Gun control debate (merged)

#28,379
#28,379
85SugarVol said:
The failure of our State’s common sense gun control is due to the surrounding States. Now watch us enact even more common sense gun control within our State.

I don’t get it.
Click to expand...
I am also not sure how the problems arent worse in those lax gun law states. Seems like if that was the Genesis of the issue you would see the worst outcomes there.

Hard to argue the problem "spills" over into another state if that other state doesnt have a similar problem to start with.
 
#28,380
#28,380
luthervol said:
Because it has legitimate uses in hunting, sport, and adequately serves as home security and protection.
Click to expand...

As does the AR15 falling into the category of modern sporting rifles. It is as near the perfect home defense weapon made, being light, and more accurate and stable to use due to being a shoulder fired weapon. It's .223/5.56 round has more power than common pistol rounds to end aggression but (contrary to popular opinion) with a proper defensive load is no more likely to overpenetrate and go through multiple interior/exterior walls (and hitting innocents) than the popular 9mm pistol round or 00 buckshot. It also loses energy faster when striking walls.

Unlike a defensive shotgun round, you are sending one projectile and not nine 8.36mm lead balls at your target. The .223/5.56 doesn't wallop at close range like the shotgun but it stops fights. Common pistol rounds - meh - their saving grace is their convenience and ability to be carried concealed. As the military saying goes "the purpose of a good pistol is to buy you time to get to your rifle." Aside from the massive physical damage double 00 does, the AR platform is superior to shotguns in every way for defense. Including ease of use from small to large framed people.

For sport, there is no rifle more popular due to reliability, portability, accuracy out to 500 yards and beyond, and ammo doesn't cost an arm & leg to shoot. Those traits make it a solid varmint hunting round up to coyote-sized animals, but I wouldn't use for larger game than that and many states don't allow it for deer hunting for example, because it lacks humane killing power compared to better suited rounds (such as the .30-30, 308, 30-06). The .223/5.56 is relatively tiny compared to them. It's popular for everything from target plinking to precision shooting, to action shooting and civilian marksmanship programs.

I think that sets aside your illegitimate "legitimate uses" argument.

Shotguns have been used about 1/2 as often as rifles of any type in mass shootings. Guns used in mass shootings U.S. 2023 | Statista Handguns have been used about 2X as often as rifles of all types.

Leave this here, too: Handguns more lethal than rifles in mass shootings
 
  • Like
Reactions: scooty_vol, InVOLuntary and StarRaider
#28,381
#28,381
LouderVol said:
I am also not sure how the problems arent worse in those lax gun law states. Seems like if that was the Genesis of the issue you would see the worst outcomes there.

Hard to argue the problem "spills" over into another state if that other state doesnt have a similar problem to start with.
Click to expand...
Indiana doesn’t have poor people.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#28,383
#28,383
85SugarVol said:
But the shotgun would be the “most lethal” weapon available.

Which brings us back to your stated position -


In this scenario the shotgun is the “most lethal”. Your position clearly states something less lethal would be “better”.

So are we to believe that in a world without assault weapons, “shotgun mass attacks” will be excused on the grounds that the line has already been reasonably and rationally drawn?
Click to expand...
I'm hoping mass attacks are never excused.
But t would be slightly more like the car driven into the parade. No one mentioned anything about banning cars (because car ownership is viewed as rational and reasonable). I'm confident that shotgun ownership is viewed as more rational and reasonable than assault weapon ownership. The more rational and reasonable the ownership of the "weapon" used in the attack is deemed to be, the less there will be calls for banning the "weapon".
 
#28,384
#28,384
luthervol said:
I'm hoping mass attacks are never excused.
But t would be slightly more like the car driven into the parade. No one mentioned anything about banning cars (because car ownership is viewed as rational and reasonable). I'm confident that shotgun ownership is viewed as more rational and reasonable than assault weapon ownership. The more rational and reasonable the ownership of the "weapon" used in the attack is deemed to be, the less there will be calls for banning the "weapon".
Click to expand...

Like this one?

IMG_9743.jpeg
 
  • Like
Reactions: MR_VOL and InVOLuntary
#28,386
#28,386
luthervol said:
The more rational and reasonable the ownership of the "weapon" used in the attack is deemed to be, the less there will be calls for banning the "weapon".
Click to expand...
The “less” there will be calls for banning the weapon.

I thought we had drawn a reasonable and rational line between assault weapon and shotgun.

Now shotguns will be open to calls for bans after an attack? Just “less” so?
 
  • Like
Reactions: LouderVol, VOLS INC. and hog88
#28,388
#28,388
85SugarVol said:
The “less” there will be calls for banning the weapon.

I thought we had drawn a reasonable and rational line between assault weapon and shotgun.

Now shotguns will be open to calls for bans after an attack? Just “less” so?
Click to expand...

They're quest for disarmament will never end. That's why they can't be given an inch.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol, GroverCleveland, UT_Dutchman and 3 others
#28,391
#28,391
85SugarVol said:
The “less” there will be calls for banning the weapon.

I thought we had drawn a reasonable and rational line between assault weapon and shotgun.

Now shotguns will be open to calls for bans after an attack? Just “less” so?
Click to expand...
What? You're kidding right? There will always be some calling for bans on everything.
We're talking about the differences between 1, 5, 25, 50, or 80% of the population supporting the ban.
Hell. there are nuts calling for a complete ban on abortions.
There are nuts calling for the ban of alcohol.
There are nuts calling for a ban on drag shows.
There are nuts calling for a ban on the abortion pill.
There are nuts calling for a ban on adult novelty stores.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Pennheel
#28,395
#28,395
luthervol said:
I'm hoping mass attacks are never excused.
But t would be slightly more like the car driven into the parade. No one mentioned anything about banning cars (because car ownership is viewed as rational and reasonable). I'm confident that shotgun ownership is viewed as more rational and reasonable than assault weapon ownership. The more rational and reasonable the ownership of the "weapon" used in the attack is deemed to be, the less there will be calls for banning the "weapon".
Click to expand...

Car ownership isn't a protected right.

You want to curb gun violence. Teach kids about the importance of family, mother and father who's married, teach right and wrong at a young age, teach that they are not some slightly evolved animal but a human being that is has a soul. Discipline those kids at an early age. That will help a great deal.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tnslim1
#28,397
#28,397
luthervol said:
Let me translate for everyone.
kiddiedoc hasn't a clue because he sees everything in two-dimensional black and white
Click to expand...
When it comes to the Constitution, yes. Why do you think the FFs included the phrase "shall not be infringed?"

And please, for the love, you didn't really accuse someone else of not having a clue in this thread, right?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#28,399
#28,399
Grand Vol said:
I'm really wondering when some of y'all are going to have the great epiphany that you're arguing with idiots?
Click to expand...
When you understand that Luther is a hammer and sickle communist and his goal is total disarmament, it makes it easy to not engage. First it's AKs/ARs. Then it will be all semi auto center fired guns, rifles and handguns. Then although he says shotguns are ok, he qualifies with restrictions there so those will be next.

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT!

Luther wants all the guns. He wants a subservient to the government population. He wants the government to control every aspect of your lives. He thinks he'll have a place at the royal table but he's going to be sorely disappointed when he finds out he's a prisoner too.
 
  • Like
Reactions: MR_VOL, hog88, kiddiedoc and 1 other person
#28,400
#28,400
InVOLuntary said:
When you understand that Luther is a hammer and sickle communist and his goal is total disarmament, it makes it easy to not engage. First it's AKs/ARs. Then it will be all semi auto center fired guns, rifles and handguns. Then although he says shotguns are ok, he qualifies with restrictions there so those will be next.

PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT!

Luther wants all the guns. He wants a subservient to the government population. He wants the government to control every aspect of your lives. He thinks he'll have a place at the royal table but he's going to be sorely disappointed when he finds out he's a prisoner too.
Click to expand...
Got that Central Planner DNA. He’s clearly smarter, more reasonable, and more rational on the continuum. Our lives would be better if we just let those sharing his ideology make the rules and enforce the policies they create.
 
  • Like
Reactions: kiddiedoc and InVOLuntary
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top