Gun Control and Logic

[Hale]

Reliability does win with a revolver...but that’s it. So if cops, who are trained and train regularly with firearms, miss all the time...how on earth is it a good thing to have limited capacity for a civilian who usually don’t train as much??? Makes no sense. If revolvers were better then the police and military would still be using them.

One should not assume that police and military are more proficient with firearms than the average armed civilian. If fact, many armed civilians are veterans and/or ex-police, and many more are "gun nuts" with more extensive training than professionals.

There are no hard statistics on civilian armed encounters, but we do know that police are NOT very proficient. Various studies report that police only hit their mark only 13% of the time in armed encounters with bad guys.

In my personal experience (veteran, MP), many cops and military don't have much interest in becoming proficient. They view firearms as a necessary part of their job, but far from primary - and this is how it should be.

I've also seen another "class" of firearms enthusiasts, both police and civilian. These are people who love the technology and have extensive collections of guns, but can't hit squat. Similarly, I know lots of people who own tons of guitars and can't play worth a damn, so this is normal.

I've had the opportunity to compete against police on many occasions, and without exception we "old guys" utterly destroy them. I often use a 5 shot revolver against their 15 round autos, and even then I win over half the time.

This is admittedly speaking from my personal experiences, so you can take it or leave it. Experiences form the opinions and positions of the thinking man, so there's that.

Bottom line, using police as a benchmark for firearms proficiency is simply not valid.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The intent of the AR-15 was for war, not for hunting. The intent of the M-2 is for war, not for hunting. The intent of the conventional hunting rifle is for hunting although it's been used for war. The intent of a handgun is for personal and home protection although it's been used for war. You can go back in the way back when machine but using the recent court rulings, we need to keep it in todays world. The uses of everything except the AR-15 of all the weapons we keep discussing are for civilian uses while the AR has a primary use in war even though it can be used as a varmint rifle. A M-2 can be used as an elephant gun if you are skilled enough but that doesn't make it a sporting rifle.

I'm not following you here, please clarify: Are you saying the AR15 should be banned on the basis of its "design intent"?

Yes...he is. Considering the AR-15 has never been used in war, while the bolt action rifle is a current weapon of war, used over seas...right now for combat, as is the pump action shotgun...another current weapon of war...both firearms are firearms that anti-gunners ay they would allow us to keep when they ban all the other guns.......of course, they are lying and will quickly move to ban those guns as well.....as we see in New Zealand where they are using bait and switch to also ban pump action shotguns along with semi-auto rifles...

We have been through this over and over. The AR looks like it does because of the function it has. It doesn't have the functions it has because of the looks. And those functions are not to go hunting Wabbits, silly Wabbit. It's there to go to war with. It's the reason it's the weapon of choice for the well dressed fashionable Mass Murdering Fashion Conscience going for the all time record for mass killings. It's the same reason it is the go to weapon for combat. You can make every fairytale excuse in the book but you can't change that. You change the look and you change the function. There are many militaries in the world using the box stock AR-15 model 750 for their military weapon and that includes the Mexican Army because it's much easier for them to purchase the AR-15 Model 750 than the AR-15 Model 604 and get it exported. The Model 750 does the same job and takes the same ammo and is cheaper but is still Mil Spec. You keep denying this and you keep losing to common sense. Well, cupcake, keep losing while the rest of us keep winning.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If you use the term "Assault Rifle" you are right. But when you use the term "AR-15 and it's various clones" then you are wrong in both the voters and the Courts. Stop making shit up.

Or IOW a common rifle chambered for 5.56 mm rounds that has some black plastic accessories

If a M-2 were mass produced in huge quantity, it could be called a Common Rifle as well and be chambered for 20mm and have plastic accessories. Does that make it a common rifle? Should that be allowed to be mounted on every CJ-5 and 7 jeep out there and be driven down the roads? A line has to be drawn somewhere between firearms meant for Combat and meant for Hunting.

You do know that fully automatic firearms are not what we are discussing don't you?

So how about a valid comparison.

There are MILLIONS of AR 15 rifles in the hands of civilians. M I L L I O N S

and a minuscule fraction of them have ever been used to commit any crime

The intent of the AR-15 was for war, not for hunting. The intent of the M-2 is for war, not for hunting. The intent of the conventional hunting rifle is for hunting although it's been used for war. The intent of a handgun is for personal and home protection although it's been used for war. You can go back in the way back when machine but using the recent court rulings, we need to keep it in todays world. The uses of everything except the AR-15 of all the weapons we keep discussing are for civilian uses while the AR has a primary use in war even though it can be used as a varmint rifle. A M-2 can be used as an elephant gun if you are skilled enough but that doesn't make it a sporting rifle.

and the 2nd amendment was for weapons of war not for hunting,,,,

At the time, there was no difference.

 

[Hale]

We have been through this over and over. The AR looks like it does because of the function it has. It doesn't have the functions it has because of the looks. And those functions are not to go hunting Wabbits, silly Wabbit. It's there to go to war with. It's the reason it's the weapon of choice for the well dressed fashionable Mass Murdering Fashion Conscience going for the all time record for mass killings. It's the same reason it is the go to weapon for combat. You can make every fairytale excuse in the book but you can't change that. You change the look and you change the function. There are many militaries in the world using the box stock AR-15 model 750 for their military weapon and that includes the Mexican Army because it's much easier for them to purchase the AR-15 Model 750 than the AR-15 Model 604 and get it exported. The Model 750 does the same job and takes the same ammo and is cheaper but is still Mil Spec. You keep denying this and you keep losing to common sense. Well, cupcake, keep losing while the rest of us keep winning.

Many firearms are based on military counterparts, in fact it is probably the majority. Modern bolt action rifles based on the Mauser 98, various iterations of the M1 Garand action, and let's not forget the Colt Single Action Army...

Bottom line, your contention that an undefined "military function" disqualifies a weapon for civilian ownership is simply ridiculous.

 

[Hale]

Daryl Hunt - How about this one? Is it civilian or military? Should it be legal for civilians?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Because purchasing a firearm is in no way the same as being an immigrant, voting, or running for elected office.

It's about BEING CONSISTENT in how you restrict the exercise inalienable rights, you semen-breath piece of cocksmoking, bullshit, no-argument-making fuck.

You give ZERO FUCKS about canceling out lawful votes by refusing to require ID, or allowing people to sit in public office and make decisions that impact all of us with nothing coming anywhere close to the level of scrutiny given a person exercising an inalienable right.

FUCK YOU!

.

 

[progressive hunter]

Or IOW a common rifle chambered for 5.56 mm rounds that has some black plastic accessories

If a M-2 were mass produced in huge quantity, it could be called a Common Rifle as well and be chambered for 20mm and have plastic accessories. Does that make it a common rifle? Should that be allowed to be mounted on every CJ-5 and 7 jeep out there and be driven down the roads? A line has to be drawn somewhere between firearms meant for Combat and meant for Hunting.

You do know that fully automatic firearms are not what we are discussing don't you?

So how about a valid comparison.

There are MILLIONS of AR 15 rifles in the hands of civilians. M I L L I O N S

and a minuscule fraction of them have ever been used to commit any crime

The intent of the AR-15 was for war, not for hunting. The intent of the M-2 is for war, not for hunting. The intent of the conventional hunting rifle is for hunting although it's been used for war. The intent of a handgun is for personal and home protection although it's been used for war. You can go back in the way back when machine but using the recent court rulings, we need to keep it in todays world. The uses of everything except the AR-15 of all the weapons we keep discussing are for civilian uses while the AR has a primary use in war even though it can be used as a varmint rifle. A M-2 can be used as an elephant gun if you are skilled enough but that doesn't make it a sporting rifle.

and the 2nd amendment was for weapons of war not for hunting,,,,

At the time, there was no difference.

thats not relevant today,,,because its still about weapons of war as per original intent,,,l,

 

[JohnA]

When we hear about "gun control" from the Left, there is seldom any logic involved. Mr. Nugent presents nine points here with which I agree, and I challenge you to counter any of them. Please format your posts with his quote followed by your rebuttal.

Ted Nugent on Guns and Logic:

1 - Eleven teens die each day because of texting while driving. Maybe it's time to raise the age of Smart phone ownership to 21.
2 - If gun control laws actually worked, Chicago would be Mayberry.
3 - The Second Amendment makes more women equal than the entire feminist movement.
4 - Legal gun owners have 300 million guns and probably a trillion rounds of ammo. Seriously, folks, if we were the problem, you'd know it.
5 - When JFK was killed, nobody blamed the rifle
6 - The NRA murders 0 people and receives $0 in government funds. Planned Parenthood kills 350,000 babies every year and receives $500,000,000 in tax dollars annually.
7 - I have no problem with vigorous background checks when it comes to firearms. While we're at it, let's do the same when it comes to immigration, Voter I.D and Candidates running for office. Also for welfare recipients.
8 - You don't need a smoke detector; that's what the fire department is for. Now...if you think that sounds stupid, you know how I feel when you say I don't need a gun.
9 - Folks keep talking about another Civil War. One side knows how to shoot and has a trillion bullets. The other side has crying closets and is confused about which bathroom to use. How do you think that's going to end?

Quoting Ted Nugent? hahahahahahahaha

They made texting while driving IILEGAL. So guns should be illegal too?

Chicago is not isolated, guns flow in from Red states that hand them out to any

Women carrying a gun to work evidently make more money

 

[JohnA]

They made texing while driving illegal NOT owning a car ..
likewise being drunk while in posessing a gun is illegal as well not the gun stupid

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We have been through this over and over. The AR looks like it does because of the function it has. It doesn't have the functions it has because of the looks. And those functions are not to go hunting Wabbits, silly Wabbit. It's there to go to war with. It's the reason it's the weapon of choice for the well dressed fashionable Mass Murdering Fashion Conscience going for the all time record for mass killings. It's the same reason it is the go to weapon for combat. You can make every fairytale excuse in the book but you can't change that. You change the look and you change the function. There are many militaries in the world using the box stock AR-15 model 750 for their military weapon and that includes the Mexican Army because it's much easier for them to purchase the AR-15 Model 750 than the AR-15 Model 604 and get it exported. The Model 750 does the same job and takes the same ammo and is cheaper but is still Mil Spec. You keep denying this and you keep losing to common sense. Well, cupcake, keep losing while the rest of us keep winning.

Many firearms are based on military counterparts, in fact it is probably the majority. Modern bolt action rifles based on the Mauser 98, various iterations of the M1 Garand action, and let's not forget the Colt Single Action Army...

Bottom line, your contention that an undefined "military function" disqualifies a weapon for civilian ownership is simply ridiculous.

We are talking about today's military use of weapons, not the origin of the weapons. The Military is still using the AR-15. You can call it anything you want but the M-16 is the model AR-15 Model 604 while the AR-15 that you know is the AR-15 Model 750. All based directly on the original AR-15 Model 601 as is the Colt LE6920. The function of these weapons are that of the needs of a young 19 year old kid scared almost completely out of his mind under heavy fire being able to operate his weapon easily and quickly without dropping his magezines all over the ground while change them. The M-1 did not have that advantage. Plus, being able to carry the weapon for 14 to 18 hours a day without fatigue. Plus, being able to not have to take your finger out of the trigger guard to reload which speeds the rate of overall fire up tremendously. None of these features has a tinkers worth to a hunter. These functions ARE identified and these are why the AR, M-16 and M-4 are weapons of war. Just because they can also be used for hunting is just an afterthought.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Daryl Hunt - How about this one? Is it civilian or military? Should it be legal for civilians?

View attachment 254411

I don't see the same features that an AR-15/M-16/M-4 have that differentiates them from a civilian rifle. I would say that this is a very fancy civilian rifle.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

If a M-2 were mass produced in huge quantity, it could be called a Common Rifle as well and be chambered for 20mm and have plastic accessories. Does that make it a common rifle? Should that be allowed to be mounted on every CJ-5 and 7 jeep out there and be driven down the roads? A line has to be drawn somewhere between firearms meant for Combat and meant for Hunting.

You do know that fully automatic firearms are not what we are discussing don't you?

So how about a valid comparison.

There are MILLIONS of AR 15 rifles in the hands of civilians. M I L L I O N S

and a minuscule fraction of them have ever been used to commit any crime

The intent of the AR-15 was for war, not for hunting. The intent of the M-2 is for war, not for hunting. The intent of the conventional hunting rifle is for hunting although it's been used for war. The intent of a handgun is for personal and home protection although it's been used for war. You can go back in the way back when machine but using the recent court rulings, we need to keep it in todays world. The uses of everything except the AR-15 of all the weapons we keep discussing are for civilian uses while the AR has a primary use in war even though it can be used as a varmint rifle. A M-2 can be used as an elephant gun if you are skilled enough but that doesn't make it a sporting rifle.

and the 2nd amendment was for weapons of war not for hunting,,,,

At the time, there was no difference.

thats not relevant today,,,because its still about weapons of war as per original intent,,,l,

That was made irrelevant with McDonald. No longer can the civilian population keep up with the Government Military for Weaponry. And nor should it be allowed to. That weaponry is just too devastating. That actually ended just before the Civil War.

 

[Hale]

We are talking about today's military use of weapons, not the origin of the weapons. The Military is still using the AR-15. You can call it anything you want but the M-16 is the model AR-15 Model 604 while the AR-15 that you know is the AR-15 Model 750. All based directly on the original AR-15 Model 601 as is the Colt LE6920. The function of these weapons are that of the needs of a young 19 year old kid scared almost completely out of his mind under heavy fire being able to operate his weapon easily and quickly without dropping his magezines all over the ground while change them. The M-1 did not have that advantage. Plus, being able to carry the weapon for 14 to 18 hours a day without fatigue. Plus, being able to not have to take your finger out of the trigger guard to reload which speeds the rate of overall fire up tremendously. None of these features has a tinkers worth to a hunter. These functions ARE identified and these are why the AR, M-16 and M-4 are weapons of war. Just because they can also be used for hunting is just an afterthought.

You seem to be arguing two conflicting points: the original intent of the designer, and the "features". On one hand you cite the history of the AR15 as a disqualifier, yet here you focus only on functions and features that are present on many firearms. So which is it, history or features/functions? If functions, please list them.

I don't see the same features that an AR-15/M-16/M-4 have that differentiates them from a civilian rifle. I would say that this is a very fancy civilian rifle.

This is a Beretta CX4 Storm, a design intended for sporting and self-defense use. It is lighter than an AR15, accepts up to 30 round magazines, and has the same operating characteristics as the AR15. It is 9mm vs 5.56, but arguably just as deadly at normal "mass shooting incident" ranges.

I'm giving you a pass by telling you the caliber, but there are others like it in 5.56 that also were not developed for military use. My point is that you don't seem to have any clear way of delineating what is acceptable (to you) and what is not.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

We are talking about today's military use of weapons, not the origin of the weapons. The Military is still using the AR-15. You can call it anything you want but the M-16 is the model AR-15 Model 604 while the AR-15 that you know is the AR-15 Model 750. All based directly on the original AR-15 Model 601 as is the Colt LE6920. The function of these weapons are that of the needs of a young 19 year old kid scared almost completely out of his mind under heavy fire being able to operate his weapon easily and quickly without dropping his magezines all over the ground while change them. The M-1 did not have that advantage. Plus, being able to carry the weapon for 14 to 18 hours a day without fatigue. Plus, being able to not have to take your finger out of the trigger guard to reload which speeds the rate of overall fire up tremendously. None of these features has a tinkers worth to a hunter. These functions ARE identified and these are why the AR, M-16 and M-4 are weapons of war. Just because they can also be used for hunting is just an afterthought.

You seem to be arguing two conflicting points: the original intent of the designer, and the "features". On one hand you cite the history of the AR15 as a disqualifier, yet here you focus only on functions and features that are present on many firearms. So which is it, history or features/functions? If functions, please list them.

I don't see the same features that an AR-15/M-16/M-4 have that differentiates them from a civilian rifle. I would say that this is a very fancy civilian rifle.

This is a Beretta CX4 Storm, a design intended for sporting and self-defense use. It is lighter than an AR15, accepts up to 30 round magazines, and has the same operating characteristics as the AR15. It is 9mm vs 5.56, but arguably just as deadly at normal "mass shooting incident" ranges.

I'm giving you a pass by telling you the caliber, but there are others like it in 5.56 that also were not developed for military use. My point is that you don't seem to have any clear way of delineating what is acceptable (to you) and what is not.

And yet I ID'd it as a civilian Self Defense Weapon just by it's visible features. Imagine that. Features determine the looks, not the other way around. You can make it look as space age as you wish but your gun is NOT equal to an AR in a firefight. It takes two hands to operate the reload feature on that gun and that disqualifies it when compared to an AR. You can have some of the ARs qualities but in order to equal an AR for combat, you need ALL of the features. That one is lacking some of the features.

 

[Hale]

And yet I ID'd it as a civilian Self Defense Weapon just by it's visible features. Imagine that. Features determine the looks, not the other way around. You can make it look as space age as you wish but your gun is NOT equal to an AR in a firefight. It takes two hands to operate the reload feature on that gun and that disqualifies it when compared to an AR. You can have some of the ARs qualities but in order to equal an AR for combat, you need ALL of the features. That one is lacking some of the features.

No, it does not take two hands to reload. You merely hit the mag release, it drops, and you insert another. So what features are lacking?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

fffffff

And yet I ID'd it as a civilian Self Defense Weapon just by it's visible features. Imagine that. Features determine the looks, not the other way around. You can make it look as space age as you wish but your gun is NOT equal to an AR in a firefight. It takes two hands to operate the reload feature on that gun and that disqualifies it when compared to an AR. You can have some of the ARs qualities but in order to equal an AR for combat, you need ALL of the features. That one is lacking some of the features.

No, it does not take two hands to reload. You merely hit the mag release, it drops, and you insert another. So what features are lacking?

You forget that you have to charge the weapon. And that takes two hands when you first put the first mag in. And you have to hit the release to charge it when to slam the bolt forward. Now, tell me again exactly how it's done, step by step. And please specify the exact model number of the gun so I can research it fully. You don't mind if I don't take just your word for it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And yet I ID'd it as a civilian Self Defense Weapon just by it's visible features. Imagine that. Features determine the looks, not the other way around. You can make it look as space age as you wish but your gun is NOT equal to an AR in a firefight. It takes two hands to operate the reload feature on that gun and that disqualifies it when compared to an AR. You can have some of the ARs qualities but in order to equal an AR for combat, you need ALL of the features. That one is lacking some of the features.

No, it does not take two hands to reload. You merely hit the mag release, it drops, and you insert another. So what features are lacking?

I've seen enough. NO it operates fine for a single hand on mag change. It's light and uses some steel pieces which is a huge plus. It's light. All in all, as a plinker it's going to be a fun gun. That being said, it's short, real short. At 50 yds, it's not accurate at all. It lacks power. The 9mm just doesn't make it. I don't see it being used for varmints. And you are better off with a 9mm handgun for home defense. While they tried to make it like an AR, it failed miserably. It's a toy. Better to buy a 9mm handgun and a decent varmint rifle than this one unless you just want to spend a lot of ammo shooting at beer cans at short range.

 

[Hale]

You forget that you have to charge the weapon. And that takes two hands when you first put the first mag in. And you have to hit the release to charge it when to slam the bolt forward. Now, tell me again exactly how it's done, step by step. And please specify the exact model number of the gun so I can research it fully. You don't mind if I don't take just your word for it.

I've seen enough. NO it operates fine for a single hand on mag change. It's light and uses some steel pieces which is a huge plus. It's light. All in all, as a plinker it's going to be a fun gun. That being said, it's short, real short. At 50 yds, it's not accurate at all. It lacks power. The 9mm just doesn't make it. I don't see it being used for varmints. And you are better off with a 9mm handgun for home defense. While they tried to make it like an AR, it failed miserably. It's a toy. Better to buy a 9mm handgun and a decent varmint rifle than this one unless you just want to spend a lot of ammo shooting at beer cans at short range.

It's a Beretta CX4 Storm, operation is identical to an AR, and I'm not understanding how it "takes two hands". There aren't any magazine fed rifles or pistols that only take one, unless perhaps you straps some weird mag-holder to your leg and poke the weapon down on it lol.

In any event you haven't answered the question, and you've added yet another element - ammo. So is it the history, the features, the ammo, or all of the above?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You forget that you have to charge the weapon. And that takes two hands when you first put the first mag in. And you have to hit the release to charge it when to slam the bolt forward. Now, tell me again exactly how it's done, step by step. And please specify the exact model number of the gun so I can research it fully. You don't mind if I don't take just your word for it.

I've seen enough. NO it operates fine for a single hand on mag change. It's light and uses some steel pieces which is a huge plus. It's light. All in all, as a plinker it's going to be a fun gun. That being said, it's short, real short. At 50 yds, it's not accurate at all. It lacks power. The 9mm just doesn't make it. I don't see it being used for varmints. And you are better off with a 9mm handgun for home defense. While they tried to make it like an AR, it failed miserably. It's a toy. Better to buy a 9mm handgun and a decent varmint rifle than this one unless you just want to spend a lot of ammo shooting at beer cans at short range.

It's a Beretta CX4 Storm, operation is identical to an AR, and I'm not understanding how it "takes two hands". There aren't any magazine fed rifles or pistols that only take one, unless perhaps you straps some weird mag-holder to your leg and poke the weapon down on it lol.

In any event you haven't answered the question, and you've added yet another element - ammo. So is it the history, the features, the ammo, or all of the above?

I already covered this. It's a toy. It's a cross between a 9mm handgun and a daisy red rider. It lacks power and accuracy so that alone disqualifies it. Now, build the same weapon just a bit bigger, better quality and a more lethal caliber and it might qualify. But as it stands, it's just another plinker.

 

[Hale]

I already covered this. It's a toy. It's a cross between a 9mm handgun and a daisy red rider. It lacks power and accuracy so that alone disqualifies it. Now, build the same weapon just a bit bigger, better quality and a more lethal caliber and it might qualify. But as it stands, it's just another plinker.

So you have no bottom line, and you believe that certain firearms should be banned subject to your personal discretion? You started with history, went to features, then quickly changed to caliber when I let you know the Beretta is 9mm...

Let's recap. So far, you've stated these factors that you believe should disqualify a firearm from civilian ownership:

1. original design intent
2. unspecified features/functions suited to combat use
3. caliber
4. accuracy
5. range

I'm beginning to think you're just trolling, or perhaps you really think you have some mystical ability to look at a firearm and evaluate it's lethality. So for the last time: In your opinion, what should disqualify a firearm from civilian ownership?