New gun laws in Georgia

[Its Me Austin]

Not really. Seems relatively recent and is largely a minor distinction. It is absolutely not relevant to most of the discussions people have about guns either.

lol
I guess that depends on your definition of recent.
And yeah, it IS relevant, it's like watching a football game and calling it baseball or something.

 

[Its Me Austin]

It's actually not nearly as expensive as you think, and there is a LOT of legally owned full auto hardware out there. It's true that a real-deal Colt M-16 or HK MP5 will set you back $20-$30K but you can buy receivers and full auto sears and build basically an MP5 clone for about $6K.

As far as regulations go, you need to have your local sheriff sign off on your paperwork (which some have no problem doing and some don't) but you can get around that as well by purchasing the weapons with a trust.

Either way, like you said they're just not used in crimes so focusing on regulating them specifically doesn't really make any sense.

You still have to go through the ATF though.

 

[45ACP]

No, I'm saying it would require more time than I'm willing to put into it because googling "shooting at PA bar" typically isn't enough as most reports just detail the situation leading up to the actual shooting and the aftermath with no background information.

Bullshit. That info is in nearly every single news report dealing with a shooting.

So I personally don't feel like its constructive use of my time especially since I doubt finding one incident will change your mind on the issue anyway. I'm simply content with you believing that allowing guns in an establishment that exists almost solely for the consumption of alcohol is safe. And I'll continue to believe that its not. We don't have to agree.

So you think it's dangerous to allow people to carry at bars based on absolutely nothing and wish to remain ignorant on the subject so you can base that opinion on hunches instead of actual facts.

This isn't that hard. Try googling "pennsylvania shooting concealed carry" and if you can even find one of those see if any of them happened at a bar. I'm telling you it just simply doesn't happen here. It takes a lot of intellectual dishonesty to believe had someone with a lawfully carried firearm murdered someone in a drunken rage it wouldn't be easy to find in the news.

I'll tell you one thing, I spend a good deal of time in bars and I've never been scared or felt unsafe because I thought there might be someone legally carrying there. If that thought scares you, well maybe you are the one with the irrational fears.

 

[45ACP]

The North Hollywood shootout was a bank robbery turned shootout with police. It wasn't a mass murder attempt. When they entered the bank, they shot at the ceiling and doors. They weren't out to kill as many people as possible.

They most certainly were once they exited the bank. They were shooting at both cops and random civilians. and they didn't kill anyone after firing almost 2000 rounds.

 

[nixkid]

Bullshit. That info is in nearly every single news report dealing with a shooting.

Here is an example of a shooting in a bar in PA from LAST NIGHT:
http://www.wboy.com/story/25340488/fairview-woman-dead-after-pa-bar-shooting

No where in the story does it say whether the gun was legal or not.

So you think it's dangerous to allow people to carry at bars based on absolutely nothing and wish to remain ignorant on the subject so you can base that opinion on hunches instead of actual facts.

This isn't that hard. Try googling "pennsylvania shooting concealed carry" and if you can even find one of those see if any of them happened at a bar. I'm telling you it just simply doesn't happen here. It takes a lot of intellectual dishonesty to believe had someone with a lawfully carried firearm murdered someone in a drunken rage it wouldn't be easy to find in the news.

I'll tell you one thing, I spend a good deal of time in bars and I've never been scared or felt unsafe because I thought there might be someone legally carrying there. If that thought scares you, well maybe you are the one with the irrational fears.

Its based on common sense that alcohol and firearms don't mix. Its just a different perspective. You're trusting of legal gun carriers and believe they are all the most upstanding citizens who would never succumb to petty human emotions like anger. Its like during the Dunn trial, some people just couldn't believe that he would shoot at the car simply because he was angry despite there being more evidence of that than his bullshit "thought I saw a gun" excuse. Those people simply cannot be convinced that some legal gun owners may sometimes act irresponsibly with their weapons.

 

[nixkid]

They most certainly were once they exited the bank. They were shooting at both cops and random civilians. and they didn't kill anyone after firing almost 2000 rounds.

At that point, they were in an open area not closed quarters. I don't think the civilians inside the bank would have fared nearly as well if they had decided to go on the shooting spree while inside.

 

[oldshadow]

At that point, they were in an open area not closed quarters. I don't think the civilians inside the bank would have fared nearly as well if they had decided to go on the shooting spree while inside.

How do you think the people in the bank would have fared if the robbers had 870

 

[UpaLoompa]

lol
I guess that depends on your definition of recent.
And yeah, it IS relevant, it's like watching a football game and calling it baseball or something.

Everyone know what "clip" means colloquially. The fact that a clip feeds a magazine and then the magazine feeds the weapon is hardly as different as football or baseball. While the difference is relevant to a discussion of gun mechanics it is not relevant to the sorts of discussions people usually have about guns.

You know damn well what someone would mean if they talked about being in favor of bans on high capacity "clips". The fact that they're using the wrong word doesn't change the validity, or lack thereof, of their argument. In contrast, misunderstanding about what an assault weapon is or what semi-automatic means is relevant to the arguments being had. I've honestly heard people say something to the effect that semi-auto means what I can only guess they equate to burst firing.

 

[Byron Carter]

It's really tiresome debating with the gun-grabbers on the left, especially when they won't even take the time to learn some basic terminology like "semi-automatic" and "magazine", and they keep throwing around terms like "Assault Weapon". It's very telling actually. It's almost as if once people learn about firearms and their history, they stop being gun-grabbers. Strange, I know.. but that seems to be the trend, because I haven't seen a single person on this board that is educated on firearms that is advocating the type of shit I hear from the ignorant.

Yes, ignorant. If you want more restrictions on firearms, you're ignorant. That's OK. Take a few minutes to learn your history, learn about firearms. Just stop trying to push an agenda where you can't even communicate about the subject because you are grossly fucking ignorant.

 

[UpaLoompa]

I wouldn't necessarily agree. There are trade-offs and some people could simply weigh things differently.
There's no shortage of veterans that have supported gun control (even if that's a minority of veterans), for example. There's also the history of the NRA which hasn't always been opposed to far more stringent control.

 

[Byron Carter]

I wouldn't necessarily agree. There are trade-offs and some people could simply weigh things differently.
There's no shortage of veterans that have supported gun control (even if that's a minority of veterans), for example. There's also the history of the NRA which hasn't always been opposed to far more stringent control.

Of course you wouldn't agree.

You're one of the most ignorant, un-American shills on this site.

 

[45ACP]

At that point, they were in an open area not closed quarters. I don't think the civilians inside the bank would have fared nearly as well if they had decided to go on the shooting spree while inside.

My points all still stand. Full auto is not as effective as semi if your intention is maximizing the body count. MAYBE if you had an unlimited supply of ammo, no time limit and all your intended victims were neatly standing shoulder-to-shoulder you could kill more people with full auto, but that's not reality.

 

[Its Me Austin]

Everyone know what "clip" means colloquially. The fact that a clip feeds a magazine and then the magazine feeds the weapon is hardly as different as football or baseball. While the difference is relevant to a discussion of gun mechanics it is not relevant to the sorts of discussions people usually have about guns.

You know damn well what someone would mean if they talked about being in favor of bans on high capacity "clips". The fact that they're using the wrong word doesn't change the validity, or lack thereof, of their argument. In contrast, misunderstanding about what an assault weapon is or what semi-automatic means is relevant to the arguments being had. I've honestly heard people say something to the effect that semi-auto means what I can only guess they equate to burst firing.

The M1 Garand was replaced well over fifty years ago. Anyone who still uses "clip" is an ignorant jabroni.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Of course you wouldn't agree.

You're one of the most ignorant, un-American shills on this site.

You do realize that I've been consistently arguing against gun control for a long time, right? Who is ignorant again?

Just because you're generally ignorant of history and don't let facts influence your views on reality doesn't make me "un-American". I quite like our country but I'm also honest enough to recognize historical and contemporary problems.

The M1 Garand was replaced well over fifty years ago. Anyone who still uses "clip" is an ignorant jabroni.

Meh. I know people that machine parts who will occasionally and lazily say clip in regards to hand guns. When it comes to policy discussion, the distinction isn't relevant.

 

[nixkid]

My points all still stand. Full auto is not as effective as semi if your intention is maximizing the body count. MAYBE if you had an unlimited supply of ammo, no time limit and all your intended victims were neatly standing shoulder-to-shoulder you could kill more people with full auto, but that's not reality.

Well yeah. I think it depends strongly on the situation. In a crowded enclosed area, people will naturally be huddled in packs simply because there isn't much room especially if there are few exits. More bullets flying around in an tight space with lots of people. I'm thinking of situations like movies theaters or small crowded restaurants. Take a busy mall. If you stand in the middle of it and fire a semi..you might hit a few people but everyone scatters after they hear the first shot. You could definitely hit more people if you can fire 100 rounds quickly.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Well yeah. I think it depends strongly on the situation. In a crowded enclosed area, people will naturally be huddled in packs simply because there isn't much room especially if there are few exits. More bullets flying around in an tight space with lots of people. I'm thinking of situations like movies theaters or small crowded restaurants. Take a busy mall. If you stand in the middle of it and fire a semi..you might hit a few people but everyone scatters after they hear the first shot. You could definitely hit more people if you can fire 100 rounds quickly.

Have you ever fired an automatic weapon? Unless you have a lot of practice I'd guess you're probably going to mainly be hitting the ground (overcompensating) or the ceiling (undercompensating). At least that's what my limited experience with shooting full auto would suggest I'd do.

 

[nixkid]

Have you ever fired an automatic weapon? Unless you have a lot of practice I'd guess you're probably going to mainly be hitting the ground (overcompensating) or the ceiling (undercompensating). At least that's what my limited experience with shooting full auto would suggest I'd do.

Wouldn't that depend on the type of gun used and whether or not it has modification to control recoil like a foregrip?

But yes, the effectiveness of mass murder depends largely on the experience and skill of the shooter. No argument there but thats also true with semi-automatic weapons (but maybe to a lesser degree)

 

[45ACP]

Have you ever fired an automatic weapon? Unless you have a lot of practice I'd guess you're probably going to mainly be hitting the ground (overcompensating) or the ceiling (undercompensating). At least that's what my limited experience with shooting full auto would suggest I'd do.

Yeah, he still doesn't seem to be able to grasp the concept of muzzle rise and how it affects firing on full auto. The almost completely uncontrollable nature of firing full auto was the reason for the switch from full auto to burst fire on service rifles.

 

[Its Me Austin]

The M4A1 actually went back to auto over burst.

 

[45ACP]

The M4A1 actually went back to auto over burst.

Well whatdya know