Ya know how there wouldn't be gun massacres if more people were armed?

[hedgehog]

Well.....

The gunfire prompted Ralph Swagler, the owner of a nearby barbecue restaurant, to grab his weapon.

But when Sencion started toward him, Swagler backed away.

"I wish I had shot at him when he was going in the IHOP," said Swagler, who owns Locals BBQ & Grill. "But when he came at me, when somebody is pointing an automatic weapon at you — you can't believe the firepower, the kind of rounds coming out of that weapon."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44420433/ns/us_news-crime_and_courts/#.TmeDSI7K0mc






So clearly, everyone needs to carry an automatic weapon.

[onehandle]

1. I tell you, we should all carry backpack nukes. It's called Détente, people. nt

[Bandit]

21. Not Detante....MAD

Mutual Assured Destruction.....

[Fumesucker]

2. Everyone ought to spend a day downrange in the pits at a firing range..

It's quite educational.

[hlthe2b]

3. Shhhhh... you don't want to destroy the swaggering fantasies...

of all those Clint "Make my Day" Eastwood wannabes. That would be cruel, wouldn't it? :eyes:

[SteveM]

108. Seems like you fell for the joke in the Eastwood movies...

The .44 magnum was introduced in 1955. As a hunting weapon. It remains largely in that category, and is not very fit for a "duty weapon" because of its size, weight, slow target re-acquisition, and petulant insistence on whistling through a target without imparting many foot-pounds of energy. But you can continue with YOUR fantasies. Enjoy!

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[SteveM]

29. Speaking of wrong...

The number of folks with guns in this country amounts to 80,000,000, of which approx. 4 % carry concealed. That's 5% of gun-owners, well less than 2% of all Americans.

If you get over your reactionary ideological stance, you will see that the number of concealed-carry folks are spread a little thin; more importantly, concealed-carry and indeed guns kept at home are for the purpose of self-defense, not police work and civil protection. It is gun-controller/prohibitionists -- like yourself -- who have constructed the straw man of how gun-owners are going to stop massacres. It is YOUR straw man, and you know it; but this is also YOUR culture war, and in war anything goes, hey?

[EC]

5. Maybe we should all just buy vests

to wear all the time. Maybe helmets too? There is a new little Mom and Pop business idea...street wear geared to protection.

[rl6214]

125. Most vests will NOT stop a modern rifle round

they are designed for the slower moving pistol round.

[oneshooter]

131. If you want to run around with 40 or so pounds of body armour on. n/t

[pintobean]

6. So quick to politicize the tragic slaughter of the innocent

pathetic

[Chorophyll]

9. It was already political.

And it always has been.

[truebrit71]

10. Yeah, because defending a mass-murdering fuckhead is so much less pathetic, right?

How many would have died if this nutjob HADN'T had a gun?

[pintobean]

13. Who's defending a mass-murdering fuckhead?

[truebrit71]

16. Some mental fuck-head slaughters the innocent and you are more concerned with the 'politicizing'...

...rather than the fact that yet another mass-murdering fuckhead had access to lethal weapons...

Of COURSE it's politicized...it was the moment he picked up the gun and decided to murder people...if he had picked up a bean-bag instead how many people would he have killed??

[SteveM]

30. Your views are predictably hateful. But prohibitionists use that tactic...

all the time. As you are surely aware, you are accusing people of something that is mean-spirited and false, even as you celebrate your sweaty compassion. You have a culture war going, and you aren't going to let up, are you? Possibly because you enjoy it?

[AtheistCrusader]

94. If he'd picked up a knife, potentially more than died in this shooting.

Killed three people with his truck, then stabbed 4 more people to death.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre

Highly restricted access to firearms is no prophylactic against murderous crazy fucks.

[rrneck]

45. Gee, I dunno...

[Hoyt]

50. The terrorist that bombed that building got his start abusing guns and committing gun crimes.

[rrneck]

53. So guns caused it anyway.

:rofl:

Conspiracy theories rock.

[Common Sense Party]

63. How does one abuse a gun? n/t

[We_Have_A_Problem]

64. This one time, at band camp....n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

95. Can you show us on the doll where he touched the guns?

Seriously? He didn't use a gun when he snapped. Meaning, the guns are irrelevant in that situation.

[SteveM]

105. So pot leads to heroin? nt

[We_Have_A_Problem]

48. Who knows?

Oklahoma City killed 168 without a single firearm. 9/11 took out about 3K. The biggest mass killings in the US have never involved firearms.

From a technical perspective, killing someone is quite easy. Killing lots of people is also quite simple - from a purely technical side of course.

I can run out right now and within 10 minutes and a quick trip to the store, have enough materials to make enough explosives or poisonous gas to kill any number of people, and there would be no way to tell where the ingredients came from - and there is no way to limit access to those ingredients either.

Its basic chemistry - nothing magical.

[hedgehog]

12. Yes, because the fact that people are murdered with guns every day in this country

is a private matter not suitable for public discourse.

[SteveM]

31. You act like the "discourse" isn't taking place. Ha! The MSM is...

the ONLY effective propaganda organ left to the gun prohibitionist. Without MSM, the gun-control "movement" would have nothing in the way of an effective means to push their prohibitionist agenda. So don't act like you are mistreated, and relegated to some "private" mumblings.

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

7. Most of the other reports say the weapon was a semi-automatic

One pull of the trigger, one bullet. Same as any handgun. If you have concrete evidence that the AK-47 was in fact an automatic weapon, please present it. People often confuse the two but automatic weapons are actually very rare in this country. It is against the law to convert a semi-automatic weapon to automatic, and it is against the law to possess an automatic weapon manufactured after 1986. Automatic weapons manufactured before 1986 CAN be owned in many states, but you need to go through a rigorous process. The machine gun is assessed a federal tax of $200 at the time of transfer (since 1943), and this transfer must be registered with ATF. In addition, the prospective owner needs to undergo a COMPLETE FBI background investigation (much, much more thorough than a typical US firearms background check), fingerprint analysis, as well as the signature/approval of the chief law enforcement officer in the prospective buyer's jurisdiction.

Semi-automatic AK-47s have been legal to own in almost every state (unless the state has an "assault weapons" ban) since the federal ban expired in 2004. They are no more dangerous than a shotgun or a handgun. I'd much rather be shot with a semi-automatic AK-47 than a 12-gauge shotgun at close range. My chances of survival are easily 3x higher, yet no one is complaining about shotguns.

I cannot think of a homicide committed by an individual after 1934 using a legally registered automatic weapon. I think it has happened a couple of times, but automatic weapons weren't used at Columbine, Jonesboro, or Virginia Tech.

[hedgehog]

11. I didn't say it was an AK-47, it was the owner of the near-by

restaurant who sprang into action with his gun but who backed down after deciding that the shooter had more fie power than he did.

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

19. You did imply that you thought it was an automatic weapon

When you stated that everyone should carry an automatic weapon. All of the reports say that it was an AK-47. Approximately 99.9% of the AK-47s in this country are semi-automatic. They are no more dangerous than a shotgun. Obviously it is impracticable for everyone to carry around a shotgun or a high-powered rifle. That is not the point of concealed carry laws, which I think you were also indirectly slamming. The point of concealed carry laws is to discourage people from doing things like this. This guy killed 4 people and wounded 7 others. It is quite possible that he was mentally ill. Concealed carry laws OR gun bans aren't going to discourage mentally ill people from carrying out rampages like this, just like they wouldn't have prevented the Tucson shooting. What they will discourage are the criminal actions of thinking, rational people. Street muggings are less likely in concealed carry areas, for example. I see from your profile that you actually live about 15 minutes from me. When I was at school at SU, we had a mugging every week it seemed like. Sometimes the muggers would even approach pairs of people or threesomes. Many times, they only displayed a knife. I was mugged once during my freshman year of college, and as soon as I turned 21, I applied for a concealed carry license and received it. You'd be surprised how many people in our area are carrying concealed, and how little of a problem it really is. For what it's worth, if I had been there, I probably wouldn't have engaged the IHOP guy either. If I did engage him, I would have made sure to do it from a protected area, where I wasn't directly in the line of fire. I'm not necessarily going to risk my life to protect people that I don't know. My gun is for my own protection.

[AtheistCrusader]

97. In any pistol versus rifle situation, I'd say that was a sane risk assessment.

There's just no freakin contest.

So random chance placed one of the less than 6% of citizens licesned to carry a gun, who actually happened to be carrying at the time this incident occurred, one building away, with a pistol, and no hard cover.

And this proves what? That concealed carry is ineffective? Do you think the outcome would not have been different if the CPL holder was inside the IHop instead?


I mean, who knows, maybe he would have just been another victim, but I really don't see your point here, regarding the effectiveness of concealed carry, based on one single incident. Especially given what I must say, in this case, is some pretty uphill odds for the guy carrying legally.

[iverglas]

119. "And this proves what? That concealed carry is ineffective?"

Pretty much, eh?

Do you think the outcome would not have been different if the CPL holder was inside the IHop instead?

I dunno, was there something stopping him from going inside and taking out the bad guy?

Better carry yer own gun, because when you need somebody with a gun, they're only steps away ...

[AtheistCrusader]

122. Interesting standard of 'proof'.

"I dunno, was there something stopping him from going inside and taking out the bad guy?"

Yeah, about 100 feet of open ground, and a guy with a rifle.
Sorry he wasn't 'commando' enough for you.

[rl6214]

126. Not even close

"And this proves what? That concealed carry is ineffective?"
Posted by iverglas
Pretty much, eh?

Not even close but nice try.


"Do you think the outcome would not have been different if the CPL holder was inside the IHop instead?"

It's possible but I'm not clairvoyant and I don't think you are either.

"I dunno, was there something stopping him from going inside and taking out the bad guy?"

Duh, yeah. 75 yards of open ground and a lunatic with a rifle.

"Better carry yer own gun, because when you need somebody with a gun, they're only steps away ..."

I do, thank you.

[RC]

14. How hard is it to convert a semi-automatic AK47 to full auto?

And how do laws stop the deranged from doing it?

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

22. How easy it is to buy crack cocaine?

And how do laws stop addicts from doing it?

To answer your question, however, it is not that easy to do. It used to be easier, but the ATF has really cracked down on AK47 designs that used to make it easy for anyone with tools and a couple of hours. If an AK47 design lends itself to being converted easily, the ATF will basically stamp it out of existence. Converting it to auto will also land you in federal prison for 10+ years if they catch you with it. Most knowledgeable people would have no interest in converting a semi-automatic AK to an automatic AK, however, because the rate of fire will not be constant. The accuracy on the modified AK47 will also be horrible and a decently well-trained marksman with a pistol would be more than even money against you and your modified AK47.

[oneshooter]

42. Besides if it was easy to convert the BATFE would declare it a full auto

and ban the importation of it.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in texas

[SteveM]

33. Why don't you find out and provide some links/sources. nt

[RC]

35. Because my interest in killing machines isn't great enough to do so.

And because there are people here that do know and I did in fact find my answer. An answer that every one else here can read.

[SteveM]

38. You do have an interest in rhetoric and propaganda, however. nt

[We_Have_A_Problem]

39. While there are a rare few...

...which can be relatively easily converted, they are considered machine guns already and are pretty tightly controlled.

To convert most AK's from semi- to full-auto operation would require machining a completely new receiver, which essentially would require building the gun from scratch. It is not something which can be done by your average person with drop-in parts.

The drop-in auto-sear which was available for a few years has all but faded from existence, and like easily converted AK's, is in and of itself considered a Title II, Class III weapon by the BATFE.

No law stops anyone from doing anything. Never has. It merely provides penalties if you do so.

[Flyboy_451]

49. Actually, it is pretty complex...

To convert to a fully automatic requires machining of the receiver as well as the bolt, as well as acquiring the fire control components, commonly called the auto-sear. These parts are the parts that fall under federal regulation and are very hard to come by, largely because any in legal possession are very valuable and tightly monitored and tracked by owner. It is not as simple as many would have you believe. It is NOT merely a matter of filing down one or two parts inside the gun.

Correct timing of the mechanism is critical to it's operation. Any errors in timing result in the hammer falling on the back of the bolt as it slides forward and not having enough force to discharge a round. When this happens, there is now a round in the chamber, but the hammer is not set to strike the firing pin. Basically, you have a gun that can only be fired by cycling the action by hand and then firing. If the trigger is held for too long, once again the hammer will follow the bolt and you must again hand cycle the action to make it ready to fire again. The long and short of it is that such a gun would be slower to fire than a bolt action hunting rifle in the hands of an experienced shooter.

Federal law classifies any semi-auto that can be readily converted to full-auto as a machine gun, therefore any gun sold legally must not be able to be converted by any simple means. Is it possible to convert a semi-auto to a full-auto? Yes, but it requires a great deal more than many would have you believe. For those who will likely come along and claim that you can purchase machinegun parts kits, take a close look at the contents of those kits. You will find that they lack the critical fire control components. Typically they include all of the parts necessary to complete a receiver into a functioning gun, less the trigger and sear components. They are popular because they are assembled from guns that have been removed from government service and disassembled to be sold in parts. This is simply a less expensive way of building a gun than it is to buy all new components. Once again, these kits lack the parts critical to converting a gun to full-auto.

JW

[Atypical Liberal]

56. It's pretty easy.

I understand the motivation, but I wish people would stop talking about how hard it is to make a machine gun.

It isn't.

The technology is now over 100 years old.

It used to be the case for some firearms that you could convert semi-automatic variants into full-auto variants by removing material and so allowing full-auto parts to be used in semi-automatic receivers. This has mostly been eliminated. It is now slightly more difficult to convert firearms because most of the time material needs to be added back, which is harder to do.

But the fact is, you can build yourself a machine gun with files and a drill press.

[DissedByBush]

70. For a standard AK I hear it's pretty easy

Mainly a matter of getting a sear pin out of the way.

But that makes the rifle full-auto only, not selective fire. So it's technically still not an assault rifle.

It's also very dangerous. Semi-auto AKs are generally built to handle semi-auto fire, not selective fire, and they're built all around the world to varying degrees of quality. You're playing the lottery on whether your converted AK won't blow up on you.

But as the other poster says, any competent machinist can make a machine gun.

The Sten Gun was designed to be produced with five man-hours of work in local town machine shops, with 40s-era machining equipment.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

96. Not quite

Takes a bit more than that these days - usually requiring machining a new receiver because instead of removing metal, you have to put some back.

Yeah - the Sten can be built with a bedspring and a length of pipe, but that's very different than retro-engineering an existing piece.

[AtheistCrusader]

99. Pre 1986, not terribly difficult. Post 1986, much harder.

However, 'hard' or 'easy' is relative, given the AK-47 itself can be turned out from scratch on the common tools found in any middle school metal shop across the country.

[RSillsbee]

132. It would be easier to make a full auto receiver

Than to convert a semi auto to full auto capability. I could do it but I'd need a CNC mill (Preferably a Haas VF3) and 3 days to a week to get the first piece off but I also have several years experience in a machine shop.

[safeinOhio]

18. It was an automatic weapon.

A semi-auto. Automatic weapon means, after the first round is fired the following rounds are chambered without an action by the shooter. There are 2 types of automatic weapons. Fully automatic and semi automatic. They are both automatics, self feeding. A truck is a truck. It can be a 4 wheel drive or 2 wheel drive, it is still a truck. We use qualifiers like fully and semi to narrow down what something is. It is not anymore required to use "fully" as it is to use "semi" when communicating the meaning of automatic weapon. People and journalist that use automatic when talking about a weapon are not ignorant or trying scare anyone. If they call it a fully automatic and it is a semi automatic, then it is a problem.

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

20. You don't understand guns then.

You say that it was an automatic weapon and then say that it was a semi-automatic. Automatic weapons mean that you are able to hold down the trigger and the gun will keep firing until it is empty. Semi-automatic weapons will also keep firing until they are empty, but you have to pull the trigger before each shot. For the average shooter, automatic weapons will fire at least 8 times as many rounds per minute.

It is required to differentiate between semi-automatic and automatic weapons because the terms are confused so often. Journalists that use the term automatic when referring to a semi-automatic weapon are in fact ignorant. They may not be trying to scare people, but they are certainly ignorant. You cited journalists, well, articles state that the Carson City sheriff is analyzing the weapon to determine whether it is "AUTOMATIC" or "SEMI-AUTOMATIC". It doesn't say that he's trying to determine what type of automatic weapon it is. Even Wikipedia says that you are incorrect. They differentiate between automatic and semi-automatic.

[safeinOhio]

24. The difference is between FULLY and SEMI. Both are auto loading.

Just like any drill sergeant will tell you that you don't understand the word "gun". Guns are artillery weapons not small arms. "This is my weapon, this is my gun. This is for fighting, this is for fun.

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

25. Wow, semantics.

Picking on me for using the word "gun." Do you support banning semi-automatic handguns?

[safeinOhio]

26. Wow, straw men.

I don't support bans on anything, only strong laws that regulate sales and possession that make it more difficult for criminals and insane people to obtain hand guns.

[oneshooter]

46. And don't forget your support of registration of side arms!!! n/t

[safeinOhio]

86. Not a ban. Only

a way to help keep criminals from buying handgun. So you are for helping criminal own and possess handguns?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

98. How would you suggest this is done?

It is already illegal for criminals to own a gun. It is illegal to knowingly sell to a prohibited person. They wont pass an NICS check. Straw purchases are illegal. It is illegal to knowingly sell to a straw purchaser.

What else would you suggest? Seriously. What more can you want?

[safeinOhio]

113. One very simple thing you just brought up.

It is not illegal to sell to a prohibited buyer if you don't "knowingly" know that person is prohibited. Yet, there are no laws that even require one to inquire. Plus they there is no need to pass a NICS check in a private sale. Why in the world is it needed for a purchase from a dealer and not a private seller? You are not so new here that you haven't seen this talked about many times here.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

117. You're correct...

...there are no laws requiring an inquiry. However, there is a law which makes it illegal for the felon to possess one at all, which rather covers that.

As far as NICS checks on private sales, it is simply a private sale. The federal government has no authority to regulate intrastate commerce and cannot legally require it. There cannot legally BE a requirement. In some states, you have to run private sales through an FFL, but very few of them. This is a state issue to address.

I have seen it talked about, and the outcome is always the same. Those who don't like guns want to have the federal government act in a blatantly illegal manner to restrict the rights of everyone based upon the minute possibility that a private intrastate sale may occur involving a criminal purchaser who has a slim chance of maybe being slightly deterred by a NICS check requirement....like that is going to magically dry up his supply chain...

[iverglas]

120. howzat then?

...there are no laws requiring an inquiry. However, there is a law which makes it illegal for the felon to possess one at all, which rather covers that.

How does a law prohibiting A from doing something "cover" B doing something entirely different?

Does the fact that is illegal for a minor to possess alcohol mean that there are / should be no laws prohibiting adults from providing alcohol to a minor ... or requiring that alcohol vendors demand proof of age?

Ha. Gotcha there, eh?

The federal government has no authority to regulate intrastate commerce and cannot legally require it.

So? Demand that your state require it. All of you.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

40. Self-loading

and automatic are two very different terms.

All automatics are self-loaders, not all self-loaders are automatic.

Automatic refers to the firing mechanism (marketing bullshit aside), not to the ammunition feeding mechanism.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

54. safeinohio is correct... "automatic" refers to the self loading nature of the firearm.

Think about this: ".45acp" = .45 caliber Automatic Colt Pistol
John Browning designed and designated this cartridge for use in his semi-automatic .45 pistol (which eventually became the 1911 pistol/sidearm adopted by the US military). Yet it carries the nomenclature "automatic" despite being designed for the development of a semi automatic pistol. I guess John Browning just didn't know what he was doing. :eyes:

Furthermore, Wikipedia: Automatic firearm (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_firearm)

An automatic firearm is a firearm that loads another round mechanically after the first round has been fired.

The term can be used to refer to semi-automatic firearms, which fire one shot per single pull of the trigger (like the .45 "automatic"), or fully automatic firearms, which will continue to load and fire ammunition until the trigger (or other activating device) is released, the ammunition is exhausted, or the firearm is jammed.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

61. The way the term is used...

...for the .45ACP was accurate at the time, as the idea of a machine pistol was still a few years out.

Currently, "automatic" refers to a full-auto (or at least select-fire) weapon. Self-loading refers to the ammunition feed mechanism.

You feel free to understand whatever you wish. I prefer being precise rather than intentionally misusing terms to mislead those who are unfamiliar with the mechanical functioning.

[safeinOhio]

91. Language qualifiers

We often use qualifiers unintentionally, and they act as signals, flagging to the other person our inner thoughts. Thus a person who you are persuading will use qualifiers to show how really interested or committed they are to your idea.
People who see the world in black and white are likely to use absolute qualifiers. Absolute qualifiers are also likely to be used by people who are 'taking a position' or feel backed into a corner. If you push people too hard they may thus use absolute qualifiers as a defensive move.
Relative qualifiers are signals either of uncertainty or a desire to please. People may see others as superior in some way, perhaps more expert, and thus may use relative qualifiers as an escape clause.

"Semi" and "Fully" are language qualifiers for the firearm term "Automatic". Both "fully" and "Semi" automatics ARE automatics. You can argue all you want about the proper "Jargon" used by an ideology group of users, like the ones that post on this forum. If someone on this board says they own a 45 auto, we all know what that person means.

[safeinOhio]

87. If a semi-automatic is not

an automatic, perhaps we need to speak latin.

[SteveM]

34. Typically disingenuous: "It was an automatic weapon. A semi-auto."

"People and journalist that use automatic when talking about a weapon are not ignorant or trying scare anyone."

I don't think they are trying to scare anyone either. What they are doing is intentionally confusing people so they can keep beating the dead horse of gun-prohibition. They know full well what they are doing. And they will continue to do it.

[safeinOhio]

88. I respect your paranoid opinion.

I just don't subscribe to it.

[SteveM]

106. "Paranoia." The new "Socialism!"

[safeinOhio]

107. FEAR the old tool

of fascist.

[SteveM]

111. The "FEAR" you express comes mainly from gun-controllers, here.

[safeinOhio]

112. Really?

Look back at the topic of this post.

[SteveM]

118. Really.

I've read this and many similar posts about this incident. ANYONE can feel fear when someone starts shooting randomly. I don't see your point, except maybe the OP thinks ever more firepower is what's is needed, a typical straw man posted here.

Again, the reminder: firearms for self-defense with no guarantees, written or implied. The practice is not social policy and not civil action. Gun-controller/prohibitionists would like to erect a different straw man, and will continue to do so as long as they see some political benefit to the cause of gun bans, but the man remains straw.

[iverglas]

123. I've enjoyed this little subdiscussion

Ta for that. ;)

[Hoyt]

52. Except gunners are attracted to AK-47s and modern "assault" weapons because they look menacing,

and produce a strange hormone rush in some people. Personally, rather than banning them, I'd rather see laws that mark a person unfit to own guns if they are attracted to such weapons. If they already own several, that's proof to me of a serious problem.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

55. What if the person is attracted a "scary" gun for different reasons?

I own a semi-auto AK type rifle. In fact, I sold an AR15 (M16 type rifle) to buy it. Not because it looks menacing.

Mostly because the AK rifle was cheaper to buy, cheaper to shoot and a quality AK rifle is hands down one of the most reliable rifles ever built. I think those reasons are way more important than how cool/scary a gun looks. The only real downside to the AK (versus the M16)is a bit less accuracy and range. Well, 7.62x39mm is a more effective close range caliber and I don't feel the need to pay more for long range percision or accuracy. So the AK was a very economical choice for me - I rather think they look a bit ugly. Nevertheless I restained and refinished all the wood so the firearm at least looked respectable and clean.

So can someone who wants to buy a "manacing" gun because of utility rather than looks... is that OK? Do we have your blessing? :eyes:

[Atypical Liberal]

57. I bought it because of the Assault Weapons Ban.

Except gunners are attracted to AK-47s and modern "assault" weapons because they look menacing, and produce a strange hormone rush in some people. Personally, rather than banning them, I'd rather see laws that mark a person unfit to own guns if they are attracted to such weapons. If they already own several, that's proof to me of a serious problem.

Myself, I bought my AK-47 variant, an SAR-1, shortly after the passage of the Assault Weapons Ban. I figured I better get one while I still could.

My goal was to own a rugged, military-grade firearm that utilized common, high-capacity magazines and shot a common military caliber round, for use in the eventuality of civil breakdown. Price was what drove me to the AK instead of the AR or other platforms.

Looks had nothing to do with it.

[spin]

59. Shooters are attracted to the semi-auto AK-47 clones ...

because they are reliable, fairly accurate and the ammo is cheap.

Shooters are attracted to the AR type rifles because they are very accurate and versatile.

I have never heard a real shooter say when someone showed him their semi-auto military style rife, "Gee, that rifle looks real menacing."

Prior to the assault weapons ban, I only knew a few shooters who owned a rifle that was an "assault weapon". Such weapons were often ridiculed as plastic Matell toys. When the ban was coming, interest in owning these weapons grew. A few shooters bought one and were very impressed with the accuracy. Other shooters got interested and the next thing I knew, every shooter I knew had at least one.

That just goes to show that if you want to make something popular, ban it.

Now there is an enormous market for these rifles and the MANY accessories that you can place on them.

Hunting with the AR-15 Rifle
February 21, 2011

While the AR-15 rifle platform has been used for hunting for a number of years, it has only recently begun to gain wide acceptance from hunting traditionalists as a viable platform for harvesting medium sized game. The AR rifle as a hunting platform has a number of advantages, including low recoil and fast follow-up shots, not to mention the inherent modularity and adaptability of the AR rifle. Within minutes, you can swap optics or even entire upper receivers to adapt the rifle to whatever role suits you best. According to the NSSF, “AR-15-platform rifles are among the most popular firearms being sold. They are today’s modern sporting rifle.”



The NSSF quoted Dick Metcalf on the AR saying “Modern sporting rifles in a wide variety of chamberings are accurate enough for prairie dogs and powerful enough for grizzly bear. They’re also utterly reliable and nearly indestructible, which is why I’ve been hunting with them ever since Colt introduced the first AR-15 Sporter over 30 years ago.” emphasis added

The AR rifle initially made the transition from military style rifle to hunting rifle when farmers and ranchers, along with returning veterans already familiar with the platform, began utilizing it for varmint control. The fast .223/5.56 round has an extremely flat trajectory out to 300 yards, making it ideal for engaging game ranging in size from prairie dogs to coyotes at unknown distances. Heavier bullets in the 62-79 grain range are the most popular for predator control. Close cousins of the AR-15, the AR-10 and LR-308 are both chambered in .308 Winchester (among other calibers) and are perfectly capable of taking larger game such as deer and even elk, caribou or moose.

Of course these two calibers aren’t the only available to the AR. A number of rounds have been created for the rifle over the years as hunters and shooters demanded more performance and greater versatility.
http://cheaperthandirt.com/blog/?p=1638

Why do you believe that a honest responsible person who owns several assault style rifles has a serious problem? Would you say the same of a person who owns several traditional hunting rifles?

If you had been living in the 1890s, you would probably have felt that anyone who owned several lever action rifles must have had a serious problem.



With your overblown imagination, you must suffer from very vivid nightmares. You appear to live in constant fear of anyone who legally carries a firearm and now you are worried about people who own several assault style rifles.

Take some tranquilizers or take up yoga and learn to relax and enjoy life.

Work to improve the NICS background check and to require it to be applied to all firearm sales as you mentioned in this post.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=458447&mesg_id=458620

That will be a difficult battle but one we might be able to win.

[oneshooter]

60. Does this include Gatling and Maxim products? n/t

[We_Have_A_Problem]

62. You ever think....

weight, ergonomics, reliability and the fact that they are very similar in operation to rifles they used in the military MIGHT have something to do with it?

I don't find them menacing at all - perhaps you do.

Meeting a need of the market is not irresponsible. Many of us, for example, buy cars which appear far more aggressive and performance oriented than they actually are. Does that mean, in our hearts, we all would rather drive with reckless abandon at extreme extra-legal speeds? Of course not - it simply means we like the look.

[Hoyt]

72. "Need of Market" -- Now that is friggin funny. Why does anyone need these weapons? Your military

aspect is getting close, but it's a bit more than that.

CARS and GUNS is interesting as well -- I think the aspects you post are related to same hormonal reaction (or hoped for reaction), especially among men.

[oneshooter]

79. But you would not know about that since, well we all know about you and

[Hoyt]

82. And we all know about what is important to you, OneSHOOTER.

[oneshooter]

110. My God, family, self. In that order. n/t

[X_Digger]

85. Ergonomics, reliability, accuracy, configurability.. who needs those, right, Hoyt?

Guns should be heavy, awkward, jam prone, and rust magnets, right? Fucking duh.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

100. Once again....

it is about what people want - one need not justify a need to you or anyone else.

Sucks for you, i know, but that's just too bad.

[AtheistCrusader]

101. For hunting deer, for one.

The 7.62x39mm round fired by the AK-47 is roughly equivalent in power to the .30-30 lever action rifle, which has claimed more deer than any other rifle in the country.

People hunt with these, using 5 round magazines, legally, and normally, just like any other rifle. Only difference is, the AK can place a follow-up shot faster than a lever gun, which may make for a more humane kill, if the first round doesn't put the animal down clean.

[Remmah2]

114. Modern assault weapons?

Too bad the AK-47 was conceived in 1947

[rl6214]

127. an ak47 dosen't look at all menacing

it's wood and metal, not at all menacing.

[MyrnaLoy]

81. ummm

L.A. bank robbery ring any bells. You tube it. Mass shooting in Moscow, Id with an AK? research a bit.

[AtheistCrusader]

102. You mean the North Hollwood shoot-out?

And how many people were killed by the two perps with the fully-auto death rays from space?

Oh. None. Right.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

103. You may want to do some research yourself...

...like maybe even find out what the single most popular gun used in a crime actually is...


You'll be quite surprised I suspect.

[friendly_iconoclast]

116. That's like asking a creationist to study paleontology.

It ain't gonna happen....

[Chorophyll]

8. K&R. nt

[krispos42]

15. In before the move...

I'll also re-iterate this point, because maybe we should know some facts before calling the guy a coward. I actually took the time and effort to find the damn place and analyze the location instead of spouting off one-liners from a position of ignorance.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=458337&mesg_id=458628

I took the liberty of doing some research. Here's a Google Map of the area in question. The IHOP is the blue-roofed building on the bottom, the Local BBQ & Grill the brown-edged-roof on the top. The McDonald's mentioned in the story is immediately south of the IHOP, off the map.






As you can see, there is a sizable distance between the doors of the IHOP and that of the Local BBQ. I count six rows of parking for cars, plus three lanes for access to those spots. It's pretty far.

I copied-and-pasted the scale at the bottom left of the map to determine how far, exactly, it was between the two closest sides of the buildings. I assume this is where the doors are, and this is why: each building had parking adjacent to the exterior wall ONLY on one side: the north face of IHOP and the south wall of Local BBQ. The doors would be located here to be adjacent to handicapped parking.

So I got about 190 feet from door-to-door. Maybe a bit more.





Okay, so that's about 65 yards, give or take. This is VERY far with a pistol, especially since we don't know what he was carrying.

Now, obviously, there exist handguns that can easily hit playing card at 65 yards in the hands of a decent shooter. But they tend to not be carried concealed. Concealed-carry guns tend to designed for ranges not exceeding 25 yards, and the subcompacts for maybe 15 yards.

I have a recent copy of "Handguns" magazine here. A new 9mm compact pistol, the Solo by a company called Kimber, shows accuracy results from a sandbagged rest of 1.7" at 15 yards. This means the gun puts, on average, 5 rounds in a circle 1.7" across. Extrapolating to 65 yards, the best-case scenario accuracy is 7.4". Considering the circumstances (shock, surprise, wind, stance, etc.) the guy would be lucky to get 15" accuracy.

Let's face it, sights designed to fast action at close range in dim light are too course for fine shooting at distance.

Odds are he would either miss entirely or only score a superficial wound. Whereas the guy with the rifle would turn around and shoot back. 65 yards is extremely close for a rifle and the bullet would be packing 5x as much energy as the pistol.



It would have taken him most of a minute to race across the parking lot, exposed, to get within easy shooting distance of the rifleman. At which point he's be breathing hard and have his pulse pounding, further making it harder to shoot accurately.

Swagler isn't a cop. He carries the gun strictly for close-range defense of himself. Expecting him to fit the stereotype of the Rambo wannabe and go charging in gun blazing is NOT realistic given the circumstances.

Now, if he had been dining at the IHOP, maybe he could have popped the guy as he entered through the doors. The IHOP would be darker that the outside, and he would have had a second or two to get a jump on the rifleman.

:shrug:

Maybe. Regardless of the outcome, he wouldn't have been having Rambo fantasies and a raging hard-on in his briefs. He's be scared shitless and desperate.

[hedgehog]

17. I'm not calling the guy a coward, merely commenting on

the common suggestion that if more people carried, there would be fewer mass shooting incidents. What you're implying is that we'd all be safer if only there was someone covering the door of every restaurant in the country at all times.

[NOMOREDRUGWAR]

23. And I am saying that mass shooting incidents are rare

Most of them involve a family dispute instead of some seemingly random act of violence. The Carson City shooter was quite likely suffering from mental illness. If he had gotten on a Greyhound bus instead and stabbed four people, would you say that concealed-carry knife laws are useless? I don't know the Nevada law regarding the open carrying of an AK-47 but I know that it is legal to open carry a rifle in some states:

http://www.everydaynodaysoff.com/2011/02/27/taking-the-ak-47-out-for-a-stroll-open-carry-style/

[krispos42]

27. True, you're not, but many in the thread are.

The usual Rambo-esque bullshit is rearing its head in the thread.



The problem with your statement "the common suggestion that if more people carried, there would be fewer mass shooting incidents" is that there in an inherent difficulty in proving this.

In this case Sencion sprayed the place with bullets, reloaded, then walked in and shot up the table the Guardsmen were sitting at, then went outside, reloaded again, sprayed bullets at the surrounding buildings, then offed himself.


Okay. Let's get hypothetical now.

Let's say Swagler was standing in line at Burger King, all set to order himself a nice breakfast sandwich meal, when a guy walks in with a gun and starts to rob the place. Swagler manages to draw his own gun and shoot the robber, killing him.

Now, the question is... did Swagler prevent a mass shooting?


You don't know. I don't know. Swagler doesn't know. The BK manager doesn't know. The cops don't know.

Nobody alive knows. And because some mass murders are forced by circumstances, it's possible, even likely, the robber didn't know either.

In our hypothetical scenario, the story gets local media coverage, maybe statewide. Some blogs and discussion boards talk about it a bit, somebody posts it in the Gungeon, the Gungeon regulars make their usual comments, and then it fades away. One guy died, it was the armed robber, nobody else got hurt, scumbag deserved it for waving a gun in public, case closed.

But nobody will mention that Swagler stopped a mass murder. Why? Because it's a chain of events that is and will remain hypothetical. Because the robber was shot and killed before he fired a shot, the total body count of his course of action will forever remain unknown.


So, right now there are more people out there carrying concealed (legally) than at any point in the last 40 years or so. A certain percentage of them a year will use their guns to stop a crime in progress at a public place. And of those crimes stopped... a certain percentage of them would have resulted in mass murder. Maybe premeditated mass murder (a la Columbine) or maybe it would "just happen", but mass murder nonetheless.



The issue is that the burden of proof you request is virtually impossible to meet.

If a CCW holder shoots and kills a criminal with a gun BEFORE the criminal begins shooting, we don't know if the criminal's actions would have resulted in a mass shooting that the CCW holder prevented.

If a CCW holder shoots and kills a criminal with a gun AFTER the criminal has shot several people to death, then the fact that there are several dead innocents on the ground means that, by definition, the CCW holder didn't prevent a mass shooting. At best, the CCW holder kept the mass shooting from getting worse.

[armedvegan]

28. ihop

Imagine the IHOP had burned down and there wasn't a fire extinguisher handy.

"well obviously the idea that a fire extinguisher everywhere will put out fires is bogus-let's get rid of fire extinguishers"

Imagine if YOU were in that IHOP on that day with your daughter or mother. This guy is shooting, people are screaming. Now he's pointing that rifle at your child. Would you wish you had a firearm with you that you knew how to use so that at least you had a CHANCE to save yourself or the ones you loved? Maybe no? Just beg, cower and hope? This is not a "Dirty Harry fantasy" nor was it a fantasy for the unfortunate victims. Do you think any of them wish they had a firearm?

This is the point (one of many) of concealed carry and legal gun ownership by law abiding citizens

"What you're implying is that we'd all be safer if only there was someone covering the door of every restaurant in the country at all times."

I do not advocate that everyone should carry a gun, but as a thought experiment, what if everyone in that ihop HAD been armed and knew how to safely use a handgun? _"But then EVERYONE would be dead because normal people are just too stupid and incompetent to safely and judiciously use a firearm in self defense, it would be a bloodbath, ok corral, yada yada yada"

Nonsense

The Great Gun Debate is so polarizing and divisive, but generally those that fall on the pro self-defense side begin with the basic (and regrettable ) premise that There are bad and/or crazy people in the world who would do others harm through force be it with a gun/knife/car/pipe bomb etc....or just bigger muscles. That this is true is so obvious I feel silly having to say it.

It is ILLEGAL to go into an ihop and shoot people (Gasp!) Bad people/ Crazy people DON'T CARE. Laws don't stop them and therefore making more laws wont help either.

[SteveM]

37. Thank you. MSM does love their "All AK-47 All the Time" narrative. nt

[SteveM]

36. That "common suggestion" is YOURS and YOUR echo chamber...

The only person who has seriously proffered the notion that "more guns = less crime" is John Lott, and most 2A folks here are not sold on his idea. What you have are some very dishonest gun-controller/prohibitionists who have invented the notion that gun-owners can stop massacres, and shouted that stuff to other gun-controller/prohibitionists. The reality is that guns, either in the home or on one's person, are for self-defense, not social policy, not policing, not civil protection.

[slackmaster]

43. hedgehog, while such things are sometimes said you won't find many DUers parroting the suggestion...

...that the purpose of people carrying firearms is for anything other than personal self-defense.

What you're implying is that we'd all be safer if only there was someone covering the door of every restaurant in the country at all times.

It's not clear at all who you are referring to with the word "you're." That's certainly not something I've ever said, or would ever say.

[PavePusher]

51. No-one has made a claim that arming all people, all the time, will end crime.

A firearms is not the answer to all defensive needs. Everything depends on circumstances. In this instance, due to the weapons and distances involved, the guy made the right choice, and is now feeling some pretty deep survivor's guilt, a form of PTSD.

A single incident is not representative of all incidents. There are many cases of succesful defense with firearms.

[Straw Man]

90. Shh... You don't want to destroy the self-righteous fantasies ...

... of all the smarmy, holier-than-thou Gandhi wannabes. That would be cruel ... :eyes:

[SteveM]

109. And they couldn't be Gandhi anyway. He said that defense of self,...

home, family, property and religion could be accomplished either by trying to stop the attacker without hurting the attacker (his way), or if one could not follow the non-violent way, by "dispatching" (killing) the attacker. What he did NOT favor was standing by while an attacker had his way. He called that "cowardice."

[rrneck]

47. Solid information. Thank you. nt

[Common Sense Party]

65. +1,000,000

Great info. Deserves to be its own thread. Facts are useful things.

[ontime1969]

32. wow, give some credit to this man

Ok so this guy did not Rambo rush the Psychopath or emulate some video game and just start spraying bullets and praying one hits, for this he should not be criticized at all. He was smart not to start pulling the trigger. This is a very congested area he would have at worst hit some innocent person, but more likely nothing.

So thank you Mr Swagler for being a safe and conscientious legal gun owner.

[MyrnaLoy]

74. T-shirts soon

next to the Zamudio ones at GOP/NRA Gun Forum sites everywhere!

[slackmaster]

41. I didn't bother responding to this thread when it was in GD because it's weak sarcasm.

In the Guns forum it looks just plain weak.

[DWC]

44. A handgun against a semi-auto rifle is no contest

and anyone with even a drop of common sense knows it. Mr. Swagler's actions were correct due to the possibility of bystanders being hit by his bullets. However, if there were armed citizens in IHop close to the shooter, this tragedy could have ended very differently.

Semper Fi,

[Xela]

115. Excellent observation.

Thanks for sharing it.

Xela

[Atypical Liberal]

58. A chance is better than no chance.

It's a common expression that a pistol is what you use to fight your way back to a rifle.

There's no doubt that when faced with an attacker with an assault rifle, you are at a disadvantage with just a pistol.

Of course, you are at an even greater disadvantage with nothing at all.

Mr. Swagler decided not to take on the man with the rifle, as clearly his safety was not in enough danger to warrant trying. No doubt if Sencion had continued his way, he may have had no choice but to act.

[MyrnaLoy]

66. Ole Ralph

will be a NRA/GOP Gun Forum hero by the end of the week just like the bonehead who grabbed the wrong man in the Arizona shooting.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

67. Who was that "bonehead"?

Because every news report I've read indicated something very different. You may of course be receiving information from alternate sources?

Ralph did exactly the right thing. He DIDN'T run in, guns blazing, acting like Rambo.

[MyrnaLoy]

71. You know,

the bonehead who tried to disarm the wrong guy AFTER an elderly man and woman WHO WERE NOT ARMED actually stopped the shooter. That bonehead. My guess is you are reading the NRA/GOP Gun Forum REVISED history.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

93. No I was reading the news reports

Perhaps you have a link to one which supports your statements?

[rl6214]

128. You're gonna find that and post it for us, right?

Since you are such a master of the google search.

"just like the bonehead who grabbed the wrong man in the Arizona shooting"

Just who was that bonehead?

[ileus]

68. I wouldn't mind OCin' a draco.

[armedvegan]

69. bonehead

"just like the bonehead who grabbed the wrong man in the Arizona shooting."

What a bunch of garbage.

That 'bonehead' did exactly the right thing that day (as did the "gun nut" who was near the IHOP)- in a matter of seconds he assessed the situation, NEVER drew his gun, and then helped to subdue the shooter. Had he (Joe Zamudio - AZ) been there just minutes earlier things may well have been very different. He is actually a hero, one of many that day.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-3GTwalrGY

He was (according to the 'protectionists') SUPPOSED to pull his gun and shoot the wrong guy while missing multiple times wounding innocent women and children in the process- because 'normal' law abiding citizens are too stupid and irresponsible to carry handguns for personal protection - No?

Didn't happen (gasp!)

If ever your sorry ass (or mine for that matter) is whimpering, praying, and pleading for his life in the back corner of an IHOP or 7/11 while some dirtball or nutjob goes off the deep end, I hope there is some "BONEHEAD" there to make a difference.

It is ILLEGAL to shoot members of Congress. It is ILLEGAL to carry a handgun (permit or not) with the intent of harming innocent people. It is ILLEGAL to beat up old people for their money, to invade a persons home, to rape women, to shoplift, to speed.........


Newsflash Dorothy,
there are bad people in the world who are ready and willing to hurt/kill others and they DON'T CARE what the law is or isn't.

[MyrnaLoy]

73. hahahahahaaa

did you already get your Zamudio t-shirt? LOL thanks for the funny post man.

[armedvegan]

75. bonehead

Why is it funny?

[Name removed]

76. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MyrnaLoy]

78. LMAO!!

let me quote you, "If ever your sorry ass (or mine for that matter) is whimpering, praying, and pleading for his life in the back corner of an IHOP or 7/11 while some dirtball or nutjob goes off the deep end, I hope there is some "BONEHEAD" there to make a difference."

HAHAHAHAHAHA what the fuck did either of these boneheads stop? In Arizona people died until NON-ARMED people stopped the shooter. You may need to read non-NRA books from time to time. In IHOP the shooter stopped himself while a CC person hid. HAHAHAHAHAHA.

Let me quote you again, "If ever your sorry ass (or mine for that matter) is whimpering, praying, and pleading for his life in the back corner of an IHOP or 7/11 while some dirtball or nutjob goes off the deep end, I hope there is some "BONEHEAD" there to make a difference."

Listen chief, people WERE whimpering and your fucking heros didn't do shit.

[armedvegan]

77. t shirt

BTW, where can I get a t-shirt Dorothy?

[armedvegan]

80. bonehead

Wow,

"hahahaha"


and

"LOL" are the best you can do?

[Hoyt]

83. It is funny to read you guys posting about saving the day with your toter. I'm sorry,

but for all gunners' posing and practicing shooting boogiemen and silhouette targets, none of them are prepared to do a friggin thing in the few seconds this kind of crap goes down. Hell Giffords supposedly had a permit, but if she'd had 50 guns on her, it wouldn't have helped a bit.

Thankfully, some frail lady saved the day.

[Straw Man]

89. "Thankfully, some frail lady saved the day."

Really? You mean all those people didn't really die? That's a relief. I thought there had been a terrible tragedy.

I guess I've been doing it wrong. According to Hoyt, practicing on silhouette targets is useless. He knows the real secret of law enforcement, which is to practice on live human beings. Either that or hope all their adversaries look like this:



But why even bother with all that firearms practice? With the benefit of Hoyt's wisdom, I now see that the real secret to safe defense is to either (a) be a frail lady or (b) always be in the company of a frail lady when venturing forth.

[Hoyt]

92. Better than always being with a gun or two.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

104. Id rather

Have it, not need it and never use it than be forbidden to own one, never have it and need it.

[rl6214]

129. Still waiting for you to post evidence that this happens anywhere

other than in your mind:

"but for all gunners' posing and practicing shooting boogiemen and silhouette targets,"

You gonna post it or are you talking out your arse as usual?

You figure out what a red dot scope is yet?

[MyrnaLoy]

84. don't need to do much

their action, or should I say lack of it, speaks for itself. By all means man, by the t-shirt though, wear it proudly.

[iverglas]

121. hm

bonehead
Posted by armedvegan
Wow,
"hahahaha"
and
"LOL" are the best you can do?

As compared to arriving at the party and immediately accusing someone of lying? Oh, I know, it was done oh so cleverly, wasn't it?


I'm jealous, MyrnaLoy. You seem to have acquired a fan club all your own. ;)

[guardian]

124. Ever notice how these crazies never

seem to shoot up a cop bar or gun show? They always seem to pick a fast food joint, or 'gun free' zone to do their mass killing.

[iverglas]

130. gosh, my goodness, what powers of perception!

Actually, they always seem to pick the place where the victims they seek happen to be.

I've noticed that, yes I have.

Can't think of why any of them would want to be shooting up gun dealers!