***OFFICIAL GUN CONTROL DEBATE*** (5 Viewers)

[FatMax]

I just heard a guy on the radio, an owner of a gun store, say that if this current gun law passes, they'll take your assault rifle, whatever they're banning, and you don't have a choice to keep it? Is that right?

"They" will also diddle your dog, take your children, do the wife, and torch the bunker. It's not good, brocephus.

I don't have a dog in this fight. Is this how the law is written or not. Smart people?

Not a smart people, but I think the answer is no.

 

[MaxThreshold]

This is finally getting through your thick skull? Atta boy timmy, atta boy.

To be honest, I'm worried about the effectiveness of the high cap magazine ban. There are two main concerns I have:1. All the literature in favor of the ban suggests that these mass shooters are taken down when trying to re-load. But it's short on example. The two examples offered most frequently are Jared Loughner and Aurora. In the case of Loughner, it's unclear to me whether he was tackled trying to reload or tackled because his gun jammed. This makes a big difference- (especially if you accept the argument that guns jam more when they use higher magazines.) I don't know what the truth is. In the case of Aurora, it's even less clear. If I lose my rationale that these magazine limits are going to have an effect on these mass shootings, then I lose any justification for having them.

2. Even if the limits work, I don't know whether it's possible to enforce this ban. There are at present, too many of these magazines around. 30 rounds is the standard sold for the AR-15. And there's this new printing technology. So perhaps the ban won't work even if it's put into law.

So until I have resolved these two issues to my satisfaction, I'm honestly not sure where I stand on the proposed ban.

A once through of this thread at ar15.com should put to rest the thought that anything short of outright confiscation would have ANY effect on reducing the 30 round AR-15 magazines in circulation...Warning the images above may cause hoplophobes to go into cardiac arrest.

Edit to add: Given the nature of many members at ar15.com, the magazines will need to be confiscated empty... and smoking.

JHC. As if the anti-anything-that-looks-like-a-gun crowd around here isn't hysterical and delusional enough, now you have to post this? Well played!

 

[Apple Jack]

I just heard a guy on the radio, an owner of a gun store, say that if this current gun law passes, they'll take your assault rifle, whatever they're banning, and you don't have a choice to keep it? Is that right?

"They" will also diddle your dog, take your children, do the wife, and torch the bunker. It's not good, brocephus.

I don't have a dog in this fight. Is this how the law is written or not. Smart people?

I know. I wasn't mocking you, just the overall tone of the folder. The answer is no. There is a grandfather clause. Just like the one that led to Lanza's mother legally hanging onto the weapon he used to kill the kids at Sandy Hook.

 

[St. Louis Bob]

I just heard a guy on the radio, an owner of a gun store, say that if this current gun law passes, they'll take your assault rifle, whatever they're banning, and you don't have a choice to keep it? Is that right?

"They" will also diddle your dog, take your children, do the wife, and torch the bunker. It's not good, brocephus.

I don't have a dog in this fight. Is this how the law is written or not. Smart people?

Not a smart people, but I think the answer is no.

I think you're smart, GB.

I just heard a guy on the radio, an owner of a gun store, say that if this current gun law passes, they'll take your assault rifle, whatever they're banning, and you don't have a choice to keep it? Is that right?

"They" will also diddle your dog, take your children, do the wife, and torch the bunker. It's not good, brocephus.

I don't have a dog in this fight. Is this how the law is written or not. Smart people?

I know. I wasn't mocking you, just the overall tone of the folder. The answer is no. There is a grandfather clause. Just like the one that led to Lanza's mother legally hanging onto the weapon he used to kill the kids at Sandy Hook.

It sounded like mocking. That's what I figured would happen but that's what the guy that owns the gun shop said. WTF do I know.

 

[Apple Jack]

I just heard a guy on the radio, an owner of a gun store, say that if this current gun law passes, they'll take your assault rifle, whatever they're banning, and you don't have a choice to keep it? Is that right?

"They" will also diddle your dog, take your children, do the wife, and torch the bunker. It's not good, brocephus.

I don't have a dog in this fight. Is this how the law is written or not. Smart people?

Not a smart people, but I think the answer is no.

I think you're smart, GB.

I just heard a guy on the radio, an owner of a gun store, say that if this current gun law passes, they'll take your assault rifle, whatever they're banning, and you don't have a choice to keep it? Is that right?

"They" will also diddle your dog, take your children, do the wife, and torch the bunker. It's not good, brocephus.

I don't have a dog in this fight. Is this how the law is written or not. Smart people?

I know. I wasn't mocking you, just the overall tone of the folder. The answer is no. There is a grandfather clause. Just like the one that led to Lanza's mother legally hanging onto the weapon he used to kill the kids at Sandy Hook.

It sounded like mocking. That's what I figured would happen but that's what the guy that owns the gun shop said. WTF do I know.

It was definitely mocking, but I promise (not that you care) that it wasn't directed at you. I was going at the implied responses from gun lovers far and wide.THE PRESIDENT IS LYING HE HATES GUNS NO WAY WOULD HE SKEET SHOOT AT CAMP DAVID AS IF HE COULD OR WOULD LEAVE HIS TOFU AND PATRICIPATION AWARDS AND ANPPY HAIR GO ARM WReSTEL A BROOT MICHELE HAHAHAHAHAHAH.

 

[boots11234]

I just heard a guy on the radio, an owner of a gun store, say that if this current gun law passes, they'll take your assault rifle, whatever they're banning, and you don't have a choice to keep it? Is that right?

"They" will also diddle your dog, take your children, do the wife, and torch the bunker. It's not good, brocephus.

I don't have a dog in this fight. Is this how the law is written or not. Smart people?

I know. I wasn't mocking you, just the overall tone of the folder. The answer is no. There is a grandfather clause. Just like the one that led to Lanza's mother legally hanging onto the weapon he used to kill the kids at Sandy Hook.

Actually you're only partially right, you can continue to own them but upon death the gov takes them.

 

[Apple Jack]

I just heard a guy on the radio, an owner of a gun store, say that if this current gun law passes, they'll take your assault rifle, whatever they're banning, and you don't have a choice to keep it? Is that right?

"They" will also diddle your dog, take your children, do the wife, and torch the bunker. It's not good, brocephus.

I don't have a dog in this fight. Is this how the law is written or not. Smart people?

I know. I wasn't mocking you, just the overall tone of the folder. The answer is no. There is a grandfather clause. Just like the one that led to Lanza's mother legally hanging onto the weapon he used to kill the kids at Sandy Hook.

Actually you're only partially right, you can continue to own them but upon death the gov takes them.

Oh, yeah. Sorry. You can't take them with you into the afterlife.

 

[boots11234]

I just heard a guy on the radio, an owner of a gun store, say that if this current gun law passes, they'll take your assault rifle, whatever they're banning, and you don't have a choice to keep it? Is that right?

"They" will also diddle your dog, take your children, do the wife, and torch the bunker. It's not good, brocephus.

I don't have a dog in this fight. Is this how the law is written or not. Smart people?

I know. I wasn't mocking you, just the overall tone of the folder. The answer is no. There is a grandfather clause. Just like the one that led to Lanza's mother legally hanging onto the weapon he used to kill the kids at Sandy Hook.

Actually you're only partially right, you can continue to own them but upon death the gov takes them.

Oh, yeah. Sorry. You can't take them with you into the afterlife.

Perhaps you should give all your money and possessions to the government when u die, you can't take them with you into the afterlife but I'm guessing u don't believe in that either.

 

[Apple Jack]

I just heard a guy on the radio, an owner of a gun store, say that if this current gun law passes, they'll take your assault rifle, whatever they're banning, and you don't have a choice to keep it? Is that right?

"They" will also diddle your dog, take your children, do the wife, and torch the bunker. It's not good, brocephus.

I don't have a dog in this fight. Is this how the law is written or not. Smart people?

I know. I wasn't mocking you, just the overall tone of the folder. The answer is no. There is a grandfather clause. Just like the one that led to Lanza's mother legally hanging onto the weapon he used to kill the kids at Sandy Hook.

Actually you're only partially right, you can continue to own them but upon death the gov takes them.

Oh, yeah. Sorry. You can't take them with you into the afterlife.

Perhaps you should give all your money and possessions to the government when u die, you can't take them with you into the afterlife but I'm guessing u don't believe in that either.

I hear you. I was pissed when my uncle died and learned that we didn't get his security clearance.

 

[boots11234]

I just heard a guy on the radio, an owner of a gun store, say that if this current gun law passes, they'll take your assault rifle, whatever they're banning, and you don't have a choice to keep it? Is that right?

"They" will also diddle your dog, take your children, do the wife, and torch the bunker. It's not good, brocephus.

I don't have a dog in this fight. Is this how the law is written or not. Smart people?

I know. I wasn't mocking you, just the overall tone of the folder. The answer is no. There is a grandfather clause. Just like the one that led to Lanza's mother legally hanging onto the weapon he used to kill the kids at Sandy Hook.

Actually you're only partially right, you can continue to own them but upon death the gov takes them.

Oh, yeah. Sorry. You can't take them with you into the afterlife.

Perhaps you should give all your money and possessions to the government when u die, you can't take them with you into the afterlife but I'm guessing u don't believe in that either.

I hear you. I was pissed when my uncle died and learned that we didn't get his security clearance.

I'd be more upset that I didn't gain his wisdom if I were you.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Only seven people killed yesterday in Chicago. Rahm, that gun ban is working wonders.

Nice of you to count the knife death in there. I guess it's progress, I mean only one person was shot at a gun show yesterday.

Sorry - I guess 6 a day is under the threshold. Carry on.

Murders are ok, just not if the bullet exits a high capacity clip..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars.

Today I’m going to explain why gun-control is not only entirely reasonable but also certain to be effective. Only the ignorant can deny this.First, some orientation. Cement-headed NRA types need to recognize, and state manfully, that the illegalization of guns is in fact perfectly practical. History has shown this repeatedly. When the government outlaws something that huge numbers of people very much want, the outlawed items immediately disappear from society. This has been shown countless times. When Washington outlawed alcohol, booze vanished overnight and everyone stopped drinking. Can anyone deny this? When Washington banned the use of cannabis, all of those of us made insane by Reefer Madness quit smoking dope, and today there is probably not a town in America in which one might buy a joint. Similarly, Washington made illegal the downloading of copyrighted music—which also stopped immediately. No one now has illegal music. Ask your adolescent daughter.So with guns. They are small, easily smuggled, of high value to criminals and will be of higher value when only criminals have them, so it is virtually certain that they will vanish when the government says so. Mexico, where I live, has stringent laws against guns, which have proved at least a partial success. Criminals have AKs, RPGs, and grenades, while nobody else has anything. That’s a partial success, isn’t it?FRED

 

[cobalt_27]

Only seven people killed yesterday in Chicago. Rahm, that gun ban is working wonders.

Nice of you to count the knife death in there. I guess it's progress, I mean only one person was shot at a gun show yesterday.

Sorry - I guess 6 a day is under the threshold. Carry on.

Murders are ok, just not if the bullet exits a high capacity clip..

No, I think the intent here is to limit the number of deaths in a single event. Didn't think I'd have to hold your hand and walk you through this one, but there you go.FWIW, I think it's a weak concession. It's probably an appropriate step, but I'd prefer more systemic licensing and database regulations and outright AR ban.

 

[Otis]

Otis you are such a tool.

Yeeeeeeeehawwwww!!11:fingerpistols:

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Only seven people killed yesterday in Chicago. Rahm, that gun ban is working wonders.

Nice of you to count the knife death in there. I guess it's progress, I mean only one person was shot at a gun show yesterday.

Sorry - I guess 6 a day is under the threshold. Carry on.

Murders are ok, just not if the bullet exits a high capacity clip..

No, I think the intent here is to limit the number of deaths in a single event. Didn't think I'd have to hold your hand and walk you through this one, but there you go.FWIW, I think it's a weak concession. It's probably an appropriate step, but I'd prefer more systemic licensing and database regulations and outright AR ban.

.. so 10 murders or events is ok.. but not 11.. Got it

 

[greenroom]

Only seven people killed yesterday in Chicago. Rahm, that gun ban is working wonders.

Nice of you to count the knife death in there. I guess it's progress, I mean only one person was shot at a gun show yesterday.

Sorry - I guess 6 a day is under the threshold. Carry on.

Murders are ok, just not if the bullet exits a high capacity clip..

No, I think the intent here is to limit the number of deaths in a single event. Didn't think I'd have to hold your hand and walk you through this one, but there you go.FWIW, I think it's a weak concession. It's probably an appropriate step, but I'd prefer more systemic licensing and database regulations and outright AR ban.

.. so 10 murders or events is ok.. but not 11.. Got it

Yes 10 murders are better than 11. In fact 0 murders are better than 10. But since there is no way we can prevent crazy people from killing, how about we try to limit the amount of damage they can attempt to do.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I don't know what to make of this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ri9ioCbqJCUWhy would they do it in Houston and then Miami within 1 week of each other?...and what is the significance of firing machine guns (blanks) if that is what actually happened?

 

[cobalt_27]

Only seven people killed yesterday in Chicago. Rahm, that gun ban is working wonders.

Nice of you to count the knife death in there. I guess it's progress, I mean only one person was shot at a gun show yesterday.

Sorry - I guess 6 a day is under the threshold. Carry on.

Murders are ok, just not if the bullet exits a high capacity clip..

No, I think the intent here is to limit the number of deaths in a single event. Didn't think I'd have to hold your hand and walk you through this one, but there you go.FWIW, I think it's a weak concession. It's probably an appropriate step, but I'd prefer more systemic licensing and database regulations and outright AR ban.

.. so 10 murders or events is ok.. but not 11.. Got it

Nope. Try again chief.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Only seven people killed yesterday in Chicago. Rahm, that gun ban is working wonders.

Nice of you to count the knife death in there. I guess it's progress, I mean only one person was shot at a gun show yesterday.

Sorry - I guess 6 a day is under the threshold. Carry on.

Murders are ok, just not if the bullet exits a high capacity clip..

No, I think the intent here is to limit the number of deaths in a single event. Didn't think I'd have to hold your hand and walk you through this one, but there you go.FWIW, I think it's a weak concession. It's probably an appropriate step, but I'd prefer more systemic licensing and database regulations and outright AR ban.

.. so 10 murders or events is ok.. but not 11.. Got it

Yes 10 murders are better than 11. In fact 0 murders are better than 10. But since there is no way we can prevent crazy people from killing, how about we try to limit the amount of damage they can attempt to do.

better take their cars too k?

 

[mad sweeney]

Only seven people killed yesterday in Chicago.

Rahm, that gun ban is working wonders.

Nice of you to count the knife death in there. I guess it's progress, I mean only one person was shot at a gun show yesterday.

Sorry - I guess 6 a day is under the threshold. Carry on.

Murders are ok, just not if the bullet exits a high capacity clip..

No, I think the intent here is to limit the number of deaths in a single event. Didn't think I'd have to hold your hand and walk you through this one, but there you go.FWIW, I think it's a weak concession. It's probably an appropriate step, but I'd prefer more systemic licensing and database regulations and outright AR ban.

.. so 10 murders or events is ok.. but not 11.. Got it

Yes 10 murders are better than 11. In fact 0 murders are better than 10. But since there is no way we can prevent crazy people from killing, how about we try to limit the amount of damage they can attempt to do.

better take their cars too k?

ZOMG yessssssss!!1111!!11!1!!1!!! Cuz cars totally have only one purpose: TO KILL!!!! That comparison is SOOOOOOOOOO pErFEKkkKKTTTTT!!1!!!

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Only seven people killed yesterday in Chicago.

Rahm, that gun ban is working wonders.

Nice of you to count the knife death in there. I guess it's progress, I mean only one person was shot at a gun show yesterday.

Sorry - I guess 6 a day is under the threshold. Carry on.

Murders are ok, just not if the bullet exits a high capacity clip..

No, I think the intent here is to limit the number of deaths in a single event. Didn't think I'd have to hold your hand and walk you through this one, but there you go.FWIW, I think it's a weak concession. It's probably an appropriate step, but I'd prefer more systemic licensing and database regulations and outright AR ban.

.. so 10 murders or events is ok.. but not 11.. Got it

Yes 10 murders are better than 11. In fact 0 murders are better than 10. But since there is no way we can prevent crazy people from killing, how about we try to limit the amount of damage they can attempt to do.

better take their cars too k?

ZOMG yessssssss!!1111!!11!1!!1!!! Cuz cars totally have only one purpose: TO KILL!!!! That comparison is SOOOOOOOOOO pErFEKkkKKTTTTT!!1!!!

That explains why they're banning all guns!! Now I understand..Alcohol kills more people every year then "assault rifles"

So do many other weapons..

shotguns, pistols, knives, blunt objects ..

cars, medical malpractice,

drugs..

 

[timschochet]

ZOMG yessssssss!!1111!!11!1!!1!!! Cuz cars totally have only one purpose: TO KILL!!!! That comparison is SOOOOOOOOOO pErFEKkkKKTTTTT!!1!!!

What's really pathetic is that it's nowhere near the worst analogy out there. Not even close. Go to gun owners' websites, and you get the following argument as a common refrain:Suppose we made a law limiting your free speech to 10 words or less?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

ZOMG yessssssss!!1111!!11!1!!1!!! Cuz cars totally have only one purpose: TO KILL!!!! That comparison is SOOOOOOOOOO pErFEKkkKKTTTTT!!1!!!

What's really pathetic is that it's nowhere near the worst analogy out there. Not even close. Go to gun owners' websites, and you get the following argument as a common refrain:Suppose we made a law limiting your free speech to 10 words or less?

More people are murdered with shotguns every year than with "assault rifles"Why not ban shotguns instead?

Pistols..

This ban is senseless.. Helps nothing..

 

[timschochet]

ZOMG yessssssss!!1111!!11!1!!1!!! Cuz cars totally have only one purpose: TO KILL!!!! That comparison is SOOOOOOOOOO pErFEKkkKKTTTTT!!1!!!

What's really pathetic is that it's nowhere near the worst analogy out there. Not even close. Go to gun owners' websites, and you get the following argument as a common refrain:Suppose we made a law limiting your free speech to 10 words or less?

More people are murdered with shotguns every year than with "assault rifles"Why not ban shotguns instead?

Pistols..

This ban is senseless.. Helps nothing..

If you're talking about the proposed "assault rifles" ban, I agree with you. If you're talking about the proposed ban on high capacity gun magazines, I'm rapidly arriving at the same position as well.

However, nothing that I just wrote excuses the absurd and paranoid quality of so many of the "gun rights" arguments, including many of yours.

 

[cobalt_27]

Only seven people killed yesterday in Chicago.

Rahm, that gun ban is working wonders.

Nice of you to count the knife death in there. I guess it's progress, I mean only one person was shot at a gun show yesterday.

Sorry - I guess 6 a day is under the threshold. Carry on.

Murders are ok, just not if the bullet exits a high capacity clip..

No, I think the intent here is to limit the number of deaths in a single event. Didn't think I'd have to hold your hand and walk you through this one, but there you go.FWIW, I think it's a weak concession. It's probably an appropriate step, but I'd prefer more systemic licensing and database regulations and outright AR ban.

.. so 10 murders or events is ok.. but not 11.. Got it

Yes 10 murders are better than 11. In fact 0 murders are better than 10. But since there is no way we can prevent crazy people from killing, how about we try to limit the amount of damage they can attempt to do.

better take their cars too k?

ZOMG yessssssss!!1111!!11!1!!1!!! Cuz cars totally have only one purpose: TO KILL!!!! That comparison is SOOOOOOOOOO pErFEKkkKKTTTTT!!1!!!

That explains why they're banning all guns!! Now I understand..Alcohol kills more people every year then "assault rifles"

So do many other weapons..

shotguns, pistols, knives, blunt objects ..

cars, medical malpractice,

drugs..

This is funny. You are so ill-equipped to navigate logic.

 

[mad sweeney]

Only seven people killed yesterday in Chicago.

Rahm, that gun ban is working wonders.

Nice of you to count the knife death in there. I guess it's progress, I mean only one person was shot at a gun show yesterday.

Sorry - I guess 6 a day is under the threshold. Carry on.

Murders are ok, just not if the bullet exits a high capacity clip..

No, I think the intent here is to limit the number of deaths in a single event. Didn't think I'd have to hold your hand and walk you through this one, but there you go.FWIW, I think it's a weak concession. It's probably an appropriate step, but I'd prefer more systemic licensing and database regulations and outright AR ban.

.. so 10 murders or events is ok.. but not 11.. Got it

Yes 10 murders are better than 11. In fact 0 murders are better than 10. But since there is no way we can prevent crazy people from killing, how about we try to limit the amount of damage they can attempt to do.

better take their cars too k?

ZOMG yessssssss!!1111!!11!1!!1!!! Cuz cars totally have only one purpose: TO KILL!!!! That comparison is SOOOOOOOOOO pErFEKkkKKTTTTT!!1!!!

That explains why they're banning all guns!! Now I understand..Alcohol kills more people every year then "assault rifles"

So do many other weapons..

shotguns, pistols, knives, blunt objects ..

cars, medical malpractice,

drugs..

Please, continue listing other objects whose sole purpose is to kill. I think it's starting to help your argument!PS- That's sarcasm. Comparing thousands of things that sometimes are used to kill (deliberately or accidentally) with a device solely designed to kill (other than your magic non-lethal bullets) is absurd.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Sorry - I guess 6 a day is under the threshold. Carry on.

Murders are ok, just not if the bullet exits a high capacity clip..

No, I think the intent here is to limit the number of deaths in a single event. Didn't think I'd have to hold your hand and walk you through this one, but there you go.FWIW, I think it's a weak concession. It's probably an appropriate step, but I'd prefer more systemic licensing and database regulations and outright AR ban.

.. so 10 murders or events is ok.. but not 11.. Got it

Yes 10 murders are better than 11. In fact 0 murders are better than 10. But since there is no way we can prevent crazy people from killing, how about we try to limit the amount of damage they can attempt to do.

better take their cars too k?

ZOMG yessssssss!!1111!!11!1!!1!!! Cuz cars totally have only one purpose: TO KILL!!!! That comparison is SOOOOOOOOOO pErFEKkkKKTTTTT!!1!!!

That explains why they're banning all guns!! Now I understand..Alcohol kills more people every year then "assault rifles"

So do many other weapons..

shotguns, pistols, knives, blunt objects ..

cars, medical malpractice,

drugs..

Please, continue listing other objects whose sole purpose is to kill. I think it's starting to help your argument!PS- That's sarcasm. Comparing thousands of things that sometimes are used to kill (deliberately or accidentally) with a device solely designed to kill (other than your magic non-lethal bullets) is absurd.

Shotgun? Pistol? Only "sometimes" used to kill? vs an assault rifle "sole purpose is to kill", yet they both kill more people every year.. I think I'm catching on.. please go on, this is very interesting convo..

 

[Carolina Hustler]

blah blah..

Maybe you can explain it then?Shotguns kill more people every year than "assault rifles" Why are we banning assault rifles and not shotguns?

 

[cobalt_27]

blah blah..

Maybe you can explain it then?Shotguns kill more people every year than "assault rifles" Why are we banning assault rifles and not shotguns?

I have explained it. Others have explained it. Unless you have a primary receptive language deficit, it should resonate pretty clearly to you by now why your silly counter points fail at each turn. So, either you have primary language deficit and for which I will extend my deepest sympathies and encourage you to consult with a neurologist and/or a neuropsychologist to explore the etiology of this disorder, or...you're deliberately feigning stupidity. Because, as much as I and others have intimated here, we don't honestly believe you are this stupid.

 

[boots11234]

blah blah..

Maybe you can explain it then?Shotguns kill more people every year than "assault rifles" Why are we banning assault rifles and not shotguns?

Well if they are scary looking ones they are, ala the saiga 12. Which is a crappy shotgun but it is on the list. Now if they wanted to ban a great shotgun they would list the benelli m2. I'd love to get an m2 or m4. Sweet weapon. Oh. FYI to all grabbers, I just ordered me another 30 more 30 round magazines! USA USA USA!ETA: just got an email notification that my 1000 of 5.56 rounds have been shipped! Yeah!

 

[mad sweeney]

Sorry - I guess 6 a day is under the threshold. Carry on.

Murders are ok, just not if the bullet exits a high capacity clip..

No, I think the intent here is to limit the number of deaths in a single event. Didn't think I'd have to hold your hand and walk you through this one, but there you go.FWIW, I think it's a weak concession. It's probably an appropriate step, but I'd prefer more systemic licensing and database regulations and outright AR ban.

.. so 10 murders or events is ok.. but not 11.. Got it

Yes 10 murders are better than 11. In fact 0 murders are better than 10. But since there is no way we can prevent crazy people from killing, how about we try to limit the amount of damage they can attempt to do.

better take their cars too k?

ZOMG yessssssss!!1111!!11!1!!1!!! Cuz cars totally have only one purpose: TO KILL!!!! That comparison is SOOOOOOOOOO pErFEKkkKKTTTTT!!1!!!

That explains why they're banning all guns!! Now I understand..Alcohol kills more people every year then "assault rifles"

So do many other weapons..

shotguns, pistols, knives, blunt objects ..

cars, medical malpractice,

drugs..

Please, continue listing other objects whose sole purpose is to kill. I think it's starting to help your argument!PS- That's sarcasm. Comparing thousands of things that sometimes are used to kill (deliberately or accidentally) with a device solely designed to kill (other than your magic non-lethal bullets) is absurd.

Shotgun? Pistol? Only "sometimes" used to kill? vs an assault rifle "sole purpose is to kill", yet they both kill more people every year.. I think I'm catching on.. please go on, this is very interesting convo..

No, you're not catching on. Since those two devices don't fit the description that I wrote, those obviously aren't what I was referring to. The rest of your list is what I'm referring to. You know, the stuff that actually fits the context of what I wrote. I'm surprised you haven't listed water as a supposed counterpoint because people die in it.

 

[Novice2]

I don't know what to make of this:http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ri9ioCbqJCUWhy would they do it in Houston and then Miami within 1 week of each other?...and what is the significance of firing machine guns (blanks) if that is what actually happened?

You are paranoid. I bet you think they are training to take your guns away!

 

[JHuber77]

Based on these 3 points, my conclusion is that banning high cap magazines will, over time, make a noticeable difference in the amount of casualties in these situations, to the benefit of society. There is no way for me to prove this. There is no way for Hoosier to prove the opposite. He can bring up Virginia Tech, and I can argue that Cho would have done even more damage had he possessed high capacity magazines. No way to know.

No, you can't make that argument. At least, not rationally. We do know that higher capacity magazines would have made no difference because the shooters weren't limited by magazine capacities. They had plenty of ammo left if they wished to continue. They chose to stop. That isn't my opinion. It's a fact.

The only other thing that both of you missed is that some of these guys had their weapons jam as well, but that has nothing to do with limiting high capacity magazines. They probably used horrible ammo (as this is usually the cause of a weapon malfunction). Timmay just refuses to accept this fact.

It's not that I refuse to accept this "fact", it's that law enforcement tells me differently. They're the ones that have been pushing this limitation, and they're the ones that convinced me that it's a good idea. I think my arguments have been rational the whole time based on the information I have. But it's true I have no evidence to prove my case; neither do you have evidence to disprove it. However, as I pointed out before, since high cap magazines do not effect the 2nd Amendment, nor are they necessary for home defense, I feel comfortable making them illegal with no worries that I am somehow violating your rights or security. They are a luxury item, nothing more.

So everyone in law enforcement is telling you that? Who in law enforcement? The director of the ATF? FBI? Barney Fife?

I've posted opinions by law enforcement specialists on this topic. Go back and read through the thread if you want to find them. Here's one: http://abcnews.go.com/US/baltimore-police-chief-ban-high-capacity-firepower/story?id=18030163

Johnson, the Chair of the National Law Enforcement Partnership to Prevent Gun Violence, wants to limit them to a capacity of 10 rounds.The fewer the bullets, the more often the shooter has to stop firing, eject the empty cartridge and load another one.

A lot can happen in the window of time it takes to reload, Johnson said.

"Folks that are being attacked have time to react, to close that distance in," he said. "I think any football player in America would like to have four-and-a-half seconds to get to the quarterback without any of the offensive players."

An expert shooter like a police officer can switch magazines in less than two seconds. But for a nervous, scared adolescent, it would take much longer, Johnson said, which can be crucial.

During the Tucson, Ariz., attack on Rep. Gabby Giffords, gunman Jared Loughner was wrestled down when he stopped shooting to reload his 9-millimeter pistol.

During the Aurora, Colo., movie theater shooting spree last July, police say James Holmes' assault came to an end when his semi-automatic rifle jammed.

"As we've seen in America today, there have been several attacks where that reload is vital," Johnson said. "Tragically, in the shooting of a congresswoman, the reload was instrumental.

"We've also seen this in Baltimore County, in a school shooting that we had, where the reload became very instrumental in allowing the teacher to actually tackle a student that was trying to reload a double-barreled shotgun," he said.

SImply put, I find this gentlemen's argument to be much more persuasive than yours. I believe he knows what he's doing.

All Sheriffs from 62 Counties in Colorado stance on the proposed gun control legislation. This would have been a better link to provide for your knowledge of stances from law enforcement on the subject matter.http://extras.mnginteractive.com/live/media/site36/2013/0129/20130129_113251_GunControlLegislation.pdf

 

[Carolina Hustler]

Murders are ok, just not if the bullet exits a high capacity clip..

No, I think the intent here is to limit the number of deaths in a single event. Didn't think I'd have to hold your hand and walk you through this one, but there you go.FWIW, I think it's a weak concession. It's probably an appropriate step, but I'd prefer more systemic licensing and database regulations and outright AR ban.

.. so 10 murders or events is ok.. but not 11.. Got it

Yes 10 murders are better than 11. In fact 0 murders are better than 10. But since there is no way we can prevent crazy people from killing, how about we try to limit the amount of damage they can attempt to do.

better take their cars too k?

ZOMG yessssssss!!1111!!11!1!!1!!! Cuz cars totally have only one purpose: TO KILL!!!! That comparison is SOOOOOOOOOO pErFEKkkKKTTTTT!!1!!!

That explains why they're banning all guns!! Now I understand..Alcohol kills more people every year then "assault rifles"

So do many other weapons..

shotguns, pistols, knives, blunt objects ..

cars, medical malpractice,

drugs..

Please, continue listing other objects whose sole purpose is to kill. I think it's starting to help your argument!PS- That's sarcasm. Comparing thousands of things that sometimes are used to kill (deliberately or accidentally) with a device solely designed to kill (other than your magic non-lethal bullets) is absurd.

Shotgun? Pistol? Only "sometimes" used to kill? vs an assault rifle "sole purpose is to kill", yet they both kill more people every year.. I think I'm catching on.. please go on, this is very interesting convo..

No, you're not catching on. Since those two devices don't fit the description that I wrote, those obviously aren't what I was referring to. The rest of your list is what I'm referring to. You know, the stuff that actually fits the context of what I wrote. I'm surprised you haven't listed water as a supposed counterpoint because people die in it.

So you're avoiding the point of the discussion... of course, because you have no answer.. Typical Sweeney..Shotguns kill more people Sweenster, why are we banning "assault Rifles" rather than shotguns?

 

[Carolina Hustler]

blah blah..

Maybe you can explain it then?Shotguns kill more people every year than "assault rifles" Why are we banning assault rifles and not shotguns?

I have explained it. Others have explained it. Unless you have a primary receptive language deficit, it should resonate pretty clearly to you by now why your silly counter points fail at each turn. So, either you have primary language deficit and for which I will extend my deepest sympathies and encourage you to consult with a neurologist and/or a neuropsychologist to explore the etiology of this disorder, or...you're deliberately feigning stupidity. Because, as much as I and others have intimated here, we don't honestly believe you are this stupid.

Of course, avoid the question, deflect, and insult.. Typical liberal response on this board.. To be honest, I knew you wouldn't answer the question..

Banning assault rifles is ridiculous, because assault rifles aren't the primary offender. They don't do this for us..

 

[Pots]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but Cobalt spends more time insulting others than making points toward his stance.

 

[cobalt_27]

blah blah..

Maybe you can explain it then?Shotguns kill more people every year than "assault rifles" Why are we banning assault rifles and not shotguns?

I have explained it. Others have explained it. Unless you have a primary receptive language deficit, it should resonate pretty clearly to you by now why your silly counter points fail at each turn. So, either you have primary language deficit and for which I will extend my deepest sympathies and encourage you to consult with a neurologist and/or a neuropsychologist to explore the etiology of this disorder, or...you're deliberately feigning stupidity. Because, as much as I and others have intimated here, we don't honestly believe you are this stupid.

Of course, avoid the question, deflect, and insult.. Typical liberal response on this board.. To be honest, I knew you wouldn't answer the question..

Banning assault rifles is ridiculous, because assault rifles aren't the primary offender. They don't do this for us..

That's like saying it's ridiculous to ban the use of mustard gas because mustard gas isn't the primary offender in toxic deaths in this country.Sorry you feel insulted. When you want to have an honest discussion about this, let's have one. Otherwise, you're just lobbing softballs.

 

[Carolina Hustler]

blah blah..

Maybe you can explain it then?Shotguns kill more people every year than "assault rifles" Why are we banning assault rifles and not shotguns?

I have explained it. Others have explained it. Unless you have a primary receptive language deficit, it should resonate pretty clearly to you by now why your silly counter points fail at each turn. So, either you have primary language deficit and for which I will extend my deepest sympathies and encourage you to consult with a neurologist and/or a neuropsychologist to explore the etiology of this disorder, or...you're deliberately feigning stupidity. Because, as much as I and others have intimated here, we don't honestly believe you are this stupid.

Of course, avoid the question, deflect, and insult.. Typical liberal response on this board.. To be honest, I knew you wouldn't answer the question..

Banning assault rifles is ridiculous, because assault rifles aren't the primary offender. They don't do this for us..

That's like saying it's ridiculous to ban the use of mustard gas because mustard gas isn't the primary offender in toxic deaths in this country.Sorry you feel insulted. When you want to have an honest discussion about this, let's have one. Otherwise, you're just lobbing softballs.

No it isn't.. It's like saying we're gonna ban champagne to prevent drunk driving, but beer, hard liquor, and wine, the bigger culprits, are ok..You avoid the question again...

care to answer the question?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Good Guy Newtown Victim Parent

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I don't know what to make of this:

Are you familiar with Rex 84 and Adex?

I feel like people will only believe "it" when "it" is in the MSM do themselves a disservice by not looking into things themselves.

 

[Apple Jack]

Maybe because lunatics are running around blabbering about the coming Civil War? And a gaggle of mouth-breathers might all convince themselves that something is happening that is not happening and decide to go at...something...and need to be put down? I'm just spitballin' here. Either that, or the government plans a takeover of the USA in order to takeover the USA and form a government that allows them to run things.

 

[Henry Ford]

I don't know what to make of this:

Thousands of gun owners have openly stated that they have no qualms about waging war against the United States of America and taking up arms against the government, particularly on the internet. I'd prefer if my military were prepared to put down an armed rebellion by these idiots quickly, decisively, and with minimal other casualties.That said, in an era when foreign and domestic terrorists attack major cities, why wouldn't we want the military to be able to respond?

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I don't know what to make of this:

So you support a police state?

 

[Henry Ford]

I don't know what to make of this:

I support the United States of America. Any enemies who wage war against my country, foreign or domestic, should be treated as enemy soldiers.None of that equates to supporting a police state.

 

[Run It Up]

Watching the gun violence hearing, was expecting them to jump write in with the NRA solutions, armed guards everywhere and regulations on violent video games. The second opening speech, didn't take long at all.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

I don't know what to make of this:

 

[Henry Ford]

Who is waging war against your country?

52 seconds in...

From wikipedia:

Because there are different political perspectives as to what an appropriate balance is between individual freedom and national security, there are no definitive objective standards to determine whether the term "police state" applies to a particular nation at any given point in time. Thus, it is difficult to evaluate objectively the truth of allegations that a nation is, or is not becoming, a police state. One way to view the concept of the police state and the free state is through the medium of a balance or scale, where any law focused on removing liberty is seen as moving towards a police state, and any law which limits government oversight is seen as moving towards a free state.

Currently, a number of multi-national terrorist organizations which would love to bomb and/or fire upon citizens in a densely populated area.In the future, it's entirely possible that those waging war will include the insane fringes of people who think that they understand the Constitution and its Amendments as guaranteeing them some right to shoot members of the federal government and its departments.

Should either of those scenarios lead to enemy soldiers - foreign or domestic - in one of our major cities, I'd prefer if the military had some kind of basic plan of attack.

And thanks again for a link to that great Wikipedia site. It's really illuminating on issues like political science and social policy.

 

[5 digit know nothing]

Who is waging war against your country?

52 seconds in...

From wikipedia:

Because there are different political perspectives as to what an appropriate balance is between individual freedom and national security, there are no definitive objective standards to determine whether the term "police state" applies to a particular nation at any given point in time. Thus, it is difficult to evaluate objectively the truth of allegations that a nation is, or is not becoming, a police state. One way to view the concept of the police state and the free state is through the medium of a balance or scale, where any law focused on removing liberty is seen as moving towards a police state, and any law which limits government oversight is seen as moving towards a free state.

Currently, a number of multi-national terrorist organizations which would love to bomb and/or fire upon citizens in a densely populated area.In the future, it's entirely possible that those waging war will include the insane fringes of people who think that they understand the Constitution and its Amendments as guaranteeing them some right to shoot members of the federal government and its departments.

Should either of those scenarios lead to enemy soldiers - foreign or domestic - in one of our major cities, I'd prefer if the military had some kind of basic plan of attack.

And thanks again for a link to that great Wikipedia site. It's really illuminating on issues like political science and social policy.

Wanted to be clear I had on record that you support a police state.

 

[Apple Jack]

Who is waging war against your country?

52 seconds in...

From wikipedia:

Because there are different political perspectives as to what an appropriate balance is between individual freedom and national security, there are no definitive objective standards to determine whether the term "police state" applies to a particular nation at any given point in time. Thus, it is difficult to evaluate objectively the truth of allegations that a nation is, or is not becoming, a police state. One way to view the concept of the police state and the free state is through the medium of a balance or scale, where any law focused on removing liberty is seen as moving towards a police state, and any law which limits government oversight is seen as moving towards a free state.

Currently, a number of multi-national terrorist organizations which would love to bomb and/or fire upon citizens in a densely populated area.In the future, it's entirely possible that those waging war will include the insane fringes of people who think that they understand the Constitution and its Amendments as guaranteeing them some right to shoot members of the federal government and its departments.

Should either of those scenarios lead to enemy soldiers - foreign or domestic - in one of our major cities, I'd prefer if the military had some kind of basic plan of attack.

And thanks again for a link to that great Wikipedia site. It's really illuminating on issues like political science and social policy.

Wanted to be clear I had on record that you support a police state.

This is like the socialism thing all over again.

 

[ichris]

Yes 10 murders are better than 11. In fact 0 murders are better than 10. But since there is no way we can prevent crazy people from killing, how about we try to limit the amount of damage they can attempt to do.

Placing an arbitrary limit on magazine capacity won't make a difference in a mad man's ability to harm people. The tool he uses is just a choice among many options. Suggesting a gun's "sole purpose" is to kill is a dumbed-down simplification that ignores why millions of people choose own them.

The vast majority of guns today are sold with magazines that hold over 10 rounds, that includes handguns. Since 2004 when the original AWB expired there's been at least 10 million AR15s purchased by law abiding citizens. That's just a rough guess. Then for every AR15 there's got to be at least a few standard capacity 30-round magazines to go with them. But since the politicians started talking about banning them several million more have been sold, just since last November.

Yearly NICS background checks:

'99 - 9,138,123

'00 - 8,543,037

'01 - 8,910,191

'02 - 8,454,322

'03 - 8,481,588

'04 - 8,687,671

'05 - 8,952,945

'06 - 10,036,9339

'07 - 11,177,335

'08 - 12,709,023

'09 - 14,033,824

'10 - 14,409,616

'11 - 16,454,951

'12 - 19,592,303

Even if just a third of these sales included magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, that's at least 50 million weapons. Confiscating them is a logistical impossibility. Banning future production doesn't make society any safer than it was yesterday.

These millions of new guns in law abiding citizens hands haven't caused an uptick in violent crimes according to FBI stats. I'll repeat, more guns did not cause more violence. So what makes you think a new AWB or magazine limits will make an impact?