why not the pilot's license approach? Getting your pilot's license doesn't give you the ability to fly a 787 with 300 people on it. You have to earn that over time.
Various stages of licenses for various stages of weaponry? You have to pass background checks, performance tests, and ultimately psychological tests if you want more dangerous assault weapons. A track record of not being an asshole.
IF we are going to have these dangerous weapons, then people should have to earn the ability to use such things. Equal access for everyone including mentally broken people will keep perpetuating a broken system and the death of innocent people.
Quote: @Skodin said:
why not the pilot's license approach? Getting your pilot's license doesn't give you the ability to fly a 787 with 300 people on it. You have to earn that over time.
Various stages of licenses for various stages of weaponry? You have to pass background checks, performance tests, and ultimately psychological tests if you want more dangerous assault weapons. A track record of not being an asshole.
IF we are going to have these dangerous weapons, then people should have to earn the ability to use such things. Equal access for everyone including mentally broken people will keep perpetuating a broken system and the death of innocent people.
just to note, what is being classified as a "dangerous assualt weapon" is a common deer rifle in a wolves clothing, there is nothing more dangerous about the gun used in TX or many other shootings than the same one many many hunters carry into the woods or field every fall.
I do like the premise of requiring a proficiency test for younger gun purchasers, but honestly, in a country where you can go to war at 18, but not buy a beer until 21... I dont know a common sense approach to apply here.
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ Skodin said:
why not the pilot's license approach? Getting your pilot's license doesn't give you the ability to fly a 787 with 300 people on it. You have to earn that over time.
Various stages of licenses for various stages of weaponry? You have to pass background checks, performance tests, and ultimately psychological tests if you want more dangerous assault weapons. A track record of not being an asshole.
IF we are going to have these dangerous weapons, then people should have to earn the ability to use such things. Equal access for everyone including mentally broken people will keep perpetuating a broken system and the death of innocent people.
just to note, what is being classified as a "dangerous assualt weapon" is a common deer rifle in a wolves clothing, there is nothing more dangerous about the gun used in TX or many other shootings than the same one many many hunters carry into the woods or field every fall.
I do like the premise of requiring a proficiency test for younger gun purchasers, but honestly, in a country where you can go to war at 18, but not buy a beer until 21... I dont know a common sense approach to apply here.
Do common hunting rifles have the same level of velocity of an AR15? Why does a deer hunter need a gun that can fire 45 rounds a minute? Carry high capacity magazines?
Quote: @Skodin said:
why not the pilot's license approach? Getting your pilot's license doesn't give you the ability to fly a 787 with 300 people on it. You have to earn that over time.
Various stages of licenses for various stages of weaponry? You have to pass background checks, performance tests, and ultimately psychological tests if you want more dangerous assault weapons. A track record of not being an asshole.
IF we are going to have these dangerous weapons, then people should have to earn the ability to use such things. Equal access for everyone including mentally broken people will keep perpetuating a broken system and the death of innocent people.
Because that isn't what our constitution states. Flying an airplane isn't a guaranteed right and it isn't essential to liberty.
Sorry, but our freedoms are not granted by the government. And the 2nd is the reason that is still true.
Quote: @Skodin said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Skodin said:
why not the pilot's license approach? Getting your pilot's license doesn't give you the ability to fly a 787 with 300 people on it. You have to earn that over time.
Various stages of licenses for various stages of weaponry? You have to pass background checks, performance tests, and ultimately psychological tests if you want more dangerous assault weapons. A track record of not being an asshole.
IF we are going to have these dangerous weapons, then people should have to earn the ability to use such things. Equal access for everyone including mentally broken people will keep perpetuating a broken system and the death of innocent people.
just to note, what is being classified as a "dangerous assualt weapon" is a common deer rifle in a wolves clothing, there is nothing more dangerous about the gun used in TX or many other shootings than the same one many many hunters carry into the woods or field every fall.
I do like the premise of requiring a proficiency test for younger gun purchasers, but honestly, in a country where you can go to war at 18, but not buy a beer until 21... I dont know a common sense approach to apply here.
Do common hunting rifles have the same level of velocity of an AR15? Why does a deer hunter need a gun that can fire 45 rounds a minute? Carry high capacity magazines?
What weapons did the police have?
Quote: @Skodin said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Skodin said:
why not the pilot's license approach? Getting your pilot's license doesn't give you the ability to fly a 787 with 300 people on it. You have to earn that over time.
Various stages of licenses for various stages of weaponry? You have to pass background checks, performance tests, and ultimately psychological tests if you want more dangerous assault weapons. A track record of not being an asshole.
IF we are going to have these dangerous weapons, then people should have to earn the ability to use such things. Equal access for everyone including mentally broken people will keep perpetuating a broken system and the death of innocent people.
just to note, what is being classified as a "dangerous assualt weapon" is a common deer rifle in a wolves clothing, there is nothing more dangerous about the gun used in TX or many other shootings than the same one many many hunters carry into the woods or field every fall.
I do like the premise of requiring a proficiency test for younger gun purchasers, but honestly, in a country where you can go to war at 18, but not buy a beer until 21... I dont know a common sense approach to apply here.
Do common hunting rifles have the same level of velocity of an AR15? Why does a deer hunter need a gun that can fire 45 rounds a minute? Carry high capacity magazines?
The ar15 fires a common 223 round, it is actually on the small side for deer, its more commonly used for varmint control on coyotes and such, but yes the common deer rifle rounds are roughly the same velocity as the 556 or 223 that the AR in question fires.
Again, 1 trigger pull, 1 round fires from the gun, to fire 45 rounds would require 45 trigger pulls, can it be done, yes, can it be done with any accuracy by an untrained person, highly unlikely. You want to ban high cap mags, lets have that talk, but thats not the talking point of the day, they want to go after the scary looking gun and that is just flat out plain ignorance on the matter.
I am not trying to be a dick or offend, but I think before we can have an honest and open discussion on what should be legal and what shouldn't, that anybody talking needs to be informed as to what they are really talking about . The facts need to be agreed upon and then look for solutions based on those facts. I would support a ban on 30 round mags, even 20s and 15s are more than necessary. 10 rounds are fine for varmint hunting and if not then somebody needs to spend more time at the range. I own 30 round mags for my 10- 22 just because I don't want to carry a bunch of clips when I go gopher shooting, but with higher caliber and longer shots at more skidding prey that's unnecessary . IMO .
Quote: @JimmyinSD said:
@ Skodin said:
why not the pilot's license approach? Getting your pilot's license doesn't give you the ability to fly a 787 with 300 people on it. You have to earn that over time.
Various stages of licenses for various stages of weaponry? You have to pass background checks, performance tests, and ultimately psychological tests if you want more dangerous assault weapons. A track record of not being an asshole.
IF we are going to have these dangerous weapons, then people should have to earn the ability to use such things. Equal access for everyone including mentally broken people will keep perpetuating a broken system and the death of innocent people.
just to note, what is being classified as a "dangerous assualt weapon" is a common deer rifle in a wolves clothing, there is nothing more dangerous about the gun used in TX or many other shootings than the same one many many hunters carry into the woods or field every fall.
I do like the premise of requiring a proficiency test for younger gun purchasers, but honestly, in a country where you can go to war at 18, but not buy a beer until 21... I dont know a common sense approach to apply here.
And a deer had never been shot in a sporting manner till the advent of the assault weapons? Why the hell are we not all vegans? What is the ratio of folks denied their 2nd amend rights to children killed by these "hunting" weapons?
Why does this website promote assault weapons as being essential to being patriotic or SD manly? Perhaps it's inadequacy in the field or other "personal" short- cums!
Now that we've hit 6 pages, maybe there are some common themes our various perspectives could agree on?
This country has a mass murder problem that should not continue
There needs to be more access to better mental health care in this country
Red Flag laws (properly implemented and executed) may be a "bullet in the holster" on how to try and manage a big problem
Limiting access to guns by those who shouldn't own one + mental health care are not mutually exclusive solutions
Quote: @BigAl99 said:
@ JimmyinSD said:
@ Skodin said:
why not the pilot's license approach? Getting your pilot's license doesn't give you the ability to fly a 787 with 300 people on it. You have to earn that over time.
Various stages of licenses for various stages of weaponry? You have to pass background checks, performance tests, and ultimately psychological tests if you want more dangerous assault weapons. A track record of not being an asshole.
IF we are going to have these dangerous weapons, then people should have to earn the ability to use such things. Equal access for everyone including mentally broken people will keep perpetuating a broken system and the death of innocent people.
just to note, what is being classified as a "dangerous assualt weapon" is a common deer rifle in a wolves clothing, there is nothing more dangerous about the gun used in TX or many other shootings than the same one many many hunters carry into the woods or field every fall.
I do like the premise of requiring a proficiency test for younger gun purchasers, but honestly, in a country where you can go to war at 18, but not buy a beer until 21... I dont know a common sense approach to apply here.
And a deer had never been shot in a sporting manner till the advent of the assault weapons? Why the hell are we not all vegans? What is the ratio of folks denied their 2nd amend rights to children killed by these "hunting" weapons?
Why does this website promote assault weapons as being essential to being patriotic or SD manly? Perhaps it's inadequacy in the field or other "personal" short- cums!
Your inability to discuss issue's without trying to make it personal is why you won't be here much longer. You are done in this thread and likely soon ST.
|
