Most 30 rounds magazines are sold out. Websites have shut down due to demand.
Most 30 rounds magazines are sold out. Websites have shut down due to demand.
Why would a store hide the AR-15's, SCAR's, and ACR's, but leave the M1A's in plain sight? I bet that family of rifles has killed more people than all of the modern sport rifles combined.
Anti-stance wrote:N Sperlo wrote:Not sure if you realize that makes the previous assault weapons ban of '94(a complete joke if you read the limitations) as being effective if you want to spin that to the non-gun advocate perspective.JoeyM wrote: some decent statistics http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/12/daniel-zimmerman/duwain-whitis/
Look at it however you want. I'm not attempting to sway anyone, just trying to tell what I believe and explain why, but yes, I believe weapon bans have no effect.
Just a question - why aren't fully automatic machine guns used in any of these mass killings?
fast_eddie_72 wrote: Just a question - why aren't fully automatic machine guns used in any of these mass killings?
Cost.
Bobzilla wrote:fast_eddie_72 wrote: Just a question - why aren't fully automatic machine guns used in any of these mass killings?Cost.
Availability.
And why is the cost so high and availability so low?
NRA's presser starts at 1100 EST:
http://home.nra.org/#/home
I support the right to bear arms.
However, now I'm hearing suggestions that arming teachers would prevent something like Friday's tragedy in CT, and I'm not sure I agree.
The knowledge that schools are not a "gun free zone" may be a deterrent, but the idea that the average small, liberal leaning, pacifist, school marm type will make a good militia defensive ninja doesn't sound right to me.
I don't think there are very many teachers who would make good militia.
And, it would introduce a great number of loaded guns into the schools, which may be very tempting for children to try to find.
Plus, the minute she points the gun, she'd better be willing to pull the trigger. Quickly. She just became target #1, and there are probably several children standing directly behind her.
There are other ideas I like better.
fast_eddie_72 wrote: And why is the cost so high and availability so low?
$200 tax stamp and some states have extensive paperwork for them. Long waiting period. This lowers the demand and skyrockets the prices. Illegally converted FAA weapons are available on the street. Years ago some punk tried to sell me a hot one for $75.00. Just outside my shack, a guy shot up a vehicle with a FA AK. 30 rounds, 3 hits, and he didn't kill the rival.
FA is inaccurate. I prefer SA.
SVreX wrote: I don't think there are very many teachers who would make good militia.
My fiance is a school teacher and she taught shooting to 10-18 year old girls for three years. 
N Sperlo wrote:fast_eddie_72 wrote: And why is the cost so high and availability so low?$200 tax stamp and some states have extensive paperwork for them. Long waiting period. This lowers the demand and skyrockets the prices. Illegally converted FAA weapons are available on the street. Years ago some punk tried to sell me a hot one for $75.00. Just outside my shack, a guy shot up a vehicle with a FA AK. 30 rounds, 3 hits, and he didn't kill the rival. FA is inaccurate. I prefer SA.
tHAT and the newest legal FA weapon was made in 1986.
Criminals don't mind the cost, they do mind the rediculously stringent background check and time it takes......after all, they all "Want it NOW".....otherwise they wouldn't do what they do
SVreX wrote: I don't think there are very many teachers who would make good militia.
Really, that is just nonsense.
Several of my teachers were veterans from WWII and Vietnam. I bet if I took a survey at my son's school - one of the hundred or so teachers or administration staff wore the uniform. The idea that teachers are something other than representative of the general population is odd.
It seems that the regulations in place on automatic weapons have had some effect. Not saying it's right or wong, better or worse. Just pointing out that it's not accurate to claim that no gun regulations can work. I wish we'd put that notion to bed.
By the way, I have no problem with putting security guards at our schools as the NRA guy was just suggesting. That's a reasonable idea. In my mind, seems like it should just be cops assigned to schools. Not so sure I'm keen on sending "some guy with a gun" down to the school to "volunteer".
But can someone please teach Asa Hutchinson how to say "school"? What the hell is a "Squewl"?
Eddie, the last crackdown in laws was in 1986 for full auto weapons, before that, I believe 2 instances of crimes used fully automatic weapons. They haven't been used often since the gangster era in the 30's.
Since 86, there have been some crimes committed with unregistered, illegally converted to full auto firearms...... North Hollywood shootout speaks of one instance. That helped lead to the first AWB which was pointlessly stupid.
A gun in the office with a few well trained staff members I would support. I don't support requiring law enforcement at schools or having teachers carry or having guns in the classroom.
MrJoshua wrote: I don't support requiring law enforcement at schools or having teachers carry or having guns in the classroom.
I'm with you on teachers. Putting guns in every classroom sounds like a bad idea. I'm thinking back on some of the teachers I had over the years. Yeah. I don't really think my High School gym teacher needed to be armed.
But why are you against law enforcment at the schools? That seems like a pretty good ideat to me.
In reply to fast_eddie_72:
Funding reasons. Bureaucratic reasons. Not wanting typical school misbehavior to be something that is in the vicinity of a police officer and because of that something the police officer has to have an opinion on and chose to act or not act upon. Changing the "Gun Free Zone" legislation to allow a few employees to have locked handguns on the premises only requires work by lawmakers and the schools. Requiring a law enforcement presence is a much larger undertaking with too many unintended consequences.
MrJoshua wrote: In reply to fast_eddie_72: Funding reasons.
My tax money going towards protecting children in school is something I don't have a problem with. There are plenty of other things my tax money goes to that I don't support.
also remember, just the remote possibility of armed resistance in a school will prevent berkeleytards from going there to massacre people in the first place.
I still CC in theatres.......
AtticusTurbo27 wrote:MrJoshua wrote: In reply to fast_eddie_72: Funding reasons.My tax money going towards protecting children in school is something I don't have a problem with. There are plenty of other things my tax money goes to that I don't support.
That was kind of my thought. Unintended consequence of "Joe up the street who likes guns" coming down to protect the kids is likely much, much (like, orders of magnatude) higher. Imagine when Joe goes postal or starts eyeing the girls in a bad way. You want to talk about hell to pay. That's opening a Pandora's box. I'd much rather have a uniformed police officer.
Hey, this is a good discussion. Going to excuse myself now while it's still going well. I made my couple of points for whatever they're worth. No point pushing my luck any further. Thanks for the rational and logical discussion. Carry on!
In reply to fast_eddie_72:
Gay slur.
Israel hasn't had a major school shooting in decades. 
You'll need to log in to post.
