***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (1 Viewer)

[Schlzm]

For all of you who are questioning quick mag swaps please review a few of the following;

https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=fast+magazine+change&oq=fast+magazine+ch&gs_l=youtube-reduced.3.0.0.1590841.1598775.0.1600332.26.16.4.0.0.1.909.6732.0j6j0j2j1j3j4.16.0...0.0...1ac.1.xB6Ju6yOazw

Schlzm

 

[Borat]

Liberals after 9/11 never displayed anything close to the obstinacy, cotemptuousness, and undeserved arrogance that some conservatives are showing here.

The unhinged crazy posters in this thread are decidedly tilted towards the ban gun crowd. Of course, a lot of that has to do with the sheer number of Otis posts, but still, I've found a higher percentage of the gun rights posters to be level headed and reasonable.

Um no. I can't agree. But I wasn't speaking about that anyhow. I was speaking about the "We know so much more about guns than you do, you idiots don't understand anything" line that has been so prevalent.

Yes, your complete lack of knowledge about laws that were on the books all of 8 years ago makes you the level headed, reasonable expert to formulate "new" legislation.I guess it is too much to ask for those concerned to have an elementary understanding of the current state of affairs before we go about re-writing the Constitution.Tell us all again how criminals will obey these new laws of yours.

I will always own up to lack of knowledge. But your use of the phrase "re-writing the Constitution" in reference to the idea of limiting magazine capacity demonstrates your fanaticism on this issue. The idea that anyone would treat high capacity gun magazines as a constitutional right is astonishing to many of us.

Because high capacity gun magazines is the only solution being discussed. You are being purposefully obtuse at this point.

You're responding to my point, not to other people. I have made exactly TWO recommendations in this thread. Neither one would affect the Constitution one iota.

Here's where I'm coming from, Tim. High cap mag restrictions have been tried and deemed ineffective to the point where the law sunset without fanfare from the left. And the fact is, anecdotal incidents aside, gun crime has gone down since those restrictions were lifted, more states have legalized concealed carry and yes, we have more guns. So what next when these laws fail us and another lunatic goes off his meds (figuratively and literally)? Where do we draw the line? Maybe you draw the line with your two recommendations, but if you think Schumer, Bloomberg, Feinstein and the like will stop there, you need to wake up.So, I fight ineffective laws like banning guns because they have a pistol grip instead of a thumb-hole stock. Or banning 15 round magazines because 10 "is plenty". Or national registration databases which I feel will have unintended consequences far outweighing any benefits. Registration leads to confiscation, period. In other countries and right here in America. Recently.See Chicago's semi-auto rifle confiscation in the 1990s after registering them in the 80s and California's SKS snafu resulting from the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act in 1989. Don't tell me it can't happen. I know how to open a history book.

You don't even have to go back that far. Guns were illegally seized in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. Of course, it goes without saying that we're all "gun nuts" for believing that this could happen.

There is a HUGE difference between certain types of guns being taken by authorities (such as assault rifles) and the possibility that the federal government is going to use a national database to seize all firearms. I read history too. The latter notion is a .paranoid fantasy.

...and yet, private, law-abiding citizens' guns were illegally seized. Yes? Or was that just a paranoid fantasy of mine?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Took my wife shooting today, had 10 rounds in her magazines, emptied 1 then popped in another, emptied that loaded another and emptied that.

Had the target at 7 yards, told her to take her time and just try and hit the target anywhere and not try for a bulls eye.

Took all of 57 seconds to put all 30 rounds in the target.

This is a 61 year old woman shooting a 9mm. She has been shooting less than a year, once a week. This also without the laser pointer on.

Now if you think 10 round magazines is the answer, think again.

Again a 61 yr old grandmother who had never touched a gun in the first 60 years of her life, having no clue why I asked her to do what she did.

So in other words, you are not willing to compromise on this. You can't simply have your high capacity mags at the shooting range. You have to have them at home as well, at work, whatever. And if anyone disagrees, then they're trying to take your constitutional rights away. Do I have this right?

Are you responding to me? I am not sure here, I said I put ten rounds, just like you suggested and showed what Grandma could do with three 10 round magazine and how long it took.I have no clue what your point was so I cannot tell if you have "this right". We tried an experiment and I gave you the results.

Has anybody called BS yet? Women can barely drive a car, no way a 61 year old woman is unloading 30 rounds into a paper target in 57 seconds. Unless of course the paper target is the size of Otis's ego or hands.

It's really not that unreasonable at all. How fast can you pull a trigger? More than once per second, easily. How long does it take to change a magazine? Not more than 5 seconds. Sorry to deflate your argument, but 30 rounds in 57 seconds is perfectly believable.

It's not unreasonable in a controlled range environment, shooting at a stationary target while set. Moving, aiming at mobile targets, and swapping out mags in a live fire setting is slightly different. At the very least you are looking at a few extra seconds per mag, which could easily make a difference in people getting out of a room or to safety vs. not.

Which part of the experiment were you unclear about?

I'm not sure. Just pointing out it would be harder to work as quickly in a non-range setting while shooting live targets, and that the extra seconds swapping 10 round mags could potentially make a difference for someone trying to get away.

While I agree with your point, I don't think it does anything to detract from the point that was originally being made here.

See bolded above. Wasn't the original point that going after high capacity mags is useless because you can fire essentially as many rounds over time from 10 rounds mags?

 

[Schlzm]

This thread is a huge part of why I love the internet in its current incarnation. In the middle of a serious policy debate we have lame ### one liners, pointless side arguments, facts disputing facts, facts being ignored, facts beings invented, people arguing the same point, and people arguing against things that were never even proposed. It's a wonderful time to be alive.

Schlzm

 

[timschochet]

Yep, let's give their ideas a try...

St. Louis County Police Chief: Arm School Personnel

Sheriff renews call for armed persons in schools

Oh wait, we are only going to try the ideas of law enforcement professionals that YOU agree with?

Actually...yes.

Doesn't that completely undercut your theory that an argument is persuasive because it's a law enforcement recommendation?

No, because I never made that argument. I said we should give these things added weight. The argument for high capacity mags is one that has been made by a majority of law enforcement steadily over a number of years. That's a little different than 1 or 2 sheriffs and police chiefs calling for arming school personnel.

 

[Mr Two Cents]

Did you miss the part where the target was 7 yards away? I'm not quite sure why this is so unbelievable to you.

Did you miss the part where this was a 61 year old woman that was told to take her time yet somehow she is like Rambo and leisurely fires 10 rounds, changes the magazine, fires 10 rounds, changes magazine, fires 10 rounds all of which hit the target and then she looks at her husband cluelessly wondering why she just unloaded 30 rounds and he is standing there with a stop watch and his laptop so he can update this thread?

No, I didn't miss that part. But then, I've been to the range many times, and I am well aware of the fact that unloading 30 rounds from a semiautomatic pistol in less than a minute is really not a superhuman "Rambo" feat... not even for a 61 year old woman. Do you really think that he was sitting there with a stop watch and a laptop? Or are you just trying your very best to paint The Guy Who Knows What He's Talking About as some sort of lunatic?

She is a young 61, lol. It took about 7 seconds to drop and change the magazine. The full mags were out sitting on the counter you shoot behind. Also no I did not count all 30 holes in the target but if there were any missing you could them on one hand. She is pretty good and loves to shoot.

 

[Schlzm]

Yep, let's give their ideas a try...

St. Louis County Police Chief: Arm School Personnel

Sheriff renews call for armed persons in schools

Oh wait, we are only going to try the ideas of law enforcement professionals that YOU agree with?

Actually...yes.

Doesn't that completely undercut your theory that an argument is persuasive because it's a law enforcement recommendation?

No, because I never made that argument. I said we should give these things added weight. The argument for high capacity mags is one that has been made by a majority of law enforcement steadily over a number of years. That's a little different than 1 or 2 sheriffs and police chiefs calling for arming school personnel.

W just need to give it a little time then it seems. Schlzm

 

[timschochet]

...and yet, private, law-abiding citizens' guns were illegally seized. Yes? Or was that just a paranoid fantasy of mine?

If you fear that a national database will lead to a seizure of your firearms, that is a paranoid fantasy, yes.

 

[Dvorak]

...and yet, private, law-abiding citizens' guns were illegally seized. Yes? Or was that just a paranoid fantasy of mine?

If you fear that a national database will lead to a seizure of your firearms, that is a paranoid fantasy, yes.

No Tim, that is history.The fantasy is believing another law is going to stop a criminal.

 

[Dvorak]

Yep, let's give their ideas a try...

St. Louis County Police Chief: Arm School Personnel

Sheriff renews call for armed persons in schools

Oh wait, we are only going to try the ideas of law enforcement professionals that YOU agree with?

Actually...yes.

Doesn't that completely undercut your theory that an argument is persuasive because it's a law enforcement recommendation?

No, because I never made that argument. I said we should give these things added weight. The argument for high capacity mags is one that has been made by a majority of law enforcement steadily over a number of years. That's a little different than 1 or 2 sheriffs and police chiefs calling for arming school personnel.

Ah, no true Scotsman law enforcement officer would want to arm teachers. Your logic is infallible.

 

[timschochet]

Gun buy back programs in New Jersey, Oakland, and several other cities broke all records this weekend.

 

[BigSteelThrill]

The fantasy is believing another law is going to stop a criminal.

It wont stop a criminal.But it will save lives? Of course it would.Is it worth the cost (many different costs) of implementation or regulation? I doubt it, from a macro perspective.

 

[Schlzm]

Gun buy back programs in New Jersey, Oakland, and several other cities broke all records this weekend.

This is just a total random curiosity, but do you happen to know what they are paying for certain platforms? Completely random wonder on my part, not trying to prove any type of point whatsoever, just seeking information.Schlzm

 

[timschochet]

Gun buy back programs in New Jersey, Oakland, and several other cities broke all records this weekend.

This is just a total random curiosity, but do you happen to know what they are paying for certain platforms? Completely random wonder on my part, not trying to prove any type of point whatsoever, just seeking information.Schlzm

I have no idea. You can probably google it. Looking to make some cash?

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Shocking that a bunch of paranoid freaks are rushing to gun stores to buy everything they can after hearing that their might be changes to how many people they should be allowed to kill in ten seconds.

Same thing they did 4 years ago.

 

[Schlzm]

Gun buy back programs in New Jersey, Oakland, and several other cities broke all records this weekend.

This is just a total random curiosity, but do you happen to know what they are paying for certain platforms? Completely random wonder on my part, not trying to prove any type of point whatsoever, just seeking information.Schlzm

I have no idea. You can probably google it. Looking to make some cash?

I'm not sure they would give me fair value for my noisy cricket.Schlzm

 

[Schlzm]

Shocking that a bunch of paranoid freaks are rushing to gun stores to buy everything they can after hearing that their might be changes to how many people they should be allowed to kill in ten seconds.

Same thing they did 4 years ago.

You have to admit that certain parts of President Obama's stimulus program have really worked...To bad there isn't some national scare causing people to rush in and buy Volts, they actually look pretty cool if overpriced.Schlzm

 

[General Malaise]

Fellas, I'm being honest here when I say that I had no idea "assault rifles" carried such a wide net in definition.

The term "assault weapons" was a huge mistake by Feinstein (hate her) and Clinton (he cool by me). Just call them semi automatics. Making them sound extra scary rallied the left to ban them in 94. It just pissed off the right so much it started a craze of purchases that's made them the most popular guns to purchase. Thanks, Di. You $#@!!Quick history. The military switched from "battle rifles" to "assault rifles" in Nam to better negotiate close quarters combat in the Asian jungles. M1s and M14s got replaced by M16s which have a civilian semi auto version called the AR 15. An M16 assault rifle is select fire with an option for full auto machine gun. An AR 15 is semi auto. Tagging the AR as an assault weapon was a mistake. So let's try to stop using the word assault unless we discuss machine guns. Simple enough?

Thank you for posting this and thank you for taking the time to post your thoughts. I appreciate your patience and recognition that some of us on here are completely lost when it comes to guns.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Im sure someone has already posted this,if not....

"I would argue that your rationalizations speak to how numb we are in this society to gun violence and murder. We've come to accept our insanity. We’d prefer to avoid seriously reflecting upon the absurdity of the prevailing notion that the second amendment somehow enhances our liberty rather than threatens it.

How many young people have to die senselessly? How many lives have to be ruined before we realize the right to bear arms doesn't protect us from a government equipped with stealth bombers, predator drones, tanks and nuclear weapons?

Our current gun culture simply ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead."

Jason Whitlock

 

[Dvorak]

The fantasy is believing another law is going to stop a criminal.

It wont stop a criminal.But it will save lives? Of course it would.

Is it worth the cost (many different costs) of implementation or regulation? I doubt it, from a macro perspective.

No shtick--How are we measuring this? If we cannot measure it, we cannot improve it.Are we going to go by how many people die each year?

If I proposed a law that I guaranteed would reduce murders committed by rifles (the type of firearm I would think most would agree is associated with these mass shootings) by 15-20% within 8 years, would you say that was a good law?

Because that is exactly what has happened since the Assault Weapons ban expired in 2004 and high cap mags and scary black rifles became legal again. (393 deaths in 2004, 323 in 2011. 17.8% drop by my late night math) These are the FBI numbers.

2000-2004 Scroll to Murder by Weapon

2007-2011

 

[Schlzm]

Im sure someone has already posted this,if not....

"I would argue that your rationalizations speak to how numb we are in this society to gun violence and murder. We've come to accept our insanity. We’d prefer to avoid seriously reflecting upon the absurdity of the prevailing notion that the second amendment somehow enhances our liberty rather than threatens it.

How many young people have to die senselessly? How many lives have to be ruined before we realize the right to bear arms doesn't protect us from a government equipped with stealth bombers, predator drones, tanks and nuclear weapons?

Our current gun culture simply ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead."

Jason Whitlock

This might hold more weight if it wasn't stated by another uninformed individual speaking outside his area of expertise and is willing to compare the NRA to the KKK.Schlzm

ETA: I am quite honestly getting a little tired of people who think that just because they are in front of a camera or microphone feel that they have an opinion on any subject holding more weight than even industry professionals in any subject at any given time.

 

[BustedKnuckles]

Im sure someone has already posted this,if not....

"I would argue that your rationalizations speak to how numb we are in this society to gun violence and murder. We've come to accept our insanity. We’d prefer to avoid seriously reflecting upon the absurdity of the prevailing notion that the second amendment somehow enhances our liberty rather than threatens it.

How many young people have to die senselessly? How many lives have to be ruined before we realize the right to bear arms doesn't protect us from a government equipped with stealth bombers, predator drones, tanks and nuclear weapons?

Our current gun culture simply ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead."

Jason Whitlock

This might hold more weight if it wasn't stated by another uninformed individual speaking outside his area of expertise and is willing to compare the NRA to the KKK.Schlzm

The bolded part is what caught my attention. Ive heard so many people talk about being armed in case of a revolution against the government.I had to laugh reading that part above.

 

[Schlzm]

Im sure someone has already posted this,if not....

"I would argue that your rationalizations speak to how numb we are in this society to gun violence and murder. We've come to accept our insanity. We’d prefer to avoid seriously reflecting upon the absurdity of the prevailing notion that the second amendment somehow enhances our liberty rather than threatens it.

How many young people have to die senselessly? How many lives have to be ruined before we realize the right to bear arms doesn't protect us from a government equipped with stealth bombers, predator drones, tanks and nuclear weapons?

Our current gun culture simply ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead."

Jason Whitlock

This might hold more weight if it wasn't stated by another uninformed individual speaking outside his area of expertise and is willing to compare the NRA to the KKK.Schlzm

The bolded part is what caught my attention. Ive heard so many people talk about being armed in case of a revolution against the government.I had to laugh reading that part above.

Fair enough. Though an argument could be made that the Syrian people have stood up against insurmountable odds with less originating rights than we have and appear to be gaining ground. I guess wanting to protect certain rights is entirely subjective to those who fear the loss of those rights the most. I am sure Mr. Ayers and the Weather Underground had some fairly strong thoughts on the subject.Schlzm

 

[Schlzm]

I would also like to add that people who want to trot out the fact the we as a nation have the most capable nuclear arsenal and that it should act as some sort of deterrent against a civilian uprising is borderline insane. Any sitting president willing to deploy atomic weapons within the borders of the United States against American citizens would be a tyrant and despot of the worst possible kind and would not be worthy of even spanish inquisition levels of execution. Anyone who supported such a person would fall even below that.

Schlzm

 

[BigSteelThrill]

Im sure someone has already posted this,if not....

"I would argue that your rationalizations speak to how numb we are in this society to gun violence and murder. We've come to accept our insanity. We’d prefer to avoid seriously reflecting upon the absurdity of the prevailing notion that the second amendment somehow enhances our liberty rather than threatens it.

How many young people have to die senselessly? How many lives have to be ruined before we realize the right to bear arms doesn't protect us from a government equipped with stealth bombers, predator drones, tanks and nuclear weapons?

Our current gun culture simply ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead."

Jason Whitlock

This might hold more weight if it wasn't stated by another uninformed individual speaking outside his area of expertise and is willing to compare the NRA to the KKK.Schlzm

The bolded part is what caught my attention. Ive heard so many people talk about being armed in case of a revolution against the government.I had to laugh reading that part above.

Fair enough. Though an argument could be made that the Syrian people have stood up against insurmountable odds with less originating rights than we have and appear to be gaining ground. I guess wanting to protect certain rights is entirely subjective to those who fear the loss of those rights the most. I am sure Mr. Ayers and the Weather Underground had some fairly strong thoughts on the subject.

You think the Syrian government offers "insurmountable odds" (North Korean scuds and all) and in any way compare to the force the US government can bring to bear?

 

[Schlzm]

Im sure someone has already posted this,if not....

"I would argue that your rationalizations speak to how numb we are in this society to gun violence and murder. We've come to accept our insanity. We’d prefer to avoid seriously reflecting upon the absurdity of the prevailing notion that the second amendment somehow enhances our liberty rather than threatens it.

How many young people have to die senselessly? How many lives have to be ruined before we realize the right to bear arms doesn't protect us from a government equipped with stealth bombers, predator drones, tanks and nuclear weapons?

Our current gun culture simply ensures that more and more domestic disputes will end in the ultimate tragedy, and that more convenience-store confrontations over loud music coming from a car will leave more teenage boys bloodied and dead."

Jason Whitlock

This might hold more weight if it wasn't stated by another uninformed individual speaking outside his area of expertise and is willing to compare the NRA to the KKK.Schlzm

The bolded part is what caught my attention. Ive heard so many people talk about being armed in case of a revolution against the government.I had to laugh reading that part above.

Fair enough. Though an argument could be made that the Syrian people have stood up against insurmountable odds with less originating rights than we have and appear to be gaining ground. I guess wanting to protect certain rights is entirely subjective to those who fear the loss of those rights the most. I am sure Mr. Ayers and the Weather Underground had some fairly strong thoughts on the subject.

You think the Syrian government offers "insurmountable odds" (North Korean scuds and all) and in any way compare to the force the US government can bring to bear?

Comparatively yes. After closely observing what has been going on within Syria and having an in-depth knowledge of their weapons systems I would say that the average Syrian shopkeeper or farmer is finding themselves actively fighting against a force well beyond their means in a fashion that if it was directly and adjusted to your American shopkeeper or farmer would be fairly equivalent. This of course does not bring in the other wild variables that are our own society and military.Schlzm

ETA: The bolded above alone shows that you do not have a clear understanding of what is happening within that country or what weapons systems are actually in play or even where they originated.

 

[timschochet]

I would also like to add that people who want to trot out the fact the we as a nation have the most capable nuclear arsenal and that it should act as some sort of deterrent against a civilian uprising is borderline insane. Any sitting president willing to deploy atomic weapons within the borders of the United States against American citizens would be a tyrant and despot of the worst possible kind and would not be worthy of even spanish inquisition levels of execution. Anyone who supported such a person would fall even below that.Schlzm

No matter how these gun control conversations start out, they always inevitably lead to a serious discussion about the best way for the federal government to impose a dictatorship. It's ####### hilarious to me that somehow the talk always turns to this, like it's a real possibility if we start limiting high capacity magazines. Oh, the horror!

 

[Neovivo]

http://sparq.nydailynews.com/pages/4YSLXP/6g6h/Ban_all_assault_weapons_and_highcapacity_magazines_and_institute_comprehensive_gun_control?log=0

 

[Schlzm]

I would also like to add that people who want to trot out the fact the we as a nation have the most capable nuclear arsenal and that it should act as some sort of deterrent against a civilian uprising is borderline insane. Any sitting president willing to deploy atomic weapons within the borders of the United States against American citizens would be a tyrant and despot of the worst possible kind and would not be worthy of even spanish inquisition levels of execution. Anyone who supported such a person would fall even below that.Schlzm

No matter how these gun control conversations start out, they always inevitably lead to a serious discussion about the best way for the federal government to impose a dictatorship. It's ####### hilarious to me that somehow the talk always turns to this, like it's a real possibility if we start limiting high capacity magazines. Oh, the horror!

Please don't get me wrong, I am in absolute agreement with you here. However there, as documented above, people who think that nuclear deterrent, or other current mil-tech, is going to be deployed against our own populace. Both sides think this for either favour. It is far more complex than that.SchlzmETA: Tim, how is your pitbull outlook these days?

 

[Schlzm]

http://sparq.nydailynews.com/pages/4YSLXP/6g6h/Ban_all_assault_weapons_and_highcapacity_magazines_and_institute_comprehensive_gun_control?log=0

Do you enjoy being wrong or is it just some random thing that happened?Schlzm

 

[Chaos Commish]

Here's where I'm coming from, Tim. High cap mag restrictions have been tried and deemed ineffective to the point where the law sunset without fanfare from the left. And the fact is, anecdotal incidents aside, gun crime has gone down since those restrictions were lifted, more states have legalized concealed carry and yes, we have more guns. So what next when these laws fail us and another lunatic goes off his meds (figuratively and literally)? Where do we draw the line? Maybe you draw the line with your two recommendations, but if you think Schumer, Bloomberg, Feinstein and the like will stop there, you need to wake up.So, I fight ineffective laws like banning guns because they have a pistol grip instead of a thumb-hole stock. Or banning 15 round magazines because 10 "is plenty". Or national registration databases which I feel will have unintended consequences far outweighing any benefits. Registration leads to confiscation, period. In other countries and right here in America. Recently.See Chicago's semi-auto rifle confiscation in the 1990s after registering them in the 80s and California's SKS snafu resulting from the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act in 1989. Don't tell me it can't happen. I know how to open a history book.

This is a good post. I was going to mess with Tim since he believed high cap mag bans and private sales restrictions haven't been tried, but just setting him straight is probably best. Oddly, he lives in Cali where the legislation he wants has been in place for a long long time. A dozen or so states have high cap mag bans and some 17 have forced licensed dealers to be involved in every private sale. What we know about the Clinton ban is that the Academy for Applied Sciences and the hardcore anti-gun Center for Disease Control both researched the results of the legislation and concluded that it did nothing to decrease crime. Tim, what you support is toothless, this we KNOW. A word of caution to you speed loaders mocking the high cap restriction. Cali gun owners did the same thing, so Feinstein pushed through a ban on detachable mags. It's pretty lame. I have two ARs with mags that can only be removed with a tool. No speed loading in Cali... well, for the law abiding among us. The criminals have all the fun.

 

[Schlzm]

Here's where I'm coming from, Tim. High cap mag restrictions have been tried and deemed ineffective to the point where the law sunset without fanfare from the left. And the fact is, anecdotal incidents aside, gun crime has gone down since those restrictions were lifted, more states have legalized concealed carry and yes, we have more guns. So what next when these laws fail us and another lunatic goes off his meds (figuratively and literally)? Where do we draw the line? Maybe you draw the line with your two recommendations, but if you think Schumer, Bloomberg, Feinstein and the like will stop there, you need to wake up.So, I fight ineffective laws like banning guns because they have a pistol grip instead of a thumb-hole stock. Or banning 15 round magazines because 10 "is plenty". Or national registration databases which I feel will have unintended consequences far outweighing any benefits. Registration leads to confiscation, period. In other countries and right here in America. Recently.See Chicago's semi-auto rifle confiscation in the 1990s after registering them in the 80s and California's SKS snafu resulting from the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act in 1989. Don't tell me it can't happen. I know how to open a history book.

This is a good post. I was going to mess with Tim since he believed high cap mag bans and private sales restrictions haven't been tried, but just setting him straight is probably best. Oddly, he lives in Cali where the legislation he wants has been in place for a long long time. A dozen or so states have high cap mag bans and some 17 have forced licensed dealers to be involved in every private sale. What we know about the Clinton ban is that the Academy for Applied Sciences and the hardcore anti-gun Center for Disease Control both researched the results of the legislation and concluded that it did nothing to decrease crime. Tim, what you support is toothless, this we KNOW. I have two ARs with mags that can only be removed with a tool. No speed loading in Cali... well, for the law abiding among us. The criminals have all the fun.

I think it might be time to start breaking the law my friend.Schlzm

 

[Chaos Commish]

Here's where I'm coming from, Tim. High cap mag restrictions have been tried and deemed ineffective to the point where the law sunset without fanfare from the left. And the fact is, anecdotal incidents aside, gun crime has gone down since those restrictions were lifted, more states have legalized concealed carry and yes, we have more guns. So what next when these laws fail us and another lunatic goes off his meds (figuratively and literally)? Where do we draw the line? Maybe you draw the line with your two recommendations, but if you think Schumer, Bloomberg, Feinstein and the like will stop there, you need to wake up.So, I fight ineffective laws like banning guns because they have a pistol grip instead of a thumb-hole stock. Or banning 15 round magazines because 10 "is plenty". Or national registration databases which I feel will have unintended consequences far outweighing any benefits. Registration leads to confiscation, period. In other countries and right here in America. Recently.See Chicago's semi-auto rifle confiscation in the 1990s after registering them in the 80s and California's SKS snafu resulting from the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act in 1989. Don't tell me it can't happen. I know how to open a history book.

This is a good post. I was going to mess with Tim since he believed high cap mag bans and private sales restrictions haven't been tried, but just setting him straight is probably best. Oddly, he lives in Cali where the legislation he wants has been in place for a long long time. A dozen or so states have high cap mag bans and some 17 have forced licensed dealers to be involved in every private sale. What we know about the Clinton ban is that the Academy for Applied Sciences and the hardcore anti-gun Center for Disease Control both researched the results of the legislation and concluded that it did nothing to decrease crime. Tim, what you support is toothless, this we KNOW. I have two ARs with mags that can only be removed with a tool. No speed loading in Cali... well, for the law abiding among us. The criminals have all the fun.

I think it might be time to start breaking the law my friend.Schlzm

Not worth it. I'm expecting the whole country to become a hybrid of Cali and NY laws. A republican congressman just supported a ban yesterday. Something is coming, but I doubt it will be tougher than it already is here, so whatever,

 

[Otis]

Give me a list of all the potential rape victims who have prevented the rape because they were packing heat.

This is a weak argument Otis. You're not really helping here. Of course there are armed women who have defended themselves from rape with the use of firearms, and good for them. I hope more women arm themselves and learn how to use these weapons; I really do.

Why is it a weak argument, Tim? I suspect this happens very, very, very infrequently. I'm asking. And I'm not here to help you.

 

[Otis]

Actually, you kind of did miss his point. His point is that limiting capacity on magazines wouldn't do any good because even an untrained 60 year old grandmother can change two clips and still shoot 30 bullets in a minutely with reasonable accuracy.That said, I agree that limiting capacity might do some good, but certainly not unless you make it retroactive, and even then...

Yeah I read it wrong. Mea culpa. But whether I missed his point, here's what I notice: no matter what idea is brought up, no matter how much of a compromise is offered, there are people here who will always reject it. Their only solution is more guns. Still I remain hopeful. The NRA has announced that on Friday they will have proposals of their own. Maybe they will give in to the 74% of their membership who support my ideas on this. Guess we'll see.

I think there are more folks here who's solution is to ban all guns than those saying we need more guns.

Link? I think there's exactly 1 person here who has posted that we need to ban all guns, and he didn't stay in the discussion very long.

here's the first post in this thread from this thread's most leading contributor:

Stop ####### collecting guns, you #######ed gun nerds. Collect stamps. Or coins. But the guns? Just ban the ####### things. It's not worth this. Seriously. Stop being hillbillies for 14 ####### minutes and consider the trade off. It's not worth it. Hillbillies abusing the constitution for their right to be completely and totally ####### ######ed.There is no reason any of you civilians need a gun.YWIA

there's 224 more posts that continue along that vein.

This is about the 14th time you gun dorks have misrepresented my position in here. I've literally said 10 times, when I wasn't schticking or venting, that I would not ban "all guns." Assault weapons and handguns. No wonder you people can't complete a conversation. Well, that and now having Tim as your bus driver. Eek.

 

[Otis]

Who posted in: ***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE***Member name PostsOtis 221

"What a #### that guy is. He cares way too much about the safety of women and children. He should spend more time posting in Tim's WWI Favorite Nurse Outfits Draft Thread, or the Favorite Barstool Manufacturer thread, or the 'My neighbor ran over my lawn gnome' thread. Effin Otis."

Unless a woman is about to be raped by a stronger man. In which case should should lie there and take it until she can report it to the police. Defending herself with a gun is unacceptable.

Give me a list of all the potential rape victims who have prevented the rape because they were packing heat.

You probably should delete this post real quick before someone calls you out on it.ETA: Sorry, too late.

 

[Otis]

Gun buy back programs in New Jersey, Oakland, and several other cities broke all records this weekend.

This is just a total random curiosity, but do you happen to know what they are paying for certain platforms? Completely random wonder on my part, not trying to prove any type of point whatsoever, just seeking information.Schlzm

Lol at "mag swaps" and "platforms" and "tactical." Freaking nerds. Otis

 

[Otis]

I would also like to add that people who want to trot out the fact the we as a nation have the most capable nuclear arsenal and that it should act as some sort of deterrent against a civilian uprising is borderline insane. Any sitting president willing to deploy atomic weapons within the borders of the United States against American citizens would be a tyrant and despot of the worst possible kind and would not be worthy of even spanish inquisition levels of execution. Anyone who supported such a person would fall even below that.Schlzm

 

[Otis]

Here's where I'm coming from, Tim. High cap mag restrictions have been tried and deemed ineffective to the point where the law sunset without fanfare from the left. And the fact is, anecdotal incidents aside, gun crime has gone down since those restrictions were lifted, more states have legalized concealed carry and yes, we have more guns. So what next when these laws fail us and another lunatic goes off his meds (figuratively and literally)? Where do we draw the line? Maybe you draw the line with your two recommendations, but if you think Schumer, Bloomberg, Feinstein and the like will stop there, you need to wake up.So, I fight ineffective laws like banning guns because they have a pistol grip instead of a thumb-hole stock. Or banning 15 round magazines because 10 "is plenty". Or national registration databases which I feel will have unintended consequences far outweighing any benefits. Registration leads to confiscation, period. In other countries and right here in America. Recently.See Chicago's semi-auto rifle confiscation in the 1990s after registering them in the 80s and California's SKS snafu resulting from the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act in 1989. Don't tell me it can't happen. I know how to open a history book.

This is a good post. I was going to mess with Tim since he believed high cap mag bans and private sales restrictions haven't been tried, but just setting him straight is probably best. Oddly, he lives in Cali where the legislation he wants has been in place for a long long time. A dozen or so states have high cap mag bans and some 17 have forced licensed dealers to be involved in every private sale. What we know about the Clinton ban is that the Academy for Applied Sciences and the hardcore anti-gun Center for Disease Control both researched the results of the legislation and concluded that it did nothing to decrease crime. Tim, what you support is toothless, this we KNOW. I have two ARs with mags that can only be removed with a tool. No speed loading in Cali... well, for the law abiding among us. The criminals have all the fun.

I think it might be time to start breaking the law my friend.Schlzm

Not worth it. I'm expecting the whole country to become a hybrid of Cali and NY laws. A republican congressman just supported a ban yesterday. Something is coming, but I doubt it will be tougher than it already is here, so whatever,

 

[moleculo]

Actually, you kind of did miss his point. His point is that limiting capacity on magazines wouldn't do any good because even an untrained 60 year old grandmother can change two clips and still shoot 30 bullets in a minutely with reasonable accuracy.That said, I agree that limiting capacity might do some good, but certainly not unless you make it retroactive, and even then...

Yeah I read it wrong. Mea culpa. But whether I missed his point, here's what I notice: no matter what idea is brought up, no matter how much of a compromise is offered, there are people here who will always reject it. Their only solution is more guns. Still I remain hopeful. The NRA has announced that on Friday they will have proposals of their own. Maybe they will give in to the 74% of their membership who support my ideas on this. Guess we'll see.

I think there are more folks here who's solution is to ban all guns than those saying we need more guns.

Link? I think there's exactly 1 person here who has posted that we need to ban all guns, and he didn't stay in the discussion very long.

here's the first post in this thread from this thread's most leading contributor:

Stop ####### collecting guns, you #######ed gun nerds. Collect stamps. Or coins. But the guns? Just ban the ####### things. It's not worth this. Seriously. Stop being hillbillies for 14 ####### minutes and consider the trade off. It's not worth it. Hillbillies abusing the constitution for their right to be completely and totally ####### ######ed.There is no reason any of you civilians need a gun.YWIA

there's 224 more posts that continue along that vein.

This is about the 14th time you gun dorks have misrepresented my position in here. I've literally said 10 times, when I wasn't schticking or venting, that I would not ban "all guns." Assault weapons and handguns. No wonder you people can't complete a conversation. Well, that and now having Tim as your bus driver. Eek.

I have neither the time nor inclination to read all of your 225 posts here. If your position has evolved past emotional outbursts and insults towards folks not like you, then congrats.It looks like you want a ban on handguns and "assault weapons", but I'm guessing you will refuse to define these...a broad interpretation might include all rifles. So, the only thing you are good with is shotguns.. right?

 

[Novice2]

Actually, you kind of did miss his point. His point is that limiting capacity on magazines wouldn't do any good because even an untrained 60 year old grandmother can change two clips and still shoot 30 bullets in a minutely with reasonable accuracy.That said, I agree that limiting capacity might do some good, but certainly not unless you make it retroactive, and even then...

Yeah I read it wrong. Mea culpa. But whether I missed his point, here's what I notice: no matter what idea is brought up, no matter how much of a compromise is offered, there are people here who will always reject it. Their only solution is more guns. Still I remain hopeful. The NRA has announced that on Friday they will have proposals of their own. Maybe they will give in to the 74% of their membership who support my ideas on this. Guess we'll see.

I think there are more folks here who's solution is to ban all guns than those saying we need more guns.

Link? I think there's exactly 1 person here who has posted that we need to ban all guns, and he didn't stay in the discussion very long.

here's the first post in this thread from this thread's most leading contributor:

Stop ####### collecting guns, you #######ed gun nerds. Collect stamps. Or coins. But the guns? Just ban the ####### things. It's not worth this. Seriously. Stop being hillbillies for 14 ####### minutes and consider the trade off. It's not worth it. Hillbillies abusing the constitution for their right to be completely and totally ####### ######ed.There is no reason any of you civilians need a gun.YWIA

there's 224 more posts that continue along that vein.

This is about the 14th time you gun dorks have misrepresented my position in here. I've literally said 10 times, when I wasn't schticking or venting, that I would not ban "all guns." Assault weapons and handguns. No wonder you people can't complete a conversation. Well, that and now having Tim as your bus driver. Eek.

I have neither the time nor inclination to read all of your 225 posts here. If your position has evolved past emotional outbursts and insults towards folks not like you, then congrats.It looks like you want a ban on "assault weapons", but I'm guessing you will refuse to define these...a broad interpretation might include all rifles. So, the only thing you are good with is shotguns.. right?

Till of course when some lunatic uses a few of those in a mass shooting.

 

[BassNBrew]

My buddy works for one of the larger gun retailers in the US. Some comments from him.Last Friday was the 3rd biggest day ever for background requests. #1 being Black Friday this year and #2 Bleck Friday last year.ARs are flying off the shelf.****'s Sporting Good's will no longer sell ARs.ATF has hold times for check and is streamlining to speed the process.

Well, what can one say? People are paranoid all over. Your buddy has a right to earn a living. But if he's gleeful over this, he should be ashamed, IMO.

Morning Tim. Just to set the record straight, he's not gleeful. He's working his butt off and making the same pay. I'll PM you the rest of his comments.

 

[BassNBrew]

Actually, you kind of did miss his point. His point is that limiting capacity on magazines wouldn't do any good because even an untrained 60 year old grandmother can change two clips and still shoot 30 bullets in a minutely with reasonable accuracy.That said, I agree that limiting capacity might do some good, but certainly not unless you make it retroactive, and even then...

Yeah I read it wrong. Mea culpa. But whether I missed his point, here's what I notice: no matter what idea is brought up, no matter how much of a compromise is offered, there are people here who will always reject it. Their only solution is more guns. Still I remain hopeful. The NRA has announced that on Friday they will have proposals of their own. Maybe they will give in to the 74% of their membership who support my ideas on this. Guess we'll see.

Just a wild guess, but I would think they would sign on with all transfers being done thru a licensed dealer. I suspect most of their advertising comes from gun manufacturers and OEMs. These companies would want new product sold over the general people buying and selling existing product.

 

[RCon]

I have neither the time nor inclination to read all of your 225 posts here. If your position has evolved past emotional outbursts and insults towards folks not like you, then congrats.

Otis's position hasn't evolved past emotional name-calling, no. Look on this page alone for confirmation of that.

 

[Neovivo]

http://sparq.nydailynews.com/pages/4YSLXP/6g6h/Ban_all_assault_weapons_and_highcapacity_magazines_and_institute_comprehensive_gun_control?log=0

Do you enjoy being wrong or is it just some random thing that happened?Schlzm

Just thought I would give all the people a chance to make a difference. Neovivo

 

[boots11234]

The fantasy is believing another law is going to stop a criminal.

It wont stop a criminal.But it will save lives? Of course it would.

Is it worth the cost (many different costs) of implementation or regulation? I doubt it, from a macro perspective.

No shtick--How are we measuring this? If we cannot measure it, we cannot improve it.Are we going to go by how many people die each year?

If I proposed a law that I guaranteed would reduce murders committed by rifles (the type of firearm I would think most would agree is associated with these mass shootings) by 15-20% within 8 years, would you say that was a good law?

Because that is exactly what has happened since the Assault Weapons ban expired in 2004 and high cap mags and scary black rifles became legal again. (393 deaths in 2004, 323 in 2011. 17.8% drop by my late night math) These are the FBI numbers.

2000-2004 Scroll to Murder by Weapon

2007-2011

Good post. The problem as I see it isn't guns, it's our society and the misplaced belief that government must do something to solve this problem. Government solutions rarely work as intended but people have come to rely on government too much hence the belief they can fix this problem. Society must look within to fix this problem and not to the government for the answer. Back when my folks were kids my dad use to bring a hunting rifle to school with no problems.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Don't outlaw guns.

Require every gun sold to carry liability insurance for any injuries caused by that weapon, accidental or intentional.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Don't outlaw guns.Require every gun sold to carry liability insurance for any injuries caused by that weapon, accidental or intentional.

Make it a misdemeanor to own a weapon without the required coverage, with the penalty being forfeiture of said weapon.

 

[moleculo]

I haven't weighed in with a proposal yet, so here goes:

Treat fire-arms similar to cars - that is, require registration and insurance for their operation.

Registration

[*]Registration would require some sort of identification on the gun - a stamped ID, a plate added, something like that. Possibly a yearly sticker, just like we put on our license plates. The gun owner must also keep a paper receipt as well - just like you have in your car.

[*]If you are found in possession of a gun w/o ID and registration, the gun is to be immediately confiscated and will be returned when the owner presents proper papers.

[*]Registration must be renewed annually (bi-annually?). Part of the renewal process is a safety inspection, which both verifies safe operating condition of the gun as well as condition of registration tags.

[*]Safety inspection does not need to be performed by a LEO, it could simply be the guy at the shooting range, a licensed dealer, someone from your hunt-club, or pretty much anyone who has taken some basic training and says an oath.

Insurance

[*]establish some sort of liability costs associated with gun ownership. For sake of discussion, let's say $250k for loss of life and medical bills up to $250k for injuries. These liabilities are only payable if the gun was used in a crime.

[*]Gun owners must purchase insurance and proof of insurance must be presented upon request - along with registration above.

[*]Similar to cars, insurance rates can be allowed to vary, based on a number of factors such as:

[*]number of kids in house

[*]mental state of all residents

[*]gun type (based on probability that a particular gun will be used in a crime)

[*]location of owner residence - probability of gun being stolen

[*]discount for safes

[*]discount for trigger lock

[*]discount for annual gun safety courses

[*]discount for periodic range time

[*]whatever else the actuaries find that increases/decreases gun crime risk

[*]if a gun is stolen, the gun owners insurance company will still have at least a partial fiscal responsibility for above damages, so it is in their interest to ensure that owners do whatever they can to keep their weapons secure.

[*]no liabilities are to be paid when the gun was used in self-defense, including Castle Doctorine usage. That is, if a bad guy breaks into my house and I shoot him, my insurance owes him nothing.

I have no idea if anything like this has been proposed or not. IMO, this could have helped @ Sandy Hook, Va Tech, etc by providing financial incentive to keep their arms secured, as well as limit availability of illegal arms without an outright ban. I can see that if someone wants to keep a whole bunch of dangerous guns around, it's going to get expensive pretty quick if he's not adequately equipped to store them nor has proper safety certification... on the other hand, a simple 6-shot revolver that is stored in a high-quality safe and operated by someone who takes regular training will be really cheap to insure.

 

[moleculo]

Don't outlaw guns.Require every gun sold to carry liability insurance for any injuries caused by that weapon, accidental or intentional.

Make it a misdemeanor to own a weapon without the required coverage, with the penalty being forfeiture of said weapon.

damn, that's exactly what I was typing up...