Your absolutely right, outside of people who hunt for feral pigs or own Baders Gas Station in Downtown Louisville (LOL), I don't think many people need AR's, AK's or other similar type rifles. But I think we need to look at it from a different stand point.

 

Often gun controllers ask that same question, that being, "why do you need high capacity magazines?" And my answer is, "I don't but why should that have any affect on whether or not they are legal???"

 

I don't NEED alcohol but should it be prohibited again? I don't think so. Sure didn't go too well almost a century ago when this country tried prohibition. It made many formerly law abiding citizens in to law breakers when the felt the law was stupid and bought alcohol on the black market and made many gangsters into extremely powerful multimillionaires.

 

I don't NEED to gamble at a casino but many states are starting to wake up and realize just because some people cannot handle their gambling it does not make it right in a free society to prohibit all from visiting a casino. My guess is soon KY will wake up.

 

I don't NEED red meat or fried foods and would probably be much thinner and healthier if the government would take that right away from me but does that mean they should?

 

So saying that, I think the need for certain types of guns or the magazines that feed them should have absolutely no bearing on their legal status.

 

Now saying that, does that mean I think everything should be legal? No, my general (notice I said general, not absolute) rule is if something is (or would be) used responsibly by 99% (use whatever percentage you see fit) of the population but not by 1%, in a free society, the rights and liberties of the 99% should not be sacrificed by the 1%.

 

Outstanding points Bert and I can understand your thinking to a level. However, the only reason anyone would own high capacity magazine weapons is to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time. In every recent mass shooting in schools, malls, movie theaters these types of weapons were used. So, I don't think it is a need issue after reading your thoughts, it is a legal issue and was confirmed by your post.

 

I realize a recent mass killing spree was done by knives and that confirms that there is probably no sure fire way to stop a mentally unstable person from killing someone. I will never compare these type of weapons to alcohol, fried food or casinos. You are right, poor decisions with these can lead to deaths both self induced or accidental and casino gambling can lead to financial ruin for that individual and/or his/her family. I don't believe we can ever or should over legislate some vices.

 

No one drinks alcohol to kill someone, no one goes to a casino to end up in financial ruin and no one eats fried food to have a heart attack, however, they are unfortunate by-products of those that are irresponsible with them and I concur again that the few that partake in these irresponsibly should not trump the vast majority that do use them responsibly.

 

Weapons of the kind that have types of magazines that can fire sometimes up to a 100 shots in a very short amount of time are bought to kill lots of people by the vast majority that buy and own them. That is why making them illegal is something I would support. There is no other logical reason in my mind that someone would have them.

 

Sometimes the results are the same, but the intent is very different.

I don't look at gun ownership and carry as a vice but you can guarantee the gun control crowd does, I was just trying to speak their language.

 

I hate the verbiage you use here..."their language". Many of us who want more controls are NOT trying to take away the rights of gun owners to own them. I have listed my positions ad nauseum, and not one of them is to make gun ownership illegal.

 

I resent that gun owners and 2nd Ammendment activists paint everyone who doesn't fall lockstep in line with the NRA as trying to end a Constitutional right. It's extreme and it's flat out wrong. I could list the controls I want, and not one person in here would respond except maybe RTS, and then only to twist my words and throw out derisive remarks.

 

I don't "need" a gun. I personally feel very few people "need" a gun. But if it makes one feel safer, or then they have the right to own it. But not everyone should be allowed to own a gun, and those that don't have a desire or feel a need to own a gun should be made to feel they are somehow anti-American.

Here in lies the problem. What you are referring to (30 rounds in 2 seconds) is a fully automatic firearm which due to heavy regulation and expensive taxes is not available to the vast majority of people. Primarily only wealthy gun enthusiasts who went through extreme background checks. However, many others who want to restrict ownership of semi automatic rifles (they don't fire 30 rounds in two seconds, they can only fire once for each pull of the trigger) don't understand the difference between semi automatic and fully automatic but despite their lack of knowledge of such weapons still don't hesitate to want to regulate them. Me personally, if I don't understand something, I don't want to regulate something I don't understand till I take the time to educate myself on it and make an informed decision on regulating it. Gun control is based waaaaay too much on emotion rather than facts.

 

I am not a gun expert and don't pretend to be. However, just because we don't understand, doesn't mean we shouldn't find the right way to control them, if need be. I am not emotionally tied to this issue at all. Sure I am saddened and get angry when mass shootings happen. However, I have never been close to anyone who has been killed in any fashion and I feel extremely blessed in that and know that could change tomorrow. So emotions don't override my thinking, but I know it does on BOTH sides of this issue.

 

In fact, I really try and understand all sides of an issue such as this. As a general rule, I would take very seriously in taking any rights away if at all possible.

If you want to carry it concealed on you in the mall around me and my grandkids, I have a problem.

 

Why? What danger is there in a law abiding citizen who went through a background check carrying concealed? Outlawing concealed carry won't stop the non law abiding citizens from carrying concealed, they don't follow laws in the first place. Recall back about twenty years when states starting changing legislation to allow legal concealed carry for those who pass background checks. Remember all the screaming that shootings will break out in public and car wrecks will turn in gun fights. Well, two decades have past and such predictions have been incorrect. Gun crimes for legal permit holders are so rare that when they do happen, the news stations cannot help but go crazy to blow it out of proportion but they almost never happen.

 

Also keep in mind that gun free zones are great places to commit crimes, little risk that the victims will be armed so it will be easy pickings. I read an article that the Aurora shooter passed up two other movie theaters to get to one where fire arms could not be legally. The last thing a shooter wants is to be shot back at.

Here's the thing about where I lived...my neighboorhood teemed with Prius', Birkenstock wearing people. That's what makes it so funny. And I have no problem with anyone owning a gun. I understand it's a Constitutional right. However, I have a few Constitutional rights of my own, and dang it, free speech is one of them. And if I want to say and support stricter regulations on weapons, I have that right. So, shoot me or move out of the way.

We've had a similar conversation in the past, I have no problem with strict background checks or some other control measures. I'm against regulations that remove any currently available firearms from the market or limiting the ammunition or magazine capacity that I may own.

Why? What danger is there in a law abiding citizen who went through a background check carrying concealed? Outlawing concealed carry won't stop the non law abiding citizens from carrying concealed, they don't follow laws in the first place. Recall back about twenty years when states starting changing legislation to allow legal concealed carry for those who pass background checks. Remember all the screaming that shootings will break out in public and car wrecks will turn in gun fights. Well, two decades have past and such predictions have been incorrect. Gun crimes for legal permit holders are so rare that when they do happen, the news stations cannot help but go crazy to blow it out of proportion but they almost never happen.

 

Also keep in mind that gun free zones are great places to commit crimes, little risk that the victims will be armed so it will be easy pickings. I read an article that the Aurora shooter passed up two other movie theaters to get to one where fire arms could not be legally. The last thing a shooter wants is to be shot back at.

 

 

Why? Because just because you have a gun permit, it doesn't mean you won't get angry and misjudge a situation. As we can read almost daily, it doesn't increase your good judgement. I'm with BengalManiac.

I hate the verbiage you use here..."their language". Many of us who want more controls are NOT trying to take away the rights of gun owners to own them. I have listed my positions ad nauseum, and not one of them is to make gun ownership illegal.

 

I resent that gun owners and 2nd Ammendment activists paint everyone who doesn't fall lockstep in line with the NRA as trying to end a Constitutional right. It's extreme and it's flat out wrong. I could list the controls I want, and not one person in here would respond except maybe RTS, and then only to twist my words and throw out derisive remarks.

 

I don't "need" a gun. I personally feel very few people "need" a gun. But if it makes one feel safer, or then they have the right to own it. But not everyone should be allowed to own a gun, and those that don't have a desire or feel a need to own a gun should be made to feel they are somehow anti-American.

You and I have had very good conversations on this point in the past and I was closer to your position than you thought if I remember correctly.

Why? What danger is there in a law abiding citizen who went through a background check carrying concealed? Outlawing concealed carry won't stop the non law abiding citizens from carrying concealed, they don't follow laws in the first place. Recall back about twenty years when states starting changing legislation to allow legal concealed carry for those who pass background checks. Remember all the screaming that shootings will break out in public and car wrecks will turn in gun fights. Well, two decades have past and such predictions have been incorrect. Gun crimes for legal permit holders are so rare that when they do happen, the news stations cannot help but go crazy to blow it out of proportion but they almost never happen.

 

Also keep in mind that gun free zones are great places to commit crimes, little risk that the victims will be armed so it will be easy pickings. I read an article that the Aurora shooter passed up two other movie theaters to get to one where fire arms could not be legally. The last thing a shooter wants is to be shot back at.

 

 

Really, many will shoot until they are shot or shoot themselves, that is not the rule, that is your thinking. Most don't give a darn, they are mentally unstable in the first place. They want to kill as many as they can before they die it appears to me.

 

I do think most are responsible that have concealed weapons, my problem is I am not certain what they would do or if they know how to handle it. I understand it s legal, but I don't have to like it.

However, the only reason anyone would own high capacity magazine weapons is to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time.

 

Weapons of the kind that have types of magazines that can fire sometimes up to a 100 shots in a very short amount of time are bought to kill lots of people by the vast majority that buy and own them. That is why making them illegal is something I would support. There is no other logical reason in my mind that someone would have them.

 

What???? The only reason to own a high capacity magazine weapon is to kill a lot of people? So that fact that I own high capacity magazine means I intend on going on a killing spree?? You really believe that? Come on.

 

I own high capacity magazines because when I shoot at the range, I want to be able to show up with my magazines already loaded and I don't have to waste my time reloading spent magazines. Similar to 99% of people who buy high capacity magazines At the range, you pay by how much time you spend there and if there are people waiting for an open lane, it is considerate if you can speed things up by being prepared and it would be a slow process to constantly having to swap out low capacity magazines and have to reload them. Or, if I go to training, I want the training to be as efficient and productive as possible to get my money's worth. Having to stop to reload would make the training less efficient.

 

This is case of lack of knowledge of the real purpose of high capacity magazines not stopping someone from wanting them outlawed.

Why? What danger is there in a law abiding citizen who went through a background check carrying concealed? Recall back about twenty years when states starting changing legislation to allow legal concealed carry for those who pass background checks. Remember all the screaming that shootings will break out in public and car wrecks will turn in gun fights. Well, two decades have past and such predictions have been incorrect. Gun crimes for legal permit holders are so rare that when they do happen, the news stations cannot help but go crazy to blow it out of proportion but they almost never happen.

 

Also keep in mind that gun free zones are great places to commit crimes, little risk that the victims will be armed so it will be easy pickings. I read an article that the Aurora shooter passed up two other movie theaters to get to one where fire arms could not be legally. The last thing a shooter wants is to be shot back at.

 

Let's look at the laws that was changed in 2004 to allow these fast shooting magazines. Prior to that 10% of gun shootings were 10% by these types of weapons, since it has been legal that % has risen to 22%. So maybe the concealed weapon law has been successful as you say, but the weapons that are with the fast shooting magazines, not so much.

What???? The only reason to own a high capacity magazine weapon is to kill a lot of people? So that fact that I own high capacity magazine means I intend on going on a killing spree?? You really believe that? Come on.

 

I own high capacity magazines because when I shoot at the range, I want to be able to show up with my magazines already loaded and I don't have to waste my time reloading spent magazines. Similar to 99% of people who buy high capacity magazines At the range, you pay by how much time you spend there and if there are people waiting for an open lane, it is considerate if you can speed things up by being prepared and it would be a slow process to constantly having to swap out low capacity magazines and have to reload them. Or, if I go to training, I want the training to be as efficient and productive as possible to get my money's worth. Having to stop to reload would make the training less efficient.

 

This is case of lack of knowledge of the real purpose of high capacity magazines not stopping someone from wanting them outlawed.

 

I did not say all, I said the vast majority and I stand by that. I did look at their purpose today and that was it. Are you making a point or do you own one? Because in an earlier post you said in the response you didn't.

 

Again, I am not an expert and haven't pretended to be.

I hate the verbiage you use here..."their language".

 

In no way shape or form was I including you into the body of people who make up "their" however, there are many of "them" and they really do look at gun ownership or atleast ownership of certain types of guns they find scary as a vice. Examples of "them" are Eddie Vedder, Michael Moore, etc..

 

 

I don't "need" a gun. I personally feel very few people "need" a gun..

 

Very few people need a fire extinguisher in their home of fire insurance for that matter but when you do need it, it sure is nice to have.

 

 

But not everyone should be allowed to own a gun

 

No argument there.

 

 

and those that don't have a desire or feel a need to own a gun should be made to feel they are somehow anti-American.

 

Neither of my parents or my brother own a gun but they respect that I do so in no way do I see them as anti-American

Why? Because just because you have a gun permit, it doesn't mean you won't get angry and misjudge a situation. As we can read almost daily, it doesn't increase your good judgement. I'm with BengalManiac.

 

There is no legal carry of firearms in Chicago, they are currently having 30-40 shootings per week.

 

Argument that concealed carry will increase shootings is a farce that has been told for years.

I am not a gun expert and don't pretend to be. However, just because we don't understand, doesn't mean we shouldn't find the right way to control them, if need be.

 

My request is, before looking to control fire arms or anything else for that matter, please educate yourself on them. A decade ago, I was for much of the modern gun control of today. However, once I educated myself I realized that was my emotion making my decisions not facts. I used to be rather anti NRA, I am still not a member of the NRA but realized my initial assumptions were wrong.

Why? Because just because you have a gun permit, it doesn't mean you won't get angry and misjudge a situation. As we can read almost daily, it doesn't increase your good judgement. I'm with BengalManiac.

 

Just because I get angry means I or anyone else is going to start shooting? Several times in the past few days I became angry at someone and at no point did it ever occur to me to reach for my gun. Over the weekend two friends of mine got into an argument, both were armed, at no point was a worried a gun would be pulled. I have a little more faith in people than worrying about that. And the fact that fire arms crimes among permit holders is almost non existent confirms my belief. Now, among people who have criminal pasts, yeah, when the get mad I would be a little nervous but whether carrying is legal or not will have zero affect as to whether they are carrying a gun or not.