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

[Slingblade]

If you exclude all those long runs, Adrian Peterson's ypc is actually pretty pedestrian.

Nice logical fallacy bro.

 

[sporthenry]

Seriously Tim? You didn't really think they'd give up ground did you?

I'm hoping Slingblade is not representative. Latest polls suggest 74% of NRA membership support closing the loophole and limiting high capacity mags. Several pro-gun posters here, including icon and Jonessed are willing to give this a try, even though they tend to disagree with me about how effective it would be. We don't need the Slingblades.

I have no problem eliminating the gun show loophole.Banning mags over 10 rounds I have a big problem with. It won't even put a dent in gun deaths. I guarantee it.

So you don't want to have mag restrictions b/c they won't be effective? Is there a freedom or a Constitutional argument on top of that? Or is it just the effectiveness that matters?

 

[Slingblade]

I've shied away from this debate (with my own bias for "more gun control"), but I did see some interesting information when peeking in earlier today, and then I read a very informative Opinion piece in today's WSJ by researcher and author David Kopel. Sorry if this rehashes stuff from the prior pages.Kopel notes the U.S. homicide rate, including the gun homicide rate, has fallen over the past 30 years. While mass shootings have not changed significantly, "random" mass shootings have definitely increased. Kopel tries to answer: Why? He states it is not because gun control laws are more lax. He highlights the "uselessness of bans on so-called assault weapons, since those bans concentrate on guns' cosmetics ...rather than their functions." Kopel explains that semi-automatic weapons are so named because they eject the empty shell and load the next round, not because they fire more than one bullet (alluded to or explained earlier today here). He stresses that "firearms are the most heavily regulated consumer product in the United States."So what explains the increase in random mass shootings? Kopel notes (1) the media exposure and the copy cat effect; (2) deinstitutionalization of the violently mentally ill; and (3) the attacks taking places in "gun-free zones." He describes many shooters as "predominantly weaklings and cowards who crumble easily as soon as an armed person shows up," and cites examples (I believe I saw Pearl, MS raised in this thread; Kopel also notes how the Oregon mall shooter stopped killing and took his own life when a licensed citizen drew a gun and aimed it at him).Again, I found this very informative. We've seen a lot of bashing of the media coverage, and that's with good reason. I agree with Kopel that we need to do more for mental illness - the number of state hospital beds per capita is at 1850 levels. Many have argued for conceal-and-carry laws, and while that creates a new set of risks, it has helped to prevent some situations from occurring.

 

[Slingblade]

Seriously Tim? You didn't really think they'd give up ground did you?

I'm hoping Slingblade is not representative. Latest polls suggest 74% of NRA membership support closing the loophole and limiting high capacity mags. Several pro-gun posters here, including icon and Jonessed are willing to give this a try, even though they tend to disagree with me about how effective it would be. We don't need the Slingblades.

I have no problem eliminating the gun show loophole.Banning mags over 10 rounds I have a big problem with. It won't even put a dent in gun deaths. I guarantee it.

So you don't want to have mag restrictions b/c they won't be effective? Is there a freedom or a Constitutional argument on top of that? Or is it just the effectiveness that matters?

I like being able to continue to purchase "high cap mags" for new guns I get instead of only having them for my current guns.

 

[boots11234]

Seriously Tim? You didn't really think they'd give up ground did you?

I'm hoping Slingblade is not representative. Latest polls suggest 74% of NRA membership support closing the loophole and limiting high capacity mags. Several pro-gun posters here, including icon and Jonessed are willing to give this a try, even though they tend to disagree with me about how effective it would be. We don't need the Slingblades.

What do you think this would accomplish banning 30 round mags?

 

[shader]

Seriously Tim? You didn't really think they'd give up ground did you?

I'm hoping Slingblade is not representative. Latest polls suggest 74% of NRA membership support closing the loophole and limiting high capacity mags. Several pro-gun posters here, including icon and Jonessed are willing to give this a try, even though they tend to disagree with me about how effective it would be. We don't need the Slingblades.

I have no problem eliminating the gun show loophole.Banning mags over 10 rounds I have a big problem with. It won't even put a dent in gun deaths. I guarantee it.

So you don't want to have mag restrictions b/c they won't be effective? Is there a freedom or a Constitutional argument on top of that? Or is it just the effectiveness that matters?

I like being able to continue to purchase "high cap mags" for new guns I get instead of only having them for my current guns.

Gotta have that freedom!

 

[Apple Jack]

Seriously Tim? You didn't really think they'd give up ground did you?

I'm hoping Slingblade is not representative. Latest polls suggest 74% of NRA membership support closing the loophole and limiting high capacity mags. Several pro-gun posters here, including icon and Jonessed are willing to give this a try, even though they tend to disagree with me about how effective it would be. We don't need the Slingblades.

I have no problem eliminating the gun show loophole.Banning mags over 10 rounds I have a big problem with. It won't even put a dent in gun deaths. I guarantee it.

So you don't want to have mag restrictions b/c they won't be effective? Is there a freedom or a Constitutional argument on top of that? Or is it just the effectiveness that matters?

I like being able to continue to purchase "high cap mags" for new guns I get instead of only having them for my current guns.

Have you ever tried having sex with a desirable woman instead?

 

[Slingblade]

Seriously Tim? You didn't really think they'd give up ground did you?

I'm hoping Slingblade is not representative. Latest polls suggest 74% of NRA membership support closing the loophole and limiting high capacity mags. Several pro-gun posters here, including icon and Jonessed are willing to give this a try, even though they tend to disagree with me about how effective it would be. We don't need the Slingblades.

I have no problem eliminating the gun show loophole.Banning mags over 10 rounds I have a big problem with. It won't even put a dent in gun deaths. I guarantee it.

So you don't want to have mag restrictions b/c they won't be effective? Is there a freedom or a Constitutional argument on top of that? Or is it just the effectiveness that matters?

I like being able to continue to purchase "high cap mags" for new guns I get instead of only having them for my current guns.

Gotta have that freedom!

 

[17seconds]

I've shied away from this debate (with my own bias for "more gun control"), but I did see some interesting information when peeking in earlier today, and then I read a very informative Opinion piece in today's WSJ by researcher and author David Kopel. Sorry if this rehashes stuff from the prior pages.Kopel notes the U.S. homicide rate, including the gun homicide rate, has fallen over the past 30 years. While mass shootings have not changed significantly, "random" mass shootings have definitely increased. Kopel tries to answer: Why? He states it is not because gun control laws are more lax. He highlights the "uselessness of bans on so-called assault weapons, since those bans concentrate on guns' cosmetics ...rather than their functions." Kopel explains that semi-automatic weapons are so named because they eject the empty shell and load the next round, not because they fire more than one bullet (alluded to or explained earlier today here). He stresses that "firearms are the most heavily regulated consumer product in the United States."So what explains the increase in random mass shootings? Kopel notes (1) the media exposure and the copy cat effect; (2) deinstitutionalization of the violently mentally ill; and (3) the attacks taking places in "gun-free zones." He describes many shooters as "predominantly weaklings and cowards who crumble easily as soon as an armed person shows up," and cites examples (I believe I saw Pearl, MS raised in this thread; Kopel also notes how the Oregon mall shooter stopped killing and took his own life when a licensed citizen drew a gun and aimed it at him).Again, I found this very informative. We've seen a lot of bashing of the media coverage, and that's with good reason. I agree with Kopel that we need to do more for mental illness - the number of state hospital beds per capita is at 1850 levels. Many have argued for conceal-and-carry laws, and while that creates a new set of risks, it has helped to prevent some situations from occurring.

I can agree with everything there and still say:1) If the bans were cosmetic before then let's do it right this time2) Even though the cause is media exposure and lack of mental health support, that doesn't mean part of the solution can't be limiting guns

 

[sporthenry]

Seriously Tim? You didn't really think they'd give up ground did you?

I'm hoping Slingblade is not representative. Latest polls suggest 74% of NRA membership support closing the loophole and limiting high capacity mags. Several pro-gun posters here, including icon and Jonessed are willing to give this a try, even though they tend to disagree with me about how effective it would be. We don't need the Slingblades.

I have no problem eliminating the gun show loophole.Banning mags over 10 rounds I have a big problem with. It won't even put a dent in gun deaths. I guarantee it.

So you don't want to have mag restrictions b/c they won't be effective? Is there a freedom or a Constitutional argument on top of that? Or is it just the effectiveness that matters?

I like being able to continue to purchase "high cap mags" for new guns I get instead of only having them for my current guns.

So you doubt its effectiveness without much if any statistics to back it up. And the one trade-off would be that you can't buy a "high cap mag." It sounds like a relatively minor trade off, but then again, what do I know?

 

[Glass Joe]

Seriously Tim? You didn't really think they'd give up ground did you?

I'm hoping Slingblade is not representative. Latest polls suggest 74% of NRA membership support closing the loophole and limiting high capacity mags. Several pro-gun posters here, including icon and Jonessed are willing to give this a try, even though they tend to disagree with me about how effective it would be. We don't need the Slingblades.

And if/when your suggestions are ineffective, as this guy (and I) think, where do we go then? Pacifying/coddling the gun nuts by offering a weak solution in an attempt to get them to buy in isn't going to do a thing about the "gun culture". I realize full well that there isnt enough sentiment in Congress to overturn the second amendment, but why bother expelling the political capital to do something that won't help?

 

[timschochet]

Seriously Tim? You didn't really think they'd give up ground did you?

I'm hoping Slingblade is not representative. Latest polls suggest 74% of NRA membership support closing the loophole and limiting high capacity mags. Several pro-gun posters here, including icon and Jonessed are willing to give this a try, even though they tend to disagree with me about how effective it would be. We don't need the Slingblades.

What do you think this would accomplish banning 30 round mags?

I've explained several times in the thread. Every mass shooting of note in the last several years has involved a 30 round mag- or more. This really isn't that difficult.

 

[RCon]

FINAL TALLY:

With 15 incidents stopped by police with a total of 217 dead that’s an average of about 14.29 dead.

With 17 incidents stopped by civilians and 45 dead that’s an average of 2.33 dead.

When civilians wait for police to intervene, fatalities at the scene increase by nearly 700%

Sounds like we need to teach our teachers how to tackle.

Rex Ryan should be available soon.

 

[Dvorak]

How about a real compromise? Nationalize Concealed Handgun license laws. If you want to perform a private sale, both parties need to be licensed. No license? You go through an FFL dealer. In exchange, no need to worry about 20 different gun laws as you drive cross country, some of which vary city by city.

There ya go, the "gun show loophole" (I hate that term) is closed and We The People get some rights back.

Want to add a mental health exam? Sure, it's done at taxpayer expense. In exchange, citizens passing said check-up are allowed to buy one post-1986 automatic/select-fire weapon per year after filling out the transfer forms and paying the tax stamp, sheriff sign-off is waived.

Give a little, get a little.

 

[timschochet]

Seriously Tim? You didn't really think they'd give up ground did you?

I'm hoping Slingblade is not representative. Latest polls suggest 74% of NRA membership support closing the loophole and limiting high capacity mags. Several pro-gun posters here, including icon and Jonessed are willing to give this a try, even though they tend to disagree with me about how effective it would be. We don't need the Slingblades.

And if/when your suggestions are ineffective, as this guy (and I) think, where do we go then? Pacifying/coddling the gun nuts by offering a weak solution in an attempt to get them to buy in isn't going to do a thing about the "gun culture". I realize full well that there isnt enough sentiment in Congress to overturn the second amendment, but why bother expelling the political capital to do something that won't help?

I believe it will help. If it doesn't wel will have to try something else. But let's try this first.

 

[culdeus]

What of this columbine thing with security and cops waiting outside? I need a link.

 

[Slingblade]

Seriously Tim? You didn't really think they'd give up ground did you?

I'm hoping Slingblade is not representative. Latest polls suggest 74% of NRA membership support closing the loophole and limiting high capacity mags. Several pro-gun posters here, including icon and Jonessed are willing to give this a try, even though they tend to disagree with me about how effective it would be. We don't need the Slingblades.

What do you think this would accomplish banning 30 round mags?

I've explained several times in the thread. Every mass shooting of note in the last several years has involved a 30 round mag- or more. This really isn't that difficult.

I don't think the Virgina Tech guy used 30+ rounds mags.

 

[timschochet]

If the Russians ever do invade, Slingblade, Schlzm, and the rest of the Wolverines will be fighting for our freedom while you and I are trapped in reeducation camps.

 

[Joe T]

I've shied away from this debate (with my own bias for "more gun control"), but I did see some interesting information when peeking in earlier today, and then I read a very informative Opinion piece in today's WSJ by researcher and author David Kopel. Sorry if this rehashes stuff from the prior pages.Kopel notes the U.S. homicide rate, including the gun homicide rate, has fallen over the past 30 years. While mass shootings have not changed significantly, "random" mass shootings have definitely increased. Kopel tries to answer: Why? He states it is not because gun control laws are more lax. He highlights the "uselessness of bans on so-called assault weapons, since those bans concentrate on guns' cosmetics ...rather than their functions." Kopel explains that semi-automatic weapons are so named because they eject the empty shell and load the next round, not because they fire more than one bullet (alluded to or explained earlier today here). He stresses that "firearms are the most heavily regulated consumer product in the United States."So what explains the increase in random mass shootings? Kopel notes (1) the media exposure and the copy cat effect; (2) deinstitutionalization of the violently mentally ill; and (3) the attacks taking places in "gun-free zones." He describes many shooters as "predominantly weaklings and cowards who crumble easily as soon as an armed person shows up," and cites examples (I believe I saw Pearl, MS raised in this thread; Kopel also notes how the Oregon mall shooter stopped killing and took his own life when a licensed citizen drew a gun and aimed it at him).Again, I found this very informative. We've seen a lot of bashing of the media coverage, and that's with good reason. I agree with Kopel that we need to do more for mental illness - the number of state hospital beds per capita is at 1850 levels. Many have argued for conceal-and-carry laws, and while that creates a new set of risks, it has helped to prevent some situations from occurring.

 

[[icon]]

We'll just change the laws.

Good ####### luck

 

[[icon]]

I've shied away from this debate (with my own bias for "more gun control"), but I did see some interesting information when peeking in earlier today, and then I read a very informative Opinion piece in today's WSJ by researcher and author David Kopel. Sorry if this rehashes stuff from the prior pages.Kopel notes the U.S. homicide rate, including the gun homicide rate, has fallen over the past 30 years. While mass shootings have not changed significantly, "random" mass shootings have definitely increased. Kopel tries to answer: Why? He states it is not because gun control laws are more lax. He highlights the "uselessness of bans on so-called assault weapons, since those bans concentrate on guns' cosmetics ...rather than their functions." Kopel explains that semi-automatic weapons are so named because they eject the empty shell and load the next round, not because they fire more than one bullet (alluded to or explained earlier today here). He stresses that "firearms are the most heavily regulated consumer product in the United States."So what explains the increase in random mass shootings? Kopel notes (1) the media exposure and the copy cat effect; (2) deinstitutionalization of the violently mentally ill; and (3) the attacks taking places in "gun-free zones." He describes many shooters as "predominantly weaklings and cowards who crumble easily as soon as an armed person shows up," and cites examples (I believe I saw Pearl, MS raised in this thread; Kopel also notes how the Oregon mall shooter stopped killing and took his own life when a licensed citizen drew a gun and aimed it at him).Again, I found this very informative. We've seen a lot of bashing of the media coverage, and that's with good reason. I agree with Kopel that we need to do more for mental illness - the number of state hospital beds per capita is at 1850 levels. Many have argued for conceal-and-carry laws, and while that creates a new set of risks, it has helped to prevent some situations from occurring.

 

[[icon]]

How about a real compromise? Nationalize Concealed Handgun license laws. If you want to perform a private sale, both parties need to be licensed. No license? You go through an FFL dealer. In exchange, no need to worry about 20 different gun laws as you drive cross country, some of which vary city by city.

I am all for this. Unfortunately this will have little or no impact on the illicit trade that compromises the 80% of weapons used in gun crime.. but it's a fair compromise.

Want to add a mental health exam? Sure, it's done at taxpayer expense. In exchange, citizens passing said check-up are allowed to buy one post-1986 automatic/select-fire weapon per year after filling out the transfer forms and paying the tax stamp, sheriff sign-off is waived.Give a little, get a little.

Mental health exam would be highly ineffective IMO but its also something I'd have little or no issue with if it came with ability to purchase/own so called "assault/type" rifles...and/or own high-capacity mags. I don't really see the need for automatic weapons and have no issue with them being illegal.

 

[boots11234]

Seriously Tim? You didn't really think they'd give up ground did you?

I'm hoping Slingblade is not representative. Latest polls suggest 74% of NRA membership support closing the loophole and limiting high capacity mags. Several pro-gun posters here, including icon and Jonessed are willing to give this a try, even though they tend to disagree with me about how effective it would be. We don't need the Slingblades.

What do you think this would accomplish banning 30 round mags?

I've explained several times in the thread. Every mass shooting of note in the last several years has involved a 30 round mag- or more. This really isn't that difficult.

So by your logic, these wouldn't happen without these magazines??? Or is it that only a max of 10 people can be killed with a 10 round magazine? And 10 is ok with you. No the problem here is society as a whole has degraded over the last 50 years or so and until we identify the reason why and change it these things will continue to occur, with a 30 round mag or a 10 round mag. Unfortunately there is no quick fix to this problem and it appears the population is willing to further limit the rights of gun owners in order for them to feel they've "done something" even though that something will have no effect changing the underlying problem. Societal rott. After this is done, what do you propose we do after the next shooting, because there certainly will be another.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Good thing there is a gun show this weekend, better get what you want now.

 

[Sweet Feet]

Seriously Tim? You didn't really think they'd give up ground did you?

I'm hoping Slingblade is not representative. Latest polls suggest 74% of NRA membership support closing the loophole and limiting high capacity mags. Several pro-gun posters here, including icon and Jonessed are willing to give this a try, even though they tend to disagree with me about how effective it would be. We don't need the Slingblades.

Sorry Tim.. I dont mean to be a #### but this thread is full of BS. None of you really give a damn or else you would be writing your congressman and or being pro active in your community for the cause...but I'm sure you're not so shut up already.

You only care enough to rant on this board but not enough to actually do something about it.

 

[spreagle]

I've shied away from this debate (with my own bias for "more gun control"), but I did see some interesting information when peeking in earlier today, and then I read a very informative Opinion piece in today's WSJ by researcher and author David Kopel. Sorry if this rehashes stuff from the prior pages.Kopel notes the U.S. homicide rate, including the gun homicide rate, has fallen over the past 30 years. While mass shootings have not changed significantly, "random" mass shootings have definitely increased. Kopel tries to answer: Why? He states it is not because gun control laws are more lax. He highlights the "uselessness of bans on so-called assault weapons, since those bans concentrate on guns' cosmetics ...rather than their functions." Kopel explains that semi-automatic weapons are so named because they eject the empty shell and load the next round, not because they fire more than one bullet (alluded to or explained earlier today here). He stresses that "firearms are the most heavily regulated consumer product in the United States."So what explains the increase in random mass shootings? Kopel notes (1) the media exposure and the copy cat effect; (2) deinstitutionalization of the violently mentally ill; and (3) the attacks taking places in "gun-free zones." He describes many shooters as "predominantly weaklings and cowards who crumble easily as soon as an armed person shows up," and cites examples (I believe I saw Pearl, MS raised in this thread; Kopel also notes how the Oregon mall shooter stopped killing and took his own life when a licensed citizen drew a gun and aimed it at him).Again, I found this very informative. We've seen a lot of bashing of the media coverage, and that's with good reason. I agree with Kopel that we need to do more for mental illness - the number of state hospital beds per capita is at 1850 levels. Many have argued for conceal-and-carry laws, and while that creates a new set of risks, it has helped to prevent some situations from occurring.

"What explains the increase in random mass shootings"? Uh, maybe twice as many people than 30 years ago . Twice as many people means at least twice as many nutjobs, probably four times as much because population density drives people crazy. Everything has to be normalized to the amount of people around.

 

[[icon]]

Good thing there is a gun show this weekend, better get what you want now.

That does look like a load of fun to shoot.

 

[sporthenry]

Seriously Tim? You didn't really think they'd give up ground did you?

I'm hoping Slingblade is not representative. Latest polls suggest 74% of NRA membership support closing the loophole and limiting high capacity mags. Several pro-gun posters here, including icon and Jonessed are willing to give this a try, even though they tend to disagree with me about how effective it would be. We don't need the Slingblades.

Sorry Tim.. I dont mean to be a #### but this thread is full of BS. None of you really give a damn or else you would be writing your congressman and or being pro active in your community for the cause...but I'm sure you're not so shut up already.

You only care enough to rant on this board but not enough to actually do something about it.

 

[Sweet Feet]

Good thing there is a gun show this weekend, better get what you want now.

Nice cut off jean shorts in the background.. just fueling the fire that Otis and some of the others think everyone from the South are white trash

 

[Sweet Feet]

Seriously Tim? You didn't really think they'd give up ground did you?

I'm hoping Slingblade is not representative. Latest polls suggest 74% of NRA membership support closing the loophole and limiting high capacity mags. Several pro-gun posters here, including icon and Jonessed are willing to give this a try, even though they tend to disagree with me about how effective it would be. We don't need the Slingblades.

Sorry Tim.. I dont mean to be a #### but this thread is full of BS. None of you really give a damn or else you would be writing your congressman and or being pro active in your community for the cause...but I'm sure you're not so shut up already.

You only care enough to rant on this board but not enough to actually do something about it.

Its true.... Let me know when you get off the keyboards (any of you) and start doing something to actually change what you dont like. I'll be shocked if I see anything come through my inbox.

 

[Slingblade]

Seriously Tim? You didn't really think they'd give up ground did you?

I'm hoping Slingblade is not representative. Latest polls suggest 74% of NRA membership support closing the loophole and limiting high capacity mags. Several pro-gun posters here, including icon and Jonessed are willing to give this a try, even though they tend to disagree with me about how effective it would be. We don't need the Slingblades.

What do you think this would accomplish banning 30 round mags?

I've explained several times in the thread. Every mass shooting of note in the last several years has involved a 30 round mag- or more. This really isn't that difficult.

So by your logic, these wouldn't happen without these magazines??? Or is it that only a max of 10 people can be killed with a 10 round magazine? And 10 is ok with you. No the problem here is society as a whole has degraded over the last 50 years or so and until we identify the reason why and change it these things will continue to occur, with a 30 round mag or a 10 round mag. Unfortunately there is no quick fix to this problem and it appears the population is willing to further limit the rights of gun owners in order for them to feel they've "done something" even though that something will have no effect changing the underlying problem. Societal rott. After this is done, what do you propose we do after the next shooting, because there certainly will be another.

Society has not degraded..it's always been like this.

 

[sporthenry]

How about a real compromise? Nationalize Concealed Handgun license laws. If you want to perform a private sale, both parties need to be licensed. No license? You go through an FFL dealer. In exchange, no need to worry about 20 different gun laws as you drive cross country, some of which vary city by city.

I am all for this. Unfortunately this will have little or no impact on the illicit trade that compromises the 80% of weapons used in gun crime.. but it's a fair compromise.

Want to add a mental health exam? Sure, it's done at taxpayer expense. In exchange, citizens passing said check-up are allowed to buy one post-1986 automatic/select-fire weapon per year after filling out the transfer forms and paying the tax stamp, sheriff sign-off is waived.Give a little, get a little.

Mental health exam would be highly ineffective IMO but its also something I'd have little or no issue with if it came with ability to purchase/own so called "assault/type" rifles...and/or own high-capacity mags. I don't really see the need for automatic weapons and have no issue with them being illegal.

The mental health exam would do a bit to ensure people like Loughner or Cho don't get guns. Also, the restriction of one gun per year would go pretty far for straw purchases and the like. Also, why don't we trace guns, like every other country. Then we can follow the paper trail. And if they continue to lead back to legal gun sellers, we start to hold them liable if they continue to have guns stolen. Something like 60% of illegal guns get to the market this way. At the very least, licensed gun sellers should have very strict storage requirements and be held liable if they don't follow these protocols.

 

[sporthenry]

Seriously Tim? You didn't really think they'd give up ground did you?

I'm hoping Slingblade is not representative. Latest polls suggest 74% of NRA membership support closing the loophole and limiting high capacity mags. Several pro-gun posters here, including icon and Jonessed are willing to give this a try, even though they tend to disagree with me about how effective it would be. We don't need the Slingblades.

Sorry Tim.. I dont mean to be a #### but this thread is full of BS. None of you really give a damn or else you would be writing your congressman and or being pro active in your community for the cause...but I'm sure you're not so shut up already.

You only care enough to rant on this board but not enough to actually do something about it.

Its true.... Let me know when you get off the keyboards (any of you) and start doing something to actually change what you dont like. I'll be shocked if I see anything come through my inbox.

I've emailed my congressman. So there. And the fact that I care enough to rant on this board would seemingly show I care more than just shooting an email to my congressman. I'm not sure the two are mutually exclusive but obviously we give a damn or I'd be doing better things than on here.

 

[Sweet Feet]

Also, why don't we trace guns, like every other country. Then we can follow the paper trail. And if they continue to lead back to legal gun sellers, we start to hold them liable if they continue to have guns stolen. Something like 60% of illegal guns get to the market this way. At the very least, licensed gun sellers should have very strict storage requirements and be held liable if they don't follow these protocols.

these ideas are so shallow and unrealistic.. not 1 thing you wrote is feasible.

 

[Schlzm]

well the other half of the country that does own a gun would sure appreciate it if the guys on your side of the discussion would at least learn the rudimentary facts of the matter here. I mean reading a Timsochet "analysis" on rates of fire is like watching a 3 year old trying to draw the Mona Lisa with an etch-a-sketch

What analysis? What I wrote is that if you have a weapon that is able to fire a bullet or more every second for a full minute or longer, that's too much. Nobody needs that much firepower in one weapon. The availability of such weapons are a threat to public safety. You can agree with this opinion or disagree, but what more analysis do you need?

Tim my man! This is where your analysis generally falls flat because you target the weapon platform based on estimated rate of fire. Your approach on high-cap mags is where this argument would hold water. Because to maintain that level of sustained fire you need a very high capacity magazine or belt, which if memory serves, were not used in any of the recent attacks. It has also been mentioned that such very high capacity mags/drums are prone to mechanical failure basically making them a liability and less reliable than just having multiple standard cap mags. Schlzm

High capacity magazines were used in every one of the most recent attacks. That's been my point all along.

30 round AR mags are not high capacity mags.

Correct. "High Capacity" is completely subjective to a number of different things but for an AR-15 or AK-47, 30 rounds are standard cap.Schlzm

The USA Today article referred to 100 rounds. In any case, I am in favor of reducing the number to 10. I think the Feinstein proposal is specifically either 10 or 15.

Haven't seen that particular article however all of the information I have seen states that he used multiple standard capacity <30 rounds ea> with his AR-15. I have not seen a tally of the total number of shots fired. I honestly don't have any specific problem with only selling mid-cap mags. As for making any other magazine with a capacity higher than 15 or 10 depending illegal, the feds should institute a buy back or trade in program otherwise people will just hide what they have and they will eventually end up in the wrong hands. Schlzm

 

[Sweet Feet]

I've emailed my congressman. So there. And the fact that I care enough to rant on this board would seemingly show I care more than just shooting an email to my congressman. I'm not sure the two are mutually exclusive but obviously we give a damn or I'd be doing better things than on here.

Ok. Thats good but did it take what happened recently for you to do it? Im really not trying to pick a fight here but some of the comments in here are ridiculous from both sides. Just wanted to know if anyone REALLY cares enough to do something.

 

[sporthenry]

Also, why don't we trace guns, like every other country. Then we can follow the paper trail. And if they continue to lead back to legal gun sellers, we start to hold them liable if they continue to have guns stolen. Something like 60% of illegal guns get to the market this way. At the very least, licensed gun sellers should have very strict storage requirements and be held liable if they don't follow these protocols.

these ideas are so shallow and unrealistic.. not 1 thing you wrote is feasible.

Really? All other civilized countries with guns seem to be able to do it. People bring up Israel or Switzerland. They have gun tracing which allows them to uniquely identify each gun and require the guns to be tracked from manufacturer to end user.

 

[Glass Joe]

I've emailed my congressman. So there. And the fact that I care enough to rant on this board would seemingly show I care more than just shooting an email to my congressman. I'm not sure the two are mutually exclusive but obviously we give a damn or I'd be doing better things than on here.

Ok. Thats good but did it take what happened recently for you to do it? Im really not trying to pick a fight here but some of the comments in here are ridiculous from both sides. Just wanted to know if anyone REALLY cares enough to do something.

Yes, I've cared enough to also contact my congressman as well. I've also been attempting to get friends and family involved in organizations like the Brady campaign.http://www.bradycampaign.org/I hope others consider ways to make their voices heard.

 

[sporthenry]

I've emailed my congressman. So there. And the fact that I care enough to rant on this board would seemingly show I care more than just shooting an email to my congressman. I'm not sure the two are mutually exclusive but obviously we give a damn or I'd be doing better things than on here.

Ok. Thats good but did it take what happened recently for you to do it? Im really not trying to pick a fight here but some of the comments in here are ridiculous from both sides. Just wanted to know if anyone REALLY cares enough to do something.

Yes, this is what some would call the straw that broke the camel's back. The shooting in Oregon actually reinvigorated my interest but it really was a combination of just all the recent shootings. But I don't really see any shame in it just becoming an issue. Before 9/11, I wasn't too concerned with airplane security. I think I, along with many are sick of these occurrences whether it be this, the Oregon shooting, the Aurora shooting, the Jordan Davis shooting, etc. For supposedly being the best country in the world, this is rather unbecoming and this tragedy has really shaken a lot of us.

 

[Sweet Feet]

Really? All other civilized countries with guns seem to be able to do it. People bring up Israel or Switzerland. They have gun tracing which allows them to uniquely identify each gun and require the guns to be tracked from manufacturer to end user.

To many obstacles in the way of that happening in this country. Im not a fan of civilians owning guns but I realize it's not going away. Wasnt trying to bash your comment though I came off like it but I just mean that we have to have realistic proposals and take small steps.I do agree with Tim that our society has degraded in the last 50 years. Got in a discussion with my father today about it.. Im a young man (under 30) but I have major issues with many things going on that influence people

 

[rascal]

Good thing there is a gun show this weekend, better get what you want now.

I'm sure its fun to shoot, but how is that considered a pistol.

 

[Novice2]

Good thing there is a gun show this weekend, better get what you want now.

People like Otis are the ones whom you should seek for approval.

 

[timschochet]

Really? All other civilized countries with guns seem to be able to do it. People bring up Israel or Switzerland. They have gun tracing which allows them to uniquely identify each gun and require the guns to be tracked from manufacturer to end user.

To many obstacles in the way of that happening in this country. Im not a fan of civilians owning guns but I realize it's not going away. Wasnt trying to bash your comment though I came off like it but I just mean that we have to have realistic proposals and take small steps.

I do agree with Tim that our society has degraded in the last 50 years. Got in a discussion with my father today about it.. Im a young man (under 30) but I have major issues with many things going on that influence people

I never wrote that.

 

[Sweet Feet]

I never wrote that.

You're right. Boots wrote it.

 

[Sweet Feet]

Good thing there is a gun show this weekend, better get what you want now.

 

[Schlzm]

If the Russians ever do invade, Slingblade, Schlzm, and the rest of the Wolverines will be fighting for our freedom while you and I are trapped in reeducation camps.

Don't get cranky just because I am educating you on the subject. If you want to legislate something at least know what you are talking about. I understand the emotional investment in this subject but you can't make a reasonable argument if you have no factual support or working knowledge of the subject matter. Schlzm

 

[Glass Joe]

If the Russians ever do invade, Slingblade, Schlzm, and the rest of the Wolverines will be fighting for our freedom while you and I are trapped in reeducation camps.

Don't get cranky just because I am educating you on the subject. If you want to legislate something at least know what you are talking about. I understand the emotional investment in this subject but you can't make a reasonable argument if you have no factual support or working knowledge of the subject matter. Schlzm

do you believe you'll stop a tyrannical government if it comes to that?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I've shied away from this debate (with my own bias for "more gun control"), but I did see some interesting information when peeking in earlier today, and then I read a very informative Opinion piece in today's WSJ by researcher and author David Kopel. Sorry if this rehashes stuff from the prior pages.Kopel notes the U.S. homicide rate, including the gun homicide rate, has fallen over the past 30 years. While mass shootings have not changed significantly, "random" mass shootings have definitely increased. Kopel tries to answer: Why? He states it is not because gun control laws are more lax. He highlights the "uselessness of bans on so-called assault weapons, since those bans concentrate on guns' cosmetics ...rather than their functions." Kopel explains that semi-automatic weapons are so named because they eject the empty shell and load the next round, not because they fire more than one bullet (alluded to or explained earlier today here). He stresses that "firearms are the most heavily regulated consumer product in the United States."So what explains the increase in random mass shootings? Kopel notes (1) the media exposure and the copy cat effect; (2) deinstitutionalization of the violently mentally ill; and (3) the attacks taking places in "gun-free zones." He describes many shooters as "predominantly weaklings and cowards who crumble easily as soon as an armed person shows up," and cites examples (I believe I saw Pearl, MS raised in this thread; Kopel also notes how the Oregon mall shooter stopped killing and took his own life when a licensed citizen drew a gun and aimed it at him).Again, I found this very informative. We've seen a lot of bashing of the media coverage, and that's with good reason. I agree with Kopel that we need to do more for mental illness - the number of state hospital beds per capita is at 1850 levels. Many have argued for conceal-and-carry laws, and while that creates a new set of risks, it has helped to prevent some situations from occurring.

I can agree with everything there and still say:1) If the bans were cosmetic before then let's do it right this time2) Even though the cause is media exposure and lack of mental health support, that doesn't mean part of the solution can't be limiting guns

Check the youtube I posted a few pages back:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yATeti5GmI8There's essentially no difference between a semi-auto AR and a semi-auto "hunting rifle" so when you talk about doing it "right this time" what is right?

 

[sporthenry]

Really? All other civilized countries with guns seem to be able to do it. People bring up Israel or Switzerland. They have gun tracing which allows them to uniquely identify each gun and require the guns to be tracked from manufacturer to end user.

To many obstacles in the way of that happening in this country. Im not a fan of civilians owning guns but I realize it's not going away. Wasnt trying to bash your comment though I came off like it but I just mean that we have to have realistic proposals and take small steps.I do agree with Tim that our society has degraded in the last 50 years. Got in a discussion with my father today about it.. Im a young man (under 30) but I have major issues with many things going on that influence people

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/13/us/code-on-shell-casings-sparks-a-gun-debate.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0Microstamping sounds like a fun idea to try? The two biggest complaints I could gather is that it is unreliable, but even if it only works half the time, that is still better, right? And that it is cost prohibitive to gun owners? Yet some gun owners have suggested arm guards at schools (which would seem very cost prohibitive).

 

[Henry Ford]

We're just letting this whole 'guns are illegal in Chicago' thing go, then?