Diane Feinstein manipulated me.

in Moms Demand Action and Mayors Against Illegal Guns. I'm sure they're up to double digits by now.

They do tend to cause a fair amount of the damage. I think mothers caring about their kids' safety is also legitimate, seeing we've had about 75 school shootings since Sandy Hook. Not to mention all the other kids who die every day at home and in the streets.

Fear is not an unhealthy emotion when it involves one's survival. But it is pretty unhealthy when it involves buying up guns because the big bad bogeyman is coming to take them away. 'Cos that's just a sick marketing tactic by cynical businessman.

if they actually focused their attention on those who use guns for unlawful purposes and not so much on hardware. Limiting magazines to 7 rounds and trying to ban weapons based on cosmetic features don't do much to address the criminal element causing most of the mayhem. Focusing on long guns when most criminal activity involves handguns seems to be a monumental waste of resources. Moms Demand Action (now a fully owned subsidiary of Bloomberg, Inc) likewise could be more effective if they didn't try so hard to resemble a prohibitionist organization.

And the glorifying and marketing of the handgun, as both an effective tool for criminals and for legitimate self defense, is a huge problem. When I was a kid, I had toy guns that were hard to tell from the real thing. It wasn't a problem then, but today it is. A kid with a realistic looking gun is likely to be shot by LE nowadays. Times have changed. Cosmetics are a valid point. If it looks like an M-16, but it's only an AR-15, who the heck knows what it is? Magazine size is also a valid point. Make these things reasonable and many of the problems will go away.
Moms and Mayors and Bloomberg are only a reaction to the nuttery on the other side of the equation. Hopefully, reasonable minds will eventually prevail. The further out the extremists go on a limb, the more likely that limb will break and that would be fine, except reasonable folk get to pay the price too.

What is "glorifying" versus "marketing"? Handguns can be effective for self defense in the appropriate circumstances. WRT toy guns that look like the real thing, you may have a point. Do we mandate the entire toy be day-glow color?

Regarding an M-16/AR-15, it really doesn't make any difference, if put to lawful use the selective fire means nothing. If put to unlawful use, fixed semi-auto can be extremely lethal as was seen at Sandy Hook. Regarding magazine size, what is "reasonable"? As far as handguns, any magazine that seats flush with the magazine well should be legal regardless of capacity. WRT long guns, whatever local LEO carry should be allowed for regular use.

I'm more concerned with the pocket pistol I cannot see than with the long gun slung over someone's shoulder. Ever since I saw a video of a State Trooper killed with a .22 derringer (the round went in the armpit and clipped the aorta) I haven't been as concerned with caliber/magazine size. YMMV.

The "Open Carry" idiots cannot go away soon enough. Short of a major societal crisis (Mad Max, Walking Dead) open carry of long arms in a non-rural environment will never be regarded as normal. On the other hand, I was in uniform at the grocery store one day and some customer made a point to appear disturbed by my service weapon. I just made a comment about "yeah, I've got that kind of face" and moved on; not worth arguing over.

Of course handguns CAN be effective for self defense in certain circumstances. They can also be effective as emboldening assholes to provoke situations that create such circumstances, like Zimmerman/Martin.

In the United States since 1992, toy guns are required to have an orange plug or be entirely brightly colored to signify them as toys. This has probably helped reduce incidents where kids were mistakenly shot by LE, though I think responsible parenting has had more to do with it.
Now, we have the converse issue of many real guns looking like toys, especially some of the deadlier ones like Uzis and Mac10s. Kids can easily mistake these real guns for toys.

I can understand your concern over the "pocket pistol", especially as more and more guns are carried concealed. This creates quite a dichotomy, as concealed carry is legal in most parts of the US. Problem is, how do you know who is carrying legally until you confront and challenge the individual? I assume you work in LE. I don't envy you, especially if you have to deal with pulling random vehicles over. I'd rather deal with the rednecks in their pickup trucks with gun racks and Confederate flags. At least I know in advance what I'm potentially up against.

Firearms are a tool that can be used for self-defense and allow those who are aged, infirm or ill to repel a younger, stronger or larger aggressor. Like any tool they can be used properly or misused. Short of a mind-reading device, one may surmise what was going through Zimmerman's mind on the evening Martin was killed, but there is no evidence submitted that Zimmerman confronted Martin; it is equally plausible that Martin confronted Zimmerman instead of just going home.

How many Uzis or Mac-10s are mistaken by children as toys? It appears the more realistic threat is handguns that are not properly secured. I certainly have no problem holding a firearm owner responsible if a child gets ahold of an unsecured weapon and causes death or injury.

Regarding concealed carry; as 99% of those who legally carry weapons are not causing the problem they are not of my concern. If they are not behaving illegally I am not likely to confront them for any reason. Those who carry illegally are not likely to "open carry" as they do not, generally, wish to advertise that they may be illegally in possession of a firearm.

I notice you did not address the underlying issue regarding what is "reasonable" regarding magazine capacity.

Stopping someone for a broken tail light can lead to a deadly confrontation. If this is something you do, then you should be concerned. Whether someone has a permit to carry is irrelevant. Lots of law breakers have legal carry permits. Be careful out there.

Stopping someone for any reason can lead to a deadly confrontation. It's the first round that concerns me, not the 20th. As a general rule I don't get too specific about my employer on social media; let's just say I'm not pulling cars over any more but still work in the LEO field. Again, percentage wise, the odds are that a legal carrier is not the problem. Thanks for the words of concern.

They can be had for under $600.
As was my first one. A DPMS sportical. There is now a $50 rebate so they can be had for $550. Sadly however my first was taken over by my wife when she realized pink furniture was available for them. [URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
And so I was once again in the market for another modern sporting rifle(msr). I thought about waiting for the prices coming down (they have now). But I was in the gun store one day looking for 22 long rifle ammo(not sure what caused these shortages) , and saw a Smith &Wesson M&P15 for $799. It came home with me. [URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]
After Christmas prices had returned to normal or under, so I purchased two DPMS oracles for my sons for $599, and mailed in the $50 rebates for both. Here's one of the oracles below my wife's sportical.
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

I was taken by your commentary re ARs and not being interested until a ban, real or imagined, was threatened. Please take no personal affront, none was intended.

I have an in law who did something similar, on the 'rumor' that there would be an AWB, went out and bought one for roughly $800. That was right after Sandy Hook and local gun stores ballooned the prices. He hasn't fired it yet, just had to have one. Its 'hidden' under his bed where his 12 and 5 year old sons can't find it. Only saving grace is he never bought any ammo that I know of.

I don't care what you own, that's your business. Just that your comments mirror exactly the marketing strategy of the industry. It was a springboard, nothing more.

I go on the offensive pretty easy on this website.(actually even avoid posting much of anything) Probably due to seeing a lot of guys being labeled as gun toting teabaggers who spout NRA talking points. Some Democrats enjoy the shooting sports as well. As far as my purchases being influenced by the industry, not mine. It is my OPINION that the run on AR15's was caused by some pending legislation and not by the industry. I think I even read somewhere that they even cut back on advertising at that time because they couldn't keep up with the demand for their products.

Might be because I'm on a mobile.

legislation is not a marketing tactic. It's a conditioned response to the predictable attempts by politicians over the years to ban certain classes of firearms if not all of them. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe firearm manufacturers are above such sales strategies, they just don't need to.

that was also fear based. First .223 then 9mm went short supply. Not sure where the fear mongering came from, some blamed it on the survivalists buying up stocks for barter, some said it was because that ATF would start tracking sales but in any any case prices went up and supply went down.

Have two grand sons (early teens) who didn't get to shoot their Christmas gifts cause of the shortage. Bummer.

Not all guns are bought out of fear, of course, but it sure as hell helps boost sales. It's a shame really, because those who buy guns for legitimate reasons will end up paying the price.

Which is what the link is about. Went into Cheaper Than Dirt for some cleaning stuff and LaPierre was on a continuous loop exhorting everybody to keep the RKBA safe from the gun grabbers.

Not been back since, buy all my supplies on line. See #7 above.

And in my opinion those who buy firearms for legitimate reasons will be the ONLY people effected by gun control legislation. Criminals will always be able to get guns, just like a drug addict can always get drugs. Mass murderers will always find a way as well, some use cars, knives, pressure cookers, homemade bombs and yes they use guns too. I'm not sure what's causing the current surge in mass shootings, but quite a few of the shooters have passed background checks to get their preferred tools. THAT is a major problem IMO.

Flaminglib, as to the kids and 22lr issue this is how I save ammo. Bullets in my pocket, I give him one at a time. I didn't learn with an autoloader, and neither will my boys. My oldest is 4 and it's going to be a very long time until he's shooting a gun without me immediately to his side. Here's his learning gun, Savage Rascal™.

Single shot built to fit kids.
[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

I refuse to accept that nothing can be done to reduce the carnage of 30,000 deaths a year.

Edit to add: children can't be taught to sail 8' dingys until they are at least 10 because they don't have the ambidextrous coordination to work the sail and tiller or the self awareness of consequences and environment. Just saying, and its your child and your business.

Take care and be safe.

addressing the root causes of the violence than attacking the tools.

base cost before I changed furniture or added other goodies.


While I find the AR's okay to shoot, my kids love them. One of the few long guns my daughter enjoys shooting on the family outtings.

I hope my next AR is for hunting....6.8 SPC caliber, but I have 3 or 4 pistols in line before I free up the funds for another hunting rifle.

It doesn't seem to explain to me, why women purchase some of the same weapons, for the same reasons.

Why would that sales rhetoric apparently resonate with both genders?


Also, some consider the weapon an investment. A M-16 isn't much more expensive than a AR-15, parts-wise. But since the M-16 is banned from new sales, it commands prices upwards of 20K or more. It's a bit of a gamble, for Semi-Autos, because it's unlikely to be banned, but that's a pretty good return on investment, if it happens.

As most firearm owners are men and the vast majority of those who purchase an "AR type" rifle are men it is an easy way to conduct a broad brush smear attack against a large percentage of firearm owners without applying much thought to the process.

Look for my previous post about marketing.

Don't argue with me, take it up with the industry PR firms.

Oh, and women are about 3% of the market.

Though I tend to find such marketing exhortations completely uninteresting. (Same for zombies, as that's been done to death...)

Between the terrorist organization NRA and the bought and paid for SC justices who incorrectly interpreted the constitution to say something it clearly does NOT say, guns are here to stay for a while at least.

If we were to follow the constitution and common sense, all hand guns would be removed over night and most rifles...

Bought and paid for SC justices? Any you wonder, with that kind of inflammatory rhetoric, why the pro-control side of the discussion is having so little success?

too liberal?

I'm not understanding the point it is you wish to make.

Eventually the NRA and teaparty and domestic terrorism will all mean the same thing to most all human beings on planet earth

if not already

I am not on this thread to debate anything with gun folks, it is self evident that individual gun ownership benefits are outweighed a million to one by the downside...

Nothing to argue about...

So you don't think that referring to your ideological opponents on an issue as "terrorists" is controversial? Really? If such a view is so mainstream, why can't the pro-control side seem to pass any meaningful firearm control legislation? Why hasn't membership in the NRA been outlawed and the NRA headquarters stormed and burnt to the ground?

I'm trying to come up with a downside to the firearms that I own and can't come up with anything. No one killed, no one injured, no crimes committed with or regarding them.

However the 80,000,000 gun owners in the nation and the members of their families who use firearms for sport and self defense will disagree with you.

Also I seriously doubt that they would agree with you that the NRA and the Tea Party are terrorist organizations.

"Nothing I said was even remotely controversial"

FIFY:

"Nothing I said was even remotely true"

You're welcome.

Now the gun control fans are prophets too.

But then again, gun control has a lot of the same characteristics as a faith based practice. They ignore science in the form of neutral data like the FBI, DoJ and CDC. They cling to old superstitions and disproven beliefs.

You're about the 35th person here to predict the end of the NRA. Most of them are gone now, since they proved they couldn't control themselves in other forums either and got rude, stupid and banned.

Well, if you're not here to debate go back to Bansalot, where no one debates anything.

Besides they need the post traffic far more than we need your ignorant cupidity and amateur prophecy.

if you want to post that you oppose gun control, obviously, you can.

if you want to post that gun control can't work that's a lie. but if lying were truly against the rules, much of this group would disappear.

along with all the honest citizens. After all they never break a law.

I've been saying that for years, though I used to use Oldsmobiles as the example.

Well, they stopped making Oldsmobiles, so I have to go with buicks.

People are that way, has nothing to do with guns or penises, it's our consumeristic society and our aversion to authoritarians.

ciao.

they banned all three and of course, they are used more now than ever right?

oh yeah. that would be bullshit.

yeah your argument is bankrupt, morally and intellectually.

And others still prefer lead in their gas, use additives, etc.

Odd that you should find such a logical and verifiable analogy "morally bankrupt".

I hope you're OK, haven't seen you post much, though I know MIRT takes up a lot of energy.

Be well!

the banned things I mentioned are not more prevalent now than when they were banned.

thank you for trying to convince people of lies in hopes that they will not believe it is possible for the government to reduce the presence of something.

So, my winningly accurate analogy was in response to the OP, specifically this note:

are you claiming that people are buying lead to put into their cars on any sort of scale comparable to when lead was in gasoline sold at most gas stations in the USA?

tell us where to buy a legal additive at an auto supply store that contains lead.

just let us know or concede that it's bullshit.

I never even mentioned gas until you brought it up, and I said that people use additives.

As it happens, the earliest of these actually contained tetraethyl lead, but later even these were banned.

Presently, there are non-lead based additives marketed to those who believe that their cars worked better on leaded fuel.

Good grief, CreekDog.

it was. and the substitutes do not contribute to the lead problem that leaded gasoline did.

your hypothesis that stuff gets used more when you ban it, false.

The "selling fear" is the same hyperbole you get from the "gun carriers are afraid" dumbasses.

another assault weapons ban.

Many people felt that the ban would pass and would be followed by more gun control laws that would ban other weapons. They decided to buy firearms before they no longer could and rushed out to the gun stores and gun shows to buy all sorts of firearms and ammunition.

Of course the gun industry and the NRA promoted fear that this would actually happen. The gun industry made a fortune and the NRA gained half a million members.

Liberal gun control advocates, Senator Dianne Feinstein and President Obama have proven to be the best salespeople the gun industry and the NRA could ever hope for.

To sum it up, gun control advocates basically shot themselves in the foot. Had they not overreached we might have seen some much needed improvements to our national gun laws. Instead nothing was accomplished and now millions and millions of firearms are now in the hands of people who have little firearms safety training or experience with firearms and little practical use for them.

but thanks for starting the game of 20 questions here. it wastes a lot of space.

...were gun-control advocates.

give one to the kids, it's a hoot.

promoted fear? sleep with it, it's so safe, might as well be a teddy bear!

maybe you gave to his Republican opponent in the last election?

oh yeah LOL he said clip instead of magazine. my god does he even have a high school diploma in gun terminology?

won't somebody think of the children? is he even allowed to vote in elections? he said the word "clip" instead of magazine!

anybody who does that should lose their citizenship immediately!

now get on that and see if you can make sure he is defeated by his Republican opponent come November.

get on that. we can't have a legislator hold up a gun and say that it is unsafe, are they kidding? it's not unsafe, unless firing 30 bullets is unsafe. it's not is it????

Kevin de Leon wrote a gun control bill, he would have invested a little time to learn a few facts about semiautomatic firearms and the terminology that goes with the subject.

Let's suppose a politician came up with a bill to limit high powered vehicles that can go over 150 mph and stated that, "We need to stop people from putting Chrysler 426 Hemi engines on bicycles" That would make just as much sense as saying you can put a 30 magazine clip into a semiautomatic rifle.

What scares me is that we elect politicians who create and pass laws on far more complicated subjects than firearms. I can only hope most know a little more about those subjects than many who propose laws on firearms do about firearms technology. Somehow I doubt it.

The lack of knowledge of many of our elected officials about many matters is frightening, considering the power they have.

It's ridiculous when they go before the public with their "hot topic" and haven't done a little homework, as you indicate.

I've attended hearings public hearings where the public, including folks representing opposite sides of an issue, clearly know knew more about the topic than the elected officials present, and I'm talking about US senators, governors, and US department secretaries.

Sigh.

god help us if this group wrote the standardized tests for our public schools.

The post to which you responded was about the senator's lack of knowledge on the subject, not his intelligence.

You probably think I don't know enough about the engineering and technology of firearms to be an intelligent person.

But you knew that.

I do not know about what knowledge you have about the engineering and technology of firearms. I do question your ability at reading comprehension. The post to which you responded did not question the senator's intelligence. The point was the senator's lack of knowledge on the engineering and technology of the firearm it is he was inaccurately describing.

to learn a little about the subject of firearms before he wrote his bill.

He may be far more intelligent and educated than I am, but I would have enough commonsense to realize that it would be wise to do a little studying on the subject so I didn't end up looking like a total fool.

Perhaps he realizes that now. The video of his statement has 1,516,750 views on Youtube.

I sincerely hope he does some research on other legislation he pushes or California may be in far worse shape than it is today.

Some people just have to be "the smartest person in the room". Sure glad we don't have or had anyone like that on this board.

That groups are out there waiting for a tragedy to happen so that it can be exploited.

There's no other way to describe it, it's exploitation of little dead children.

And it's what groups that don't have any real solutions or truthful statistics they can use to truly make it a safer society.

Sickening, really.

OH MY GOD!!!!! SOME BODY JUST KILLED 20 LITTLE KIDS!! THEY'RE GONNA TAKE YER GUNZ!!!! QUICK, GO BUY MORE!!!!!