***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (3 Viewers)

[ATC1]

Kid may grab the weapon, obviously. And concealed weapons wouldn't be a reasonable comparison- if it's a policy its existence is well-known, and thus not "concealed."

And I can understand maybe if you personally hadn't heard a story on the local newsor something where someone's concealed weapon resulted in a dangerous or life-threatening incident. What's weird, however, is why you don't know how to use Google.

Tobias, I know you like to tell everyone on far both sides they are crazy. As someone on the fence, what solutions do you propose? Would you have an armed guard in gun free zones? Because you know police officers tend to break the rules from time to time as well.

I like Yankee's idea of strict liability for gun owners (and possibly gun sellers) for all damages caused by weapons they own (and possibly sell). It strongly encourages responsible behavior without banning a single weapon or imposing a new cost on the taxpayer. We impose strict liability on other people and businesses that engage in "ultrahazardous" activities, I don't see why we can't impose it on gun owners and sellers.

I'll agree. Except for legally sold firearms through a FFL transfer. Made the suggestion that people that have their guns stolen should be punished to promote trigger locks or gun safes.

 

[TobiasFunke]

We impose strict liability on other people and businesses that engage in "ultrahazardous" activities, I don't see why we can't impose it on gun owners and sellers.

Because it often results in unfair outcomes. And I'm not sure how big a deterrent it would really be. The likelihood that your gun will be stolen and used in a crime is pretty small.

Why is it "unfair" to impose liability regardless of fault on someone who is in the business of, say, working with explosives or pollutants, but not selling or owning guns?We can debate the effectiveness of it as a deterrent. I think you would see more careful screening by stores perhaps, and possibly people who own guns might be a little more careful about keeping them locked away. But mostly I like it because it's at least something new to try or to discuss. Most other possible "solutions" have been discussed to death and I have very little faith in any of them being effective.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Seems obvious that most of the loudest voices in this thread have little or even zero practical knowledge of guns. I find that hilarious

I find it to be completely consistent with my expectations. Those of us that aren't part of the gun culture generally view guns in a negative way.

 

[timschochet]

Also- and this is meant more as a question and not an argument (at least not yet)- I keep reading that fully automatic weapons are already illegal. Yet these rifles that ARE legal can fire up to 60 bullets per minute??? Am I missing something here, or is the legal difference between automatic and semi-automatic rather negligible?

automatic weapons are not illegal to own in some states

Depending on the state you live in you may be able to purchase a grenade launcher, flame thrower or .50cal belt fed machine gun. Also to answer Tim and anyone else in this thread whose entire firearms knowledge has been gained from tv, movies and video games, 60rpm is pretty slow. Here is some tech data to educate you on the differences between rate of fire:AR-15 (.223cal) semi-auto estimated at ~60rpm (accurate) requiring one 30rnd mag change.

M-4A1 (5.56NATO) full-auto listed at 700-950rpm (inaccurate) requiring multiple 30rnd mag changes.

Glock 17 (9x19mm) semi-auto estimated at ~40rpm (accurate) requiring a variable number of mag changes. (different mag sizes available)

Glock 18 (9x19mm) full-auto listed at 1,100-1,200rpm (inaccurate) requiring a variable number of mag changes. (different mag sizes available)

Schlzm

Thanks for the info.I did not realize the heavy rate of fire.

In that case, perhaps all of these weapons should be illegal. I know it's not going to happen, but perhaps they should be. I fail to see what purpose they serve, other than personal pleasure of the owner, and to me that's not enough to justify their existence against the threat to public safety that their availability entails. I have tried to stay moderate on this subject, but your information is forcing me into an extreme position.

Personal protection against a wide variety of threats? You can outlaw "assault" rifles or pistols but then someone would switch to a shotgun which allows for significant more damage to be done with less skill and little more overhead on reloading. Ban shotguns? Then said psycho will just make a bunch of molotov cocktails could potentially take even more lives while causing large amounts of property damage and placing first responders and emergency personnel into even greater danger. Schlzm

Please describe the "wide variety of threats" which require you to have a weapon which fires over 60 rounds a minute. Is this the Red Dawn scenario again?

First off I am just going to point out that you are showing a massive amount of ignorance on this subject when you try and use the estimated rate of fire as some sort of reason against anything. Just because a certain platform, such as the Glock 18 I listed earlier, has a high rate of fire doesn't actually mean that is how many rounds are guaranteed to be fired. As to address your question. Other than any "Red Dawn", "Dawn of the Dead" or whatever scenarios you try and trot out to discredit people. There are other environmental factors that might just require or warrant the use of a weapon capable of firing at least one shot per second accurately. A few include rabid wildlife or a violent criminal(s) breaking into ones home. There are plenty of people here terrified of pitbulls. Do you think if three or more pitbulls attacked you and your family you might want to be in possession of something capable of quickly and efficiently defending against them?Schlzm

So the reason you need to have a weapon with fires a bullet every second is the possibility that 3 or more pitbulls might attack your family?

 

[tom22406]

Yes, but you realize that most teachers are not gun nuts right? Some of them are sweet, little old ladies who have neither the desire nor the physical capabilities that might be needed to carry and use a firearm.

The simple, common sense solution is obviously to require all public school teachers to spend five years in a monastary in the far east being trainined in the Five Point Palm Exploding Heart technique. Well, either that or ban high-capacity magazines, but really the magazine thing is too complicated to be worthwhile.

I'm led to believe, based on info provided in this thread, that banning the magazines won't work because some of the crazy shooters are bad ### FBG types who can fire 100 rounds a second, change clips in the blink of an eye, and weld extra magazines onto their firearms.

Considering a few pages ago you couldn't articulate the differences between a semi-automatic and a fully automatic weapon I'm not so sure you are in a position to poke fun at people about their gun knowledge.

What I wrote is that the difference, in terms of rate of fire, seems negligible. As it turns out, it's more negligible than I supposed, which is why I may have changed my position on whether some of these semi-automatic weapons should be legal.

Do you have any friends or friends of friends that have various types of weapons?If so I highly suggest asking them to take you to a range and drop some knowledge on you and for you to learn firsthand how a weapon fires/feels/reacts etc.The only way I ever really learned was by a close friend who trained me the proper way to handle various weapons and how they work.Went to a range and had some fun but learned a ton of things I never considered before.

 

[timschochet]

First off I am just going to point out that you are showing a massive amount of ignorance on this subject when you try and use the estimated rate of fire as some sort of reason against anything.

I believe the rate of fire contributed to 18 dead children Friday morning. I believe that this is a reason to be against this rate of fire.

 

[jonessed]

We impose strict liability on other people and businesses that engage in "ultrahazardous" activities, I don't see why we can't impose it on gun owners and sellers.

Because it often results in unfair outcomes. And I'm not sure how big a deterrent it would really be. The likelihood that your gun will be stolen and used in a crime is pretty small.

Why is it "unfair" to impose liability regardless of fault on someone who is in the business of, say, working with explosives or pollutants, but not selling or owning guns?We can debate the effectiveness of it as a deterrent. I think you would see more careful screening by stores perhaps, and possibly people who own guns might be a little more careful about keeping them locked away. But mostly I like it because it's at least something new to try or to discuss. Most other possible "solutions" have been discussed to death and I have very little faith in any of them being effective.

 

[RCon]

How about metal, lockable doors so at the very least wackos can't get into classrooms?

I think this is a great idea. Relatively inexpensive solution that enables schools to "Lock down" in the event of something like Connecticut in the future. This would severely limit casualties going forward.

Not sure the fire Marshall would approve.

Good point. Backing off my support of that one.

Wait, why wouldn't the fire marshal approve of a specific type of door? We already have doors into each classroom. What would be the harm in simply changing them to metal and putting locks on them?

 

[TobiasFunke]

We impose strict liability on other people and businesses that engage in "ultrahazardous" activities, I don't see why we can't impose it on gun owners and sellers.

Because it often results in unfair outcomes. And I'm not sure how big a deterrent it would really be. The likelihood that your gun will be stolen and used in a crime is pretty small.

Why is it "unfair" to impose liability regardless of fault on someone who is in the business of, say, working with explosives or pollutants, but not selling or owning guns?We can debate the effectiveness of it as a deterrent. I think you would see more careful screening by stores perhaps, and possibly people who own guns might be a little more careful about keeping them locked away. But mostly I like it because it's at least something new to try or to discuss. Most other possible "solutions" have been discussed to death and I have very little faith in any of them being effective.

Strict liability for ultrahazardous activitiesETA: Typo earlier. Should say "fair," not "unfair."

 

[Schlzm]

Kid may grab the weapon, obviously. And concealed weapons wouldn't be a reasonable comparison- if it's a policy its existence is well-known, and thus not "concealed."

And I can understand maybe if you personally hadn't heard a story on the local newsor something where someone's concealed weapon resulted in a dangerous or life-threatening incident. What's weird, however, is why you don't know how to use Google.

Tobias, I know you like to tell everyone on far both sides they are crazy. As someone on the fence, what solutions do you propose? Would you have an armed guard in gun free zones? Because you know police officers tend to break the rules from time to time as well.

I find it more interesting that Tobias likes to play little games like this to not prove any point he is attempting to make but simply to try and make the person he is arguing with look bad. The data from the first link in the search, violence policy center, has been collected over a five and a half year stretch showing a total of 499 people killed by someone with a CCL. However almost that many school aged children have been shot in Chicago this year alone; source, which has some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the US.Schlzm

Both here and in other discussions, my main "point" is to challenge arguments I disagree with or think are silly. I learn a lot that way, and I also enjoy calling out other people's BS. For example, my only point in the Google link was to show that accidents or other unfortunate incidents associated with concealed carries happen plenty, even though ATC1 previously said he didn't know of any. I don't have any idea what that has to do with the number of school aged children shot in Chicago. I wasn't making a comparison, and even if I was I have no idea how the two statistics you compare make any sort of point at all.

You might be trying to challenge his point of view but you really are doing it in a snarky drive-by fashion that doesn't add anything. Also if your only point was that "accidents happen" that's fine, but to try and use the relatively small number of CCL related deaths to rebut his wanting trained individuals in schools is silly. I pointed out the Chicago school aged children numbers for this year as a reference point for who is more likely to discharge a firearm resulting in injury to a child and it isn't responsible adults. Schlzm

 

[jonessed]

First off I am just going to point out that you are showing a massive amount of ignorance on this subject when you try and use the estimated rate of fire as some sort of reason against anything.

I believe the rate of fire contributed to 18 dead children Friday morning. I believe that this is a reason to be against this rate of fire.

Right. So we are back to bolt-action rifles and flintlocks.

 

[timschochet]

Yes, but you realize that most teachers are not gun nuts right? Some of them are sweet, little old ladies who have neither the desire nor the physical capabilities that might be needed to carry and use a firearm.

The simple, common sense solution is obviously to require all public school teachers to spend five years in a monastary in the far east being trainined in the Five Point Palm Exploding Heart technique. Well, either that or ban high-capacity magazines, but really the magazine thing is too complicated to be worthwhile.

I'm led to believe, based on info provided in this thread, that banning the magazines won't work because some of the crazy shooters are bad ### FBG types who can fire 100 rounds a second, change clips in the blink of an eye, and weld extra magazines onto their firearms.

Considering a few pages ago you couldn't articulate the differences between a semi-automatic and a fully automatic weapon I'm not so sure you are in a position to poke fun at people about their gun knowledge.

What I wrote is that the difference, in terms of rate of fire, seems negligible. As it turns out, it's more negligible than I supposed, which is why I may have changed my position on whether some of these semi-automatic weapons should be legal.

Do you have any friends or friends of friends that have various types of weapons?If so I highly suggest asking them to take you to a range and drop some knowledge on you and for you to learn firsthand how a weapon fires/feels/reacts etc.The only way I ever really learned was by a close friend who trained me the proper way to handle various weapons and how they work.Went to a range and had some fun but learned a ton of things I never considered before.

I have no problem with learning more about firearms. But let me make this very clear:1. I don't believe that it is in the interests of public safety to have weapons which can fire 1 bullet per second available to anyone. I believe the availability of these weapons is harmful and contributed heavily to what happened on Friday.2. I don't believe that anything I learn in the future about firearms is going to change my opinion on this simple fact: 1 bullet per second is too much.

 

[RCon]

So your solution then, outside of "ban all guns" because that wouldn't work if it were even possible.

Amend the 2nd Amendment. Ban semi-automatics. Restrict magazines to 6 rounds. Give states the right to ban handguns. Make every legal firearm sale traceable. Improve the availability of mental health care in the US.I'm not saying that those would "solve" anything. But I think they would do more good than Andy's proposal.

I don't see the point in allowing individual states to ban handguns, unless we propose installing checkpoints at every state border crossing. This seems to be a rare situation where the ability to freely cross state lines mandates a federal solution.

 

[jafo]

First off I am just going to point out that you are showing a massive amount of ignorance on this subject when you try and use the estimated rate of fire as some sort of reason against anything.

I believe the rate of fire contributed to 18 dead children Friday morning. I believe that this is a reason to be against this rate of fire.

Just because you can pull the trigger and fire as fast as you can, doesn't mean you are going to hit your target. These AR-15s do have recoil, and no one really knows right now what went on in that classroom.

 

[tom22406]

Seems obvious that most of the loudest voices in this thread have little or even zero practical knowledge of guns. I find that hilarious

I find it to be completely consistent with my expectations. Those of us that aren't part of the gun culture generally view guns in a negative way.

It's almost like a mob mentality for some of them.I don't really know much about it but all I know is guns are bad so let's get rid of them and hopefully the problem goes away is the most common I answer I see(and I'm not counting here).

 

[Sammy3469]

First off I am just going to point out that you are showing a massive amount of ignorance on this subject when you try and use the estimated rate of fire as some sort of reason against anything.

I believe the rate of fire contributed to 18 dead children Friday morning. I believe that this is a reason to be against this rate of fire.

Right. So we are back to bolt-action rifles and flintlocks.

Now this is some originalism I can support

 

[TobiasFunke]

Kid may grab the weapon, obviously. And concealed weapons wouldn't be a reasonable comparison- if it's a policy its existence is well-known, and thus not "concealed."

And I can understand maybe if you personally hadn't heard a story on the local newsor something where someone's concealed weapon resulted in a dangerous or life-threatening incident. What's weird, however, is why you don't know how to use Google.

Tobias, I know you like to tell everyone on far both sides they are crazy. As someone on the fence, what solutions do you propose? Would you have an armed guard in gun free zones? Because you know police officers tend to break the rules from time to time as well.

I find it more interesting that Tobias likes to play little games like this to not prove any point he is attempting to make but simply to try and make the person he is arguing with look bad. The data from the first link in the search, violence policy center, has been collected over a five and a half year stretch showing a total of 499 people killed by someone with a CCL. However almost that many school aged children have been shot in Chicago this year alone; source, which has some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the US.Schlzm

Both here and in other discussions, my main "point" is to challenge arguments I disagree with or think are silly. I learn a lot that way, and I also enjoy calling out other people's BS. For example, my only point in the Google link was to show that accidents or other unfortunate incidents associated with concealed carries happen plenty, even though ATC1 previously said he didn't know of any. I don't have any idea what that has to do with the number of school aged children shot in Chicago. I wasn't making a comparison, and even if I was I have no idea how the two statistics you compare make any sort of point at all.

You might be trying to challenge his point of view but you really are doing it in a snarky drive-by fashion that doesn't add anything. Also if your only point was that "accidents happen" that's fine, but to try and use the relatively small number of CCL related deaths to rebut his wanting trained individuals in schools is silly. I pointed out the Chicago school aged children numbers for this year as a reference point for who is more likely to discharge a firearm resulting in injury to a child and it isn't responsible adults. Schlzm

If we got rid of posting in a snarky drive-by fashion, this forum would have like one post an hour.My point was that accidents happen, and that if you put a loaded gun in a classroom where the students know of its existence, you're asking for trouble. That's all I was saying. Has nothing to do with who is more likely to do what.

 

[timschochet]

First off I am just going to point out that you are showing a massive amount of ignorance on this subject when you try and use the estimated rate of fire as some sort of reason against anything.

I believe the rate of fire contributed to 18 dead children Friday morning. I believe that this is a reason to be against this rate of fire.

Right. So we are back to bolt-action rifles and flintlocks.

If there is no other alternative. Otherwise, 10 bullets per magazine, and I will have to hope that Schlzm is wrong and that most of these crazies are incapable of changing magazines so quickly.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Using a strict liability standard is always unfair. We only use it in certain situations where there are justifications that override the unfairness. Does owning a gun constitute an "ultrahazardous activity"? I'm not convinced it does.

 

[TPW]

The scariest thing about this thread is not simply that people still argue against these restrictions in the wake of the CT shooting, but that we get a look into the mental state of the people who are the ones with the guns. Especially these conceal carry types.

What's really scary is that in your zeal to have complete control of your surroundings you are so willing to strip trained, law abiding citizens of their rights.

Not saying this is you, but your statement made me think...Why is it the right wing is terrified of every "abnormal" behavior in people but they are fine with everyone carrying guns?

Being responsibly armed is the ultimate gurantor of your person and property, not an alarm system, not the police department, and not the government. "Abnormal" people are not nearly as much an issue for me as long as I have the tools to keep those "abnormal" individuals at arm's length. You want to be a freak? Fine with me. Do it on your own time and your own dime."Good fences make good neighbors" as Robert Frost once said.

 

[Blick]

First off I am just going to point out that you are showing a massive amount of ignorance on this subject when you try and use the estimated rate of fire as some sort of reason against anything.

I believe the rate of fire contributed to 18 dead children Friday morning. I believe that this is a reason to be against this rate of fire.

Just because you can pull the trigger and fire as fast as you can, doesn't mean you are going to hit your target. These AR-15s do have recoil, and no one really knows right now what went on in that classroom.

Not a lot. Do you own or ever shot one? After a magazine or two, you will start to get the feeling of the muzzle jump (no real recoil), and begin to fire it quickly and accurately.

 

[tom22406]

Yes, but you realize that most teachers are not gun nuts right? Some of them are sweet, little old ladies who have neither the desire nor the physical capabilities that might be needed to carry and use a firearm.

The simple, common sense solution is obviously to require all public school teachers to spend five years in a monastary in the far east being trainined in the Five Point Palm Exploding Heart technique. Well, either that or ban high-capacity magazines, but really the magazine thing is too complicated to be worthwhile.

I'm led to believe, based on info provided in this thread, that banning the magazines won't work because some of the crazy shooters are bad ### FBG types who can fire 100 rounds a second, change clips in the blink of an eye, and weld extra magazines onto their firearms.

Considering a few pages ago you couldn't articulate the differences between a semi-automatic and a fully automatic weapon I'm not so sure you are in a position to poke fun at people about their gun knowledge.

What I wrote is that the difference, in terms of rate of fire, seems negligible. As it turns out, it's more negligible than I supposed, which is why I may have changed my position on whether some of these semi-automatic weapons should be legal.

Do you have any friends or friends of friends that have various types of weapons?If so I highly suggest asking them to take you to a range and drop some knowledge on you and for you to learn firsthand how a weapon fires/feels/reacts etc.The only way I ever really learned was by a close friend who trained me the proper way to handle various weapons and how they work.Went to a range and had some fun but learned a ton of things I never considered before.

I have no problem with learning more about firearms. But let me make this very clear:1. I don't believe that it is in the interests of public safety to have weapons which can fire 1 bullet per second available to anyone. I believe the availability of these weapons is harmful and contributed heavily to what happened on Friday.2. I don't believe that anything I learn in the future about firearms is going to change my opinion on this simple fact: 1 bullet per second is too much.

Let me make this very clear as well.I am not asking you to change your stance in the least,in fact I want you to educate yourself on gun use and be more informed.You not knowing the difference in an automatic and semi-automatic really did show your initial lack to begin with but to your credit once the facts were laid out you quickly re-thought it and came to that conclusion.That is all I ask from anyone here and I can respect that

 

[jafo]

First off I am just going to point out that you are showing a massive amount of ignorance on this subject when you try and use the estimated rate of fire as some sort of reason against anything.

I believe the rate of fire contributed to 18 dead children Friday morning. I believe that this is a reason to be against this rate of fire.

Just because you can pull the trigger and fire as fast as you can, doesn't mean you are going to hit your target. These AR-15s do have recoil, and no one really knows right now what went on in that classroom.

Not a lot.

The recoil is very moderate but we aren't talking about shooting a nerf gun here, which it seems is all many in this thread have ever shot.

 

[Schlzm]

First off I am just going to point out that you are showing a massive amount of ignorance on this subject when you try and use the estimated rate of fire as some sort of reason against anything.

I believe the rate of fire contributed to 18 dead children Friday morning. I believe that this is a reason to be against this rate of fire.

What if I told you that there exists a shotgun capable of firing four shells accurately in less than half a second? Should this weapon be outlawed based on that information? As for your earlier reply, I believe I asked you a question while providing examples answering your question. If you were attacked by three pitbulls how do you intend to defend yourself? Schlzm

 

[TobiasFunke]

Using a strict liability standard is always unfair. We only use it in certain situations where there are justifications that override the unfairness. Does owning a gun constitute an "ultrahazardous activity"? I'm not convinced it does.

I think it's worth having a discussion about it. Also, if not strict liability, what about something similar to dram shop liability laws? At least carve out a specific type of claim allowing people to recover from owners/sellers.

 

[ATC1]

Kid may grab the weapon, obviously. And concealed weapons wouldn't be a reasonable comparison- if it's a policy its existence is well-known, and thus not "concealed."

And I can understand maybe if you personally hadn't heard a story on the local newsor something where someone's concealed weapon resulted in a dangerous or life-threatening incident. What's weird, however, is why you don't know how to use Google.

Tobias, I know you like to tell everyone on far both sides they are crazy. As someone on the fence, what solutions do you propose? Would you have an armed guard in gun free zones? Because you know police officers tend to break the rules from time to time as well.

I find it more interesting that Tobias likes to play little games like this to not prove any point he is attempting to make but simply to try and make the person he is arguing with look bad. The data from the first link in the search, violence policy center, has been collected over a five and a half year stretch showing a total of 499 people killed by someone with a CCL. However almost that many school aged children have been shot in Chicago this year alone; source, which has some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the US.Schlzm

Both here and in other discussions, my main "point" is to challenge arguments I disagree with or think are silly. I learn a lot that way, and I also enjoy calling out other people's BS. For example, my only point in the Google link was to show that accidents or other unfortunate incidents associated with concealed carries happen plenty, even though ATC1 previously said he didn't know of any. I don't have any idea what that has to do with the number of school aged children shot in Chicago. I wasn't making a comparison, and even if I was I have no idea how the two statistics you compare make any sort of point at all.

You might be trying to challenge his point of view but you really are doing it in a snarky drive-by fashion that doesn't add anything. Also if your only point was that "accidents happen" that's fine, but to try and use the relatively small number of CCL related deaths to rebut his wanting trained individuals in schools is silly. I pointed out the Chicago school aged children numbers for this year as a reference point for who is more likely to discharge a firearm resulting in injury to a child and it isn't responsible adults. Schlzm

If we got rid of posting in a snarky drive-by fashion, this forum would have like one post an hour.My point was that accidents happen, and that if you put a loaded gun in a classroom where the students know of its existence, you're asking for trouble. That's all I was saying. Has nothing to do with who is more likely to do what.

How? I don't support open carry in schools.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Seems obvious that most of the loudest voices in this thread have little or even zero practical knowledge of guns. I find that hilarious

I find it to be completely consistent with my expectations. Those of us that aren't part of the gun culture generally view guns in a negative way.

It's almost like a mob mentality for some of them.I don't really know much about it but all I know is guns are bad so let's get rid of them and hopefully the problem goes away is the most common I answer I see(and I'm not counting here).

Well, I think you have to try to understand it from the perspective of somebody like me. I've never even shot a gun. I've never been hunting. I don't use a gun for any sort of recreation. None of my close friends or family do either. To the best of my knowledge none of my close friends or family is a gun owner (although I'm not sure about that). And I've never been inclined to buy a gun or thought that my life would be in any way improved by owning one. So when folks like me read about tragedies like the one in Connecticut, it's perfectly natural to think "guns are dumb." Because we're just seeing the costs of guns and there's virtually nothing on the other side of the equation.

 

[Ranethe]

Also- and this is meant more as a question and not an argument (at least not yet)- I keep reading that fully automatic weapons are already illegal. Yet these rifles that ARE legal can fire up to 60 bullets per minute??? Am I missing something here, or is the legal difference between automatic and semi-automatic rather negligible?

automatic weapons are not illegal to own in some states

Depending on the state you live in you may be able to purchase a grenade launcher, flame thrower or .50cal belt fed machine gun. Also to answer Tim and anyone else in this thread whose entire firearms knowledge has been gained from tv, movies and video games, 60rpm is pretty slow. Here is some tech data to educate you on the differences between rate of fire:AR-15 (.223cal) semi-auto estimated at ~60rpm (accurate) requiring one 30rnd mag change.

M-4A1 (5.56NATO) full-auto listed at 700-950rpm (inaccurate) requiring multiple 30rnd mag changes.

Glock 17 (9x19mm) semi-auto estimated at ~40rpm (accurate) requiring a variable number of mag changes. (different mag sizes available)

Glock 18 (9x19mm) full-auto listed at 1,100-1,200rpm (inaccurate) requiring a variable number of mag changes. (different mag sizes available)

Schlzm

Thanks for the info.I did not realize the heavy rate of fire.

In that case, perhaps all of these weapons should be illegal. I know it's not going to happen, but perhaps they should be. I fail to see what purpose they serve, other than personal pleasure of the owner, and to me that's not enough to justify their existence against the threat to public safety that their availability entails. I have tried to stay moderate on this subject, but your information is forcing me into an extreme position.

Personal protection against a wide variety of threats? You can outlaw "assault" rifles or pistols but then someone would switch to a shotgun which allows for significant more damage to be done with less skill and little more overhead on reloading. Ban shotguns? Then said psycho will just make a bunch of molotov cocktails could potentially take even more lives while causing large amounts of property damage and placing first responders and emergency personnel into even greater danger. Schlzm

Please describe the "wide variety of threats" which require you to have a weapon which fires over 60 rounds a minute. Is this the Red Dawn scenario again?

First off I am just going to point out that you are showing a massive amount of ignorance on this subject when you try and use the estimated rate of fire as some sort of reason against anything. Just because a certain platform, such as the Glock 18 I listed earlier, has a high rate of fire doesn't actually mean that is how many rounds are guaranteed to be fired. As to address your question. Other than any "Red Dawn", "Dawn of the Dead" or whatever scenarios you try and trot out to discredit people. There are other environmental factors that might just require or warrant the use of a weapon capable of firing at least one shot per second accurately. A few include rabid wildlife or a violent criminal(s) breaking into ones home. There are plenty of people here terrified of pitbulls. Do you think if three or more pitbulls attacked you and your family you might want to be in possession of something capable of quickly and efficiently defending against them?Schlzm

wow

 

[jafo]

First off I am just going to point out that you are showing a massive amount of ignorance on this subject when you try and use the estimated rate of fire as some sort of reason against anything.

I believe the rate of fire contributed to 18 dead children Friday morning. I believe that this is a reason to be against this rate of fire.

What if I told you that there exists a shotgun capable of firing four shells accurately in less than half a second? Should this weapon be outlawed based on that information? As for your earlier reply, I believe I asked you a question while providing examples answering your question. If you were attacked by three pitbulls how do you intend to defend yourself? Schlzm

I am sure a cop will be around to protect him and the others.

 

[TobiasFunke]

How? I don't support open carry in schools.

Right. This was clarified later. I thought you were advocating mandatory arming of teachers, but you were only talking about leaving it to their discretion.

 

[Otis]

Also- and this is meant more as a question and not an argument (at least not yet)- I keep reading that fully automatic weapons are already illegal. Yet these rifles that ARE legal can fire up to 60 bullets per minute??? Am I missing something here, or is the legal difference between automatic and semi-automatic rather negligible?

automatic weapons are not illegal to own in some states

Depending on the state you live in you may be able to purchase a grenade launcher, flame thrower or .50cal belt fed machine gun. Also to answer Tim and anyone else in this thread whose entire firearms knowledge has been gained from tv, movies and video games, 60rpm is pretty slow. Here is some tech data to educate you on the differences between rate of fire:AR-15 (.223cal) semi-auto estimated at ~60rpm (accurate) requiring one 30rnd mag change.

M-4A1 (5.56NATO) full-auto listed at 700-950rpm (inaccurate) requiring multiple 30rnd mag changes.

Glock 17 (9x19mm) semi-auto estimated at ~40rpm (accurate) requiring a variable number of mag changes. (different mag sizes available)

Glock 18 (9x19mm) full-auto listed at 1,100-1,200rpm (inaccurate) requiring a variable number of mag changes. (different mag sizes available)

Schlzm

Thanks for the info.I did not realize the heavy rate of fire.

In that case, perhaps all of these weapons should be illegal. I know it's not going to happen, but perhaps they should be. I fail to see what purpose they serve, other than personal pleasure of the owner, and to me that's not enough to justify their existence against the threat to public safety that their availability entails. I have tried to stay moderate on this subject, but your information is forcing me into an extreme position.

Personal protection against a wide variety of threats? You can outlaw "assault" rifles or pistols but then someone would switch to a shotgun which allows for significant more damage to be done with less skill and little more overhead on reloading. Ban shotguns? Then said psycho will just make a bunch of molotov cocktails could potentially take even more lives while causing large amounts of property damage and placing first responders and emergency personnel into even greater danger. Schlzm

Please describe the "wide variety of threats" which require you to have a weapon which fires over 60 rounds a minute. Is this the Red Dawn scenario again?

First off I am just going to point out that you are showing a massive amount of ignorance on this subject when you try and use the estimated rate of fire as some sort of reason against anything. Just because a certain platform, such as the Glock 18 I listed earlier, has a high rate of fire doesn't actually mean that is how many rounds are guaranteed to be fired. As to address your question. Other than any "Red Dawn", "Dawn of the Dead" or whatever scenarios you try and trot out to discredit people. There are other environmental factors that might just require or warrant the use of a weapon capable of firing at least one shot per second accurately. A few include rabid wildlife or a violent criminal(s) breaking into ones home. There are plenty of people here terrified of pitbulls. Do you think if three or more pitbulls attacked you and your family you might want to be in possession of something capable of quickly and efficiently defending against them?Schlzm

wow

All. Completely. And totally. Nuts. The whole lot of 'em.

 

[jonessed]

We impose strict liability on other people and businesses that engage in "ultrahazardous" activities, I don't see why we can't impose it on gun owners and sellers.

Because it often results in unfair outcomes. And I'm not sure how big a deterrent it would really be. The likelihood that your gun will be stolen and used in a crime is pretty small.

Why is it "unfair" to impose liability regardless of fault on someone who is in the business of, say, working with explosives or pollutants, but not selling or owning guns?We can debate the effectiveness of it as a deterrent. I think you would see more careful screening by stores perhaps, and possibly people who own guns might be a little more careful about keeping them locked away. But mostly I like it because it's at least something new to try or to discuss. Most other possible "solutions" have been discussed to death and I have very little faith in any of them being effective.

Strict liability for ultrahazardous activitiesETA: Typo earlier. Should say "fair," not "unfair."

But that seems to apply to entities and accidents while they are manufacturing the material, in possession of the material, processing the material, etc. How would that be applied to something that has changed ownership? I don't believe this would transfer to individuals easily.Edit: On further reading a law like that wouldn't fit at all. You would have to redefine large parts.

 

[Schlzm]

Kid may grab the weapon, obviously. And concealed weapons wouldn't be a reasonable comparison- if it's a policy its existence is well-known, and thus not "concealed."

And I can understand maybe if you personally hadn't heard a story on the local newsor something where someone's concealed weapon resulted in a dangerous or life-threatening incident. What's weird, however, is why you don't know how to use Google.

Tobias, I know you like to tell everyone on far both sides they are crazy. As someone on the fence, what solutions do you propose? Would you have an armed guard in gun free zones? Because you know police officers tend to break the rules from time to time as well.

I find it more interesting that Tobias likes to play little games like this to not prove any point he is attempting to make but simply to try and make the person he is arguing with look bad. The data from the first link in the search, violence policy center, has been collected over a five and a half year stretch showing a total of 499 people killed by someone with a CCL. However almost that many school aged children have been shot in Chicago this year alone; source, which has some of the most restrictive firearms laws in the US.Schlzm

Both here and in other discussions, my main "point" is to challenge arguments I disagree with or think are silly. I learn a lot that way, and I also enjoy calling out other people's BS. For example, my only point in the Google link was to show that accidents or other unfortunate incidents associated with concealed carries happen plenty, even though ATC1 previously said he didn't know of any. I don't have any idea what that has to do with the number of school aged children shot in Chicago. I wasn't making a comparison, and even if I was I have no idea how the two statistics you compare make any sort of point at all.

You might be trying to challenge his point of view but you really are doing it in a snarky drive-by fashion that doesn't add anything. Also if your only point was that "accidents happen" that's fine, but to try and use the relatively small number of CCL related deaths to rebut his wanting trained individuals in schools is silly. I pointed out the Chicago school aged children numbers for this year as a reference point for who is more likely to discharge a firearm resulting in injury to a child and it isn't responsible adults. Schlzm

If we got rid of posting in a snarky drive-by fashion, this forum would have like one post an hour.My point was that accidents happen, and that if you put a loaded gun in a classroom where the students know of its existence, you're asking for trouble. That's all I was saying. Has nothing to do with who is more likely to do what.

Fair enough.Schlzm

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Using a strict liability standard is always unfair. We only use it in certain situations where there are justifications that override the unfairness. Does owning a gun constitute an "ultrahazardous activity"? I'm not convinced it does.

I think it's worth having a discussion about it. Also, if not strict liability, what about something similar to dram shop liability laws? At least carve out a specific type of claim allowing people to recover from owners/sellers.

OK, let's discuss it. I just googled and estimates are that there are something like 300 million firearms in the United States. What percentage of them are stolen and used in a crime each year? I'd guess that the number would be very very small but I don't know.

 

[Apple Jack]

Also- and this is meant more as a question and not an argument (at least not yet)- I keep reading that fully automatic weapons are already illegal. Yet these rifles that ARE legal can fire up to 60 bullets per minute??? Am I missing something here, or is the legal difference between automatic and semi-automatic rather negligible?

automatic weapons are not illegal to own in some states

Depending on the state you live in you may be able to purchase a grenade launcher, flame thrower or .50cal belt fed machine gun. Also to answer Tim and anyone else in this thread whose entire firearms knowledge has been gained from tv, movies and video games, 60rpm is pretty slow. Here is some tech data to educate you on the differences between rate of fire:AR-15 (.223cal) semi-auto estimated at ~60rpm (accurate) requiring one 30rnd mag change.

M-4A1 (5.56NATO) full-auto listed at 700-950rpm (inaccurate) requiring multiple 30rnd mag changes.

Glock 17 (9x19mm) semi-auto estimated at ~40rpm (accurate) requiring a variable number of mag changes. (different mag sizes available)

Glock 18 (9x19mm) full-auto listed at 1,100-1,200rpm (inaccurate) requiring a variable number of mag changes. (different mag sizes available)

Schlzm

Thanks for the info.I did not realize the heavy rate of fire.

In that case, perhaps all of these weapons should be illegal. I know it's not going to happen, but perhaps they should be. I fail to see what purpose they serve, other than personal pleasure of the owner, and to me that's not enough to justify their existence against the threat to public safety that their availability entails. I have tried to stay moderate on this subject, but your information is forcing me into an extreme position.

Personal protection against a wide variety of threats? You can outlaw "assault" rifles or pistols but then someone would switch to a shotgun which allows for significant more damage to be done with less skill and little more overhead on reloading. Ban shotguns? Then said psycho will just make a bunch of molotov cocktails could potentially take even more lives while causing large amounts of property damage and placing first responders and emergency personnel into even greater danger. Schlzm

Please describe the "wide variety of threats" which require you to have a weapon which fires over 60 rounds a minute. Is this the Red Dawn scenario again?

First off I am just going to point out that you are showing a massive amount of ignorance on this subject when you try and use the estimated rate of fire as some sort of reason against anything. Just because a certain platform, such as the Glock 18 I listed earlier, has a high rate of fire doesn't actually mean that is how many rounds are guaranteed to be fired. As to address your question. Other than any "Red Dawn", "Dawn of the Dead" or whatever scenarios you try and trot out to discredit people. There are other environmental factors that might just require or warrant the use of a weapon capable of firing at least one shot per second accurately. A few include rabid wildlife or a violent criminal(s) breaking into ones home. There are plenty of people here terrified of pitbulls. Do you think if three or more pitbulls attacked you and your family you might want to be in possession of something capable of quickly and efficiently defending against them?Schlzm

wow

This thread should be submitted as evidence when whatever bill is debated on the Hill.

 

[RCon]

I don't get the big push for the smaller magazine clip. This seems pretty ineffective to me. 1. It takes two seconds to switch in another clip. So, while someone in a school type situation may be slowed, it wouldn't be by much. They may also just carry more weapons. 2. I'm no master welder, but it seems to me a clip would be the easiest thing to fabricate myself if I wanted to hold more rounds. It's basically a metal case and a spring with a feeder at the top. You could slice off the bottom, add an extend piece and a bigger spring and you'd be ready to go I think.Or is this whole thing just to get the ball rolling for greater restrictions when it inevitably fails?

Actually, limiting magazine capacity seems like it would work exceptionally well in instances of stolen weapons. In such a scenario, we're assuming that the shooter either doesn't want to or isn't able to purchase his own guns and ammo. Therefore, he takes what he can get via stealing the guns. If the rightful owner is responsible and is either A) carrying the gun with a limited number of magazines, or B) storing the weapon with a limited number of magazines, it seems likely that the total amount of ammo stolen would be smaller.

 

[jafo]

Liberals finally found a way to stimulate the economy. Gun sales are booming and we have you all to thank for it.

 

[smotherhook]

Yes, but you realize that most teachers are not gun nuts right? Some of them are sweet, little old ladies who have neither the desire nor the physical capabilities that might be needed to carry and use a firearm.

The simple, common sense solution is obviously to require all public school teachers to spend five years in a monastary in the far east being trainined in the Five Point Palm Exploding Heart technique. Well, either that or ban high-capacity magazines, but really the magazine thing is too complicated to be worthwhile.

I'm led to believe, based on info provided in this thread, that banning the magazines won't work because some of the crazy shooters are bad ### FBG types who can fire 100 rounds a second, change clips in the blink of an eye, and weld extra magazines onto their firearms.

Considering a few pages ago you couldn't articulate the differences between a semi-automatic and a fully automatic weapon I'm not so sure you are in a position to poke fun at people about their gun knowledge.

What I wrote is that the difference, in terms of rate of fire, seems negligible. As it turns out, it's more negligible than I supposed, which is why I may have changed my position on whether some of these semi-automatic weapons should be legal.

dude, stop it.

 

[ATC1]

Well, I think you have to try to understand it from the perspective of somebody like me. I've never even shot a gun. I've never been hunting. I don't use a gun for any sort of recreation. None of my close friends or family do either. To the best of my knowledge none of my close friends or family is a gun owner (although I'm not sure about that). And I've never been inclined to buy a gun or thought that my life would be in any way improved by owning one. So when folks like me read about tragedies like the one in Connecticut, it's perfectly natural to think "guns are dumb." Because we're just seeing the costs of guns and there's virtually nothing on the other side of the equation.

Another problem I have. I could never be a good gun salesman. I was in Academy the other day. There was a middle aged woman looking at a revolver. She had little to no clue about it. The sales person says, "You don't have to pull the hammer down to fire the weapon." The guy behind the counter just kept trying to sell it. After she stepped away I asked if she was looking to buy it for protection immediately. I proceeded to tell her to take a self defense class, so she would know what type of gun was best for her. How anyone can buy a weapon first and then learn how to use it is beyond me. It should be required.

 

[Blick]

I don't get the big push for the smaller magazine clip. This seems pretty ineffective to me. 1. It takes two seconds to switch in another clip. So, while someone in a school type situation may be slowed, it wouldn't be by much. They may also just carry more weapons. 2. I'm no master welder, but it seems to me a clip would be the easiest thing to fabricate myself if I wanted to hold more rounds. It's basically a metal case and a spring with a feeder at the top. You could slice off the bottom, add an extend piece and a bigger spring and you'd be ready to go I think.Or is this whole thing just to get the ball rolling for greater restrictions when it inevitably fails?

Actually, limiting magazine capacity seems like it would work exceptionally well in instances of stolen weapons. In such a scenario, we're assuming that the shooter either doesn't want to or isn't able to purchase his own guns and ammo. Therefore, he takes what he can get via stealing the guns. If the rightful owner is responsible and is either A) carrying the gun with a limited number of magazines, or B) storing the weapon with a limited number of magazines, it seems likely that the total amount of ammo stolen would be smaller.

I'd like to add that changing a magazine may seem like a simple task, but under pressure its not as easy as many in here would make you believe. It takes real practice to be able to do it efficiently. Practice that I don't think most are doing.

 

[jafo]

Well, I think you have to try to understand it from the perspective of somebody like me. I've never even shot a gun. I've never been hunting. I don't use a gun for any sort of recreation. None of my close friends or family do either. To the best of my knowledge none of my close friends or family is a gun owner (although I'm not sure about that). And I've never been inclined to buy a gun or thought that my life would be in any way improved by owning one. So when folks like me read about tragedies like the one in Connecticut, it's perfectly natural to think "guns are dumb." Because we're just seeing the costs of guns and there's virtually nothing on the other side of the equation.

Another problem I have. I could never be a good gun salesman. I was in Academy the other day. There was a middle aged woman looking at a revolver. She had little to no clue about it. The sales person says, "You don't have to pull the hammer down to fire the weapon." The guy behind the counter just kept trying to sell it. After she stepped away I asked if she was looking to buy it for protection immediately. I proceeded to tell her to take a self defense class, so she would know what type of gun was best for her. How anyone can buy a weapon first and then learn how to use it is beyond me. It should be required.

Most gun salesmen I have talked with are not like the case you describe here, although bad ones do exist but they are a minority.

 

[Schlzm]

Also- and this is meant more as a question and not an argument (at least not yet)- I keep reading that fully automatic weapons are already illegal. Yet these rifles that ARE legal can fire up to 60 bullets per minute??? Am I missing something here, or is the legal difference between automatic and semi-automatic rather negligible?

automatic weapons are not illegal to own in some states

Depending on the state you live in you may be able to purchase a grenade launcher, flame thrower or .50cal belt fed machine gun. Also to answer Tim and anyone else in this thread whose entire firearms knowledge has been gained from tv, movies and video games, 60rpm is pretty slow. Here is some tech data to educate you on the differences between rate of fire:AR-15 (.223cal) semi-auto estimated at ~60rpm (accurate) requiring one 30rnd mag change.

M-4A1 (5.56NATO) full-auto listed at 700-950rpm (inaccurate) requiring multiple 30rnd mag changes.

Glock 17 (9x19mm) semi-auto estimated at ~40rpm (accurate) requiring a variable number of mag changes. (different mag sizes available)

Glock 18 (9x19mm) full-auto listed at 1,100-1,200rpm (inaccurate) requiring a variable number of mag changes. (different mag sizes available)

Schlzm

Thanks for the info.I did not realize the heavy rate of fire.

In that case, perhaps all of these weapons should be illegal. I know it's not going to happen, but perhaps they should be. I fail to see what purpose they serve, other than personal pleasure of the owner, and to me that's not enough to justify their existence against the threat to public safety that their availability entails. I have tried to stay moderate on this subject, but your information is forcing me into an extreme position.

Personal protection against a wide variety of threats? You can outlaw "assault" rifles or pistols but then someone would switch to a shotgun which allows for significant more damage to be done with less skill and little more overhead on reloading. Ban shotguns? Then said psycho will just make a bunch of molotov cocktails could potentially take even more lives while causing large amounts of property damage and placing first responders and emergency personnel into even greater danger. Schlzm

Please describe the "wide variety of threats" which require you to have a weapon which fires over 60 rounds a minute. Is this the Red Dawn scenario again?

First off I am just going to point out that you are showing a massive amount of ignorance on this subject when you try and use the estimated rate of fire as some sort of reason against anything. Just because a certain platform, such as the Glock 18 I listed earlier, has a high rate of fire doesn't actually mean that is how many rounds are guaranteed to be fired. As to address your question. Other than any "Red Dawn", "Dawn of the Dead" or whatever scenarios you try and trot out to discredit people. There are other environmental factors that might just require or warrant the use of a weapon capable of firing at least one shot per second accurately. A few include rabid wildlife or a violent criminal(s) breaking into ones home. There are plenty of people here terrified of pitbulls. Do you think if three or more pitbulls attacked you and your family you might want to be in possession of something capable of quickly and efficiently defending against them?Schlzm

wow

All. Completely. And totally. Nuts. The whole lot of 'em.

I wish I lived in your guys' dimension where animals never attack people and violent crime doesn't exist. It must be amazing.Schlzm

 

[Blick]

Well, I think you have to try to understand it from the perspective of somebody like me. I've never even shot a gun. I've never been hunting. I don't use a gun for any sort of recreation. None of my close friends or family do either. To the best of my knowledge none of my close friends or family is a gun owner (although I'm not sure about that). And I've never been inclined to buy a gun or thought that my life would be in any way improved by owning one. So when folks like me read about tragedies like the one in Connecticut, it's perfectly natural to think "guns are dumb." Because we're just seeing the costs of guns and there's virtually nothing on the other side of the equation.

Another problem I have. I could never be a good gun salesman. I was in Academy the other day. There was a middle aged woman looking at a revolver. She had little to no clue about it. The sales person says, "You don't have to pull the hammer down to fire the weapon." The guy behind the counter just kept trying to sell it. After she stepped away I asked if she was looking to buy it for protection immediately. I proceeded to tell her to take a self defense class, so she would know what type of gun was best for her. How anyone can buy a weapon first and then learn how to use it is beyond me. It should be required.

 

[jafo]

Also- and this is meant more as a question and not an argument (at least not yet)- I keep reading that fully automatic weapons are already illegal. Yet these rifles that ARE legal can fire up to 60 bullets per minute??? Am I missing something here, or is the legal difference between automatic and semi-automatic rather negligible?

automatic weapons are not illegal to own in some states

Depending on the state you live in you may be able to purchase a grenade launcher, flame thrower or .50cal belt fed machine gun. Also to answer Tim and anyone else in this thread whose entire firearms knowledge has been gained from tv, movies and video games, 60rpm is pretty slow. Here is some tech data to educate you on the differences between rate of fire:AR-15 (.223cal) semi-auto estimated at ~60rpm (accurate) requiring one 30rnd mag change.

M-4A1 (5.56NATO) full-auto listed at 700-950rpm (inaccurate) requiring multiple 30rnd mag changes.

Glock 17 (9x19mm) semi-auto estimated at ~40rpm (accurate) requiring a variable number of mag changes. (different mag sizes available)

Glock 18 (9x19mm) full-auto listed at 1,100-1,200rpm (inaccurate) requiring a variable number of mag changes. (different mag sizes available)

Schlzm

Thanks for the info.I did not realize the heavy rate of fire.

In that case, perhaps all of these weapons should be illegal. I know it's not going to happen, but perhaps they should be. I fail to see what purpose they serve, other than personal pleasure of the owner, and to me that's not enough to justify their existence against the threat to public safety that their availability entails. I have tried to stay moderate on this subject, but your information is forcing me into an extreme position.

Personal protection against a wide variety of threats? You can outlaw "assault" rifles or pistols but then someone would switch to a shotgun which allows for significant more damage to be done with less skill and little more overhead on reloading. Ban shotguns? Then said psycho will just make a bunch of molotov cocktails could potentially take even more lives while causing large amounts of property damage and placing first responders and emergency personnel into even greater danger. Schlzm

Please describe the "wide variety of threats" which require you to have a weapon which fires over 60 rounds a minute. Is this the Red Dawn scenario again?

First off I am just going to point out that you are showing a massive amount of ignorance on this subject when you try and use the estimated rate of fire as some sort of reason against anything. Just because a certain platform, such as the Glock 18 I listed earlier, has a high rate of fire doesn't actually mean that is how many rounds are guaranteed to be fired. As to address your question. Other than any "Red Dawn", "Dawn of the Dead" or whatever scenarios you try and trot out to discredit people. There are other environmental factors that might just require or warrant the use of a weapon capable of firing at least one shot per second accurately. A few include rabid wildlife or a violent criminal(s) breaking into ones home. There are plenty of people here terrified of pitbulls. Do you think if three or more pitbulls attacked you and your family you might want to be in possession of something capable of quickly and efficiently defending against them?Schlzm

wow

All. Completely. And totally. Nuts. The whole lot of 'em.

I wish I lived in your guys' dimension where animals never attack people and violent crime doesn't exist. It must be amazing.Schlzm

They call that liberal utopia.

 

[smotherhook]

I don't get the big push for the smaller magazine clip. This seems pretty ineffective to me. 1. It takes two seconds to switch in another clip. So, while someone in a school type situation may be slowed, it wouldn't be by much. They may also just carry more weapons. 2. I'm no master welder, but it seems to me a clip would be the easiest thing to fabricate myself if I wanted to hold more rounds. It's basically a metal case and a spring with a feeder at the top. You could slice off the bottom, add an extend piece and a bigger spring and you'd be ready to go I think.Or is this whole thing just to get the ball rolling for greater restrictions when it inevitably fails?

Actually, limiting magazine capacity seems like it would work exceptionally well in instances of stolen weapons. In such a scenario, we're assuming that the shooter either doesn't want to or isn't able to purchase his own guns and ammo. Therefore, he takes what he can get via stealing the guns. If the rightful owner is responsible and is either A) carrying the gun with a limited number of magazines, or B) storing the weapon with a limited number of magazines, it seems likely that the total amount of ammo stolen would be smaller.

I'd like to add that changing a magazine may seem like a simple task, but under pressure its not as easy as many in here would make you believe. It takes real practice to be able to do it efficiently. Practice that I don't think most are doing.

these idiots who are mowing down innocent people at these gun free zones are not under any pressure. they are the only ones with weapons.

 

[TobiasFunke]

Using a strict liability standard is always unfair. We only use it in certain situations where there are justifications that override the unfairness. Does owning a gun constitute an "ultrahazardous activity"? I'm not convinced it does.

I think it's worth having a discussion about it. Also, if not strict liability, what about something similar to dram shop liability laws? At least carve out a specific type of claim allowing people to recover from owners/sellers.

OK, let's discuss it. I just googled and estimates are that there are something like 300 million firearms in the United States. What percentage of them are stolen and used in a crime each year? I'd guess that the number would be very very small but I don't know.

I have no idea either, and I'm certainly not the person to lead the discussion. But why limit it only to liability of your weapon is stolen? What about if you lend the weapon to someone, or buy it for them? Or dram shop type liability for weapons and/or ammo sold to potentially dangerous buyers regardless of the applicable requirements for background checks?

 

[tom22406]

Seems obvious that most of the loudest voices in this thread have little or even zero practical knowledge of guns. I find that hilarious

I find it to be completely consistent with my expectations. Those of us that aren't part of the gun culture generally view guns in a negative way.

It's almost like a mob mentality for some of them.I don't really know much about it but all I know is guns are bad so let's get rid of them and hopefully the problem goes away is the most common I answer I see(and I'm not counting here).

Well, I think you have to try to understand it from the perspective of somebody like me. I've never even shot a gun. I've never been hunting. I don't use a gun for any sort of recreation. None of my close friends or family do either. To the best of my knowledge none of my close friends or family is a gun owner (although I'm not sure about that). And I've never been inclined to buy a gun or thought that my life would be in any way improved by owning one. So when folks like me read about tragedies like the one in Connecticut, it's perfectly natural to think "guns are dumb." Because we're just seeing the costs of guns and there's virtually nothing on the other side of the equation.

Totally understood and trust me when I tell you that I was sick to my stomach and shed a few tears for those kids and everyone involved in that horrific crime.My whole point is that it is so easy to just say the guns are the problem and do away with them when in reality there really is no easy solution to this problem.Are guns a part of this problem?Without a doubt and I'm willing to work together with others for a law that will help keep the guns out of the bad guys hands.But as I said it's only a part of the problem and the cold,hard reality of this world is we have evil amongst us who don't care about any law or the value of human life.My reason for buying a hangun was because we had a rash of home invasions in the area(2 within 3 miles of my home)and I wanted protection for my family and belongings.

 

[ATC1]

Well, I think you have to try to understand it from the perspective of somebody like me. I've never even shot a gun. I've never been hunting. I don't use a gun for any sort of recreation. None of my close friends or family do either. To the best of my knowledge none of my close friends or family is a gun owner (although I'm not sure about that). And I've never been inclined to buy a gun or thought that my life would be in any way improved by owning one. So when folks like me read about tragedies like the one in Connecticut, it's perfectly natural to think "guns are dumb." Because we're just seeing the costs of guns and there's virtually nothing on the other side of the equation.

Another problem I have. I could never be a good gun salesman. I was in Academy the other day. There was a middle aged woman looking at a revolver. She had little to no clue about it. The sales person says, "You don't have to pull the hammer down to fire the weapon." The guy behind the counter just kept trying to sell it. After she stepped away I asked if she was looking to buy it for protection immediately. I proceeded to tell her to take a self defense class, so she would know what type of gun was best for her. How anyone can buy a weapon first and then learn how to use it is beyond me. It should be required.

Most gun salesmen I have talked with are not like the case you describe here, although bad ones do exist but they are a minority.

Agreed. The main point was this woman was buying a gun and she obviously no experience at all. Take away the guy behind the counter making sure they are fit to handle a weapon.

 

[Blick]

I don't get the big push for the smaller magazine clip. This seems pretty ineffective to me. 1. It takes two seconds to switch in another clip. So, while someone in a school type situation may be slowed, it wouldn't be by much. They may also just carry more weapons. 2. I'm no master welder, but it seems to me a clip would be the easiest thing to fabricate myself if I wanted to hold more rounds. It's basically a metal case and a spring with a feeder at the top. You could slice off the bottom, add an extend piece and a bigger spring and you'd be ready to go I think.Or is this whole thing just to get the ball rolling for greater restrictions when it inevitably fails?

Actually, limiting magazine capacity seems like it would work exceptionally well in instances of stolen weapons. In such a scenario, we're assuming that the shooter either doesn't want to or isn't able to purchase his own guns and ammo. Therefore, he takes what he can get via stealing the guns. If the rightful owner is responsible and is either A) carrying the gun with a limited number of magazines, or B) storing the weapon with a limited number of magazines, it seems likely that the total amount of ammo stolen would be smaller.

I'd like to add that changing a magazine may seem like a simple task, but under pressure its not as easy as many in here would make you believe. It takes real practice to be able to do it efficiently. Practice that I don't think most are doing.

these idiots who are mowing down innocent people at these gun free zones are not under any pressure. they are the only ones with weapons.

Good point. I guess if you have no fear of death, stress really wouldn't bother you much.

 

[jafo]

Well, I think you have to try to understand it from the perspective of somebody like me. I've never even shot a gun. I've never been hunting. I don't use a gun for any sort of recreation. None of my close friends or family do either. To the best of my knowledge none of my close friends or family is a gun owner (although I'm not sure about that). And I've never been inclined to buy a gun or thought that my life would be in any way improved by owning one. So when folks like me read about tragedies like the one in Connecticut, it's perfectly natural to think "guns are dumb." Because we're just seeing the costs of guns and there's virtually nothing on the other side of the equation.

Another problem I have. I could never be a good gun salesman. I was in Academy the other day. There was a middle aged woman looking at a revolver. She had little to no clue about it. The sales person says, "You don't have to pull the hammer down to fire the weapon." The guy behind the counter just kept trying to sell it. After she stepped away I asked if she was looking to buy it for protection immediately. I proceeded to tell her to take a self defense class, so she would know what type of gun was best for her. How anyone can buy a weapon first and then learn how to use it is beyond me. It should be required.

Most gun salesmen I have talked with are not like the case you describe here, although bad ones do exist but they are a minority.

Agreed. The main point was this woman was buying a gun and she obviously no experience at all. Take away the guy behind the counter making sure they are fit to handle a weapon.

Gun safety is #1. If you don't know how to use a firearm, you have no business buying one until you learn.