K D

And I'm a pretty center of the road guy on most issues but I see a growing anti-gun sentiment from people who probably don't have much experience with guns and just see them as bad because all they know is what they see on the news. if they set a legal precedent to be able to ban guns it would only take one whack-job far left administration to try it and like you said there will be resistance which would not end well for anybody. you doubt he could shoot 10 people with a shotgun? the US army who has access to any guns in the world still certifies and trains with pump shotguns because they don't jam and are more adverse to poor conditions. of course you can kill lots of people with pump shotguns. check out the mossberg 590 a1 or m or the kel-tec KSG among others

What makes you so sure that they wouldn't take away guns if given the legal precedent to do so? They have in other countries. One side is saying ban guns so of course the other side is going to dig their heels in. It's the expected response to such rhetoric

I think if we lose to KC similar to the way we did last time then it's definitely a conversation, but I think he's built a winning culture and I think he will be given the benefit of the doubt and if anything they might be replacing Leslie and other other coordinators before they get rid of McD

how so? "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." seems pretty straightforward to me. i think there is a myth that 2A supports creation of independent armed militias where as the term "militia" was used to refer to all armed citizens. is that what you are referring to? but 2A definitely was put in place as a check and balance of power. the colonies were fighting the greatest army in the world at the time. they wanted their new government to be a government by the people and for the people, not one that the citizens would fear. a balance of power is crucial to a functioning democracy

I was shocked when I was a kid when I found out if you punch someone they don't lie on the ground unconscious for 20 minutes. Now I can't watch John Wick or Fast and Furious movies anymore without saying "oh come on!!!" It's tough getting old

i think people watch too many movies where they think a clean shot with .223 will automatically kill someone. a smaller high powered round like that will go right through you and not hit any major organs and 10 seconds later you will be like why am i bleeding? did i get shot? lol. hit someone with some buck shot in close range and you will have a closed casket for sure. now which one is the "assault weapon?"

I'm not sure I get your point. Russians don't kill Ukrainians with handguns because close quarters combat is not an ideal attack strategy during an invasion. If you want to limit casualties you will bomb from a distance and then only after the threat is mostly eliminated will you send in ground troops to secure the area. I don't think it has anything to do with power or boldness it's just military strategy. If this guy wanted to kill minorities he would do it with a pump shotgun, a car, a sword, a baseball bat, a knife, whatever he could get his hands on. His AR-15 was already banned by NY state and that clearly didn't stop him

That nutjob could go to Tops with a pump shotgun and shoot 10 people easy. Most pumps are 5+1 and then pretty quick to reload. I don't see how that would solve anything unfortunately, especially what happened in this situation

I think banning semi-autos is not a realistic outcome. I think other things can be done like needing to take training courses, proving you are not a physical threat by keeping a clean criminal record, ongoing education, common sense laws around background checks and waiting periods, registration, etc. Banning this or that is too extreme and will just cause division between both sides. I think there is middle ground but how can we get there if one side is saying ban and the other side is saying no? Sounds like we are still pretty far apart

I think we all are just trying to do the right things for ourselves and our families. I think it's sad when some people conclude that if you are on the other side of a political topic that you are the enemy or a bad person. We are all just trying to do the right thing and sometimes it's just not so cut and dry as some people think these issues are. It's pretty disheartening to be called names and such when I say that I own guns and I believe other law-abiding citizens should have the right to as well if they so choose, so I usually just keep my opinions to myself. I wish more people would feel empowered to have open and honest conversations without it resulting in shouting and name calling. That's the only way we will make progress

Lol, well that's not a helpful response. I'm honestly and truthfully just giving the perspective of gun owners when laws like that are suggested. I think both sides just end up getting frustrated and are like oh well, nothing we can do I guess!

I continue to appreciate your rational approach to the matter. Playing devil's advocate - If you take away people's guns for going to therapy then people with mental illness won't seek treatment and they will continue to sit at home and fester and that might be what happened here. He clearly didn't get the help he needed for whatever reason. Someone must have known this kid was spending his life savings on stockpiling this stuff. What 18 year old can afford all of this? I know I couldn't when I was his age. Someone close to him should have seen the signs that this was a troubled youth who was possibly becoming a threat to himself and others

By definition criminals break the law, yes? By banning semi-autos you would just be taking them out of the hands of law abiding citizens. Do you think criminals can't get whatever gun they want if they are willing to break the law? So let's say they do ban semi-autos. We are left with what, pump shotguns and hammer fired revolvers? Do you think a crazy person couldn't go to Tops with a pump shotgun and shoot 10 people? Then they will want to ban shotguns. It doesn't end until law abiding citizens have no guns but the criminals and military do.

Well that escalated quickly. Unfortunately, as I mentioned to the gentleman earlier in the thread, this is how these types of discussions usually go which is why nothing ever gets resolved. There are extreme points of view on both sides of the aisle, and everyone has their heels dug in and not willing to budge. Somewhere in the middle might be some common ground common sense laws that could be enacted but we will never get there if both sides refuse to have respectful dialogue

Now you know at least one. I posted this story earlier in the thread, but to make a long story short a while back my apartment was broken into while me and my then gf (now wife) were home. We hid in the bedroom and called 911. Luckily the criminals left when they figured out we were home because it took the police 2 hours to show up! The 911 operator told my wife to ask the criminals what they wanted and ask if they were in the wrong apartment. There is nothing worse as a man to see your significant other hiding in a closet crying thinking their life is about to end. Needless to say I have ways of protecting my family now

Ok that would be considered a pretty extreme stance. I think that you would get a lot of pushback and that will likely not happen in your lifetime. Pretty much all handguns are semi-automatic so you would want to ban those. I don't think that's a very realistic outcome which is why these discussions never go anywhere and things never change. The reasons for the 2nd amendment are just as true now as it was back then. Our forefathers were trying to gain independence from a fascist monarchy and didn't want any government to have that much power over their citizens ever again. The 2nd amendment was created so that a balance of power existed. It wasn't created so people could go hunting or target shooting. If you are against the 2nd amendment then you are against the fundamentals this country was built on.

Almost every gun is a semi-automatic weapon. Are you saying they need to ban all guns? Please be specific It also sounds like your knowledge on the subject is starting from scratch. There's a lot of good discussion on this if you go 2 pages back in this thread and I'm happy to help answer any questions you may have

The owners of hammers are clearly racist. My dad used to be a member of the rotary club and he said everyone in the 80's had hammers in their toolbox. Enough said

That's part of what I'm trying to explain is that there isn't an easy way for the federal government to ban them. The wording and definition is everything. If they simply say all assault weapons are banned then that could be all guns, knives, hammers, whatever they want. If they say guns that are semi automatic then that is pretty much all guns. It's not as easy as just don't have whatever gun you or someone else thinks shouldn't be allowed. Even in NY there are loopholes to their AR-15 ban. You can buy them in other states as mentioned, you can build them yourself out of parts, you can make the magazine fixed so it doesn't detach, you can make the stock not adjustable. Clearly it didn't stop this kid from getting one. Even with the automatic ban, pretty much all criminals are able to modify a gun to fire automatic. So now the criminals have automatic weapons and the upstanding citizens trying to protect their families don't. Doesn't seem fair

How would you define an assault weapon? Also purchases of AR-15's are illegal in NY so define easy? NY has some of the strictest gun laws in the entire country. I'm sure if a criminal wants to break the law they are able to figure out how to do it, yes I agree. That's why I have guns because I know the criminals do too

What does that have to do with having a discussion about firearms? There isn't one person alive that wouldn't think that. Yes not a simple solution unfortunately. Having discussions like this results in people being trigged like the poster above. If you try and explain to the other side why there is more to it than they are taking into consideration they shut down. That's why things don't change unfortunately

In what way? How can you define an AR style rifle without then setting a precedent to ban all guns? What is an AR style gun that another type of gun is not? Long, black, semi-automatic, accepts detachable magazines, accepts modular attachments and accessories. Just thinking out loud. If anyone wants to try to define an assault weapon I'll help you understand how by doing so you are banning all guns.

It sounds like you are making a lot of assumptions and then resorted to complete dismissal of mine and millions of people's opinion on the matter, which is how these types of conversations often go when people are unable to thoughtfully rebut an argument. They were able to classify automatic weapons by the way they are fired - automatically without pulling the trigger. That one was easy. Now how do you define an assault weapon? Give it a try. There isn't a way to do so without banning all guns

Why not? What's an assault weapon? A weapon used to assault someone. If you throw a frisbee at someone's head you have just assaulted them