Some powerful shit

[Steve James]

The harm in banning that weapon tangibly is to take it away from people who can use it for self-defense, for legal and non-aggressive reasons.

Nonsense. There are other weapons that can be used to fulfill the same function. Machine guns could be used, as well, but they're not allowed.

Any law against civilians owning firearms is a restriction on social freedom. I don't think you're making an argument for the AR-15 or large capacity magazines. At least, you're using them as symbols. You haven't given a reason why they are necessary. For practicality, if self defense and not urban warfare is the goal, a simple Ruger .22 would be better. It's cheaper; easier to handle; ammo is cheaper. What's the attachment to the AR?

Btw, I don't think that banning any weapon will stop madmen determined to cause damage. The first mass shooter used a rifle with scope from an elevated position. And, he was eventually taken out by a man with a gun --after being pinned down by fire from citizens with rifles. Guns have their appropriate uses, and I'm all for them. What's sad is that they're needed so much in America.

[grzegorz]

[quote]The 2nd amendment is not the reason by itself. The 2nd amendment represents that idea of self-reliance and responsibility for one's own protection and I think that self-defense is fundamental to individual independence and freedom in society overall.[/quote]

Self protection never appeared anywhere in the history of gun laws until Scalia in 2008.

Madison's original first draft of the second ammendment back when there was no standing army.

[quote]“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” [/quote]

Country was changed to State to appease the Southern States who feared that their slave patrols might come in conflict with the Federal government.

[BruceP]

Otoh, afa harming people, a wound from a non-scary looking "rifle" doesn't cause as much damage as one fired from an AR type weapon. Ask the doctors who treated the wounds at the high school shooting. Don't take my word for it, of course.

That's just flat out wrong on so many levels.

The cartridge (5.56x45 NATO) is what causes the damage - not the rifle.

You haven't given a reason why they are necessary. For practicality, if self defense and not urban warfare is the goal, a simple Ruger .22 would be better. It's cheaper; easier to handle; ammo is cheaper. What's the attachment to the AR?

.22lr cartridges are rimfire, and lack reliability - not good if you need every round to go bang. .22lr also lacks power and range.

[Michael]

The harm in banning that weapon tangibly is to take it away from people who can use it for self-defense, for legal and non-aggressive reasons.

Nonsense. There are other weapons that can be used to fulfill the same function. Machine guns could be used, as well, but they're not allowed.

I don't think you're making an argument for the AR-15 or large capacity magazines. At least, you're using them as symbols. You haven't given a reason why they are necessary. For practicality, if self defense and not urban warfare is the goal, a simple Ruger .22 would be better. It's cheaper; easier to handle; ammo is cheaper. What's the attachment to the AR?

As far as I know, and I am not as technically knowledgeable about firearms as you or Bruce, (I own no guns, and have only handled them a few times since Marine Corps boot camp) what Bruce said about the AR regarding center fire and rimfire is part of what makes it an effective weapon. The distinction between semi and full auto is pretty clear one that can be used to distinguish legality, so if a semi-auto is developed into a very effective weapon, why should it be banned and the Ruger not?

Finding the acceptable dividing line for legal weapons may not have very many clear demarcations, like semi and full auto. There is going to be some kind of cut-off and categorization of what's allowed and what's not and that's a matter of regulation and policy.

Any law against civilians owning firearms is a restriction on social freedom.

I'm not saying social freedom as some kind of platitude. There is a technological requirement for the responsibility of self-reliance in a free society and firearms have been basic technology for a long time. There are different sets of risks with or without private gun ownership and I prefer an America with the responsibilities and risks of guns being available. Fine tuning which guns, which ammo, bump stocks, background checks, etc., is always up for debate.

A dedicated database just to exclude gun ownership was apparently a failure in Canada, and the effectiveness of NCIS probably bears this out in the USA.

Btw, I don't think that banning any weapon will stop madmen determined to cause damage.

What's sad is that they're needed so much in America.

QFT

[Michael]

So, you are going to accuse this guy of politicizing yet you present an essentially fabricated fantasy of the lone vigilanty saving the day. Full of shit as usual.

I had accepted Willeford's account of shooting the killer, as well as other people's accounts of seeing Willeford exchange fire with him. It turns out that yes, Willeford did interrupt the killer and did hit him twice, once in the leg and once in the side, and the killer finally shot himself in the head. It took me about five minutes on google to confirm that.

I hadn't checked before because I didn't find the story at all implausible and I still do not know why you do. Civilians, or vigilantes as you call them, interrupt violent crime all the time with their privately owned guns.

And it is reported in a few places that Willeford is an NRA instructor, so he does have more than average weapons training.

Kelley was shot twice — in the leg and torso — before shooting himself in the head, officials said autopsy results showed.

[Steve James]

The cartridge (5.56x45 NATO) is what causes the damage - not the rifle.

Well, yeah, the rifle itself doesn't do the damage. The point, however, is the damage.

.22lr cartridges are rimfire, and lack reliability - not good if you need every round to go bang. .22lr also lacks power and range.

Well, I know survivalists who prefer a Ruger. I don't think they worry about its reliability; however, the argument was about the necessity of an AR. It's not the only reliable rifle, regardless of cartridge.

[Steve James]

There is going to be some kind of cut-off and categorization of what's allowed and what's not and that's a matter of regulation and policy.

Right, and the type of ammunition and the type of weapon can be legitimately disallowed, while maintaining the 2nd amendment.

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

So, you are going to accuse this guy of politicizing yet you present an essentially fabricated fantasy of the lone vigilanty saving the day. Full of shit as usual.

I had accepted Willeford's account of shooting the killer, as well as other people's accounts of seeing Willeford exchange fire with him. It turns out that yes, Willeford did interrupt the killer and did hit him twice, once in the leg and once in the side, and the killer finally shot himself in the head. It took me about five minutes on google to confirm that.

I hadn't checked before because I didn't find the story at all implausible and I still do not know why you do. Civilians, or vigilantes as you call them, interrupt violent crime all the time with their privately owned guns.

And it is reported in a few places that Willeford is an NRA instructor, so he does have more than average weapons training.

Kelley was shot twice — in the leg and torso — before shooting himself in the head, officials said autopsy results showed.

While I will admit that my initial information about hitting the target may or may not be right, you are still wrong about the most important point--and you are maintaining that fiction here. He did not interrupt the killing, he intercepted after the fact. That is the key point as to why this account (which is an anomaly) does not support an armed public being a preventative measure to mass shootings. This is also very easy to verify with any search you like. You are also cherry picking. How about my point that one death does not make up for 26 slain?

As for the arguments about the deadliness of the NATO round or similar: I've read some pretty interesting articles about how it was actually intended to maim, not kill. Makes sense. If you want to kill, the AR-10 in 308 is far superior to the AR-15. Sure, it costs more but is far more effective at eliminating a threat. I know some operators who did and still do buy their own to use over "there" for this exact reason.

[Michael]

The question of whether an armed populace would be a deterrent to mass shootings is common back and forth speculation in the gun debate, but the mass shooting in a Waco, Texas restaurant in the early 90's was part of the initiative to legalize concealed carry in Texas, and I think also in the USA. There were people in the restaurant who'd left their guns in their cars, and so on. That's the kind of speculation that goes on.

Back to Willeford and Sutherland Springs. In Texas, it's illegal to carry in a church. The shooter was returning to his vehicle, where he had additional weapons and ammo and, although there was another church a mile away, and there were survivors to whom he could have returned with fresh ammo inside the church where he'd just murdered 26 people, it is speculation whether he would have attempted to shoot more people when Willeford began firing at him, and hit him twice, then chased him to his death. I suppose Willeford should have asked the shooter his preferred pronouns and gotten a written declaration of intent before firing on him in order to help us argue more conclusively about it later

So you can not claim I am wrong or that more armed citizens would not prevent mass shootings, both points are speculative, and neither of which are especially relevant to my view on gun control. Like Steve said, I don't think banning AR's or similar weapons would prevent mass shooting or mass killings, and because of their unpredictable and spurious nature, I don't think whether a mass shooting were stopped once by an armed vigilante would be meaningful unless there was a clear pattern involved.

How about my point that one death does not make up for 26 slain?

You are making a counter-point to something that I did not argue. I said someone who engages an active shooter in live fire, one who's murdered 26 people and shot 20 others, hits him twice while under fire, and then pursues him when he only has two rounds left for his gun, is a hero compared to someone on youtube who illegally saws the barrel of his AR because of his bleeding heart.

Can you start over with what you want to discuss now that things have been cleared up?

[Ian C. Kuzushi]

I will take what you say here at face value. I can't do it now, but I will go back and look at the thread again (hopefully this weekend) and reassess. No problem with that. If I misunderstood and therefore mischaracterized your central point, I will recognize that.

[Michael]

It's cool, man. Thanks for a good discussion. If this thread interests, great, if not, there are others.

[BruceP]

The cartridge (5.56x45 NATO) is what causes the damage - not the rifle.

Well, yeah, the rifle itself doesn't do the damage. The point, however, is the damage.

.22lr cartridges are rimfire, and lack reliability - not good if you need every round to go bang. .22lr also lacks power and range.

Well, I know survivalists who prefer a Ruger. I don't think they worry about its reliability; however, the argument was about the necessity of an AR. It's not the only reliable rifle, regardless of cartridge.

We need to get on the same page before we can discuss the points you're trying to make.

Reading your post:

Otoh, afa harming people, a wound from a non-scary looking "rifle" doesn't cause as much damage as one fired from an AR type weapon. Ask the doctors who treated the wounds at the high school shooting. Don't take my word for it, of course.

is like listening to this guy:




You're not clear as to which "ruger" you're referring. There are a number of different Ruger models chamber in .22. Also are you talking about .223 Rem? .22lr? What? Because it seems like you're just changing and shifting your meanings again, the way you like to each time your points are refuted.

[Steve James]

The point was that the difference in lethal it of the rounds fired by the different weapons. You pointed out yourself that NATO rounds did more damage from a greater range more reliably than a 22lr. Put a picture up of a NATO round compared to any 22. If you think that ARs are necessary, that's fine. I don't see them as needed for self defense. The fact that they kill or maim well is not an endorsement.

[BruceP]

That just it, Steve - the confusion you're creating around those nebulous points you appear to be addressing with nothing more than vague implications.

The bullet in the 5.56x45 NATO round is a .22 caliber bullet - within .001" of a bullet loaded in a .22lr round.

The 5.56x45 NATO round will create the same wounds if it's fired from a semi-auto, bolt-action, or single-shot rifle. Like I said, it aint the platform that does the damage.

So this, at face value:

Otoh, afa harming people, a wound from a non-scary looking "rifle" doesn't cause as much damage as one fired from an AR type weapon. Ask the doctors who treated the wounds at the high school shooting. Don't take my word for it, of course

doesn't make any sense and is wrong on so many levels.


Again, which Ruger model are you referencing?

[Steve James]

The Ruger I meant was the 1022, but my point was about the damage. The issue was not the caliber. And, I think you know that. http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/the-di ... ot-wounds/