TheRef65 wrote:
ironmayb wrote:
TheRef65 wrote:
307trout wrote:
TheRef65 wrote:
JSA wrote:
TheRef65 wrote:
Slowman wrote:
i think a culture that causes someone to want to own 17 guns is a problem. do you own 17 shovels? 17 ladders? a gun is a tool.I own 6 bikes, if I could afford them, I would own 17 bikes. Is that a problem? I'm not a gun owner, I believe there are major flaws in our gun laws, I don't understand the idea of owning a lot of guns, or even one gun, but I do understand the collector side of the equation. Most of the people I know who have many guns, most are for collecting or have been passed from one generation to another. I don't know anyone, I live in a gun crazy area, who has a lot of guns that has them because they believe they are more protected if they have them.
With all that being said, I do not believe weapons designed to shoot many bullets rapidly should be manufactured, much less owned. There are no practical uses, I'm aware of, where this type of weapon is necessary. There should be a clear red flag when a company decides to produce a weapon for the sole purpose of killing, or injuring, a lot of things fast.
But hey, fear sells so when that gang breaks into your house you can kill them all.
Do you believe that self-defense is a "practical use" for a firearm? Have you ever seen a video of a police shooting? How many rounds do they typically fire?
I mean weapons that can quickly shoot, for example, 30 rounds, not pistols with what, 8 shots. Yes, police empty their guns on suspects but it is not typical, from what I have seen, where they are constantly reloading and shooting again.
My pistol carries 16 rounds, and the reload time is about 2 seconds if I do it right.
Fine but I don't agree with the need for that type of weapon. It's my personal opinion and not something I'm forcing on anyone. However, if our government wanted to pass a law preventing that type of gun, I would not disagree.
My pistol carries 8 rounds, and the reload time is about 10 seconds. But I'm a much better target shooter than 307trout so I bet in 3 minutes I can hit the target more times than he can in total.
Congrats. My point is there should be limits. You will always have people who can do things with less. Again, I'm not advocating we confiscate weapons, just their ability to kill many fast, by the average American. You are obviously above average. ;-)
Also, I don't think I am disagreeing with you premise just being devils advocate. But I also don't think it is easy to quantify your position. I don't know what "many" "fast" and "Average American" means. I don't think the "average American" would use any weapon to kill many fast (and I think for the most part we all agree on that). Conversely my point is if I am not the "average American" (someone who would choose to do this) trying to place arbitrary limits is fine but that doesn't mean you are truly going to stop me or even alter the results.
This guy and the dude in LV stopped what they were doing of their own accord, not because someone stopped them. They used the particular weapons they used for the reasons they chose to use them. If they had chosen weapons more in line with your liking but continued on until somone stopped them (in both cases I don't think we know how long that could have been) there is nothing to say the damage couldn't have been worse.