The reason I ask is because the reasoning JD posted seems a lot like saying a Corvette and a Corolla are the same thing. A Corolla and a Corvette both have four wheels, internal combustion engines, a radio, and seatbelts. But, one of them will go 0-60 in three and a half seconds and the other one might need pushed down hill if you put a load of groceries in the back. So, they aren't comparable.

 

They are comparable if you're honest and you compare similar cars as JD did guns.

I know this gets brought up a lot in this debate. But, why do gun manufacturers bother to make and why do people spend substantial sums of money to purchase guns like the AR-15 if they are essentially identical to an old farm rifle?

 

Because we can.

Judging from the comments it appears no one here agrees with the guy that it's time to repeal the second amendment?

 

Everyone is getting all upset and I haven't seen one person agree with the article. :lol2:

Everyone is getting all upset and I haven't seen one person agree with the article. :lol2:

 

Exactly. :lol2:

 

Proves my point from yesterday about them freaking out when anything gun related is questioned.

I'm not anti-gun rights or second amendment by any means. I own a shotgun, a rifle, and three handguns. I have a concealed carry card. But if all this guy has to do is repeatedly squeeze the trigger as fast as possible, well, he can take out a lot of people in a short amount of time. That's exactly what he did. It doesn't have to be fully automatic to be lethal to go along with all the other descriptions in your link. I just don't see the need for this type of weapon in the hands of citizens. And according to a doctor that I saw interviewed on one of the news stations, the bullets from this gun are nearly always a death sentence unless one is struck in the arms or legs. The bullet fragments in all directions inside the body and loss of blood is difficult to control even if the victim is rushed to a trauma center. I realize that there's other ways to commit mass murder without using guns, but why make it easier for lone wolf type crimes such as what happened in Orlando.

 

This is just a personal opinion I've had for years. I understand the second amendment rights. But maybe a few regulations should be in order. If not, what would keep the average Joe from owning a rocket propelled launcher?

Regulations are not a bad thing. Fully automatic weapons are not allowed. Sawed off shotguns are prohibited. Even fireworks are regulated.Maybe it's time to restrict the ownership of these type weapons as well.

Excellent post. The 2A won't be repealed in any of our lifetimes, but certain types of weapons should be banned, starting with the AR-15.

I'm probably guilty of stirring the pot :lol2:

Everyone is getting all upset and I haven't seen one person agree with the article. :lol2:

 

To be fair I haven't noticed anyone particularly upset though.

I'm not anti-gun rights or second amendment by any means. I own a shotgun, a rifle, and three handguns. I have a concealed carry card. But if all this guy has to do is repeatedly squeeze the trigger as fast as possible, well, he can take out a lot of people in a short amount of time. That's exactly what he did. It doesn't have to be fully automatic to be lethal to go along with all the other descriptions in your link. I just don't see the need for this type of weapon in the hands of citizens. And according to a doctor that I saw interviewed on one of the news stations, the bullets from this gun are nearly always a death sentence unless one is struck in the arms or legs. The bullet fragments in all directions inside the body and loss of blood is difficult to control even if the victim is rushed to a trauma center. I realize that there's other ways to commit mass murder without using guns, but why make it easier for lone wolf type crimes such as what happened in Orlando.

 

This is just a personal opinion I've had for years. I understand the second amendment rights. But maybe a few regulations should be in order. If not, what would keep the average Joe from owning a rocket propelled launcher?

Regulations are not a bad thing. Fully automatic weapons are not allowed. Sawed off shotguns are prohibited. Even fireworks are regulated.Maybe it's time to restrict the ownership of these type weapons as well.

This is more or less my stance as well.

I'll repeat anyone who supports the repeal of the 2nd ammendment or very strict regulations but then in turn criticizes a conservative for the Patriot Act or stop and frisk are being as big of hypocrites as they are. You can't be for civil liberties and the repeal of the 2nd ammendment.

 

I was thinking more along the lines of those who want to repeal the 2nd amendment based giving up rights to save lives should also support the repeal or restriction of Roe vs Wade, correct?

I'm probably guilty of stirring the pot :lol2:

 

A quick question. How many rounds can the top one hold? Bottom?

 

If there is no difference what does it matter if they ban the bottom?

 

I had a 50 shot clip for my 10/22 (top image). My AR only holds 20.

I have multiple clips for both.

I'm not anti-gun rights or second amendment by any means. I own a shotgun, a rifle, and three handguns. I have a concealed carry card. But if all this guy has to do is repeatedly squeeze the trigger as fast as possible, well, he can take out a lot of people in a short amount of time. That's exactly what he did. It doesn't have to be fully automatic to be lethal to go along with all the other descriptions in your link. I just don't see the need for this type of weapon in the hands of citizens. And according to a doctor that I saw interviewed on one of the news stations, the bullets from this gun are nearly always a death sentence unless one is struck in the arms or legs. The bullet fragments in all directions inside the body and loss of blood is difficult to control even if the victim is rushed to a trauma center. I realize that there's other ways to commit mass murder without using guns, but why make it easier for lone wolf type crimes such as what happened in Orlando.

 

This is just a personal opinion I've had for years. I understand the second amendment rights. But maybe a few regulations should be in order. If not, what would keep the average Joe from owning a rocket propelled launcher?

Regulations are not a bad thing. Fully automatic weapons are not allowed. Sawed off shotguns are prohibited. Even fireworks are regulated.Maybe it's time to restrict the ownership of these type weapons as well.

 

I think most ammo for these types of rifles are full metal jacket which does not explode or mushroom into the target. The military liked to use them because they were more likely to injure the solder thus removing him from battle and removing those that needed to take him to get help.

 

Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) Ammo - FMJ Bullets Explained

I know this gets brought up a lot in this debate. But, why do gun manufacturers bother to make and why do people spend substantial sums of money to purchase guns like the AR-15 if they are essentially identical to an old farm rifle?

This is the same answer I posted in the other thread to a similar type question.

 

The most important part of home/self defense is having a weapon that you can handle properly. Therefore all of my purchases are based on the ability of MrsC to be able to handle the weapon and fire it accurately.

 

To that end. A 5.45 - AR-15 is one of the lowest recoil rifles you can get. It is extremely reliable. It is easy to load and reload. It is a weapon that MrsC can handle.

 

So for all of the people who ask why does someone need an AR-15. For me. That is why.

I just read the shooter didn't actually use an AR-15 which was reported everywhere because the media likes to link the AR-15 to everything. The shooter used a Sig Sauer MCX carbine.

According to the Congressional Research Service, there are roughly twice as many guns per capita in the United States as there were in 1968: more than 300 million guns in all. Gun sales have increased in recent years.

 

 

Guns In America, By The Numbers : NPR

 

Yet mass shooting are up in record numbers. Seems to be working well.

 

correlation is not the same as causation. We should not only be concerned about mass shooting, but all shootings that are intended to harm another, like gang and drug related gun violence.

 

The presence of guns does not cause one murder, whether it be a part of a mass shooting or include one or two people fighting over drug territory. What causes a murder is that a person is willing to end the life of another person. This is a moral issue and can only be addressed by changing the human heart. Government cannot do it.

 

The utter disdain for human life that we now see in our culture comes from the demise of the family and the breakdown of morality and culture. "If the foundations be destroyed, what can the righteous do?" We must address it through means designed to adddress the moral and spiritual needs of people. Legislation can't do that. It is beyond the purview of government.

 

Talk about taking a butter knife to a gun fight :idunno:

 

How is France a great example? Per New York Times, "Last year’s Paris attacks killed 130 people, which is nearly as many as die from gun homicides in all of France in a typical year. But even if France had a mass shooting as deadly as the Paris attacks every month, its annual rate of gun homicide death would be lower than that in the United States."

 

apples and oranges. Compare the US during one era to the US in another era. See if there is anything that accounts for the differences you see between eras. France's history of gun ownership and constitutional freedoms does not compare to the US.

 

Let me ask a question thats slightly off the topic but feel its relevant here. Why do you guys think these mass shootings are happening?

 

Now there's a question worth pursuing. I would also include an inquiry why so many Americans appear to be willing to commit crimes against other Americans and even kill their fellow humans? Understanding the problem should come before suggesting a solution because if you try a solution that doesn't even address the problem the results will not change.

 

So the answer is we have what have, do your best America...? We can't make them safer; we won't try harder to keep them out of the hands of criminals; in fact we hope to continue to mass produce them at a high rate so there will be more and more in the wrong hands.

 

That seems like a defeatist attitude to me.

 

LB, FWIW, I believe in freedom, but I don't believe to be free you have to be armed.

 

Nope, but you have to address a moral and spiritual issue by means of a moral and spiritual solution.