Not my point.
My point is that there are a lot of individuals who want some types of firearms banned but not all firearms banned. This is in contrast to the claim that everyone on the pro gun control side wants to ban any and all firearms.
I think we do ourselves a disservice if we misrepresent our opponents so greatly.

And usually those that want "some" firearms banned base those desires on misinformation or misunderstandings...such as relating Constitutional protections to hunting concerns, or believing that the police have some duty to protect you (the all too common reason such advocates suggest guns should only be available to police or military personnel...)....

The problem is not the type of weapon used to cause the havoc.  The problem is why are all these people going on killing sprees?  This is why the argument is not rational.  Many millions of people own semi automatic rifles and firearms, also many millions of people own automobiles.  Many many more die from negligent operation of automobiles than semiautomatic firearms.  A not too distant instance, a man in Guam used his car (and knife) to kill people in downtown Hagatna,  Yet no outcry to regulate cars and drivers more than what is already done, no cries to ban automobiles....

The real problem is currently being either covered up or overlooked by popular culture.  The real question is why are all these people going nuts?  What is the common factor in these cases of mass killing?  Until the real culprit is seriously investigated the problem will occur over and over regardless of "evil black rifle" bans. 

Banning the tool of the evil is thereby irrational.  Just because more people can be killed doesn't make it a rational argument.

Sorry, but that's a dodge.  If you can't answer the question, then you have no logical basis upon which your "beliefs" can be supported.

Someone comes to your work or school and starts shooting randomly, would you rather him have an AK47 with 100 round drum or a 5 shot bolt action rifle with 95 more rounds in his pocket?

I will take my chances against the bolt action guy every time. Now don't get me wrong, you make fine points, but I am just explaining that there is a sane line of reasoning behind the argument, thus we don't need to insult our opponents as being all irrational. As I stated in the reply above this one I think we stand to get father by not being insulting.

I'd rather have option C. CCW.

Apples and oranges. You might as well compare an AR-15 with a muzzle-loading musket if you want to try and make an unfair comparison!!
You can't compare a bolt action to a semi-auto.  Although, many bolt action rifles have magazines that can hold 5 or more rounds.  You just have to cycle the action manually which will slow the rate of fire, but not necessarily enough to greatly reduce casualties in a large crowd.
The shooter could have a semi-auto hunting rile, semi-auto shotgun, and/or semi-auto pistol. 
It does not matter if he chooses a semi-auto AK-47, semi-auto AR-15, semi-auto Browning BAR ShortTrac in .308, semi-auto Remington .750 Woodsmaster, or a semi-auto Browning BAR Safari in .338 Win. 
They are all auto loaders and can be quickly reloaded using detachable magazines.



Since your question is about my preference, if I could pick any capable firearm for an active shooter scenario (being on the side of the target), I'd rather he have an AR with a 100rd magazine.  Of all the choices I can imagine, that one has the greatest chance to malfunction.
Of course that's just me ... using probabilities instead of emotion to give an opinion.
Now, for the real lesson:  you cannot uninvent anything.  Magazines that hold > 10 rds exist.  If we make them illegal and ban them from civilians, do you actually think the guy walking into a school to commit mass murder will care about firearms laws?   Do you believe banning them makes them unobtainable?
Maybe we should try banning alcohol, opium, and other products that can be abused??     

Don't get hung up on the specific gun used in question, any number of guns could be used in that scenario and remained valid.
I specifically didn't mention muskets because they don't fit with the heart of the argument for people who think hunting rifles are ok. Thus a bolt action or even lever action are most applicable since they are guns that the moderates have no issue with.

Really, you would choose to have someone shooting at you do so with an AR15 rather than a bolt action on the off chance that he might hit a jam? Come on now, you can't be serious, or would you prefer a derringer for self defense since a semi auto pistol has more moving parts to go wrong?

Personally I don't think mag size limits would do much to address the problem. Rather I suppose a more effective proposal would be to ban firearms that can be reloaded quickly so I don't put any weight on the mag size restriction arguments.

The argument of being shot at with a bolt action vs. an AR-15 is irrelevant to me. It's sort of like saying would I rather be run over by a golf cart or an SUV or would I rather get shot with a 45 or a 22.. If in that type of situation I think everyone would choose the whatever they feel they have the best chances of surviving.

To make legislative decisions that infringe on the law-abiding's ability to effectively defend themselves based on a bad or worse scenario without taking into consideration other alternatives (such as CCW or armed guards) does not make any sense to me. It does seem like a manipulative way to control the argument.

Bottom line for me is an tool effective tool for war is also an effective tool for defense and peace. Anything less would mean the lawless will always be more effective than the law abiding.

Why do you want to keep more effective weapons out of the hands of people trying to arm themselves for self defense?
Whatever you do to make guns "safer" only serves to make the gun less effective for self defense.
You can't make bad people harmless by making good people more helpless.
How about we make cars safer by putting speed governors on all new vehicles.  No more driving over 35 MPH.  It will save so many lives and so much gas!!
How can anyone argue against driving 35?  It's just common sense, since most fatal accidents happen over 45 MPH.  Think of the children!

The line of reasoning is to keep that type of firearm out of the hands of everyone. A large portion of people who go on shooting rampages got their guns legally and up until the point where they started shooting they were not criminals but just good people. The kid who shot up the elementary school was a good responsible gun owner until he went out and murdered someone. Now it is true that the black market would still get some people those types of guns in the event that they were made illegal, but if the guns were outlawed it would be much harder to get. The responsible gun owner who goes on a shooting rampage wouldn't have one handy, the guy who burglarizes houses and sells the firearm wouldn't be able to get them because most homeowners wouldn't have the illegal gun, etc.
Banning it won't prevent the guns from getting on the illegal market but it would reduce the number available. That is the line of reasoning and there is a certain logic to it. Now you can disagree saying that it impedes on a freedom but that doesn't mean their argument isn't based on a logical line of reasoning.

The problem is not the type of weapon used to cause the havoc.  The problem is why are all these people going on killing sprees?  This is why the argument is not rational.  Many millions of people own semi automatic rifles and firearms, also many millions of people own automobiles.  Many many more die from negligent operation of automobiles than semiautomatic firearms.  A not too distant instance, a man in Guam used his car (and knife) to kill people in downtown Hagatna,  Yet no outcry to regulate cars and drivers more than what is already done, no cries to ban automobiles....

The real problem is currently being either covered up or overlooked by popular culture.  The real question is why are all these people going nuts?  What is the common factor in these cases of mass killing?  Until the real culprit is seriously investigated the problem will occur over and over regardless of "evil black rifle" bans. 

Banning the tool of the evil is thereby irrational.  Just because more people can be killed doesn't make it a rational argument.

I suspect many would think that CCW would not be effective, or that the firearm would end up being misused more often than it would be used to stop a crazed shooter. For example it might get stolen more often or used in a case of anger, etc.
I think they would fear a wild west type situation where everyone had guns and always ended up shooting at each other if everyone had CCW. I don't know if that would happen but I do think there is more to a peaceful society than everyone having a firearm. Certainly there are countries where firearm ownership is common and yet violence is high. There are some other factors at work that would be vital to an armed but peaceful society.

I am just trying to show that there is a sane line of reasoning behind some of their arguments. I do not want to rehash all their arguments and piece them out and try to suppose what they might say, I am not going to debate their debate for them, I just recognize a certain sanity in their arguments even though I may disagree. I know moderates who have rational opinions on gun control and I can respect their position as an intelligent one even though I arrive at a different conclusion.

You might want to recheck your stated facts:  "The kid who shot up the elementary school was a good responsible gun owner until he went out and murdered someone"

If you are referring to Adam Lanza, he owned zero guns.  The guns belonged to his mother.  In fact, he tried to buy a rifle just a few days prior to the shooting, but he didn't,  because he was unwilling to wait the required 14 days before taking the gun home.

So, if that's one of your main examples, it fails to support your hypothesis that "A large portion of people who go on shooting rampages got their guns legally and up until the point where they started shooting they were not criminals but just good people."

So far, you haven't addressed the fact that the most horrific school shooting involved two handguns.  This supports the opposing conclusion that, no matter what guns are legal to own, people who decide to go on a rampage will have the means to kill large numbers in a short time. .. AR-15 or AK-47 not required!

Hence, banning specific assault-type weapons will have no effect on the outcome of mass shootings.  This finding was documented by the CDC based on the impact of the 1994-2004 assault weapons ban.  No decrease, nor increase, in mass shootings nor the number of casualties could be correlated to the ban.

If you can't wrap your head around reality and insist on using hypothetical and what you think is "logical" results of bans, then there is little reason to further discuss this.  The bans have been tried, and the bans proved they have no impact on gun crime -- good or bad.  Bans are ineffective, and they should therefore be off the table when discussing what measures will actually help solve violence in general, not just gun violence.

Have you ever visited this site? http://gunssavelives.net/ CCW is very effective.

As for the "wild west" argument. CCW is on the rise drastically

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/07/10/report-number-of-concealed-carry-permits-surges-as-violent-crime-rate-drops/.

Yet gun homicide rate is down 49% since 1993.

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware

The reasoning is not sane as it is not backed up by facts. Their reasoning is backed up by assumptions. If they want to hold that position that's fine, they have every right to but they cannot tell me it's a logical position when it's based on assumptions and not fact. Their position then becomes and emotional position.

My mistake, I meant gun user. Lanza apparently had regular use of the firearms owned by his mother.
According to this, the vast majority of mass shootings involved legally obtained firearms.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

And it is not about me wrapping my head around it, remember that I am merely trying to summarize the other side's arguments, or at least the few of them that are based on a rational line of thinking. The gun control advocates do have a few good arguments and statistics on their side but most of us here recognize the need to balance that against the rights in the constitution. It doesn't mean we need to make fun of anyone who supports some form of gun control.

Indeed, CCW saves a lot of people every year however according to this "After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide."
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/

There has been a big crime drop since the 90's but according to the researchers in Freakanomics, the largest factor in that appears to be the legalization of abortion in the 70s. I would be hesitant to suggest the violent crime rate drop was due to an increase in CCW.

I'd be hesitant to suggest violent crime rate drop was due to the legalization of abortion 20 years prior to the start of the decline of not just any crime but gun crimes.

http://www.lifenews.com/2011/06/02/freakonomics-claim-abortion-drops-crime-rates-refuted-again/

As for the Harvard study..... Here are some undisputed facts.

1. Crime rate is as a whole is dropping. Homicide Rate is dropping.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2014/0219/FBI-reports-a-drop-in-crime-in-2013-why-the-rate-continues-to-fall
http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/08/us/study-gun-homicide/

2. More CCW than ever before.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/34714389/ns/us_news-life/t/record-numbers-licensed-pack-heat/#.VCSvTPldVPM

Now has CCW caused the crime rate to drop? Maybe, maybe not, but it has not caused it to increase.