or beyond that, assault weapons deaths (which are a relatively tiny handful to begin with) if overall gun deaths, let alone overall deaths don't go down.

1/29/2013 10:20:13 PM

this is the part i would bold:

Quote :

"Australia’s 1996 gun law reforms were followed by more than a decade free of fatal mass shootings, and accelerated declines in firearm deaths, particularly suicides. Total homicide rates followed the same pattern."

so people didn't just grab knives instead

ok, back to Chit Chat

1/29/2013 10:28:47 PM

Nailed it.

1/29/2013 11:18:40 PM

2/14/2013 2:40:56 PM

The NRA's hidden agenda, EXPOSED: http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/02/13/nra-caught-handing-out-newsletter-calling-for-treason-and-violent-revolution/

2/14/2013 10:18:28 PM

lol thanks for the update.

2/14/2013 11:23:35 PM

Quote :

" These are all great Brady talking points, but time and time again proven to be false. The fact of the matter is, is that firearm use in self-defense situations happens at close range. It's a point and shoot game. Many self defense firearms are built with this in mind; forget sites, long barrels, and all other features aimed at improving accuracy. They are point and shoot, plain and simple. The reason? Because they work. "

So then you'd agree a person doesn't need a weapon for self protection that fires 30 bullets.

Glad we're all on the same page here.

2/15/2013 1:24:37 AM

^ nobody NEEDS a carton of cigarettes, large fries, 2 liter Cokes, 12 packs of beer, or 300 hp cars either. Your stance is that we should restrict anything that people don't need because some will use it to hurt themselves or others? The problem is you're banning the majority for a relative handful of people causing the problem. It also ignores the fact that the same ends can be accomplished without it. A large capacity mag ban is a solution to a problem that basically doesn't exist, or have you forgotten that Virginia Tech was accomplished by a mad man with 10 round mags?

2/15/2013 6:58:12 AM

All these organizations against "gun violence" are way more worried about the guns than the violence

2/15/2013 7:22:44 AM

yeah... its pretty sad.

i will reiterate most of the people who are actively afraid of guns are suburban people trying to protect their kids from crazies cause the govt doesn't seem to do a good job of it. But there is also a large group of douche bags who are just afraid they're going to be an asshole to the wrong person and get shot.


IMHO crazy people will be crazy with whatever improvised weapon they can get attention with.

no point in taking away the guns... you may just be preventing someone from shooting the guy with the bomb.

2/15/2013 9:08:50 AM

Quote :

"no point in taking away the guns... you may just be preventing someone from shooting the guy with the bomb."

well, no point in regulating bombs either, people will be crazy right?

2/15/2013 9:53:47 AM

bombs can be made from anything.....

good luck stopping IEDs without limiting gasoline, fertilizer paint thinner, air compressors, PVC

fucking anything really.


again people that abide by the law are not the ones you ever have to worry about.... and making laws to restrict people that don't obey them is just fucking stupid.

Period... end of discussion.

2/15/2013 10:45:17 AM

I don't think that's going to end the discussion.

2/15/2013 11:06:32 AM

Yeah, it sounds like you're basically saying everyone should have unlimited access to any weapon they want. Like they should be able to go to the store and buy an IED or stinger missle for "protection".

2/15/2013 11:10:54 AM

Stein:

Quote :

"So then you'd agree a person doesn't need a weapon for self protection that fires 30 bullets."

I wouldn't.

First, people intent on doing you harm don't always come alone. Two, guns aren't death rays. In most defensive shootings, by civilians and police, it takes multiple hits to disable an attacker. Three, marksmanship while under the extreme stress is very difficult.

Let's say three people kick down your door in the middle of the night who are there for more than your TV. Let's say it takes five hits each to disable each attacker; not an atypical amount. Let's then says that you have a 50% hit rate; which would be pretty good when your heart rate is 195 bpm, even at close range. There's your 30 rounds.

2/15/2013 11:27:05 AM

Who are these people who knock your door down in the middle of the night and don't run away after being shot at and hit several times? If they were that intent on killing you, I would think they'd be armed, in which case if you had to shoot 30 times with a 50% hit ratio to disable them, you'll probably be dead before you make it very far through the magazine.

2/15/2013 1:25:01 PM

Quote :

"and making laws to restrict people that don't obey them is just fucking stupid."

Laws that restrict everyone ultimately result in lower supply for the people that don't obey the laws.

Also, the law (and the penalties for breaking the law) do have an impact on many potential law-breakers, otherwise, why have any laws at all? Just because there are sociopaths doesn't mean we shouldn't have laws.

2/15/2013 1:38:15 PM

^^how many rounds is acceptable in your opinion?

[Edited on February 15, 2013 at 2:01 PM. Reason : dsfa]

2/15/2013 2:01:20 PM

also, what do you think of Defense Distributed's Cuomo Mag, a 30 rd magazine with all parts except a spring printed on a 3D printer?

2/15/2013 2:21:18 PM

I was just pointing out how unrealistic and unlikely the scenario being described is.

As far as the 3d printing, you can print a whole unmarked gun, or even a grenade launcher, don't think a large clip is the worst thing.

[Edited on February 15, 2013 at 3:35 PM. Reason : ]

2/15/2013 3:29:12 PM

more likely than a school being shot up

2/15/2013 3:34:57 PM

You have evidence?

2/15/2013 3:36:31 PM

i have presented just as much as you have

2/15/2013 3:39:16 PM

So you don't have any evidence? I'm guessing you made that up. I presented an argument that defended a reasonable implied claim. You simply made a claim with nothing to support it other than the claim itself.

2/15/2013 4:17:31 PM

What probability of occurrence does an undesirable event have to have before I have the right to defend myself against it?

2/15/2013 4:20:56 PM

You could be attacked by a tank, a jet, or a nuclear weapon too, why not defend against those?

2/15/2013 5:37:02 PM

^So you don't have an answer?

2/15/2013 5:50:45 PM

I can't give a specific probability for any of the above events. Is that what you are asking?

2/15/2013 6:14:38 PM

^^^^ whatever the odds of >2 intruders breaking into your house...

[Edited on February 15, 2013 at 6:18 PM. Reason : .]

2/15/2013 6:18:28 PM

I get a warm and fuzzy feeling when I think about how mad these self defense fetishists will be when the government finally takes away their toys

all this mailing parts back and forth across the country to have them prettied up and modified and upgraded and still claiming this stuff is for self defense when anyone wants to talk about common sense reforms to the way guns are sold

it's hilarious

[Edited on February 15, 2013 at 7:41 PM. Reason : y]

2/15/2013 7:35:59 PM

(Since that comment was directed at me....)
Night sights and a red dot optic are both used to increase functionality of a firearm, and accuracy of the user. Both of these are advantageous in a self defense situation.
Getting the slide refinished did not serve a purpose. You are correct on that. It was purely for looks.


Does the fact that that gun takes magazines that hold 19 rounds make it more dangerous that the same gun with a magazine that holds 10 or less?

[Edited on February 15, 2013 at 8:12 PM. Reason : .]

2/15/2013 8:10:37 PM

when combined with measures that reduce the availability of guns, yes

but you're a gun nut so you'll fixate on a single detail and make a poor analogy and declare the conversation over

yawn

[Edited on February 15, 2013 at 8:19 PM. Reason : I'm not editing to match your edit, sorry bout it]

2/15/2013 8:18:49 PM

Quote :

"So then you'd agree a person doesn't need a weapon for self protection that fires 30 bullets."

not sure what capacity has to do with what I said. limiting magazine capacity is a solution in search of a problem. further, not one person has come up with a justification for limiting magazine capacities to a certain size. what makes you magical number the right one? or are we just arbitrarily making up numbers and feel good regulations just to say something was done?

2/15/2013 8:36:55 PM

Quote :

"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."

-SCOTUS

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

did that just blow your mind?

[Edited on February 15, 2013 at 9:06 PM. Reason : that pesky Second Amendment just keeps getting in the way]

2/15/2013 8:59:59 PM

The Supreme Court is okay with reasonable controls, the argument is if a7 or 10 rd limit is reasonable, so I'm not sure what your post was in response to.

2/15/2013 9:18:43 PM

A rounds limit seems mostly pointless, unless it's like 2 rounds (but that would never happen).

A 7 or 10 limit only serves to stoke the anger of gun nuts and polarize the issue of gun control.

There are 2 main issues, 1) rampant gang violence and other "routine" gun crimes 2) tragedies like Newtown.

Newtown could have been possibly thwarted if the mother secured her guns.

Gang violence can be thwarted by stopping the flow of illegal gun trafficking (including gun nuts who don't secure their guns getting robbed).


[Edited on February 15, 2013 at 9:26 PM. Reason : ]

2/15/2013 9:25:45 PM

they also said in U.S. vs. Miller that 2A protects "ordinary military equipment"

doesn't get much more ordinary than the standard-issue rifle of most U.S. forces with standard-issue magazines (30 rds)

seems to me that the limit should be 30 rds

in other words, Miller throws out any argument that we shouldn't have ARs just because they're "military rifles". military rifles are precisely what 2A protects.

[Edited on February 15, 2013 at 9:31 PM. Reason : adf]

2/15/2013 9:29:35 PM

my point is, if you don't want folks to have guns, repeal 2A, but don't run an end-around the constitution

2/15/2013 9:36:41 PM

^ It's possible, but military rifles also include automatic fire modes, and i bet it could be argued that the 30 round clip is a component of the automatic mode.

2/15/2013 9:37:27 PM

so then you agree that NFA of 1934 (another knee-jerk reaction to a mass shooting) violates 2A and the constitution protects my right to have a 3-round burst on my AR?

Quote :

"i bet it could be argued that the 30 round clip is a component of the automatic mode"

i'd like to see the argument

[Edited on February 15, 2013 at 9:39 PM. Reason : a]

for the record, i have no interest in full-auto or burst, but restricting it and then wanting further restrictions is just proof of the slippery slope that we complain about and antis dismiss

[Edited on February 15, 2013 at 9:42 PM. Reason : af]

2/15/2013 9:39:14 PM

Quote :

"^ It's possible, but military rifles also include automatic fire modes, and i bet it could be argued that the 30 round clip is a component of the automatic mode."

Wat? I don't see how. Action doesn't have anything to do with the amount of ammunition available (or not available).

2/15/2013 9:41:37 PM

if anything i would argue that full-auto is a factor in why standard magazines are not larger than 30 rounds. full auto requires a cooling period and the reload every 30 rds provides that. there are certainly other factors like weight, mobility, ability to shoot from prone position, reliability with tapered rifle cartridges like .223 Remington, etc.

2/15/2013 9:53:40 PM

I think the fact that automatic weapons, even amongst criminals, are rare is a testament that these type of restrictions can have meaningful long-term consequences.

I don't know enough about the current court rulings to say if these bans currently violate 2nd amendment rights, but at the time the 2nd amendment was written, i'd say such a ban certainly would be a violation of rights.

The constitution isn't sacred; there are plenty parts that are obviously goofy and irrelevant to modern times.

2/15/2013 10:04:46 PM

Quote :

"my point is, if you don't want folks to have guns, repeal 2A, but don't run an end-around the constitution"

2/15/2013 10:10:12 PM

That's impractical.

Congress debates raising the debt ceiling (which is agreeing to pay off money we already spent), they'll never, ever amend the constitution ever again.

2/15/2013 10:13:28 PM

Quote :

"Yeah, it sounds like you're basically saying everyone should have unlimited access to any weapon they want. Like they should be able to go to the store and buy an IED or stinger missle for "protection"."

i said nothing of protection...

you can already make an ied or a missle if you have half a brain...

i just think any law you think will help by limiting guns won't...

it's useless anyone that will risk breaking and entering for a gun they shouldn't otherwise be able to obtain will risk importing them or any of another half dozen ways to get a gun for use in a crime...

Outlawing all guns will keep cheating spouses from getting shot and not much more than those types of crimes of passion... which in my opinion.... are probably justified.

do a better job at controlling and assessing the mental heath and safety training of gun owners i'm all for....

doing something as arbitrary as limiting the capacity of one gun is fucking moronic... they'll just carry more guns... or find another loop-hole.

go shoot some guns at the range before you feel like you know what you are talking about and start dreaming up legislation you have no idea about.

2/15/2013 10:15:31 PM

so then your solution is run an end-around?

it's not so much that parts of the constitution are not applicable to today's society, it's that today's society is not responsible or smart enough to handle the freedoms it grants.

[Edited on February 15, 2013 at 10:20 PM. Reason : lol we'll all just start using new york reloads]

2/15/2013 10:16:54 PM

Quote :

"I think the fact that automatic weapons, even amongst criminals, are rare is a testament that these type of restrictions can have meaningful long-term consequences."

I'd say a more likely reason is: the semi-auto rifle is preferred over a fully-auto rifle amongst gun-owners in this country because it is easier to focus on each shot individually (what's behind the target? is anything else in danger?), which IMO adds to the responsibility added to each round fired and the fact that you'll likely spend less in ammunition, don't have nearly the overheating concern, and don't have to go through as many motions to realign a shot if you need to shoot more than once.

I like to think full-autos as somewhat self-regulating (like high capacity drum mags, etc. which are more likely to jam than the factory-issued standard mags) because people have found that semi-autos/standard-cap mags provide all the average gun-owner wants without the extra expense. NRR has mentioned before how the military doesn't advise our armed forces to use full auto mode all the time. I think it's more of a niche role nowadays.

2/15/2013 10:26:20 PM

^ so you are saying that if full autos were not highly restricted and thus with a lower price that people would STILL buy more semi-auto?

So an AR-15 with a fully auto setting would sell less than a current AR-15?

It is like you are in the opposite imaginary world as settledown.

2/15/2013 11:07:38 PM

Yes, full auto would be less common than semi auto.
It is expensive to shoot.

2/15/2013 11:19:57 PM