***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (2 Viewers)

[StrikeS2k]

I'm not mad. I'm illustrating that a standard cartridge is barely adequate against a single, unarmed intruder. I'm simply adding to the information available in this thread, and answering a question from Timmy. I hope you're intelligent enough to extrapolate to other situations but if you're not that's ok too.

Strike, the reason your example is not convincing to me is that I don't buy that this woman's situation would have been improved with a 30 round magazine vs. what she had. There is nothing about that story that would lead one to that conclusion. On the other hand, I believe the Jared Loughner example of how a more limited magazine would have saved lives is pretty clear and unanswerable. And the Aurora survivors seem to feel the same way.

Obviously she didn't need it. The guy collapsed and she and her children escaped. Against a single, unarmed intruder. What you're supposed to be able to do is extrapolate the example. What if there had been two intruders? Or three? What if they were armed? The last thing I'd want to do is run out of shots against the second intruder after taking out his accomplice. He might be a little pissed. Again, if you're either incapable or unwilling to acknowledge that many home invasions involve more than one intruder, and that those intruders might be armed, thus making 6 rounds fairly inadequate, that's ok. I'm just adding to the conversation.

I appreciate the honest discussion, I do. But the argument goes off the rails for me here. Ok, she needed six shots against one unarmed guy...maybe she'd need 12 against two guys with guns. What would she need against 3...6...9 armed assailants? Do we just legalize however-many-rounds-possible for the 1% of the 1% of the 1% of home invasions where you MIGHT fare better with more than 6 rounds in a clip?

Well, if we were talking about 1% of 1% of 1% you might have a point. But you're jumping to an extreme extreme. If you want me to pick a specific number I'd say enough that would be reasonably adequate to defend 95% of all home invasions. But realistically I don't think we need to pick a specific number. Seems to me there's a logistical limit to how many rounds can be fit in to a cartridge while maintaining the functionality that most people want. There's probably a reason 30 is thrown around so much. I don't own guns or plan to so I don't know. Maybe a gun person can chime in on that. Can we at least agree that 6, or even 10, may not be adequate in many self defense situations?

 

[Abraham]

No, i don't agree.

 

[timschochet]

Can we at least agree that 6, or even 10, may not be adequate in many self defense situations?

No, we can't, obviously.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I'm not mad. I'm illustrating that a standard cartridge is barely adequate against a single, unarmed intruder. I'm simply adding to the information available in this thread, and answering a question from Timmy. I hope you're intelligent enough to extrapolate to other situations but if you're not that's ok too.

Strike, the reason your example is not convincing to me is that I don't buy that this woman's situation would have been improved with a 30 round magazine vs. what she had. There is nothing about that story that would lead one to that conclusion. On the other hand, I believe the Jared Loughner example of how a more limited magazine would have saved lives is pretty clear and unanswerable. And the Aurora survivors seem to feel the same way.

FBI Miami shootout shows what determined people can do. These criminal continued fighting for a long time after being riddled with bullets.Say the woman that defended her twins with a revolver had only hit 1 of 6 or 0 of 6 like is typical of a gunfight. Her gun goes click, click, click. His drops a magazine and inserts another, or still has 10 more rounds because he won't be obeying the law anyways. You don't hear about situations ending like this. You only hear about the dead homeowner found, house burglarized. It's not big news. They don't mention that the dead homeowner emptied their revolver or pistol. The only reason this story has been so big is because gun-rights activists keep citing this story in contradiction to all the attacks about the need for self defense.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Cities with High Per Capita Shooting Rates

Fresno, CA 9 total (4 fatal)

Tucson, AZ 8 (6)

Aurora, CO 7 (6)

Oakland, CA 7 (6)

San Jose, CA 7 (3)

Albuquerque, NM 6 (5)

Mesa, AZ 6 (2)

Jacksonville, FL 5 (4)

Syracuse, NY 5 (3)

Orlando, FL 5 (2)

N. Miami Beach, FL 5 (2)

Little Rock, Ark. 5 (1)

Yakima, WA 4 (1)

Bakersfield, CA 4 (3)

Long Beach, CA 4 (2)

Garden Grove, CA 4 (3)

Redding, CA 4 (2) - So proud of my hometown!

You should probably adjust for population. Of course CA has more shootings than DE. I think 5 people live in DE.

OK. Simplified the list for you.

 

[Abraham]

I'm not mad. I'm illustrating that a standard cartridge is barely adequate against a single, unarmed intruder. I'm simply adding to the information available in this thread, and answering a question from Timmy. I hope you're intelligent enough to extrapolate to other situations but if you're not that's ok too.

Strike, the reason your example is not convincing to me is that I don't buy that this woman's situation would have been improved with a 30 round magazine vs. what she had. There is nothing about that story that would lead one to that conclusion. On the other hand, I believe the Jared Loughner example of how a more limited magazine would have saved lives is pretty clear and unanswerable. And the Aurora survivors seem to feel the same way.

FBI Miami shootout shows what determined people can do. These criminal continued fighting for a long time after being riddled with bullets.Say the woman that defended her twins with a revolver had only hit 1 of 6 or 0 of 6 like is typical of a gunfight. Her gun goes click, click, click. His drops a magazine and inserts another, or still has 10 more rounds because he won't be obeying the law anyways. You don't hear about situations ending like this. You only hear about the dead homeowner found, house burglarized. It's not big news. They don't mention that the dead homeowner emptied their revolver or pistol. The only reason this story has been so big is because gun-rights activists keep citing this story in contradiction to all the attacks about the need for self defense.

I read the NRA 's two propaganda rags each month and, strangely, they never mention the dead homeowner who had a gun stories. Odd.

 

[StrikeS2k]

No, i don't agree.

So, were you lieing when you said this:

I appreciate the honest discussion, I do.

Since you then proceeded to say this:

Ok, she needed six shots against one unarmed guy...maybe she'd need 12 against two guys with guns.

Are you suggesting that two guys with guns is an exceedingly rare situation? Like 1% of the 1% of the 1% rare? That a homeowner shouldn't be able to be prepared for that possibility? Or were you lieing when you acknowledged that she might need 12 shots in that situation?

 

[StrikeS2k]

Can we at least agree that 6, or even 10, may not be adequate in many self defense situations?

No, we can't, obviously.

Wouldn't expect you to. I was interested in what the guy who said he wanted an honest discussion had to say. Unfortunately, it appears he wasn't being truthful when he said that. :(

 

[timschochet]

Can we at least agree that 6, or even 10, may not be adequate in many self defense situations?

No, we can't, obviously.

Wouldn't expect you to. I was interested in what the guy who said he wanted an honest discussion had to say. Unfortunately, it appears he wasn't being truthful when he said that. :(

Well that's him. For me, I want a dishonest discussion where people lie to me.

 

[SacramentoBob]

For me, I want a dishonest discussion where people lie to me.

You're very well liked around here.

 

[Abraham]

No, i don't agree.

So, were you lieing when you said this:

I appreciate the honest discussion, I do.

Since you then proceeded to say this:

Ok, she needed six shots against one unarmed guy...maybe she'd need 12 against two guys with guns.

Are you suggesting that two guys with guns is an exceedingly rare situation? Like 1% of the 1% of the 1% rare? That a homeowner shouldn't be able to be prepared for that possibility? Or were you lieing when you acknowledged that she might need 12 shots in that situation?

You suggested 30 shots. I don't think anyone outside of the military would need 30 shots for any reason. If you want to deal with impossibly small probabilities then why not address an invasion by North Koreans or a turf war by the zetas. At some point there has to be a line drawn between reasonable expectations of needed protection and unreasonable. If five guys come in to your home with ar15's, your chance at survival isn't likely to increase because you had 30 shots instead of 12.

 

[Cookiemonster]

No, i don't agree.

So, were you lieing when you said this:

I appreciate the honest discussion, I do.

Since you then proceeded to say this:

Ok, she needed six shots against one unarmed guy...maybe she'd need 12 against two guys with guns.

Are you suggesting that two guys with guns is an exceedingly rare situation? Like 1% of the 1% of the 1% rare? That a homeowner shouldn't be able to be prepared for that possibility? Or were you lieing when you acknowledged that she might need 12 shots in that situation?

You suggested 30 shots. I don't think anyone outside of the military would need 30 shots for any reason. If you want to deal with impossibly small probabilities then why not address an invasion by North Koreans or a turf war by the zetas. At some point there has to be a line drawn between reasonable expectations of needed protection and unreasonable. If five guys come in to your home with ar15's, your chance at survival isn't likely to increase because you had 30 shots instead of 12.

I don't disagree with that premise at all. You're right. But we're also discussing the incredibly small percentage of mass shootings (which are a very small percentage in itself) that could be stopped because the guy had to stop and reload an extra time or two with his 10 round magazine instead of his 30 rounder... Which percentage is smaller. I think I have percentage envy.

 

[StrikeS2k]

No, i don't agree.

So, were you lieing when you said this:

I appreciate the honest discussion, I do.

Since you then proceeded to say this:

Ok, she needed six shots against one unarmed guy...maybe she'd need 12 against two guys with guns.

Are you suggesting that two guys with guns is an exceedingly rare situation? Like 1% of the 1% of the 1% rare? That a homeowner shouldn't be able to be prepared for that possibility? Or were you lieing when you acknowledged that she might need 12 shots in that situation?

You suggested 30 shots. I don't think anyone outside of the military would need 30 shots for any reason. If you want to deal with impossibly small probabilities then why not address an invasion by North Koreans or a turf war by the zetas. At some point there has to be a line drawn between reasonable expectations of needed protection and unreasonable. If five guys come in to your home with ar15's, your chance at survival isn't likely to increase because you had 30 shots instead of 12.

I absolutely did not suggest 30 shots. You may want to reread my post. You were pretty vague as to what you weren't agreeing with though. You didn't respond to the specific question I asked you at the end of that post so I'll post it again:

Can we at least agree that 6, or even 10, may not be adequate in many self defense situations?

I'd like an answer to that because, you know, then we might be able to move on to an honest discussion of what is adequate. As long as you don't misread another one of my posts.

 

[Abraham]

I personally don't think that magazine size addresses the problem at all. That said, fewer is better in my opinion.

 

[Cookiemonster]

I personally don't think that magazine size addresses the problem at all. That said, fewer is better in my opinion.

Fewer as in 10? 6? 2? Single shot? For the fraction of a fraction of a statistic that involves the difference between large and low cap mags in mass shootings, and the fraction of a fraction of a statistic that involves large cap magazines being the difference in self-defense shootings, if that was a fraction of a fraction of a statistic more valuable than the other, that would be worth further erosion of the right to keep and bear arms?

 

[StrikeS2k]

I personally don't think that magazine size addresses the problem at all. That said, fewer is better in my opinion.

Why did you say you wanted an honest discussion and then bail with this cop out of a post when actually asked honest questions, based upon your own words? How few is few enough if you acknowledge that a person could use 12 against just two armed intruders, which isn't an uncommon occurrence? I guess you didn't really want to have that honest discussion after all.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Estimates for police shootings are at a 40% hit rate with a conservative estimate of 4 hits necessary to stop a man. That means that a 10 round magazine wold be adequate for a single opponent for someone who trains as much as and is at least as good at shooting under duress as a cop (who often train with induced stress).

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I personally don't think that magazine size addresses the problem at all. That said, fewer is better in my opinion.

Fewer as in 10? 6? 2? Single shot? For the fraction of a fraction of a statistic that involves the difference between large and low cap mags in mass shootings, and the fraction of a fraction of a statistic that involves large cap magazines being the difference in self-defense shootings, if that was a fraction of a fraction of a statistic was more valuable than the other, that would be worth further erosion of the right to keep and bear arms?

Apparently the good guy's lives against the bad guys in mass shootings are more valuable than the good guy's lives defending their home and family, particularly when there are many times over more incidents of home invasions than there are of mass shootings per year. According to the FBI, in 2011, there were an estimated 9,063,173 property crime offenses in the nation. How many lives could be saved if the head of household for each home was armed with an AR-15 w/ a 30 round magazine to account for these ridiculous fraction of a fraction of 2.2 million burglary arguments the gun-grabbers are stooping to now? Don't like the evil rifle? Fine, make it two Glock-22's with 17 round clips.

 

[Hoosier16]

I personally don't think that magazine size addresses the problem at all. That said, fewer is better in my opinion.

Fewer as in 10? 6? 2? Single shot? For the fraction of a fraction of a statistic that involves the difference between large and low cap mags in mass shootings, and the fraction of a fraction of a statistic that involves large cap magazines being the difference in self-defense shootings, if that was a fraction of a fraction of a statistic more valuable than the other, that would be worth further erosion of the right to keep and bear arms?

I asked the same thing 30 pages ago and they will never answer it, just as they won't answer why limited capacities had no effect at Columbine and Virginia Tech. They can't. But, they will continue to parrot the suggestions of our Senators and Congressmen, without putting a shred of rational thought in for themselves.It's a useless discussion.

 

[Dvorak]

Limiting magazine size really has to be the single dumbest "We have to do something!" idea that will have absolutely no impact but disarm normal folks or turn them into criminals.

1. These are not serialized, no way to know who has them or to track them.

2. Criminals will not turn them in if there is no grandfathering. If there is grandfathering, you know how many are already out there, right?

3. If Law Enforcement is still going to be allowed to have them, they will still be made & the criminals will still get them.

4. Even if they are all gone, murderers know when they are going to go on a killing spree and plan accordingly by loading up many magazines. Do you want Joe Citizen going down to Wal-Mart wearing a tactical vest and a dozen (10-round) magazines just in case? Will THAT make you feel comfortable?

5. Pretty soon, anyone who can click "Print" can make them. I think criminals and the mentally insane will be able to figure it out.

 

[Guest]

Nice to hear the gun guys admitting that modest compromises such as limiting magazine size aren't enough. Really we need to look at a wider gun ban.

 

[Guest]

By the way, why is nobody making a fuss about revolvers? Good criminal weapon in that it doesn't leave shell casings behind. Less forensic evidence. No accurate count of shots fired, caliber bullet, extractor marks or firing pin indentations for weapon signature. Used MUCH more often to commit crime and kills MANY more people annually than an "assault weapon." Hmm... Guess they don't make the spectacular news story that runs for weeks on end and is step #10 on the anti-gun politician's lists.

* Ban RevolversAdded to the list.

 

[Guest]

Let's go no shotguns as Christmas presents for 12-year olds for now.http://thecontributor.com/12-year-old-unintentionally-shoots-and-kills-cousin-gun-he-got-christmas-present

I got a 20-gauge shotgun for Christmas when I was about that age.

 

[Dvorak]

Nice to hear the gun guys admitting that modest compromises such as limiting magazine size aren't enough. Really we need to look at a wider gun ban.

At least you are honest.Others would lie and have us believe there is no slippery slope to total banning.

 

[Guest]

Nice to hear the gun guys admitting that modest compromises such as limiting magazine size aren't enough. Really we need to look at a wider gun ban.

At least you are honest.Others would lie and have us believe there is no slippery slope to total banning.

So the only thing you agree with me is when I'm being totally sarcastic.You live in a ####ed up world.

 

[Guest]

There was a good read in the Washington Post this weekend on how the NRA became the hard-liners, not-budge-an-inch gun people they are today.

 

[Dvorak]

Nice to hear the gun guys admitting that modest compromises such as limiting magazine size aren't enough. Really we need to look at a wider gun ban.

At least you are honest.Others would lie and have us believe there is no slippery slope to total banning.

So the only thing you agree with me is when I'm being totally sarcastic.You live in a ####ed up world.

I was being sarcastic, too. I don't think you are honest.

 

[Redwes25]

I personally don't think that magazine size addresses the problem at all. That said, fewer is better in my opinion.

Fewer as in 10? 6? 2? Single shot? For the fraction of a fraction of a statistic that involves the difference between large and low cap mags in mass shootings, and the fraction of a fraction of a statistic that involves large cap magazines being the difference in self-defense shootings, if that was a fraction of a fraction of a statistic was more valuable than the other, that would be worth further erosion of the right to keep and bear arms?

Apparently the good guy's lives against the bad guys in mass shootings are more valuable than the good guy's lives defending their home and family, particularly when there are many times over more incidents of home invasions than there are of mass shootings per year. According to the FBI, in 2011, there were an estimated 9,063,173 property crime offenses in the nation. How many lives could be saved if the head of household for each home was armed with an AR-15 w/ a 30 round magazine to account for these ridiculous fraction of a fraction of 2.2 million burglary arguments the gun-grabbers are stooping to now? Don't like the evil rifle? Fine, make it two Glock-22's with 17 round clips.

And how many more people would die from accidental shootings?

 

[SacramentoBob]

Let's go no shotguns as Christmas presents for 12-year olds for now.http://thecontributor.com/12-year-old-unintentionally-shoots-and-kills-cousin-gun-he-got-christmas-present

I got a 20-gauge shotgun for Christmas when I was about that age.

So strange.

 

[Guest]

Let's go no shotguns as Christmas presents for 12-year olds for now.http://thecontributor.com/12-year-old-unintentionally-shoots-and-kills-cousin-gun-he-got-christmas-present

I got a 20-gauge shotgun for Christmas when I was about that age.

So strange.

Hunted duck and geese.But the guns you need to defend yourself at home and to hunt are a much smaller set of guns than what we currently make available and the NRA and its proxies defend tooth and nail.

 

[Blick]

How many is enough?

As many as I feel appropriate to be able to protect my family as I see fit.

 

[timschochet]

How many is enough?

As many as I feel appropriate to be able to protect my family as I see fit.

Because you have chosen to live in our society, that decision is not yours to make.

 

[timschochet]

Biden's proposals will be coming out very shortly here. From what I heard yesterday, they are going to be a combination of several items: universal background checks, a limit of high capacity magazines, a return to the AWB, more spending for the ATF, more spending for mental health (no specifics here.) There will be a combination of bills proposed to Congress and executive orders.

 

[Blick]

How many is enough?

As many as I feel appropriate to be able to protect my family as I see fit.

Because you have chosen to live in our society, that decision is not yours to make.

Actually, right now it is and should remain this way. I can own as many "high capacity magazines" as I wish. I can own as many hand guns , shot guns, rifles, etc. that I want.

 

[timschochet]

How many is enough?

As many as I feel appropriate to be able to protect my family as I see fit.

Because you have chosen to live in our society, that decision is not yours to make.

Actually, right now it is and should remain this way. I can own as many "high capacity magazines" as I wish. I can own as many hand guns , shot guns, rifles, etc. that I want.

There are limitations. You can't own rocket launchers. And from what I understand, there are severe limitations on how many automatic rifles you can own, if any. Brace yourself; there are more limitations coming your way.

 

[Guest]

How many is enough?

As many as I feel appropriate to be able to protect my family as I see fit.

Because you have chosen to live in our society, that decision is not yours to make.

Actually, right now it is and should remain this way. I can own as many "high capacity magazines" as I wish. I can own as many hand guns , shot guns, rifles, etc. that I want.

The question is not on how many. If you want to have 240 shotguns, silly but fine. The question is in what types.And no, the decision isn't up to you. Try buying a bazooka.

 

[Cookiemonster]

Let's go no shotguns as Christmas presents for 12-year olds for now.http://thecontributor.com/12-year-old-unintentionally-shoots-and-kills-cousin-gun-he-got-christmas-present

I got a 20-gauge shotgun for Christmas when I was about that age.

How in the world did you manage to avoid shooting yourself or someone else?

 

[Guest]

Let's go no shotguns as Christmas presents for 12-year olds for now.http://thecontributor.com/12-year-old-unintentionally-shoots-and-kills-cousin-gun-he-got-christmas-present

I got a 20-gauge shotgun for Christmas when I was about that age.

How in the world did you manage to avoid shooting yourself or someone else?

Don't go there.

 

[Cookiemonster]

How many is enough?

As many as I feel appropriate to be able to protect my family as I see fit.

Because you have chosen to live in our society, that decision is not yours to make.

Actually, right now it is and should remain this way. I can own as many "high capacity magazines" as I wish. I can own as many hand guns , shot guns, rifles, etc. that I want.

There are limitations. You can't own rocket launchers. And from what I understand, there are severe limitations on how many automatic rifles you can own, if any. Brace yourself; there are more limitations coming your way.

You keep repeating this. Are you clairvoyant, or just being inflammatory? Maybe if you keep telling yourself this it will come true? Or, if the same politicians keep proposing the same thing over and over and over and over and just one time they try it at exactly the right time it might work (... something about a blind squirrel and a nut... )?

 

[Cookiemonster]

Let's go no shotguns as Christmas presents for 12-year olds for now.http://thecontributor.com/12-year-old-unintentionally-shoots-and-kills-cousin-gun-he-got-christmas-present

I got a 20-gauge shotgun for Christmas when I was about that age.

How in the world did you manage to avoid shooting yourself or someone else?

Don't go there.

Oh, so you are one of the ones who did? I'm sorry. I understand now why you project us to be too stupid to avoid doing the same.

 

[Blick]

How many is enough?

As many as I feel appropriate to be able to protect my family as I see fit.

Because you have chosen to live in our society, that decision is not yours to make.

Actually, right now it is and should remain this way. I can own as many "high capacity magazines" as I wish. I can own as many hand guns , shot guns, rifles, etc. that I want.

The question is not on how many. If you want to have 240 shotguns, silly but fine. The question is in what types.And no, the decision isn't up to you. Try buying a bazooka.

Where in my post did I say anything about any "illegal" weapons (i.e. bazooka)? Hand guns, shot guns, and rifles are all legal. Automatic rifles are very regulated (as they should be). In my opinion, the line drawn by current law between legal/illegal weapons is set based on usefullness of that weapon to the private citizen. Protecting my home with a bazooka would be a bit counter productive and dangerous to family, and are not legal. Hand guns, shot guns, and rifles are an effective tool of home protection. As such, are legal. Why do you want to take them from me?

 

[Guest]

Let's go no shotguns as Christmas presents for 12-year olds for now.http://thecontributor.com/12-year-old-unintentionally-shoots-and-kills-cousin-gun-he-got-christmas-present

I got a 20-gauge shotgun for Christmas when I was about that age.

How in the world did you manage to avoid shooting yourself or someone else?

Don't go there.

Oh, so you are one of the ones who did? I'm sorry. I understand now why you project us to be too stupid to avoid doing the same.

No. But keep on being an #######.

 

[Mello]

How many is enough?

As many as I feel appropriate to be able to protect my family as I see fit.

Because you have chosen to live in our society, that decision is not yours to make.

Actually, right now it is and should remain this way. I can own as many "high capacity magazines" as I wish. I can own as many hand guns , shot guns, rifles, etc. that I want.

There are limitations. You can't own rocket launchers. And from what I understand, there are severe limitations on how many automatic rifles you can own, if any. Brace yourself; there are more limitations coming your way.

You keep repeating this. Are you clairvoyant, or just being inflammatory? Maybe if you keep telling yourself this it will come true? Or, if the same politicians keep proposing the same thing over and over and over and over and just one time they try it at exactly the right time it might work (... something about a blind squirrel and a nut... )?

I'm staunchly against this "We have to do something!" climate, but I'd wager a decent bit that some form of gun control legislation will be passed this year whether we like it or not.

 

[Guest]

How many is enough?

As many as I feel appropriate to be able to protect my family as I see fit.

Because you have chosen to live in our society, that decision is not yours to make.

Actually, right now it is and should remain this way. I can own as many "high capacity magazines" as I wish. I can own as many hand guns , shot guns, rifles, etc. that I want.

The question is not on how many. If you want to have 240 shotguns, silly but fine. The question is in what types.And no, the decision isn't up to you. Try buying a bazooka.

Where in my post did I say anything about any "illegal" weapons (i.e. bazooka)? Hand guns, shot guns, and rifles are all legal. Automatic rifles are very regulated (as they should be). In my opinion, the line drawn by current law between legal/illegal weapons is set based on usefullness of that weapon to the private citizen. Protecting my home with a bazooka would be a bit counter productive and dangerous to family, and are not legal. Hand guns, shot guns, and rifles are an effective tool of home protection. As such, are legal. Why do you want to take them from me?

The point is that you don't "decide" what is appropriate. Someone else has decided that these are the weapons that you can buy and you decide from that.

 

[timschochet]

How many is enough?

As many as I feel appropriate to be able to protect my family as I see fit.

Because you have chosen to live in our society, that decision is not yours to make.

Actually, right now it is and should remain this way. I can own as many "high capacity magazines" as I wish. I can own as many hand guns , shot guns, rifles, etc. that I want.

There are limitations. You can't own rocket launchers. And from what I understand, there are severe limitations on how many automatic rifles you can own, if any. Brace yourself; there are more limitations coming your way.

You keep repeating this. Are you clairvoyant, or just being inflammatory? Maybe if you keep telling yourself this it will come true? Or, if the same politicians keep proposing the same thing over and over and over and over and just one time they try it at exactly the right time it might work (... something about a blind squirrel and a nut... )?

Maybe it's wishful thinking on my part, but I'm fairly confident that the two issues I have been pushing all along in this thread will happen in some form.

 

[Cookiemonster]

How many is enough?

As many as I feel appropriate to be able to protect my family as I see fit.

Because you have chosen to live in our society, that decision is not yours to make.

Actually, right now it is and should remain this way. I can own as many "high capacity magazines" as I wish. I can own as many hand guns , shot guns, rifles, etc. that I want.

There are limitations. You can't own rocket launchers. And from what I understand, there are severe limitations on how many automatic rifles you can own, if any. Brace yourself; there are more limitations coming your way.

You keep repeating this. Are you clairvoyant, or just being inflammatory? Maybe if you keep telling yourself this it will come true? Or, if the same politicians keep proposing the same thing over and over and over and over and just one time they try it at exactly the right time it might work (... something about a blind squirrel and a nut... )?

I'm staunchly against this "We have to do something!" climate, but I'd wager a decent bit that some form of gun control legislation will be passed this year whether we like it or not.

At the state level, I'm sure states like New York, Illinois and California will (it's worked so well in the past, let's keep going). Tree huggers here in the Bay Area eat that #### up. Federal law? I'm not so sure. I think if Biden manages to tie his own shoes that morning, we're in trouble. If he's wearing slip-ons though, Really, I think too many legislators are up for mid-term reelections to piss all over us. Absolutely, they'll get some votes. May even pass Senate. Won't pass House. I seriously doubt Obama is willing to use EOs to push this and risk his Democratic majority in the Senate.

 

[Blick]

How many is enough?

As many as I feel appropriate to be able to protect my family as I see fit.

Because you have chosen to live in our society, that decision is not yours to make.

Actually, right now it is and should remain this way. I can own as many "high capacity magazines" as I wish. I can own as many hand guns , shot guns, rifles, etc. that I want.

The question is not on how many. If you want to have 240 shotguns, silly but fine. The question is in what types.And no, the decision isn't up to you. Try buying a bazooka.

Where in my post did I say anything about any "illegal" weapons (i.e. bazooka)? Hand guns, shot guns, and rifles are all legal. Automatic rifles are very regulated (as they should be). In my opinion, the line drawn by current law between legal/illegal weapons is set based on usefullness of that weapon to the private citizen. Protecting my home with a bazooka would be a bit counter productive and dangerous to family, and are not legal. Hand guns, shot guns, and rifles are an effective tool of home protection. As such, are legal. Why do you want to take them from me?

The point is that you don't "decide" what is appropriate. Someone else has decided that these are the weapons that you can buy and you decide from that.

No, the point is that we have 122 pages of discussion centered on knee-jerk reaction to a horrible situation that has little to do with gun control. I don't want to see any inocent person harmed by gun violence, especially children. This was the first time in my life I've ever physically cried when watching a news story. However, there isn't one idea in this whole thread that will stop this from happening again. So I ask again, why do you want to take away the tools I have to protect my family?

 

[Abraham]

I personally don't think that magazine size addresses the problem at all. That said, fewer is better in my opinion.

Fewer as in 10? 6? 2? Single shot? For the fraction of a fraction of a statistic that involves the difference between large and low cap mags in mass shootings, and the fraction of a fraction of a statistic that involves large cap magazines being the difference in self-defense shootings, if that was a fraction of a fraction of a statistic more valuable than the other, that would be worth further erosion of the right to keep and bear arms?

I don't see it as an erosion of the second amendment to put a limit on how many bullets can be at-the-ready on a gun. It is my opinion that the distinction between hunting/sporting/etc. and killing your fellow man can be made at this point of the debate. Having one or two shots is sufficient for hunting. Perhaps a few more for targets....but the only time a person would need 6 or 10 or 20 shots in a row would be in a situation where the gun is pointed at another person. To the discussion we are having the question arises: how many bullets are sufficient for home defense? In my opinion, I'd rather EVERYONE (gang members, mass-shooters, people defending their homes, etc.) be using guns with only a couple bullets. THat's never going to happen as we are too far down he road with 300 million guns in this country.

I personally don't think that magazine size addresses the problem at all. That said, fewer is better in my opinion.

Why did you say you wanted an honest discussion and then bail with this cop out of a post when actually asked honest questions, based upon your own words? How few is few enough if you acknowledge that a person could use 12 against just two armed intruders, which isn't an uncommon occurrence? I guess you didn't really want to have that honest discussion after all.

How is it a cop out? I acknowledge that a person could use 12 against 2 armed intruders. Heck, they could use 30, reload, and fire 30 more. It's possible that a full-on firefight could take place in a home wherein the invaders take cover (instead of fleeing) and the homeowner takes cover (instead of fleeing to safety as well) and everyone shoots at each other for a while. But that doesn't mean its a good idea for people to have large capacity guns. The answer to gun violence is not an arms race between the good guys and the bad guys. We've tried that, and here we are.

 

[Dvorak]

I personally don't think that magazine size addresses the problem at all. That said, fewer is better in my opinion.

Fewer as in 10? 6? 2? Single shot? For the fraction of a fraction of a statistic that involves the difference between large and low cap mags in mass shootings, and the fraction of a fraction of a statistic that involves large cap magazines being the difference in self-defense shootings, if that was a fraction of a fraction of a statistic more valuable than the other, that would be worth further erosion of the right to keep and bear arms?

I don't see it as an erosion of the second amendment to put a limit on how many bullets can be at-the-ready on a gun. It is my opinion that the distinction between hunting/sporting/etc. and killing your fellow man can be made at this point of the debate. Having one or two shots is sufficient for hunting. Perhaps a few more for targets....but the only time a person would need 6 or 10 or 20 shots in a row would be in a situation where the gun is pointed at another person. To the discussion we are having the question arises: how many bullets are sufficient for home defense? In my opinion, I'd rather EVERYONE (gang members, mass-shooters, people defending their homes, etc.) be using guns with only a couple bullets. THat's never going to happen as we are too far down he road with 300 million guns in this country.

I personally don't think that magazine size addresses the problem at all. That said, fewer is better in my opinion.

Why did you say you wanted an honest discussion and then bail with this cop out of a post when actually asked honest questions, based upon your own words? How few is few enough if you acknowledge that a person could use 12 against just two armed intruders, which isn't an uncommon occurrence? I guess you didn't really want to have that honest discussion after all.

How is it a cop out? I acknowledge that a person could use 12 against 2 armed intruders. Heck, they could use 30, reload, and fire 30 more. It's possible that a full-on firefight could take place in a home wherein the invaders take cover (instead of fleeing) and the homeowner takes cover (instead of fleeing to safety as well) and everyone shoots at each other for a while. But that doesn't mean its a good idea for people to have large capacity guns. The answer to gun violence is not an arms race between the good guys and the bad guys. We've tried that, and here we are.

And other countries have tried taking them away and have seen violent crimes go way up. Do you want our numbers to mirror that of the UK? What good is reducing gun violence by 100% if overall violent crime goes up 400-500%? Are murders suddenly okay as long as no one gets shot?"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you,

it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."

-Dalai Lama

 

[Guest]

And other countries have tried taking them away and have seen violent crimes go way up. Do you want our numbers to mirror that of the UK? What good is reducing gun violence by 100% if overall violent crime goes up 400-500%? Are murders suddenly okay as long as no one gets shot?

Violent crimes aren't murders. Murders are murders.The UK has a higher rate of violent crimes than we do. They also have a lower murder rate. It seems that taking guns away from violent people has the effect of leaving fewer people dead.