magazine limits and laws to make them non-transferrable are my main concern

not because i'm afraid i won't be able to get what i want, but because of what will be next on the slippery slope when it does nothing to stop another shooting.

1/14/2013 9:43:27 AM

Why try and solve a problem when we can just ignore it, pretend everything is fine, and claim it's a "slippery slope" any time someone attempts action?

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 10:31 AM. Reason : Really you should call it a "waterslide" since that's what you're all so "concerned" about.]

1/14/2013 10:29:13 AM

i support addressing the problem in a way that can actually reduce crime without unreasonable infringements on the rights of law-abiding citizens.

i do not feel that these two are mutually exclusive.

1/14/2013 10:36:31 AM

Yeah, I'm really hoping that reason prevails at the end and we don't have a 10-rd limit. It's just so dumb, or to keep it in language relevant to case law, its capricious and arbitrary.

I am not at all worried about the "slippery slope" because the slide will be exactly like last time, Democrats losing a bunch of seats and the NRA getting a lot more money and power. Okay never mind, I'm worried about the slipper slope too!

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 10:41 AM. Reason : .]

1/14/2013 10:40:09 AM

I would like to see universal background checks, but only in a way that doesn't amount to a de facto registry. The firearm itself shouldn't be connected to the background check or recorded along with the transaction in any way.

1/14/2013 11:22:58 AM

Is the sole argument against a registry "DEY TUK ARE GUNS" or is there a more reasonable one?

1/14/2013 11:24:34 AM

^^So if you have CCP, would you then be exempt from this?

Currently you are for getting a pistol purchase permit. My brother and I have traded/sold guns back and forth a couple times. If we both have a CCP would we need to get a background check done whenever we swap or buy/sell guns between each other? Seems like a waste of time and money in that case.

1/14/2013 11:33:29 AM

^^
the concern about confiscation is completely based on the argument that, should those guns become illegal, they would otherwise not return them and would keep them illegally

overall all though there is also a privacy concern with regards to those records. I would be fine if they were not public (or they were made anonymous before releasing to public) and think there is no reason for them to be public. academics can analyze what they need with the information made anonymous. the newspapers and blogs who published registration records hurt the cause for getting registration, the only effect they had was raising support against registration (well and getting at lease one persons guns stolen). It was a very very dumb move, but it highlights why they should not be public records in their entirety.

1/14/2013 11:40:43 AM

1/14/2013 12:00:37 PM

Quote :

"i support addressing the problem in a way that can actually reduce crime without unreasonable infringements on the rights of law-abiding citizens. i do not feel that these two are mutually exclusive."

What is unreasonable about limiting magazine size? The fact that you won't be able to spray and pray if someone breaks into your house?

1/14/2013 12:02:48 PM

cartoon ignores lives saved by defensive use every day

Quote :

"What is unreasonable about limiting magazine size? The fact that you won't be able to spray and pray if someone breaks into your house?"

the fact that what you see in the movies isn't realistic and people keep attacking after getting shot. central nervous system is about your only chance to stop someone dead in their tracks.

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 12:10 PM. Reason : asdf]

1/14/2013 12:03:46 PM

Who did you piss off that they're still going to try and come after you after you've shot them once?

Is Bruce Willis breaking into your house and trying to take your TV?

1/14/2013 12:12:35 PM

Seriously, where the fuck do you think you live? Mogadishu? In my 28 years of life there has been exactly one B&E in a neighborhood I've lived in. And by B&E I mean someone broke a glass to try to open a deadbolt and failed. The only thing you need a gun to defend yourself from is your own media fueled insecurity. Grow some balls.

1/14/2013 12:15:51 PM

i really wish that one shot (really no shots and just the realization that the victim intends to fight back) would stop every attacker, but that's not always the case, so i do my best to prepare myself.

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 12:19 PM. Reason : your anecdotal evidence is not convincing]

1/14/2013 12:18:55 PM

So the solution to being a bad shot is to hand you more bullets?

Like, lets run through the list here.

On the off chance you're robbed
On the off chance you're home while being robbed
On the off chance you're able to get to your gun
On the off chance you decide to be a hero and confront the robber
On the off chance firing a bullet doesn't dissuade him
On the off chance you proceed to miss or not be able to incapacitate him with the 9 other bullets in a 10 round magazine.

You should have more bullets?

1/14/2013 12:29:56 PM

^^^dude broke into my next door neighbors house, got a butcher knife out of the kitchen, and kicked her bedroom door in. luckily her boyfriend was staying over that night and was able to wrestle the knife away from the intruder and kill him, but not before being stabbed in the neck multiple times. it happens. see the recent rape/shooting in oakwood.

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 12:30 PM. Reason : ]

1/14/2013 12:30:06 PM

No honest data about gun ownership would suggest that you improve mortality rates with more guns.

It hurts their case that gun advocates make this argument. Statistically, there is no protection under normal conditions.

Under abnormal conditions, however, the argument for widespread gun ownership is easy as cake to make. Also, as a moral framework it's a piece of cake to argue for guns. Cops aren't obligated to protect us, as per several court decisions, QED.

It shouldn't matter that owning guns doesn't statistically protect you. The courts have shown through their words that you have no inherent right to protection by authorities.

NeuseRvrRat incorrectly makes the statistical argument, and it's just wrong. You're not safer owning a gun by the numbers. It would be better to argue that the higher mortality is a sacrifice made for the other principles that gun ownership protects.

1/14/2013 12:34:17 PM

^^^ You do realize that even cops only hit something like 1 out of every 6 shots right?

http://faculty.ncwc.edu/mstevens/205/205lect02a.htm

Quote :

" However, there seems to be a consensus among practitioners and researchers alike that police marksmanship in real-life (scene of a crime) situations is less than desirable, something along the order of one hit for every six shots (Morrison 2002). This means that in gunfighting with actual criminals, the average police officer effectiveness is at the level of 17% proficiency. This is much less, as you will have noticed, than the 84% proficiency level required for qualification in police training. It also illustrates the problem, that real-life situations are so vastly different from training situations."

Fact is, no one ever survived a gun fight a wished they had less ammunition.

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 12:36 PM. Reason : sdfg]

1/14/2013 12:35:44 PM

Quote :

"Like, lets run through the list here. On the off chance you're robbed On the off chance you're home while being robbed On the off chance you're able to get to your gun On the off chance you decide to be a hero and confront the robber On the off chance firing a bullet doesn't dissuade him On the off chance you proceed to miss or not be able to incapacitate him with the 9 other bullets in a 10 round magazine. You should have more bullets?"

Could you pigeon hole an example any further?

I can't wait to see the "President's" proposals on what gun control we need to stop events like Sandy Hook. I say it's about a 99% chance that the proposal will have nothing to do with stopping such events.

Quote :

"Is the sole argument against a registry "DEY TUK ARE GUNS" or is there a more reasonable one?"

If you're having to ask this question, and ask it in the manner in which you have, then you really shouldn't be involved in this debate.

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 12:43 PM. Reason : .]

1/14/2013 12:40:38 PM

Quote :

" "President's" "

the hell you going for there?

1/14/2013 12:41:50 PM

Quote :

"Fact is, no one ever survived a gun fight a wished they had less ammunition."

Then a million bullets for all! Lets all just get a ton of ammo and miss all our targets. Surely there will be no collateral damage from bullets flying everywhere.

1/14/2013 12:42:46 PM

Any reasonable person knows that there is no way to stop 100% of events like Sandyhook. But there are ways to make them less likely and more preventable.

1/14/2013 12:43:30 PM

^^^Because it won't be his work, his proposal, or match what he said we need gun control for. It will be Brady 2.0.

^^My god the stupidity.

^Your point?

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 12:44 PM. Reason : .]

1/14/2013 12:44:16 PM

Quote :

"Could you pigeon hole an example any further?"

I'm sorry, is it unrealistic or something? If so, please explain why, since last I checked this was the justification for needing large magazines.

1/14/2013 12:48:59 PM

perhaps there are multiple attackers

1/14/2013 12:51:21 PM

No, it's one possible scenario, certainly not the only. Besides, justification for high capacity magazines? How about you justify why not, using facts and not leftist propaganda and anecdotal evidence? Why must a freedom of the people be denied? What is the root cause? What is the best solution? Does limiting magazine capacity have an appreciable and definitive impact on crime?

1/14/2013 12:53:34 PM

so is the 2nd Amendment more important than every other Amendment?

if so, why?

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/the-strangest-conservative-priority-prepping-a-2nd-amendment-solution/266711/

1/14/2013 12:59:26 PM

nvm

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 1:03 PM. Reason : asdf]

1/14/2013 1:01:59 PM

Quote :

"perhaps there are multiple attackers"

So now, after potentially shooting one of his co-attackers, a second attacker is going to attempt to kill you rather than aid his friend that you shot?

Or now it's a two-on-one, kill or be killed battle!

Or maybe they're all wearing body armor because they realized taking you jewelry was going to be a full on SWAT team breach.

Man. Maybe video games really are fucking with people's heads if these are the scenarios you all think are likely.

1/14/2013 1:03:21 PM

Quote :

"So now, after potentially shooting one of his co-attackers, a second attacker is going to attempt to kill you rather than aid his friend that you shot?"

how am i supposed to know? it has happened. all we can do is lose the victim mentality and be prepared.

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 1:04 PM. Reason : asdf]

1/14/2013 1:04:25 PM

Quote :

"So now, after potentially shooting one of his co-attackers, a second attacker is going to attempt to kill you rather than aid his friend that you shot? Or now it's a two-on-one, kill or be killed battle! Or maybe they're all wearing body armor because they realized taking you jewelry was going to be a full on SWAT team breach. Man. Maybe video games really are fucking with people's heads if these are the scenarios you all think are likely."

None of this matters. Whatever scenarios you want to dream up are irrelevant. The justification for "high" capacity magazines is that there is no legitimate justification for not allowing them. By the way, what is a "high" capacity magazine? Brady's "compromise" of 10 rounds? What's special about 10? Why not 20? Or 3? or 7? Or the weight of the firearm divided by 10 times 2?

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 1:12 PM. Reason : .]

1/14/2013 1:10:42 PM

Quote :

"how am i supposed to know? it has happened. all we can do is lose the victim mentality and be prepared."

be prepared to miss, you mean.

Since apparently it's not just that you have the gun, it's that you have the gun and the ability to be an absolutely terrible shot while still claiming you're actually trying to protect your family.

Not to mention that you firing on someone only escalates the situation, but everyone seems to want a good ol' fashioned gun battle, so by all means.

1/14/2013 1:10:48 PM

Quote :

"f you're having to ask this question, and ask it in the manner in which you have, then you really shouldn't be involved in this debate."

I thought it was phrased nicely. I asked if there was a better argument than the silly idea that the government is going to use a registration to know which doors to knock down when they come to take your guns, which is not going to happen. I genuinely want to know.

Quote :

"You do realize that even cops only hit something like 1 out of every 6 shots right?"

Thus why the shotgun is a more effective home defense firearm.

Quote :

"How about you justify why not, using facts "

Ok, the three most recent mass murders used high-capacity magazines.

1/14/2013 1:12:37 PM

hardly the results of rigorous study and analysis. 3 individual incidents.

Or are you suggesting that the legal threshold for outlawing an otherwise legal object is when three criminals break the law by using an object at least three times to commit crimes?

There should be registration and permits required for crowbar ownership. Just think how many fewer doors would be forced open by them!



[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 1:19 PM. Reason : you're right.]

1/14/2013 1:13:14 PM

That's not anecdotal, that's a fact about the previous 3 mass murders.

You don't know what anecdotal evidence is.

1/14/2013 1:17:13 PM

Quote :

"Or are you suggesting that the legal threshold for outlawing an otherwise legal object is when three criminals break the law by using an object at least three times to commit crimes? "

When there's not a legitimate reason to not-outlaw them, sure.

1/14/2013 1:18:08 PM

Sure there is.

Quote :

"When there's not a legitimate reason to not-outlaw them, sure."

It is truly scary when people think that this should be one of the methods in determining how government controls its people.

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 1:22 PM. Reason : .]

1/14/2013 1:19:59 PM

Quote :

"Thus why the shotgun is a more effective home defense firearm."

what is the average spread of a shot pattern from a 12 ga home defense shotgun at average home defense ranges?

1/14/2013 1:20:21 PM

Depends on the shell.

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 1:22 PM. Reason : OMG GUN EXPERT]

1/14/2013 1:21:51 PM

so what would be the high end?

typical .223 defense rounds are far less likely to penetrate walls than the usual handgun and shotgun defense ammunition.

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 1:30 PM. Reason : asdf]

1/14/2013 1:24:00 PM

depends on the gun and choke

can we skip the game and you can just say where you're going with this and we'll play 'gotcha' another time?

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 1:30 PM. Reason : ]

1/14/2013 1:30:07 PM

you still have to aim a shotgun just like you would a rifle in a defensive situation. shot patterns are only a few inches from defense shotguns at typical home defense ranges. they don't put out the magical wall of lead that the movies and gunshop salesmen would like you to believe.

.223 defense ammunition is about the best balance between reducing wall penetration and still inflicting enough damage on an attacker to get them to stop. it's a good choice if you have neighbors nearby.

since very few folks in here actually seem interested in a calm, reasonable discussion (this goes for both sides), i'll at least take the opportunity to post some information for those who have been misguided by the media and stupid gun owners who haven't got a clue.



[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 1:42 PM. Reason : wall penetration is a major concern with a shotgun]

1/14/2013 1:39:14 PM

Quote :

"Not to mention that you firing on someone only escalates the situation, but everyone seems to want a good ol' fashioned gun battle, so by all mean"

Really? Because if you watch robbery/intruder videos, you'll see that at least 95% of the time, the criminal leaves at the sight of the victim holding a firearm or hearing shots fired. No one wants to get shot. It's human nature to preserve your own life and run to safety and that's exactly what most of these criminals do. And if the criminal doesn't run away, chances are they were willing to die for whatever they were going to do, so you'd be left with no choice but to either be completely victimized at their mercy or take matters in your own hands. No, you aren't escalating a situation; you're resolving it because the situation shouldn't have fuckin' happened to begin with. If they get away, then the situation ended and no one got hurt. If you shoot and they want to stick around, then you weren't coming out of the situation as unscathed as you might imagine. Don't be naive. Plan for the worst, hope for the best.

How about this, you choose to live your life without firearms and stop infringing on my right to live with them.

I understand that even birdshot will penetrate walls and such, but after going through a wall, is birdshot/target loads any where near lethal?

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 1:50 PM. Reason : .]

1/14/2013 1:48:05 PM

Quote :

"How about this, you choose to live your life without firearms and stop infringing on my right to live with them."

oh boy, that opens up one hell of a can of worms

1/14/2013 1:53:46 PM

Quote :

"Really? Because if you watch robbery/intruder videos, you'll see that at least 95% of the time, the criminal leaves at the sight of the victim holding a firearm or hearing shots fired. No one wants to get shot. It's human nature to preserve your own life and run to safety and that's exactly what most of these criminals do."

I'll point out that I pointed out pretty much exactly this, but NeuseRvrRat thinks he's going to be attacked by multiple attackers who aren't afraid that someone is armed and want him dead.

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 1:59 PM. Reason : Escalation isn't inherently bad either.]

1/14/2013 1:56:40 PM

if you want to throw out the home defense situation as statistically insignificant, then we can also throw out mass shootings as statistically insignificant

1/14/2013 1:59:40 PM

Quote :

"if you want to throw out the home defense situation as statistically insignificant, then we can also throw out mass shootings as statistically insignificant"

So then you don't need a gun? Is that what you're saying?

1/14/2013 2:04:17 PM

Quote :

"multiple attackers who aren't afraid that someone is armed and want him dead."

Depends. If an intruder hears another man's voice, he may run. If he hears a females, he'll quickly weigh the odds, and probably risk it (knowing that men are usually stronger than females and will take her on, if not invite himself to rape her).

if there are multiple intruders, they may feel that odds are in their favor and pursue their criminal activity despite resistance in hopes they can overcome/overwelm their victim.

My point is anyways that more times than not, they'll run. But that doesn't make it absolute; some will fight. Some won't give up until they clearly have "lost"

1/14/2013 2:05:14 PM

Quote :

"So then you don't need a gun? Is that what you're saying?"

so then we shouldn't really be inspired to action by a mass shooting? is that what you're saying?

1/14/2013 2:06:16 PM

Quote :

"so then we shouldn't really be inspired to action by a mass shooting? is that what you're saying?"

Correct. We need action regardless of mass shootings.

1/14/2013 2:11:31 PM