***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (8 Viewers)

[Sweet Feet]

glad you acknowledge that the majority of your comments are complete BS Tim... I like how you basically took my comment a few days ago and made it your own that was posted on a previous page

 

[DrJ]

Maybe I'm not understanding what you're proposing. A restriction on magazine size seems pretty similar to an assault weapons ban. How is a restriction on magazine size inherently different? What percentage of crime do you think occurs as a result of this magazine size, and how much money do you think it would cost to enforce this restriction? How much would you suspect the gun crime would come down as a result of this? Would it have done anything to prevent this crime? I'm guessing you don't have the answers based on the "(I hope)" part of what you said.Let's say for the sake of argument we went with those restrictions and they didn't produce the results you desire. Should we get rid of them at that point? Or maybe we just didn't reach quite far enough and there's one or two more slight restrictions that would limit the damage sufficiently? There's things we all would like to stamp out of this world. Unfortunately that's never going to happen entirely. Given that we typically err on the side of freedom, shouldn't there be some demonstrable results if we're going to elect to restrict that freedom?

1. A restriction on magazine size is exactly that. It is different from a ban on assault weapons, because you'll still be able to purchase and own the assault weapons. 2. A very low percentage of total violent crime is attributed to high capacity magazines. However, the vast majority of these mass shootings involve high capacity magazines, and that's what I'm focused upon. 3. I don't have any idea how much it would cost. I have always believed, however, that the vast majority of gun-owners are law-abiding citizens, and they will voluntarily obey this restriction once it's in place. But I don't know what the cost of enforcement will be. I think that whatever it is, we should be willing to pay it.4. As I wrote earlier, I don't suspect that gun crime will come down as a result of this. I am in favor of it SPECIFICALLY because I believe that, in incidents like Friday morning, the amount of casualties may be more limited. 5. While it most likely would not have done anything to prevent Sandy Hook, the number of deaths MAY have been reduced. I think that in a few other notable mass shootings it is even more clear this would have been the case. 6. If this restriction were attempted for a reasonable period of time (not being a crime statistician, I have no idea how long that would be) and it proved ineffective, I would have no problem getting rid of it. I don't generally believe in useless, restrictive laws. 7. Yes there should be demonstrable results. Sometimes though, you have to impose restrictions in order to discover whether those results are tangible. In this case, I am willing to do so because I don't consider limiting the amount of rounds a single magazine can carry to be a significant infringement on anyone's "freedom". The fact that you could even bring up the term "freedom" in this context demonstrates, IMO, the extremist position that so many gun-owners seem to have toward ANY kind of gun regulation whatsoever.

Thanks, I got ya.There has to be some way we could make a reasonable guess on how much this would potentially limit the damage and casualties. Something like how many rounds can a trained/untrained person fire accurately per a given amount of time with the magazines you'd like to ban vs available weapons with magazine sizes that you wouldn't? Would this killer have been able to do as much damage as he did with rapid loading pistols? And if there is a difference, is there a reasonable scenario where a person would need the ability to fire that rapidly when defending themselves?Not sure what you find extreme about this definition of freedom. Perhaps you can be more specific on that. It strikes me that your definition of freedom might be rather flimsy.

As I wrote earlier, I have difficulty comprehending the situation where you would need a 30 round magazine to defend yourself, unless you're Jason Bourne or Jack Bauer. Schlzm brought up the 3 pit bull scenario, so I suppose anything's possible. As far as freedom goes, I've just never associated it with high capacity gun magazines, sorry.

I'm not a gun owner, but my first inclination is the more rounds the better. If you're the good guy, that's a good situation to have. Better to have too many rounds than too few, especially when they're being used for the powers of good. How many rounds would it take to down a couple of pissed off grizzlies?

 

[Schlzm]

LE needs to combat the black and grey markets as best they can. I think everyone here who isn't involved directly in those arenas can agree. I also feel that F&F was nothing close to trying to catch straw buyers/sellers since there are known instances of shop owners being practically forced to perform sales they didn't feel comfortable with and would have otherwise not followed through on.Schlzm

Yes, they forced store owners to sell to known straw purchasers b/c they were trying to eventually tie the leaders of the cartel to the guns. F&F wasn't about catching the straw purchasers b/c they already knew who they were. That is why F&F is criticized b/c not only did we allow straw purchasers to buy guns but we told the store owners to sell it to them. But the reason behind this was b/c the current straw purchase laws lack bite. So arresting a straw purchaser did nothing. Either they weren't prosecuted or they were out in little time so it became the definition of insanity. Keep arresting the straw purchasers and continue the vicious cycle or try to follow the guns. Now it seems like a bad idea b/c the guns got through but it is similar to keeping drugs on the street to find the head of the snake. Of course this is a different beast when guns are involved but some of the problem lied in the difficult in getting a conviction for a straw purchaser especially when the purchaser actually had to transfer the guns in order for it to occur.

It seems that we agree in that preventing black market sales is something we should strive for. We can leave the other F&F specifics for another day.Schlzm

 

[Schlzm]

Maybe I'm not understanding what you're proposing. A restriction on magazine size seems pretty similar to an assault weapons ban. How is a restriction on magazine size inherently different? What percentage of crime do you think occurs as a result of this magazine size, and how much money do you think it would cost to enforce this restriction? How much would you suspect the gun crime would come down as a result of this? Would it have done anything to prevent this crime? I'm guessing you don't have the answers based on the "(I hope)" part of what you said.Let's say for the sake of argument we went with those restrictions and they didn't produce the results you desire. Should we get rid of them at that point? Or maybe we just didn't reach quite far enough and there's one or two more slight restrictions that would limit the damage sufficiently? There's things we all would like to stamp out of this world. Unfortunately that's never going to happen entirely. Given that we typically err on the side of freedom, shouldn't there be some demonstrable results if we're going to elect to restrict that freedom?

1. A restriction on magazine size is exactly that. It is different from a ban on assault weapons, because you'll still be able to purchase and own the assault weapons. 2. A very low percentage of total violent crime is attributed to high capacity magazines. However, the vast majority of these mass shootings involve high capacity magazines, and that's what I'm focused upon. 3. I don't have any idea how much it would cost. I have always believed, however, that the vast majority of gun-owners are law-abiding citizens, and they will voluntarily obey this restriction once it's in place. But I don't know what the cost of enforcement will be. I think that whatever it is, we should be willing to pay it.4. As I wrote earlier, I don't suspect that gun crime will come down as a result of this. I am in favor of it SPECIFICALLY because I believe that, in incidents like Friday morning, the amount of casualties may be more limited. 5. While it most likely would not have done anything to prevent Sandy Hook, the number of deaths MAY have been reduced. I think that in a few other notable mass shootings it is even more clear this would have been the case. 6. If this restriction were attempted for a reasonable period of time (not being a crime statistician, I have no idea how long that would be) and it proved ineffective, I would have no problem getting rid of it. I don't generally believe in useless, restrictive laws. 7. Yes there should be demonstrable results. Sometimes though, you have to impose restrictions in order to discover whether those results are tangible. In this case, I am willing to do so because I don't consider limiting the amount of rounds a single magazine can carry to be a significant infringement on anyone's "freedom". The fact that you could even bring up the term "freedom" in this context demonstrates, IMO, the extremist position that so many gun-owners seem to have toward ANY kind of gun regulation whatsoever.

Thanks, I got ya.There has to be some way we could make a reasonable guess on how much this would potentially limit the damage and casualties. Something like how many rounds can a trained/untrained person fire accurately per a given amount of time with the magazines you'd like to ban vs available weapons with magazine sizes that you wouldn't? Would this killer have been able to do as much damage as he did with rapid loading pistols? And if there is a difference, is there a reasonable scenario where a person would need the ability to fire that rapidly when defending themselves?Not sure what you find extreme about this definition of freedom. Perhaps you can be more specific on that. It strikes me that your definition of freedom might be rather flimsy.

As I wrote earlier, I have difficulty comprehending the situation where you would need a 30 round magazine to defend yourself, unless you're Jason Bourne or Jack Bauer. Schlzm brought up the 3 pit bull scenario, so I suppose anything's possible. As far as freedom goes, I've just never associated it with high capacity gun magazines, sorry.

I'm not a gun owner, but my first inclination is the more rounds the better. If you're the good guy, that's a good situation to have. Better to have too many rounds than too few, especially when they're being used for the powers of good. How many rounds would it take to down a couple of pissed off grizzlies?

That depends, what are you packing and how wet have you suddenly found your southern regions to be? Schlzm

 

[sporthenry]

Maybe I'm not understanding what you're proposing. A restriction on magazine size seems pretty similar to an assault weapons ban. How is a restriction on magazine size inherently different? What percentage of crime do you think occurs as a result of this magazine size, and how much money do you think it would cost to enforce this restriction? How much would you suspect the gun crime would come down as a result of this? Would it have done anything to prevent this crime? I'm guessing you don't have the answers based on the "(I hope)" part of what you said.Let's say for the sake of argument we went with those restrictions and they didn't produce the results you desire. Should we get rid of them at that point? Or maybe we just didn't reach quite far enough and there's one or two more slight restrictions that would limit the damage sufficiently? There's things we all would like to stamp out of this world. Unfortunately that's never going to happen entirely. Given that we typically err on the side of freedom, shouldn't there be some demonstrable results if we're going to elect to restrict that freedom?

1. A restriction on magazine size is exactly that. It is different from a ban on assault weapons, because you'll still be able to purchase and own the assault weapons. 2. A very low percentage of total violent crime is attributed to high capacity magazines. However, the vast majority of these mass shootings involve high capacity magazines, and that's what I'm focused upon. 3. I don't have any idea how much it would cost. I have always believed, however, that the vast majority of gun-owners are law-abiding citizens, and they will voluntarily obey this restriction once it's in place. But I don't know what the cost of enforcement will be. I think that whatever it is, we should be willing to pay it.4. As I wrote earlier, I don't suspect that gun crime will come down as a result of this. I am in favor of it SPECIFICALLY because I believe that, in incidents like Friday morning, the amount of casualties may be more limited. 5. While it most likely would not have done anything to prevent Sandy Hook, the number of deaths MAY have been reduced. I think that in a few other notable mass shootings it is even more clear this would have been the case. 6. If this restriction were attempted for a reasonable period of time (not being a crime statistician, I have no idea how long that would be) and it proved ineffective, I would have no problem getting rid of it. I don't generally believe in useless, restrictive laws. 7. Yes there should be demonstrable results. Sometimes though, you have to impose restrictions in order to discover whether those results are tangible. In this case, I am willing to do so because I don't consider limiting the amount of rounds a single magazine can carry to be a significant infringement on anyone's "freedom". The fact that you could even bring up the term "freedom" in this context demonstrates, IMO, the extremist position that so many gun-owners seem to have toward ANY kind of gun regulation whatsoever.

Thanks, I got ya.There has to be some way we could make a reasonable guess on how much this would potentially limit the damage and casualties. Something like how many rounds can a trained/untrained person fire accurately per a given amount of time with the magazines you'd like to ban vs available weapons with magazine sizes that you wouldn't? Would this killer have been able to do as much damage as he did with rapid loading pistols? And if there is a difference, is there a reasonable scenario where a person would need the ability to fire that rapidly when defending themselves?Not sure what you find extreme about this definition of freedom. Perhaps you can be more specific on that. It strikes me that your definition of freedom might be rather flimsy.

As I wrote earlier, I have difficulty comprehending the situation where you would need a 30 round magazine to defend yourself, unless you're Jason Bourne or Jack Bauer. Schlzm brought up the 3 pit bull scenario, so I suppose anything's possible. As far as freedom goes, I've just never associated it with high capacity gun magazines, sorry.

I'm not a gun owner, but my first inclination is the more rounds the better. If you're the good guy, that's a good situation to have. Better to have too many rounds than too few, especially when they're being used for the powers of good. How many rounds would it take to down a couple of pissed off grizzlies?

I think there is a point where more bullets are useless for the good guy. It would be like a bell curve. The good guy only needs so many bullets before its marginal utility is fairly useless. A legal gun owner would rarely if ever be in a situation where they needed 30 bullets in a mag. The only situation that I've seen would be protecting your house or store from looting in which case 10 mags of 6 would seem to act the same as 2 mags of 30. However, in a situation like this, where the attacker is in a new environment on the run, it would seem more difficult to carry around 10 mags as opposed to just taping two giant mags together. I would assume any situation where you come in contact with rabid dogs or bears or even attackers, 6-10 bullets would probably do the trick to scare off your attacker or hurt them enough for you to run. http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/01/12/5825033-gun-rights-advocate-high-capacity-magazine-restrictions-makes-sense?lite

Law-enforcement officials have noted that Loughner's high-capacity round magazine substantially increased the lethality of his rampage; he was able to get off at least 31 shots without reloading and was only wrestled to the ground when he tried to reload with another high-capacity magazine.

 

[Schlzm]

Maybe I'm not understanding what you're proposing. A restriction on magazine size seems pretty similar to an assault weapons ban. How is a restriction on magazine size inherently different? What percentage of crime do you think occurs as a result of this magazine size, and how much money do you think it would cost to enforce this restriction? How much would you suspect the gun crime would come down as a result of this? Would it have done anything to prevent this crime? I'm guessing you don't have the answers based on the "(I hope)" part of what you said.Let's say for the sake of argument we went with those restrictions and they didn't produce the results you desire. Should we get rid of them at that point? Or maybe we just didn't reach quite far enough and there's one or two more slight restrictions that would limit the damage sufficiently? There's things we all would like to stamp out of this world. Unfortunately that's never going to happen entirely. Given that we typically err on the side of freedom, shouldn't there be some demonstrable results if we're going to elect to restrict that freedom?

1. A restriction on magazine size is exactly that. It is different from a ban on assault weapons, because you'll still be able to purchase and own the assault weapons. 2. A very low percentage of total violent crime is attributed to high capacity magazines. However, the vast majority of these mass shootings involve high capacity magazines, and that's what I'm focused upon. 3. I don't have any idea how much it would cost. I have always believed, however, that the vast majority of gun-owners are law-abiding citizens, and they will voluntarily obey this restriction once it's in place. But I don't know what the cost of enforcement will be. I think that whatever it is, we should be willing to pay it.4. As I wrote earlier, I don't suspect that gun crime will come down as a result of this. I am in favor of it SPECIFICALLY because I believe that, in incidents like Friday morning, the amount of casualties may be more limited. 5. While it most likely would not have done anything to prevent Sandy Hook, the number of deaths MAY have been reduced. I think that in a few other notable mass shootings it is even more clear this would have been the case. 6. If this restriction were attempted for a reasonable period of time (not being a crime statistician, I have no idea how long that would be) and it proved ineffective, I would have no problem getting rid of it. I don't generally believe in useless, restrictive laws. 7. Yes there should be demonstrable results. Sometimes though, you have to impose restrictions in order to discover whether those results are tangible. In this case, I am willing to do so because I don't consider limiting the amount of rounds a single magazine can carry to be a significant infringement on anyone's "freedom". The fact that you could even bring up the term "freedom" in this context demonstrates, IMO, the extremist position that so many gun-owners seem to have toward ANY kind of gun regulation whatsoever.

Thanks, I got ya.There has to be some way we could make a reasonable guess on how much this would potentially limit the damage and casualties. Something like how many rounds can a trained/untrained person fire accurately per a given amount of time with the magazines you'd like to ban vs available weapons with magazine sizes that you wouldn't? Would this killer have been able to do as much damage as he did with rapid loading pistols? And if there is a difference, is there a reasonable scenario where a person would need the ability to fire that rapidly when defending themselves?Not sure what you find extreme about this definition of freedom. Perhaps you can be more specific on that. It strikes me that your definition of freedom might be rather flimsy.

As I wrote earlier, I have difficulty comprehending the situation where you would need a 30 round magazine to defend yourself, unless you're Jason Bourne or Jack Bauer. Schlzm brought up the 3 pit bull scenario, so I suppose anything's possible. As far as freedom goes, I've just never associated it with high capacity gun magazines, sorry.

I'm not a gun owner, but my first inclination is the more rounds the better. If you're the good guy, that's a good situation to have. Better to have too many rounds than too few, especially when they're being used for the powers of good. How many rounds would it take to down a couple of pissed off grizzlies?

I think there is a point where more bullets are useless for the good guy. It would be like a bell curve. The good guy only needs so many bullets before its marginal utility is fairly useless. A legal gun owner would rarely if ever be in a situation where they needed 30 bullets in a mag. The only situation that I've seen would be protecting your house or store from looting in which case 10 mags of 6 would seem to act the same as 2 mags of 30. However, in a situation like this, where the attacker is in a new environment on the run, it would seem more difficult to carry around 10 mags as opposed to just taping two giant mags together. I would assume any situation where you come in contact with rabid dogs or bears or even attackers, 6-10 bullets would probably do the trick to scare off your attacker or hurt them enough for you to run. http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/01/12/5825033-gun-rights-advocate-high-capacity-magazine-restrictions-makes-sense?lite

Law-enforcement officials have noted that Loughner's high-capacity round magazine substantially increased the lethality of his rampage; he was able to get off at least 31 shots without reloading and was only wrestled to the ground when he tried to reload with another high-capacity magazine.

Honestly, for recreational shooting 30+ round capacity mags are a ton of fun while also being a huge pain in the ###. I would suggest everyone with a thought on this subject go to their local gun range and rent an AR with the standard cap thirty round mags and enjoy punching some holes in paper while enduring the nuisance that is reloading them. However I think I can get on board with stopping future sales and transfers of any mag above ten rounds. Two of the most effective battle rifles ever deployed were the M1 Garand and the KAR98 Mauser, 8 and 5 round internal box capacity. While it may mean more reloading time I can live with ten or fifteen rounds.Schlzm

 

[DrJ]

Maybe I'm not understanding what you're proposing. A restriction on magazine size seems pretty similar to an assault weapons ban. How is a restriction on magazine size inherently different? What percentage of crime do you think occurs as a result of this magazine size, and how much money do you think it would cost to enforce this restriction? How much would you suspect the gun crime would come down as a result of this? Would it have done anything to prevent this crime? I'm guessing you don't have the answers based on the "(I hope)" part of what you said.Let's say for the sake of argument we went with those restrictions and they didn't produce the results you desire. Should we get rid of them at that point? Or maybe we just didn't reach quite far enough and there's one or two more slight restrictions that would limit the damage sufficiently? There's things we all would like to stamp out of this world. Unfortunately that's never going to happen entirely. Given that we typically err on the side of freedom, shouldn't there be some demonstrable results if we're going to elect to restrict that freedom?

1. A restriction on magazine size is exactly that. It is different from a ban on assault weapons, because you'll still be able to purchase and own the assault weapons. 2. A very low percentage of total violent crime is attributed to high capacity magazines. However, the vast majority of these mass shootings involve high capacity magazines, and that's what I'm focused upon. 3. I don't have any idea how much it would cost. I have always believed, however, that the vast majority of gun-owners are law-abiding citizens, and they will voluntarily obey this restriction once it's in place. But I don't know what the cost of enforcement will be. I think that whatever it is, we should be willing to pay it.4. As I wrote earlier, I don't suspect that gun crime will come down as a result of this. I am in favor of it SPECIFICALLY because I believe that, in incidents like Friday morning, the amount of casualties may be more limited. 5. While it most likely would not have done anything to prevent Sandy Hook, the number of deaths MAY have been reduced. I think that in a few other notable mass shootings it is even more clear this would have been the case. 6. If this restriction were attempted for a reasonable period of time (not being a crime statistician, I have no idea how long that would be) and it proved ineffective, I would have no problem getting rid of it. I don't generally believe in useless, restrictive laws. 7. Yes there should be demonstrable results. Sometimes though, you have to impose restrictions in order to discover whether those results are tangible. In this case, I am willing to do so because I don't consider limiting the amount of rounds a single magazine can carry to be a significant infringement on anyone's "freedom". The fact that you could even bring up the term "freedom" in this context demonstrates, IMO, the extremist position that so many gun-owners seem to have toward ANY kind of gun regulation whatsoever.

Thanks, I got ya.There has to be some way we could make a reasonable guess on how much this would potentially limit the damage and casualties. Something like how many rounds can a trained/untrained person fire accurately per a given amount of time with the magazines you'd like to ban vs available weapons with magazine sizes that you wouldn't? Would this killer have been able to do as much damage as he did with rapid loading pistols? And if there is a difference, is there a reasonable scenario where a person would need the ability to fire that rapidly when defending themselves?Not sure what you find extreme about this definition of freedom. Perhaps you can be more specific on that. It strikes me that your definition of freedom might be rather flimsy.

As I wrote earlier, I have difficulty comprehending the situation where you would need a 30 round magazine to defend yourself, unless you're Jason Bourne or Jack Bauer. Schlzm brought up the 3 pit bull scenario, so I suppose anything's possible. As far as freedom goes, I've just never associated it with high capacity gun magazines, sorry.

I'm not a gun owner, but my first inclination is the more rounds the better. If you're the good guy, that's a good situation to have. Better to have too many rounds than too few, especially when they're being used for the powers of good. How many rounds would it take to down a couple of pissed off grizzlies?

I think there is a point where more bullets are useless for the good guy. It would be like a bell curve. The good guy only needs so many bullets before its marginal utility is fairly useless. A legal gun owner would rarely if ever be in a situation where they needed 30 bullets in a mag. The only situation that I've seen would be protecting your house or store from looting in which case 10 mags of 6 would seem to act the same as 2 mags of 30. However, in a situation like this, where the attacker is in a new environment on the run, it would seem more difficult to carry around 10 mags as opposed to just taping two giant mags together. I would assume any situation where you come in contact with rabid dogs or bears or even attackers, 6-10 bullets would probably do the trick to scare off your attacker or hurt them enough for you to run. http://firstread.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/01/12/5825033-gun-rights-advocate-high-capacity-magazine-restrictions-makes-sense?lite

Law-enforcement officials have noted that Loughner's high-capacity round magazine substantially increased the lethality of his rampage; he was able to get off at least 31 shots without reloading and was only wrestled to the ground when he tried to reload with another high-capacity magazine.

Honestly, for recreational shooting 30+ round capacity mags are a ton of fun while also being a huge pain in the ###. I would suggest everyone with a thought on this subject go to their local gun range and rent an AR with the standard cap thirty round mags and enjoy punching some holes in paper while enduring the nuisance that is reloading them. However I think I can get on board with stopping future sales and transfers of any mag above ten rounds. Two of the most effective battle rifles ever deployed were the M1 Garand and the KAR98 Mauser, 8 and 5 round internal box capacity. While it may mean more reloading time I can live with ten or fifteen rounds.Schlzm

Is there a time difference in reloading? Seems the common denominator in a lot of these things is these guys get tackled when trying to reload. I'm probably going to end up on some government watchlist with my goofy internet search history here but it seems a lot of people are claiming 3 second load times on the smaller ones on the AR-15 and gun enthusiast boards. Is it possible that a smaller clip gives less of a window to go in and tackle these guys? What about one of those fast reloading pistols, or if he went into this place with a shotgun?

 

[sporthenry]

I'm probably going to end up on some government watchlist with my goofy internet search history here

I think I've been added in the course of this thread. I've searched things like how to make a pipe bomb and what are the incendiary devices in a pipe bomb.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

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

Sorry I thought we were bringing hyperbole to the thread. Chicago has relatively tight gun restrictions compared to many other parts of the country but, no, guns are not illegal in chicago. Sorry if I threw you off there, though it is a bit disconcerting that of all that is going on in this thread THAT is what you've locked onto.

There's a lot of interpretation and opinion necessarily involved in this thread. It's always nice to see something so demonstrably false.

Yeah, the 28 year long ban was overturned by the Supreme Court relatively recently. Of course, they still had the highest murder rate of any major city in the US during, well, most of it.

Sorry, you're now claiming that gun ownership was banned in Chicago for 28 years? Because I'm pretty sure there was only one type of gun banned in Chicago that was overturned. In fact, wasn't even a ban, just didn't issue any new handgun permits in the city.Also, once again, the high murder rate for much of the last two decades has been... drum roll... New Orleans. Or Detroit.

Also - we already know that poverty and violence have a high correlation. But Chicago sure seems to defy the idea that gun bans and violence are correlated.

Not really. As I said, when the gun ban is undermined by guns being available in outlying places, than it truly does no good. And I don't think many people are going to actually argue that somehow more guns means less crime. So at worst, it is a crime neutral policy. As someone mentioned, the effectiveness of police departments has certainly seemed to increase but I'm not sure we can truly draw what a gun ban actually does.

The people of Kennesaw, GA sure seem like they would argue this. 30,000 people and not a murder in the 25 years since they made it mandatory to own a firearm.

I figured this was some bogus internet story, but that is actually true and kind of a fascinating read. The population wasn't always 28k it was about 5k when the law started. I actually think that change and growth though without a single murder is pretty impressive.

Violent crime in 2010 was 85% lower in Kennesaw compared to the national average, 35 years AFTER the mandate. Additionally the crime stats prior to the mandate were higher than the national average the year prior.http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/georgia/kennesaw.html#.UNGw-G9lF68

 

[Rohn Jambo]

I wonder what the NRA has to say...

 

[Rohn Jambo]

I googled this and found out "The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey" is playing at the Pittsburg Maya Cinemas.

 

[Henry Ford]

Yes. That's what I just said.

I just want to make sure we're on the same page. A refusal to issue new handgun permits doesn't mean that 'gunsthe are illegal in Chicago' during that time. It means you can't get a handgun. Buy as many rifles, shotguns, etc. As you'd like.

 

[boots11234]

The people of Kennesaw, GA sure seem like they would argue this. 30,000 people and not a murder in the 25 years since they made it mandatory to own a firearm.

I believe that the level of violence in any given city or region has much more to do with homogeneity of the population than it has to do with gun control laws. I want to state emphatically that, unlike many gun control advocates, I do not claim that stricter gun control will reduce crime. I think the evidence which we have suggests that there is no correlation. Outside of the inner city, the level of violence is similar to the numbers in western Europe- relatively low. This is especially true in rural areas where gun ownership for pleasure and protection is very popular. These truths, which cannot IMO be denied, are the main reason I am opposed to any kind of ban on weaponry, despite my rhetoric earlier this evening, when I admit I got a little irritated with a few posters. The two gun control measures which I favor are designed to deal with SPECIFIC problems: limiting the capacity of magazines may limit the amount of damage from these horrible mass shooting. Ending the private sales loophole will help law enforcement keep guns out of the inner city and also help law enforcement catch the bad guys who commit these crimes. Neither solution is going to solve anything, but both will help. (I hope.)

And despite Slingblade's complaint that he enjoys owning 30 round magazines, neither of these measures will have a serious effect on the rights and privileges of most responsible gun owners.

Thing is, it seems that the statistical evidence is lacking in favor of those bans. The murder rate is actually lower today than when the 2004 ban expired. I'm not an expert on the topic, and Wiki isn't the best source on everything, but here's what we've got there.Assault weapons only made up like 5% of overall gun crime. There isn't much effect to be had, and so all of the studies on whether it actually did anything have been entirely inconclusive. If we're going to spend money regulating something and limit freedom, there should be demonstrable results IMO.

http://en.wikipedia....ult_Weapons_Ban

Expiration and effect on crime

Opponents of the ban claimed that its expiration has seen little if any increase in crime, while Senator Diane Feinstein claimed the ban was effective because "It was drying up supply and driving up prices." [6]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention studied the "assault weapon" ban and other gun control attempts, and found "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."[7] A 2004 critical review of research on firearms by a National Research Council panel also noted that academic studies of the assault weapon ban "did not reveal any clear impacts on gun violence" and noted "due to the fact that the relative rarity with which the banned guns were used in crime before the ban ... the maximum potential effect of the ban on gun violence outcomes would be very small...."[8]

The United States Department of Justice National Institute of Justice found should the ban be renewed, its effects on gun violence would likely be small, and perhaps too small for reliable measurement, because rifles in general, including rifles referred to as "assault rifles" or "assault weapons", are rarely used in gun crimes.[9]

That study by Christopher S. Koper, Daniel J. Woods, and Jeffrey A. Roth of the Jerry Lee Center of Criminology, University of Pennsylvania found no statistically significant evidence that either the assault weapons ban or the ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds had reduced gun murders. However, they concluded that it was "premature to make definitive assessments of the ban's impact on gun crime," and argue that if the ban had been in effect for more than nine years, benefits might have begun to appear.[10]

Research by John Lott in the 2000 second edition of More Guns, Less Crime provided the first research on state and the Federal Assault Weapon Bans.[11] The 2010 third edition provided the first empirical research on the 2004 sunset of the Federal Assault Weapon Ban.[12] Generally, the research found no impact of these bans on violent crime rates, though the third edition provided some evidence that Assault Weapon Bans slightly increased murder rates. Lott's book The Bias Against Guns provided evidence that the bans reduced the number of gun shows by over 20 percent.[13] Koper, Woods, and Roth studies focus on gun murders, while Lott's looks at murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assaults. Unlike their work, Lott's research accounted for state Assault Weapon Bans and 12 other different types of gun control laws.

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence examined the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban in its 2004 report, On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act. Examining 1.4 million guns involved in crime, "in the five-year period before enactment of the Federal Assault Weapons Act (1990-1994), assault weapons named in the Act constituted 4.82% of the crime gun traces ATF conducted nationwide. Since the law's enactment, however, these assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime."[14] A spokesman for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) stated that he "can in no way vouch for the validity" of the report.[15]

Did you read my post? I am not proposing any bans.

Did you not understand??? Banning has no effect and banning is going farther then what you "hope" will lower these incedences, therefore your suggestions would'nt do anything. Logic. Try using it. Look we all want these to stop but doing something to make you feel good is not the solution. That is what all who want restrictions want. To feel they did something, so they feel good and absolve them of the guilt they feel for this event.

 

[boots11234]

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

Sorry I thought we were bringing hyperbole to the thread. Chicago has relatively tight gun restrictions compared to many other parts of the country but, no, guns are not illegal in chicago. Sorry if I threw you off there, though it is a bit disconcerting that of all that is going on in this thread THAT is what you've locked onto.

There's a lot of interpretation and opinion necessarily involved in this thread. It's always nice to see something so demonstrably false.

Yeah, the 28 year long ban was overturned by the Supreme Court relatively recently. Of course, they still had the highest murder rate of any major city in the US during, well, most of it.

Sorry, you're now claiming that gun ownership was banned in Chicago for 28 years? Because I'm pretty sure there was only one type of gun banned in Chicago that was overturned. In fact, wasn't even a ban, just didn't issue any new handgun permits in the city.Also, once again, the high murder rate for much of the last two decades has been... drum roll... New Orleans. Or Detroit.

Also - we already know that poverty and violence have a high correlation. But Chicago sure seems to defy the idea that gun bans and violence are correlated.

Not really. As I said, when the gun ban is undermined by guns being available in outlying places, than it truly does no good. And I don't think many people are going to actually argue that somehow more guns means less crime. So at worst, it is a crime neutral policy. As someone mentioned, the effectiveness of police departments has certainly seemed to increase but I'm not sure we can truly draw what a gun ban actually does.

The people of Kennesaw, GA sure seem like they would argue this. 30,000 people and not a murder in the 25 years since they made it mandatory to own a firearm.

I figured this was some bogus internet story, but that is actually true and kind of a fascinating read. The population wasn't always 28k it was about 5k when the law started. I actually think that change and growth though without a single murder is pretty impressive.

Violent crime in 2010 was 85% lower in Kennesaw compared to the national average, 35 years AFTER the mandate. Additionally the crime stats prior to the mandate were higher than the national average the year prior.http://www.cityrating.com/crime-statistics/georgia/kennesaw.html#.UNGw-G9lF68

More guns less crime

 

[parasaurolophus]

More guns less crime

From the look inside...

Less than a year ago, James Edward Scott shot and wounded an intruder in the back yard of his West Baltimore home, and according to neighbors, authorities took away his gun.

Tuesday night, someone apparently broke into his three-story rowhouse again. But this time, the 83-year-old Scott didn't have his .22-caliber rifle, and police said he was strangled when he confronted the burglar.

from this article...http://articles.baltimoresun.com/1996-09-19/news/1996263016_1_scott-intruder-rifle

 

[[icon]]

1. A restriction on magazine size is exactly that. It is different from a ban on assault weapons, because you'll still be able to purchase and own the assault weapons.

2. A very low percentage of total violent crime is attributed to high capacity magazines. However, the vast majority of these mass shootings involve high capacity magazines, and that's what I'm focused upon.

3. I don't have any idea how much it would cost. I have always believed, however, that the vast majority of gun-owners are law-abiding citizens, and they will voluntarily obey this restriction once it's in place. But I don't know what the cost of enforcement will be. I think that whatever it is, we should be willing to pay it.

4. As I wrote earlier, I don't suspect that gun crime will come down as a result of this. I am in favor of it SPECIFICALLY because I believe that, in incidents like Friday morning, the amount of casualties may be more limited.

5. While it most likely would not have done anything to prevent Sandy Hook, the number of deaths MAY have been reduced. I think that in a few other notable mass shootings it is even more clear this would have been the case.

6. If this restriction were attempted for a reasonable period of time (not being a crime statistician, I have no idea how long that would be) and it proved ineffective, I would have no problem getting rid of it. I don't generally believe in useless, restrictive laws.

7. Yes there should be demonstrable results. Sometimes though, you have to impose restrictions in order to discover whether those results are tangible. In this case, I am willing to do so because I don't consider limiting the amount of rounds a single magazine can carry to be a significant infringement on anyone's "freedom". The fact that you could even bring up the term "freedom" in this context demonstrates, IMO, the extremist position that so many gun-owners seem to have toward ANY kind of gun regulation whatsoever.

[/quote

Sooooo many words....

So you want to decrease magazines because it MAY decrease the death toll... But you DON'T support training a few teachers and having them CC when that had ACTUALLY shown to decrease the death toll by a 7-fold?

Strange chap you are.

 

[timschochet]

Did you not understand??? Banning has no effect and banning is going farther then what you "hope" will lower these incedences, therefore your suggestions would'nt do anything. Logic. Try using it. Look we all want these to stop but doing something to make you feel good is not the solution. That is what all who want restrictions want. To feel they did something, so they feel good and absolve them of the guilt they feel for this event.

You have no idea whether limiting magazines will have no effect because it hasn't been tried. Here's what we do know: as Dr. J pointed out, some of these guys, such as Loughner, were tackled when they were trying to reload. If they had 10 or 15 rounds rather than 30 or 100 when that happened, lives would have been saved. So don't give me any crap about how this idea is useless. I am not advocating it because I want to "feel I did something"- I'm advocating it because I think it will help.

 

[timschochet]

So you want to decrease magazines because it MAY decrease the death toll... But you DON'T support training a few teachers and having them CC when that had ACTUALLY shown to decrease the death toll by a 7-fold? Strange chap you are.

I don't think it's strange at all. I don't want school teachers armed in classrooms. Period. Not only do I not want that, I detest that idea.

 

[ATC1]

2. A very low percentage of total violent crime is attributed to high capacity magazines. However, the vast majority of these mass shootings involve high capacity magazines, and that's what I'm focused upon.

4. As I wrote earlier, I don't suspect that gun crime will come down as a result of this. I am in favor of it SPECIFICALLY because I believe that, in incidents like Friday morning, the amount of casualties may be more limited.

5. While it most likely would not have done anything to prevent Sandy Hook, the number of deaths MAY have been reduced. I think that in a few other notable mass shootings it is even more clear this would have been the case.

I almost think you talk to the wall at home just because it cant talk back.. I bolded the highlights.

So how many of those kids took multiple gun shots after they were most likely dead? Just checking..

They were talking about gun violence and video games on the radio yesterday. Actually each victim was shot two times regardless of if they were dead with the first bullet or not. The psyco used a double tap only taught in the military or Call of Duty Modern Warfare. Never played the game, so I can not comment further.

 

[ATC1]

So you want to decrease magazines because it MAY decrease the death toll... But you DON'T support training a few teachers and having them CC when that had ACTUALLY shown to decrease the death toll by a 7-fold? Strange chap you are.

I don't think it's strange at all. I don't want school teachers armed in classrooms. Period. Not only do I not want that, I detest that idea.

I wish we would stop saying arm the teachers. Arm the individuals with the proper training and proven responsibility. It could be a father visiting the school and a shooting occurs, or a teacher, sectary, janitor, etc. Anyone with a CCP.

 

[TobiasFunke]

2. A very low percentage of total violent crime is attributed to high capacity magazines. However, the vast majority of these mass shootings involve high capacity magazines, and that's what I'm focused upon.

4. As I wrote earlier, I don't suspect that gun crime will come down as a result of this. I am in favor of it SPECIFICALLY because I believe that, in incidents like Friday morning, the amount of casualties may be more limited.

5. While it most likely would not have done anything to prevent Sandy Hook, the number of deaths MAY have been reduced. I think that in a few other notable mass shootings it is even more clear this would have been the case.

I almost think you talk to the wall at home just because it cant talk back.. I bolded the highlights.

So how many of those kids took multiple gun shots after they were most likely dead? Just checking..

They were talking about gun violence and video games on the radio yesterday. Actually each victim was shot two times regardless of if they were dead with the first bullet or not. The psyco used a double tap only taught in the military or Call of Duty Modern Warfare. Never played the game, so I can not comment further.

Or Zombieland. Rule #2.

 

[Abraham]

So you want to decrease magazines because it MAY decrease the death toll... But you DON'T support training a few teachers and having them CC when that had ACTUALLY shown to decrease the death toll by a 7-fold? Strange chap you are.

I don't think it's strange at all. I don't want school teachers armed in classrooms. Period. Not only do I not want that, I detest that idea.

This. There is no scenario I can imagine where I would allow my child to attend school with anyone in the classroom being allowed to have a gun.

 

[ATC1]

So you want to decrease magazines because it MAY decrease the death toll... But you DON'T support training a few teachers and having them CC when that had ACTUALLY shown to decrease the death toll by a 7-fold? Strange chap you are.

I don't think it's strange at all. I don't want school teachers armed in classrooms. Period. Not only do I not want that, I detest that idea.

This. There is no scenario I can imagine where I would allow my child to attend school with anyone in the classroom being allowed to have a gun.

You allow him/her to go into a store or restaurant that has people that are armed all the time.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Did you not understand??? Banning has no effect and banning is going farther then what you "hope" will lower these incedences, therefore your suggestions would'nt do anything. Logic. Try using it. Look we all want these to stop but doing something to make you feel good is not the solution. That is what all who want restrictions want. To feel they did something, so they feel good and absolve them of the guilt they feel for this event.

You have no idea whether limiting magazines will have no effect because it hasn't been tried. Here's what we do know: as Dr. J pointed out, some of these guys, such as Loughner, were tackled when they were trying to reload. If they had 10 or 15 rounds rather than 30 or 100 when that happened, lives would have been saved. So don't give me any crap about how this idea is useless. I am not advocating it because I want to "feel I did something"- I'm advocating it because I think it will help.

How many bullets were fired? Over what period of time were those bullets fired? I'm guessing he was not firing a bullet every second until he stopped, I bet he was walking between classrooms and searching for people hiding. Seems like ample enough time to switch magazines regardless of size.

So you want to decrease magazines because it MAY decrease the death toll... But you DON'T support training a few teachers and having them CC when that had ACTUALLY shown to decrease the death toll by a 7-fold? Strange chap you are.

I don't think it's strange at all. I don't want school teachers armed in classrooms. Period. Not only do I not want that, I detest that idea.

Why? Do you think classrooms are holy/sacred? Times they are a changing. Introducing a gun as protection even if it stored in areas that are off limits to students locked in a safe in the principal's office or in a safe in another room in the school an acceptable compromise? I realize that is different than cc, but maybe it is a compromise. Instead of asking pro-gun people to compromise maybe the solution is to get the anti-gun crowd to budge a little.

 

[ATC1]

Did you not understand??? Banning has no effect and banning is going farther then what you "hope" will lower these incedences, therefore your suggestions would'nt do anything. Logic. Try using it. Look we all want these to stop but doing something to make you feel good is not the solution. That is what all who want restrictions want. To feel they did something, so they feel good and absolve them of the guilt they feel for this event.

You have no idea whether limiting magazines will have no effect because it hasn't been tried. Here's what we do know: as Dr. J pointed out, some of these guys, such as Loughner, were tackled when they were trying to reload. If they had 10 or 15 rounds rather than 30 or 100 when that happened, lives would have been saved. So don't give me any crap about how this idea is useless. I am not advocating it because I want to "feel I did something"- I'm advocating it because I think it will help.

How many bullets were fired? Over what period of time were those bullets fired? I'm guessing he was not firing a bullet every second until he stopped, I bet he was walking between classrooms and searching for people hiding. Seems like ample enough time to switch magazines regardless of size.

So you want to decrease magazines because it MAY decrease the death toll... But you DON'T support training a few teachers and having them CC when that had ACTUALLY shown to decrease the death toll by a 7-fold? Strange chap you are.

I don't think it's strange at all. I don't want school teachers armed in classrooms. Period. Not only do I not want that, I detest that idea.

Why? Do you think classrooms are holy/sacred? Times they are a changing. Introducing a gun as protection even if it stored in areas that are off limits to students locked in a safe in the principal's office or in a safe in another room in the school an acceptable compromise? I realize that is different than cc, but maybe it is a compromise. Instead of asking pro-gun people to compromise maybe the solution is to get the anti-gun crowd to budge a little.

Locked gun the the principles office or allow those properly trained to carry non-leathal tasers?

 

[timschochet]

Locked gun the the principles office or allow those properly trained to carry non-leathal tasers?

Here's the extent that I would personally compromise: if teachers or other school authorities desire to voluntarily train themselves with non-lethal weapons like tasers, then I suppose I would be OK with them having these in the classroom- I think. However, I don't see this as a reasonable alternative to the gun control laws I am in favor of.

 

[Limp Ditka]

Locked gun the the principles office or allow those properly trained to carry non-leathal tasers?

Here's the extent that I would personally compromise: if teachers or other school authorities desire to voluntarily train themselves with non-lethal weapons like tasers, then I suppose I would be OK with them having these in the classroom- I think. However, I don't see this as a reasonable alternative to the gun control laws I am in favor of.

Because a taser has never killed anyone?

 

[boots11234]

So you want to decrease magazines because it MAY decrease the death toll... But you DON'T support training a few teachers and having them CC when that had ACTUALLY shown to decrease the death toll by a 7-fold? Strange chap you are.

I don't think it's strange at all. I don't want school teachers armed in classrooms. Period. Not only do I not want that, I detest that idea.

This. There is no scenario I can imagine where I would allow my child to attend school with anyone in the classroom being allowed to have a gun.

I suspect you in general are not very familiar with guns based on that statement. Do you let your kids go to the movies, over friends houses or outside in general? The reason I ask is I am quite certain there were guns in close proximity to them at some point yet that doesn't bother you? Or is it you would prefer to keep your head in the sand and pretend they are not there or you've perhaps never thought about it? Psycho killers like this guy are generally known as cowards and attack soft targets where they know no guns will likely be present. There were also many movie theaters by that guy in CO but he chose the one theater which prominately displayed the no guns allowed sign. I think killers would think twice if it could be a possibility that the people they attack may have a way to fight back. Have you thought about that?

 

[timschochet]

Locked gun the the principles office or allow those properly trained to carry non-leathal tasers?

Here's the extent that I would personally compromise: if teachers or other school authorities desire to voluntarily train themselves with non-lethal weapons like tasers, then I suppose I would be OK with them having these in the classroom- I think. However, I don't see this as a reasonable alternative to the gun control laws I am in favor of.

Because a taser has never killed anyone?

Yeah, the more I think about it, the more I'm really uncomfortable even with this. I just don't want this sort of thing in the classroom.

 

[Otis]

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.

That or "reality."But your world sounds kind of fun, being hunkered down with your arsenal blowing away mutant bears and zombies. Hoo rah!

 

[Dvorak]

Did you not understand??? Banning has no effect and banning is going farther then what you "hope" will lower these incedences, therefore your suggestions would'nt do anything. Logic. Try using it. Look we all want these to stop but doing something to make you feel good is not the solution. That is what all who want restrictions want. To feel they did something, so they feel good and absolve them of the guilt they feel for this event.

You have no idea whether limiting magazines will have no effect because it hasn't been tried. Here's what we do know: as Dr. J pointed out, some of these guys, such as Loughner, were tackled when they were trying to reload. If they had 10 or 15 rounds rather than 30 or 100 when that happened, lives would have been saved. So don't give me any crap about how this idea is useless. I am not advocating it because I want to "feel I did something"- I'm advocating it because I think it will help.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...10 round limits WERE tried, from 1994-2004. They did nothing. See Columbine shooting, 1999.And as far as Gifford's attacker's 30 round Glock mag. His gun jammed, very like likely BECAUSE of the 30 round magazine, which are notoriously unreliable. Had he used standard capacity magazines and simply practiced switching them out, the damage could have been more. Ditto the Aurora shooter's 100 round beta magazine jamming up.Again, you are proposing laws without knowing facts or history.

 

[Notorious T.R.E.]

Did you not understand??? Banning has no effect and banning is going farther then what you "hope" will lower these incedences, therefore your suggestions would'nt do anything. Logic. Try using it. Look we all want these to stop but doing something to make you feel good is not the solution. That is what all who want restrictions want. To feel they did something, so they feel good and absolve them of the guilt they feel for this event.

"Let's try something even though it might not make a damn bit of difference. Derp."

 

[timschochet]

Psycho killers like this guy are generally known as cowards and attack soft targets where they know no guns will likely be present. There were also many movie theaters by that guy in CO but he chose the one theater which prominately displayed the no guns allowed sign. I think killers would think twice if it could be a possibility that the people they attack may have a way to fight back. Have you thought about that?

I've heard this argument used several times in the last few days, and it really doesn't make much sense to me. Almost all of these guys die while committing their crimes. A majority kill themselves. So far as I know, none of them get away. Yes, Lanza and the Aurora shooter chose what turned out to be "soft targets", but we don't have any clue as to whether that was their motivation. Certainly Jared Loughner and the guy who attacked the military base a few years back did not choose soft targets. I don't think there's any correlation here.

 

[Snotbubbles]

Locked gun the the principles office or allow those properly trained to carry non-leathal tasers?

Here's the extent that I would personally compromise: if teachers or other school authorities desire to voluntarily train themselves with non-lethal weapons like tasers, then I suppose I would be OK with them having these in the classroom- I think. However, I don't see this as a reasonable alternative to the gun control laws I am in favor of.

Because a taser has never killed anyone?

I don't understand why people always speak in absolutes in their arguments. I've seen it 100 times in this thread. There is no perfect solution to stop violence. Will banning guns ELIMINATE all gun violence? Absolutely not. But if it had the possibility of reducing gun violence even a minimal percent, I'd be all for trying it.

 

[TobiasFunke]

So you want to decrease magazines because it MAY decrease the death toll... But you DON'T support training a few teachers and having them CC when that had ACTUALLY shown to decrease the death toll by a 7-fold? Strange chap you are.

I don't think it's strange at all. I don't want school teachers armed in classrooms. Period. Not only do I not want that, I detest that idea.

This. There is no scenario I can imagine where I would allow my child to attend school with anyone in the classroom being allowed to have a gun.

I suspect you in general are not very familiar with guns based on that statement. Do you let your kids go to the movies, over friends houses or outside in general? The reason I ask is I am quite certain there were guns in close proximity to them at some point yet that doesn't bother you? Or is it you would prefer to keep your head in the sand and pretend they are not there or you've perhaps never thought about it? Psycho killers like this guy are generally known as cowards and attack soft targets where they know no guns will likely be present. There were also many movie theaters by that guy in CO but he chose the one theater which prominately displayed the no guns allowed sign. I think killers would think twice if it could be a possibility that the people they attack may have a way to fight back. Have you thought about that?

Your logic here seems to be that the people who commit these terrible crimes are cowards who fear death. That seems kind of silly, considering the fact that most of them (basically every one in recent memory except the guy who shot up the Aurora theater) seem to have embraced the fact that their attacks will end in their death. Many of them- again, the majority in recent memory- take their own lives.The most common and best criticism of gun control is that it hasn't really been conclisuvely shown to be effective in limiting violent crimes/murders. That's a fair criticism. But the people that make that point should probably apply the same criticism to their own arguments about arming as many people as possible. Both sides can throw out anecdotes to back their case ("Look at this Georgia town!" No, compare our gun and crime rates to other countries!"). But anecdotes like those are just BS because there are so many other variables at work in every case study.

 

[timschochet]

Did you not understand??? Banning has no effect and banning is going farther then what you "hope" will lower these incedences, therefore your suggestions would'nt do anything. Logic. Try using it. Look we all want these to stop but doing something to make you feel good is not the solution. That is what all who want restrictions want. To feel they did something, so they feel good and absolve them of the guilt they feel for this event.

You have no idea whether limiting magazines will have no effect because it hasn't been tried. Here's what we do know: as Dr. J pointed out, some of these guys, such as Loughner, were tackled when they were trying to reload. If they had 10 or 15 rounds rather than 30 or 100 when that happened, lives would have been saved. So don't give me any crap about how this idea is useless. I am not advocating it because I want to "feel I did something"- I'm advocating it because I think it will help.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...10 round limits WERE tried, from 1994-2004. They did nothing. See Columbine shooting, 1999.And as far as Gifford's attacker's 30 round Glock mag. His gun jammed, very like likely BECAUSE of the 30 round magazine, which are notoriously unreliable. Had he used standard capacity magazines and simply practiced switching them out, the damage could have been more. Ditto the Aurora shooter's 100 round beta magazine jamming up.Again, you are proposing laws without knowing facts or history.

Yes, I was incorrect about the 10 round limit not being tried. As to whether or not it "did nothing", we really don't know; there is much debate on this subject. I think it does reduce casualties in mass shootings and will save lives, which is why I am in favor of its reinstatement. Your other argument that the high capacity mags in the two cases you cited actually saved lives (because they jammed) is a new one on me. It is opposite of everything I have read on these two events. It's fascinating to me that virtually any argument will be thrown out as an alternative to allowing for any kind of restrictions whatsoever. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised anymore.

 

[ATC1]

Psycho killers like this guy are generally known as cowards and attack soft targets where they know no guns will likely be present. There were also many movie theaters by that guy in CO but he chose the one theater which prominately displayed the no guns allowed sign. I think killers would think twice if it could be a possibility that the people they attack may have a way to fight back. Have you thought about that?

I've heard this argument used several times in the last few days, and it really doesn't make much sense to me. Almost all of these guys die while committing their crimes. A majority kill themselves. So far as I know, none of them get away. Yes, Lanza and the Aurora shooter chose what turned out to be "soft targets", but we don't have any clue as to whether that was their motivation. Certainly Jared Loughner and the guy who attacked the military base a few years back did not choose soft targets. I don't think there's any correlation here.

Tim I don't understand how you can argue that high capacity mags might limit the amount of victims and yet not understand how a person able to take out someone sooner then waiting for him to reload is not a better solution. Icon posted some figures I was trying to point out without numbers. If you have to wait for a uniformed police officer the victims are higher. When citizens take it upon themselves to wait for a reload the number drops significantly. When the citizen is armed the number drops as well.

15 Shooting rampages stopped by Police: 14.29 deaths per incident11 Shooting rampages stopped by unarmed civilians: 2.8 deaths per incident6 Shooting rampages stopped by armed civilians: 1.6 deaths per incidentFact: Armed civilians have been historically the most effective interventionists in minimizing body count in attempted mass shootings.

The Oregon mall shooter killed two people, it was reported that a citizen with a CCP pulled out his gun and the shooter took his own life when met with resistance. Is that absolutely true? Maybe, maybe not. But when the police arrived the shooter had already done the deed. Seems to me that nothing wold have stopped him from continuing to shoot if a citizen did not intervene.

 

[ATC1]

Psycho killers like this guy are generally known as cowards and attack soft targets where they know no guns will likely be present. There were also many movie theaters by that guy in CO but he chose the one theater which prominately displayed the no guns allowed sign. I think killers would think twice if it could be a possibility that the people they attack may have a way to fight back. Have you thought about that?

I've heard this argument used several times in the last few days, and it really doesn't make much sense to me. Almost all of these guys die while committing their crimes. A majority kill themselves. So far as I know, none of them get away. Yes, Lanza and the Aurora shooter chose what turned out to be "soft targets", but we don't have any clue as to whether that was their motivation. Certainly Jared Loughner and the guy who attacked the military base a few years back did not choose soft targets. I don't think there's any correlation here.

I have to find were I read it again, but I want to say that citizens were not able to carry at the political rally in Arizona. And for some reason no one was armed in the location of the base.

 

[ATC1]

So you want to decrease magazines because it MAY decrease the death toll... But you DON'T support training a few teachers and having them CC when that had ACTUALLY shown to decrease the death toll by a 7-fold? Strange chap you are.

I don't think it's strange at all. I don't want school teachers armed in classrooms. Period. Not only do I not want that, I detest that idea.

This. There is no scenario I can imagine where I would allow my child to attend school with anyone in the classroom being allowed to have a gun.

I suspect you in general are not very familiar with guns based on that statement. Do you let your kids go to the movies, over friends houses or outside in general? The reason I ask is I am quite certain there were guns in close proximity to them at some point yet that doesn't bother you? Or is it you would prefer to keep your head in the sand and pretend they are not there or you've perhaps never thought about it? Psycho killers like this guy are generally known as cowards and attack soft targets where they know no guns will likely be present. There were also many movie theaters by that guy in CO but he chose the one theater which prominately displayed the no guns allowed sign. I think killers would think twice if it could be a possibility that the people they attack may have a way to fight back. Have you thought about that?

Your logic here seems to be that the people who commit these terrible crimes are cowards who fear death. That seems kind of silly, considering the fact that most of them (basically every one in recent memory except the guy who shot up the Aurora theater) seem to have embraced the fact that their attacks will end in their death. Many of them- again, the majority in recent memory- take their own lives.The most common and best criticism of gun control is that it hasn't really been conclisuvely shown to be effective in limiting violent crimes/murders. That's a fair criticism. But the people that make that point should probably apply the same criticism to their own arguments about arming as many people as possible. Both sides can throw out anecdotes to back their case ("Look at this Georgia town!" No, compare our gun and crime rates to other countries!"). But anecdotes like those are just BS because there are so many other variables at work in every case study.

Agreed to the last part. Data can be interpreted many ways and variables can be changed to get the outcome you want. However, to the first part. It seems to me that these people shoot themselves at the site of first resistance.

 

[timschochet]

Discovery Channel is canceling their highly popular show "American Guns"

 

[ATC1]

Discovery Channel is canceling their highly popular show "American Guns"

Yeah because that's what we need. Take away the shows that are informative to the public. I do watch Sons of Guns because it is based out of Baton Rouge. They always put safety first and explain the modifications, but never show you how to do it.Can anyone tell me if this show is any different?

 

[boots11234]

So you want to decrease magazines because it MAY decrease the death toll... But you DON'T support training a few teachers and having them CC when that had ACTUALLY shown to decrease the death toll by a 7-fold?

Strange chap you are.

I don't think it's strange at all. I don't want school teachers armed in classrooms. Period. Not only do I not want that, I detest that idea.

This. There is no scenario I can imagine where I would allow my child to attend school with anyone in the classroom being allowed to have a gun.

I suspect you in general are not very familiar with guns based on that statement. Do you let your kids go to the movies, over friends houses or outside in general? The reason I ask is I am quite certain there were guns in close proximity to them at some point yet that doesn't bother you? Or is it you would prefer to keep your head in the sand and pretend they are not there or you've perhaps never thought about it? Psycho killers like this guy are generally known as cowards and attack soft targets where they know no guns will likely be present. There were also many movie theaters by that guy in CO but he chose the one theater which prominately displayed the no guns allowed sign. I think killers would think twice if it could be a possibility that the people they attack may have a way to fight back. Have you thought about that?

Your logic here seems to be that the people who commit these terrible crimes are cowards who fear death. That seems kind of silly, considering the fact that most of them (basically every one in recent memory except the guy who shot up the Aurora theater) seem to have embraced the fact that their attacks will end in their death. Many of them- again, the majority in recent memory- take their own lives.The most common and best criticism of gun control is that it hasn't really been conclisuvely shown to be effective in limiting violent crimes/murders. That's a fair criticism. But the people that make that point should probably apply the same criticism to their own arguments about arming as many people as possible. Both sides can throw out anecdotes to back their case ("Look at this Georgia town!" No, compare our gun and crime rates to other countries!"). But anecdotes like those are just BS because there are so many other variables at work in every case study.

I don't think they fear death, I think they are even bigger cowards because they choose death rather then face their victims. Your second point is incorrect: More guns less crime . Arming people does reduce crime. Ask burglars in prison and they will tell you they'd rather break into an empty home then a occupied home for fear of being shot..

 

[Henry Ford]

Psycho killers like this guy are generally known as cowards and attack soft targets where they know no guns will likely be present. There were also many movie theaters by that guy in CO but he chose the one theater which prominately displayed the no guns allowed sign. I think killers would think twice if it could be a possibility that the people they attack may have a way to fight back. Have you thought about that?

I've heard this argument used several times in the last few days, and it really doesn't make much sense to me. Almost all of these guys die while committing their crimes. A majority kill themselves. So far as I know, none of them get away. Yes, Lanza and the Aurora shooter chose what turned out to be "soft targets", but we don't have any clue as to whether that was their motivation. Certainly Jared Loughner and the guy who attacked the military base a few years back did not choose soft targets. I don't think there's any correlation here.

I have to find were I read it again, but I want to say that citizens were not able to carry at the political rally in Arizona. And for some reason no one was armed in the location of the base.

If you find it, I'd love to see the reason why people weren't allowed to carry their guns at the constituent meeting at a supermarket in a state that lets people carry guns in bars.

 

[TobiasFunke]

So you want to decrease magazines because it MAY decrease the death toll... But you DON'T support training a few teachers and having them CC when that had ACTUALLY shown to decrease the death toll by a 7-fold? Strange chap you are.

I don't think it's strange at all. I don't want school teachers armed in classrooms. Period. Not only do I not want that, I detest that idea.

This. There is no scenario I can imagine where I would allow my child to attend school with anyone in the classroom being allowed to have a gun.

I suspect you in general are not very familiar with guns based on that statement. Do you let your kids go to the movies, over friends houses or outside in general? The reason I ask is I am quite certain there were guns in close proximity to them at some point yet that doesn't bother you? Or is it you would prefer to keep your head in the sand and pretend they are not there or you've perhaps never thought about it? Psycho killers like this guy are generally known as cowards and attack soft targets where they know no guns will likely be present. There were also many movie theaters by that guy in CO but he chose the one theater which prominately displayed the no guns allowed sign. I think killers would think twice if it could be a possibility that the people they attack may have a way to fight back. Have you thought about that?

Your logic here seems to be that the people who commit these terrible crimes are cowards who fear death. That seems kind of silly, considering the fact that most of them (basically every one in recent memory except the guy who shot up the Aurora theater) seem to have embraced the fact that their attacks will end in their death. Many of them- again, the majority in recent memory- take their own lives.The most common and best criticism of gun control is that it hasn't really been conclisuvely shown to be effective in limiting violent crimes/murders. That's a fair criticism. But the people that make that point should probably apply the same criticism to their own arguments about arming as many people as possible. Both sides can throw out anecdotes to back their case ("Look at this Georgia town!" No, compare our gun and crime rates to other countries!"). But anecdotes like those are just BS because there are so many other variables at work in every case study.

Agreed to the last part. However, to the first part. It seems to me that these people shoot themselves at the site of first resistance.

I don't know about that. I don't think we can pretend to have any idea what's going on in these people's minds. I also don't think we can draw any broad conclusions about how they behave, they're all totally different.I buy the argument that more armed citizens may limit the damage done by these attacks, all other things being equal. That's just plain common sense in my opinion, although I do question how much less damage would be done. However, it's also only half of the equation. The other side of the equation is how often the attacks happen in the first place, and what other negative consequences might be associated with increasing the supply of guns and making it easy to get one (which is a necessary aspect of arming more citizens). Many people think fewer guns = fewer attacks is just as much common sense as more armed citizens = less damage per attack. At the moment no one can prove either of those things is wrong.

 

[Dvorak]

Did you not understand??? Banning has no effect and banning is going farther then what you "hope" will lower these incedences, therefore your suggestions would'nt do anything. Logic. Try using it. Look we all want these to stop but doing something to make you feel good is not the solution. That is what all who want restrictions want. To feel they did something, so they feel good and absolve them of the guilt they feel for this event.

You have no idea whether limiting magazines will have no effect because it hasn't been tried. Here's what we do know: as Dr. J pointed out, some of these guys, such as Loughner, were tackled when they were trying to reload. If they had 10 or 15 rounds rather than 30 or 100 when that happened, lives would have been saved. So don't give me any crap about how this idea is useless. I am not advocating it because I want to "feel I did something"- I'm advocating it because I think it will help.

Whoa, whoa, whoa...10 round limits WERE tried, from 1994-2004. They did nothing. See Columbine shooting, 1999.And as far as Gifford's attacker's 30 round Glock mag. His gun jammed, very like likely BECAUSE of the 30 round magazine, which are notoriously unreliable. Had he used standard capacity magazines and simply practiced switching them out, the damage could have been more. Ditto the Aurora shooter's 100 round beta magazine jamming up.Again, you are proposing laws without knowing facts or history.

Yes, I was incorrect about the 10 round limit not being tried. As to whether or not it "did nothing", we really don't know; there is much debate on this subject. I think it does reduce casualties in mass shootings and will save lives, which is why I am in favor of its reinstatement. Your other argument that the high capacity mags in the two cases you cited actually saved lives (because they jammed) is a new one on me. It is opposite of everything I have read on these two events. It's fascinating to me that virtually any argument will be thrown out as an alternative to allowing for any kind of restrictions whatsoever. I suppose I shouldn't be surprised anymore.

So your point #7 about "Yes there should be demonstrable results" was complete and total baloney. Got it.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Psycho killers like this guy are generally known as cowards and attack soft targets where they know no guns will likely be present. There were also many movie theaters by that guy in CO but he chose the one theater which prominately displayed the no guns allowed sign. I think killers would think twice if it could be a possibility that the people they attack may have a way to fight back. Have you thought about that?

I've heard this argument used several times in the last few days, and it really doesn't make much sense to me. Almost all of these guys die while committing their crimes. A majority kill themselves. So far as I know, none of them get away. Yes, Lanza and the Aurora shooter chose what turned out to be "soft targets", but we don't have any clue as to whether that was their motivation. Certainly Jared Loughner and the guy who attacked the military base a few years back did not choose soft targets. I don't think there's any correlation here.

Fort Hood shooting is different then the other mass murder shooting sprees we are talking about. To me that was clearly a terrorist attacked aimed at killing soldiers:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

 

[ATC1]

So you want to decrease magazines because it MAY decrease the death toll... But you DON'T support training a few teachers and having them CC when that had ACTUALLY shown to decrease the death toll by a 7-fold?

Strange chap you are.

I don't think it's strange at all. I don't want school teachers armed in classrooms. Period. Not only do I not want that, I detest that idea.

This. There is no scenario I can imagine where I would allow my child to attend school with anyone in the classroom being allowed to have a gun.

I suspect you in general are not very familiar with guns based on that statement. Do you let your kids go to the movies, over friends houses or outside in general? The reason I ask is I am quite certain there were guns in close proximity to them at some point yet that doesn't bother you? Or is it you would prefer to keep your head in the sand and pretend they are not there or you've perhaps never thought about it? Psycho killers like this guy are generally known as cowards and attack soft targets where they know no guns will likely be present. There were also many movie theaters by that guy in CO but he chose the one theater which prominately displayed the no guns allowed sign. I think killers would think twice if it could be a possibility that the people they attack may have a way to fight back. Have you thought about that?

Your logic here seems to be that the people who commit these terrible crimes are cowards who fear death. That seems kind of silly, considering the fact that most of them (basically every one in recent memory except the guy who shot up the Aurora theater) seem to have embraced the fact that their attacks will end in their death. Many of them- again, the majority in recent memory- take their own lives.The most common and best criticism of gun control is that it hasn't really been conclisuvely shown to be effective in limiting violent crimes/murders. That's a fair criticism. But the people that make that point should probably apply the same criticism to their own arguments about arming as many people as possible. Both sides can throw out anecdotes to back their case ("Look at this Georgia town!" No, compare our gun and crime rates to other countries!"). But anecdotes like those are just BS because there are so many other variables at work in every case study.

Agreed to the last part. However, to the first part. It seems to me that these people shoot themselves at the site of first resistance.

I don't know about that. I don't think we can pretend to have any idea what's going on in these people's minds. I also don't think we can draw any broad conclusions about how they behave, they're all totally different.I buy the argument that more armed citizens may limit the damage done by these attacks, all other things being equal. That's just plain common sense in my opinion, although I do question how much less damage would be done. However, it's also only half of the equation. The other side of the equation is how often the attacks happen in the first place, and what other negative consequences might be associated with increasing the supply of guns and making it easy to get one (which is a necessary aspect of arming more citizens). Many people think fewer guns = fewer attacks is just as much common sense as more armed citizens = less damage per attack. At the moment no one can prove either of those things is wrong.

1. How is having a gun in the possession of a responsible person going to increase the number of attacks? 2. Who said anything about increasing the amount of guns? The number should remain the same if there is more in responsible citizens and less in those who are irresponsible. Every time there is an attack the gun sales boom overnight either for protection or fear of the government. In fact, I have said it needs to be more difficult to be able to get a CCP (already required a safety course, background check can not have a felony or DUI) and I have said it should be more difficult to get a weapon even without a CCP. (mandatory self defense classes and safety classes before being able to own and needing to own a safe to prevent stolen guns.) Should also not allow private gun sales without going through a gun dealer transfer.

3. You just said you will concede that the reason the Aurora shooter chose that movie theater was because of the no guns sign. If all places were allowed to have citizens carry, maybe he does not go through with the attack.

 

[Henry Ford]

Just in case anyone wants to read it the other interpretation of mass shooting data, which seems to conflict with the interpretations being thrown around in this thread: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation

In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun. Moreover, we found that the rate of mass shootings has increased in recent years—at a time when America has been flooded with millions of additional firearms and a barrage of new laws has made it easier than ever to carry them in public. And in recent rampages in which armed civilians attempted to intervene, they not only failed to stop the shooter but also were gravely wounded or killed.

 

[ATC1]

Psycho killers like this guy are generally known as cowards and attack soft targets where they know no guns will likely be present. There were also many movie theaters by that guy in CO but he chose the one theater which prominately displayed the no guns allowed sign. I think killers would think twice if it could be a possibility that the people they attack may have a way to fight back. Have you thought about that?

I've heard this argument used several times in the last few days, and it really doesn't make much sense to me. Almost all of these guys die while committing their crimes. A majority kill themselves. So far as I know, none of them get away. Yes, Lanza and the Aurora shooter chose what turned out to be "soft targets", but we don't have any clue as to whether that was their motivation. Certainly Jared Loughner and the guy who attacked the military base a few years back did not choose soft targets. I don't think there's any correlation here.

Fort Hood shooting is different then the other mass murder shooting sprees we are talking about. To me that was clearly a terrorist attacked aimed at killing soldiers:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fort_Hood_shooting

President of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, Paul Helmke, said that "This latest tragedy, at a heavily fortified army base, ought to convince more Americans to reject the argument that the solution to gun violence is to arm more people with more guns in more places."[118] However, Lt. General Cone stated: "As a matter of practice, we do not carry weapons on Fort Hood. This is our home."[119] Military weapons are only used for training or by base security, and personal weapons must be kept locked away by the provost marshal.[120] Specialist Jerry Richard, a soldier working at the Readiness Center, expressed the opinion that this policy had left them unnecessarily vulnerable to violent assaults: "Overseas you are ready for it. But here you can't even defend yourself."[121]Army reserve Captain John Gaffaney attempted to stop Hasan by charging him, but was mortally wounded before he could reach him.[26] Civilian physician assistant Michael Cahill also tried to charge Hasan with a chair, but was shot and killed.[27] Army reserve Specialist Logan Burnett tried to stop Hasan by throwing a folding table at him, but he was shot in the left hip, fell down, and crawled to a nearby cubicle.[28]

 

[TobiasFunke]

1. How is having a gun in the possession of a responsible person going to increase the number of attacks? 2. Who said anything about increasing the amount of guns? The number should remain the same if there is more in responsible citizens and less in those who are irresponsible. Every time there is an attack the gun sales boom overnight either for protection or fear of the government. In fact, I have said it needs to be more difficult to be able to get a CCP (already required a safety course, background check can not have a felony or DUI) and I have said it should be more difficult to get a weapon even without a CCP. (mandatory self defense classes and safety classes before being able to own and needing to own a safe to prevent stolen guns.) Should also not allow private gun sales without going through a gun dealer transfer. 3. You just said you will concede that the reason the Aurora shooter chose that movie theater was because of the no guns sign. If all places were allowed to have citizens carry, maybe he does not go through with the attack.

1. Because you cannot guarantee that every single person given access to guns after easing the requirements will be responsible. In fact I can guarantee that at least person granted increased access under any easing of restrictions will NOT be responsible. That's just reality. 2. It sounds like what you are advocating is more gun control, not less. If that's the case, my post wasn't intended to challenge your position. It was intended to challenge people who advocate looser restrictions as a way to limit damage done in these attacks based on "common sense" or anecdotal evidence but reject the flip side of the argument. If you're not advocating looser restrictions, that's not you.3. I don't think I said anything close to that.