76/95 VA counties declare 2A sanctuaries

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's absolutely no point in discussing new gun safety legislation without including a component to address reducing the numbers of guns that are already out there on the street.

There are simply too many guns as it is, so anything that limits new guns is just slowing down the problem, not actually solving anything. I'm a scientist, and I develop solutions to problems - actual solutions - not feel good measures that won't really accomplish anything. And nothing short of a complete halt on the sales of new guns, in addition to removing certain types of extreme-danger guns from the public, is going to have a meaningful reduction in crime.


This can accomplished easily in a two-part legislative package. The first element would instill an immediate temporary moratorium on the sales of new guns, for a defined period, say five years. For the second element we should analyze the available data to determine what sorts of guns should be banned in the legislation, for example: assault guns, handguns, guns that use clips, guns that can fire repeatedly, sniper guns, guns that are excessively powerful, etc.

Offer a limited-time buyback program that provides gift cards or tax rebates in exchange for banned guns, and after that, offer rewards to anyone who turns in someone is possession of a banned weapon. Heavy fines and jail time for offenders.

At the end of the five year moratorium, legally-permitted types of guns can go back on sale to the public. Used guns of the types permitted by law can also be resold then.

All of this can be without any infringement on the second amendment whatsoever. You can still keep certain guns, so your "right to keep and bear arms" isn't infringed.


This is so obvious I just cannot fathom why this hasn't been done sooner. It's very distressing.

Seriously, "Sniper guns"? Please define as I have never heard this term when discussion gun control.

I'm a scientist, not a gun expert, but I would define a sniper rifle as any rifle that is used, or could be used, by a sniper. Hence "sniper guns" (duh )

If you needed some kind of specific standard, then I'd argue anything with a magnifying capability that makes long distance shooting possible. Anything capable of shooting long distances, over 100 meters, for example. That's how I'd define a sniper gun.

There is no legitimate purpose for a person to own something like that. A person 50-100 meters away cannot possibly pose a threat to you, so there is no reason why you should be able to have a gun capable of killing a person at that range. This is a no brainer.

Nearly every firearm can be lethal at 50-100 meters.

It seems the problem you have is with scopes and other magnified optics, this is a new one.

Average distance in a homicide is under 5 feet. People looking to shoot at great distances are doing so for competition or hunting, not for murder.

If the average distance of a shooting is five feet (let's just for the moment assume your sourcing is legitimate) then why on earth do you NEED a gun that can hit and kill someone 150 feet away?

And why should anyone be practicing shooting long distances? That in and of itself strikes me as an alarming danger signal. Why would someone be practicing to shoot a distant targets? Who do they plan on shooting from afar? Sounds like an assassin wanna-be to me. JFK and MLK were killed at very long distances, nearly 70 meters in JFK's case. I would definitely think banning the type of guns capable of doing that makes sense.

70 meters is not far at all by firearms standards. You don't need to kill anyone at any distance, however we do live in a world with physics. Look at how many homicides occur every year at 50+ meters. I don't know where you would even find this info but my guess is there are under 3 and that is a conservative estimate. 100-300 Meters is a common distance to shoot rifles at for hunting and sport, and you have long range hunting and competitions that push 1500 meters.

1500'meters is nearly a mile. That's absurd. There is absolutely no need for something like that. A person (or animal, for that matter) has no chance at all if they can't even see or hear being shot at from such a distance, it's completely unsportsmanlike when it comes to game animals, and completely unfair when it comes to people trying to avoid being shot.

Again, I'm not a gun expert, but I will say you're not doing your hobby a favor by arguing in favor of stuff like this. I find it alarming that someone could shoot at me from 1500 meters away, and I wouldn't even know until I was hit by the bullet. That's totally unacceptable.

Because you would totally know before, if someone shot you at 20 yards? I think you sound a bit ridiculous, but if the only firearm experience you have is with Hollywood or video games I totally understand.

I could see someone 60 ft away from me, and try to evade them. At least I'd have a chance. There is no chance at all if the person shooting at me is 300 ft away. That's what needs to be outlawed.

How many shootings happen at that distance? I think you are living in a fantasy world. If you want to do something about guns that doesn't make you sound crazy, focus on the ones that do the killing.

The DC snipers were using a rifle with a telescope device to aim with in order to shoot people over 150 yards away in a couple cases. That's exactly why these telescope devices and the rifles that allow their use should be outlawed. We've already had numerous examples of such long distance killing.

Sorry lol no "telescope device". The optic that was used in an Bushnell holographic sight which is NOT MAGNIFIED. And re reading the case info, I see shootings occurring at 35-70 yards not 150. This was done by a man who was trained on iron sights out to 500 meters.

I'm still digging, but I'm not finding any civilian homicides in the last 15 years which would be considered sniper incidents.

+1 Keep dropping knowledge on these gals. We schooled them in this thread on SB16 and assault weapons, "Cop Killer" bullets, and now hunting rifles and optics! Looks like we all agree on background checks though!


Any other Hollywood myths and other whacky stuff for us to debunk?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's absolutely no point in discussing new gun safety legislation without including a component to address reducing the numbers of guns that are already out there on the street.

There are simply too many guns as it is, so anything that limits new guns is just slowing down the problem, not actually solving anything. I'm a scientist, and I develop solutions to problems - actual solutions - not feel good measures that won't really accomplish anything. And nothing short of a complete halt on the sales of new guns, in addition to removing certain types of extreme-danger guns from the public, is going to have a meaningful reduction in crime.


This can accomplished easily in a two-part legislative package. The first element would instill an immediate temporary moratorium on the sales of new guns, for a defined period, say five years. For the second element we should analyze the available data to determine what sorts of guns should be banned in the legislation, for example: assault guns, handguns, guns that use clips, guns that can fire repeatedly, sniper guns, guns that are excessively powerful, etc.

Offer a limited-time buyback program that provides gift cards or tax rebates in exchange for banned guns, and after that, offer rewards to anyone who turns in someone is possession of a banned weapon. Heavy fines and jail time for offenders.

At the end of the five year moratorium, legally-permitted types of guns can go back on sale to the public. Used guns of the types permitted by law can also be resold then.

All of this can be without any infringement on the second amendment whatsoever. You can still keep certain guns, so your "right to keep and bear arms" isn't infringed.


This is so obvious I just cannot fathom why this hasn't been done sooner. It's very distressing.

Seriously, "Sniper guns"? Please define as I have never heard this term when discussion gun control.

I'm a scientist, not a gun expert, but I would define a sniper rifle as any rifle that is used, or could be used, by a sniper. Hence "sniper guns" (duh )

If you needed some kind of specific standard, then I'd argue anything with a magnifying capability that makes long distance shooting possible. Anything capable of shooting long distances, over 100 meters, for example. That's how I'd define a sniper gun.

There is no legitimate purpose for a person to own something like that. A person 50-100 meters away cannot possibly pose a threat to you, so there is no reason why you should be able to have a gun capable of killing a person at that range. This is a no brainer.

Nearly every firearm can be lethal at 50-100 meters.

It seems the problem you have is with scopes and other magnified optics, this is a new one.

Average distance in a homicide is under 5 feet. People looking to shoot at great distances are doing so for competition or hunting, not for murder.

Citation?

https://www.swatmag.com/article/distance-shooting-myth-average-engagement/

https://www.tierthreetactical.com/17-most-important-gunfight-stats-backed-by-data-and-real-world-experience/

https://thesurvivalmom.com/10-lessons-for-armed-citizens-from-the-aurora-theater-mass-murder/

https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2018/7/17/the-statistics-of-self-defense-dont-bet-your-life-on-averages/

http://www.chucktayloramericansmallarmsacademy.com/close_quarters.html

https://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/article/what-do-fbi-statistics-really-say-about-gunfights/

https://concealednation.org/2016/09/what-distance-should-you-practice-with-your-concealed-carry-handgun/

https://www.chuckhawks.com/self_defense_ranges.html

https://modernsurvivalblog.com/security/self-defense-threat-and-the-tueller-distance-21-foot-rule/

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/analysis-of-five-years-of-armed-encounters-with-data-tables/

https://www.alloutdoor.com/2016/06/28/realistic-self-defense-shooting-ranges/

https://sofrep.com/gear/shocking-facts-gun-fights/

https://www.bluesheepdog.com/police-shooting-distance/

https://www.activeresponsetraining.net/the-distance-bias

Independent source? LOE?

What is an independent source for this? Are you implying some people have a bias towards shooting people up close vs at distance?

What is LOE? Did you mean LEO? Because several of those links are written by LEOs.

Here is an ABC article saying that the average distance of a mass shooting is only 18".

https://abcnews.go.com/US/schools-preparing-active-shooters-wrong-experts/story?id=53360957&cid=social_fb_abcn



https://www.hptinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Officer-Involved-Shootings-What-We-Didnt-Know.pdf

https://www.handgunsmag.com/editorial/tactics_training_what_happens_gunfight/138051

Yes, an unbiased independent source. Official LEO data or similar.

Oops looks like I was off a bit. FBI is stating that it is 7-8 feet not 5, And around 20 feet for officer involved shootings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's absolutely no point in discussing new gun safety legislation without including a component to address reducing the numbers of guns that are already out there on the street.

There are simply too many guns as it is, so anything that limits new guns is just slowing down the problem, not actually solving anything. I'm a scientist, and I develop solutions to problems - actual solutions - not feel good measures that won't really accomplish anything. And nothing short of a complete halt on the sales of new guns, in addition to removing certain types of extreme-danger guns from the public, is going to have a meaningful reduction in crime.


This can accomplished easily in a two-part legislative package. The first element would instill an immediate temporary moratorium on the sales of new guns, for a defined period, say five years. For the second element we should analyze the available data to determine what sorts of guns should be banned in the legislation, for example: assault guns, handguns, guns that use clips, guns that can fire repeatedly, sniper guns, guns that are excessively powerful, etc.

Offer a limited-time buyback program that provides gift cards or tax rebates in exchange for banned guns, and after that, offer rewards to anyone who turns in someone is possession of a banned weapon. Heavy fines and jail time for offenders.

At the end of the five year moratorium, legally-permitted types of guns can go back on sale to the public. Used guns of the types permitted by law can also be resold then.

All of this can be without any infringement on the second amendment whatsoever. You can still keep certain guns, so your "right to keep and bear arms" isn't infringed.


This is so obvious I just cannot fathom why this hasn't been done sooner. It's very distressing.

Seriously, "Sniper guns"? Please define as I have never heard this term when discussion gun control.

I'm a scientist, not a gun expert, but I would define a sniper rifle as any rifle that is used, or could be used, by a sniper. Hence "sniper guns" (duh )

If you needed some kind of specific standard, then I'd argue anything with a magnifying capability that makes long distance shooting possible. Anything capable of shooting long distances, over 100 meters, for example. That's how I'd define a sniper gun.

There is no legitimate purpose for a person to own something like that. A person 50-100 meters away cannot possibly pose a threat to you, so there is no reason why you should be able to have a gun capable of killing a person at that range. This is a no brainer.

Nearly every firearm can be lethal at 50-100 meters.

It seems the problem you have is with scopes and other magnified optics, this is a new one.

Average distance in a homicide is under 5 feet. People looking to shoot at great distances are doing so for competition or hunting, not for murder.

Citation?

https://www.swatmag.com/article/distance-shooting-myth-average-engagement/

https://www.tierthreetactical.com/17-most-important-gunfight-stats-backed-by-data-and-real-world-experience/

https://thesurvivalmom.com/10-lessons-for-armed-citizens-from-the-aurora-theater-mass-murder/

https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2018/7/17/the-statistics-of-self-defense-dont-bet-your-life-on-averages/

http://www.chucktayloramericansmallarmsacademy.com/close_quarters.html

https://www.personaldefensenetwork.com/article/what-do-fbi-statistics-really-say-about-gunfights/

https://concealednation.org/2016/09/what-distance-should-you-practice-with-your-concealed-carry-handgun/

https://www.chuckhawks.com/self_defense_ranges.html

https://modernsurvivalblog.com/security/self-defense-threat-and-the-tueller-distance-21-foot-rule/

http://gunssavelives.net/self-defense/analysis-of-five-years-of-armed-encounters-with-data-tables/

https://www.alloutdoor.com/2016/06/28/realistic-self-defense-shooting-ranges/

https://sofrep.com/gear/shocking-facts-gun-fights/

https://www.bluesheepdog.com/police-shooting-distance/

https://www.activeresponsetraining.net/the-distance-bias

Independent source? LOE?

What is an independent source for this? Are you implying some people have a bias towards shooting people up close vs at distance?

What is LOE? Did you mean LEO? Because several of those links are written by LEOs.

Here is an ABC article saying that the average distance of a mass shooting is only 18".

https://abcnews.go.com/US/schools-preparing-active-shooters-wrong-experts/story?id=53360957&cid=social_fb_abcn



https://www.hptinstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Officer-Involved-Shootings-What-We-Didnt-Know.pdf

https://www.handgunsmag.com/editorial/tactics_training_what_happens_gunfight/138051

Yes, an unbiased independent source. Official LEO data or similar.

Oops looks like I was off a bit. FBI is stating that it is 7-8 feet not 5, And around 20 feet for officer involved shootings

Link?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They keep getting more extreme. Now you guys want to take away hunting rifles?

This pattern of behavior is why sanctuary Counties have been created, no one trusts you guys.

+1 I can't believe some of the crap I've read in this thread about banning certain types of firearms. These people don't want guns in the hands of law abiding civilians, only criminals. At least thats how they come across.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:


I'm not going to pretend to understand all the minutiae of your gun terminology, because I don't. I only understand that something capable of accurately hitting something 200 yards away is something that shouldn't be in the hands of the public because it has so much potential to be misused. Frankly, guns shouldn't be accurate beyond a reasonable distance, say 50 feet. Because anyone farther away from than that can't in any way be construed to be a threat.

So maybe men should have their penis removed because it has the potential to be misused?

I think my County should be able to have you excluded from our farmers market if you choose to open carry your penis. Is there a state law in Virginia that prevents my county from banning penis open carry?

Probably Indecent Exposure?

But if women can walk around in leggings showing off their camel toe, then guys should be able to plop it out once in awhile. Sometimes it just needs some air or maybe he wants to see the light.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There's absolutely no point in discussing new gun safety legislation without including a component to address reducing the numbers of guns that are already out there on the street.

There are simply too many guns as it is, so anything that limits new guns is just slowing down the problem, not actually solving anything. I'm a scientist, and I develop solutions to problems - actual solutions - not feel good measures that won't really accomplish anything. And nothing short of a complete halt on the sales of new guns, in addition to removing certain types of extreme-danger guns from the public, is going to have a meaningful reduction in crime.


This can accomplished easily in a two-part legislative package. The first element would instill an immediate temporary moratorium on the sales of new guns, for a defined period, say five years. For the second element we should analyze the available data to determine what sorts of guns should be banned in the legislation, for example: assault guns, handguns, guns that use clips, guns that can fire repeatedly, sniper guns, guns that are excessively powerful, etc.

Offer a limited-time buyback program that provides gift cards or tax rebates in exchange for banned guns, and after that, offer rewards to anyone who turns in someone is possession of a banned weapon. Heavy fines and jail time for offenders.

At the end of the five year moratorium, legally-permitted types of guns can go back on sale to the public. Used guns of the types permitted by law can also be resold then.

All of this can be without any infringement on the second amendment whatsoever. You can still keep certain guns, so your "right to keep and bear arms" isn't infringed.


This is so obvious I just cannot fathom why this hasn't been done sooner. It's very distressing.

Seriously, "Sniper guns"? Please define as I have never heard this term when discussion gun control.

I'm a scientist, not a gun expert, but I would define a sniper rifle as any rifle that is used, or could be used, by a sniper. Hence "sniper guns" (duh )

If you needed some kind of specific standard, then I'd argue anything with a magnifying capability that makes long distance shooting possible. Anything capable of shooting long distances, over 100 meters, for example. That's how I'd define a sniper gun.

There is no legitimate purpose for a person to own something like that. A person 50-100 meters away cannot possibly pose a threat to you, so there is no reason why you should be able to have a gun capable of killing a person at that range. This is a no brainer.

Nearly every firearm can be lethal at 50-100 meters.

It seems the problem you have is with scopes and other magnified optics, this is a new one.

Average distance in a homicide is under 5 feet. People looking to shoot at great distances are doing so for competition or hunting, not for murder.

If the average distance of a shooting is five feet (let's just for the moment assume your sourcing is legitimate) then why on earth do you NEED a gun that can hit and kill someone 150 feet away?

And why should anyone be practicing shooting long distances? That in and of itself strikes me as an alarming danger signal. Why would someone be practicing to shoot a distant targets? Who do they plan on shooting from afar? Sounds like an assassin wanna-be to me. JFK and MLK were killed at very long distances, nearly 70 meters in JFK's case. I would definitely think banning the type of guns capable of doing that makes sense.

70 meters is not far at all by firearms standards. You don't need to kill anyone at any distance, however we do live in a world with physics. Look at how many homicides occur every year at 50+ meters. I don't know where you would even find this info but my guess is there are under 3 and that is a conservative estimate. 100-300 Meters is a common distance to shoot rifles at for hunting and sport, and you have long range hunting and competitions that push 1500 meters.

1500'meters is nearly a mile. That's absurd. There is absolutely no need for something like that. A person (or animal, for that matter) has no chance at all if they can't even see or hear being shot at from such a distance, it's completely unsportsmanlike when it comes to game animals, and completely unfair when it comes to people trying to avoid being shot.

Again, I'm not a gun expert, but I will say you're not doing your hobby a favor by arguing in favor of stuff like this. I find it alarming that someone could shoot at me from 1500 meters away, and I wouldn't even know until I was hit by the bullet. That's totally unacceptable.

Because you would totally know before, if someone shot you at 20 yards? I think you sound a bit ridiculous, but if the only firearm experience you have is with Hollywood or video games I totally understand.

I could see someone 60 ft away from me, and try to evade them. At least I'd have a chance. There is no chance at all if the person shooting at me is 300 ft away. That's what needs to be outlawed.

How many shootings happen at that distance? I think you are living in a fantasy world. If you want to do something about guns that doesn't make you sound crazy, focus on the ones that do the killing.

The DC snipers were using a rifle with a telescope device to aim with in order to shoot people over 150 yards away in a couple cases. That's exactly why these telescope devices and the rifles that allow their use should be outlawed. We've already had numerous examples of such long distance killing.

Are you trying to lie to everyone or are you just misinformed?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:70 yards is 210 feet. That is FAR longer a distance than any person with lawful motives needs to be able to shoot.

We routinely teach and have competitions out to 1500 yards for the CMP at Camp Perry. And most people who own AR15s are looking to shoot between 25-300 yards.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They keep getting more extreme. Now you guys want to take away hunting rifles?

This pattern of behavior is why sanctuary Counties have been created, no one trusts you guys.

+1 I can't believe some of the crap I've read in this thread about banning certain types of firearms. These people don't want guns in the hands of law abiding civilians, only criminals. At least thats how they come across.

I would define a “criminal” as someone who will willfully break a law if it’s implemented.

Would you turn in your firearms if there were a law requiring confiscation?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They keep getting more extreme. Now you guys want to take away hunting rifles?

This pattern of behavior is why sanctuary Counties have been created, no one trusts you guys.

STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!!

I didn't say ANYTHING about banning hunting rifles. I said we need to ban SNIPER GUNS. Guns that use high magnification telescope aiming devices that can shoot accurately past a hundred or more feet. I didn't say a single word about banning hunting rifles. Stop trying to move the goalposts. I'm in favor of hunting.

WTF? I think you need to lay off the video games.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They keep getting more extreme. Now you guys want to take away hunting rifles?

This pattern of behavior is why sanctuary Counties have been created, no one trusts you guys.

+1 I can't believe some of the crap I've read in this thread about banning certain types of firearms. These people don't want guns in the hands of law abiding civilians, only criminals. At least thats how they come across.

I would define a “criminal” as someone who will willfully break a law if it’s implemented.

Would you turn in your firearms if there were a law requiring confiscation?

Full on confiscation? As in police going door to door asking what you have and then seizing firearms without a fair compensation?

I wouldn't need to give them up since I tragically lost them in a boating accident a few months ago. Way to bring up a traumatic experience.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They keep getting more extreme. Now you guys want to take away hunting rifles?

This pattern of behavior is why sanctuary Counties have been created, no one trusts you guys.

+1 I can't believe some of the crap I've read in this thread about banning certain types of firearms. These people don't want guns in the hands of law abiding civilians, only criminals. At least thats how they come across.

I would define a “criminal” as someone who will willfully break a law if it’s implemented.

Would you turn in your firearms if there were a law requiring confiscation?

You guys seem like you would be more okay with us having illegal handguns rather than legal rifles. So once we become criminals will you leave us alone like you do the current criminals who are responsible for the majority of gun violence in the US?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They keep getting more extreme. Now you guys want to take away hunting rifles?

This pattern of behavior is why sanctuary Counties have been created, no one trusts you guys.

STOP PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH!!!

I didn't say ANYTHING about banning hunting rifles. I said we need to ban SNIPER GUNS. Guns that use high magnification telescope aiming devices that can shoot accurately past a hundred or more feet. I didn't say a single word about banning hunting rifles. Stop trying to move the goalposts. I'm in favor of hunting.

WTF? I think you need to lay off the video games.

Dude, stop picking on her. This person is clearly delusional, let her live in a make believe world is she wants. She is a great example of why we need to fight to keep our rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://wtvr.com/2019/12/17/governor-northam-budget/

Governor Northam is increasing the state prison budget in anticipation of putting a bunch of recalcitrant gun nutters in the slammer!!! Woot!!!!!

I bet you sickos will be questioning your ammosexuality the first time you're in the prison shower a big Bubba comes up behind you.

Things are about to get really real for you gun nutters. You are going to jail. Where you belong.

Oh please. We all know who will suffer from expanded incarceration.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I can't understand not wanting ANY gun control measures. Currently a non citizen can buy any gun he wants as long as the magazine holds fewer than 16 rounds. Seung-Hui Cho, the VA Tech shooter was able to purchase an arsenal. He was a resident alien. He took 32 lives in minutes with guns he bought legally in VA and had delivered to a gun shop in VA.

I think adults who recklessly leave a firearm where a child can obtain it should be charged. Last week there were two incidents in the RVA area where toddlers got guns. One killed a sibling, one killed himself. Also the morons who leave guns in motor vehicles that are then stolen ought to face charges. It is an extremely common way criminals get a hold of guns. Many are just straw purchasers where the gun/car owner claims a theft happened and can then make a claim on insurance while he knows damn well who has his gun.

Failure to accept some common sense laws is going to back fire for those who want to keep some rights. I'm a gun owner and I think there is something wrong with you nuts who think you should have unlimited access to assault weapons. The NRA lost me back in the 1990's when they went to the mat defending cop killer bullets.

+1
Gun ownership comes with responsibilities. If you F up, there should be consequences. But the problem is that our country is full of uneducated rubes who have been brainwashed by the NRA and Fox News for 25+ years.

+2
All of this.

Please expand on "Cop Killer Bullets"? I have never heard that phrase outside of Hollywood. Now possibly you are referring to hollow points? If you are let me know so I can educate you about them, their usage and why "Cop Killer" is a myth. Hollow Points are actually much safer for civilians to use in self defense situations.

Seriously if you want to know I can try to explain why, but I'm guessing I'll just receive some attacks and insults.

Anyone?

Any bullet that can kill a police officer should be outlawed, period. Frankly, and bullet that can kill a human should be banned, but one thing at a time. I'll take what we can get for now.[u]

Ignore this crazy lady please.

Now on to the nitty gritty.

You do realize hollow points are much safer to use in a self defense scenario? The majority of these scenarios occur at distances under 10 feet. Unless the FMJ round is stopped by a tougher bone (Jaw, femur, pelvis, skull). That round has the ability to penetrate the initial target, exit and continue with enough kinetic energy to pass through walls/doors, even another person or two. This is particularly dangerous in high density places such as townhomes and apartments. Even in the suburbs, your neighbors house usually isn't too far away.

HP handgun ammunition does do more damage in tissue. This is because it designed to "dump" the energy into the target as well as "mushroom" which creates a larger wound cavity. There are tradeoffs, but I do believe it is safer for everyone if those who carry handguns (especially in public) use HP ammo. Now if you were worried about defeating soft armor (Mexico/Brazil) FMJ or a specialized round would be the way to go.

+1. Whatever side you're on, this is some serious knowledge dropped

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:They keep getting more extreme. Now you guys want to take away hunting rifles?

This pattern of behavior is why sanctuary Counties have been created, no one trusts you guys.

+1 I can't believe some of the crap I've read in this thread about banning certain types of firearms. These people don't want guns in the hands of law abiding civilians, only criminals. At least thats how they come across.

I would define a “criminal” as someone who will willfully break a law if it’s implemented.

Would you turn in your firearms if there were a law requiring confiscation?

Full on confiscation? As in police going door to door asking what you have and then seizing firearms without a fair compensation?

I wouldn't need to give them up since I tragically lost them in a boating accident a few months ago. Way to bring up a traumatic experience.

So you're basically acknowledging that you'll become a criminal once the laws change in such a way as to turn you into one. You won't make any effort to change with the laws. Is that about right?

So you're essentially a "pre-criminal" right now, then. You shouldn't be allowed to own a gun right now, in the present.