Conservative Political Forum

General Category => War Forum => Topic started by: pisskop on February 07, 2013, 07:55:27 AM

Title: A History of the Availability of Guns?
Post by: pisskop on February 07, 2013, 07:55:27 AM
Specifically ARs.  I got into a debate with a rather intelligent ex marine who supports Assault Rifle bans and wanted to go through a document/article describing the availiblity of such guns throughout the 20th century.  He indicates they were unavailable until right before the chool shootings started.  I say there's no better way to enlighten somebody than with cold hard facts.  any help would be appreciated.
Title: Re: A History of the Availability of Guns?
Post by: DaMonk on February 07, 2013, 09:05:46 AM
Cold hard facts "ARE" what is needed.  While I am thankful you have a friend who served in the Marine Corps; a statement from you concerning his opinion does not meet the criteria of facts.  In a court of law your statement would be labeled as "hear-say" and not be allowed as evidence.  While there is study after study, including reports from the Federal Government, which concludes that as the number of firearms increases the crime rate decreases.  I commend you for your desire to protect the rights of your fellow citizens.  I urge you to move away from statements based upon the emotion of the moment (the advent of school shootings is directly tied to the availability of the AR weapons frame)and plant your argument on well thought out coherent proposals. 
Title: Re: A History of the Availability of Guns?
Post by: Solar on February 07, 2013, 09:08:04 AM
Quote from: pisskop on February 07, 2013, 07:55:27 AM
Specifically ARs.  I got into a debate with a rather intelligent ex marine who supports Assault Rifle bans and wanted to go through a document/article describing the availiblity of such guns throughout the 20th century.  He indicates they were unavailable until right before the chool shootings started.  I say there's no better way to enlighten somebody than with cold hard facts.  any help would be appreciated.
He's nuts, ARs as in the AR 16 was a result of Nam, so the fact that they are relatively new on the scene is the only reason they recently became available.
School shootings or any other mass murder has nothing to do with guns and everything to do with mentally disturbed individuals.

The public has always access to Military weaponry, I can still own a full auto M-16 if I want to deal with all the paper work, but what I learned in the Military, is auto is merely a waste of ammo, an M-16 can burn through a full mag in seconds, then you have issues with over heating if you burn too much
The ideal fire rate is three round bursts, which anyone can perfect easily, even with semi autos.

He is trying to make a connection of a certain type weapon availability to mental illness, that's like claiming rap music was the result of the modern PC.
Title: Re: A History of the Availability of Guns?
Post by: Murph on February 07, 2013, 01:00:35 PM
Tell him that Eric Harris used a Hi-Point 995 carbine with great effect at Columbine HS. The Hi-Point is a 9mm semi auto using 10 round magazines, Harris carried 13 magazines (130 rounds) and discharged 96 rounds.
Title: Re: A History of the Availability of Guns?
Post by: Solar on February 07, 2013, 01:08:14 PM
Quote from: Murph on February 07, 2013, 01:00:35 PM
Tell him that Eric Harris used a Hi-Point 995 carbine with great effect at Columbine HS. The Hi-Point is a 9mm semi auto using 10 round magazines, Harris carried 13 magazines (130 rounds) and discharged 96 rounds.
Good point and the Sandyhook shooter only used handguns, not an AR.
Title: Re: A History of the Availability of Guns?
Post by: pisskop on February 07, 2013, 01:15:09 PM
You know, those are good points, esp since he is so quick to only focus on the AR gunmen, like James Holmes.

I'd still like an article, but these points may help.  He's a great debator, almost a sophist, but he occasionally slips; like how he said Bush brought about a recession.  Even in Sociology books, near-the-most liberal textbooks around, agree that Bush had stimulated growth (only they say it was growth for the rich and not the poor).
Title: Re: A History of the Availability of Guns?
Post by: Solar on February 07, 2013, 01:21:26 PM
Quote from: pisskop on February 07, 2013, 01:15:09 PM
You know, those are good points, esp since he is so quick to only focus on the AR gunmen, like James Holmes.

I'd still like an article, but these points may help.  He's a great debator, almost a sophist, but he occasionally slips; like how he said Bush brought about a recession.  Even in Sociology books, near-the-most liberal textbooks around, agree that Bush had stimulated growth (only they say it was growth for the rich and not the poor).
I'd make him explain the meaning behind the 2Nd, regarding a Militia and that every member needs to supply his own arms.
What good is a militia if the Govt restricts our right to arm ourselves? The whole point of a militia was to fight alongside our very own military and or against an invader, even our own Govt.
Title: Re: A History of the Availability of Guns?
Post by: pisskop on February 07, 2013, 01:26:34 PM
 :angry::sad::ohmy:

"It only proves your distrust in our government, and our military.  We both served:  Do you distrust our military and brothers?"

He had a fairly plausible, economic-based logic behind his position before that.
Title: Re: A History of the Availability of Guns?
Post by: Solar on February 07, 2013, 01:38:00 PM
Quote from: pisskop on February 07, 2013, 01:26:34 PM
:angry::sad::ohmy:

"It only proves your distrust in our government, and our military.  We both served:  Do you distrust our military and brothers?"

He had a fairly plausible, economic-based logic behind his position before that.
That is a cop out answer, I would retort with "Do you buy insurance"?
Point is, the 2nd is insurance that the Govt will not interfere with the Bill of Rights, the Rights came before the institution of the US Govt. They are Rights instituted by God, they are inalienable Rights.
Ask him why he hates the Founders? That's about the same as his question as to why you distrust your brothers in arms.

Better yet, invite him over here, we'll set him straight as to what the Founding Documents mean. :wink:
Title: Re: A History of the Availability of Guns?
Post by: Moby on February 17, 2013, 08:16:18 PM
Google is your friend.

http://news.discovery.com/history/mass-shootings-history-121220.htm (http://news.discovery.com/history/mass-shootings-history-121220.htm)
Title: Re: A History of the Availability of Guns?
Post by: simpsonofpg on March 13, 2013, 01:05:21 PM
The AR15 is a semi-automtic military look alike and has been available for a number of years.  I have a ruger ranch rifle, semi automatic and it is capable of holding a 30 round clip but only looks like a small M1 which is an older military rifle.  Guns are not the issue it is the people and we just don't want to deal with it.  The number of death attributed to responsible legal gun owner is all most ZERO.
Title: Re: A History of the Availability of Guns?
Post by: TboneAgain on March 19, 2013, 04:14:48 PM
Quote from: Solar on February 07, 2013, 01:08:14 PM
Good point and the Sandyhook shooter only used handguns, not an AR.

There are conflicting reports about that. Actually, there's mostly NO information about that. At first, I heard that the shooter used two handguns, and an AR was found in the trunk of the car he drove to the school. Later, it was claimed that he used a Bushmaster AR-15 clone. But the details have not been available, and the Bushmaster claim came from exactly one person -- a deputy coroner, I believe, who did some of the autopsies.

Can anybody link to a credible source that says the Sandy Hook shooter definitely used an AR-15 or something like it?
Title: Re: A History of the Availability of Guns?
Post by: Solar on March 19, 2013, 04:39:16 PM
Quote from: TboneAgain on March 19, 2013, 04:14:48 PM
There are conflicting reports about that. Actually, there's mostly NO information about that. At first, I heard that the shooter used two handguns, and an AR was found in the trunk of the car he drove to the school. Later, it was claimed that he used a Bushmaster AR-15 clone. But the details have not been available, and the Bushmaster claim came from exactly one person -- a deputy coroner, I believe, who did some of the autopsies.

Can anybody link to a credible source that says the Sandy Hook shooter definitely used an AR-15 or something like it?
Actually my post is correct, look up the coroners report after incident, turns out his on scene assumptions were just that ASS-umptions, turns out there were three pistols used and no rifle round were found in any of the victims.
Title: Re: A History of the Availability of Guns?
Post by: TboneAgain on March 19, 2013, 04:45:51 PM
Quote from: Solar on March 19, 2013, 04:39:16 PM
Actually my post is correct, look up the coroners report after incident, turns out his on scene assumptions were just that ASS-umptions, turns out there were three pistols used and no rifle round were found in any of the victims.

Understood, but again, I haven't seen any legitimate, reliable info on that particular subject. Obviously, the media message has always been assault weapon, assault weapon, assault weapon, but I'm not coming up with credible sources that say what weapons were used. There is a serious clamp-down on this entire incident.

It's hard not to wonder whether that's a political move.
Title: Re: A History of the Availability of Guns?
Post by: Solar on March 19, 2013, 04:53:59 PM
Quote from: TboneAgain on March 19, 2013, 04:45:51 PM
Understood, but again, I haven't seen any legitimate, reliable info on that particular subject. Obviously, the media message has always been assault weapon, assault weapon, assault weapon, but I'm not coming up with credible sources that say what weapons were used. There is a serious clamp-down on this entire incident.

It's hard not to wonder whether that's a political move.
BINGO!!! That's exactly what is behind it, I still see the lie repeated in the news every week.

I'll see if I can find it, I know it's here on the forum, I posted it as a thread.
Title: Re: A History of the Availability of Guns?
Post by: Solar on March 19, 2013, 04:55:52 PM
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/nbc-admits-%27no-assault-rifle-used-at-sandyhook%27/ (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/nbc-admits-%27no-assault-rifle-used-at-sandyhook%27/)
Title: Re: A History of the Availability of Guns?
Post by: TboneAgain on March 19, 2013, 05:33:15 PM
Quote from: Solar on March 19, 2013, 04:55:52 PM
http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/nbc-admits-%27no-assault-rifle-used-at-sandyhook%27/ (http://conservativepoliticalforum.com/political-discussion-and-debate/nbc-admits-%27no-assault-rifle-used-at-sandyhook%27/)

Exactly the same stuff I heard. But...

Where's the beef? Where is some sort of official report stating that Adam Lanza walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School with GUN X and GUN Y and GUN Z and shot A rounds from GUN X and B rounds from GUN Y and C rounds from GUN Z?

All I've seen so far is a blurb saying that some state police looey claims it was all done with the Bushmaster, and a ridiculous statement from an assistant coroner who did some of the autopsies who described "assault weapon wounds" as if they were distinct and readily discernible from all other types of gunshot wounds.

YES, Lanza had access to the Bushmaster, along with a shotgun and at least two handguns.

WHAT DID HE USE?
Title: Re: A History of the Availability of Guns?
Post by: Solar on March 19, 2013, 06:19:24 PM
Quote from: TboneAgain on March 19, 2013, 05:33:15 PM
Exactly the same stuff I heard. But...

Where's the beef? Where is some sort of official report stating that Adam Lanza walked into Sandy Hook Elementary School with GUN X and GUN Y and GUN Z and shot A rounds from GUN X and B rounds from GUN Y and C rounds from GUN Z?

All I've seen so far is a blurb saying that some state police looey claims it was all done with the Bushmaster, and a ridiculous statement from an assistant coroner who did some of the autopsies who described "assault weapon wounds" as if they were distinct and readily discernible from all other types of gunshot wounds.

YES, Lanza had access to the Bushmaster, along with a shotgun and at least two handguns.

WHAT DID HE USE?
So you're starting to get the cover up?
The very day of the shooting:
   
QuoteThe veteran medical examiner told reporters that the victims had all been identified and their bodies released. In what appeared to be an uncomfortable moment for Carver, he said all of the victims he had examined had all been shot by a Bushmaster .223 caliber assault rifle, one of at least two weapons Adam Lanza, the 20-year-old suspected shooter, used to commit one of the deadliest mass shootings in U.S. history.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/medical-examiner-sandy-hook-victims-died-multiple-gunshot-211722237.html (http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/medical-examiner-sandy-hook-victims-died-multiple-gunshot-211722237.html)

You can't tell me he wasn't told to lie. I saw him speaking, you could tell he was lying, and didn't like it one bit, in fact he looked angry as Hell, rather than subdued as most are in situations like this, most people try and hide their true feelings and soldier through.
Title: Re: A History of the Availability of Guns?
Post by: TboneAgain on March 19, 2013, 06:45:00 PM
Obviously, unless he had been prepped beforehand, he would never have ventured an opinion that any wounds had been inflicted by any brand or even specific caliber of gun. Assuming that all the entry wounds were roughly 1/4 inch -- as you might expect from a small-caliber gun -- they could be made by anything from a .22 BBCap to a .220 Swift, or by any of two dozen calibers between. They could also be made by a BIC pen.

To judge "damage" from specific wounds and assign them to a specific weapon is again to dare the infinite combinations of time, space, force, caliber, speed, etc.

The man was coached to say what he said.

The left could only dream that the same coroner had examined Trayvon Williams.
Title: Re: A History of the Availability of Guns?
Post by: Solar on March 19, 2013, 06:53:59 PM
Quote from: TboneAgain on March 19, 2013, 06:45:00 PM
Obviously, unless he had been prepped beforehand, he would never have ventured an opinion that any wounds had been inflicted by any brand or even specific caliber of gun. Assuming that all the entry wounds were roughly 1/4 inch -- as you might expect from a small-caliber gun -- they could be made by anything from a .22 BBCap to a .220 Swift, or by any of two dozen calibers between. They could also be made by a BIC pen.

To judge "damage" from specific wounds and assign them to a specific weapon is again to dare the infinite combinations of time, space, force, caliber, speed, etc.

The man was coached to say what he said.

The left could only dream that the same coroner had examined Trayvon Williams.
Yep. A cover up of astronomical proportions, but when it comes to agenda, nothing surprises me coming from the left.
Title: Re: A History of the Availability of Guns?
Post by: simpsonofpg on April 03, 2013, 09:50:26 AM
Guns are not the problem.  If the guy in CO has used a shot gun he could have done a lot more damage and if the people in the theater has all be carrying guns it would have turned into a masacure.  Most people who have gone out aqnd bought their first gun recently are not trained physically or mentalty to shot someone.  It is a lot more dangerous out then today than a year ago.  We have way to many trigger happy people who have taken a 10 handgun class and they that they are ready to carry a gun around.
Title: Re: A History of the Availability of Guns?
Post by: Solar on April 03, 2013, 10:02:13 AM
Quote from: simpsonofpg on April 03, 2013, 09:50:26 AM
Guns are not the problem.  If the guy in CO has used a shot gun he could have done a lot more damage and if the people in the theater has all be carrying guns it would have turned into a masacure.  Most people who have gone out aqnd bought their first gun recently are not trained physically or mentalty to shot someone.  It is a lot more dangerous out then today than a year ago.  We have way to many trigger happy people who have taken a 10 handgun class and they that they are ready to carry a gun around.
So you're against legally concealed carry, personal defense, the right to protect ones self?
What you posted, came right out of Leftist talking points.
Title: Re: A History of the Availability of Guns?
Post by: TboneAgain on April 03, 2013, 05:43:27 PM
Quote from: simpsonofpg on April 03, 2013, 09:50:26 AM
Guns are not the problem.  If the guy in CO has used a shot gun he could have done a lot more damage and if the people in the theater has all be carrying guns it would have turned into a masacure.  Most people who have gone out aqnd bought their first gun recently are not trained physically or mentalty to shot someone.  It is a lot more dangerous out then today than a year ago.  We have way to many trigger happy people who have taken a 10 handgun class and they that they are ready to carry a gun around.

Please define. Thanks.
Title: Re: A History of the Availability of Guns?
Post by: Solar on April 03, 2013, 05:56:15 PM
Quote from: TboneAgain on April 03, 2013, 05:43:27 PM
Please define. Thanks.
I think he meant 10 hour class.

What bugs the hell out of me is the idiots that think people that have never handled a gun before are going to be at the head of the line when wanting to carry a gun in school.

Stupid, stupid people!
If I were working at a school and they needed three people to sign up, I'd volunteer, but only after they've filled their requirement of three first.
I would pack, but it would be a shotgun in a locker, I know my limitations, and I've been shooting for decades.
Title: Re: A History of the Availability of Guns?
Post by: TboneAgain on April 03, 2013, 06:19:18 PM
I guess my point is that a guy carrying a good-quality pellet gun or a "wrist-rocket" slingshot or a K-Bar knife could have walked into that Colorado theater and done a TREMENDOUS amount of damage -- maybe fewer or no fatalities, but still a LOT of damage -- precisely because no one else in the place was armed at all.

I've posted this elsewhere on the board, but a famous bank robber was once interviewed by a reporter, who asked, "Why did you concentrate on banks?" The robber replied, "That's where the money is." The same principle applies to all these mass shootings -- they occur in known, even ADVERTISED, "gun-free" zones.

"That's where the victims are."

Every school shooting has occurred in a "gun-free zone."

The Aurora, CO theater shooting occurred in a "gun-free zone."

The Ft. Hood shooting in TX occurred in a part of the base where personnel were prohibited from carrying arms -- a "gun-free zone."

The mall in AZ where Gabby Giffords was shot occurred in a "gun-free zone."

The McDonald's massacre in Killeen, TX back in 1991 might have turned out differently if it hadn't taken place in a "gun-free zone." At least one person in possession of a legally-carried firearm had taken it out of her purse and left it in her vehicle before entering the restaurant -- in compliance with a gun-control law.

Every "gun-free zone" is a literal savings bank of unarmed, helpless victims. Adam Lanza was, by all accounts, an utter waste of human protoplasm, a sad specimen, the best part of whom probably soaked into the mattress the night he was conceived. But it doesn't take all that many brain cells to figure out that even losers can be dominators when they bring arms to a designated arms-free place.