Blowing out your eardrums and going deaf from a gun habit does not strike me as responsible gun ownership.

Assault weapon what does it mean? does it mean a gun that is black and scary looking? does it mean a weapon used in war? I think the later so, if that is the criteria then lets have a adult look at war weapons lets start with the Brown Bess a single shot flintlock muzzle loader used in the revolutionary war it at that time was a assault weapon, but it was also used and adapted to civilian use, just like the lever action Winchester, and the WW! Mauser, bolt action that has become the most used action in gun history, then also the M1Garand a semi auto that has been copied and adapted to civilian use and now it is the AK 47 and the M16 adapted as the AR15 for civilian use. You see they were all assault weapons at one time or another the only difference is they are in your generation and most of you know nothing about them and hence you think they are scary.

They are just improvements over the last weapon used by the military, now they are made of plastic and Aluminum and are anodized instead of wood that breaks and swells when wet and get beat all to hell and they no longer rust, and they are modular you can make one fit anyone so even kids learning about guns can shoot them, you see they are vastly superior to the old steel and wood guns and they are just the next evolution in hunting and target weapons adapted from the military....

Again, none of your little game of semantics helps the nearly 600 dead or injured people in Las Vegas. I don't care what you call any of these tools of mass murder, this guy used them to hurt 600 people in ten minutes. How can you say these are great things to have available in our society?

So you approve not having rights until you can prove mental competency?

Not having rights? How about not having a gun until you can prove you can deconstruct and assemble your weapon of choice, demonstrate shooting and safety compliance, and pass the same psychological exams our police force use on recruits to test for this very thing. Surely that would decrease some deaths, if even the accidental ones, and only lets our finest men and women have the easiest of access to whatever it is they please. The ones who struggle with the aforementioned measurements can still excercise their 2nd amendment right, once they step up and prove themselves worthy of operating one of the greatest and most powerful tools ever. To disrespect some sort of testing is to disrespect all of our biggest cities' police forces who rely on them to protect and serve.

Do you know if all those officers who passed your mental tests can fully disassemble, properly clean and lubricate, and reassemble their service weapons?

What about those who could are physically unable to do so would you deny them the right to defend themselves? How about the one handed man that lives in a gang area? How about his right to defend himself?

Are you willing to just let them go by the wayside?

Blowing out your eardrums and going deaf from a gun habit does not strike me as responsible gun ownership.

That is why you wear hearing protection.

Do you know if all those officers who passed your mental tests can fully disassemble, properly clean and lubricate, and reassemble their service weapons?

They go through firearm training, which is the point. You have great points, but your side-step strategy of just asking additional questions, instead of answering mine, is ineffective.

What about those who could are physically unable to do so would you deny them the right to defend themselves? How about the one handed man that lives in a gang area? How about his right to defend himself?

LOL, what is your point? Why couldn't a one-handed man fire a gun responsibly? Oh, you are focusing on semantics to detract from the point of my post - not working on me.

Are you willing to just let them go by the wayside?

I'm not going to give you the respect of answering your questions when you completely avoided addressing my point. Address the point of my post, and I'll gladly do the same for you.

Assault weapon what does it mean? does it mean a gun that is black and scary looking? does it mean a weapon used in war? I think the later so, if that is the criteria then lets have a adult look at war weapons lets start with the Brown Bess a single shot flintlock muzzle loader used in the revolutionary war it at that time was a assault weapon, but it was also used and adapted to civilian use, just like the lever action Winchester, and the WW! Mauser, bolt action that has become the most used action in gun history, then also the M1Garand a semi auto that has been copied and adapted to civilian use and now it is the AK 47 and the M16 adapted as the AR15 for civilian use. You see they were all assault weapons at one time or another the only difference is they are in your generation and most of you know nothing about them and hence you think they are scary.

They are just improvements over the last weapon used by the military, now they are made of plastic and Aluminum and are anodized instead of wood that breaks and swells when wet and get beat all to hell and they no longer rust, and they are modular you can make one fit anyone so even kids learning about guns can shoot them, you see they are vastly superior to the old steel and wood guns and they are just the next evolution in hunting and target weapons adapted from the military....

More thumb violins music coming....rhetoric.....Why can't I have a tank??? or a bazooka or an anti aircraft gun...that's just an improvement on the musket??? how far was a musket accurate??? could it kill from 500 yards away and mow down 500+ people from one shooter?? without reloading after every shot...did a musket have belts drums and magazines full of high caliber projectiles???

No....we regulate many things within our amendments...like ya can't yell fire when there isn't one

We can't buy tanks or bazookas or anti-aircraft guns...or cannons...they're all improvements on the musket

I'm fine with assault weapons put in the same category as tanks, bazookas and anti-aircraft guns...because that is what they are intended for

[Edited on 10/5/2017 by goldtop]

Goldtop, you've got to get out more.
Yes, you can own a tank. www.angelfire.com/hero/cade/company.html

Anti-aircrfat gun, sure https://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=459912

Bazooka, why not. https://www.ima-usa.com/products/original-u-s-m20-a1-b1-3-5-inch-super-bazooka-launcher-inert-rocket?variant=26172821701

I own a cannon, a very small one, but it works. If you check out government auctions some interesting things come up, such as a Minute Man missile.

Oh, you can also buy assault weapons if you go thorough the same background criteria you would have to pass to own the tank.

The firearms sold to the general public are not assault rifles.

So you approve not having rights until you can prove mental competency?

Not having rights? How about not having a gun until you can prove you can deconstruct and assemble your weapon of choice, demonstrate shooting and safety compliance, and pass the same psychological exams our police force use on recruits to test for this very thing. Surely that would decrease some deaths, if even the accidental ones, and only lets our finest men and women have the easiest of access to whatever it is they please. The ones who struggle with the aforementioned measurements can still excercise their 2nd amendment right, once they step up and prove themselves worthy of operating one of the greatest and most powerful tools ever. To disrespect some sort of testing is to disrespect all of our biggest cities' police forces who rely on them to protect and serve.

OK, here is your complete post and the answers for it.
1) To show competency in disassembly and reassembly of the firearm you would first have to purchase it and practice under the supervision of an armorer since I doubt police agencies will have a copy of every firearm available to the general public.
2) Shooting and safety compliance classes I will gladly tell legislators to put my tax money to. People need to know how to correctly place rounds on target and what shoot-don't shoot stands for. Again, you would have to own the weapon for training since different firearms handle differently, even ones of the same make and model, not to mention sights are never set the same.
3) Who would administer the psychological tests? Would that be government officials, doctors, clerks, administrative assistants? What criteria would they use? How are the tests working? Seems there have been a lot of unwarranted police shootings of unarmed civilians lately.
4) Our finest? I guess you've never heard of the 14th Amendment?

Have I answered all your questions?

Do you know if all those officers who passed your mental tests can fully disassemble, properly clean and lubricate, and reassemble their service weapons?

They go through firearm training, which is the point. You have great points, but your side-step strategy of just asking additional questions, instead of answering mine, is ineffective.

What about those who could are physically unable to do so would you deny them the right to defend themselves? How about the one handed man that lives in a gang area? How about his right to defend himself?

LOL, what is your point? Why couldn't a one-handed man fire a gun responsibly? Oh, you are focusing on semantics to detract from the point of my post - not working on me.

Are you willing to just let them go by the wayside?

I'm not going to give you the respect of answering your questions when you completely avoided addressing my point. Address the point of my post, and I'll gladly do the same for you.

How is a one handed man going to disassemble/reassemble a firearm?

Also, I'm not sidestepping. I am asking questions that you obviously haven't thought of, or you just don't care about people defending themselves.

OK, here is your complete post and the answers for it.
1) To show competency in disassembly and reassembly of the firearm you would first have to purchase it and practice under the supervision of an armorer since I doubt police agencies will have a copy of every firearm available to the general public.
2) Shooting and safety compliance classes I will gladly tell legislators to put my tax money to. People need to know how to correctly place rounds on target and what shoot-don't shoot stands for. Again, you would have to own the weapon for training since different firearms handle differently, even ones of the same make and model, not to mention sights are never set the same.
3) Who would administer the psychological tests? Would that be government officials, doctors, clerks, administrative assistants? What criteria would they use? How are the tests working? Seems there have been a lot of unwarranted police shootings of unarmed civilians lately.
4) Our finest? I guess you've never heard of the 14th Amendment?

Have I answered all your questions?

Yes. Thank you!

My comments about taking apart and re-assembling a gun wasn't meant to be taken literally, but an example of how knowledgeable a gun owner should be before purchase, IMO. The practice can can occur at local ranges, or with family members. I'm not pretending to have the logistics and implementation ironed out, but if we want to do it, we can.

As for the competency exams, the same people who administer the police tests - that group should expand. We both probably agree that 99% of our cops are good ones who don't murder suspects. I like that percentage. I don't think 99% of our gun owners are competent in knowledge, safety, and stability. We need to get there though.

So agree about knowledge and safety exams. That's a huge first step, and a perfect compromise. Why can't we put that into action? Why does the anti-gun control crowd oppose that? Do you hold the NRA and right-wing politicians partly accountable for not being able to get this done?

OK, here is your complete post and the answers for it.
1) To show competency in disassembly and reassembly of the firearm you would first have to purchase it and practice under the supervision of an armorer since I doubt police agencies will have a copy of every firearm available to the general public.
2) Shooting and safety compliance classes I will gladly tell legislators to put my tax money to. People need to know how to correctly place rounds on target and what shoot-don't shoot stands for. Again, you would have to own the weapon for training since different firearms handle differently, even ones of the same make and model, not to mention sights are never set the same.
3) Who would administer the psychological tests? Would that be government officials, doctors, clerks, administrative assistants? What criteria would they use? How are the tests working? Seems there have been a lot of unwarranted police shootings of unarmed civilians lately.
4) Our finest? I guess you've never heard of the 14th Amendment?

Have I answered all your questions?

Yes. Thank you!

My comments about taking apart and re-assembling a gun wasn't meant to be taken literally, but an example of how knowledgeable a gun owner should be before purchase, IMO. The practice can can occur at local ranges, or with family members. I'm not pretending to have the logistics and implementation ironed out, but if we want to do it, we can.

As for the competency exams, the same people who administer the police tests - that group should expand. We both probably agree that 99% of our cops are good ones who don't murder suspects. I like that percentage. I don't think 99% of our gun owners are competent in knowledge, safety, and stability. We need to get there though.

So agree about knowledge and safety exams. That's a huge first step, and a perfect compromise. Why can't we put that into action? Why does the anti-gun control crowd oppose that? Do you hold the NRA and right-wing politicians partly accountable for not being able to get this done?

We used to have marksmanship and safety classes in schools here until some groups complained about it. Hell, some people don't even want the Eddie Eagle videos that teach kids not to touch a firearm unless an adult is with them. The videos teach Don't touch, get away, and tell an adult. Some folks don't want anything to do with the NRA even if it's safety training. They go crazy about being indoctrinated into the "gun mindset".
We first have to get over that hurdle so kids can learn gun safety.
The biggest reason small children die due to firearms is that they are curious. If a child has the training and sees a gun, they know it's dangerous, they know to not touch, they know to tell an adult, and they don't die due to someone not teaching them those few rules.

Blowing out your eardrums and going deaf from a gun habit does not strike me as responsible gun ownership.

That is why you wear hearing protection

Ya think?

Nah, that permanent ringing in your ears is the liberty bell.

Better to blast yourself deaf and bellyache about silencers:

Silencers....in Europe every gun is sold with one the reason is to quiet the noise from the guns to save peoples hearing they do NOT make a gun silenced they just make them to a decibel that does not damage the human ear , they are far far from silent the U.S should have them available for sale with any gun purchase if that had been law i would still be able to hear.

 

Blowing out your eardrums and going deaf from a gun habit does not strike me as responsible gun ownership.

That is why you wear hearing protection

Ya think?

Nah, that permanent ringing in your ears is the liberty bell.

Better to blast yourself deaf and bellyache about silencers:

Silencers....in Europe every gun is sold with one the reason is to quiet the noise from the guns to save peoples hearing they do NOT make a gun silenced they just make them to a decibel that does not damage the human ear , they are far far from silent the U.S should have them available for sale with any gun purchase if that had been law i would still be able to hear.

I still laugh at the old tv shows where the bad guy screws a silencer on a revolver.

 

A potato on the muzzle is good in a pinch.

A potato on the muzzle is good in a pinch.

Only if you want a blown barrel with shrapnel going all over the place.
I've seen rifles and shotguns that had mud in the muzzle. Not a pretty sight, and the damage done to the shooter
was anything from just burns on the hand to blindness and head injury.

A potato on the muzzle is good in a pinch.

Only if you want a blown barrel with shrapnel going all over the place.
I've seen rifles and shotguns that had mud in the muzzle. Not a pretty sight, and the damage done to the shooter
was anything from just burns on the hand to blindness and head injury.

Sounds like you are hanging with the trained and responsible gun owners the NRA is always bragging about.

A potato on the muzzle is good in a pinch.

Only if you want a blown barrel with shrapnel going all over the place.
I've seen rifles and shotguns that had mud in the muzzle. Not a pretty sight, and the damage done to the shooter
was anything from just burns on the hand to blindness and head injury.

Sounds like you are hanging with the trained and responsible gun owners the NRA is always bragging about.

He is an expert.

Thx for the advice. Will skip the potato.

Globally, tobacco use killed 100 million people in the 20th century, much more than all deaths in World Wars I and II combined. Tobacco-related deaths will number around 1 billion in the 21st century if current smoking patterns continue. Among middle-aged persons, tobacco use is estimated to be the most important risk factor for premature death in men and the second most important risk factor in women (following high blood pressure) in 2010–2025. To understand better how to address this issue, tobacco deaths need to be monitored closely, and this can be done best if death registries systematically collect data on tobacco use status. Currently, data on tobacco deaths mostly come from individual epidemiological studies.

National Right to Life estimates that, since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion 43 years ago in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton , more than 58 million unborn children have lost their lives. Each one of those abortions is a tragedy, not just because an innocent child died, but because of the lasting impact the abortion itself had on the mothers of those children.

Drinking too much can harm your health. Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year in the United States from 2006 – 2010, shortening the lives of those who died by an average of 30 years.1,2 Further, excessive drinking was responsible for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20-64 years. The economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption in 2010 were estimated at $249 billion, or $2.05 a drink.3

(CDC) show that on an average day, 93 Americans are killed with guns.

To calculate this, Everytown relies on a five-year-average of data from the CDC, whose National Vital Statistics System contains the most comprehensive national data, currently available through 2015.1
View CDC data on people killed by guns each year

On average there are nearly 12,000 gun homicides a year in the U.S.
12,000x10=120,000 in 10 years do the math people your chances of being shot slim quit beating a dead horse I applaud your passion and effort but use both where it can do the most good!

A potato on the muzzle is good in a pinch.

Only if you want a blown barrel with shrapnel going all over the place.
I've seen rifles and shotguns that had mud in the muzzle. Not a pretty sight, and the damage done to the shooter
was anything from just burns on the hand to blindness and head injury.

Sounds like you are hanging with the trained and responsible gun owners the NRA is always bragging about.

Actually, some of the rifles were M-16s at Ranger school. People who should know to check the muzzle, but when you've been awake for several days in sub freezing weather (sometimes -60 chill factor), your mind isn't on what it should be. Anything in the muzzle makes a gun into a potential bomb.

Globally, tobacco use killed 100 million people in the 20th century, much more than all deaths in World Wars I and II combined. Tobacco-related deaths will number around 1 billion in the 21st century if current smoking patterns continue. Among middle-aged persons, tobacco use is estimated to be the most important risk factor for premature death in men and the second most important risk factor in women (following high blood pressure) in 2010–2025. To understand better how to address this issue, tobacco deaths need to be monitored closely, and this can be done best if death registries systematically collect data on tobacco use status. Currently, data on tobacco deaths mostly come from individual epidemiological studies.

National Right to Life estimates that, since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion 43 years ago in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton , more than 58 million unborn children have lost their lives. Each one of those abortions is a tragedy, not just because an innocent child died, but because of the lasting impact the abortion itself had on the mothers of those children.

Drinking too much can harm your health. Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year in the United States from 2006 – 2010, shortening the lives of those who died by an average of 30 years.1,2 Further, excessive drinking was responsible for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20-64 years. The economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption in 2010 were estimated at $249 billion, or $2.05 a drink.3

(CDC) show that on an average day, 93 Americans are killed with guns.

To calculate this, Everytown relies on a five-year-average of data from the CDC, whose National Vital Statistics System contains the most comprehensive national data, currently available through 2015.1
View CDC data on people killed by guns each year

On average there are nearly 12,000 gun homicides a year in the U.S.
12,000x10=120,000 in 10 years do the math people your chances of being shot slim quit beating a dead horse I applaud your passion and effort but use both where it can do the most good!

That's great. Another false equivalency. I am convinced, based on your posts, that you consider incidents like , you completely ignore the victims right to life. So noted.Las Vegas, Aurora, Sandy hook, Virginia Tech and Columbine to be the price of freedom. When you talk about rights, you do not consider the victim's right to life. The country you want isn't free except for the minority who believe that they should be able to own any weapon that they want to.

Globally, tobacco use killed 100 million people in the 20th century, much more than all deaths in World Wars I and II combined. Tobacco-related deaths will number around 1 billion in the 21st century if current smoking patterns continue. Among middle-aged persons, tobacco use is estimated to be the most important risk factor for premature death in men and the second most important risk factor in women (following high blood pressure) in 2010–2025. To understand better how to address this issue, tobacco deaths need to be monitored closely, and this can be done best if death registries systematically collect data on tobacco use status. Currently, data on tobacco deaths mostly come from individual epidemiological studies.

National Right to Life estimates that, since the U.S. Supreme Court legalized abortion 43 years ago in Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton , more than 58 million unborn children have lost their lives. Each one of those abortions is a tragedy, not just because an innocent child died, but because of the lasting impact the abortion itself had on the mothers of those children.

Drinking too much can harm your health. Excessive alcohol use led to approximately 88,000 deaths and 2.5 million years of potential life lost (YPLL) each year in the United States from 2006 – 2010, shortening the lives of those who died by an average of 30 years.1,2 Further, excessive drinking was responsible for 1 in 10 deaths among working-age adults aged 20-64 years. The economic costs of excessive alcohol consumption in 2010 were estimated at $249 billion, or $2.05 a drink.3

(CDC) show that on an average day, 93 Americans are killed with guns.

To calculate this, Everytown relies on a five-year-average of data from the CDC, whose National Vital Statistics System contains the most comprehensive national data, currently available through 2015.1
View CDC data on people killed by guns each year

On average there are nearly 12,000 gun homicides a year in the U.S.
12,000x10=120,000 in 10 years do the math people your chances of being shot slim quit beating a dead horse I applaud your passion and effort but use both where it can do the most good!

That's great. Another false equivalency. I am convinced, based on your posts, that you consider incidents like , you completely ignore the victims right to life. So noted.Las Vegas, Aurora, Sandy hook, Virginia Tech and Columbine to be the price of freedom. When you talk about rights, you do not consider the victim's right to life. The country you want isn't free except for the minority who believe that they should be able to own any weapon that they want to.

Did he say that, or are you just trying to cherry pick your way out of something?

On average there are nearly 12,000 gun homicides a year in the U.S.
12,000x10=120,000 in 10 years do the math people your chances of being shot slim quit beating a dead horse I applaud your passion and effort but use both where it can do the most good!

Says the guy worried about a home invasion gun battle, LOL. Please, what a joke. Let's compare those odds. Stop with the b.s., and just cut to the chase as to why you are so against demonstrating competency before purchasing a firearm. Every response has been non-sensical and filled with holes, no pun intended.

On average there are nearly 12,000 gun homicides a year in the U.S.
12,000x10=120,000 in 10 years do the math people your chances of being shot slim quit beating a dead horse I applaud your passion and effort but use both where it can do the most good!

Says the guy worried about a home invasion gun battle, LOL. Please, what a joke. Let's compare those odds. Stop with the b.s., and just cut to the chase as to why you are so against demonstrating competency before purchasing a firearm. Every response has been non-sensical and filled with holes, no pun intended.

Only because you didn't like the answers given you.

then tell me where the sense is: we don't need gun control because there is a low probability of being killed by a gun. we don't need gun control because we need to protect ourselves from the even lower odds of being subjected to a home invasion shootout.

I'm supposed to listen to that logic.....really?

then tell me where the sense is: we don't need gun control because there is a low probability of being killed by a gun. we don't need gun control because we need to protect ourselves from the even lower odds of being subjected to a home invasion shootout.

I'm supposed to listen to that logic.....really?

Where is anybody saying that?

Sorry for making my manners this late, but hey Ryde. Nice to see you back.

then tell me where the sense is: we don't need gun control because there is a low probability of being killed by a gun. we don't need gun control because we need to protect ourselves from the even lower odds of being subjected to a home invasion shootout.

I'm supposed to listen to that logic.....really?

Where is anybody saying that?

Boyton sums it up exactly. Except... there is also the argument about protecting ourselves against the United States Military in packs of three or four hillbillies with modified non-automatic guns.

[Edited on 10/7/2017 by adhill58]