22 year old ex-convict empties AK-47 into 12 year old

[Lemon law]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Lemon law
WHEN YOU COMEBACK WITH A SINGE ARGUMENT THAT SUCH WEAPON SHOULD BE PLACED IN THE HANDS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC, PLEASE LET ME KNOW, BUT SO FAR YOU ARE ARE LOGICALLY MISSING IN ACTION.

Again, long on emotion, short on facts.

I'm still waiting for your evaluation of the facts that I posted about the Ruger Mini 14 that sells in large quantities as a ranch rifle.

You have given no reason why responsible individuals should not have access to these items. Your entire position is, "some people may misuse them, so we should ban them entirely". You have given no reason why the responsible majority should be made to suffer because an infinitesimal minority are irresponsible.

ZV

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough question, be it resolved, the Ruger mini 14 should be banned as well if they add the option of a large magazine size. The rancher needs a such a large magazine size like a hole in the head. No large magazine size, no problem. The combination of the two makes it illogical and a danger to the general public.

Once again, the missing in action flaw in your argument is a single reason the rancher needs more than a five round magazine. And while its true that maybe one nut case in 20,000, might have the ability to custom make a 30 round magazine to
fit the mini 14, we are still talking 19,999 nut cases that don't.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fair enough question, be it resolved, the Ruger mini 14 should be banned as well if they add the option of a large magazine size. The rancher needs a such a large magazine size like a hole in the head. No large magazine size, no problem. The combination of the two makes it illogical and a danger to the general public.

Once again, the missing in action flaw in your argument is a single reason the rancher needs more than a five round magazine. And while its true that maybe one nut case in 20,000, might have the ability to custom make a 30 round magazine to
fit the mini 14, we are still talking 19,999 nut cases that don't.

That rancher can have five six-round magazines, what's the difference? What has banning done to protect anyone? Nothing!

Please present me some data that shows assault rifle crime has gone up since the end of the assault rifle ban. See, to ban something that isn't banned you need to provide proof, not the other way around.

I'll be waiting.

 

[Lemon law]

TallBill may be semi rational but ignores the fact that others totally lack an iota of rationality. As he says, "That rancher can have five six-round magazines, what's the difference? What has banning done to protect anyone? Nothing!

Please present me some data that shows assault rifle crime has gone up since the end of the assault rifle ban. See, to ban something that isn't banned you need to provide proof, not the other way around.

I'll be waiting."

Well wait no more, in the case of this thread subject, its unmistakably clear that the nut in question was going to keep firing until the magazine went dry. Meanwhile he was in a lala land of his own. Once the magazine went dry he pulled his limited wits together and not before. I shutter to think what could have happened if he had another 30 round magazine handy, but the five or 10 seconds it would take to change
a magazine would have offered a chance for the victims to escape and the crazed idiot a chance to think. Just one incident of this type is more than needed proof of the folly of large magazine sizes in high powered rifles.

Your second flawed argument is to assume the original congressional ban on assault type weapons was well reasoned or wise. Because a largely firearms ignorant congress sadly concentrated on trivial distinctions while missing the obvious. Leaving large loopholes manufacturers could exploit. In the case of TallBill, we might be able to trust him to have such a weapon, but there are sadly too many people we can't trust. And rather than make the case that all firearms should be banned, can't we at least agree that these assault rifles with large magazines should be banned?

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
TallBill may be semi rational but ignores the fact that others totally lack an iota of rationality. As he says, "That rancher can have five six-round magazines, what's the difference? What has banning done to protect anyone? Nothing!

Please present me some data that shows assault rifle crime has gone up since the end of the assault rifle ban. See, to ban something that isn't banned you need to provide proof, not the other way around.

I'll be waiting."

Well wait no more, in the case of this thread subject, its unmistakably clear that the nut in question was going to keep firing until the magazine went dry. Meanwhile he was in a lala land of his own. Once the magazine went dry he pulled his limited wits together and not before. I shutter to think what could have happened if he had another 30 round magazine handy, but the five or 10 seconds it would take to change
a magazine would have offered a chance for the victims to escape and the crazed idiot a chance to think. Just one incident of this type is more than needed proof of the folly of large magazine sizes in high powered rifles.

Your second flawed argument is to assume the original congressional ban on assault type weapons was well reasoned or wise. Because a largely firearms ignorant congress sadly concentrated on trivial distinctions while missing the obvious. Leaving large loopholes manufacturers could exploit. In the case of TallBill, we might be able to trust him to have such a weapon, but there are sadly too many people we can't trust. And rather than make the case that all firearms should be banned, can't we at least agree that these assault rifles with large magazines should be banned?

Trust doesn't work as a reason to ban stuff. I know it sounds cliche, but I don't trust a hell of a lot of people while driving on the highway and my life is very much in their hands daily. One almost took me out for good about 8 years ago.

I also wouldn't just automatically trust a soldier with weapons either. My brother-in-law and I both experienced situations where someone could have seriously been hurt because of a soldier's negligence handling a firearm.

I'm not going to go back and forth here though, clearly we disagree on this issue, and neither will be able to convince the other.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Once again, the missing in action flaw in your argument is a single reason the rancher needs more than a five round magazine. And while its true that maybe one nut case in 20,000, might have the ability to custom make a 30 round magazine to
fit the mini 14, we are still talking 19,999 nut cases that don't.

I'd like to preface my comment by saying I live in a country with strict gun control laws and I'm happy with that. I have no stake in America's gun laws and I don't take a position one way or the other.

Having said that, when it comes to removing rights from the populace, it shouldn't be a case of "prove you need that right, and we'll let you keep it". The burden is on the other party, and they need to show good reason that the right should not be granted. Now whether or not that has been shown I shall leave up for discussion, but your position, in my opinion, is without merit. Show why the right should be removed, but don't ask why it should be retained.

 

[Lemon law]

While GodlessAstronmer makes a limited point, even our American constitutional right to free speech is limited. I can't yell fire in a crowded theater for my own chuckles and jollies because it endangers the lives of others. And while our 2'nd amendment rights to own guns have been in a vague area for hundreds of years, our supreme court recently decided gun ownership was a right. But even then, its not an unlimited right. We restrict people from carrying concealed pistols in public without a special license, we prohibit shotguns with barrels shorter than 16", we require a special and hard to get license to own a fully automatic machine gun, Federal laws outlaw the use of shotguns with magazine capacity over three when hunting migratory birds, and all of these almost universally accepted laws are based on the same simple logic and past abuses. In an effort to balance a right without infringing on the right of the the general public to simply live.

TallBill makes a more compelling argument regarding automobiles, but there is no constitutionally protected right to drive, its a privilege and a responsibility all too often abused. But we make the same common sense judgments as we licenses drivers and hope for the best. Abuse the privilege too often and you lose your license. Sadly, one can have a long record of safe driving, and one moment of inattention can cause some innocent person to lose their life.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
TallBill makes a more compelling argument regarding automobiles, but there is no constitutionally protected right to drive, its a privilege and a responsibility all too often abused. But we make the same common sense judgments as we licenses drivers and hope for the best. Abuse the privilege too often and you lose your license. Sadly, one can have a long record of safe driving, and one moment of inattention can cause some innocent person to lose their life.

But we don't ban cars as a result. By your logic, as I pointed out earlier, we should ban high-power sportscars since they are responsible for a disproportionate number of accidents and there is no "legitimate purpose" for having them. No-one "needs" a sportscar and if we banned them all, we would save more lives than we would from banning the types of firearms you want to ban.

What you describe with cars, "abuse the privilege too often and you lose your license", is exactly what we do with firearms right now. Abuse the right and you have it taken away. What you are proposing instead is to take the right away from everyone, including those who have never, and will never, abuse it. That's what's wrong.

ZV

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Engineer

I don't know why anyone (other than military or certain police) needs fully automatic weapons. It's one thing to own a gun....another to have weapons like this. *shakes head*.

Wow way to jump to conclusions. Where did it say it was a fully automatic weapon? Fully automatic weapons are so ridiculously priced that a common criminal or even working man isn't going to be buying one.

Also, this AK47 that they said the guy had 99.9% sure it was a AK clone that only fired in semi-auto unless he ILLEGALLY made modifications to it.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The Princeof Wands does know all that much about firearms if he says " the weapon is irrelevant because absolutely any semi-auto could do basically the same thing, and any shotgun would have had the same end result, and probably any old style revolver for that matter. "

Which is basically incorrect in most cases. Depending on the construction of the walls and doors, a shot gun would have lost most of its energy punching a hole through the walls and doors, revolver bullets are are made of soft lead, would have greatly expanded in diameter in the process of penetration of walls or doors, and even large magnum pistols contain only a fraction of the energy packed by a AK-47 bullet. Certain non assault rifle legitimate hunting high powered rifles can develop more muzzle energy, but they are usually only loaded with expanding type bullets, are usually bolt action, and have magazines seldom containing more than five rounds.

And due to the wonders of military surplus, there are ready supplies of non expanding military ammunition in case lots of a 1000 that can go through walls and doors without losing much energy. In short, this AK-47 was not your typical firearm, it was ideally suited for what happened here, its worthless and illegal as a hunting rifle, but almost an accident waiting to happen when placed in the hands of a nut. This entire incident is a compelling reason to ban ALL weapons of that type. They belong in military arsenals under lock and key, not in the hands of the general public. Even if the owner is "responsible", too often the responsible owner gets robbed and they wind up in the hands of criminals.

You obviously don't know shit about guns either. a large magnum round has MORE energy because the bullet is larger. You project your fear onto weapons because you can't fathom that the problem is the person holding the weapon, not the weapon itself. You're claims about hunting rifles while true is a stupid point. If you want to ban certain types of guns then you want to ban ALL guns. This guy with the "AK47" shot someone point blank because he dealt in ILLEGAL activities and probably has someone out to get him.
Now Billy Bob Joe with his .300 WinMag for deer hunting can go sit on a roof top and kill someone so far off with it that the person he shot would be dead before they heard the shot. You can survive a 7.62x39 round. You can't survive a .300 WinMag.
If you want to ban guns based on their "killing" power, you need to start with the true high powered rifles.

 

[Lemon law]

No, the sportcar analogy does not quite fit. The sportcar is not as inherently dangerous as a two ton panel truck or an 18 wheeler. Which would you rather be hit with if you had no other equal speed choice?
The stupid sportscar driver will usually be taken off the road by too many speeding tickets rather than by any Darwin awards.

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

Originally posted by: Capt Caveman

Originally posted by: Stoneburner
This isn't about banning guns so much as it is doing SOMETHING to keep guns away from ABSOLUTE FUCKIN MORONS.

Really, can you be against banning morons from having guns? Somebody's kid is dead because AN ABSOLUTE MORON was allowed to have a gun.

So, is it a case of stronger gun laws or developing some means to reduce the number of illegal guns?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, this is not about banning all guns, this is about banning one particular type gun that is legitimately useless, but makes crimes of this nature into crimes of this nature on steroids. If the nut in question used any other type of firearm, the probability of this resulting in a single death would have been greatly lower. Worse yet, if the nut in question would have tried to flee, he could have been in a position of rapid fire endangering everyone in a mile or better radius. And able to fire perhaps another thousand rounds or better before he was subdued, outgunning the police in the process.

A shotgun or a pistol would reduce that effective kill radius to no more than a hundred yards, and while even a legitimate hunting high power rifle would preserve the effective danger radius, it would not be able to match the assault rifles rate of fire, magazine size, and few would be able to afford the buy enough ammunition in those large lot sizes.

As a legitimate firearms owner and a hunter, I do know a thing or two about firearms. I would never ever consider wasting a penny on the purchase of an assault weapon, and I think the NRA is my greatest enemy in terms of preserving my rights to own firearms. I despise the NRA as the lobbying monstrosity they have become, as far as I am concerned, champions of criminals, thugs, the criminally insane, as they spread a message of uncompromising paranoia. The NRA has long gone past being anything but the problem.

Well fuck if we are going to ban things because they are useless, then it's time to get rid of motorcycles, i mean really, how many people are killed in motorcycle accidents every year. They can just ride the bus.
How about ipods. Those are useless. What real gain does society gain from an ipod?
Swimming pools. once again children die in swimming pools every year. You don't NEED a swimming pool. you can go swim at the lack or at the community pool where you have a life guard to protect you.
Hell why do we have a choice with anything? there should be one type of conveince, one type of food to eat. One model of home. One type of clothes.

As stated before. Firearms ownership is a right and you need to come up with a better reason to strip away a right than "think of the children".
2.5 MILLION times a year a firearm is used in a defensive lawful manner.

 

[Xavier434]

You guys are bunch of cold hearted asshats you know that?

Some kid got shot to death while trick or treating on Halloween and you prefer to hijack that story with nonsense about gun ownership rights? Expected...but unbelievable. :disgust:

 

[Genx87]

This guy a bit paranoid? Maybe he thought the local drug pin's thugs were coming for a little trick or beat action?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
No, the sportcar analogy does not quite fit. The sportcar is not as inherently dangerous as a two ton panel truck or an 18 wheeler. Which would you rather be hit with if you had no other equal speed choice?
The stupid sportscar driver will usually be taken off the road by too many speeding tickets rather than by any Darwin awards.

I'd rather not be hit at all, thank you.

Would you rather be hit by a sports car going 100 mph or a semi going 5 mph? See how easily the question can be made ridiculous?

Once again, you don't address the facts. The simple fact is that sports car drivers cause far more accidents than panel trucks or semis. Sports cars represent a much greater risk to the population as a whole than do Semis or panel trucks and there isn't a "need" for them. As has already been pointed out, an AK-47 is inherently less dangerous than even a 30-30, and much less so than a .30-06, the difference is that it can "go faster" in the sense of holding more rounds if a larger magazine is used. Similarly, a sports car, while weighing less than a semi, can go faster and thus cause more problems.

The analogy stands, your logic doesn't.

ZV

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Xavier434
You guys are bunch of cold hearted asshats you know that?

Some kid got shot to death while trick or treating on Halloween and you prefer to hijack that story with nonsense about gun ownership rights? Expected...but unbelievable. :disgust:

You're right. We should allow the other side to hijack the story unopposed and just lay down while they use it as "evidence" that our rights should be stripped away.

Is it a tragedy? Absolutely.

Does the shooter deserve to go to Federal PMITA prison? Absolutely.

Should we refrain from any political discussion just because there is an emotional connection? Not at all.

ZV

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Should we refrain from any political discussion just because there is an emotional connection? Not at all.

Tact

There is a time and place for everything and careful delivery is always important.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt
Should we refrain from any political discussion just because there is an emotional connection? Not at all.

Tact

There is a time and place for everything and careful delivery is always important.

Where has anyone expressed anything other than condemnation of the shooter and sympathy for the victim? You are not suggesting tact, you are suggesting censorship. There is a difference between being tactful and kowtowing to the hypersensitive.

There is nothing in this thread that a rational person would find offensive. Everyone's sympathies are with the victim.

ZV

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
The PrinceofWands somehow manages to ignore the whole issue when he says " Except that, as already proven time and again by enough statistics and studies to choke a donkey, it still could have happened in this case, and it still doesn't form a statistically significant portion of any problems, nor can any form of ban alter anything in any way. Remember that assault style weapons (even not a true assault weapon) are only used in .2% of crimes...so all your bullshit and blathering wouldn't fix anything in the end. It would be utterly useless legislation, affecting far more law abiding citizens than criminals.

But hey, just go ahead and bold a little more next time and maybe some more 35IQ dweebs will believe you."

Ok, granted PrinceofWands, this is not the typical case of gun violence, but still, if he was unable to find a ready supply of a large magazine capacity firearms, this incident would have never made the national news. As it is, the perp did get a hold of such a firearm, and that class of firearms should never wind up in the hands of the general public. AND TO BOLD IT, THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE DENIAL ABOUT, NO MATER WHAT CONVULTED ROUTE USED, FIREARMS OF THESE TYPES ONLY BENEFIT KOOKS, THE CRIMINALLY INSANE, THUGS, AND THE PARANOID. EXACTLY THE LAST SET OF PEOPLE WE SHOULD WANT TO OWN SUCH WEAPONS.

BANNING THEIR MANUFACTURE IS SIMPLE COMMON SENSE. IT WILL NOT BE A PANACEA, BUT ITS STILL A COMPELLING PLACE TO START, AND BEATS THE SHIT OUT OF THE NRA POSITION.

WHEN YOU COMEBACK WITH A SINGE ARGUMENT THAT SUCH WEAPON SHOULD BE PLACED IN THE HANDS OF THE GENERAL PUBLIC, PLEASE LET ME KNOW, BUT SO FAR YOU ARE ARE LOGICALLY MISSING IN ACTION.

You're right. It made the news because ignorant people think it somehow made a difference, when it didn't. After all, we have already discussed that he was probably prohibited from buying such a weapon, and yet there it was. This is simply further proof that no law will prohibit anything, and it's further proved by the war on drugs, prohibition, etc.

I've never argued that people should have them, though since they're a statistically insignificant factor I have no real problem with it either. MY problem is that banning them doesn't stop people from getting them, thus negating any benefit from the legislation. That, and I don't believe laws should be made except to address real issues.

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
TallBill may be semi rational but ignores the fact that others totally lack an iota of rationality. As he says, "That rancher can have five six-round magazines, what's the difference? What has banning done to protect anyone? Nothing!

Please present me some data that shows assault rifle crime has gone up since the end of the assault rifle ban. See, to ban something that isn't banned you need to provide proof, not the other way around.

I'll be waiting."

Well wait no more, in the case of this thread subject, its unmistakably clear that the nut in question was going to keep firing until the magazine went dry. Meanwhile he was in a lala land of his own. Once the magazine went dry he pulled his limited wits together and not before. I shutter to think what could have happened if he had another 30 round magazine handy, but the five or 10 seconds it would take to change
a magazine would have offered a chance for the victims to escape and the crazed idiot a chance to think. Just one incident of this type is more than needed proof of the folly of large magazine sizes in high powered rifles.

Your second flawed argument is to assume the original congressional ban on assault type weapons was well reasoned or wise. Because a largely firearms ignorant congress sadly concentrated on trivial distinctions while missing the obvious. Leaving large loopholes manufacturers could exploit. In the case of TallBill, we might be able to trust him to have such a weapon, but there are sadly too many people we can't trust. And rather than make the case that all firearms should be banned, can't we at least agree that these assault rifles with large magazines should be banned?

So any one incident of someone doing something bad is enough reason for a national ban. Ok. From now on I want you to agree to ban everything that kills one person.

Nope, for the rational reasons already discussed.

 

[mugs]

Originally posted by: Lemon law

FIREARMS OF THESE TYPES ONLY BENEFIT KOOKS, THE CRIMINALLY INSANE, THUGS, AND THE PARANOID. EXACTLY THE LAST SET OF PEOPLE WE SHOULD WANT TO OWN SUCH WEAPONS.

You don't seem to understand that some people enjoy target shooting just like you might enjoy playing basketball. It's a leisure activity that many sane people participate in. All over the country, there are organized gatherings where people shoot and observe the shooting of legally owned automatic weapons.

There are also many people who like to collect guns, and collecting guns does not make you a "kook."

 

[Lemon law]

I have no per say problem with people enjoying shooting fully automatic weapons, as long as they are fully licensed. However, in this case, its not clear if that AK-47 was semi automatic or fully automatic. And as it is, this AK-47 was in the hands of a ex convict who probably could not legally possess any firearm in the first place. Its the legally availability of the large magazine size that made the man especially dangerous, and if it is not banned I would accept rigorous licensing of large magazines for high powered rifles to accomplish the same end.

Nor do I object to people collecting guns, but sad to say, many legitimate collectors get burgled and their collection winds up in the hands of criminals.

 

[mooseracing]

The guy should be should get the death penalty, by the firing squad. Dump some bleach in the gene pool, but all this guy is doing is fucking up my rights and other Americans rights, and in the end more government intervention, the last thing we need. I hope he dies soon.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
sad to say, many legitimate collectors get burgled and their collection winds up in the hands of criminals.

Since 1934, when all full-auto firearms were required to be registered, there have been exactly two (2) instances where a shooting has occurred with a registered full-auto firearm. In one of those instances, the incident occurred when a police officer used his department-issued full-auto firearm to murder a suspect.

2 known instances in 74 years of a registered full-auto firearm being used to kill someone, and one of those was a police officer who was on duty. There have been other crimes with non-registered full-auto firearms, but those are not firearms stolen out of private collections as the firearms in private collections would be registered.

That does not square with your claim of "many" collectors being robbed and having their firearms used in crimes. Once again, you use emotion and don't bother to look up the facts. Criminals are getting the few full-auto firearms they have through smuggling, not through burglary.

ZV

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Lemon law
sad to say, many legitimate collectors get burgled and their collection winds up in the hands of criminals.

Since 1934, when all full-auto firearms were required to be registered, there have been exactly two (2) instances where a shooting has occurred with a registered full-auto firearm. In one of those instances, the incident occurred when a police officer used his department-issued full-auto firearm to murder a suspect.

2 known instances in 74 years of a registered full-auto firearm being used to kill someone, and one of those was a police officer who was on duty. There have been other crimes with non-registered full-auto firearms, but those are not firearms stolen out of private collections as the firearms in private collections would be registered.

That does not square with your claim of "many" collectors being robbed and having their firearms used in crimes. Once again, you use emotion and don't bother to look up the facts. Criminals are getting the few full-auto firearms they have through smuggling, not through burglary.

ZV

What about all firearms that are stolen period? What are those stats?

 

[PrinceofWands]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Zenmervolt

Originally posted by: Lemon law
sad to say, many legitimate collectors get burgled and their collection winds up in the hands of criminals.

Since 1934, when all full-auto firearms were required to be registered, there have been exactly two (2) instances where a shooting has occurred with a registered full-auto firearm. In one of those instances, the incident occurred when a police officer used his department-issued full-auto firearm to murder a suspect.

2 known instances in 74 years of a registered full-auto firearm being used to kill someone, and one of those was a police officer who was on duty. There have been other crimes with non-registered full-auto firearms, but those are not firearms stolen out of private collections as the firearms in private collections would be registered.

That does not square with your claim of "many" collectors being robbed and having their firearms used in crimes. Once again, you use emotion and don't bother to look up the facts. Criminals are getting the few full-auto firearms they have through smuggling, not through burglary.

ZV

What about all firearms that are stolen period? What are those stats?

A great many are stolen. Just like cars, jewelery, and everything else. There's nothing you can do about it though. Just a part of life.