|
AR-15 rifles
Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please hear me out and give it consideration. I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges. They cannot be removed from the range. Owners should be required to store the rifles *at* the range when not using them. I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also be used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the people that do this seem to have a fascination with military type assault weapons. It's not a 2nd Amendment thing. It's a mental attitude and perception thing and it needs to be addressed. As a country, we need to do something, not just talk about it like a bunch of politicians. And contrary to Harry's claims, mental health professionals need to pay closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report anyone who even remotely appears to be a potential threat. The mental health people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to be of "no danger to himself or others." He then went out with an AR-15 and killed 17 people, most of them children. |
AR-15 rifles
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 17:01:58 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please hear me out and give it consideration. I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges. They cannot be removed from the range. Owners should be required to store the rifles *at* the range when not using them. I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also be used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the people that do this seem to have a fascination with military type assault weapons. It's not a 2nd Amendment thing. It's a mental attitude and perception thing and it needs to be addressed. As a country, we need to do something, not just talk about it like a bunch of politicians. And contrary to Harry's claims, mental health professionals need to pay closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report anyone who even remotely appears to be a potential threat. The mental health people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to be of "no danger to himself or others." He then went out with an AR-15 and killed 17 people, most of them children. If that much infringement is to occur, then I'd say just outlaw the sale of the damn things. If folks want to shoot them, rent them from the range and shoot the hell out of them. The range I use will rent any rifle or pistol in their rental selection, and it's a good selection, for $10. And, the weapons can be exchanged for other weapons at no extra charge. I don't think that will stop the shootings as about 8 million of them have already been sold. But, it would make the anti-gun crowd happy. I would even go along with raising the buying age of the 'assault style' firearms to 30 years old. |
AR-15 rifles
On 2/21/2018 5:26 PM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 17:01:58 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please hear me out and give it consideration. I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges. They cannot be removed from the range. Owners should be required to store the rifles *at* the range when not using them. I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also be used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the people that do this seem to have a fascination with military type assault weapons. It's not a 2nd Amendment thing. It's a mental attitude and perception thing and it needs to be addressed. As a country, we need to do something, not just talk about it like a bunch of politicians. And contrary to Harry's claims, mental health professionals need to pay closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report anyone who even remotely appears to be a potential threat. The mental health people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to be of "no danger to himself or others." He then went out with an AR-15 and killed 17 people, most of them children. If that much infringement is to occur, then I'd say just outlaw the sale of the damn things. If folks want to shoot them, rent them from the range and shoot the hell out of them. The range I use will rent any rifle or pistol in their rental selection, and it's a good selection, for $10. And, the weapons can be exchanged for other weapons at no extra charge. I don't think that will stop the shootings as about 8 million of them have already been sold. But, it would make the anti-gun crowd happy. I would even go along with raising the buying age of the 'assault style' firearms to 30 years old. I was really impressed watching the meeting Trump had with kids who were in the school when the shooting occurred and some parents of those killed. Nobody was crying out to ban guns. Many ideas were presented and discussed. The only person I disagreed with was the mental health professional who ignored the reality of the situations and promoted more "help" (funding) for those with issues. Other ideas ranged from training and arming volunteer teachers and administrators who could respond quickly while waiting the typical 5 to 7 minutes for the police to arrive. (all the killing in Florida took place in 7 minutes). Others, like me, think a ban or semi-ban on military type rifles should be considered. But the most impressive thing was it was a civil discussion with respect for those with different views. Oh ... and Trump himself did an outstanding job. I don't recall any previous president taking the time as he did to listen, ask questions and solicit their ideas and views. He was visibly moved by some of the comments. The jerks we have in Congress could learn something by seeing how these young people handled themselves. |
AR-15 rifles
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 17:58:42 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 2/21/2018 5:26 PM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 17:01:58 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please hear me out and give it consideration. I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges. They cannot be removed from the range. Owners should be required to store the rifles *at* the range when not using them. I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also be used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the people that do this seem to have a fascination with military type assault weapons. It's not a 2nd Amendment thing. It's a mental attitude and perception thing and it needs to be addressed. As a country, we need to do something, not just talk about it like a bunch of politicians. And contrary to Harry's claims, mental health professionals need to pay closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report anyone who even remotely appears to be a potential threat. The mental health people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to be of "no danger to himself or others." He then went out with an AR-15 and killed 17 people, most of them children. If that much infringement is to occur, then I'd say just outlaw the sale of the damn things. If folks want to shoot them, rent them from the range and shoot the hell out of them. The range I use will rent any rifle or pistol in their rental selection, and it's a good selection, for $10. And, the weapons can be exchanged for other weapons at no extra charge. I don't think that will stop the shootings as about 8 million of them have already been sold. But, it would make the anti-gun crowd happy. I would even go along with raising the buying age of the 'assault style' firearms to 30 years old. I was really impressed watching the meeting Trump had with kids who were in the school when the shooting occurred and some parents of those killed. Nobody was crying out to ban guns. Many ideas were presented and discussed. The only person I disagreed with was the mental health professional who ignored the reality of the situations and promoted more "help" (funding) for those with issues. Other ideas ranged from training and arming volunteer teachers and administrators who could respond quickly while waiting the typical 5 to 7 minutes for the police to arrive. (all the killing in Florida took place in 7 minutes). Others, like me, think a ban or semi-ban on military type rifles should be considered. But the most impressive thing was it was a civil discussion with respect for those with different views. Oh ... and Trump himself did an outstanding job. I don't recall any previous president taking the time as he did to listen, ask questions and solicit their ideas and views. He was visibly moved by some of the comments. The jerks we have in Congress could learn something by seeing how these young people handled themselves. I didn't see it, but I have it on tape (from my daughter). Am looking forward to it. I'm serious about my comments above. I'd have no problem with stopping the sale of them, especially to youngsters - anyone under about 30. |
AR-15 rifles
On 2/21/18 5:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please hear me out and give it consideration. I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges.* They cannot be removed from the range.* Owners should be required to store the rifles *at* the range when not using them. I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also be used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the people that do this seem to have a fascination with military type assault weapons. It's not a 2nd Amendment thing.* It's a mental attitude and perception thing and it needs to be addressed.* As a country, we need to do something, not just talk about it like a bunch of politicians. And contrary to Harry's claims,* mental health professionals need to pay closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report anyone who even remotely appears to be a potential threat.* The mental health people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to be of "no danger to himself or others."** He then went out with an AR-15 and killed 17 people, most of them children. The mental health treatment issues are far more complex than "reporting" someone who might pose a danger. |
AR-15 rifles
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 2/21/18 5:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please hear me out and give it consideration. I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges. They cannot be removed from the range. Owners should be required to store the rifles *at* the range when not using them. I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also be used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the people that do this seem to have a fascination with military type assault weapons. It's not a 2nd Amendment thing. It's a mental attitude and perception thing and it needs to be addressed. As a country, we need to do something, not just talk about it like a bunch of politicians. And contrary to Harry's claims, mental health professionals need to pay closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report anyone who even remotely appears to be a potential threat. The mental health people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to be of "no danger to himself or others." He then went out with an AR-15 and killed 17 people, most of them children. The mental health treatment issues are far more complex than "reporting" someone who might pose a danger. Tell us about it, if you can, old wise one. -- x ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
AR-15 rifles
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/21/18 5:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please hear me out and give it consideration. I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges. They cannot be removed from the range. Owners should be required to store the rifles *at* the range when not using them. I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also be used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the people that do this seem to have a fascination with military type assault weapons. It's not a 2nd Amendment thing. It's a mental attitude and perception thing and it needs to be addressed. As a country, we need to do something, not just talk about it like a bunch of politicians. And contrary to Harry's claims, mental health professionals need to pay closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report anyone who even remotely appears to be a potential threat. The mental health people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to be of "no danger to himself or others." He then went out with an AR-15 and killed 17 people, most of them children. The mental health treatment issues are far more complex than "reporting" someone who might pose a danger. That's because there's little science behind it and it would be a judgement call. Ten doctors will have ten different opinions. |
AR-15 rifles
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 18:27:49 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/21/18 5:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please hear me out and give it consideration. I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges.* They cannot be removed from the range.* Owners should be required to store the rifles *at* the range when not using them. I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also be used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the people that do this seem to have a fascination with military type assault weapons. It's not a 2nd Amendment thing.* It's a mental attitude and perception thing and it needs to be addressed.* As a country, we need to do something, not just talk about it like a bunch of politicians. And contrary to Harry's claims,* mental health professionals need to pay closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report anyone who even remotely appears to be a potential threat.* The mental health people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to be of "no danger to himself or others."** He then went out with an AR-15 and killed 17 people, most of them children. The mental health treatment issues are far more complex than "reporting" someone who might pose a danger. 'Treatment' was not the question. 'Reporting' was the issue. Reporting a potential threat is not a 'complex' issue. |
AR-15 rifles
On 2/21/2018 6:27 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/21/18 5:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please hear me out and give it consideration. I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges.* They cannot be removed from the range.* Owners should be required to store the rifles *at* the range when not using them. I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also be used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the people that do this seem to have a fascination with military type assault weapons. It's not a 2nd Amendment thing.* It's a mental attitude and perception thing and it needs to be addressed.* As a country, we need to do something, not just talk about it like a bunch of politicians. And contrary to Harry's claims,* mental health professionals need to pay closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report anyone who even remotely appears to be a potential threat.* The mental health people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to be of "no danger to himself or others."** He then went out with an AR-15 and killed 17 people, most of them children. The mental health treatment issues are far more complex than "reporting" someone who might pose a danger. Yes Harry. You've said that before. Meanwhile, 17 people were killed a week ago in a high school after mental health professionals determined Cruz was not a "danger". You are sounding like those you complain about. "Nothing can be done". You've cited the laws in most states (including mine) as to when and how a "professional" can take action to prevent a potential tragedy. I am very aware of those laws. I engaged in a heated debate with a mental health professional a few years ago regarding a person who demonstrated that he was both a danger to himself and to others, not just in my opinion but in the opinion of the police who strongly recommended that he be mentally evaluated. I was trying to get him some help because he had refused to get any voluntarily for a number of years. Without going through all the details, the psychotherapist who interviewed him ended up agreeing with me that the person *was* a potential danger both to himself and to others but "nothing could be done" as far as getting state help for him until he actually harmed himself or others. Stupid. |
AR-15 rifles
On 2/21/2018 7:29 PM, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 18:27:49 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 2/21/18 5:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please hear me out and give it consideration. I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges.* They cannot be removed from the range.* Owners should be required to store the rifles *at* the range when not using them. I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also be used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the people that do this seem to have a fascination with military type assault weapons. It's not a 2nd Amendment thing.* It's a mental attitude and perception thing and it needs to be addressed.* As a country, we need to do something, not just talk about it like a bunch of politicians. And contrary to Harry's claims,* mental health professionals need to pay closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report anyone who even remotely appears to be a potential threat.* The mental health people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to be of "no danger to himself or others."** He then went out with an AR-15 and killed 17 people, most of them children. The mental health treatment issues are far more complex than "reporting" someone who might pose a danger. 'Treatment' was not the question. 'Reporting' was the issue. Reporting a potential threat is not a 'complex' issue. Excellent point. |
AR-15 rifles
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 18:56:18 -0500 (EST), justan wrote:
Keyser Soze Wrote in message: On 2/21/18 5:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please hear me out and give it consideration. I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges. They cannot be removed from the range. Owners should be required to store the rifles *at* the range when not using them. I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also be used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the people that do this seem to have a fascination with military type assault weapons. It's not a 2nd Amendment thing. It's a mental attitude and perception thing and it needs to be addressed. As a country, we need to do something, not just talk about it like a bunch of politicians. And contrary to Harry's claims, mental health professionals need to pay closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report anyone who even remotely appears to be a potential threat. The mental health people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to be of "no danger to himself or others." He then went out with an AR-15 and killed 17 people, most of them children. The mental health treatment issues are far more complex than "reporting" someone who might pose a danger. Tell us about it, if you can, old wise one. === Good luck with that. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
AR-15 rifles
On 2/21/18 8:39 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/21/2018 6:27 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 2/21/18 5:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please hear me out and give it consideration. I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges.* They cannot be removed from the range.* Owners should be required to store the rifles *at* the range when not using them. I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also be used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the people that do this seem to have a fascination with military type assault weapons. It's not a 2nd Amendment thing.* It's a mental attitude and perception thing and it needs to be addressed.* As a country, we need to do something, not just talk about it like a bunch of politicians. And contrary to Harry's claims,* mental health professionals need to pay closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report anyone who even remotely appears to be a potential threat.* The mental health people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to be of "no danger to himself or others."** He then went out with an AR-15 and killed 17 people, most of them children. The mental health treatment issues are far more complex than "reporting" someone who might pose a danger. Yes Harry.* You've said that before.* Meanwhile, 17 people were killed a week ago in a high school after mental health professionals determined Cruz was not a "danger". You are sounding like those you complain about. "Nothing can be done". You've cited the laws in most states (including mine) as to when and how a "professional" can take action to prevent a potential tragedy. I am very aware of those laws.* I engaged in a heated debate with a mental health professional a few years ago regarding a person who demonstrated that he was both a danger to himself and to others, not just in my opinion but in the opinion of the police who strongly recommended that he be mentally evaluated. I was trying to get him some help because he had refused to get any voluntarily for a number of years. Without going through all the details, the psychotherapist who interviewed him ended up agreeing with me that the person *was* a potential danger both to himself and to others but "nothing could be done" as far as getting state help for him until he actually harmed himself or others. Stupid. I don't want to waste my time telling you all the problems that there are in pulling a "dangerous person" off the streets. Perhaps this paragraph from Wiki about the Florida regs will enlighten. These are just the regs for an examination, not for an inpatient treatment program. "Specific criteria must be met in order to initiate involuntary examination. Among those criteria are the following elements, that by themselves, do not qualify an individual as having met or meeting the criteria: "Reason to believe that the person has a mental illness; refusal of voluntary examination; the person is unable to determine whether examination is necessary. Criteria are not met simply because a person has mental illness, appears to have mental problems, takes psychiatric medication, or has an emotional outburst. Criteria are not met simply because a person refuses voluntary examination. Criteria are not met if there are family members or friends that will help prevent any potential and present threat of substantial harm. "The criteria, as stated in the statute, mentions a substantial likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious bodily harm in the near future. ("Substantial" means ample, considerable, firm or strong.) "To further clarify this point of substantial likelihood, there must be evidence of recent behavior to justify the substantial likelihood of serious bodily harm in the near future. Moments in the past, when an individual may have considered harming themselves or another, do not qualify the individual as meeting the criteria. ("Near" means close, short, or draws near.)" And then there is the challenge of treatment, for which there is a shortage of funds, facilities, and providers. It will take massive efforts to turn this around. It needs to be done. But...I doubt it will. |
AR-15 rifles
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 17:01:58 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please hear me out and give it consideration. I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges. They cannot be removed from the range. Owners should be required to store the rifles *at* the range when not using them. I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also be used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the people that do this seem to have a fascination with military type assault weapons. It's not a 2nd Amendment thing. It's a mental attitude and perception thing and it needs to be addressed. As a country, we need to do something, not just talk about it like a bunch of politicians. And contrary to Harry's claims, mental health professionals need to pay closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report anyone who even remotely appears to be a potential threat. The mental health people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to be of "no danger to himself or others." He then went out with an AR-15 and killed 17 people, most of them children. Are you really saying any box, magazine fed SA auto? Also you are showing how much you are affected by the Acela corridor bubble. How about that guy in Wyoming who is nowhere near a range but he can shoot in the forest behind his house? This is where an old states rights guy like me can compromise. If you are living in Manhattan or Boston, it makes perfect sense that you store your gun where you shoot it, assuming home defense is a throw away right. If that is what law you want, go for it. Just don't get the idea this should be a federal law. Everyone still seems to avoid the fact that this is a kid problem, not a gun problem. When I was in K-12 lots of kids had easy access to guns. We were hunting at 14 and this was within a mile of the DC line, not wyoming. Nobody shot anyone. It was not even in our wildest scope of thought. |
AR-15 rifles
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 17:58:42 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 2/21/2018 5:26 PM, John H. wrote: On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 17:01:58 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please hear me out and give it consideration. I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges. They cannot be removed from the range. Owners should be required to store the rifles *at* the range when not using them. I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also be used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the people that do this seem to have a fascination with military type assault weapons. It's not a 2nd Amendment thing. It's a mental attitude and perception thing and it needs to be addressed. As a country, we need to do something, not just talk about it like a bunch of politicians. And contrary to Harry's claims, mental health professionals need to pay closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report anyone who even remotely appears to be a potential threat. The mental health people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to be of "no danger to himself or others." He then went out with an AR-15 and killed 17 people, most of them children. If that much infringement is to occur, then I'd say just outlaw the sale of the damn things. If folks want to shoot them, rent them from the range and shoot the hell out of them. The range I use will rent any rifle or pistol in their rental selection, and it's a good selection, for $10. And, the weapons can be exchanged for other weapons at no extra charge. I don't think that will stop the shootings as about 8 million of them have already been sold. But, it would make the anti-gun crowd happy. I would even go along with raising the buying age of the 'assault style' firearms to 30 years old. I was really impressed watching the meeting Trump had with kids who were in the school when the shooting occurred and some parents of those killed. Nobody was crying out to ban guns. Many ideas were presented and discussed. The only person I disagreed with was the mental health professional who ignored the reality of the situations and promoted more "help" (funding) for those with issues. Other ideas ranged from training and arming volunteer teachers and administrators who could respond quickly while waiting the typical 5 to 7 minutes for the police to arrive. (all the killing in Florida took place in 7 minutes). Others, like me, think a ban or semi-ban on military type rifles should be considered. But the most impressive thing was it was a civil discussion with respect for those with different views. Oh ... and Trump himself did an outstanding job. I don't recall any previous president taking the time as he did to listen, ask questions and solicit their ideas and views. He was visibly moved by some of the comments. The jerks we have in Congress could learn something by seeing how these young people handled themselves. Did you see the story about the high school in Indiana that is actually taking real defensive precautions. They have marked out the safe zones on the floor where you are safe from someone shooting from the hall, the doors can be locked remotely, there is a **** load of surveillance, linked to the cops, the teachers carry panic fobs and they have smoke cannons in the hall that the cops can control for a dynamic entry. |
AR-15 rifles
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 18:27:49 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: The mental health treatment issues are far more complex than "reporting" someone who might pose a danger. But if they don't get "reported" they won't get any treatment, will they? I really think the problem is deeper but right now it is not being addressed at all. |
AR-15 rifles
On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 21:33:51 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 2/21/18 8:39 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 2/21/2018 6:27 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 2/21/18 5:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please hear me out and give it consideration. I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges.* They cannot be removed from the range.* Owners should be required to store the rifles *at* the range when not using them. I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also be used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the people that do this seem to have a fascination with military type assault weapons. It's not a 2nd Amendment thing.* It's a mental attitude and perception thing and it needs to be addressed.* As a country, we need to do something, not just talk about it like a bunch of politicians. And contrary to Harry's claims,* mental health professionals need to pay closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report anyone who even remotely appears to be a potential threat.* The mental health people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to be of "no danger to himself or others."** He then went out with an AR-15 and killed 17 people, most of them children. The mental health treatment issues are far more complex than "reporting" someone who might pose a danger. Yes Harry.* You've said that before.* Meanwhile, 17 people were killed a week ago in a high school after mental health professionals determined Cruz was not a "danger". You are sounding like those you complain about. "Nothing can be done". You've cited the laws in most states (including mine) as to when and how a "professional" can take action to prevent a potential tragedy. I am very aware of those laws.* I engaged in a heated debate with a mental health professional a few years ago regarding a person who demonstrated that he was both a danger to himself and to others, not just in my opinion but in the opinion of the police who strongly recommended that he be mentally evaluated. I was trying to get him some help because he had refused to get any voluntarily for a number of years. Without going through all the details, the psychotherapist who interviewed him ended up agreeing with me that the person *was* a potential danger both to himself and to others but "nothing could be done" as far as getting state help for him until he actually harmed himself or others. Stupid. I don't want to waste my time telling you all the problems that there are in pulling a "dangerous person" off the streets. Perhaps this paragraph from Wiki about the Florida regs will enlighten. These are just the regs for an examination, not for an inpatient treatment program. "Specific criteria must be met in order to initiate involuntary examination. Among those criteria are the following elements, that by themselves, do not qualify an individual as having met or meeting the criteria: "Reason to believe that the person has a mental illness; refusal of voluntary examination; the person is unable to determine whether examination is necessary. Criteria are not met simply because a person has mental illness, appears to have mental problems, takes psychiatric medication, or has an emotional outburst. Criteria are not met simply because a person refuses voluntary examination. Criteria are not met if there are family members or friends that will help prevent any potential and present threat of substantial harm. "The criteria, as stated in the statute, mentions a substantial likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious bodily harm in the near future. ("Substantial" means ample, considerable, firm or strong.) "To further clarify this point of substantial likelihood, there must be evidence of recent behavior to justify the substantial likelihood of serious bodily harm in the near future. Moments in the past, when an individual may have considered harming themselves or another, do not qualify the individual as meeting the criteria. ("Near" means close, short, or draws near.)" And then there is the challenge of treatment, for which there is a shortage of funds, facilities, and providers. It will take massive efforts to turn this around. It needs to be done. But...I doubt it will. I have been trying to say this for years and you always tell me I am wrong. The other side of it is even if you do get someone "baker acted" the chances that they can talk their way out the next morning is better than 50:50 and the more often they get hauled in, the better they get in getting out. If a person can act lucid for 20 minutes, off they go. It is still clear we have more of a mental illness problem than a gun problem., The shootings are just a symptom of a bigger problem. What makes a kid want to go kill a bunch of his fellow students? The same can be said for adults. Why do people think this is a solution for any problem? Until we answer those questions we will just be playing Whack a Mole with every way to kill someone. |
AR-15 rifles
On 2/21/2018 9:33 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/21/18 8:39 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 2/21/2018 6:27 PM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 2/21/18 5:01 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please hear me out and give it consideration. I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges.* They cannot be removed from the range.* Owners should be required to store the rifles *at* the range when not using them. I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also be used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the people that do this seem to have a fascination with military type assault weapons. It's not a 2nd Amendment thing.* It's a mental attitude and perception thing and it needs to be addressed.* As a country, we need to do something, not just talk about it like a bunch of politicians. And contrary to Harry's claims,* mental health professionals need to pay closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report anyone who even remotely appears to be a potential threat.* The mental health people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to be of "no danger to himself or others."** He then went out with an AR-15 and killed 17 people, most of them children. The mental health treatment issues are far more complex than "reporting" someone who might pose a danger. Yes Harry.* You've said that before.* Meanwhile, 17 people were killed a week ago in a high school after mental health professionals determined Cruz was not a "danger". You are sounding like those you complain about. "Nothing can be done". You've cited the laws in most states (including mine) as to when and how a "professional" can take action to prevent a potential tragedy. I am very aware of those laws.* I engaged in a heated debate with a mental health professional a few years ago regarding a person who demonstrated that he was both a danger to himself and to others, not just in my opinion but in the opinion of the police who strongly recommended that he be mentally evaluated. I was trying to get him some help because he had refused to get any voluntarily for a number of years. Without going through all the details, the psychotherapist who interviewed him ended up agreeing with me that the person *was* a potential danger both to himself and to others but "nothing could be done" as far as getting state help for him until he actually harmed himself or others. Stupid. I don't want to waste my time telling you all the problems that there are in pulling a "dangerous person" off the streets. Perhaps this paragraph from Wiki about the Florida regs will enlighten. These are just the regs for an examination, not for an inpatient treatment program. "Specific criteria must be met in order to initiate involuntary examination. Among those criteria are the following elements, that by themselves, do not qualify an individual as having met or meeting the criteria: "Reason to believe that the person has a mental illness; refusal of voluntary examination; the person is unable to determine whether examination is necessary. Criteria are not met simply because a person has mental illness, appears to have mental problems, takes psychiatric medication, or has an emotional outburst. Criteria are not met simply because a person refuses voluntary examination. Criteria are not met if there are family members or friends that will help prevent any potential and present threat of substantial harm. "The criteria, as stated in the statute, mentions a substantial likelihood that without care or treatment the person will cause serious bodily harm in the near future. ("Substantial" means ample, considerable, firm or strong.) "To further clarify this point of substantial likelihood, there must be evidence of recent behavior to justify the substantial likelihood of serious bodily harm in the near future. Moments in the past, when an individual may have considered harming themselves or another, do not qualify the individual as meeting the criteria. ("Near" means close, short, or draws near.)" *And then there is the challenge of treatment, for which there is a shortage of funds, facilities, and providers. It will take massive efforts to turn this around. It needs to be done. But...I doubt it will. It can start by changing the regs. John's point was a good one. "Reporting" is not the same as initiating mandatory treatment. If you are driving down the road and notice the car in front of you is weaving back and forth, putting other drivers or pedestrians in danger and you suspect the driver of the weaving vehicle is drunk as a skunk do you ignore it and hope he doesn't kill someone or do you call the police to notify them of the danger? My frustration is that it often takes a tragedy to occur before anything can be done. Prevention is far more effective than debates. Oh, and also, unfortunately I think that *some* in the mental health profession have a self serving motivation to keep what they do private. Not saying all ... but it's a business too. |
AR-15 rifles
|
AR-15 rifles
|
AR-15 rifles
|
AR-15 rifles
|
AR-15 rifles
|
AR-15 rifles
7:57 AMKeyser Soze On 2/21/18 9:51 PM, wrote: Everyone still seems to avoid the fact that this is a kid problem, not a gun problem. When I was in K-12 lots of kids had easy access to guns. We were hunting at 14 and this was within a mile of the DC line, not wyoming. Nobody shot anyone. It was not even in our wildest scope of thought. It is a societal problem, exacerbated by the easy availability of most high-powered firearms. Even in Maryland, there is no state background check for a long gun, or even a waiting period. You just have to be 21. And, of course, a long gun sale from one private owner to another in this state doesn't require any state paperwork. Tell you a secret. I got rid of my "high-powered" rifles, the Colt and the Ruger, because they bored me. Basically, my target shooting is limited to 100 yards unless I want to take a 2-1/2 hour drive out to the Shenandoah. I don't need superfast, superloud .223 rounds and their expense and noise to hit easily hit dead .targets at 100 yards or less. A .22LR, a 9 mm, or a .357 MAG will do that job nicely. ——- When was a .357 cheap and quiet to shoot? |
AR-15 rifles
On 2/22/18 9:22 AM, Tim wrote:
7:57 AMKeyser Soze On 2/21/18 9:51 PM, wrote: Everyone still seems to avoid the fact that this is a kid problem, not a gun problem. When I was in K-12 lots of kids had easy access to guns. We were hunting at 14 and this was within a mile of the DC line, not wyoming. Nobody shot anyone. It was not even in our wildest scope of thought. It is a societal problem, exacerbated by the easy availability of most high-powered firearms. Even in Maryland, there is no state background check for a long gun, or even a waiting period. You just have to be 21. And, of course, a long gun sale from one private owner to another in this state doesn't require any state paperwork. Tell you a secret. I got rid of my "high-powered" rifles, the Colt and the Ruger, because they bored me. Basically, my target shooting is limited to 100 yards unless I want to take a 2-1/2 hour drive out to the Shenandoah. I don't need superfast, superloud .223 rounds and their expense and noise to hit easily hit dead .targets at 100 yards or less. A .22LR, a 9 mm, or a .357 MAG will do that job nicely. ——- When was a .357 cheap and quiet to shoot? A .357 MAG/.38 Special rifle like the one I have can be suppressed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1LrRIQzMHU&t=143s I have a quantity of good .357 MAG brass ammo for which I paid 21 cents a round some years ago when equivalent quality .223 was between 28 and 31 cents a round. Decent .38 Special ammo is about 16 cents a round. I've got a suppressor on order that should work with my 9mm rifle and ..357 MAG rifle. Of course, my .357 MAG revolver can't be suppressed, but I don't take it to the range that often. It's my home defense firearm. As in, home invader breaks in, comes after us, no way to escape, "Bang, you're dead." |
AR-15 rifles
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 2/22/18 9:22 AM, Tim wrote: 7:57 AMKeyser Soze On 2/21/18 9:51 PM, wrote: Everyone still seems to avoid the fact that this is a kid problem, not a gun problem. When I was in K-12 lots of kids had easy access to guns. We were hunting at 14 and this was within a mile of the DC line, not wyoming. Nobody shot anyone. It was not even in our wildest scope of thought. It is a societal problem, exacerbated by the easy availability of most high-powered firearms. Even in Maryland, there is no state background check for a long gun, or even a waiting period. You just have to be 21. And, of course, a long gun sale from one private owner to another in this state doesn't require any state paperwork. Tell you a secret. I got rid of my "high-powered" rifles, the Colt and the Ruger, because they bored me. Basically, my target shooting is limited to 100 yards unless I want to take a 2-1/2 hour drive out to the Shenandoah. I don't need superfast, superloud .223 rounds and their expense and noise to hit easily hit dead .targets at 100 yards or less. A .22LR, a 9 mm, or a .357 MAG will do that job nicely. ??- When was a .357 cheap and quiet to shoot? A .357 MAG/.38 Special rifle like the one I have can be suppressed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1LrRIQzMHU&t=143s I have a quantity of good .357 MAG brass ammo for which I paid 21 cents a round some years ago when equivalent quality .223 was between 28 and 31 cents a round. Decent .38 Special ammo is about 16 cents a round. I've got a suppressor on order that should work with my 9mm rifle and .357 MAG rifle. Of course, my .357 MAG revolver can't be suppressed, but I don't take it to the range that often. It's my home defense firearm. As in, home invader breaks in, comes after us, no way to escape, "Bang, you're dead." The world would be a safer place if you'd stick to Googling poetry rather than fooling around with guns. -- x ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
AR-15 rifles
|
AR-15 rifles
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 08:57:24 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 2/21/18 9:51 PM, wrote: Everyone still seems to avoid the fact that this is a kid problem, not a gun problem. When I was in K-12 lots of kids had easy access to guns. We were hunting at 14 and this was within a mile of the DC line, not wyoming. Nobody shot anyone. It was not even in our wildest scope of thought. It is a societal problem, exacerbated by the easy availability of most high-powered firearms. Even in Maryland, there is no state background check for a long gun, or even a waiting period. You just have to be 21. And, of course, a long gun sale from one private owner to another in this state doesn't require any state paperwork. Tell you a secret. I got rid of my "high-powered" rifles, the Colt and the Ruger, because they bored me. Basically, my target shooting is limited to 100 yards unless I want to take a 2-1/2 hour drive out to the Shenandoah. I don't need superfast, superloud .223 rounds and their expense and noise to hit easily hit dead .targets at 100 yards or less. A .22LR, a 9 mm, or a .357 MAG will do that job nicely. That is simply rationalizing. Plenty of mass shootings have happened with 9mms, usually pistols but your assault rifle would do just fine. The "military style" thing is really a red herring. Your CZ is certainly "military style" and they will sell you a tactical style stock for just about anything. You can certainly make a very "military" looking weapon out of a Mini14 or even a 10-22. |
AR-15 rifles
On 2/22/2018 11:18 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:09:45 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/21/2018 9:51 PM, wrote: On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 17:01:58 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please hear me out and give it consideration. I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges. They cannot be removed from the range. Owners should be required to store the rifles *at* the range when not using them. I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also be used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the people that do this seem to have a fascination with military type assault weapons. It's not a 2nd Amendment thing. It's a mental attitude and perception thing and it needs to be addressed. As a country, we need to do something, not just talk about it like a bunch of politicians. And contrary to Harry's claims, mental health professionals need to pay closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report anyone who even remotely appears to be a potential threat. The mental health people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to be of "no danger to himself or others." He then went out with an AR-15 and killed 17 people, most of them children. Are you really saying any box, magazine fed SA auto? Also you are showing how much you are affected by the Acela corridor bubble. How about that guy in Wyoming who is nowhere near a range but he can shoot in the forest behind his house? This is where an old states rights guy like me can compromise. If you are living in Manhattan or Boston, it makes perfect sense that you store your gun where you shoot it, assuming home defense is a throw away right. If that is what law you want, go for it. Just don't get the idea this should be a federal law. Everyone still seems to avoid the fact that this is a kid problem, not a gun problem. When I was in K-12 lots of kids had easy access to guns. We were hunting at 14 and this was within a mile of the DC line, not wyoming. Nobody shot anyone. It was not even in our wildest scope of thought. No, I am not talking about any box, magazine fed SA auto rifle used for hunting or recreational target practice. I am talking about the models that are basically copies of military style weapons. For some reason people, including some mentally unstable people have a fascination with them as evidenced by the number of times they are used in these mass shootings. Maybe it's because we've see newscasts and videos of military personnel in Iraq or Afghanistan using them on a daily basis for the last 17 years or maybe it's because we see police departments being supplied with surplus military weapons and gear. It's a cultural thing, not a gun thing. Think back. When you were a kid how many policemen did you see walking around in helmets, bullet proof vests and carrying a military style weapon? You didn't. Cops wore blue uniforms, twirling a night stick and carrying an inconspicuous sidearm. Again you are describing a mental problem. Maybe we should disarm Hollywood. If you think it is a gun problem, any box fed SA is pretty much like any other. They pretty much all take hi cap magazines. OTOH people have caused plenty of damage with less capable fire arms. The guy who shot up the Navy Yard used a pump shotgun. Ft Hood was a handgun. Why are the AR-15 style rifles the most popular weapon being sold in the USA today? |
AR-15 rifles
On 2/22/18 11:24 AM, wrote:
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 08:57:24 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: On 2/21/18 9:51 PM, wrote: Everyone still seems to avoid the fact that this is a kid problem, not a gun problem. When I was in K-12 lots of kids had easy access to guns. We were hunting at 14 and this was within a mile of the DC line, not wyoming. Nobody shot anyone. It was not even in our wildest scope of thought. It is a societal problem, exacerbated by the easy availability of most high-powered firearms. Even in Maryland, there is no state background check for a long gun, or even a waiting period. You just have to be 21. And, of course, a long gun sale from one private owner to another in this state doesn't require any state paperwork. Tell you a secret. I got rid of my "high-powered" rifles, the Colt and the Ruger, because they bored me. Basically, my target shooting is limited to 100 yards unless I want to take a 2-1/2 hour drive out to the Shenandoah. I don't need superfast, superloud .223 rounds and their expense and noise to hit easily hit dead .targets at 100 yards or less. A .22LR, a 9 mm, or a .357 MAG will do that job nicely. That is simply rationalizing. Plenty of mass shootings have happened with 9mms, usually pistols but your assault rifle would do just fine. The "military style" thing is really a red herring. Your CZ is certainly "military style" and they will sell you a tactical style stock for just about anything. You can certainly make a very "military" looking weapon out of a Mini14 or even a 10-22. What part is "rationalizing"? The AR-15 is the school shoot up weapon of choice. Any idiot can buy a long gun privately in many parts of this country without any background check or waiting period. I didn't mention "military style." You did. Yes, I am sure some moron can shoot up a school with a CZ Scorpion, but a $900 9mm rifle is not a weapon of choice for that sort of "fun." |
AR-15 rifles
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 09:03:02 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 2/21/18 10:17 PM, wrote: On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 18:27:49 -0500, Keyser Soze wrote: The mental health treatment issues are far more complex than "reporting" someone who might pose a danger. But if they don't get "reported" they won't get any treatment, will they? I really think the problem is deeper but right now it is not being addressed at all. Typically, the reports go to the police. If the cops send someone out to check up on a person, the odds are unless the person is acting really wild and irrational, they'll just leave. If they do take someone in, there is the problem of "where do we take him/her?" If there is a facility other than the county jail, a judge typically will release that person in short order. Dramatic changes in rules and regulations need to be made on the state level as part of the way to address this problem. It needs to be done, and it probably will take a long, long time. That's one of the reasons why I say the issues are "far more complex" than reporting. You must have actually learned something since you were arguing exactly the opposite with me just a few months ago. Typically here, a Baker Act person goes to a county mental health facility. If they qualify for medicaid or have better than average insurance and they are willing to go, they might get put in some kind of commercial rehab since most of these people also have some kind of substance abuse problems along with being nuts. If they don't do that, most are home by lunch time the next day. Laws and court decisions in the 70s made involuntary commitment a very steep hill to climb. I have no problem keeping guns away from these people but the elephant in that room is they can usually get a gun from the same people who sell them their illegal drugs. Evidently a stolen gun is as good as money when you are trading for crack. |
AR-15 rifles
On 2/22/18 11:25 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 2/22/2018 11:18 AM, wrote: On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:09:45 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/21/2018 9:51 PM, wrote: On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 17:01:58 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please hear me out and give it consideration. I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges.* They cannot be removed from the range.* Owners should be required to store the rifles *at* the range when not using them. I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also be used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the people that do this seem to have a fascination with military type assault weapons. It's not a 2nd Amendment thing.* It's a mental attitude and perception thing and it needs to be addressed.* As a country, we need to do something, not just talk about it like a bunch of politicians. And contrary to Harry's claims,* mental health professionals need to pay closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report anyone who even remotely appears to be a potential threat.* The mental health people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to be of "no danger to himself or others."** He then went out with an AR-15 and killed 17 people, most of them children. Are you really saying any box, magazine fed SA auto? Also you are showing how much you are affected by the Acela corridor bubble. How about that guy in Wyoming who is nowhere near a range but he can shoot in the forest behind his house? This is where an old states rights guy like me can compromise. If you are living in Manhattan or Boston, it makes perfect sense that you store your gun where you shoot it, assuming home defense is a throw away right. If that is what law you want, go for it. Just don't get the idea this should be a federal law. Everyone still seems to avoid the fact that this is a kid problem, not a gun problem. When I was in K-12 lots of kids had easy access to guns. We were hunting at 14 and this was within a mile of the DC line, not wyoming. Nobody shot anyone. It was not even in our wildest scope of thought. No, I am not talking about any box, magazine fed SA auto rifle used for hunting or recreational target practice. I am talking about the models that are basically copies of military style weapons.* For some reason people, including some mentally unstable people have a fascination with them as evidenced by the number of times they are used in these mass shootings.* Maybe it's because we've see newscasts and videos of military personnel in Iraq or Afghanistan using them on a daily basis for the last 17 years* or maybe it's because we see police departments being supplied with surplus military weapons and gear.* It's a cultural thing, not a gun thing. Think back.* When you were a kid how many policemen did you see walking around in helmets, bullet proof vests and carrying a military style weapon?** You didn't.* Cops wore blue uniforms, twirling a night stick and carrying an inconspicuous sidearm. Again you are describing a mental problem. Maybe we should disarm Hollywood. If you think it is a gun problem, any box fed SA is pretty much like any other. They pretty much all take hi cap magazines. OTOH people have caused plenty of damage with less capable fire arms. The guy who shot up the Navy Yard used a pump shotgun. Ft Hood was a handgun. Why are the AR-15 style rifles the most popular weapon being sold in the USA today? Many reasons, but one is that for a high-powered easy to customize semi-auto rifle that shoots a high speed round, they are...cheap when new and even cheaper used, and in many states you can buy one privately without any background check. |
AR-15 rifles
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 06:22:02 -0800 (PST), Tim
wrote: When was a .357 cheap and quiet to shoot? Good question and nobody would say that was a round that was not very deadly. I will admit not many box magazine guns will shoot it tho. |
AR-15 rifles
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 09:47:45 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: A .357 MAG/.38 Special rifle like the one I have can be suppressed: Maybe if you are shooting sub sonic .38 |
AR-15 rifles
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 2/22/18 11:25 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 2/22/2018 11:18 AM, wrote: On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:09:45 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/21/2018 9:51 PM, wrote: On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 17:01:58 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please hear me out and give it consideration. I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges. They cannot be removed from the range. Owners should be required to store the rifles *at* the range when not using them. I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also be used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the people that do this seem to have a fascination with military type assault weapons. It's not a 2nd Amendment thing. It's a mental attitude and perception thing and it needs to be addressed. As a country, we need to do something, not just talk about it like a bunch of politicians. And contrary to Harry's claims, mental health professionals need to pay closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report anyone who even remotely appears to be a potential threat. The mental health people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to be of "no danger to himself or others." He then went out with an AR-15 and killed 17 people, most of them children. Are you really saying any box, magazine fed SA auto? Also you are showing how much you are affected by the Acela corridor bubble. How about that guy in Wyoming who is nowhere near a range but he can shoot in the forest behind his house? This is where an old states rights guy like me can compromise. If you are living in Manhattan or Boston, it makes perfect sense that you store your gun where you shoot it, assuming home defense is a throw away right. If that is what law you want, go for it. Just don't get the idea this should be a federal law. Everyone still seems to avoid the fact that this is a kid problem, not a gun problem. When I was in K-12 lots of kids had easy access to guns. We were hunting at 14 and this was within a mile of the DC line, not wyoming. Nobody shot anyone. It was not even in our wildest scope of thought. No, I am not talking about any box, magazine fed SA auto rifle used for hunting or recreational target practice. I am talking about the models that are basically copies of military style weapons. For some reason people, including some mentally unstable people have a fascination with them as evidenced by the number of times they are used in these mass shootings. Maybe it's because we've see newscasts and videos of military personnel in Iraq or Afghanistan using them on a daily basis for the last 17 years or maybe it's because we see police departments being supplied with surplus military weapons and gear. It's a cultural thing, not a gun thing. Think back. When you were a kid how many policemen did you see walking around in helmets, bullet proof vests and carrying a military style weapon? You didn't. Cops wore blue uniforms, twirling a night stick and carrying an inconspicuous sidearm. Again you are describing a mental problem. Maybe we should disarm Hollywood. If you think it is a gun problem, any box fed SA is pretty much like any other. They pretty much all take hi cap magazines. OTOH people have caused plenty of damage with less capable fire arms. The guy who shot up the Navy Yard used a pump shotgun. Ft Hood was a handgun. Why are the AR-15 style rifles the most popular weapon being sold in the USA today? Many reasons, but one is that for a high-powered easy to customize semi-auto rifle that shoots a high speed round, they are...cheap when new and even cheaper used, and in many states you can buy one privately without any background check. Didn't you put one of those together? Do you still have it? -- x ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
AR-15 rifles
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 09:47:45 -0500, Keyser Soze
wrote: Of course, my .357 MAG revolver can't be suppressed, but I don't take it to the range that often. It's my home defense firearm. As in, home invader breaks in, comes after us, no way to escape, "Bang, you're dead." The rest of your life you will be saying "huh" a lot. Do you have any idea how loud a .357 is inside the house? My ex used to complain when I was shooting hot rounds at the other end of the house, doors closed and a floor down. I really got a giggle about Dirty Harry shooting his 29 Smith in that stadium tunnel. His ear drums would pop and his nose would be bleeding. When we fired my buddy's 29 in the basement it was like getting hit in the face with a wet towel, pictures came off the wall and that was paneling, carpet and more open area, not concrete. This was ear plugs and muffs sort of thing. |
AR-15 rifles
Mr. Luddite
- show quoted text - Why are the AR-15 style rifles the most popular weapon being sold in the USA today? ...... Because they “play the part”. Light and accurate. Though I consider my Steyr AUG a superior weapon, nobody wants one of those Star Wars looking things. But the ease of disassembly and barrel interchange is attractive if you wanna be “tactical”. I like it... But the AR is “Made in USA “ and the platform for a host of different cartridges. And they look way cool compared to an AK-47/74 Anyhow, back to the Steyr... https://sofrep.com/68224/steyr-aug-m...odular-rifles/ |
AR-15 rifles
On 2/22/18 11:44 AM, justan wrote:
Keyser Soze Wrote in message: On 2/22/18 11:25 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 2/22/2018 11:18 AM, wrote: On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 07:09:45 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 2/21/2018 9:51 PM, wrote: On Wed, 21 Feb 2018 17:01:58 -0500, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: Before the 2nd Amendment advocates jump all over me for this, please hear me out and give it consideration. I think AR-15 and other "military like" rifles that resemble assault rifles should be allowed but only at licensed shooting ranges. They cannot be removed from the range. Owners should be required to store the rifles *at* the range when not using them. I realize other types of guns, cars, trucks, knives, etc. can also be used in these mass killings in schools but for some reason the people that do this seem to have a fascination with military type assault weapons. It's not a 2nd Amendment thing. It's a mental attitude and perception thing and it needs to be addressed. As a country, we need to do something, not just talk about it like a bunch of politicians. And contrary to Harry's claims, mental health professionals need to pay closer attention to their patients and not hesitate to report anyone who even remotely appears to be a potential threat. The mental health people at the out-patient facility who treated Cruz reported him to be of "no danger to himself or others." He then went out with an AR-15 and killed 17 people, most of them children. Are you really saying any box, magazine fed SA auto? Also you are showing how much you are affected by the Acela corridor bubble. How about that guy in Wyoming who is nowhere near a range but he can shoot in the forest behind his house? This is where an old states rights guy like me can compromise. If you are living in Manhattan or Boston, it makes perfect sense that you store your gun where you shoot it, assuming home defense is a throw away right. If that is what law you want, go for it. Just don't get the idea this should be a federal law. Everyone still seems to avoid the fact that this is a kid problem, not a gun problem. When I was in K-12 lots of kids had easy access to guns. We were hunting at 14 and this was within a mile of the DC line, not wyoming. Nobody shot anyone. It was not even in our wildest scope of thought. No, I am not talking about any box, magazine fed SA auto rifle used for hunting or recreational target practice. I am talking about the models that are basically copies of military style weapons. For some reason people, including some mentally unstable people have a fascination with them as evidenced by the number of times they are used in these mass shootings. Maybe it's because we've see newscasts and videos of military personnel in Iraq or Afghanistan using them on a daily basis for the last 17 years or maybe it's because we see police departments being supplied with surplus military weapons and gear. It's a cultural thing, not a gun thing. Think back. When you were a kid how many policemen did you see walking around in helmets, bullet proof vests and carrying a military style weapon? You didn't. Cops wore blue uniforms, twirling a night stick and carrying an inconspicuous sidearm. Again you are describing a mental problem. Maybe we should disarm Hollywood. If you think it is a gun problem, any box fed SA is pretty much like any other. They pretty much all take hi cap magazines. OTOH people have caused plenty of damage with less capable fire arms. The guy who shot up the Navy Yard used a pump shotgun. Ft Hood was a handgun. Why are the AR-15 style rifles the most popular weapon being sold in the USA today? Many reasons, but one is that for a high-powered easy to customize semi-auto rifle that shoots a high speed round, they are...cheap when new and even cheaper used, and in many states you can buy one privately without any background check. Didn't you put one of those together? Do you still have it? I lightly modified a Colt HBAR with a different handguard, gas block, and an ambi safety, but I traded that rifle in years ago to an FFL dealer. My changes did not change the function of the firing mechanisms. |
AR-15 rifles
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 2/21/18 9:51 PM, wrote: Everyone still seems to avoid the fact that this is a kid problem, not a gun problem. When I was in K-12 lots of kids had easy access to guns. We were hunting at 14 and this was within a mile of the DC line, not wyoming. Nobody shot anyone. It was not even in our wildest scope of thought. It is a societal problem, exacerbated by the easy availability of most high-powered firearms. Even in Maryland, there is no state background check for a long gun, or even a waiting period. You just have to be 21. And, of course, a long gun sale from one private owner to another in this state doesn't require any state paperwork. Tell you a secret. I got rid of my "high-powered" rifles, the Colt and the Ruger, because they bored me. Basically, my target shooting is limited to 100 yards unless I want to take a 2-1/2 hour drive out to the Shenandoah. I don't need superfast, superloud .223 rounds and their expense and noise to hit easily hit dead .targets at 100 yards or less. A .22LR, a 9 mm, or a .357 MAG will do that job nicely. Years ago, there was not a waiting period for long guns in California. There is now. I remember getting my Remington 1100 at San Francisco Gun Exchange, On 2nd street, just off market. Bought the 1100, they wrapped it in brown paper, and I walked out the door. Yes, there were actual gun stores in San Francisco years ago. My Ithaca 20 gauge, from Monkey Wards, the guy tossed in box of ammo. As Greg points out. Is a cultural problem these days. Same culture problem that has violent to others and women as a main theme. Same cultural problem where doing good in school is selling out. How many of those shootings in Chicago are by a legally owned firearm? |
AR-15 rifles
On Thu, 22 Feb 2018 11:25:24 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Why are the AR-15 style rifles the most popular weapon being sold in the USA today? Cheap, reliable, customizable, lots of cheap ammo and great marketing. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:11 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com