Largest civilian arms build-up in American history

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by Menel

Not everyone else, just you.

Keep telling yourself that if it makes you feel better, but you've proved yourself wrong more than once here.

You keep inching closer, now lets put everything together, what you've said in bold above... with what you previously quoted me saying below.

If the British had confiscated our rifles...

In your quest to prove your intellectual superiority you missed my point multiple times. Good job.

I'm not nor was I ever talking about the oppression by the British in the 1770s. It was pretty obvious you were talking about that in your first post, and I know plenty about that part of our history considering it happened in my backyard and we learned about it and took field trips to the different historical sites back in school starting in like the 1st grade. In fact, if you'd like to come up to Boston, I can take you on a tour of the Freedom trail, and you can see the Old State House where the Boston Massacre happened, the Bunker Hill monument, and then we could go out to Lexington and you could see the town green where those first shots were fired in April 1775.

But that's not what I was talking about and that's not what this thread is about. We're talking about the issue of gun control in 2012. You were the one who made the comparison to the American Revolution. Here's what you said and the response of mine you must have missed.

Originally Posted by Menel

Yes, America where we won our independence from an oppressive regime using rifles that were higher tech than the smooth bore muskets the British military had access to.

This statement is irrelevant to this entire discussion. We have a military that has more firepower than many other countries militaries combined. No country is coming over here to invade us anytime soon.

Yes, the colonial militia used their rifles to free themselves from the oppression of the British Empire. But it's 2012, not 1776 anymore. We've been free from the British Empire for 236 years. So, since you completely missed my point more than once, I'll try to make it clearer for you: Here in 2012 (soon to be 2013), what oppression do you need an assault rifle to protect yourself from?

[chown33]

Originally Posted by glocke12

Here we go again....what did calwizard say about people being called liars on this site if they don't provide data?

You asserted this:

Your average gunowner will shoot at least 100 rounds A WEEK.

So please answer this question:

Do you consider yourself an average gun owner?

Note the words: gun owner. Not gun enthusiast, not shooting enthusiast, simply gun owner. To qualify as a gun owner, one simply needs to own a gun. That's it.

Knowing nothing more about the people you see at the range every week, I would say you were all gun enthusiasts. The same way I would call someone I saw every week at a football game a football enthusiast, or at an R/C airplane field an R/C airplane enthusiast.

Of the people I know who I am certain are gun owners, none of them shoots 100 rounds a week. Most don't shoot 100 rounds a year. Some haven't shot at all in several years. Because they still own guns, they are gun owners, and thus contribute to the average of gun owners.

Many more of the people I know may be gun owners but it doesn't come up in conversation, so I wouldn't know. They may even be gun enthusiasts, but they don't like to discuss it in general conversation.

So maybe your perception of what constitutes an average gun owner is skewed by your own enthusiasm for the sport. In other words, what you perceive to be an average gun owner would actually fall along the line of gun enthusiasm as "enthusiast" rather than simple "owner", because that's where you fall, and you consider yourself average.

When my brother first started riding a motorcycle, he remarked on how many other bikes he saw on the road. That doesn't mean there was a sudden increase in motorcycle traffic right when he started riding, only that one's perception can be colored by one's own interests. That's why anecdotal evidence is not considered as reliable statistical data. And without reliable statistical data, one can't make a supportable assertion of what is average (the statistical mean).

[Arran]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I believe those videos demonstrated that with some relatively simple modifications or techniques, semi-automatic guns can fire at near automatic rates.

To me that confirms the need to restrict firearms to lessen the damage they can inflict; starting with limiting magazine capacity and outlawing modifications like the sliding stock in two of the videos.

Agreed. Thanks for posting the videos. More folks need to see them. Unfortunately this is why laws need to more restrictive than any reasonable person would think: Because loopholes will get exploited (and then defiantly shared on Youtube, it appears.)

Originally Posted by CalWizrd

You obviously are quite wrong in your assumption. It still took one trigger pull to fire each round. The fact that that cockamamy yahoo was looping fingers into his belt or pulling on the fore stock while firing doesn't mean it's a full auto weapon. It would be a miracle for him to be able to hit anything he might try aiming at.

While it wouldn't earn points at a shooting competition, it would be devastating in a classroom packed with little kids.

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by Arran

Agreed. Thanks for posting the videos. More folks need to see them. Unfortunately this is why laws need to more restrictive than any reasonable person would think: Because loopholes will get exploited (and then defiantly shared on Youtube, it appears.)



While it wouldn't earn points at a shooting competition, it would be devastating in a classroom packed with little kids.

So would an SUV driven into a playground...

Those videos do not show full automatic fire...It is essentially very, very rapid semi-auto fire....

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by glocke12

So would an SUV driven into a playground...

Those videos do not show full automatic fire...It is essentially very, very rapid semi-auto fire....

A distinction without a difference, I'd say.

But it does bring up a point in comparison automobiles. As stated in other posts, automobile manufacturers for years have gone to great lengths to make the products safer for the driver, passengers and even those not in the car.

Conversely, gun manufacturers/modifiers seem to be doing just the opposite. Can you argue that a sliding stock that allows a semi-automatics to mimic automatic fire makes shooting safer? Or that a button that allows you to rapidly eject a magazine makes shooting safer?

It seems that gun manufacturers/modifiers are only raising the bar, trying to make their product more lethal, not less, because that is what is drawing the attention of the American buyer.

Now I may be totally wrong here ... my finger is certainly not on the pulse of the gun industry. Perhaps someone could provide examples of ways guns have been made safer, for the shooter and those around it.

[Arran]

Originally Posted by glocke12

So would an SUV driven into a playground...

But that's not how the fruitcakes do it: They prefer to go out in a hail of bullets. Don't ask me why.

Originally Posted by glocke12

Those videos do not show full automatic fire...It is essentially very, very rapid semi-auto fire....

Point taken glocke12, but yours is a technical distinction, not a functional one. You seem to be one of the more reasonable pro-gun folks here, so surely you can see how effective this technique would be against a class full of defenseless kids - especially if the gunman blocks the door. At least with your SUV scenario, the kids would scatter and some could run away.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Now I may be totally wrong here ... my finger is certainly not on the pulse of the gun industry. Perhaps someone could provide examples of ways guns have been made safer, for the shooter and those around it.

I made a post in one of the threads about smart gun technology and everyone else just ignored it.

Biometric trigger safety locks would go a long way towards making guns much safer. You would have to scan your fingerprint to unlock the safety and fire the gun, and as soon as the pressure sensors in the grip detect the gun leaving your hand, the safety would re-lock. Obviously, only an authorized user's fingerprint would be able to unlock the gun.

This would eliminate stolen guns being used in crimes, kids getting their hands on guns and accidentally hurting/killing themselves or others, criminals grabbing a cop's gun and shooting them, etc.

Maybe everyone won't ignore me this time. We have plenty of technology here in 2012 that we could apply and develop to make guns much safer. And R&D and production on these new guns and parts to convert old guns could make armament companies millions of dollars.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by zioxide

I made a post in one of the threads about smart gun technology and everyone else just ignored it.

Biometric trigger safety locks would go a long way towards making guns much safer. You would have to scan your fingerprint to unlock the safety and fire the gun, and as soon as the pressure sensors in the grip detect the gun leaving your hand, the safety would re-lock. Obviously, only an authorized user's fingerprint would be able to unlock the gun.

I've mentioned biometrics in these threads myself.

Love to see it. Everything else is getting "smart". Why not guns?

[glocke12]

Originally Posted by Arran

But that's not how the fruitcakes do it: They prefer to go out in a hail of bullets. Don't ask me why.




Point taken glocke12, but yours is a technical distinction, not a functional one. You seem to be one of the more reasonable pro-gun folks here, so surely you can see how effective this technique would be against a class full of defenseless kids - especially if the gunman blocks the door. At least with your SUV scenario, the kids would scatter and some could run away.

I understand what you are saying..

Look, you guys are essentially making the argument that gun owners and guns are going to go out and start massacring kids left and right. That simply is not going to happen. Looking at this objectively, these shootings are still rare...They are much like airplane accidents....Horrible to look at with large numbers of deaths, but still rare.

Banning guns and more gun laws are simply not going to solve this problem...not unless they go door to door and enact widespread confiscation which is simply not going to happen.

But lets say that does happen...and people willingly turn in their semiauto weapons. That still leaves shotguns..what happens when some pyscho walks into a school and sprays kids with shotgun blasts ? Or bolt action rifles..what happens when someone with scoped hunting rifle takes out kids on a playground from 300 yards away? Someone proficient with a bolt action gun can get off many shots before anyone even knows what is happening ?

More laws really are not the answer...I do agree that more needs to be done to keep firearms out of the hands of prohibited people..I myself would not object to mandatory background checks for all transactions..I also would like to see access to mental health care become easier.
Other than that I object to any new restrictions on gun control, including high cap magazine bans..MILLIONS of these weapons are out there and used responsibly by law abiding people on a daily basis without a problem.

As for the slide fire stock...Ive known about those for sometime...there were initially some legal questions about those but the ATF signed off on them. With anything, used responsibly they are not a problem.

[zioxide]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I've mentioned biometrics in these threads myself.

Love to see it. Everything else is getting "smart". Why not guns?

I wish the mainstream media would pick up this topic and start talking about it.

The technology already exists and it doesn't seem like it would be very hard to implement it. And, aside from the equipment malfunctioning, it would nearly completely eliminate the situations I described above.

There's money to be made here too so I'm surprised some of these companies aren't jumping on this.

Originally Posted by glocke12

I understand what you are saying..

Look, you guys are essentially making the argument that gun owners and guns are going to go out and start massacring kids left and right. That simply is not going to happen. Looking at this objectively, these shootings are still rare...They are much like airplane accidents....Horrible to look at with large numbers of deaths, but still rare.

Banning guns and more gun laws are simply not going to solve this problem...not unless they go door to door and enact widespread confiscation which is simply not going to happen.

But lets say that does happen...and people willingly turn in their semiauto weapons. That still leaves shotguns..what happens when some pyscho walks into a school and sprays kids with shotgun blasts ? Or bolt action rifles..what happens when someone with scoped hunting rifle takes out kids on a playground from 300 yards away? Someone proficient with a bolt action gun can get off many shots before anyone even knows what is happening ?

More laws really are not the answer...I do agree that more needs to be done to keep firearms out of the hands of prohibited people..I myself would not object to mandatory background checks for all transactions..I also would like to see access to mental health care become easier.
Other than that I object to any new restrictions on gun control, including high cap magazine bans..MILLIONS of these weapons are out there and used responsibly by law abiding people on a daily basis without a problem.

As for the slide fire stock...Ive known about those for sometime...there were initially some legal questions about those but the ATF signed off on them. With anything, used responsibly they are not a problem.

I agree that we are never going to be able to completely eliminate these sort of things.

I don't agree that civilians need access to assault-type weapons (semi-auto or not) and high-capacity magazines, but restricting these won't help a thing if we don't start enforcing the regulations we have on the books now.

That's the first step. Make sure that EVERYONE is getting a background check, eliminate the gun show loophole, etc. first then go from there.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by glocke12

Look, you guys are essentially making the argument that gun owners and guns are going to go out and start massacring kids left and right.

It's really, really disheartening to spend all this time in a discussion only to hear you say that is the argument we've essentially been making.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

The average gun owner probably never shoots their gun.

There are a few types of gun owners.

Originally Posted by glocke12

I stand by my assertion that the average gun owner shoots far more than the average LEO.

Absolutely.

You have a few classes of gun owners. There are people that buy a gun, store it, and never shoot it. There are people that buy a gun, occasionally shoot it, and usually store. There are people that buy a gun, shoot it frequently, and store it.

As for cops, I will say most are not gun people. My range did qualifications. 9 out of 10 shot horribly. The only on-range accidents I ever saw were cops, usually shooting themselves in the foot from re-holstering with their finger on the trigger of a non-lockable gun such as a Glock. Most cops who are gun people will move up to more complex positions, such as strategic response units. This is why the NRA's suggestion of placing cops at schools won't work. Most cops are not prepared for a situation. The overwhelming majority have never done a stress shooting exercise, and they only shoot around qualification times. They are the worst offenders of basic safety rules and many felt that because they were police that the rules did not apply to them. Furthermore, most cops are not armed properly to handle a situation. Not many cops are IPSC or IDPA guys and few have ever shot at moving targets with friendly targets in the same room. Shootings where cops fire 20+ rounds and only hit the intended target once are nightmare scenarios in the event of a school shooting...it equates to unnecessary loss of life.

On the contrary, many federal agencies actually send their people to training facilities such as Storm Mountain or XC. They are shooting in environments with both hostiles and friendlies, are forced to shoot thousands of rounds in a variety of high-stress conditions, are forced to shoot from weak-point positions, are taught the actual way to move with a firearm to prevent interception, and are drilled to the point in which they will be able to handle a real-world situation.

Originally Posted by citizenzen

It's really, really disheartening to spend all this time in a discussion only to hear you say that is the argument we've essentially been making.

I believe you are generally concerned about the welfare of your fellow countrymen and countrywomen, and that you are not one of the 'ban everything' crowd. But this forum can sometimes be a little disheartening to people who favor gun rights, including myself.

[Macky-Mac]

Originally Posted by glocke12

...Looking at this objectively, these shootings are still rare...They are much like airplane accidents....Horrible to look at with large numbers of deaths, but still rare.....

and yet the NRA and their political lackeys tell us that the risk is so great that more and more and more guns are needed in every school.

Are they serious? Or is it really just all a cynical move to get panicky people to run out to buy more guns in order to increase the profits of the gun industry that pours so much money into the NRA

[DakotaGuy]

Originally Posted by zioxide

I made a post in one of the threads about smart gun technology and everyone else just ignored it.

Biometric trigger safety locks would go a long way towards making guns much safer. You would have to scan your fingerprint to unlock the safety and fire the gun, and as soon as the pressure sensors in the grip detect the gun leaving your hand, the safety would re-lock. Obviously, only an authorized user's fingerprint would be able to unlock the gun.

This would eliminate stolen guns being used in crimes, kids getting their hands on guns and accidentally hurting/killing themselves or others, criminals grabbing a cop's gun and shooting them, etc.

Maybe everyone won't ignore me this time. We have plenty of technology here in 2012 that we could apply and develop to make guns much safer. And R&D and production on these new guns and parts to convert old guns could make armament companies millions of dollars.

I personally like this idea and think it is a good idea. You really should see if you can't contact a few of the gun manufactures and float this idea. It is very easily possible with today's electronics.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by NickZac

You have a few classes of gun owners. There are people that buy a gun, store it, and never shoot it. There are people that buy a gun, occasionally shoot it, and usually store. There are people that buy a gun, shoot it frequently, and store it.

Agreed, and Glocke12 is trying to claim that the latter group makes up the majority of gun owners, whereas in reality probably most people are in the former two groups - just like any other hobby.

Originally Posted by NickZac

As for cops, I will say most are not gun people. My range did qualifications. 9 out of 10 shot horribly. The only on-range accidents I ever saw were cops

Yeah, because the first two groups of civilian gun owners aren't on the range at all.

Originally Posted by NickZac

I believe you are generally concerned about the welfare of your fellow countrymen and countrywomen, and that you are not one of the 'ban everything' crowd. But this forum can sometimes be a little disheartening to people who favor gun rights, including myself.

Only because there are a decent number of Europeans here, and guns are much, much less available.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Agreed, and Glocke12 is trying to claim that the latter group makes up the majority of gun owners, whereas in reality probably most people are in the former two groups - just like any other hobby.

Yeah, because the first two groups of civilian gun owners aren't on the range at all.

Only because there are a decent number of Europeans here, and guns are much, much less available.

What that boils down to though is a lack of education. The groups that never shoot are the ones where most of the 'accidents' come from. Personally, I don't know why one would own a gun and never shoot it. It seems mandated firearm education on correct safety and storage protocol could be beneficial here.

And I believe the Europeans here are legitimately concerned over the issue as well. It is my hope that most Europeans on this forum realize that most gun owners are not the NRA and that we are committed to approaching this issue to reduce gun violence and accidents as well.

[rdowns]

Originally Posted by DakotaGuy

I personally like this idea and think it is a good idea. You really should see if you can't contact a few of the gun manufactures and float this idea. It is very easily possible with today's electronics.

The NRA opposes smart guns.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by NickZac

What that boils down to though is a lack of education. The groups that never shoot are the ones where most of the 'accidents' come from. Personally, I don't know why one would own a gun and never shoot it. It seems mandated firearm education on correct safety and storage protocol could be beneficial here.

I completely agree.

----------

Originally Posted by NickZac

It is my hope that most Europeans on this forum realize that most gun owners are not the NRA and that we are committed to approaching this issue to reduce gun violence and accidents as well.

I think there has been a substantial recent shift in opinion in this direction, but I don't think it has always been the case.

[Macky-Mac]

Originally Posted by NickZac

....It is my hope that most Europeans on this forum realize that most gun owners are not the NRA and that we are committed to approaching this issue to reduce gun violence and accidents as well.

never mind the europeans.....US citizens on this forum need to become aware that the overwhelming majority of gun owners aren't members of the NRA, and they need to realize that the NRA, which used to be a sportsmen's organization, now is a virtual prisoner of the funding it gets from gun manufacturers.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

I completely agree.

----------



I think there has been a substantial recent shift in opinion in this direction, but I don't think it has always been the case.

Believe me when I say that European interests in the well-being of our citizens means a lot to me, and while European policies do not always fit America, the value of them and lessons learned by European governments are things we should not overlook.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by NickZac

The groups that never shoot are the ones where most of the 'accidents' come from.

Sorry. Broken record here ...

Source?

Thank you.

[Eraserhead]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Sorry. Broken record here ...

Source?

Thank you.

Frankly its pretty obvious.

[NickZac]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

Sorry. Broken record here ...

Source?

Thank you.

Not all sources seem to meet your requirements. I'm sorry about that. But in this sense, if you are rejecting empiricism then simply disregard my comment. The source is myself and my involvement within the shooting community, the thousands of guns I delivered to responsible gun owners, my involvement with tons of law enforcement personal, the tactical pistol classes I have taken, the many people I have taught basic firearm education and defensive pistol, and the thirty-five years my former company has been in business and their hard line policy of not selling guns to people without basic safety competency and the impeccable record of range safety at the shooting facilities they own.

[skunk]

Originally Posted by Eraserhead

Frankly its pretty obvious.

What is?

[skunk]

Originally Posted by NickZac

Not all sources seem to meet your requirements. I'm sorry about that. But in this sense, if you are rejecting empiricism then simply disregard my comment. The source is myself and my involvement within the shooting community, the thousands of guns I delivered to responsible gun owners, my involvement with tons of law enforcement personal, the tactical pistol classes I have taken, the many people I have taught basic firearm education and defensive pistol, and the thirty-five years my former company has been in business and their hard line policy of not selling guns to people without basic safety competency and the impeccable record of range safety at the shooting facilities they own.

In other words, it's entirely anecdotal.