TomServo92 Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I'm a gun owner and 2nd Amendment supporter. That being said, I'm not sure there is a need for 100 round mags for civilian use. For recreational shooting or self defense, a 30 mag is more than sufficient. I see banning the super hi caps mags as a good compromise in lieu of a ban on AR-15 type guns. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goinbroke2 Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 It's terrible but it does prove the point previously stated that if someone is willing to be patient, they can do anything. Take a couple years of buying fertilizer, take a couple years to stockpile ammo, hell take a course on how to drive a tractor trailer then get a job to drive one..then run through some playgrounds in a tractor with steel sheeting as armour all over it. "he seemed like a nice guy, liked big trucks, I thought he was modifying it for wind resistance or something"." It's terrible, but like the saying, shit happens. Tighter gun controls wouldn't of done a damn thing because he was the "model citizen". Limiting mags? So you have mag pouches with 30rds each instead of 100 rds. (I agree that besides the "cool" factor, wtf would someone want a 100rd mag?) What is there, 330 million people in the states? What percentage are nutjobs in any society? You'll still have that "one" that dreams up a way to mass murder for whatever reason is in his mind. What's to stop me from going and buying a couple of barrels of oil/whatever, driving down to the dock in my truck and dumping them in? Killed how many animals/waterfowl/fish/etc and yet nobody could stop me? Yup, it's that easy. What do you do? Execute. Maybe the guy is looking for attention, noteriety,etc. The last thing we should do is keep him in trials,appeals,etc for the next 20 years to let him live his "fantasy" of noteriety. Perhaps if it's a given you will be just executed, perhaps wackjobs would think twice before pushing fantasy into reality? Don't know but it sure sucks for a lot of families. My sypathies and prayers to the families too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I'm a gun owner and 2nd Amendment supporter. That being said, I'm not sure there is a need for 100 round mags for civilian use. For recreational shooting or self defense, a 30 mag is more than sufficient. I see banning the super hi caps mags as a good compromise in lieu of a ban on AR-15 type guns. Its not the magazine capacity, its the person that loads it and misuses it. Take the Virginia sniper for example, its aimed shots that hit its mark and not the quantity fired that is the problem. England has tried the same "reasonable" compromises with action types ( no semi autos and only pump or bolt actions) and further restricted those only to discover that it has about zero impact on criminals. If you can not keep millions of illegal persons out of the country and tons of illegal drugs what makes anyone think banning a type of firearm or magazine will really accomplish? We unlike other countries have a constitution and laws that we use to enforce to get rid of the people that refuse to follow the rules of society. This shooter should be hanged quickly but we all know that will not happen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted July 23, 2012 Author Share Posted July 23, 2012 Its not the magazine capacity, its the person that loads it and misuses it. Take the Virginia sniper for example, its aimed shots that hit its mark and not the quantity fired that is the problem. England has tried the same "reasonable" compromises with action types ( no semi autos and only pump or bolt actions) and further restricted those only to discover that it has about zero impact on criminals. If you can not keep millions of illegal persons out of the country and tons of illegal drugs what makes anyone think banning a type of firearm or magazine will really accomplish? We unlike other countries have a constitution and laws that we use to enforce to get rid of the people that refuse to follow the rules of society. This shooter should be hanged quickly but we all know that will not happen. Which brings back the principle argument for 2nd ammendment supporters; why would an outlaw adhere to gun control laws? As far as the assalant goes (I refuse to say his name), a slow painful death would be more appropriate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I agree with it being the person not the gun. Crazy people or criminals will always find a way. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be opposed to banning the 100 round mags. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I agree with it being the person not the gun. Crazy people or criminals will always find a way. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't be opposed to banning the 100 round mags. I don't care if you have a 1000 round belt, if just one of those bullets hits or harms something I would treat it the same if you fired all 1000 or a single shot. Banning something does not make the original problem less of a problem. It may sound reasonable but has little to no impact. The same constitution that guarantees our freedoms also sets a space for some people to abuse those freedoms. Deal with those people and not the masses that abide by the laws already in place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I don't care if you have a 1000 round belt, if just one of those bullets hits or harms something I would treat it the same if you fired all 1000 or a single shot. Banning something does not make the original problem less of a problem. It may sound reasonable but has little to no impact. The same constitution that guarantees our freedoms also sets a space for some people to abuse those freedoms. Deal with those people and not the masses that abide by the laws already in place. I understand and respect your opinion. Mine is just slightly different. I'm not advocating the ban (in fact I'd be happy if nothing changed). My feeling is that if something were to change as a result of this event, the banning the mags is the least objectionable to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 I understand and respect your opinion. Mine is just slightly different. I'm not advocating the ban (in fact I'd be happy if nothing changed). My feeling is that if something were to change as a result of this event, the banning the mags is the least objectionable to me. Not a problem and I get it (and respect it). The problem is MANY people use a tragedy to advance an agenda on both sides and this could be yet another one of those instances. Its similar to another law or stipulation in regards to murder or rape. There are plenty of laws already on the books to deal with problems. Adding new laws or conditions never changes the violent act itself. Getting rid of the offenders quickly does have an impact. Somewhere along the way the we went from identifying social screw ups that were put on a poster and cash paid, dead or alive, to the system we now have which is catch & release or not following through on capital punishment. I enjoy modern technology but punishment of violent crime in 1880 was more efficient than it is today. Can you imagine a dead or alive poster today? Fat chance. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigBadBflo Posted July 23, 2012 Share Posted July 23, 2012 Off duty Police Officer shoots own son mistaking him for intruder: http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2012/07/police_investigate_dads_fatal.html For every toddler shooting themselves when they find a gun in the house you have one mentally ill person shooting someone. Both are small incidents statistically. It rather annoying to see both sides strutting their feathers over the statistical fringes of the situation and working up the initial hype instead of some real discussion. But that is politics now-a-days anyways. Both sides promoting failed ideas to appease large money supporters, entertainers instead of reporters and lazy masses eating it up instead of putting in the hard work and time that it takes for a democracy to work. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_spaniard Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I wouldn't mind there be a mandatory waiting period and background check for every firearm solved (long guns and auction arms too). If someone is too impatient to wait thirty days for their firearm, they obviously lack the patience to own one. The NRA would poo-poo over the smallest compromise in gun legislation, though. Yet another reason why I (and the large majority of gun owners) don't support them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) Never mind. Edited July 24, 2012 by TomServo92 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I wouldn't mind there be a mandatory waiting period and background check for every firearm solved (long guns and auction arms too). If someone is too impatient to wait thirty days for their firearm, they obviously lack the patience to own one. The NRA would poo-poo over the smallest compromise in gun legislation, though. Yet another reason why I (and the large majority of gun owners) don't support them. I agree with you there. I'm a gun owner myself, but I'm not an NRA member myself as they are too radical. NRA typically the "no compromise" mentality, and that's not something I can support. I don't think 30 days is too long to wait at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Yet another reason why I (and the large majority of gun owners) don't support them. could you please provide a link for this "fact"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) could you please provide a link for this "fact"? I will add to it by saying most of the gun owners I know (meaning majority) aren't members (thereby not supporting them). Just checked Wikipedia, and it says there are about 4.3 million NRA members (http://en.wikipedia....fle_Association). This link (http://wiki.answers....ates_of_America) says there are 80 million gun owners. So, that means only 5% of gun owners are NRA members, so, that would lead one to believe that 95% of gun owners don't support NRA. If they did support NRA, then they would be a member. Edited July 24, 2012 by fordmantpw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_spaniard Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) Bingo. Fordman beat me to it While it sounds simplistic, I welcome any other stats to challenge it. If the NRA had tens of millions of members, you can bet they would be advertising as such. Some people may support the NRA financially (without being a member), but I doubt it's a majority. Tiny membership, massive lobbying power. Edited July 24, 2012 by the_spaniard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Back in the early 90's, I was living in an aparment, and apartment bldg. next door was connected to mine by a wall. Anyway, there was a single male living in apartment bldg. next to mine, and someone must have noticed something unusual and tipped off the authorities, because when coming home from work during the summer there were ATF vehicles parked all over, and ATF agents scurrying all around all over heavily armed, and I mean heavily armed. I heard that the apartment had thousands of rounds of ammo and other weapons plus grenades. The ATF was there for hours carting all the stuff away. The owner wasn't home. I never heard much more about it as no one seemed to know what happened to the apartment owner and apartment was rented out to someone else. It was as scary as hell to know that someone with that huge stash of ammo and explosives was living next door. You never know. That was a long time ago, but times haven't changed, just gotten worse. With my experience so long ago, you would think someone in that aparment building would have seen something and tipped off authorities before the tragedy happened. Not sure how that many weapons, explosives, and ammo could be delivered with no one even slightly suspicious and willing to put themselves out and call authorities at least. I mean this guy was accumalating that stuff over a couple months or so. I know that in many aparment complexes people pretty much keep to themselves and mind their own business, but come on now. He had thousands of rounds of ammunition and exposives and assault rifle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I will add to it by saying most of the gun owners I know (meaning majority) aren't members (thereby not supporting them). Just checked Wikipedia, and it says there are about 4.3 million NRA members (http://en.wikipedia....fle_Association). This link (http://wiki.answers....ates_of_America) says there are 80 million gun owners. So, that means only 5% of gun owners are NRA members, so, that would lead one to believe that 95% of gun owners don't support NRA. If they did support NRA, then they would be a member. The NRA is easily the most powerful lobby group in Washington. So powerful that even the Demos won't take them on anymore. We could have one of these horrific events every month forever, and assault rifles used in every event, and no one would take on the NRA even then. They are that powerful. Lobbyists rule. So just hope you are not in the wrong place at the wrong time when some crazy starts spraying a public area with bullets. Not looking forward to catching hot lead passing through my body. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 The NRA is easily the most powerful lobby group in Washington. So powerful that even the Demos won't take them on anymore. We could have one of these horrific events every month forever, and assault rifles used in every event, and no one would take on the NRA even then. They are that powerful. Lobbyists rule. So just hope you are not in the wrong place at the wrong time when some crazy starts spraying a public area with bullets. Not looking forward to catching hot lead passing through my body. You can't outlaw guns because people use them incorrectly to kill people. Do you outlaw cars because some idiot runs through a crowd of people? As sad as this was, there was a story in the news today about an F250 pickup carrying 23 people in Texas. It ran off the road and hit a tree, killing 13 (the last I read, which is more than the tragedy in CO). Now, the people in the truck had a choice to ride in it, but who knows, maybe the driver decided WTH, let's try to kill the other 22 people with me and hit the trees. So, should we ban big trucks that are capable of hauling that many people in the bed? You can make all the laws you want and outlaw whatever you want, but the bottom line is, you can't prevent these monsters from killing people if they really want to do it. Killing people is against the law, so what makes you think they will play by the rules and only by legal weapons? Sadly, it's a fact of life today, and is part of having the freedoms we have as Americans. Personally, I think they should just execute the bastard (slowly and painfully) without a trial since there were so many witnesses. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I will add to it by saying most of the gun owners I know (meaning majority) aren't members (thereby not supporting them). Just checked Wikipedia, and it says there are about 4.3 million NRA members (http://en.wikipedia....fle_Association). This link (http://wiki.answers....ates_of_America) says there are 80 million gun owners. So, that means only 5% of gun owners are NRA members, so, that would lead one to believe that 95% of gun owners don't support NRA. If they did support NRA, then they would be a member. I own multiple handguns and I'm not an NRA member. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 You can make all the laws you want and outlaw whatever you want, but the bottom line is, you can't prevent these monsters from killing people if they really want to do it. Yes indeed. And it will happen again. Combined, the US, Mexico and Canada have a population of about 400 million people. If these people are 'one in a million', this means there are 399 other wackos out there . . . just wait. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted July 24, 2012 Author Share Posted July 24, 2012 (edited) Yes indeed. And it will happen again. Combined, the US, Mexico and Canada have a population of about 400 million people. If these people are 'one in a million', this means there are 399 other wackos out there . . . just wait. And I guarentee you that not a single one of them would try this in The great state of Texas. I own several guns and I carry a concealed handgun and a tactical knife 90% of the time. I do not support the NRA. They're kind of like greenpiece to the environmentalist movement, embarassing. I am open to more stringent regulations on hi- capacity magazines and the online sale of tactical gear. Edited July 24, 2012 by Versa-Tech Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I will add to it by saying most of the gun owners I know (meaning majority) aren't members (thereby not supporting them). Just checked Wikipedia, and it says there are about 4.3 million NRA members (http://en.wikipedia....fle_Association). This link (http://wiki.answers....ates_of_America) says there are 80 million gun owners. So, that means only 5% of gun owners are NRA members, so, that would lead one to believe that 95% of gun owners don't support NRA. If they did support NRA, then they would be a member...... I too am a gun owner and not a member of the NRA, however I support their efforts to protect gun ownership of Americans....so for you to say that most gun owners don't support the NRA is your opinion......Most liberals support freedom of choice when it comes to abortion but very few donate to planned parenthood...that's why pp needs so much of our tax dollars......obviously you can't know if a gun owner supports the NRA or not...if you can, send me some lottery numbers......opinions should be stated as such...assuptions are not facts! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
napfirst Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 And I guarentee you that not a single one of them would try this in The great state of Texas. I own several guns and I carry a concealed handgun and a tactical knife 90% of the time. I do not support the NRA. They're kind of like greenpiece to the environmentalist movement, embarassing. I am open to more stringent regulations on hi- capacity magazines and the online sale of tactical gear. Slippery slope........check out Chicago and DC to see how successful stringent gun law are Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 Slippery slope........check out Chicago and DC to see how successful stringent gun law are Regulations -- not all out bans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 24, 2012 Share Posted July 24, 2012 I too am a gun owner and not a member of the NRA, however I support their efforts to protect gun ownership of Americans....so for you to say that most gun owners don't support the NRA is your opinion......Most liberals support freedom of choice when it comes to abortion but very few donate to planned parenthood...that's why pp needs so much of our tax dollars......obviously you can't know if a gun owner supports the NRA or not...if you can, send me some lottery numbers......opinions should be stated as such...assuptions are not facts! I think support in this context meant NRA membership. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.