Gun sales today...pretty amazing...

[rpm]

Australia had to count on the USA to stop the Japanese from invading.

Australia is often overrun with mice and rabbits.

2 points that have absolutely nothing to do with restricting semi automatic weapons.

Australia doesn't have the 2nd Amendment.  We do.

I love Australians, but they are not us, we are not them.

True. But the constitution is "a living document". It's subject to interpretation by the SCOTUS. Australia gives a good case study in solving the problem. But I agree, the US is not Australia.

[SmokinLoon]

If you need 15 rounds to kill a deer, you don't need to be hunting. If you think you're going to stop "the government" with a rifle, you haven't been to an armory. If you thing "the apocalypse" is coming, you haven't checked the Mayan calendar results...

Oh such an overly grandeur view you have.    

The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting and in most States a person can not hunt big game with a magazine of more than a 5 round magazine.  

I've seen the armory of more than one National Guard armory and it didn't frighten or concern me a bit.  There are two things to remember with regards to your statement. if Martial Law is declared with the intent of reducing citizenship to serfdom/bondage, this I promise you: the untrained shoot from the hip armed brigands that Allied troops fought in Iraq will seem like the girls scouts in compared to organized militias full of riflemen with previous military training, LEO training, and a lust to defend their freedom.  Count on it.  Plus, you automatically assume that once the order comes down from the Commander-in-Chief that the military will fall in rank and file goose-stepping all the way.  That too is highly debatable with conservative estimates saying that within the first few months of a civil conflict that at minimum %50 of the military will stand down and refuse to carry out orders desecrating the Constitution of the United States of America.  It isn't about my rifle vs a tank, the picture is much larger than that.  Besides, all I have to do to render that tank inoperable is to shove a potato in to the exhaust pipe, surely you know that trick, yes?      

As far as any apocalypse is concerned I have not bought in to that, ever. I'm not sure why anyone in their right mind would believe a bunch of loin cloth wearing chumps who cut the hearts out of living children to sacrifice to the gawds in the first place.  Granted, I'll give kudos to any 'ancient" civilization that can point out the constellations and construct buildings around when they appear at certain points in the sky, but damn... predicting the end of the world???  I never could stomach that.  However, what I can stomach is the LA '92 riots, a massive EMP of sorts, a major shortage of water/electricity/food, etc. When the masses are denied whatever luxury they think they need they get cranky.  When the masses are unable to obtain the actual "needs" for survival guess what the world becomes: a dog eat dog world.  If that happens I will have my tinfoil hat, some bottle water, a pot to cook a wabbit in (shot by a .22LR rifle), and my AR15 with 30rd mags and lot of homegrown ammo to protect my wifey and kids until the power comes back on.                      

[Widewing]

Mixing 2 different issues in one discussion. If one particular weapon kept showing up in mass killings, don't you think removing access to that weapon wouldn't at least slow the cycle? How many innocent children have to be murdered before it becomes a viable solution? 40, 100, 1000?

Australia had a mass shooting in 1996 and after banning a particular weapon hasn't had another in over 15 years. They still have guns, just not one particular type.

As for "Fast and Furious", that was a 1st Class Cluster from the get go.

Let's look at this logically with an analogy, leaving emotion out of the equation.

Let's suppose that there has been a recent spate of multiple fatalities involving children, due to drunk drivers colliding with school buses. Children are being tossed around inside the buses and suffering catastrophic injuries. It appears that most of these involved the drunk driving a Ford Mustang GT. This appears to be a solid pattern. Public outcry demands something be done. The media rages about the high performance Mustangs, arguing that no one needs such a car. Some lawmakers want to limit the horsepower of all cars, stating that there's no acceptable reason to drive something that can exceed the speed limits by a factor of 3. A small majority of the public seems to agree based upon polls. Thus, the government bans all the installation of engines exceeding 300 hp in any Pony car or sports car.

Does this solve the problem?

Are the children any safer?

Does this reduce drunk driving?

Does this prevent a drunk from driving a 5,000 lb pickup truck at more than twice the posted speed limit?

Nothing will change because the root cause(s) have not been addressed. Only some emotional salve has been applied. Innocent law abiding citizens are being penalized for the actions of a tiny few and the root cause is untouched and those who don't think high performance cars should be on the public roads will rejoice at getting what they want.

[TwinBoom]

this thread is going nowhere

[Widewing]

this thread is going nowhere

I never thought it had a destination... It's good to discuss and disagree.

[SmokinLoon]

Everyone has their own reasons. Just saying I'm confident in my bolt action rifles to suit my hunting/Year Zero needs. Really can't understand a logical civilian purpose for one with a 30 round magazine.
Therein lies the debate.

Don't be so shallow to assume that those of us advocating freedoms automatically will champion the use of 30rd magazines for X use. FWIW, I do not even take 30rd mags to the range with me on most occasions, and I certainly do not use 30rd mags for hunting (I dont even use my AR for hunting save for once in a great while on coyotes and then I use an 8rd mag). I take a couple of USGI 20rd mags to the range because they are shorter and clear the bench better allowing me a lower and more stable position when I'm shooting for accuracy.  I own about as many 20rd mags as I do 30rd mags.  

FWIW, when I was in the Sheriff's Reserve and helped with the HRT/SWAT team and their endeavors I was given an AR15 carbine (semi-auto), and stuck on a corner of a farm house fence line to provide perimeter security, I put a 20rd mag in to my rifle and not a 30rd. Less weight and more handy.  The rest of my mags in my vest were 30 rd mags in case the lead started to fly and I actually used all 20 rds of my first mag.  Luckily, the only shots I fired out of that AR15 were on the range.  I prefer 20rd mags in general, in a semi-auto rifle they make more sense (did I just say that? ).  They are lighter, and take up less space, and are more handy.  Oh, did I mention fatigue?  Pulling the trigger non-stop does get tiring.  To each his own.    

[Stellaris]

@widewing  The old guy in your video illustrates my point perfectly. He's sure brave, but he's also clearly target-locked and isn't clearing his background properly (or at all).  His barrel control goes from OK to non-existant, he doesn't take a sight picture once, and he has no concept of EOF rules, so he keeps shooting as they flee. He's actually lucky he's a bad shot, if he'd managed to hit one in the back it would be murder.  Not to mention if he killed a bystander with his inexecusably bad drills.  Fortune favours fools, I guess.

The criminals in this video also demonstrate my point.  They thought they knew what they were doing, had their weapons out and ready, but they panicked and ran when they got under lethal stress.  This is also fortunate for old guy and everyone else there too - had they been a bit more switched on this would have become a firefight, and the criminals sure aren't going to be clearing their backgrounds.  Basically this armed citizen hero escalated a situation where innocent people were going to lose some cash to a situation where innocent people were lucky they didn't wind up dead.

Brave?  Sure.  Smart?  No.  

I have no sympathy for the criminals here, but you have to think the big picture through.  You can quote all the statistics you want, and I could show you a bunch of videos illustrating criminally negligent armed citizens who weren't so lucky as old-guy hero here.  However the bottom line statistic is that the person most likely to die by any particular firearm is the person who owns it, followed closely by that person's family and friends.

Again, not my country, not my problem, and I don't know the answer.  I do know the more guns=more safety position is delusional.  No nation has more gun owners (or people in prison) than the USA, but every first-world nation is safer.  So are such paragons of freedom and security as communist China, Lebanon and Uzbekistan.  If you want understand the psychology/physiology that makes arming schoolteachers a bad idea, read LCol Grossman On Killing and On Combat. If you don't want to understand, that's cool too.

[Widewing]

Everyone has their own reasons. Just saying I'm confident in my bolt action rifles to suit my hunting/Year Zero needs. Really can't understand a logical civilian purpose for one with a 30 round magazine.
Therein lies the debate.

If you encounter a bad guy with 30 round magazines, wouldn't you prefer not to have to reload 3x to deliver the volume of fire? This presents a very serious tactical disadvantage to the guy with the 10 round magazines. Guess what? Regardless of what the good guy has, the bad guys can get and will use the 30 round mags.

That said, if the range is sufficient, a bolt gun can easily pin the bad guy down or dispatch him when he exposes himself to close the range. The reality is that very few crimes with firearms take place at 600 yards.

All of this is moot if defending your home from the inside of its confines, combating armed intruders. Under these circumstances, an assault rifle is not the best choice. A 18" to 20" barreled, pump action 12 gauge shotgun is probably the closest to ideal, with a handgun next. The effectiveness and reliability of this type of shotgun is outstanding.

[Widewing]

@widewing  The old guy in your video illustrates my point perfectly. He's sure brave, but he's also clearly target-locked and isn't clearing his background properly (or at all).  His barrel control goes from OK to non-existant, he doesn't take a sight picture once, and he has no concept of EOF rules, so he keeps shooting as they flee. He's actually lucky he's a bad shot, if he'd managed to hit one in the back it would be murder.  Not to mention if he killed a bystander with his inexecusably bad drills.  Fortune favours fools, I guess.

The criminals in this video also demonstrate my point.  They thought they knew what they were doing, had their weapons out and ready, but they panicked and ran when they got under lethal stress.  This is also fortunate for old guy and everyone else there too - had they been a bit more switched on this would have become a firefight, and the criminals sure aren't going to be clearing their backgrounds.  Basically this armed citizen hero escalated a situation where innocent people were going to lose some cash to a situation where innocent people were lucky they didn't wind up dead.

Brave?  Sure.  Smart?  No.  

I have no sympathy for the criminals here, but you have to think the big picture through.  You can quote all the statistics you want, and I could show you a bunch of videos illustrating criminally negligent armed citizens who weren't so lucky as old-guy hero here.  However the bottom line statistic is that the person most likely to die by any particular firearm is the person who owns it, followed closely by that person's family and friends.

Again, not my country, not my problem, and I don't know the answer.  I do know the more guns=more safety position is delusional.  No nation has more gun owners (or people in prison) than the USA, but every first-world nation is safer.  So are such paragons of freedom and security as communist China, Lebanon and Uzbekistan.  If you want understand the psychology/physiology that makes arming schoolteachers a bad idea, read LCol Grossman On Killing and On Combat. If you don't want to understand, that's cool too.

That old guy shot both, one in the arm and buttocks, the second in his back. No charges.... Why? The old man's logic was undeniable. They were still armed, and fleeing is no guaranty that they would not return, pistol blazing.

As to whether or not more or less guns makes a society less safe from violent crime, your comments don't stand up to the data.

Harvard Law Journal sponsored a study to prove essentially, what you claim. The result of the study shocked them. Not only did severely restrictive private gun ownership laws not reduce violent crime or suicide, the incidence of violent crime went up, dramatically so in most locations where implemented and suicide rates were unaffected.

You can read the study here:
http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/orgs/jlpp/Vol30_No2_KatesMauseronline.pdf

[SmokinLoon]

@widewing  The old guy in your video illustrates my point perfectly. He's sure brave, but he's also clearly target-locked and isn't clearing his background properly (or at all).  His barrel control goes from OK to non-existant, he doesn't take a sight picture once, and he has no concept of EOF rules, so he keeps shooting as they flee. He's actually lucky he's a bad shot, if he'd managed to hit one in the back it would be murder.  Not to mention if he killed a bystander with his inexecusably bad drills.  Fortune favours fools, I guess.

The criminals in this video also demonstrate my point.  They thought they knew what they were doing, had their weapons out and ready, but they panicked and ran when they got under lethal stress.  This is also fortunate for old guy and everyone else there too - had they been a bit more switched on this would have become a firefight, and the criminals sure aren't going to be clearing their backgrounds.  Basically this armed citizen hero escalated a situation where innocent people were going to lose some cash to a situation where innocent people were lucky they didn't wind up dead.

Brave?  Sure.  Smart?  No.  

I have no sympathy for the criminals here, but you have to think the big picture through.  You can quote all the statistics you want, and I could show you a bunch of videos illustrating criminally negligent armed citizens who weren't so lucky as old-guy hero here.  However the bottom line statistic is that the person most likely to die by any particular firearm is the person who owns it, followed closely by that person's family and friends.

Again, not my country, not my problem, and I don't know the answer.  I do know the more guns=more safety position is delusional.  No nation has more gun owners (or people in prison) than the USA, but every first-world nation is safer.  So are such paragons of freedom and security as communist China, Lebanon and Uzbekistan.  If you want understand the psychology/physiology that makes arming schoolteachers a bad idea, read LCol Grossman On Killing and On Combat. If you don't want to understand, that's cool too.

You're speculating.  A lot.  You're speaking of the old man with the gun as if he was some loose cannon showing off some bravado induced blaze of glory movie scene. I see him engaging the immediate threat (baddie w/ a gun) and engaging him all the way out the door. You speak of his muzzle discipline as if he was one of them, I didn't see him cross his muzzle over anyone but the baddies.  The thing I smiled about what the shooting stance and grip he used which points to 1950's military training (grab the wrist with support hand and muzzle up between shots).  I'd much rather have fellows like this walking around with handguns than not.

You speak of this old fellow like he should be some tacti-coolio operator fresh back from 'stan.  He isn't.  He saw 2 baddies in front of him, he saw the gun, he heard the threats, and he engaged. Judging him on his lack of "situational awareness" is a bit of a stretch.  In the 12 seconds from where he stoop up and engaged the baddies with his pocket pistol until the end he did what he needed to do: he kept the immediate threats to his front and kept them engaged.  As a person who has been through multiple schools in clearing buildings, active shooter, low light, etc, all which entailed engaging multiple threats, this guy really could not have done much better.

Brave? Yes.  Smart? Who is to judge? Lots of unanswered questions. Here we are with the luxury of hindsight.  Do you know where you would stand on this issue if those perps would have walked in and started shooting and killing people and THEN the old man starts firing? Would you be the type to scream at him for not doing something sooner?  Run the scenarios through your head a few times. See what could have been.  Sure, the old man could have hit a patron.  Sure, the baddies could have started firing. Etc etc. Lots of speculation can be had. Remember how you judge something and dont forget the luxury of hindsight is a wonderful thing.

Be very careful on calling delusional the "more guns = more security" stance. There is a much larger picture to view than what your allowing to be seen. Can you explain the Swiss?  Can you explain the lack of gun violence in places in the US that have few gun laws and many guns (per population), vs places like Chicago and it very restrictive gun laws?  Just curious your thoughts on that one.  

[Big Rat]

Back to the original post, yes it's nuts out there right now.  I have a 3 gun match Wednesday and they are allowing us to shoot our .22 AR's vs our .223/5.56 guns so we can save our ammo, since .223/5.56 has gotten very scarce and very expensive, very quickly.  In the case of any sort of "tactical" shooting such as 3 gun, magazine changes are something that is going to have to be done, and the less you have to do it the better score you'll get.  Especially me, since my Mag changes aren't fast by any means .  SmokinLoon, and Widewing, seem to be doing a good job at any other arguments in this thread, and will keep me from personally being Scuzzified .  I do agree that the 20round mags make more sense for regular range work where I'm not having to do quick reloads.  When buying ammo it's easier to figure out 20 round mags then 30 round mags with boxes of ammo to buy since they come in 20 round boxes .

 
BigRat

[TonyJoey]

Those guys at Harvard need to get their story straight. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

[Ardy123]

Those guys at Harvard need to get their story straight. http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html

Joey, trying to tell the anti-intellectual crowd to look at facts is like trying to get an illiterate to study a book.... you're better off yelling "free whiskey and guns", and watching what happens.

[guncrasher]

Be very careful on calling delusional the "more guns = more security" stance. There is a much larger picture to view than what your allowing to be seen. Can you explain the Swiss?  Can you explain the lack of gun violence in places in the US that have few gun laws and many guns (per population), vs places like Chicago and it very restrictive gun laws?  Just curious your thoughts on that one.  

the Swiss thing can be explained because the Swiss guy that plays the game already explained it.  the Swiss dont have fewer crimes because they have a gun in every home.  they have fewer crimes because they have one of the highest standard of living in the world.  the population is pretty much happy and stable.  if this was a bit inaccurate dont you think that people would take that firearm that they are required to have and are trained to handle and basically go steal something from their neighbor?  or you expect me to believe that the swiss also have a person 24/7 in every home?

let's take another town that made it mandatory to have guns in every home, with some exceptions.  the crime rate didnt change from before the law went into effect, why?  because it was a small town where everybody knew everybody to begin with and the crime rate was low anyway.

same thing again, having a gun in every home doesnt mean that there's somebody in the house 24/7 to protect it.  I have 2 handguns in my apartment and guess what when I am not here they wont protect my house by themselves.

comparing small towns to big cities is a bit misleading.  in south central los angeles just about every home has at least one fire arm and guess what, it has one of the worst crime rates.

thinking either that more guns or lack of them will make you safer is delusional.  to be safer we need an attitude change for the entire population.


midway

edit:  food for thought, Japan bans guns in the civilian population.  look up the crime rate in Japan.

[CAP1]

Let's look at this logically with an analogy, leaving emotion out of the equation.

Let's suppose that there has been a recent spate of multiple fatalities involving children, due to drunk drivers colliding with school buses. Children are being tossed around inside the buses and suffering catastrophic injuries. It appears that most of these involved the drunk driving a Ford Mustang GT. This appears to be a solid pattern. Public outcry demands something be done. The media rages about the high performance Mustangs, arguing that no one needs such a car. Some lawmakers want to limit the horsepower of all cars, stating that there's no acceptable reason to drive something that can exceed the speed limits by a factor of 3. A small majority of the public seems to agree based upon polls. Thus, the government bans all the installation of engines exceeding 300 hp in any Pony car or sports car.

Does this solve the problem?

Are the children any safer?

Does this reduce drunk driving?

Does this prevent a drunk from driving a 5,000 lb pickup truck at more than twice the posted speed limit?

Nothing will change because the root cause(s) have not been addressed. Only some emotional salve has been applied. Innocent law abiding citizens are being penalized for the actions of a tiny few and the root cause is untouched and those who don't think high performance cars should be on the public roads will rejoice at getting what they want.

 i was doing my best to stay outta this thread.....but i think i'm insulted that you chose to use mustang gt's in your analogy.