Unlucky 15 Year Old Accidentally Shot By Brother

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]As I said I don't f*cking care. Just telling you your argument is subjective and law makers have precedent on their side. If you took that argument to court you'd get laughed out. It's bad. Make up a new one.airshocker

Humor me.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]As I said I don't f*cking care. Just telling you your argument is subjective and law makers have precedent on their side. If you took that argument to court you'd get laughed out. It's bad. Make up a new one.Ace6301

Humor me.

[QUOTE="worlock77"][QUOTE="senses_fail_06"]Feel free to leave if you don't like it. There are plenty of countries that have taken away guns. senses_fail_06

[QUOTE="WiiCubeM1"]

I'm not arguing diction here. When I say rapid-fire, I'm not referring to a fully-automatic weapon, and I am in no way comparing an AR-15 to one. I'm just referring to the nature of a semi-automatic weapon. You can fire it as fast as you can pull the trigger.

Practical weapons, in my eyes, are weapons that grant me something in return for the money and care I put into them. I shot a deer back in November with my .308 and I'm still working my way to the backstrap. An AR-15 is an entertainment piece where I live. Every trip to the shooting range is $50 down the drain when my cousin brings his AR.

I can understand your reasoning, though. I've only been hunting in NY once, but I remember that state regulations allow for a semi-automatic weapon as long as the ammo capacity doesn't exceed 6 rounds. You have to understand my reasoning, though. Many of us that already live with regulations on weapons like the AR never really understand the fuss people throw because we've lived so long without using them, it's almost meaningless to us. As conservative as my family is, we all agree that semi-automatics never really serve a purpose that can't be filled by a normal rifle. The AR being practical to me is as alien as my views are to you.

Oh yeah, and I'll tell my cousin about that Polyformace ammo. Might save him a couple bucks.

airshocker

I have to pay $60 to shoot either a handgun or rifle. And there aren't many places that have indoor rifle ranges. I use my AR-15 at least twice a month. Entertainment is a practical use, and I derive great entertainment from shooting better than all of my buddies. So now you understand my fears on the matter. If I lose my AR-15, I lose about 2k that I've put into it. Gov. Cuomo isn't even suggesting a buyback, he's suggesting a forced confiscation of my AR-15.

Throwing practicality out the window, you have to respect the position I'm in. I've never committed a crime with my firearms. I've never so much as joked with one of them. The mere suggestion of taking it away from me is an outrage. Not only that, but these chuckleheads in my state are suggesting a separate, state-run NICS for AMMUNITION PURHCASES! And outlawing ammunition from being bought online.

I'm sick and tired of being punished for doing absolutely nothing wrong. And those who are apathetic to this issue are no better than the people who are doing this.

Trust me, I respect your position. It's like I said, I'm an advocate for gun rights. I own 6 guns myself, one of which is a heavily modified .308 Savage I've put about $800 into over the last 12 years. If someone were to try to take away my rights to own a gun that I use to feed myself, I'd do everything in my power to prevent it from happening.

I'm about as educated on AR regulation as I am on programming: very little. All I know is what is in place in my area, so you'd have to forgive my statements about it. I don't believe semi-automatics should be banned, but I do believe they should be regulated a bit more than a standard firearm due to increased potential of harm they have over your repeating rifles. I don't believe in any outright bans, but certain components of a semi-auto should be harder to acquire than others for certain people for precaution.

I guess we can agree that it is a right to own a firearm if you have the knowledge and the discipline to prove you can handle and respect the dangers of a gun. Why should the men and women who would never abuse their rights to own a firearm give way to pay for the mistakes of the few who don't realize this? It isn't right. I do think Cuomo is overreacting on this issue quite a bit. You have my sympathy there.

I think people should get a license to use a device that hurls shards of metal at 3,000 feet per second.

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]You say it's not subjective but yet these law makers clearly see that it is reasonable to ban the AR-15. You disagree with them and think it isn't reasonable. It is very clearly subjective. All you're doing is pointing out that an AR-15 is just as deadly without a feature that is supposed to increase it's lethality. If you're trying to argue that the AR-15 is being banned unreasonably you are doing an incredibly good job helping the stance you oppose. Ace6301

Okay, then explain to me why it's reasonable to ban AR-15s and their aesthetic components.

A weapon is going to be deadly regardless of what kind of magazine is inside of it. That's why it's pointless to worry about the magazine size.

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

Okay, then explain to me why it's reasonable to ban AR-15s and their aesthetic components.

A weapon is going to be deadly regardless of what kind of magazine is inside of it. That's why it's pointless to worry about the magazine size.

WhiteKnight77

That is true, but it is also equally true that most massacres are not caused by handguns but rather automatic weapons.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"][QUOTE="Ace6301"]As I said I don't f*cking care. Just telling you your argument is subjective and law makers have precedent on their side. If you took that argument to court you'd get laughed out. It's bad. Make up a new one.Chargeagles1

That is true, but it is also equally true that most massacres are not caused by handguns but rather automatic weapons.

Its actually a good reason why stressing proper gun safety and storage is important. Children should be taught at an early age that you treat a gun as if it is always loaded.

looks like someone got mad. anyways....

Stupid kids with irresponsible parents are not a justification for taking away our constitutionally guaranteed right to defend ourselves.Laihendi

Its actually a good reason why stressing proper gun safety and storage is important. Children should be taught at an early age that you treat a gun as if it is always loaded.

UnknownSniper65

[QUOTE="WiiCubeM1"]

I'm not arguing diction here. When I say rapid-fire, I'm not referring to a fully-automatic weapon, and I am in no way comparing an AR-15 to one. I'm just referring to the nature of a semi-automatic weapon. You can fire it as fast as you can pull the trigger.

Practical weapons, in my eyes, are weapons that grant me something in return for the money and care I put into them. I shot a deer back in November with my .308 and I'm still working my way to the backstrap. An AR-15 is an entertainment piece where I live. Every trip to the shooting range is $50 down the drain when my cousin brings his AR.

I can understand your reasoning, though. I've only been hunting in NY once, but I remember that state regulations allow for a semi-automatic weapon as long as the ammo capacity doesn't exceed 6 rounds. You have to understand my reasoning, though. Many of us that already live with regulations on weapons like the AR never really understand the fuss people throw because we've lived so long without using them, it's almost meaningless to us. As conservative as my family is, we all agree that semi-automatics never really serve a purpose that can't be filled by a normal rifle. The AR being practical to me is as alien as my views are to you.

Oh yeah, and I'll tell my cousin about that Polyformace ammo. Might save him a couple bucks.

airshocker

I have to pay $60 to shoot either a handgun or rifle. And there aren't many places that have indoor rifle ranges. I use my AR-15 at least twice a month. Entertainment is a practical use, and I derive great entertainment from shooting better than all of my buddies. So now you understand my fears on the matter. If I lose my AR-15, I lose about 2k that I've put into it. Gov. Cuomo isn't even suggesting a buyback, he's suggesting a forced confiscation of my AR-15.

Throwing practicality out the window, you have to respect the position I'm in. I've never committed a crime with my firearms. I've never so much as joked with one of them. The mere suggestion of taking it away from me is an outrage. Not only that, but these chuckleheads in my state are suggesting a separate, state-run NICS for AMMUNITION PURHCASES! And outlawing ammunition from being bought online.

I'm sick and tired of being punished for doing absolutely nothing wrong. And those who are apathetic to this issue are no better than the people who are doing this.

People have a way of being apathetic about that which does not personally affect them, and only really caring about issues that directly affect them.

Same principle applies to budgetary spending. Everyone is ok with cuts until something important to them is cut.

While you're at it, get rid of bicycles, swimming pools, cars, and skateboards. They can and have caused accidental deaths.

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] As I said I don't f*cking care. Just telling you your argument is subjective and law makers have precedent on their side. If you took that argument to court you'd get laughed out. It's bad. Make up a new one.Chargeagles1

That is true, but it is also equally true that most massacres are not caused by handguns but rather automatic weapons.

Assault weapon=/= automatic.

Assault weapon=/= automatic.

Person0

An assault weapon is a fully automatic rifle. That is the most commonly used definition for it. A semiautomatic AR-15 is considered a sporting rifle.

[QUOTE="Person0"]

Assault weapon=/= automatic.

airshocker

An assault weapon is a fully automatic rifle. That is the most commonly used definition for it. A semiautomatic AR-15 is considered a sporting rifle.

Not in this chart.

James Holmes, along with an AR-15 assault rifle,

Adam Lanza wielded a .223 Bushmaster semiautomatic assault rifle Mother Jones

Not in this chart.

[Quote="Mother Jones"]

James Holmes, along with an AR-15 assault rifle,

Adam Lanza wielded a .223 Bushmaster semiautomatic assault rifle Person0

You can post any chart you want, and use any media personality you want. An assault rifle is fully automatic. I'm a cop and I was in the military. I know the difference. Assault rifles can't be owned without a very special license given through the BATF. I don't have that license and I own an AR-15. So how can it be an assault weapon?

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Person0"]

Assault weapon=/= automatic.

Person0

An assault weapon is a fully automatic rifle. That is the most commonly used definition for it. A semiautomatic AR-15 is considered a sporting rifle.

Not in this chart.

James Holmes, along with an AR-15 assault rifle,

Adam Lanza wielded a .223 Bushmaster semiautomatic assault rifle Mother Jones

It was a stupid kid with dumb parents. The end.

[QUOTE="Person0"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

An assault weapon is a fully automatic rifle. That is the most commonly used definition for it. A semiautomatic AR-15 is considered a sporting rifle.

WhiteKnight77

Not in this chart.

James Holmes, along with an AR-15 assault rifle,

Adam Lanza wielded a .223 Bushmaster semiautomatic assault rifle Mother Jones

Even agreeing with you gets me attacked:P

:roll: Mother Jones is liberally biased and if you go by that chart, then handguns are still the most used firearm to commit mass murder and not semi-automatic rifles.WhiteKnight77

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="airshocker"]

Okay, then explain to me why it's reasonable to ban AR-15s and their aesthetic components.

A weapon is going to be deadly regardless of what kind of magazine is inside of it. That's why it's pointless to worry about the magazine size.

WhiteKnight77

[QUOTE="Person0"]

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

An assault weapon is a fully automatic rifle. That is the most commonly used definition for it. A semiautomatic AR-15 is considered a sporting rifle.

WhiteKnight77

Not in this chart.

James Holmes, along with an AR-15 assault rifle,

Adam Lanza wielded a .223 Bushmaster semiautomatic assault rifle Mother Jones

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"][QUOTE="Person0"]

Not in this chart.

[Quote="Mother Jones"]

James Holmes, along with an AR-15 assault rifle,

Adam Lanza wielded a .223 Bushmaster semiautomatic assault rifle DroidPhysX

Stupid kids with irresponsible parents are not a justification for taking away our constitutionally guaranteed right to defend ourselves.Laihendi

Whenever I see that Bulbasaur avatar, I know I am going to facepalm at something. Also, Bulbasaur is my favorite, how dare you.

Any parent who allows this to happen under their roof should be held 100% liable and charged with a form of neglect and punished.

If you own a gun, you assume the responsibility of that gun. It's as simple as that.

Any parent who allows this to happen under their roof should be held 100% liable and charged with a form of neglect and punished.

If you own a gun, you assume the responsibility of that gun. It's as simple as that.

Wasdie

Exactly. Unlike with automobiles, gun owners don't call these things äccidents. We call them negligent discharges at the most tame. There is ALWAYS someone at fault because a gun owner and the gun handler are responsible for every single bullet that comes out of the barrel.

No, it goes to show you that you need to keep dangerous things out the reach of children....tocool340

You're right. And who is "You"? That should be the parent that holds responsibility.

Can I just say how weird I think it is that we have two seperate topics on 15 y/olds with guns involved on the OT front page one where a kids protects his sister with a gun, and another where he is shot with a gun.layton2012

[QUOTE="dave123321"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]This is like saying you're not going to believe what the Nazis said about smoking cigarettes adverse effects because they're Nazis.DroidPhysX

[QUOTE="airshocker"]

[QUOTE="Ace6301"]You say it's not subjective but yet these law makers clearly see that it is reasonable to ban the AR-15. You disagree with them and think it isn't reasonable. It is very clearly subjective. All you're doing is pointing out that an AR-15 is just as deadly without a feature that is supposed to increase it's lethality. If you're trying to argue that the AR-15 is being banned unreasonably you are doing an incredibly good job helping the stance you oppose. Ace6301

Okay, then explain to me why it's reasonable to ban AR-15s and their aesthetic components.

A weapon is going to be deadly regardless of what kind of magazine is inside of it. That's why it's pointless to worry about the magazine size.

That's not true. at all.

The reasonable and proportionality tests are cornerstones in constitutional/administrative challenges, in nearly every country on the planet- including america.

As a canadian- look at the Art. 1 of the canadian charter and the accompanying oakes test which is, IIRC, predominant in the commonlaw world.

of course, the court decides (many would argue), in a completly subjective manner what is reasonable and/or proportional. It's usually used as the prime example of the criticism people have over judicial activism.

The only gun-related stories we hear are the ones in which guns hurt people.

We never hear about the stories in which guns save people. The liberal media only wants to think that guns are bad.

It's a doubled edged sword. Guns hurt people, but also SAVE people.

But here's the catch. By taking guns away from everyone, all the law-abiding citizens won't have guns, but all the criminals will obtain theirs illegally.

How are we gonna defend ourselves? Criminals are gonna get their hands on guns regardless.

And parents shouldn't give their children such easy access to weapons either.

Any parent who allows this to happen under their roof should be held 100% liable and charged with a form of neglect and punished.

If you own a gun, you assume the responsibility of that gun. It's as simple as that.

Wasdie

Yeah. Don't punish everyone for someone's stupid mistake.

Nanny-statism is a terrible thing.

The only gun-related stories we hear are the ones in which guns hurt people.

We never hear about the stories in which guns save people. The liberal media only wants to think that guns are bad.

It's a doubled edged sword. Guns hurt people, but also SAVE people.

But here's the catch. By taking guns away from everyone, all the law-abiding citizens won't have guns, but all the criminals will obtain theirs illegally.

How are we gonna defend ourselves? Criminals are gonna get their hands on guns regardless.

And parents shouldn't give their children such easy access to weapons either.

GeoffZak

Nobody is going to take your guns away. This is a red herring perpetuated by gun industry lobby groups like the NRA. It needs to be droped as it stands in the way of people having an honest dialog on the subject.

[QUOTE="tocool340"]No, it goes to show you that you need to keep dangerous things out the reach of children....VoodooHak

You're right. And who is "You"? That should be the parent that holds responsibility.

Any parent who allows this to happen under their roof should be held 100% liable and charged with a form of neglect and punished.

If you own a gun, you assume the responsibility of that gun. It's as simple as that.

Wasdie

Didn't we just have a thread on a 15 year old *saving* his sister with an AR-15?Zeviander

Yes we did, sherlock

Using someone's emotions to enhance your agenda... Not cool.. Not cool at all.