits the type of weapons civilians should have. We've already decided, as a country, that civilians having military grade weapons was not a good idea once weapons became much more powerful so that aspect is no longer in effect.

Civilians do NOT have access to military grade weapons. So called "Assault" weapons are called that for political reasons. No soldier in his right mind would take one into battle. The concept of a semi-automatic weapon with a detachable clip applies to every handgun other than a revolver and every rifle that is not bolt action. AR-15's were singled out for political reasons.

Your point about only criminals being armed if you ban handguns is perfectly valid, MikeD.

I'd also stay away from the "if you don't like the way it is here then go somewhere else". Things change and evolve over time. What is illegal today is legal tomorrow. People work to effect change to things they think are important. All of that is fine. But there has to be some reality involved.

Wishing that we could get rid of all guns is just that, a wish. Citizen's right to own guns is established law, and enshrined in the Constitution. It is not like passing a new law to increase gas mileage in cars. After the Bill of rights, the Constitution has been amended only 17 times in almost 250 years, and two of those cancelled each other out (Prohibition). It takes 3/4 votes of State Legislatures or a Constitutional Convention to do and is purposefully extremely hard to accomplish.

I don't disagree. Now of only we could keep automatic weapons out of the hands of all civilians <sigh>



Yeah ... it is a simple 'name' and 'vision' that 'they' can use <shrug>



The problem is ... =who= gets to decide that? It seems to me that mostly it is 'politicians' with and agenda <sigh> They don't really care about the 'guns' in this case ... but rather how much 'political capital' they can gain from their (alleged) support of the issue.

Until 'they' can 'guarantee' that only military and law enforcement will have guns, what we have ... as flawed as it is ... is better than going for 'only outlaws can have guns'.

Zeim, I've said this to numerous people about numerous things but I'll stick with "assault weapons". No matter what the "official" definition is, the AR15 is, by almost everyone that is not versed in such things, an assault weapon. It shoots many rounds, very fast and is a weapon of war. It is military grade with "technical" modifications to make it a marketable item of death. No civilian should own one.

We will disagree on this, absolutely, forever. We do not see things through the same lens at all.

<Sigh> It is NOT a weapon of war. It just looks like one. Just because a group of anti-gun propagandists call it military grade doesn't make it so.

Lets examine the facts, which show what you just wrote is simply untrue.

It is a military grade weapon - The military grade version of that weapon has a completely different name, the M-16, specifically to differentiate a military grade weapon from a non-military grade weapon. No military in the world uses the AR-15. It is not suitable for a combat role since it is not fully automatic.

It shoots a lot of bullets really fast - It shoots NO faster than a handgun. One bullet at a time each time you pull the trigger. Put a group of soldiers with AR-15s up against a group of soldiers with M-16s and the AR-15 group would be wiped out pretty quickly.

Since I have fired rifles, I am coming at this from a position of knowledge. I've also seen fully automatic weapons fired by military personnel at demonstrations on army bases and they are in a completely different universe from an AR-15.

The "Assault Gun" ban concept is a red herring used for politics. The AR-15 was singled out because of its popularity and looks, not because of it's capabilities. If the anti-gun crowd really wants to make an impact, figure out a way to ban handguns and don't waste time banning something that is involved in relatively few gun deaths in the grand scheme of things.

ABC News: "While semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 are a major flashpoint in the gun control debate and are often the focus of attention following mass shootings, there are only about 20 million assault rifles in the United States, a fraction of the estimated 400 million guns in the country. Instead, according to ABC News contributor and former FBI agent Brad Garrett, handguns account for the most gun murders in the U.S.

Handguns were used in 62% of the nation’s gun murders in 2019, FBI data shows. Data from 2020 has not yet been published.

According to a 2016 Survey of Prison Inmates from the Bureau of Justice Statistics, handguns were the most common type of gun possessed by federal and state prisoners. About 18% of the prisoners said they possessed a handgun, and 2% or less possessed a rifle or shotgun.

And despite public perception, more mass shootings (where four or more victims are killed) are carried out with handguns as opposed to long guns, according to Garrett."

I will echo Zeim's position.

The AR 15 is NOT an Assault Weapon.

I am going to simplify this a little-

In the late 40s, Armalite created a semiautomatic (1 trigger pull required for each round)weapon for the military called the AR 15 (armalite=AR designation). It was deemed to be inadequate for their needs and so Armalite sold the patents to Colt in 1959 and they would develop the M16 (model 16). It was a fully automatic weapon. The AR15, to this day, is built to fire .223 (22 caliber round). The M16 also fires a 22 caliber round but the designation for the M16 is actually a 5.56mm Nato round. Same size , but the M16 round(5.56mm Nato) is designed to fire with a higher gas compression(faster velocity and heavier hitting power).

The M16 can fire both rounds (civilian .223 or military 5.56 Nato) because it is built to handle the higher compression in the chamber and barrel. The AR15 can only fire the .223 round. If the 5.56mm round is fired in an AR15, the risk of damage to the weapon and injury to the user will grow with each shot fired as the higher levels of gas decompression will damage the internal components.

The M16 and M16A1 saw extensive action in VietNam and has seen extensive modification. The AR15 is essentially same weapon as was developed in the 50s. The exterior cosmetics have certainly changed but the weapon itself has not.
My creds?

USAF 47th Comm Group/ Space Command/ 85 to 89, stationed Cheyenne Mountain, NORAD (peace time service)

trained to fire= .38 caliber revolver/ 9mm semiautomatic handgun/ AR15 semiautomatic rifle/ m16A2 automatic rifle/ M60 7.62mm fully automatic belt fed chain gun(granted this was a limited class and never had to recertify)

I will not comment on my persoanl feelings about the politics of this debate- mostly because i don't give a rat's ass what anyone else thinks about it.

Thanks for the details PP. Very interesting and informative!!

FWIW, almost all of my 'gun usage' was when I was at Culver Military Academy when I way a =LOT= younger <g>

PP- Yes, thanks. I do care what others think because what other people think will often result in laws and rules I have to live with. I want people to have factual information.

The biggest problem is, whether it is MS-NBC, FOX News, ABC, NBC, CBS, The NY Times, Wall Street Journal, or any of the radical internet "news" outlets, we haven't had objective news reporting since the turn of the century. Probably since the death of Walter Cronkite. Everything, absolutely everything, you read now is partisan, agenda driven, opinion pieces dressed up as "news".

The safest position to take (until you can do your own independent research) is that what you are reading/hearing is simply propaganda and worse than false. It contains just enough truth to sound correct but carefully filters out any facts that do not fit into the agenda of the source.

wowzers ...

... the first post was a humorous comment on the nature of guns in movies, and you know it is pretty much correct and would fit perfectly into "The Last Action Hero" world.

And then the thread devolved into this?

There is a movie word that describes this.

Koyaanisqatsi

Gun debates - very emotive subject in America. Not one we ever really have over here - thank goodness!

Thanks for keeping it civil though guys.

Zeim ... you forgot to mention 'designed to create an emotional response' :-/ And I think that is at least as much about people's natural bias ... what they like, what they don't like, what they know, and the like.

Wolf - Now I had to go look up that, seemingly made up (?) word. Can't argue that things have reached a point where everyone now has their own reality. And I know from past discussion on this subject that regardless of anything presented minds won't change, so I am happy to leave it be here.

Just curious Zeim ... did I miss something?? Aren't =ALL= words 'made up'?? <weg>

What you all say is true but perception is reality and you all know how it's being perceived. As I said, true definitions are meaningless.

And both Zeim and I have kept this debate civil (mostly) for several decades.

There are a lot of ... competing ... issues in this debate (if only it were simple <sigh>)

If normal citizens cannot own firearms (for protection) ... then only the 'bad guys' have them and they know that they can more easily 'attack' any 'home' they want.

While it is a bigger problem for 'businesses', there is some 'validity' there too.

And what about 'security personnel'? Do they get to have guns? Do they keep them when they go home or do they check them in 'at the door' when they leave work??

I wish there was a 'magic fix' that would solve it all. If you know of one, please share!!!

Oh, for one particular industry I can answer this question.

For many years I worked with Bank security folks, designing, well, banks. And in doing so I learned a whole lot of interesting things about actual security practices as opposed to Hollywood and pop culture myths when it comes to security.

Armed guards have, for the most part, vanished from banks.

Why?

1. They did little to prevent bank robberies. If someone really wants to rob a bank they were going to rob a bank. One way or another armed guards aren't going to deter them. Interestingly, this is a truth shared by the Superintendent of Colorado's Jefferson County Public Schools district - all the metal detectors, security gates, armed security folks in the world won't stop anyone from bringing a firearm into a school. If they really want to, they'll figure out a way to do it.

2. Armed guards make a conflict situation more dangerous, not less dangerous. One of the few things we do know about firearms and crime (and what we do and do not know is a completely different question and it's much less than people would like to believe) is that if you introduce guns into a conflict situation the chances of someone getting shot or killed dramatically skyrocket. Well duh. But in a bank, or any other public space, the chances of someone OTHER than the bank robber getting shot are pretty good - or to put it this way, the President of Security for a major Northeast bank told me (paraphrasing here, its been a while) "most insurance companies do not like writing policies for banks with armed guards, those that do are expensive and for most banks a major financial loss which makes no sense when there are not only smarter but better and proven more successful and safer practices to protect your customers."

Believe it or not, most banks are more concerned for their customers than the money in the teller's drawers or vaults.

3. No bank wants the nightmare of a very credible (and probably large) lawsuit against them for putting their customers in danger if a shootout occurs between their security staff and a customer gets hurt.

The proven best practice is to give the guy with the gun whatever they want and get them out of the building and away from their customers as fast and with as little trouble as possible. Let the police (the professionals) and identification (surveillance) catch them somewhere, anywhere else.

Armed guards in banks make little customer safety or financial sense.

Guards with guns goes back to a time when guns =were= actually a deterrent <shrug> It =DID= (and does?) make 'people' feel safer.

Is it as effective as it was? Probably not <sigh> Does it still help?? Probably more than guards with no guns ... or no guards at all. Is there a better solution? I can think of several ... but they would never work ... or be accepted by 'the populace' in general :-/

So we go with what we got <weg>