• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

School shooting Florida

Status
Not open for further replies.
CaptainHowdy said:
Guns are already taxed.
Click to expand...

Normal retail sales tax?

CaptainHowdy said:
Guns are already registered.
Click to expand...

Really? Any gun you buy is registered? Where, exactly?

CaptainHowdy said:
If you want to use a gun to kill an animal, you already need a license.
Click to expand...

And if you don't declare an intention to kill an animal, you never need a license. As with the above instances, you're pointing out highly specific and narrow instances in which "something something involving a gun meets a licensing requirement" for instance and using that to declare that the whole license argument spurious because "guns already require licenses". Obviously the person is proposing licensing of more than only people specifically who plan to hunt; obviously the person is proposing a gun/owner registration system more akin to that for motor vehicles rather than some serial number paper trail that is subject to extensive gaps; obviously the person is proposing a tax that is different and more targeted than the same sales tax everything is already charged at the point of sale.
 
Last edited:
Am I the only one wondering why students in a high school were getting this sort of demonstration?

The teacher was about to use the gun for a demonstration about how to disarm someone, according to Gonzales.
Click to expand...

And if this was a regular part of classes, why was it necessary to use a real pistol when a rubber or plastic weapon would be safer for all concerned?
 
Checkmite said:
obviously the person is proposing a tax that is different and more targeted than the same sales tax everything is already charged at the point of sale.
Click to expand...

Actually, the person in question is 17 years old. He's probably short on specifics.

What he knows is that last month he had to flee a building and then attend some funerals because a kid who they all knew was dangerous could very easily obtain an AR-15. He isn't quite sure what to do about that, but he knows it's pretty messed up.
 
smartcooky said:
Oh yes. I was trained on the FN-FAL (wooden stock & grip). It was a very reliable weapon... jams and hard-extractions were a rarity. The only trouble I had was because I shoot left handed; manually cocking after each mag change meant pulling the cocking handle with my support hand directly back toward my nose rather than using the pistol hand toward the right ear the way right hander's did. It also meant the ejected casings flew across my field of vision... quite distracting during rapid fire.

I fired a few weapons in my time in the service. I was fortunate enough (if that is right word) to have still been in when the FN was replaced with the piece of crap known as the Steyr AUG.

In any case, it is this style of weapon that most people refer to as an "Assault Rifle... semi automatic, capable of firing rounds as rapidly as the shooter pulls the trigger. This sort of weapon ought to be banned from sale and illegal to own. (it is both here in NZ, and in Australia.... we don't have school shootings).
Click to expand...

I don't follow. The cocking handle is on the left on an FN. It would be your pistol hand cocking if you shoot left handed.

AUG is a good weapon.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Pro AR-15 people are prone to ssaying that they aren't 'military weapons' because they are only semi-auto'.

There are lots of semi auto weapons used by the military. Up until the SA-80 was introduced the British Army main Battle Rifle was Semi-Auto and it was seen as a good thing that the average squaddie couldn't go using all his ammo in pointless full auto shooting.
Click to expand...

Well, they aren't "assault rifles" if they don't fire full auto.

The push is often that the AR-15 is an "assault rifle", and it isn't.

The term "assault weapon" seems to mainly center around looks, and not function.

The AR-15 is just an ordinary semi-auto rifle, just like any other common semi-auto rifle.

How you would ban it, and not any other rifles, I don't know. We did that once, with odd definitions that also centered around looks, and not function.

Limiting semi-auto rifles to 10 round detachable magazines is okay with me, but I can't see how it would have any effect on a Nick Cruz. It seems like it's just a feel good idea.

And still few are talking about pistols, which account for nearly all of the firearms deaths in the USA, and which are far more concealable than an AR-15, and come with similar capacity magazines.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
...The idea is to get guns off the streets. Make being a citizen a prerequisite to gun ownership. Immediately, thirteen million people in this country wouldn't be able to possess a gun. Extend that rule to only native-born citizens to make naturalized citizens ineligible so something like 20 million or so more people couldn't own a gun. Make housing projects gun-free zones. Require anybody on public assistance to give up their guns. There are hundreds of ways of making our cities safer that will work better than demanding laws that have already been passed or banning guns that are already banned.
Click to expand...

Just a wild guess...you wouldn't be affected by any of these proposed restrictions, right? Let's see...foreigners, people on public assistance, people living in housing projects...yep, that's a pretty impartial segment being targeted.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
.....professional crisis-actor David Hogg........
Click to expand...

What does this mean?


........The idea is to get guns off the streets. Make being a citizen a prerequisite to gun ownership. Immediately, thirteen million people in this country wouldn't be able to possess a gun. Extend that rule to only native-born citizens to make naturalized citizens ineligible so something like 20 million or so more people couldn't own a gun. Make housing projects gun-free zones. Require anybody on public assistance to give up their guns. There are hundreds of ways of making our cities safer that will work better than demanding laws that have already been passed or banning guns that are already banned.
Click to expand...

Translates as: Everyone but me, and people like me.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
Guns are already taxed. Guns are already registered. If you want to use a gun to kill an animal, you already need a license. Sure. Let's make the process of using a gun at least as onerous as we do cars so every sixteen year old can use one!
.
Click to expand...

A hunting license is not a gun license, most gun owners don't hunt and will never buy a hunting license. Most states don't require gun registration. You know that regs vary from state to state, but you keep citing California regulations as if thy apply nationwide.

Use the crisis actor bit one more time and you go on my ignore list. Save that B.S. for the ct forum where it belongs.
 
Last edited:
Checkmite said:
Normal retail sales tax?



Really? Any gun you buy is registered? Where, exactly?



And if you don't declare an intention to kill an animal, you never need a license. As with the above instances, you're pointing out highly specific and narrow instances in which "something something involving a gun meets a licensing requirement" for instance and using that to declare that the whole license argument spurious because "guns already require licenses". Obviously the person is proposing licensing of more than only people specifically who plan to hunt; obviously the person is proposing a gun/owner registration system more akin to that for motor vehicles rather than some serial number paper trail that is subject to extensive gaps; obviously the person is proposing a tax that is different and more targeted than the same sales tax everything is already charged at the point of sale.
Click to expand...

So you’re arguing that the number of guns in circulation and their availability to ordinary citizens isn’t a problem, as long as the government keeps better records?
 
Thermal said:
Just a wild guess...you wouldn't be affected by any of these proposed restrictions, right? Let's see...foreigners, people on public assistance, people living in housing projects...yep, that's a pretty impartial segment being targeted.
Click to expand...

I’m trying to prevent people who have no business owning a gun from owning a gun. People who can’t afford rent or food have no business owning a gun.
 
CaptainHowdy said:
I’m trying to prevent people who have no business owning a gun from owning a gun. People who can’t afford rent or food have no business owning a gun.
Click to expand...

And naturalized citizens?

eta: you are proposing income requirements for the privilege of gun ownership? Go on...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom