NBC'a David Gregory Weapons Violation

[Lost_Sheep]

Why? Take pictures of various guns to politicians, the media, or your average American, both gun owners and non gun owners, and ask them to pick out the pictures of the ‘assault’ weapons. Before you do this, you look through them and you pick out what you think they will pick out. We all know what assault rifles are.

So you are defining “assault rifle” based purely on what the rifle looks like and not its actual functional capability?

Did you read the article as I suggested?

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So you are defining “assault rifle” based purely on what the rifle looks like and not its actual functional capability?

Did you read the article as I suggested?

If if makes you feel better, let’s say the AR15 is not really an ‘assault’ rifle, by definition. It’s not going to change the public opinion, including law makers. The lawmakers had a definition, during the previous ban. Gun makers circumvented, but maintained the appeal to that particular psyche, and gun sales continued. Now it seems the definition is being aimed to prevent the widespread definition.

Now, take your technical definitions, along with the pictures I suggested, and talk to the general public, or people who don’t share your view. There is a recognized difference between hunting and ‘assault’.

I have first hand experience with the M16, and AR15. I also consider myself to have common sense. I know what the public perception is referencing ‘assault’ guns. I don’t need to read a blog.

 

[Brendan]

Draft, militia, see any connection at all?

How many children would have died in Connecticut if the shooter had been limited to a bolt action gun, with 6 shots?

About the same.

The only difference is that he probably would have used a .30-06, and with hollow points at that; and he probably would have only shot the kids once, instead of 3-11 times each.

Of course, they would be still be just as dead. Considering what it does to a deer, .30-06 hollow point would do really nastily things to a 6 year old.

Reloading wouldn’t have been an issue, think about the stripper clips for a 03’ Springfield, or a British Enfield. Couple of seconds, tops.

Or a pump 12 gauge with buck shot. 8 x .32 cal balls with each pull of the trigger. Just reload between classes.

 

[livingwordunity]

Allow me to join the conversation. I think the gist of the matter may be the poetic justice of Mr. Gregory finding himself hoisted by his own petard. He advocates an arbitrary law against ownership of a thing, ostensibly to thwart evil acts. He then finds that his mere possession of this spring-loaded metal box is a crime for which he may be incarcerated. While I resist the temptation to enjoy his squirming discomfort, I am pleased to see his argument turned around to become a demonstration of how unjust such laws are. I think it would be unjust if Mr. Gregory goes to jail for breaking the D.C. law and unjust to pass such laws. Saint Augustine tells us that an unjust law is no law.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

About the same.

The only difference is that he probably would have used a .30-06, and with hollow points at that; and he probably would have only shot the kids once, instead of 3-11 times each.

Of course, they would be still be just as dead. Considering what it does to a deer, .30-06 hollow point would do really nastily things to a 6 year old.

Reloading wouldn’t have been an issue, think about the stripper clips for a 03’ Springfield, or a British Enfield. Couple of seconds, tops.

Or a pump 12 gauge with buck shot. 8 x .32 cal balls with each pull of the trigger. Just reload between classes.

Oh, let’s see, surely we can come up with a much worse scenario to hide the effectiveness of the AR15 that was actually used.

Now, let’s go back to the theater where 12 died and over 50 were injured, and they were adults. Take your 30.06 with hollow points and tell me would the outcome been the same.

There’s an huge, and honest difference.

 

[TimeEntrance]

Police in the US have no legal obligation to protect us, and their response time is far greater than the time taken to commit a violent crime. They are reactionary.

The police can take more than an hour to show up if you report a break-in at a neighbors (even with a police station across the street, because cops are busy with other calls and crimes). Usually that respond pretty rapidly to a call that reports a shooting or a call indicating someone has a gun.

I don’t really have beef with the police. In fact, I’m happy they’re around, otherwise things would be even crazier. I don’t care for the saturation and possible random stop and frisks though.

Another interesting point: the majority of firearms-related deaths in the US are suicides. Accidents are also lumped into the total number of deaths often touted by anti-gun organizations. More people are killed by vehicles. More people die from cigarette-related illnesses.

There are actually a lot of people shot by others (intentionally) in the United States that don’t die. As I pointed out in another thread about 600 people are shot on average, in the City of Milwaukee each year. Only 70 or 100 or so of those might become homicides or fatalities.

In another thread you responded to me about gang members. Here is the problem, what strict difference there used to be between gang members and non-gang members has in large respect ceased to be.

Like the U.S. military that employees non-felon gang members as soldiers, sailors, and Marines (I served with a number of them), the U.S. military will tell you they draw from out of the U.S. culture and society at large. I would say the same is true of gang members. And the irony is that some gang members reflect more the charity of Jesus and the Apostles eating with tax collectors and sinners, and are less cruel, than some of your law-abiding, non-gang member Americans.

While I was never in a gang I have known many people in them. I personally know gang members in the 30s and 40s that go to work at a lawful job, pay taxes, take care of their spouse and kids, they do not rob people, would help an old lady carry groceries, feed someone hungry, and shoot someone that broke into their house.

Little difference between them and the “law abiding citizen.” However, they have the added common trait of the average American over personal property and “honor.” They are in a sense homicidal over all of those things. Better to die than lose face. Better to be sent to prison than to be dishonored.

Milwaukee is no Baltimore or Detroit. It’s a far less homicidal and violent city. But even in rather peaceful Milwaukee this is a day or night in a culture of guns: jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/7yearold-girl-5-others-injiured-in-overnight-shootings-5n87led-185368911.html

I will admit this mostly occurs with blacks and not whites. It was probably not too different for whites when the Sicilians, Italians, Irish, Eastern European Jews and some others made up the ghettos.

Either way… those shootings were not fatal.

Arguing too much over Republican vs Democrat or gun rightest vs those that want gun restrictions reminds me too much of the tribalism that goes on between rival gangs. VL’s and GD’s often think they are so different from each other but to me they are more alike than different. Some of them probably feel the same as they are now hanging out with each other at times.

 

[Lost_Sheep]

I have first hand experience with the M16, and AR15. I also consider myself to have common sense. I know what the public perception is referencing ‘assault’ guns. I don’t need to read a blog.

Which proves my point. What the public considers an “assault weapon” is based entirely upon perceptions of what people *think *is an “assault weapon” and not on any firm definition. In other words, if it looks like what people think an assault weapon looks like, then it must be an assault weapon.

 

[Brendan]

Oh, let’s see, surely we can come up with a much worse scenario to hide the effectiveness of the AR15 that was actually used.

Just answering the question you yourself asked

Now, let’s go back to the theater where 12 died and over 50 were injured, and they were adults. Take your 30.06 with hollow points and tell me would the outcome been the same.

There’s an huge, and honest difference.

No, that is where the shotgun would have been the more ‘effective’ weapon. Considering the more crowded nature, 1 Buck would have been the most deadly round. 11 x .30 cal balls with each pull of the trigger.

And really, if he went 10 gauge, which is also legal, the devastation would have been even greater.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Which proves my point. What the public considers an “assault weapon” is based entirely upon perceptions of what people *think *is an “assault weapon” and not on any firm definition. In other words, if it looks like what people think an assault weapon looks like, then it must be an assault weapon.

Ok, you’re right. An AR15 is not an assault weapon. If lawmakers ban the AR15, too bad we wasted time on a forum trying to properly define it so that everyone could feel comfortable with ‘reality’. But that’s not going to change the fact that the public perception of an AR15 is that it is an assault weapon. Good luck with that.

Are you going to feel better if they say, ‘too many mass homicides are conducted with an AR15, which is not an assault rifle, but because of the repeated offenses with that model, we are making ownership of the AR15 illegal?’

My point, it’s semantics brother, and doesn’t address the fact that these people are showing a propensity to utilize a military replica, even if it doesn’t shoot fully automatic.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Just answering the question you yourself asked

No, that is where the shotgun would have been the more ‘effective’ weapon. Considering the more crowded nature, 1 Buck would have been the most deadly round. 11 x .30 cal balls with each pull of the trigger.

And really, if he went 10 gauge, which is also legal, the devastation would have been even greater.

Forget it Brendan. It’s clearly not an honest discussion, when you have to twist every single scenario for the sake of minimizing the AR15, with 30 round clips. It’s not a ‘holy’ gun, above all reproach.

 

[shipwrkd]

Try what I said, then come back and tell me, I’m confused. To deny what the public is identifying as an assault weapon is not honest. Now, I have shot both types and I assure you, if I wanted to be I would be very proficient with the AR15 over the full auto M16.

What those shooters used, was an AR15. The full auto versions are already not allowed to be owned by civilians, unless there’s a ‘special permit’ I’m not aware of. Also, why bring up the military version if the guns used by the most recent shooters have been the civilian version, identified by press and politicians as ‘assault’ guns?

Then my time would be better spent writting to them. Your in the minority of this controversy by two to one and the controversy isn’t about hunting or handguns or even types of firearms. It’s about constitutional rights. You and I served to protect those rights and I’m sure some of your friends payed the ultimate price. Mine did. I look at this as we as Catholics look at the Catechism. You either accept and fight for it as a whole or chose another religion. Nations fall by chipping away at rights a brick at a time. Seems we both gave a few years of our live’s to prevent that from happening from outside but I believe more nations have fallen fom rights taken from within. That’s why so any who answered the poll in the last thread we participated in didn’t want controls…and didn’t even own a firearm.

 

[Brendan]

Forget it Brendan. It’s clearly not an honest discussion, when you have to twist every single scenario for the sake of minimizing the AR15, with 30 round clips. It’s not a ‘holy’ gun, above all reproach.

What is not honest about my assessment of the situation. You have served, you probably went through qualification with the Remington 870\M870 like I did.

You know what it would do in a crowded movie theatre.

As far as the AR-15, I’ve got no ‘skin in the game’ so to speak. I don’t own one, and I really have no plans on owing one ( though these discussions are leaning me towards purchasing one, even though it’s a bit too underpowered ).

I’ve used the M-16 enough to know it’s limitations, and especially so in a strictly semi-auto version.

What I am attempting to do is to answer questions that you post. What is really wrong with that. Do you honestly expect everyone to just simply agree and offer no counter-argument. If you believe that, it is a highly unrealistic view of life.

If you post a question regarding firearms, I and others, will do our best to answer. Why expect any differently?

 

[Lost_Sheep]

Ok, you’re right. An AR15 is not an assault weapon. If lawmakers ban the AR15, too bad we wasted time on a forum trying to properly define it so that everyone could feel comfortable with ‘reality’. But that’s not going to change the fact that the public perception of an AR15 is that it is an assault weapon. Good luck with that.

Are you going to feel better if they say, ‘too many mass homicides are conducted with an AR15, which is not an assault rifle, but because of the repeated offenses with that model, we are making ownership of the AR15 illegal?’

My point, it’s semantics brother, and doesn’t address the fact that these people are showing a propensity to utilize a military replica, even if it doesn’t shoot fully automatic.

So you are saying when people committing these crimes it is their “inner Rambo” coming through and they choose an AR-15 (or whatever) because it makes them feel like a bad-arse?

Too many people commit mass shootings with AR-15s so we ban AR-15s. Well, then they’ll just find another non-AR-15 “assault rifle” and commit crimes with it instead.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

Then my time would be better spent writting to them. Your in the minority of this controversy by two to one and the controversy isn’t about hunting or handguns or even types of firearms. It’s about constitutional rights. You and I served to protect those rights and I’m sure some of your friends payed the ultimate price. Mine did. I look at this as we as Catholics look at the Catechism. You either accept and fight for it as a whole or chose another religion. Nations fall by chipping away at rights a brick at a time. Seems we both gave a few years of our live’s to prevent that from happening from outside but I believe more nations have fallen fom rights taken from within. That’s why so any who answered the poll in the last thread we participated in didn’t want controls…and didn’t even own a firearm.

I wouldn’t count CAF numbers as one being a minority, and the other the majority. Polls show that 58% of Americans agree with stricter controls, and the majority being against bans. That’s what I have tried promoting against the imaginary, and sometimes senseless objections thrown up; e.g. gun safes? what good are guns if I’m getting my head blown off trying to get gun out of safe. Common sense would dictate that the guns would not be locked while you utilized them for home protection.

Again, according to CAF polls, Romney won by a major landslide.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

So you are saying when people committing these crimes it is their “inner Rambo” coming through and they choose an AR-15 (or whatever) because it makes them feel like a bad-arse?

Too many people commit mass shootings with AR-15s so we ban AR-15s. Well, then they’ll just find another non-AR-15 “assault rifle” and commit crimes with it instead.

I’ve seen the, civilians who’ve purchased an AR15; those who suddenly display the attitude of being a ‘life taker’. It’s easy to see what an unbalanced mind would think with one in their hands, if you can consider the first attitude as totally balanced.

People are going to find ways to commit evil. We don’t stand by saying, 'I’ll teach ‘em when they finally get to me. Too bad for the other poor slobs.’ We have an obligation to each other. The controls suggested, are minor inconveniences to ‘law abiding’ citizens, and of little consequence to Christian law abiding citizens, or it should be.

 

[Prodigal_Son1]

What is not honest about my assessment of the situation. You have served, you probably went through qualification with the Remington 870\M870 like I did.

You know what it would do in a crowded movie theatre.

As far as the AR-15, I’ve got no ‘skin in the game’ so to speak. I don’t own one, and I really have no plans on owing one ( though these discussions are leaning me towards purchasing one, even though it’s a bit too underpowered ).

I’ve used the M-16 enough to know it’s limitations, and especially so in a strictly semi-auto version.

What I am attempting to do is to answer questions that you post. What is really wrong with that. Do you honestly expect everyone to just simply agree and offer no counter-argument. If you believe that, it is a highly unrealistic view of life.

If you post a question regarding firearms, I and others, will do our best to answer. Why expect any differently?

There’s a huge difference between what can be done with a semi automatic with a 30 round clip, or 100 round drum, and a bolt action, 6 shot, or a shotgun. You have to change everything you can to minimize the damage of the ‘holy’ AR15. That’s what it appears some posters are doing; idolizing their guns. Guns don’t give life. There is only one that offers everlasting Life.

 

[Brendan]

BTW, my former XO is still in and a LT COL now.

He has done 2 tours in Iraq. His Battalion does a lot of ‘door to door’.

His troops would LOVE to use the M870, but are prohibited from doing so.

The reason is that it’s just too effective at clearing a room. That is not good when there might be non-combatants present.

So his troops were limited to the M4 Carbine, with a few in each squad having the M870 in a door buster role.

But indiscriminate slaughter in close quarters is exactly what both shooters were looking for, weren’t they?

Especially in CO, where the guy threw smoke bombs first. Hardly a way of achieving accurate fire, would you not say?

 

[shipwrkd]

As far as the AR-15, I’ve got no ‘skin in the game’ so to speak. I don’t own one, and I really have no plans on owing one ( though these discussions are leaning me towards purchasing one, even though it’s a bit too underpowered ).

Not to worry, the AR15 comes in over 50 calibers ranging from .17 HMR all the way up to .45 Win Mag

 

[Brendan]

There’s a huge difference between what can be done with a semi automatic with a 30 round clip, or 100 round drum, and a bolt action, 6 shot, or a shotgun.

Yes, you can give more aimed rounds downrange with an AR than with a bolt action. But that is about it.

No ‘idolization’, just the facts.

The ballistic charts for a Remington 12 gauge with the various loads are well known, as is are the 5.56 round and .30-06.

What I am doing is simply stating facts on the weapon styles. I see very little in the way of facts on this from you, why is that?

Guns don’t give life. There is only one that offers everlasting Life.

I agree, and that is the same Guy who guided David’s stones right into Goliath’s noggin.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Brendan]

So I would like to hear your critique of my assessment.

Do you feel that 6 rounds of 12 gauge Buck would have been insufficient to cause the same casualties in a 1st grade classroom as a 30 round mag of .223

If so, why, was there insufficient muzzle energy in the shot gun, pattern dispersal vs aimed shots? Time to fire (especially when some of the victims were struck 11 times with the .223.

Would there have been anything to stop Lanza from reloading the shotgun while walking between classes?

You are familiar with all these weapons, I would like to hear your technical assessment.

If we are looking to at bans that would directly reduce these type of events, would you not consider it important to look at the potential arms that might be banned, vs the types that might be available?

After all, the bishops called for the use of Reason in enacting the bans, so lets use Reason and logic.