Shooting in El Paso

[MartyClark]

Nope, not the civilian version. Fully auto guns are almost impossible to legally obtain in the US.

I'm no expert and haven't fired an M16 since basic training at Fort Polk in 1972. Isn't it a simple matter for a gunsmith to convert an AR15 to a fully automatic weapon?

[mph]

I'm no expert and haven't fired an M16 since basic training at Fort Polk in 1972. Isn't it a simple matter for a gunsmith to convert an AR15 to a fully automatic weapon?

I’m no gunsmith either but my understanding is it isn’t that difficult for someone who can do basic milling work—a matter of some modifications to the lower and installing parts that are legally obtainable. But you can get a 10 year prison sentence for modifying an semiautomatic weapon to make it fully automatic. Same sentence for possessing or transferring a modified weapon to another person. I’m also not aware of any mass shooting conducted with such a weapon, although the Vegas shooter used a bump stock which causes a semiautomatic rifle to fire at much faster rate.

[mattman91]

I'm no expert and haven't fired an M16 since basic training at Fort Polk in 1972. Isn't it a simple matter for a gunsmith to convert an AR15 to a fully automatic weapon?

If they want to go to prison, sure.

[golfinesquire]

If they want to go to prison, sure.

Well when we are talking about mass shootings, we are talking about people who have already made the decision to be on the wrong side of the law, so . . .

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Well when we are talking about mass shootings, we are talking about people who have already made the decision to be on the wrong side of the law, so . . .

Yeah, prison isn't much of a deterrent when the only alternative is dying in the crossfire.

My gun knowledge is poor, but I can't see a rationalization for automatic weapons and recreational use.

[left_hook_lacey]

Well when we are talking about mass shootings, we are talking about people who have already made the decision to be on the wrong side of the law, so . . .

Right, which brings up the point of gun laws again. If a person is really willing to kill dozens of people and their selfusually), is "tougher gun laws" going to really stop them? So...

[jimsumner]

It's against the law to drive impaired by drugs or alcohol.

People drive impaired all the time and the consequences of that illegal behavior can be deadly.

Does that mean we shouldn't have laws against driving while impaired?

People speed, pass stopped school buses, do all kinds of dangerous, illegal things all the time.

But in most people's view points having laws against these dangerous behaviors lessons their likelihood and provides penalties against people who break them.

If we have laws against speeding, does that mean only criminals will speed?

Having stronger guns laws would not keep everyone from breaking them. But that isn't the same thing as saying they wouldn't keep some people from using them. It's a red herring to say that gun laws are useless unless they stop every violation of that law.

As is the slippery slope argument. I own an automobile, as do most people on this board, I assume. It is registered with the government. I had to pass a test to operate it. It is insured, as required by law. Should I wish to graduate to commercially driving a bus or a big rig, I would need additional clearance.

Yet, it has never once occurred to me that the government is going to take away my car.

If we wish to go down a slippery slope, let's go down this one. If the government cannot limit assault rifles or semi-assault guns, then can they limit anything? If the men in the black helicopters are going to come for your guns, well aren't they going to have helicopters? Does the second amendment guarantee the right to own a surface-to-air missile? How about an anti-tank weapon? Anti-personnel land mines?

Absurd you say? Well, please feel free to lay out the case for why any private citizen needs to own a weapon that can fire with the rapidity that we see all the time in the country. Hunting? Sports shooting? Protecting against home invasion? By whom, Attila the Hun? An AR-15 or any other semiautomatic gun is designed for the purpose of killing as many people as possible is as short a time as possible. It seems to me that limiting their availability is the least we can do.

I prefer to believe that the government can pursue its mandate to preserve public health by passing and enforcing rational gun-regulation policies without anyone coming to take away your guns.

[mattman91]

It's against the law to drive impaired by drugs or alcohol.

People drive impaired all the time and the consequences of that illegal behavior can be deadly.

Does that mean we shouldn't have laws against driving while impaired?

People speed, pass stopped school buses, do all kinds of dangerous, illegal things all the time.

But in most people's view points having laws against these dangerous behaviors lessons their likelihood and provides penalties against people who break them.

If we have laws against speeding, does that mean only criminals will speed?

Having stronger guns laws would not keep everyone from breaking them. But that isn't the same thing as saying they wouldn't keep some people from using them. It's a red herring to say that gun laws are useless unless they stop every violation of that law.

As is the slippery slope argument. I own an automobile, as do most people on this board, I assume. It is registered with the government. I had to pass a test to operate it. It is insured, as required by law. Should I wish to graduate to commercially driving a bus or a big rig, I would need additional clearance.

Yet, it has never once occurred to me that the government is going to take away my car.

If we wish to go down a slippery slope, let's go down this one. If the government cannot limit assault rifles or semi-assault guns, then can they limit anything? If the men in the black helicopters are going to come for your guns, well aren't they going to have helicopters? Does the second amendment guarantee the right to own a surface-to-air missile? How about an anti-tank weapon? Anti-personnel land mines?

Absurd you say? Well, please feel free to lay out the case for why any private citizen needs to own a weapon that can fire with the rapidity that we see all the time in the country. Hunting? Sports shooting? Protecting against home invasion? By whom, Attila the Hun? An AR-15 or any other semiautomatic gun is designed for the purpose of killing as many people as possible is as short a time as possible. It seems to me that limiting their availability is the least we can do.

I prefer to believe that the government can pursue its mandate to preserve public health by passing and enforcing rational gun-regulation policies without anyone coming to take away your guns.

I'm sorry, but this is wrong.

First of all, what do you mean by rapid-fire? One squeeze = one shot. I repeat this over and over because it matters.

Second, most of the guns that are manufactured now (and used for hunting, sports shooting, home invasion) are sem-automatic. VERY few are not. Semantics matter.

Sports shooting: I use mine for this. Many of my friends and family do as well. As a matter of fact, most people that have an AR-15 or AK-47 use them for this purpose. The AR-15 is the most popular platform of rifle for a reason.

Hunting: Plenty of people use an AR for hunting. They are very common for hunting wild boar in Arkansas, for example, and small game. Most people do not use them for deer or larger game. You know why? The caliber of the 5.56/223 is not large enough (often considered a varmint caliber)

calibers.jpg

Home Defense: A shotgun is probably best for this, but any gun is better than none.

[moonpie23]

hey, hey ....check this...i got it...


let's do NOTHING!!!! AGAIN...

[dudog84]

If they want to go to prison, sure.

That's not much of a deterrent when they're willing to go to Hell.

[CrazyNotCrazie]

I'm sorry, but this is wrong.

First of all, what do you mean by rapid-fire? One squeeze = one shot. I repeat this over and over because it matters.

Second, most of the guns that are manufactured now (and used for hunting, sports shooting, home invasion) are sem-automatic. VERY few are not. Semantics matter.

Sports shooting: I use mine for this. Many of my friends and family do as well. As a matter of fact, most people that have an AR-15 or AK-47 use them for this purpose. The AR-15 is the most popular platform of rifle for a reason.

Hunting: Plenty of people use an AR for hunting. They are very common for hunting wild boar in Arkansas, for example, and small game. Most people do not use them for deer or larger game. You know why? The caliber of the 5.56/223 is not large enough (often considered a varmint caliber)

calibers.jpg

Home Defense: A shotgun is probably best for this, but any gun is better than none.

OK. So MattMan91 and his buddies get their jollies and feel like really big men by shooting AR-15s and AK47s, so therefore, they should be legal. Perhaps you can find another way to amuse yourself? And if we make guns like these illegal and there is no change in the number of mass shootings and the number of people killed in mass shootings, you can send me a big "I told you so." We live in a society where sometimes we have to compromise our individual rights for the good of society. There is a significantly greater than zero chance that putting restrictions on guns that shoot a lot of bullets at once without needing to be reloaded (I don't know the technical term and don't really feel like being lectured on the semantics of different types of guns when you get my point) will make the world a slightly safer place. I think that is a fair trade.

Regarding home defense, I never understood the need to have a gun for this purpose. Do the math - what is the compound probability that a) someone is going to choose to try to break into your home of all the homes out there, b) they will try to do so when you are actually home and/or your neighbor will notice them doing so, c) you will have your wits about you enough to go get your gun and have it ready to shoot (because since you are a "responsible" gun owner, that gun of course will be locked away and unloaded), and d) you will be able to properly aim at the intruder and not accidentally take out your wife, child, dog, or the well-trained police officer who is coming to help you? Slim and none.

I am not saying totally eliminate guns. But I think, as someone said above, guns should be subject to restrictions at least similar to those required to drive a car (in my liberal circles, there is a great e-mail going around about the restrictions being the same as those being imposed on women trying to have abortions in certain states, but I won't go there). And the types available should be limited. You can still get your jollies, they just might not be as great. So go home and watch some videos of Zion playing last year or Coach K cutting down the nets in 2015 - that should hopefully get you the same high...

[BD80]

It's against the law to drive impaired by drugs or alcohol.

People drive impaired all the time and the consequences of that illegal behavior can be deadly.

Does that mean we shouldn't have laws against driving while impaired?

People speed, pass stopped school buses, do all kinds of dangerous, illegal things all the time.

But in most people's view points having laws against these dangerous behaviors lessons their likelihood and provides penalties against people who break them.

If we have laws against speeding, does that mean only criminals will speed?

Having stronger guns laws would not keep everyone from breaking them. But that isn't the same thing as saying they wouldn't keep some people from using them. It's a red herring to say that gun laws are useless unless they stop every violation of that law.

As is the slippery slope argument. I own an automobile, as do most people on this board, I assume. It is registered with the government. I had to pass a test to operate it. It is insured, as required by law. Should I wish to graduate to commercially driving a bus or a big rig, I would need additional clearance.

Yet, it has never once occurred to me that the government is going to take away my car.

If we wish to go down a slippery slope, let's go down this one. If the government cannot limit assault rifles or semi-assault guns, then can they limit anything? If the men in the black helicopters are going to come for your guns, well aren't they going to have helicopters? Does the second amendment guarantee the right to own a surface-to-air missile? How about an anti-tank weapon? Anti-personnel land mines?

Absurd you say? Well, please feel free to lay out the case for why any private citizen needs to own a weapon that can fire with the rapidity that we see all the time in the country. Hunting? Sports shooting? Protecting against home invasion? By whom, Attila the Hun? An AR-15 or any other semiautomatic gun is designed for the purpose of killing as many people as possible is as short a time as possible. It seems to me that limiting their availability is the least we can do.

I prefer to believe that the government can pursue its mandate to preserve public health by passing and enforcing rational gun-regulation policies without anyone coming to take away your guns.

Not really an apt comparison.

The apt comparison is that since cars are used to kill people, we should more tightly control the sale and ownership of cars (rental would be unthinkable!), and particularly regulate those capable of greater casualties (SUVs? muscle cars?).

There are laws against using cars or guns in careless or reckless or intentional manners which harm others.

What is lost in all of this is the 40 victims of gun violence in Chicago in just the past weekend! Why is there no hue and cry over this? An emergency room in a major hospital closed due to the overload! It just doesn't fit the narrative. It would be contrary the politics of those pushing gun control. If we are truly concerned about gun violence, Chicago should be front and center, as there are more gun fatalities there than in all "mass shootings" nationwide. Pretty sure Chicago is up there in terms of gun control FWIW. So, what's next?

I don't oppose restricting large capacity magazines. I do resent all of the money and legislative time and effort wasted in trying to legislate a right clearly granted by the constitution. There is no constitutional grant of the right to bear cars.

Sorry if I'm venting a little frustration. I respect the fellow members of this board enough to have a reasonable discussion. What is going on in popular media and social media makes me bang my head slowly against a wall.

[mattman91]

OK. So MattMan91 and his buddies get their jollies and feel like really big men by shooting AR-15s and AK47s, so therefore, they should be legal. Perhaps you can find another way to amuse yourself? And if we make guns like these illegal and there is no change in the number of mass shootings and the number of people killed in mass shootings, you can send me a big "I told you so." We live in a society where sometimes we have to compromise our individual rights for the good of society. There is a significantly greater than zero chance that putting restrictions on guns that shoot a lot of bullets at once without needing to be reloaded (I don't know the technical term and don't really feel like being lectured on the semantics of different types of guns when you get my point) will make the world a slightly safer place. I think that is a fair trade.

Regarding home defense, I never understood the need to have a gun for this purpose. Do the math - what is the compound probability that a) someone is going to choose to try to break into your home of all the homes out there, b) they will try to do so when you are actually home and/or your neighbor will notice them doing so, c) you will have your wits about you enough to go get your gun and have it ready to shoot (because since you are a "responsible" gun owner, that gun of course will be locked away and unloaded), and d) you will be able to properly aim at the intruder and not accidentally take out your wife, child, dog, or the well-trained police officer who is coming to help you? Slim and none.

I am not saying totally eliminate guns. But I think, as someone said above, guns should be subject to restrictions at least similar to those required to drive a car (in my liberal circles, there is a great e-mail going around about the restrictions being the same as those being imposed on women trying to have abortions in certain states, but I won't go there). And the types available should be limited. You can still get your jollies, they just might not be as great. So go home and watch some videos of Zion playing last year or Coach K cutting down the nets in 2015 - that should hopefully get you the same high...

The tone of this post is incredibly condescending. We were having a respectful conversation up until this point.

I don't "get my jollies " or "feel like a really big man" by shooting my AR. I also don't go around shooting innocent people with it. Am I against violent criminals, or those with documented serious mental issues having them? You are damn right I am. Do I agree with background checks? Yep - and I've had one for each gun I have purchased. Don't assume things.

Perhaps you should go outside of your "liberal circle" (your words, not mine) and hear some opinions outside of your own echo chamber. Maybe then you will understand that pro-gun #2A folks aren't all just a bunch of gun-totin' hillbillies. You also show quite a bit of metropolitan ignorance with your "well-trained police officer who is coming to help you" line. News flash: not all people live in urban neighborhoods where police are minutes away at all times.

As for the abortion comment - I have no idea why you felt the need to bring that up. But, since you did, I'm actually mostly "pro-choice". Not that that has anything to do with this conversation.

[Bostondevil]

I'm sorry, but this is wrong.

First of all, what do you mean by rapid-fire? One squeeze = one shot. I repeat this over and over because it matters.

Second, most of the guns that are manufactured now (and used for hunting, sports shooting, home invasion) are sem-automatic. VERY few are not. Semantics matter.

Sports shooting: I use mine for this. Many of my friends and family do as well. As a matter of fact, most people that have an AR-15 or AK-47 use them for this purpose. The AR-15 is the most popular platform of rifle for a reason.

Hunting: Plenty of people use an AR for hunting. They are very common for hunting wild boar in Arkansas, for example, and small game. Most people do not use them for deer or larger game. You know why? The caliber of the 5.56/223 is not large enough (often considered a varmint caliber)

calibers.jpg

Home Defense: A shotgun is probably best for this, but any gun is better than none.

22,000+ suicides a year. Roughly 2% of all gun owning households will eventually experience a suicide in the household. The percent goes up for veterans. We have absolutely no accurate data on self defensive use of guns. Anybody who says we do is either citing more than 20 year old data, data from another country, or unreliable estimates based on anecdotal evidence. Until we do, I cannot put numbers to my argument but the whole reason the Dickey Amendment exists is because of a 1996 study that found that guns were more likely to be used to kill a family member (IIRC that study did not distinguish between homicides, suicides, and accidental deaths) than to be used in self-defense.

Home Defense: A dog is your best bet for this. Although I will concede that there are areas of this country, mostly rural, where you do need a gun for defense - against wild animals.

[mattman91]

22,000+ suicides a year. Roughly 2% of all gun owning households will eventually experience a suicide in the household. The percent goes up for veterans. We have absolutely no accurate data on self defensive use of guns. Anybody who says we do is either citing more than 20 year old data, data from another country, or unreliable estimates based on anecdotal evidence. Until we do, I cannot put numbers to my argument but the whole reason the Dickey Amendment exists is because of a 1996 study that found that guns were more likely to be used to kill a family member (IIRC that study did not distinguish between homicides, suicides, and accidental deaths) than to be used in self-defense.

Home Defense: A dog is your best bet for this. Although I will concede that there are areas of this country, mostly rural, where you do need a gun for defense - against wild animals.

If someone is going to commit suicide, they don't have to have a gun to do it. If you want to discuss "red flag laws" then go for it.

Agree to disagree on home defense. I don't feel like I have the authority to tell others how to protect themselves and their families.

I don't know much about this amendment but I will read about it. I am all for research on any subject.

[OldPhiKap]

Home Defense: A dog is your best bet for this. Although I will concede that there are areas of this country, mostly rural, where you do need a gun for defense - against wild animals.

Feral hogs apparently are trending.

[golfinesquire]

Not really an apt comparison.

The apt comparison is that since cars are used to kill people, we should more tightly control the sale and ownership of cars (rental would be unthinkable!), and particularly regulate those capable of greater casualties (SUVs? muscle cars?).

There are laws against using cars or guns in careless or reckless or intentional manners which harm others.

What is lost in all of this is the 40 victims of gun violence in Chicago in just the past weekend! Why is there no hue and cry over this? An emergency room in a major hospital closed due to the overload! It just doesn't fit the narrative. It would be contrary the politics of those pushing gun control. If we are truly concerned about gun violence, Chicago should be front and center, as there are more gun fatalities there than in all "mass shootings" nationwide. Pretty sure Chicago is up there in terms of gun control FWIW. So, what's next?

I don't oppose restricting large capacity magazines. I do resent all of the money and legislative time and effort wasted in trying to legislate a right clearly granted by the constitution. There is no constitutional grant of the right to bear cars.

Sorry if I'm venting a little frustration. I respect the fellow members of this board enough to have a reasonable discussion. What is going on in popular media and social media makes me bang my head slowly against a wall.

Yes, there is a second amendment that protects the right to bear arms. The first amendment protects free speech but you can”t scream fire in a crowded theater. There is a constitutional right to vote, but in many states a felony conviction results in the loss of that right. The fifth amendment protects against compelled testimony but there is a public safety exception that excuses the police from reading a defendant his Miranda warnings under certain circumstances. And while there is no specific amendment enshrining a woman’s right to choose, the Supreme Court in1973 said it was a right embedded in the Constitution and yet how much regulation is there over that? All other constitutional rights can be regulated and limited so why is it that the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms is somehow exempt from that? And Jim is right that we register so many things with the federal government and are not concerned that the government will somehow pounce and take those things away. Why not have some reasonable regulation when it comes to the ownership of something that is designed to kill?

[YmoBeThere]

Feral hogs apparently are trending.

We have them here in my litle part of suburbia.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Watching Lawrence O'Donnell tonight, and "The Last Word" is given to this fellow. (It was worth listening to.)


DukeLO.jpg

DukeLO2.jpg

[Bostondevil]

If someone is going to commit suicide, they don't have to have a gun to do it. If you want to discuss "red flag laws" then go for it.

Agree to disagree on home defense. I don't feel like I have the authority to tell others how to protect themselves and their families.

I don't know much about this amendment but I will read about it. I am all for research on any subject.

Actually, they kinda do.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the dominate predictor of suicide attempts is access to means. If you have a method easily available, you are much more likely to attempt suicide. That's attempt. When you look at suicide rates, the dominate predictor of suicides is prevalence of firearms. Gun ownership rates and suicide rates go hand in hand in this country.