Combat-shotgun.com
Sign up Calendar Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 5 of 5     «   Prev   2   3   4   5
David Armstrong

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 371
Reply with quote  #61 
Quote:
We both know 30 round magazines are not needed to kill innocent people.

I would extend that to say we also know that 30 round magazines are not needed to defend yourself, your business, or your home.  That is what seems to bother so many of the non-gun folks that I talk with on things like this.  Both sides want to argue that doing away with "X" won't make any difference, but they then argue it won't make a difference only in relation to their particular point.  We argue an AR-15 is no more dangerous than any other gun, but then we argue we have to have an AR 15 to defend ourselves.  We argue that limiting magazine capacity won't make any difference, but then we argue we have to have hi-cap mags to defend ourselves.  Lot's of folks see that and say it doesn't make any sense.  
0
combatshotgun

Avatar / Picture

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 1,770
Reply with quote  #62 
Never thought that David.   I will agree to the present situation of an Armed School Resource Officer as that has been happening for 30 years or so.   Other Armed staff would be plain clothes and of course the Resource Officer and Administration would know who they are.  As for Teachers, we have one and I have known others that are also Reserve Deputies.   Down in Jax Florida back in the day there were a lot of Teachers on the JSO Sheriffs Mounted Posey (Horses) and the Four Wheel Drive Posey.  They did more then Search and Rescue as they also were activated when searching to fleeing felons or escapees.   We have several teachers here now that are in the National Guard and Reserves.   So there are Qualified Teachers in every School to help address this issue.  If you're still Teaching you would be the one I would want armed.   I am also going to assume you have had teaches in your Concealed Carry Training Classes and some of them would have met with your approval.
__________________
JD McGuire, Owner
AI&P Tactical, LLC
http://www.aiptactical.com
http://www.tacticalgunslings.com
Remington LE Armorer
Mossberg LE Armorer
0
Unobtanium

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 167
Reply with quote  #63 
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong

I would extend that to say we also know that 30 round magazines are not needed to defend yourself, your business, or your home.  That is what seems to bother so many of the non-gun folks that I talk with on things like this.  Both sides want to argue that doing away with "X" won't make any difference, but they then argue it won't make a difference only in relation to their particular point.  We argue an AR-15 is no more dangerous than any other gun, but then we argue we have to have an AR 15 to defend ourselves.  We argue that limiting magazine capacity won't make any difference, but then we argue we have to have hi-cap mags to defend ourselves.  Lot's of folks see that and say it doesn't make any sense.  


I personally like 30 round mags.

1: Rather have and not need
2: They fit my mag pouches nicely
3: They make range time more better. Noone I know runs <20 round mags in an M4 type rifle except off a bench/prone, and even then, you cannot monopod the gun on the mag, so that's usually a bipod/precision rig.

0
Unobtanium

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 167
Reply with quote  #64 
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong

Wrong, and that is the problem.  If you think we are not dealing with the "normal" folks that is the problem.  It is those "normal" folks who are going to decide the issue, not the fringe element.  And FWIW, 90% of the "normal" people on our side (not sure why we have sided, BTW) disagree with the all or nothing view you promote.  So how do we deal with that overwhelming majority on both sides who want to workk something out??


I beg to differ. Those normal folks elected Feinstein, and others, who are proposing all or nothing via compromise. They've openly stated their end goal. They keep getting elected by those people.


Regardless of what you or I think, go out and create more Pro-Gun, Pro-Liberty people that enjoy the shooting sports responsibly. That's the best course of action, IMO
0
David Armstrong

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 371
Reply with quote  #65 
Quote:
I personally like 30 round mags.

So do I, but I can' think of anything I would need to do with a 30 round magazine that I couldn't do with a 20 round mag.  My point is that it is a bad position to take when someone argues "X" doesn't matter because you could do the same thing with "Y" or "Z", but then argues that is so important for them to have "X".  BTW, I'm aware of a lot of guys that prefer the 20 round mag for the AR.  I'm one of them, in fact.  The 20 round is a bit more compact, makes the gun more maneuverable, and again does anything I need to do.  A lot of LEO's around here use the 20 round as their primary mag with a 30 in reserve just for that reason.  BTW #2... they do have 20 round mag pouches![biggrin]

Quote:
I beg to differ. Those normal folks elected Feinstein, and others, who are proposing all or nothing via compromise. They've openly stated their end goal. They keep getting elected by those people.

Sorry, but that really doesn't fly, and grossly misstates the issue.  Yes, some folks elect people like Feinstein.  And some folks elect people like Trump.  Dragging out individual things like that does not reflect the norm by any measure.  The "normal" people in the U.S. do favor some regulation of firearms, they do favor some restrictions, and so on.  For most folks the gun issue isn't even that big a deal.  Electing a far left or far right person on one subject, such as guns, is not at all indicative of the feelings of most people.  We need to realize that, as JD has said.
Quote:
go out and create more Pro-Gun, Pro-Liberty people that enjoy the shooting sports responsibly

Agreed, but I don't think we do that by demonizing anyone and everyone that does not toe the far-right line on the topic.
0
David Armstrong

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 371
Reply with quote  #66 
Quote:
If you're still Teaching you would be the one I would want armed.   I am also going to assume you have had teaches in your Concealed Carry Training Classes and some of them would have met with your approval.

Yeah, I'm still teaching and armed, with permission of the appropriate persons.  And I've taught a few teachers for the CCW, some of which I understand are carrying, again with permission of the appropriate persons.  I don't object to armed teachers or officers on campus, BTW, I just don't think it is that good of a response to the problem.  I think target hardening would give us a better return.  Numerous schools, for example, have classroom doors that can't even be locked.  Armed response on campus is one part of the equation, but to me it is a minor player compared to reducing the ability of a shooter to get on campus with a gun.
0
combatshotgun

Avatar / Picture

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 1,770
Reply with quote  #67 
That is the key David.   So many nuts out there think we want every teacher to have gun, freaking idiots.   They think if the teacher can go and get a CCW they can then carry at school.  None of us want that nor have ever suggested that.   Trainers like you have passed people and the were given CCW because they met the minimum requirement.  Think about all the ones you told to get additional training before they carry[smile] The ones chosen would have to under go screening including a psychological test.   I had to take these for assignment to HRT and even though Certified and an existing member I had to under go a more extensive one for assignment to Team Leader.   The Teachers selected have to pass that as well as advance firearms with the weapon they will be utilizing on the level of LE Certification or higher. 

So much is done in the name of fire safety yet, most modern school building won't burn if attacked them with a Flame Thrower.  So some of the things are still there.  Locked doors with release bars with audio alarms.   Make it require Security to respond to the area.   Strick penalties for anyone opening the door unless in an emergency.   Camera's that work with monitors not just in a Security both but on all the Administrators desk and other designated personnel.   These are just a few things.

I am also wondering if Fire Pull Alarms can be programed to have distinct alarms.  One for fire, one for active shooter and one for Tornados in Tornado active areas.  Pull once for fire, twice for Active shooter and three times for Tornados.   Pull alarms are already everywhere in a school.  Security doors that secure from the inside would be costly but effective to barricade in place.
Anyone who has been in a Max Prison knows how fast it can be locked down and one area isolated with just a few well placed grill gates or security doors.

As wonderful as putting a 9mm projectile into the brain pan of an active shooter, preventing him from getting into the building in the first place is a much better plan.  9mm plan is a last resort.

__________________
JD McGuire, Owner
AI&P Tactical, LLC
http://www.aiptactical.com
http://www.tacticalgunslings.com
Remington LE Armorer
Mossberg LE Armorer
0
combatshotgun

Avatar / Picture

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 1,770
Reply with quote  #68 
I work for Multiple attorney's.   Only one I know of carry's which shocks the hell out of me that they all don't.   I preach to them and even sent them that video from a few years back that showed that attorney dancing around the tree while his pissed off client emptied a gun at him.

Most of them are neutral on guns, they don't have them but won't deny law abiding citizens from having them.   As you can guess this topic is coming up and several of these very reasonable men have stated they are beginning to look at this issue differently.   They voice concerns about the over reach if the mental health issue is expanded but also about these type of guns being legal in our society.   So I am seeing my point being proven more every day.  When people like this turn on us it will be over and we will bear much of the blame because of our rigidness.

Dealers, Manufacturers and even owners are already to blame for the perception of the AR-15.   People in the business called them Assault Rifles to increase sales and even owners did.   We all know that Assault Rifles are either full Auto or Select Fire.  We all also know that AR does not stand for Assault Rifle but for Armalite Rifle.   We let it go on until it bit us in the ass after Sandy hook and then started calling them "Modern Sporting Rifles".    I have that term.   A modern Sporting rifle is also the new in the box model 70 or 700 you just got.  They are all simply Rifles and I object to both titles.   The AR like any other is a rifle, I can use it for sport or I can use it  to stop a threat on my life or my rights.

So yes, we have some blame for the current perception of this model of firearm.   We can also help to change the perception by becoming reasonable and understanding the perception of others weather warranted or not.    I have a friend whose wife is terrified of dogs.  I have to put mine out in the yard when they come over.   Her fear is real and terrifying to her and I can not discount it.  It is also unwarranted unless one would fear from the germs as they lick you.  But to her it is as real as any fear.   Many out there know nothing about guns and they have a real fear of them and especially the AR-15 and AK-47 because of the vilification of them.   They may also fear us simply because we are gun owners.   As this issue progresses and they see maybe for the first time, reasonable gun owners meeting others in the middle of this issue with mutual respect and both making concessions, maybe just maybe that fear goes away and they see our side.  But if we stand there and insist we are right and anyone against us is anti-American and a left wing nut then we will pushing the wrong people away from us.

__________________
JD McGuire, Owner
AI&P Tactical, LLC
http://www.aiptactical.com
http://www.tacticalgunslings.com
Remington LE Armorer
Mossberg LE Armorer
0
Unobtanium

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 167
Reply with quote  #69 
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong

So do I, but I can' think of anything I would need to do with a 30 round magazine that I couldn't do with a 20 round mag.  My point is that it is a bad position to take when someone argues "X" doesn't matter because you could do the same thing with "Y" or "Z", but then argues that is so important for them to have "X".  BTW, I'm aware of a lot of guys that prefer the 20 round mag for the AR.  I'm one of them, in fact.  The 20 round is a bit more compact, makes the gun more maneuverable, and again does anything I need to do.  A lot of LEO's around here use the 20 round as their primary mag with a 30 in reserve just for that reason.  BTW #2... they do have 20 round mag pouches![biggrin]


Sorry, but that really doesn't fly, and grossly misstates the issue.  Yes, some folks elect people like Feinstein.  And some folks elect people like Trump.  Dragging out individual things like that does not reflect the norm by any measure.  The "normal" people in the U.S. do favor some regulation of firearms, they do favor some restrictions, and so on.  For most folks the gun issue isn't even that big a deal.  Electing a far left or far right person on one subject, such as guns, is not at all indicative of the feelings of most people.  We need to realize that, as JD has said.

Agreed, but I don't think we do that by demonizing anyone and everyone that does not toe the far-right line on the topic.


I don't think I've demonized you, or JD. Thats a bit...extreme...
And no, you get others into it by doing what I did yesterday morning and going and taking a new shooter shooting and being safe and supportive and teaching.

You're in favor of giving up rights. I am not. Simple as that. California or NYS are places. You can move there and have your version of perfect. That's what I did. I packed up and moved to where I wanted to live based on many factors. I personally feel everyone should do that when they come of age and can afford to. Life is too short to live in an area that doesn't mirror your ideals.
0
Unobtanium

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 167
Reply with quote  #70 
Quote:
Originally Posted by combatshotgun
I work for Multiple attorney's.   Only one I know of carry's which shocks the hell out of me that they all don't.   I preach to them and even sent them that video from a few years back that showed that attorney dancing around the tree while his pissed off client emptied a gun at him.

Most of them are neutral on guns, they don't have them but won't deny law abiding citizens from having them.   As you can guess this topic is coming up and several of these very reasonable men have stated they are beginning to look at this issue differently.   They voice concerns about the over reach if the mental health issue is expanded but also about these type of guns being legal in our society.   So I am seeing my point being proven more every day.  When people like this turn on us it will be over and we will bear much of the blame because of our rigidness.

Dealers, Manufacturers and even owners are already to blame for the perception of the AR-15.   People in the business called them Assault Rifles to increase sales and even owners did.   We all know that Assault Rifles are either full Auto or Select Fire.  We all also know that AR does not stand for Assault Rifle but for Armalite Rifle.   We let it go on until it bit us in the ass after Sandy hook and then started calling them "Modern Sporting Rifles".    I have that term.   A modern Sporting rifle is also the new in the box model 70 or 700 you just got.  They are all simply Rifles and I object to both titles.   The AR like any other is a rifle, I can use it for sport or I can use it  to stop a threat on my life or my rights.

So yes, we have some blame for the current perception of this model of firearm.   We can also help to change the perception by becoming reasonable and understanding the perception of others weather warranted or not.    I have a friend whose wife is terrified of dogs.  I have to put mine out in the yard when they come over.   Her fear is real and terrifying to her and I can not discount it.  It is also unwarranted unless one would fear from the germs as they lick you.  But to her it is as real as any fear.   Many out there know nothing about guns and they have a real fear of them and especially the AR-15 and AK-47 because of the vilification of them.   They may also fear us simply because we are gun owners.   As this issue progresses and they see maybe for the first time, reasonable gun owners meeting others in the middle of this issue with mutual respect and both making concessions, maybe just maybe that fear goes away and they see our side.  But if we stand there and insist we are right and anyone against us is anti-American and a left wing nut then we will pushing the wrong people away from us.


I think the #1 way to fix this is get people behind the gun and some steel or similar reactive targets and show them how safe and fun they are. That said, Taran tactical still so got burned by their gunbunny, so it doesn't always work. 
0
Unobtanium

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 167
Reply with quote  #71 
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong

Yeah, I'm still teaching and armed, with permission of the appropriate persons.  And I've taught a few teachers for the CCW, some of which I understand are carrying, again with permission of the appropriate persons.  I don't object to armed teachers or officers on campus, BTW, I just don't think it is that good of a response to the problem.  I think target hardening would give us a better return.  Numerous schools, for example, have classroom doors that can't even be locked.  Armed response on campus is one part of the equation, but to me it is a minor player compared to reducing the ability of a shooter to get on campus with a gun.


I feel that an armed person in a school should be held to the same standards as FAMS. Not everyone is willing or capable, but just because some people are not, does not mean that this role should be softened up for the sake of filling it.
0
David Armstrong

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 371
Reply with quote  #72 
Quote:
I don't think I've demonized you, or JD. Thats a bit...extreme...

I didn't say you do that, I said when it is done it is not helpful...for either side.  I teach CCW classes and regularly have folks show up who are dead-set against assault rifles, who strongly believe there should be universal background checks, etc.  Should I run them off for their beliefs or should I recognize their concerns as a legitimate issue and bring them into the shooting world on a limited basis or tell them how wrong they are, how un-American they are, how they don't know what they are talking about.
Quote:
You're in favor of giving up rights

That is a good example of the problem.  I'm not in favor of giving up rights.  Haven't said that, haven't thought that.  As has been pointed out over and over all rights are subject to reasonable restriction, always have been and always will be.  I am in favor of negotiating and acting in a manner where we gain things while addressing those reasonable restrictions.  That is not giving up any rights.  That is a winning strategy if done right and can even expand those rights.  I use the CCW experience as a good example.  Through judicious negotiating we went from a minuscule number of "shall issue" states to an overwhelming majority of them.  I think that expanded our rights.  I think giving up bumpstocks in exchange for nationwide Constitutional carry would expand rights, not give them up.   I'll give an example you might think interesting.  Let's cap magazines at 20 rounds maximum, make possession of anything larger a felony.  In exchange we do away with the 1934 Firearms Act and anyone can get a full-auto firearm or SBR.  Would you consider that giving up rights or gaining rights??
0
Unobtanium

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 167
Reply with quote  #73 
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong

I didn't say you do that, I said when it is done it is not helpful...for either side.  I teach CCW classes and regularly have folks show up who are dead-set against assault rifles, who strongly believe there should be universal background checks, etc.  Should I run them off for their beliefs or should I recognize their concerns as a legitimate issue and bring them into the shooting world on a limited basis or tell them how wrong they are, how un-American they are, how they don't know what they are talking about.

That is a good example of the problem.  I'm not in favor of giving up rights.  Haven't said that, haven't thought that.  As has been pointed out over and over all rights are subject to reasonable restriction, always have been and always will be.  I am in favor of negotiating and acting in a manner where we gain things while addressing those reasonable restrictions.  That is not giving up any rights.  That is a winning strategy if done right and can even expand those rights.  I use the CCW experience as a good example.  Through judicious negotiating we went from a minuscule number of "shall issue" states to an overwhelming majority of them.  I think that expanded our rights.  I think giving up bumpstocks in exchange for nationwide Constitutional carry would expand rights, not give them up.   I'll give an example you might think interesting.  Let's cap magazines at 20 rounds maximum, make possession of anything larger a felony.  In exchange we do away with the 1934 Firearms Act and anyone can get a full-auto firearm or SBR.  Would you consider that giving up rights or gaining rights??


Why not let them convince themselves about the matter? Plenty of times I've gotten someone off the fence or even over it in this way. Disagreement doesn't have to be overt. No-one likes anyone else's idea, so I make it theirs. Works pretty well for me, and I've created plenty a pro-2a, ar15, 30 round mag loving patriot who previously only had a compact 9mm.
0
David Armstrong

Administrator
Registered:
Posts: 371
Reply with quote  #74 
I agree, I believe that when presented with real facts most folks come to a reasonable conclusion.  My point is that when we refuse to engage on anything other than an all-or-nothing basis it is hard to have that reasonable discussion.  Like it or not, plenty of folks that are very pro-2nd find lots of restrictions that you or I might hate to be quite reasonable and realistic.  Many who want to ban guns entirely feel they are acting in a reasonable and realistic manner.  Outright rejection of those positions does not help the cause, IMO.
0
Unobtanium

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 167
Reply with quote  #75 
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Armstrong
I agree, I believe that when presented with real facts most folks come to a reasonable conclusion.  My point is that when we refuse to engage on anything other than an all-or-nothing basis it is hard to have that reasonable discussion.  Like it or not, plenty of folks that are very pro-2nd find lots of restrictions that you or I might hate to be quite reasonable and realistic.  Many who want to ban guns entirely feel they are acting in a reasonable and realistic manner.  Outright rejection of those positions does not help the cause, IMO.


 I engaged you as someone who did not favor gun control,  hence my very direct responses. When engaging people who are for gun control , typically adopt a much more moderate approach, just as gun banners do. It works.
0
Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:

Easily create a Forum Website with Website Toolbox.