Token wrote:ygmir wrote:
I'll not convince you, you'll not convince me, yet we both feel we are correct.
Fair enough.
I didn’t think we needed any convincing. It was a dialog with differing views. Perfectly fine.
We not that far apart. My pet peeve with assault weapons is that kids shouldn’t have access. No point. Let them have a Ruger 22 plinker when they’re 21 and unlock the big calibers later in their life.
If you’re a 50 year old geezer and want an AK47, SKS, M-16 ...I’m fine with that. Plenty countries in the world have conscription where folks take their HK, AK, M ... home after they do their 1, 2 or 4 years and they don’t got crazy shooters.
I'll not convince you, you'll not convince me, yet we both feel we are correct.
Fair enough.
I didn’t think we needed any convincing. It was a dialog with differing views. Perfectly fine.
yeah, sorry, I was using "you" in the broad term as in "anyone". I agree, we were just having a discussion and making points.
and I get your peeve. I just see, though, that the vast, vast majority of "kids" who have AR's or whatever, don't do wrong. I mean really, count the number of "kids" who hurt others with a semi auto rifle, and compare that to the number of "kids" who have access to one? I'd bet it's not even mathematically on the page as a percentage. And so, we punish a huge number of "kids", who have done, or will do, nothing wrong. Knowing, that the "kids" who are determined, will get hold of what they need/want, anyway.
How, do you draw an arbitrary line on "kid"? I know plenty of 15 year olds I'd trust over many many 30 year olds.
That said, though I'd not favor it, I'd not scream and cry if some sort of "21 to buy this type weapon" thing happened. But, I'd like a provision wherein they could still use them, in certain circumstances, such as being in the military, police forces, certain shooting competitions, and such, or practicing for same.
To address "who needs a semi auto" for hunting? And the naive, uninformed statements that it should always be a "one shot kill":
Well, the world is not perfect. And yeah, even the best marksmen don't drop their quarry with one shot, all the time. This does not mean they "spray" bullets to hit something......but, when tracking a target through a scope, and firing, you then watch. If, indeed, it does not go right down, you shoot again. This is best accomplished, and fastest follow up, with a semi-auto. You don't lose sight of the quarry with a semi auto, where with any other action type, you will mostly, as you operate the action. And this all happens in a very, very short period of time.
**to be fair, when I was a hunter, I used a bolt action. Only one deer ever required a "second shot", and would not have, except I did not want it to suffer, for the few seconds it stood. The initial wound was more than mortal, but I did not know or want to find out**
Rather than arguing the repeat chambering mechanism, I can see a valid discussion related to magazine capacity.
It's valid to argue no one needs more than 10 shots at something. And, especially hunting, you can carry extra clips, and if you've shot that many times, can't be in much of a hurry by the time you're out of shells, to change magazines. Heck, most hunting magazines hold 5 or less. So, there's that.
Many will say this is putting too fine a point on it. I'd disagree. Terms and specifics matter.
Saying a particular gun is a "weapon of war", because it's black and scary looking, is just some group speak phrase, for effect. Again, it may well be argued related to magazine capacity, but not the weapon, it'self. This comes from the uniformed, thinking they know something, and using their "righteous indignation" to try to bully a point across.
