OT: Gabe Kapler

[RUBlackout7]

The enemy in urban warfare are not unarmed students and teachers stuck inside a school. The two scenarios are not comparable in any way.

If you guys would learn more quickly, I could get my point across faster. A great place to start would be learning the difference between a semiautomatic rifle (like the AR-15 or AK-47 style rifles sold to the public) and a specialized fully automatic weapon made for military use.

The military isn't fighting urban warfare using semiautomatic rifles. I was comparing semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic handguns. And special forces, for example, under certain circumstances, sometimes actually prefer to use their semiautomatic handguns instead of their other weapons (almost always in close-quarter fighting situations). But most often, for close-quarter combat, the military uses highly specialized fully automatic weapons. Weapons that are nothing at all like the AR-15 or AK-47 style rifles sold to the public. Think more along the lines of an Uzi type weapon. The weapons they use are sometimes closer in size to handguns than to traditional rifles.

I'll try one more time to cite some facts about why, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, multiple semiautomatic handguns would be preferable to one semiautomatic rifle in a school shooting situation. If you are actually willing to read and think and learn, you will perhaps start to understand.

It's because of: weight, reliability, mobility, and endurance. In general, one can carry more handguns, more handgun ammo, and more handgun magazines, than they can with rifles.

A 9mm round (most common handgun round) will kill a little kid just as dead as the larger, heavier 5.56x45 round (most common AR-15 style rifle round). Rifle rounds will go through stuff more easily. But (a) 9mm rounds will also go through stuff like school walls or people, and (b) we're talking about kids and teachers with no body armor and nowhere to run or hide. They are undefended soft targets, not military combatants wearing body armor and carrying their own specialized fully automatic weapons.

Finally, since semiautomatic rifles and handguns are both single round per trigger pull, the rate of fire is effectively the same. But guns jam and experience other faults. So more guns equals more reliability. Lighter weights for everything means the ability to carry more of everything, and also means the shooter can be more easily mobile, especially as they discard empty magazines.

If you think that's dumb, then by all means, explain WHY it's dumb. I'm willing to learn something new and willing to admit where I'm wrong about something. So persuade me what's dumb about it, using facts and logic, and I'll consider your argument.

Or, you know, you can just continue to demonize that which you've made no effort to understand. Because that's always better, right?

tldr

9 paragraphs twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to explain how AR15s are the same as handguns but also different

 

[fsg2_rivals]

The enemy in urban warfare are not unarmed students and teachers stuck inside a school. The two scenarios are not comparable in any way.

If you guys would learn more quickly, I could get my point across faster. A great place to start would be learning the difference between a semiautomatic rifle (like the AR-15 or AK-47 style rifles sold to the public) and a specialized fully automatic weapon made for military use.

The military isn't fighting urban warfare using semiautomatic rifles. I was comparing semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic handguns. And special forces, for example, under certain circumstances, sometimes actually prefer to use their semiautomatic handguns instead of their other weapons (almost always in close-quarter fighting situations). But most often, for close-quarter combat, the military uses highly specialized fully automatic weapons. Weapons that are nothing at all like the AR-15 or AK-47 style rifles sold to the public. Think more along the lines of an Uzi type weapon. The weapons they use are sometimes closer in size to handguns than to traditional rifles.

I'll try one more time to cite some facts about why, from a purely pragmatic standpoint, multiple semiautomatic handguns would be preferable to one semiautomatic rifle in a school shooting situation. If you are actually willing to read and think and learn, you will perhaps start to understand.

It's because of: weight, reliability, mobility, and endurance. In general, one can carry more handguns, more handgun ammo, and more handgun magazines, than they can with rifles.

A 9mm round (most common handgun round) will kill a little kid just as dead as the larger, heavier 5.56x45 round (most common AR-15 style rifle round). Rifle rounds will go through stuff more easily. But (a) 9mm rounds will also go through stuff like school walls or people, and (b) we're talking about kids and teachers with no body armor and nowhere to run or hide. They are undefended soft targets, not military combatants wearing body armor and carrying their own specialized fully automatic weapons.

Finally, since semiautomatic rifles and handguns are both single round per trigger pull, the rate of fire is effectively the same. But guns jam and experience other faults. So more guns equals more reliability. Lighter weights for everything means the ability to carry more of everything, and also means the shooter can be more easily mobile, especially as they discard empty magazines.

If you think that's dumb, then by all means, explain WHY it's dumb. I'm willing to learn something new and willing to admit where I'm wrong about something. So persuade me what's dumb about it, using facts and logic, and I'll consider your argument.

Or, you know, you can just continue to demonize that which you've made no effort to understand. Because that's always better, right?

Lesson 2: Don't blame your audience for your inability to be concise. YOU, literally, can't get to the point more quickly.

And it's established fact that rifles are more accurate, especially good for a beginner who isn't looking to practice for years ahead of time. They're also easier to brace while, say, walking through a school trying to shoot as many as possible. I have authoritative sources on that if you'd like but as a well-informed gun guy, you know all that and are simply still arguing to hear yourself.

Those advantages are why such rifles remain on the table in these discussions. Oh, also because they're what these lunatics actually use, again and again, despite whatever imaginary argument you have for why something else is better.

I know, you're ignoring me. But seriously, focus on streamlining your self-important blathering. It's getting embarrassing.

 

[fsg2_rivals]

Excuse me, *more ideal*

 

[rudad02]

He definitely created these issues and I was trying not to trigger those that still “think” he is doing a good job. They are so sensitive if anyone calls him out. Lol

What!!!!

 

[RU09FOOTBALL]

Ok so in school shooting situations handguns are just as effective as AR-15s? Gotcha, brb gonna tell the military they are doing urban warfare all wrong.

Also, tldr….learn how to get your point across faster.

The deadliest school shooting in U.S. history, Virginia Tech, was committed by a perpetrator using only handguns. And, those victims were all adults. So, hypothetically speaking, handguns would be equally effective as an AR-15 when used against victims who are confined to a classroom and have no ability to resist.

 

[Kbee3]

tldr

9 paragraphs twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to explain how AR15s are the same as handguns but also different

I've got no desire to get into a "debate" with dopes about the importance of some Americans to possess AR-15s vs. the importance of keeping our children safe from being blown to pieces by a crazed "hunter". Some here need to see the pictures of those dead kids bodies in Uvalde....then tell us about the 2nd Amendment.

 

[mildone_rivals]

tldr

9 paragraphs twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to explain how AR15s are the same as handguns but also different

TLDR: you don’t have a clue what you’re talking about on this subject, and you are too lazy to educate yourself, yet you think your opinion should matter and are outraged that it doesn’t.

 

[RUschool]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/buffa...ket-massacre-feds-say?source=articles&via=rss

Payton Gendron, the 18-year-old white supremacist charged with killing 10 people in upstate New York last month, left a handwritten note to his parents apologizing but stating that he “had to commit this attack” because he cared “for the future of the White race,” federal prosecutors revealed on Wednesday.

Gendron, who already faces several murder charges, was hit on Wednesday with 26 counts of hate crimes and firearms offenses for the racially motivated attack. The Department of Justice said he will face the death penalty if convicted.

“Gendron’s motive for the mass shooting was to prevent Black people from replacing white people and eliminating the white race, and to inspire others to commit similar attacks,” the complaint said.

 

[Frida's Boss]

tldr

9 paragraphs twisting yourself into a pretzel trying to explain how AR15s are the same as handguns but also different

A few comments:

1. Most mass shooting events are carried out with semi automatic hand guns. Practically speaking, you will not eliminate semi-automatic weapons. That would be tantamount to confiscating guns. Not going to happen. And fwiw, mass shootings did not decline during the assault weapons ban.

2. AR15s are semi automatic weapons. Yes, they have features that make them potentially more lethal than a semi automatic hand gun. But it’s the most popular rifle in the country. You’re not going to confiscate these weapons, Won’t happen.

3. For anyone who doesn’t really know, semi automatic weapons mean one pull of the trigger, one shot. Different than an automatic weapon which are truly weapons of war. One pull of the trigger, when held, will release a steady flurry of bullets. Automatic weapons are illegal for civilian use in the US.

4. There are two practical areas to reduce fatalities and injuries - stringent background checks and magazine size limits. Not my opinion, backed by research.

5. Toning down the uneducated rhetoric will help progress in point 4 above. When gun opponents use charged and ignorant language, it causes gun advocates to dig in. So stop.

6. This message is coming from someone who thinks the Heller decision was completely ridiculous, against 100 plus years of judicial precedent and at odds with why the 2A was included in the Bill of Rights (it was so we didn’t have a standing national army). Any reasonable historical analysis proves this conclusively. So I’m more on your side of this discussion. That said, Heller is the standard and we have to live with it.

 

[mildone_rivals]

I've got no desire to get into a "debate" with dopes about the importance of some Americans to possess AR-15s vs. the importance of keeping our children safe from being blown to pieces by a crazed "hunter". Some here need to see the pictures of those dead kids bodies in Uvalde....then tell us about the 2nd Amendment.

I'll use the exact same asinine logic you're using, then, to state that you must really wish the 40 birthday party attendees were all killed so you could celebrate your gun bans while viewing their dead bodies down in WV who'd be dead because of your gun ban.

The difference, on this issue, between dopes like you and dopes like me is that you're perfectly okay being a helpless victim who is unable to protect yourself and those around you. Whereas I want to be able to protect myself and those around me. And you want to make that decision for everybody else whereas I just want to make it for myself.

 

[mildone_rivals]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/buffa...ket-massacre-feds-say?source=articles&via=rss

Payton Gendron, the 18-year-old white supremacist charged with killing 10 people in upstate New York last month, left a handwritten note to his parents apologizing but stating that he “had to commit this attack” because he cared “for the future of the White race,” federal prosecutors revealed on Wednesday.

Gendron, who already faces several murder charges, was hit on Wednesday with 26 counts of hate crimes and firearms offenses for the racially motivated attack. The Department of Justice said he will face the death penalty if convicted.

“Gendron’s motive for the mass shooting was to prevent Black people from replacing white people and eliminating the white race, and to inspire others to commit similar attacks,” the complaint said.

Part of me wants the state to kill that guy by suffocation, then bring him back to life, then kill him again. And then do it until the state has killed him 10 times.

Perhaps it could be done on live TV w/the proceeds of the event going to a charity in support of the victims families.

It might not be justice, and it won't make anybody feel better. But it might just cause the next guy to think twice.

 

[Kbee3]

I'll use the exact same asinine logic you're using, then, to state that you must really wish the 40 birthday party attendees were all killed so you could celebrate your gun bans while viewing their dead bodies down in WV who'd be dead because of your gun ban.

The difference, on this issue, between dopes like you and dopes like me is that you're perfectly okay being a helpless victim who is unable to protect yourself and those around you. Whereas I want to be able to protect myself and those around me. And you want to make that decision for everybody else whereas I just want to make it for myself.

You seem like the kind of guy who would argue about seat-belt laws by pointing to a single case where someone's belt jammed and they couldn't get out of their burning vehicle....with a tragic result
That and the horrible, horrible restrictions on your god-given right to go beltless in your own car.
Listen, I've always thought that you were one of the better posters here. But, I've had more than enough of the "hands off my guns" crap from far too many dopes. I have no further interest in discussing this issue with you.

 

[fsg2_rivals]

You seem like the kind of guy who would argue about seat-belt laws by pointing to a single case where someone's belt jammed and they couldn't get out of their burning vehicle....with a tragic result
That and the horrible, horrible restrictions on your god-given right to go beltless in your own car.
Listen, I've always thought that you were one of the better posters here. But, I've had more than enough of the "hands off my guns" crap from far too many dopes. I have no further interest in discussing this issue with you.

Hasn't he?

I know he's argued speed limits shouldn't apply.

 

[RUschool]

Part of me wants the state to kill that guy by suffocation, then bring him back to life, then kill him again. And then do it until the state has killed him 10 times.

Perhaps it could be done on live TV w/the proceeds of the event going to a charity in support of the victims families.

It might not be justice, and it won't make anybody feel better. But it might just cause the next guy to think twice.

What’s scary is the 31 white supremacists, Patriot Front, that flew to Idaho from other states to harass the Idaho pride event. The majority are probably losers with no jobs or future and hate minorities that get ahead. Their hate was so great that they wasted $500-800 to go to Idaho to hate. One or two of them will do something violent in the future. It’s a scary world.

 

[mildone_rivals]

You seem like the kind of guy who would argue about seat-belt laws by pointing to a single case where someone's belt jammed and they couldn't get out of their burning vehicle....with a tragic result
That and the horrible, horrible restrictions on your god-given right to go beltless in your own car.
Listen, I've always thought that you were one of the better posters here. But, I've had more than enough of the "hands off my guns" crap from far too many dopes. I have no further interest in discussing this issue with you.

I always wear a seatbelt, and always insist that everyone in my car wear a seatbelt. Perhaps you are misjudging me?

Also, I don't actually have a "hands off my guns" mentality. Here's a bunch of anti-gun stuff I support:

• bans of fully automatic weapons for civilians
• magazine restrictions for long guns
• periodic ongoing background checks, including more in-depth ones than take place anywhere today
• taking guns away from the mentally unfit, from criminals, from wife or child abusers, etc.
• requiring a permit process that injects a delay between application, purchase, and delivery
• a written test to verify that prospective gun owners fully understand gun safety and the laws in their state
• holding parents of children who use guns in a crime legally responsible for those crimes
• holding gun owners whose guns are part of an accidental shooting liable for not properly securing their weapons
• enforcing a temporary no-guns penalty period for owners whose guns are stolen
• requiring gun owners to qualify periodically by demonstrating proficiency and proper safe usage with all guns they own
• much stiffer penalties for illegal gun use

Which of those do you disagree about?

Read what Frida wrote. He, and I, while not 100% aligned about guns, are both trying to elevate the level of debate about guns such that it's both more informed and, perhaps, more productive.

 

[mildone_rivals]

What’s scary is the 31 white supremacists, Patriot Front, that flew to Idaho from other states to harass the Idaho pride event. The majority are probably losers with no jobs or future and hate minorities that get ahead. Their hate was so great that they wasted $500-800 to go to Idaho to hate. One or two of them will do something violent in the future. It’s a scary world.

There's a ton of hatred and it seems like it's increasing both in scale and intensity. I'm not scared by it so much as I find it depressing.

 

[MADHAT1]

What’s scary is the 31 white supremacists, Patriot Front, that flew to Idaho from other states to harass the Idaho pride event. The majority are probably losers with no jobs or future and hate minorities that get ahead. Their hate was so great that they wasted $500-800 to go to Idaho to hate. One or two of them will do something violent in the future. It’s a scary world.

Watch your tongue ( fingers)
some might consider them a well regulated militia that has 2nd amendment rights to carry their semi auto assault weapon , if they want, to events they feel an obligation to harass .
One shouldn't judge people by their prejudices, if they find out one of them might stand their ground and shoot you because he/she felt threatened.

 

[tom1944]

I always wear a seatbelt, and always insist that everyone in my car wear a seatbelt. Perhaps you are misjudging me?

Also, I don't actually have a "hands off my guns" mentality. Here's a bunch of anti-gun stuff I support:

• bans of fully automatic weapons for civilians
• magazine restrictions for long guns
• periodic ongoing background checks, including more in-depth ones than take place anywhere today
• taking guns away from the mentally unfit, from criminals, from wife or child abusers, etc.
• requiring a permit process that injects a delay between application, purchase, and delivery
• a written test to verify that prospective gun owners fully understand gun safety and the laws in their state
• holding parents of children who use guns in a crime legally responsible for those crimes
• holding gun owners whose guns are part of an accidental shooting liable for not properly securing their weapons
• enforcing a temporary no-guns penalty period for owners whose guns are stolen
• requiring gun owners to qualify periodically by demonstrating proficiency and proper safe usage with all guns they own
• much stiffer penalties for illegal gun use

Which of those do you disagree about?

Read what Frida wrote. He, and I, while not 100% aligned about guns, are both trying to elevate the level of debate about guns such that it's both more informed and, perhaps, more productive.

I read that Senator Sinema successfully fought for an expansion of the restriction for gun ownership by domestic abusers. The "boyfriend" rule is going to be eliminated so that anyone charged with domestic abuse can be denied a license

 

[mildone_rivals]

I read that Senator Sinema successfully fought for an expansion of the restriction for gun ownership by domestic abusers. The "boyfriend" rule is going to be eliminated so that anyone charged with domestic abuse can be denied a license

Sounds good. Someone who is committing any kind of physical domestic abuse ought not have any weapons.

 

[tom1944]

A few comments:

1. Most mass shooting events are carried out with semi automatic hand guns. Practically speaking, you will not eliminate semi-automatic weapons. That would be tantamount to confiscating guns. Not going to happen. And fwiw, mass shootings did not decline during the assault weapons ban.

2. AR15s are semi automatic weapons. Yes, they have features that make them potentially more lethal than a semi automatic hand gun. But it’s the most popular rifle in the country. You’re not going to confiscate these weapons, Won’t happen.

3. For anyone who doesn’t really know, semi automatic weapons mean one pull of the trigger, one shot. Different than an automatic weapon which are truly weapons of war. One pull of the trigger, when held, will release a steady flurry of bullets. Automatic weapons are illegal for civilian use in the US.

4. There are two practical areas to reduce fatalities and injuries - stringent background checks and magazine size limits. Not my opinion, backed by research.

5. Toning down the uneducated rhetoric will help progress in point 4 above. When gun opponents use charged and ignorant language, it causes gun advocates to dig in. So stop.

6. This message is coming from someone who thinks the Heller decision was completely ridiculous, against 100 plus years of judicial precedent and at odds with why the 2A was included in the Bill of Rights (it was so we didn’t have a standing national army). Any reasonable historical analysis proves this conclusively. So I’m more on your side of this discussion. That said, Heller is the standard and we have to live with it.

I was talking to a coworker today who is a gun owner and he walked me through how these weapons work and it seems to me that reduced magazine capacity is a move in the right direction

 

[NotInRHouse_anon]

That's a reductive argument. Just because something worked in a given situation doesn't mean it's ideal. And I carefully used the term "ideal" in my post. The phrase "wrong gun" is yours, not mine.

I said it would be "more ideal" to be able to match the shooter's weapon. This is based on the following facts (a) they were outdoors, (b) rifles generally shoot with more velocity which is more ideal outdoors where there can be wind, (c) handguns become less accurate as ranges increase so, unless the felon was relatively close, a rifle would've given the woman the same accuracy as the felon, (d) if the felon was shooting from behind cover, a round fired from a rifle would have a better chance of going through the cover and hitting the felon. More ideal.

As to your second point, NJ law makes it impossible for nearly everybody to legally do what she did. Only about 0.01% of NJ residents are granted carry permits (https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/resources/ccw_reciprocity_map/nj-gun-laws/).

So, assuming she's an ordinary civilian and not a retired or off-duty cop, it's a near-certainty that she wouldn't have been allowed to legally carry her handgun in NJ. Given that, if it had happened here in NJ, the 40 people would've been at the mercy of a convicted felon with no reasonable and legal way to defend themselves. They could throw rocks, I guess.

Conversely, in WV where the woman saved the 40 people, even people from NJ can visit and carry their weapons, concealed or openly.

I personally was asked to sign off on a gun in NJ for someone who is an ordinary citizen and not an ex cop. So I know that not be accurate.

Also, by the same token, how often does this kind of thing happen in NJ in the first place? Seems not too often...given the rate of gun crime here.

And certainly the kind of gun matters because it's only AR-15 that keeps people safe and/or works for hunting. In fact, that's a yuge issue in the debate. The guy in Uvalde chose the AR-15 for a reason. A handgun is less likely to decapitate but is still going to stop an intruder.

 

[NotInRHouse_anon]

A few comments:

1. Most mass shooting events are carried out with semi automatic hand guns. Practically speaking, you will not eliminate semi-automatic weapons. That would be tantamount to confiscating guns. Not going to happen. And fwiw, mass shootings did not decline during the assault weapons ban.

2. AR15s are semi automatic weapons. Yes, they have features that make them potentially more lethal than a semi automatic hand gun. But it’s the most popular rifle in the country. You’re not going to confiscate these weapons, Won’t happen.

3. For anyone who doesn’t really know, semi automatic weapons mean one pull of the trigger, one shot. Different than an automatic weapon which are truly weapons of war. One pull of the trigger, when held, will release a steady flurry of bullets. Automatic weapons are illegal for civilian use in the US.

4. There are two practical areas to reduce fatalities and injuries - stringent background checks and magazine size limits. Not my opinion, backed by research.

5. Toning down the uneducated rhetoric will help progress in point 4 above. When gun opponents use charged and ignorant language, it causes gun advocates to dig in. So stop.

6. This message is coming from someone who thinks the Heller decision was completely ridiculous, against 100 plus years of judicial precedent and at odds with why the 2A was included in the Bill of Rights (it was so we didn’t have a standing national army). Any reasonable historical analysis proves this conclusively. So I’m more on your side of this discussion. That said, Heller is the standard and we have to live with it.

While I agree banning AR-15s won't happen, it's such a tremendous indictment of our country. In Australia a conservative PM, John Howard- a best bud of W Bush- was the one who "took the guns" and publicly said the country can't go the way of the US after a mass shooting.

For a country where 30-40 some odd percent claims to be "pro life" they sure have a funny way of showing it.

 

[NotInRHouse_anon]

What’s scary is the 31 white supremacists, Patriot Front, that flew to Idaho from other states to harass the Idaho pride event. The majority are probably losers with no jobs or future and hate minorities that get ahead. Their hate was so great that they wasted $500-800 to go to Idaho to hate. One or two of them will do something violent in the future. It’s a scary world.

The Buffalo terrorist listed Jersey City, Lakewood and Toms River in his manifesto.

Another terrorist could easily pick up where he left off with a gun bought in a lax state.

It's very, very scary.

And a minority of the country is exacting all the power to stop us from doing anything to prevent it.

 

[mildone_rivals]

I personally was asked to sign off on a gun in NJ for someone who is an ordinary citizen and not an ex cop. So I know that not be accurate.

Also, by the same token, how often does this kind of thing happen in NJ in the first place? Seems not too often...given the rate of gun crime here.

And certainly the kind of gun matters because it's only AR-15 that keeps people safe and/or works for hunting. In fact, that's a yuge issue in the debate. The guy in Uvalde chose the AR-15 for a reason. A handgun is less likely to decapitate but is still going to stop an intruder.

Then the person you were asked to be a reference for is one of 0.01% of NJ civilians granted a carry permit. It's extremely uncommon. And a person making such an application is supposed to be able to prove that they have a demonstrable and real need to carry a gun. I say "supposed to" because, like anything else, it sometimes occurs by way of political favors.

There is simply no logical reason to ban semiautomatic rifles. They are perfectly legal in NJ and yet, as you've argued, NJ has almost as low mass shooting rates as WV. I don't generally hold up mass shooters as models of clear and rational thinking. They are certainly more scary looking than most handguns. I suspect there is some degree of copy-catting taking place, as opposed to rational thought.

In any event, banning semiautomatic rifles isn't going to happen.

 

[mildone_rivals]

As much as I'm enjoying discussing this issue, it's time to head to the shooting range with my boy. Maybe buy a few new AR-15 style guns while I'm there. Y'all be good, now.

 

[MADHAT1]

As much as I'm enjoying discussing this issue, it's time to head to the shooting range with my boy. Maybe buy a few new AR-15 style guns while I'm there. Y'all be good, now.

Very sensible approach to gun ownership. and not being sarcastic saying that
Going to the range for target practice and improving gun handling skills is something more gun owners should strive to do.
Bringing your child with you so you can teach your kid how to handle a gun is commendable.

To often the point and shoot approach in empty lots or unregulated off road gatherings with other gun owners is the only gun experience kids learn from their parents, but usually at a gun range proper handling is part of the course.
Wasn't so long ago at a unregulated spot some off road bikers, enjoying their ride, were shot by gun enthusiasts not realizing they were in the area..
Being at a gun range helps keep mistakes like that from happening.

As for the AR 15, I'd say that's your right.
But we'd probably disagree over my wish to have AR 15 owners go through a intense background check involving mental evaluation, drug testing and having to prove safe storage of that weapon in a gun locker at home, along with gun liability insurance to cover and damage your AR 15 would do, whether it was in your hands, authorized user ( AR 15 permit) you loaned it to or unauthorized person that got hold of that weapon without you knowing.
And of course if your child ( 21 or over) is allowed handle your AR 15 outside a gun range , he/she has been went through the qualifications of being able to handle an AR 15 and has a permit to do so.
Also any child of an AR15 owner can't be allowed permission to handle a AR 15 anywhere besides an official gun range type of setting

Being a gun owner is a privalge not all can or should enjoy , but also needs to have some responsibilities attached for the saftey of all.

 

[mildone_rivals]

Very sensible approach to gun ownership. and not being sarcastic saying that
Going to the range for target practice and improving gun handling skills is something more gun owners should strive to do.
Bringing your child with you so you can teach your kid how to handle a gun is commendable.

To often the point and shoot approach in empty lots or unregulated off road gatherings with other gun owners is the only gun experience kids learn from their parents, but usually at a gun range proper handling is part of the course.
Wasn't so long ago at a unregulated spot some off road bikers, enjoying their ride, were shot by gun enthusiasts not realizing they were in the area..
Being at a gun range helps keep mistakes like that from happening.

As for the AR 15, I'd say that's your right.
But we'd probably disagree over my wish to have AR 15 owners go through a intense background check involving mental evaluation, drug testing and having to prove safe storage of that weapon in a gun locker at home, along with gun liability insurance to cover and damage your AR 15 would do, whether it was in your hands, authorized user ( AR 15 permit) you loaned it to or unauthorized person that got hold of that weapon without you knowing.
And of course if your child ( 21 or over) is allowed handle your AR 15 outside a gun range , he/she has been went through the qualifications of being able to handle an AR 15 and has a permit to do so.
Also any child of an AR15 owner can't be allowed permission to handle a AR 15 anywhere besides an official gun range type of setting

Being a gun owner is a privalge not all can or should enjoy , but also needs to have some responsibilities attached for the saftey of all.

My kid, the one who goes to the range with me, is better than me at this point. He’s an EMT and firefighter. He’s joining the military soon (at least that is his intention) and is hoping to make it into a specialty in which being an excellent shot is a core requirement. He owns more guns than I do.

His GF is a paramedic and owns more guns than both of us combined, and is quite good with them.

And all of us are always extremely safe with firearms.

 

[MADHAT1]

My kid, the one who goes to the range with me, is better than me at this point. He’s an EMT and firefighter. He’s joining the military soon (at least that is his intention) and is hoping to make it into a specialty in which being an excellent shot is a core requirement. He owns more guns than I do.

His GF is a paramedic and owns more guns than both of us combined, and is quite good with them.

And all of us are always extremely safe with firearms.

we might disagree on some issues, but I commend you, your son and his GF on the way you all handle your weapons in a safe manner

 

[Kbee3]

There is simply no logical reason NOT to ban semiautomatic rifles.

FIFY.

 

[mildone_rivals]

FIFY.

You're free to think what you want. But it's not happening. I'm not saying it should or shouldn't. I'm saying that it's just not going to happen.

You don't have to believe me. Look what happened in Buffalo.

Did they ban semiautomatic weapons of any kind? Nope. They banned body armor. Why did they ban body armor? Because that way, they could say they did something without actually doing anything that would get them voted out of office.

I gave a whole list of achievable stuff, much of which hasn't been implemented anywhere in the US. And all of which will can actually help prevent mass shootings far more than banning semiautomatic weapons of any kind, which isn't achievable anyway.

That's the stuff you should be pushing for. Pushing too hard on gun bans is more likely to lead to lawsuits that cause SCOTUS to overturn all existing gun bans, such as the fully automatic weapon ban already in place.

 

[NotInRHouse_anon]

Then the person you were asked to be a reference for is one of 0.01% of NJ civilians granted a carry permit. It's extremely uncommon. And a person making such an application is supposed to be able to prove that they have a demonstrable and real need to carry a gun. I say "supposed to" because, like anything else, it sometimes occurs by way of political favors.

There is simply no logical reason to ban semiautomatic rifles. They are perfectly legal in NJ and yet, as you've argued, NJ has almost as low mass shooting rates as WV. I don't generally hold up mass shooters as models of clear and rational thinking. They are certainly more scary looking than most handguns. I suspect there is some degree of copy-catting taking place, as opposed to rational thought.

In any event, banning semiautomatic rifles isn't going to happen.

I can tell you it was definitely not political and all of this is in probably the most anti gun county (Hudson). I know other people that legally own guns in NJ. It's not as hard as it's made out if you follow the rules. Like many other things in life.

All I know is when someone goes into a store and buys 2 AR-15s and 300 rounds the chance of them doing that to take on feral dogs or cats or whatever the baloney story is- that's the 0.0001% chance.

 

[Kbee3]

You're free to think what you want. But it's not happening. I'm not saying it should or shouldn't. I'm saying that it's just not going to happen.

You don't have to believe me. Look what happened in Buffalo.

Did they ban semiautomatic weapons of any kind? Nope. They banned body armor. Why did they ban body armor? Because that way, they could say they did something without actually doing anything that would get them voted out of office.

I gave a whole list of achievable stuff, much of which hasn't been implemented anywhere in the US. And all of which will can actually help prevent mass shootings far more than banning semiautomatic weapons of any kind, which isn't achievable anyway.

That's the stuff you should be pushing for. Pushing too hard on gun bans is more likely to lead to lawsuits that cause SCOTUS to overturn all existing gun bans, such as the fully automatic weapon ban already in place.

Uh, I never indicated that I thought it would happen. That's because I don't.
I'm actually surprised that people aren't out right now with their sons practicing with their RPGs, bazookas, and flame throwers in anticipation of the next big deer hunting season. Or the call up of that well-regulated militia.
As I said earlier, after Sandy Hook I have no illusions about the U.S. and its ability to control these weapons of war.

 

[mildone_rivals]

I can tell you it was definitely not political and all of this is in probably the most anti gun county (Hudson). I know other people that legally own guns in NJ. It's not as hard as it's made out if you follow the rules. Like many other things in life.

All I know is when someone goes into a store and buys 2 AR-15s and 300 rounds the chance of them doing that to take on feral dogs or cats or whatever the baloney story is- that's the 0.0001% chance.

Perhaps we’re not talking about the same thing.

Yes, getting a firearm id or a handgun permit in NJ is extremely easy and almost anybody can do it.

But obtaining a carry permit is nearly impossible except under very constrained circumstances and even then, they will not be renewed if/when the circumstances change. NJ is excessively and notoriously stingy with carry permits.

It would be easier for most NJ residents to obtain an out of state carry permit for PA than to obtain one for NJ.

All one needs in NJ to purchase a semiautomatic rifle is a NJ firearms ID card which is, as I said earlier, extremely easy. Once one has that id card, one can purchase all the long guns (like semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, etc) one wishes without obtaining any further permits. Only handguns require permits. In all cases, a background check is made at the time of purchase, prior to delivery of the gun.

NJ makes purchasing an AR-15 style rifle super easy to do. And you have been saying you want to see NJs laws adopted everywhere because of NJ’s success with relatively low gun violence and low mass shooter instances.

Incidentally, it’s not uncommon to go through 300 rounds of ammo in a couple hours at the range doing training to keep one’s skills up. So purchasing hundreds or thousands of rounds of ammo is commonplace and not any kind of indication of imminent wrongdoing. And sometimes it’s hard to find the ammo one wants at reasonable prices. So gun owners will buy it in bulk when it is found at good prices, because it can save a lot of money during range visits.

 

[mildone_rivals]

Uh, I never indicated that I thought it would happen. That's because I don't.
I'm actually surprised that people aren't out right now with their sons practicing with their RPGs, bazookas, and flame throwers in anticipation of the next big deer hunting season. Or the call up of that well-regulated militia.
As I said earlier, after Sandy Hook I have no illusions about the U.S. and its ability to control these weapons of war.

I have never hunted animals. I love animals. I don’t even kill spiders in my house.

It’s people I have problems with.

 

[NotInRHouse_anon]

Perhaps we’re not talking about the same thing.

Yes, getting a firearm id or a handgun permit in NJ is extremely easy and almost anybody can do it.

But obtaining a carry permit is nearly impossible except under very constrained circumstances and even then, they will not be renewed if/when the circumstances change. NJ is excessively and notoriously stingy with carry permits.

It would be easier for most NJ residents to obtain an out of state carry permit for PA than to obtain one for NJ.

All one needs in NJ to purchase a semiautomatic rifle is a NJ firearms ID card which is, as I said earlier, extremely easy. Once one has that id card, one can purchase all the long guns (like semiautomatic rifles, shotguns, etc) one wishes without obtaining any further permits. Only handguns require permits. In all cases, a background check is made at the time of purchase, prior to delivery of the gun.

NJ makes purchasing an AR-15 style rifle super easy to do. And you have been saying you want to see NJs laws adopted everywhere because of NJ’s success with relatively low gun violence and low mass shooter instances.

Incidentally, it’s not uncommon to go through 300 rounds of ammo in a couple hours at the range doing training to keep one’s skills up. So purchasing hundreds or thousands of rounds of ammo is commonplace and not any kind of indication of imminent wrongdoing. And sometimes it’s hard to find the ammo one wants at reasonable prices. So gun owners will buy it in bulk when it is found at good prices, because it can save a lot of money during range visits.

OK. So then what would be the NJ law(s) WV residents would be encumbered by...just the carrying?

 

[NotInRHouse_anon]

https://www.foxnews.com/official-polls/fox-news-poll-voters-voice-support-gun-reform

 

[mildone_rivals]

OK. So then what would be the NJ law(s) WV residents would be encumbered by...just the carrying?

You’d have to ask WV residents.

 

[Kbee3]

OK. So then what would be the NJ law(s) WV residents would be encumbered by...just the carrying?

Encumbered, you say ?
Oh...the horror.

 

[Kbee3]

#Doomsday

Just 31 white guys that can't get anywhere with the ladies.

 

[fsg2_rivals]

Just 31 white guys that can't get anywhere with the ladies.

Proud Boy and 30 buddies?