Congratulations NRA, two media members have fallen to your cause

I don't disagree with most of what you said but holding gun owners responsible for the actions of someone that steals your gun is ridiculous. I don't have kids in my home. Both myself and my wife are CHL carriers. I leave my pistol on the counter many times. If not there it is in the night stand. I have others that are in a safe. The thing is my home is a secure environment. If I have children in my home the guns are put up so that they cannot access them. All that said if someone breaks into my home and steals a gun then they alone are the ones that should be punished for not only the crime of breaking into and stealing from me but for any other crimes they commit. Originally Posted by Budman

If you've taken reasonable measures to secure your gun, like keeping it in a safe, then I agree. But if you leave in a drawer when you are not present, or otherwise unsecured, then I stand by my statement.

Where is your data to support the highlighted portion? Originally Posted by WombRaider

Look it up yourself. I'm right.

I ain't scared of either and would be willing to bet that I know more about both than you.

But, if you are trying to equate the lethality of an AR15 or an AK with your Glock or Beretta, it's clear you don't know shit.

1. Standard AK and AR mag holds 30 rounds.
2. AK is .30 caliber. AR is .223/5.56mm. These rounds compared to 9mm, .40SW or .45ACP hit harder, are more accurate, have much much more range and tear a much larger hole through a human being.
3. Semi-auto fire from any assault rifle is almost always more effective than full-auto in the hands of somebody who knows what they are doing. It is more accurate. Full auto fire from an M4 or AK is inaccurate after the first aimed round or two. Originally Posted by timpage

And they are used in less than 1% of gun violence. Furthermore almost every popular sporting weapon was at one time a military weapon going back to the civil war. In the 50's the Springfield 1903 was a popular sporting rifle for deer hunting. Its origion service rifle for American Military world war 1. The mauser is another example, origin German army WW1 WW2. Colt 1911 .45 caliber pistol, origin service weapon WW1. My point is that through history the military has been the inspiration for the civilian market.

I don't believe Budman was comparing the lethality of the weapons but rather the magazine capacities. But his point is valid, why the fear of these weapons from the left when they actually account for such a small number of victims and their removal will have little impact on the number of incidents that occur. You cant ban something because of the potential for misuse, use guys rally around the "assault weapon" because you know that most non gun owners and those who have no interest or education in firearms can be easily swayed to your side based on pictures, because you cant use actual facts based on statistics over the last 40 years.

Aren't you making my point? This clown in Virginia should never have passed a background check. What the hell went wrong with the system? Still, the vast majority of gun violence is committed by people who have not obtained their guns through legal channels. Why punish the good guys for what bad guys do? This guy was going to kill. It didn't matter how or who. I'll agree he should never have gotten a gun. If the background check didn't flag him, then we need to improve the background check. If he slipped through, those responsible should be prosecuted for their error. But this guy was going to kill.


Also, I think gun owners should be held responsible for keeping their guns secured. If someone steals a gun not properly secured, I think the owner should be charged as an accessory to any crime committed with that gun. If you leave a gun out and a kid finds it and injures or kills another, you are guilty of manslaughter.


I've never owned a gun. I enjoy target and skeet shooting, but I have never had a gun in my house. But I totally support responsible gun ownership and the Second Amendment. But gun owners need to police their ranks.


The problem is not people having guns. The problem is irresponsible, or crazy, or criminals having guns. I know people I'd trust with a nuclear weapon, and I know people I wouldn't trust with a nail clipper. I believe you have an absolute right to open or concealed carry, but not if you are irresponsible, crazy, or criminal. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

I don't think were disagreeing on a whole lot here, we both seem to agree that current gun laws are far too lax. The real problem here is the NRA and their members/supporters fight just about every new gun restriction proposal, no matter how reasonable it is to sane people.

You're the faggoty-assed, scaredy-cat jackass that's afraid of the status quo and whining for change and greater government intrusion, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. And there's the husband of one of the victims in Virginia who is convinced that Flanagan would of used a knife or machete if he didn't have a gun, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Well, her father thinks otherwise and will campaign for stricter gun control laws. So that cancels out your guy. Anyone who is for the status quo is simply not paying attention or doesn't care about their fellow man.

It's not about fear. You're the one who wants guns around, who's the real scaredy cat?

Aren't you making my point? This clown in Virginia should never have passed a background check. What the hell went wrong with the system? Still, the vast majority of gun violence is committed by people who have not obtained their guns through legal channels. Why punish the good guys for what bad guys do? This guy was going to kill. It didn't matter how or who. I'll agree he should never have gotten a gun. If the background check didn't flag him, then we need to improve the background check. If he slipped through, those responsible should be prosecuted for their error. But this guy was going to kill.


Also, I think gun owners should be held responsible for keeping their guns secured. If someone steals a gun not properly secured, I think the owner should be charged as an accessory to any crime committed with that gun. If you leave a gun out and a kid finds it and injures or kills another, you are guilty of manslaughter.


I've never owned a gun. I enjoy target and skeet shooting, but I have never had a gun in my house. But I totally support responsible gun ownership and the Second Amendment. But gun owners need to police their ranks.


The problem is not people having guns. The problem is irresponsible, or crazy, or criminals having guns. I know people I'd trust with a nuclear weapon, and I know people I wouldn't trust with a nail clipper. I believe you have an absolute right to open or concealed carry, but not if you are irresponsible, crazy, or criminal. Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

Goddamit I agree with every word. If your gun is not secured, you should be held responsible for what happens with it. That's a level of responsibility that should come with gun ownership. If you're ok with buying one and possibly having to shoot someone with it, you should be ok with securing it and making sure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands.

Well, her father thinks otherwise and will campaign for stricter gun control laws. So that cancels out your guy. Anyone who is for the status quo is simply not paying attention or doesn't care about their fellow man.

It's not about fear. You're the one who wants guns around, who's the real scaredy cat? Originally Posted by WombRaider

Gun ownership is legal and constitutional, get over it, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

Well, her father thinks otherwise and will campaign for stricter gun control laws. So that cancels out your guy. Anyone who is for the status quo is simply not paying attention or doesn't care about their fellow man.

It's not about fear. You're the one who wants guns around, who's the real scaredy cat? Originally Posted by WombRaider

if you not scare, why don't you ever show your face around Houston

Goddamit I agree with every word. If your gun is not secured, you should be held responsible for what happens with it. That's a level of responsibility that should come with gun ownership. If you're ok with buying one and possibly having to shoot someone with it, you should be ok with securing it and making sure it doesn't fall into the wrong hands. Originally Posted by WombRaider

you think too much, it does not seem like it helping you much ... are you sure their are not a lot of small dick in control ... may i ask how do you know ...unless you are big dick favorite sex toy ...

care to response ...

Lanza, the shitbird that killed 20 kids in Newtown got his assault rifle by stealing it from his mother who purchased it legally and killed her with it. First of all, assault rifles should only be in the hands of the military an law enforcement. Second, his mother should have gone through training before being allowed to own any gun. Originally Posted by southtown4488

Do you know the difference between an assault rifle and an AR15 like the Newtown shooter had? Apparently not because you got it wrong. An AR15 fires one round at a time with each pull of the trigger. An assault rifle (according the US military) fires either automatically as long as the trigger is pulled or it fires three shots with each pull of the trigger. You lied about the type of firearm and should be ashamed of your ignorance. So your claim about ownership of an assault weapon are moot since an assault weapon was not involved in the shooting.

I ain't scared of either and would be willing to bet that I know more about both than you.

But, if you are trying to equate the lethality of an AR15 or an AK with your Glock or Beretta, it's clear you don't know shit.

1. Standard AK and AR mag holds 30 rounds.
2. AK is .30 caliber. AR is .223/5.56mm. These rounds compared to 9mm, .40SW or .45ACP hit harder, are more accurate, have much much more range and tear a much larger hole through a human being.
3. Semi-auto fire from any assault rifle is almost always more effective than full-auto in the hands of somebody who knows what they are doing. It is more accurate. Full auto fire from an M4 or AK is inaccurate after the first aimed round or two. Originally Posted by timpage

You show a certain ignorance Timmie. Lethality applies to the round and not the weapon. Functionality applies to the weapon. There are two kinds of AKs and more than two kinds of ARs. The standard model AK is a .30 caliber round and the standard AR is a .223 round. Now the velocity of a rifle round adds to the lethality of the round if you use the Taylor table. The Taylor table (I won't bore you with formula) gives you a number that represents on a scale the amount of force that can be inflicted on the human body. It is a matter of mass times velocity times cross sectional area. A .45 gives massive truama. Much more than the .223 does and the equal of the .30 caliber. The 9 mm gives less trauma. Each round because of the design of the weapon has additives. A .223 is designed to be barely stable so when it impacts a body it becomes unstable and tumbles causing more damage not because of the bullet but because of the weapon design.

Now functionality applies to how many rounds and how fast they accurately be fired. Within 25 feet, with a competent shooter, the .45 is more deadly than the AR15. It can be deployed faster and the first center body hit will end the contest. Same thing can be said for the .40 S&W, 10 mm, .44 magnum, and even the .357 magnum. Out past 50 feet and beyond, the rifles have the advantage because of accuracy. Depends on the shooter. I've seen a good pistolero make consistent hits at 100 yards.

Your knowledge of firearms is lacking a certain ground level knowledge base. You may have read something or thought you knew something but you were wrong.

How about a little test Timmie. If you were loading a .45 auto for a Model 1911-A1, Series 80 what would you use for propellant, the primer, the round, and how much propellant would you use for what muzzle velocity? A very simple question. The first round I learned to reload.

Gun ownership is legal and constitutional, get over it, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

So is abortion. Get over it.

you think too much, it does not seem like it helping you much ... are you sure their are not a lot of small dick in control ... may i ask how do you know ...unless you are big dick favorite sex toy ...

care to response ... Originally Posted by MC19

I could respond by putting my big dick in your ear? Unless think too much, you do, that it would help much to have control of your own small dick.

Do you know the difference between an assault rifle and an AR15 like the Newtown shooter had? Apparently not because you got it wrong. An AR15 fires one round at a time with each pull of the trigger. An assault rifle (according the US military) fires either automatically as long as the trigger is pulled or it fires three shots with each pull of the trigger. You lied about the type of firearm and should be ashamed of your ignorance. So your claim about ownership of an assault weapon are moot since an assault weapon was not involved in the shooting. Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You're going to parse words? Really? Forget about the 20 kids, right? You're a disgusting human being, Admiral Shitbird.

So is abortion. Get over it. Originally Posted by WombRaider

Gun ownership is legal and constitutional, get over it, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas. Meanwhile, taxpayer funded abortion is illegal, and your ilk lies when you claim PPH isn't conducting abortions using tax money, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.