Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action.
On December 28 2012 02:13 Sermokala wrote: Eh the same argument can be applied to restricting people being able to use tobacco or other drug abuse. It harms themselves and the people around them overrules their "right" to do whatever they want in a free country.
Well, there is a big difference: Guns are able to limit the freedom of others and even kill other people. Drugs only harm yourself.
That is not true, although the connection is not as strong as many people say it is for guns. The damage caused by drug addiction is much more far-reaching than the health of the addict. Similarly, the damage caused by gun owners is much more far-reaching than the people killed by the lawful owner of the gun.
But it does make acting on an urge a lot easier. It's like when you see these people who have an argument in the kitchen and one of them ends up on the wrong end of the carving knife. Except gun ownership is on another level, the damage you can do with a gun in a short time period when compared to a knife is massive.
I think the unfortunate thing is most gun pro Americans will stick to their blind faith in the second amendment like the words of the bible until something as tragic as the Conneticut shooting affects them directly.
Knives and cars can make acting on an urge a lot easier, too.
Yes but like discussed earlier in this thread the benefits outweigh the negatives. Without publicly available cars and knives the developed world wouldn't function, these items main function is not to kill or maim whereas a guns is. (remember modern day knives are designed for slicing meat and vegetables not slitting throats).
And to repeat myself a gun in the right hands will do a lot more damage than a knife or a car.
A gun in the right hands can also prevent a lot more damage then a knife or a car.
Yes such as the police and the armed forces
Oh, now I feel much safer knowing how many murders the police are preventing with all these statistics being thrown out about how much more gun violence America has then other 1st world countries. Keep up the good work Policemen and armed services.
Wow, just wow... I'm sure the police are to blame that there are so many gun related crimes in a country where guns are legal or extremely easy to obtain in the states where they are illegal due to the surrounding states having guns so readily available
His point is that a gun in the right hands can prevent damage. Your point is that "the right hands" means police and armed forces only ( excluding civilians ). He then replies sarcastically that the police doesn't really prevent those murders. His point isn't that the police is to blame, it's that the police isn't eifficient. You either misunderstood that for "the police is to blame" or purposefully ignored his point.
To contribute to the thread i'll also leave that video ( related to " a gun in the right hands can also prevent a lot more damage than a knife or a car " )
I ignored his point about the police because it is not the underlying problem.
Aaaaah i see. You basically admit that he is right and you cannot argue against his argument, so you ignore it on purpose and reply with a fallacy. Thanks.
Thought maybe this is relevant to the topic. The US is definitely a most violent country but guns seem to get all the media attention.
That is very surprising to me. It was to my understanding that smoking was actually highly frowned upon in the US. Guess i was wrong about that Edit : well i might not have been wrong, it just means that cigarettes kill a helluva lot more people than guns do, but still...
If you actually read my post you would have read that I agreed that the police are inefficient as it is. Arming the general public and letting them act as vigilantes is not the answer to that problem. Removing and restricting guns is.
On December 28 2012 02:13 Sermokala wrote: Eh the same argument can be applied to restricting people being able to use tobacco or other drug abuse. It harms themselves and the people around them overrules their "right" to do whatever they want in a free country.
Well, there is a big difference: Guns are able to limit the freedom of others and even kill other people. Drugs only harm yourself.
If you go to the shooting range you're not harming anyone. If you inject some heroin your veins you're not harming anyone besides you. Now if you shoot someone, you will do him harm. If you inject heroin in his veins you will also seriously fu*k him up.
I don't have a gun, i've never had one ( i'm european ), but i'm not sure this argument really stands. As for limiting the freedom, i don't see how someone owning a gun limits someone else ( who doesn't own a gun ) 's freedom. However i can see how someone wanting to further resctrict gun ownership for civilians restricts other people's freedom.
Edit : Or, as micronesia's post suggests, we could also factor in the more "indirect" effects of gun ownership / drug abuse. But i highly doubt that noticing that you own a gun will do more harm to your relatives and friends than noticing you're taking drugs.
On December 28 2012 02:30 micronesia wrote: That is not true, although the connection is not as strong as many people say it is for guns. The damage caused by drug addiction is much more far-reaching than the health of the addict. Similarly, the damage caused by gun owners is much more far-reaching than the people killed by the lawful owner of the gun.
Owning a gun don't make your more likely to commit a mass murder more than playing a violent vidjya game.
But it does make acting on an urge a lot easier. It's like when you see these people who have an argument in the kitchen and one of them ends up on the wrong end of the carving knife. Except gun ownership is on another level, the damage you can do with a gun in a short time period when compared to a knife is massive.
I think the unfortunate thing is most gun pro Americans will stick to their blind faith in the second amendment like the words of the bible until something as tragic as the Conneticut shooting affects them directly.
Knives and cars can make acting on an urge a lot easier, too.
Yes but like discussed earlier in this thread the benefits outweigh the negatives. Without publicly available cars and knives the developed world wouldn't function, these items main function is not to kill or maim whereas a guns is. (remember modern day knives are designed for slicing meat and vegetables not slitting throats).
And to repeat myself a gun in the right hands will do a lot more damage than a knife or a car.
A gun in the right hands can also prevent a lot more damage then a knife or a car.
Yes such as the police and the armed forces
And they've never used their weapons or authority without proper cause, like civilians do. Right?
Of course they have but the amount of cases is much lower than that of civilian usage. Did a policeman kill those 4 firefighters? Did a policeman shoot all those innocent children? Did a policeman shoot up a cinema? No crazy civilian people did with weapons no one should ever need in a cilivian lifestyle because they had access to them.
You simply can't expect the police to be everywhere instantly. If you're being attacked, you have a couple of minutes at most before you're dead or seriously injured. The police can take 20 minutes or more, if they even come at all.
I did not know this.. WTF!! "The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists."
On December 27 2012 10:29 GnarlyArbitrage wrote: [quote]
Knives and cars can make acting on an urge a lot easier, too.
Yes but like discussed earlier in this thread the benefits outweigh the negatives. Without publicly available cars and knives the developed world wouldn't function, these items main function is not to kill or maim whereas a guns is. (remember modern day knives are designed for slicing meat and vegetables not slitting throats).
And to repeat myself a gun in the right hands will do a lot more damage than a knife or a car.
A gun in the right hands can also prevent a lot more damage then a knife or a car.
Yes such as the police and the armed forces
Oh, now I feel much safer knowing how many murders the police are preventing with all these statistics being thrown out about how much more gun violence America has then other 1st world countries. Keep up the good work Policemen and armed services.
Wow, just wow... I'm sure the police are to blame that there are so many gun related crimes in a country where guns are legal or extremely easy to obtain in the states where they are illegal due to the surrounding states having guns so readily available
His point is that a gun in the right hands can prevent damage. Your point is that "the right hands" means police and armed forces only ( excluding civilians ). He then replies sarcastically that the police doesn't really prevent those murders. His point isn't that the police is to blame, it's that the police isn't eifficient. You either misunderstood that for "the police is to blame" or purposefully ignored his point.
To contribute to the thread i'll also leave that video ( related to " a gun in the right hands can also prevent a lot more damage than a knife or a car " ) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IooR29LT5hM
I ignored his point about the police because it is not the underlying problem.
Aaaaah i see. You basically admit that he is right and you cannot argue against his argument, so you ignore it on purpose and reply with a fallacy. Thanks.
Thought maybe this is relevant to the topic. The US is definitely a most violent country but guns seem to get all the media attention.
That is very surprising to me. It was to my understanding that smoking was actually highly frowned upon in the US. Guess i was wrong about that Edit : well i might not have been wrong, it just means that cigarettes kill a helluva lot more people than guns do, but still...
If you actually read my post you would have read that I agreed that the police are inefficient as it is. Arming the general public and letting them act as vigilantes is not the answer to that problem. Removing and restricting guns is.
It's not vigilantism to defend yourself. Using the word, in fact, is an attempt to create a negative emotion about gun owners. If they use it for self defense as laid down in the law, it can not possibly be vigilantism, which is extralegal by definition.
The cops in a lot of the US suck. Not all of them, but enough of them. Even if they were all generally decent, they'd be way too busy to be completely effective.
Police are, also, a reactive force, rather than preventive. Reacting to a crime is all well and good, but it doesn't usually stop whatever harm is being done from being done.
Owning a gun don't make your more likely to commit a mass murder more than playing a violent vidjya game.
But it does make acting on an urge a lot easier. It's like when you see these people who have an argument in the kitchen and one of them ends up on the wrong end of the carving knife. Except gun ownership is on another level, the damage you can do with a gun in a short time period when compared to a knife is massive.
I think the unfortunate thing is most gun pro Americans will stick to their blind faith in the second amendment like the words of the bible until something as tragic as the Conneticut shooting affects them directly.
Knives and cars can make acting on an urge a lot easier, too.
Yes but like discussed earlier in this thread the benefits outweigh the negatives. Without publicly available cars and knives the developed world wouldn't function, these items main function is not to kill or maim whereas a guns is. (remember modern day knives are designed for slicing meat and vegetables not slitting throats).
And to repeat myself a gun in the right hands will do a lot more damage than a knife or a car.
A gun in the right hands can also prevent a lot more damage then a knife or a car.
Yes such as the police and the armed forces
And they've never used their weapons or authority without proper cause, like civilians do. Right?
Of course they have but the amount of cases is much lower than that of civilian usage. Did a policeman kill those 4 firefighters? Did a policeman shoot all those innocent children? Did a policeman shoot up a cinema? No crazy civilian people did with weapons no one should ever need in a cilivian lifestyle because they had access to them.
You simply can't expect the police to be everywhere instantly. If you're being attacked, you have a couple of minutes at most before you're dead or seriously injured. The police can take 20 minutes or more, if they even come at all.
I did not know this.. WTF!! "The court stated that official police personnel and the government employing them owe no duty to victims of criminal acts and thus are not liable for a failure to provide adequate police protection unless a special relationship exists."
Otherwise you could sue the state whenever someone commits a criminal act on public property. They are responsible for whatever we (through the state) say they are, and nothing more. I think you're thrown off by the wording.
On December 28 2012 02:13 Sermokala wrote: Eh the same argument can be applied to restricting people being able to use tobacco or other drug abuse. It harms themselves and the people around them overrules their "right" to do whatever they want in a free country.
Well, there is a big difference: Guns are able to limit the freedom of others and even kill other people. Drugs only harm yourself.
That is not true, although the connection is not as strong as many people say it is for guns. The damage caused by drug addiction is much more far-reaching than the health of the addict. Similarly, the damage caused by gun owners is much more far-reaching than the people killed by the lawful owner of the gun.
Obviously everything we do effects those around us. It's pretty clear that being shot is a much more direct connection than the toll a drug addict takes on those close to him.
On December 28 2012 02:13 Sermokala wrote: Eh the same argument can be applied to restricting people being able to use tobacco or other drug abuse. It harms themselves and the people around them overrules their "right" to do whatever they want in a free country.
Well, there is a big difference: Guns are able to limit the freedom of others and even kill other people. Drugs only harm yourself.
That is not true, although the connection is not as strong as many people say it is for guns. The damage caused by drug addiction is much more far-reaching than the health of the addict. Similarly, the damage caused by gun owners is much more far-reaching than the people killed by the lawful owner of the gun.
Obviously everything we do effects those around us. It's pretty clear that being shot is a much more direct connection than the toll a drug addict takes on those close to him.
Well I was thinking this way:
Hard Drugs:
Cons for addict/user: Degrades Health, Ruins other aspects of life Cons for others: Get mugged/robbed by addict who needs money to get fix, get hurt/killed by guy who is high on certain drugs, ruined life of family member/friend/etc
Guns:
Cons for legal gun owner: could cause a home invasion or domestic dispute to escalate unecessarily Cons for others: if gun is stolen, could be used to shoot innocent people
On December 28 2012 02:13 Sermokala wrote: Eh the same argument can be applied to restricting people being able to use tobacco or other drug abuse. It harms themselves and the people around them overrules their "right" to do whatever they want in a free country.
Well, there is a big difference: Guns are able to limit the freedom of others and even kill other people. Drugs only harm yourself.
If you go to the shooting range you're not harming anyone. If you inject some heroin your veins you're not harming anyone besides you. Now if you shoot someone, you will do him harm. If you inject heroin in his veins you will also seriously fu*k him up.
I don't have a gun, i've never had one ( i'm european ), but i'm not sure this argument really stands. As for limiting the freedom, i don't see how someone owning a gun limits someone else ( who doesn't own a gun ) 's freedom. However i can see how someone wanting to further resctrict gun ownership for civilians restricts other people's freedom.
Edit : Or, as micronesia's post suggests, we could also factor in the more "indirect" effects of gun ownership / drug abuse. But i highly doubt that noticing that you own a gun will do more harm to your relatives and friends than noticing you're taking drugs.
On December 28 2012 02:30 micronesia wrote: That is not true, although the connection is not as strong as many people say it is for guns. The damage caused by drug addiction is much more far-reaching than the health of the addict. Similarly, the damage caused by gun owners is much more far-reaching than the people killed by the lawful owner of the gun.
If you shoot up with heroin, you're hurting your family and friends. Addicts are shitty people to be around; they lie, cheat, steal, and are just generally unpleasant. So simply by using heroin, you're hurting people.
On December 28 2012 02:13 Sermokala wrote: Eh the same argument can be applied to restricting people being able to use tobacco or other drug abuse. It harms themselves and the people around them overrules their "right" to do whatever they want in a free country.
Well, there is a big difference: Guns are able to limit the freedom of others and even kill other people. Drugs only harm yourself.
If you go to the shooting range you're not harming anyone. If you inject some heroin your veins you're not harming anyone besides you. Now if you shoot someone, you will do him harm. If you inject heroin in his veins you will also seriously fu*k him up.
I don't have a gun, i've never had one ( i'm european ), but i'm not sure this argument really stands. As for limiting the freedom, i don't see how someone owning a gun limits someone else ( who doesn't own a gun ) 's freedom. However i can see how someone wanting to further resctrict gun ownership for civilians restricts other people's freedom.
Edit : Or, as micronesia's post suggests, we could also factor in the more "indirect" effects of gun ownership / drug abuse. But i highly doubt that noticing that you own a gun will do more harm to your relatives and friends than noticing you're taking drugs.
On December 28 2012 02:30 micronesia wrote: That is not true, although the connection is not as strong as many people say it is for guns. The damage caused by drug addiction is much more far-reaching than the health of the addict. Similarly, the damage caused by gun owners is much more far-reaching than the people killed by the lawful owner of the gun.
If you shoot up with heroin, you're hurting your family and friends. Addicts are shitty people to be around; they lie, cheat, steal, and are just generally unpleasant. So simply by using heroin, you're hurting people.
In my experience most drug addicts where shitty people to be around before they ever touched drugs, you can hardly blame the drugs for it.
On December 28 2012 02:13 Sermokala wrote: Eh the same argument can be applied to restricting people being able to use tobacco or other drug abuse. It harms themselves and the people around them overrules their "right" to do whatever they want in a free country.
Well, there is a big difference: Guns are able to limit the freedom of others and even kill other people. Drugs only harm yourself.
If you go to the shooting range you're not harming anyone. If you inject some heroin your veins you're not harming anyone besides you. Now if you shoot someone, you will do him harm. If you inject heroin in his veins you will also seriously fu*k him up.
I don't have a gun, i've never had one ( i'm european ), but i'm not sure this argument really stands. As for limiting the freedom, i don't see how someone owning a gun limits someone else ( who doesn't own a gun ) 's freedom. However i can see how someone wanting to further resctrict gun ownership for civilians restricts other people's freedom.
Edit : Or, as micronesia's post suggests, we could also factor in the more "indirect" effects of gun ownership / drug abuse. But i highly doubt that noticing that you own a gun will do more harm to your relatives and friends than noticing you're taking drugs.
On December 28 2012 02:30 micronesia wrote: That is not true, although the connection is not as strong as many people say it is for guns. The damage caused by drug addiction is much more far-reaching than the health of the addict. Similarly, the damage caused by gun owners is much more far-reaching than the people killed by the lawful owner of the gun.
If you shoot up with heroin, you're hurting your family and friends. Addicts are shitty people to be around; they lie, cheat, steal, and are just generally unpleasant. So simply by using heroin, you're hurting people.
In my experience most drug addicts where shitty people to be around before they ever touched drugs, you can hardly blame the drugs for it.
Drugs certainly don't help the situation.
It's kinda funny, replace drugs with guns, and you've almost made the exact same argument as us pro-gun folks. Most violent criminals were terrible people without guns too.
Is this really the road we want to travel? Layer in more and more absurdity in an effort to prevent people from having anything more dangerous than string cheese? (Which will eventually be banned as well, since you could use it to cause severe discomfort to the lactose intolerant if you tricked or forced them into eating it.)
Yes, removing X, Y, and Z can make people safer from X, Y, and Z. That's if you succesfully remove them. Of which I have my doubts. But then people just move on to the next object to vilify, and the next. Eventually, shoelaces are illegal unless you're a certified hiker or camper, because you could garrote people with them. Power cords are banned, because outlets pose a risk of electrical shock. Matches? Oh hell no.
Is this really the road we want to travel? Layer in more and more absurdity in an effort to prevent people from having anything more dangerous than string cheese? (Which will eventually be banned as well, since you could use it to cause severe discomfort to the lactose intolerant if you tricked or forced them into eating it.)
Yes, removing X, Y, and Z can make people safer from X, Y, and Z. That's if you succesfully remove them. Of which I have my doubts. But then people just move on to the next object to vilify, and the next. Eventually, shoelaces are illegal unless you're a certified hiker or camper, because you could garrote people with them. Power cords are banned, because outlets pose a risk of electrical shock. Matches? Oh hell no.
The difference is the use. If you use guns for hunting, then I see no reason for you not to have one. Knives are used in the kitchen every day, you need them. Same with cars. But semi automatic 30 clip magazine rifles does not serve any purpose other than recreational, which I'm also fine with. But there needs to be a checkup before you can buy one, and preferably a couple of mandatory lessons in gun safety before you get your license.
Is this really the road we want to travel? Layer in more and more absurdity in an effort to prevent people from having anything more dangerous than string cheese? (Which will eventually be banned as well, since you could use it to cause severe discomfort to the lactose intolerant if you tricked or forced them into eating it.)
Yes, removing X, Y, and Z can make people safer from X, Y, and Z. That's if you succesfully remove them. Of which I have my doubts. But then people just move on to the next object to vilify, and the next. Eventually, shoelaces are illegal unless you're a certified hiker or camper, because you could garrote people with them. Power cords are banned, because outlets pose a risk of electrical shock. Matches? Oh hell no.
The difference is the use. If you use guns for hunting, then I see no reason for you not to have one. Knives are used in the kitchen every day, you need them. Same with cars. But semi automatic 30 clip magazine rifles does not serve any purpose other than recreational, which I'm also fine with. But there needs to be a checkup before you can buy one, and preferably a couple of mandatory lessons in gun safety before you get your license.
Ah, but see, you're not calling for bans. That was more addressed at the people who are. I'm a firm believer that there's nothing wrong with putting better stuff in place to keep the guns out of the hands of whackjobs.
That "other than recreational, which I'm also fine with" caveat you put in there tends to be one of those hotly argued points central to the entire debate.
Is this really the road we want to travel? Layer in more and more absurdity in an effort to prevent people from having anything more dangerous than string cheese? (Which will eventually be banned as well, since you could use it to cause severe discomfort to the lactose intolerant if you tricked or forced them into eating it.)
Yes, removing X, Y, and Z can make people safer from X, Y, and Z. That's if you succesfully remove them. Of which I have my doubts. But then people just move on to the next object to vilify, and the next. Eventually, shoelaces are illegal unless you're a certified hiker or camper, because you could garrote people with them. Power cords are banned, because outlets pose a risk of electrical shock. Matches? Oh hell no.
The difference is the use. If you use guns for hunting, then I see no reason for you not to have one. Knives are used in the kitchen every day, you need them. Same with cars. But semi automatic 30 clip magazine rifles does not serve any purpose other than recreational, which I'm also fine with. But there needs to be a checkup before you can buy one, and preferably a couple of mandatory lessons in gun safety before you get your license.
Large magazines are actually better for training. The less often you have to reload, the easier it is to keep your point of aim steady. Basically, you get better practice if you have larger magazines, because you don't break your focus as often to reload.
Is this really the road we want to travel? Layer in more and more absurdity in an effort to prevent people from having anything more dangerous than string cheese? (Which will eventually be banned as well, since you could use it to cause severe discomfort to the lactose intolerant if you tricked or forced them into eating it.)
Yes, removing X, Y, and Z can make people safer from X, Y, and Z. That's if you succesfully remove them. Of which I have my doubts. But then people just move on to the next object to vilify, and the next. Eventually, shoelaces are illegal unless you're a certified hiker or camper, because you could garrote people with them. Power cords are banned, because outlets pose a risk of electrical shock. Matches? Oh hell no.
The difference is the use. If you use guns for hunting, then I see no reason for you not to have one. Knives are used in the kitchen every day, you need them. Same with cars. But semi automatic 30 clip magazine rifles does not serve any purpose other than recreational, which I'm also fine with. But there needs to be a checkup before you can buy one, and preferably a couple of mandatory lessons in gun safety before you get your license.
Large magazines are actually better for training. The less often you have to reload, the easier it is to keep your point of aim steady. Basically, you get better practice if you have larger magazines, because you don't break your focus as often to reload.
Nonsense, unless you're "training" for target shooting from a rest, the best training will come as close as possible to mimicking the scenario you're training for. If you're training for self defense, IDPA or something similar is better, and that has fairly frequent reloading.
This is kinda backwards I think. I think the question should really be: "Why shouldn't people have the right to own and/or carry guns".
The bill of rights and just the general principle of freedom would allow any person to own a weapon. Using a weapon on someone would be an infringement of someone else's right to life. The next question is whether owning a gun in itself is an infringement of other's rights. Probably not, but the case can be made that individuals who cannot make rational decisions and themselves are a threat to other's should not be allowed to carry a gun since just holding one would be a threat against other's lives. This also means that individuals who give guns or make guns available to those who would use them for harm are themselves at least partially responsible.
I think this is where the conversation really begins. I think individuals must secure their weapons (guns, knives, cars, etc) in a reasonable manner such that those who would cause harm to others are not able to easily obtain them. If someone breaks into a safe or breaks a lock or something, then on a case by case basis it should be determined whether or not the individual was somewhat responsible at securing their weapon.
I really think there is a better way though. Weapon liability insurance. Gun owners should be able to shove liability onto insurers in order to secure their weapons more appropriately. Insurers can encourage better behavior through discounting and penalties for failure to comply with insurance rules. There will be discounts for securing weapons with better locks, gun training, and purchasing guns with a lower number of rounds available.
I'm happy to continue this line of thought if anyone else is.
Is this really the road we want to travel? Layer in more and more absurdity in an effort to prevent people from having anything more dangerous than string cheese? (Which will eventually be banned as well, since you could use it to cause severe discomfort to the lactose intolerant if you tricked or forced them into eating it.)
Yes, removing X, Y, and Z can make people safer from X, Y, and Z. That's if you succesfully remove them. Of which I have my doubts. But then people just move on to the next object to vilify, and the next. Eventually, shoelaces are illegal unless you're a certified hiker or camper, because you could garrote people with them. Power cords are banned, because outlets pose a risk of electrical shock. Matches? Oh hell no.
The difference is the use. If you use guns for hunting, then I see no reason for you not to have one. Knives are used in the kitchen every day, you need them. Same with cars. But semi automatic 30 clip magazine rifles does not serve any purpose other than recreational, which I'm also fine with. But there needs to be a checkup before you can buy one, and preferably a couple of mandatory lessons in gun safety before you get your license.
Large magazines are actually better for training. The less often you have to reload, the easier it is to keep your point of aim steady. Basically, you get better practice if you have larger magazines, because you don't break your focus as often to reload.
Nonsense, unless you're "training" for target shooting from a rest, the best training will come as close as possible to mimicking the scenario you're training for. If you're training for self defense, IDPA or something similar is better, and that has fairly frequent reloading.
My brother and I have legal .22 magazines that hold 30+ rounds. It's a real pain in the ass to stop and reload the 10 round clips that come with the 10/22 over and over when you just shooting cans or something. It's only legal to have more than 5 round capacity in a .22 in Canada. If you shave down a little piece of metal in the SKS clip it can hold 7 but you can get into big big trouble for doing that.
Is this really the road we want to travel? Layer in more and more absurdity in an effort to prevent people from having anything more dangerous than string cheese? (Which will eventually be banned as well, since you could use it to cause severe discomfort to the lactose intolerant if you tricked or forced them into eating it.)
Yes, removing X, Y, and Z can make people safer from X, Y, and Z. That's if you succesfully remove them. Of which I have my doubts. But then people just move on to the next object to vilify, and the next. Eventually, shoelaces are illegal unless you're a certified hiker or camper, because you could garrote people with them. Power cords are banned, because outlets pose a risk of electrical shock. Matches? Oh hell no.
The difference is the use. If you use guns for hunting, then I see no reason for you not to have one. Knives are used in the kitchen every day, you need them. Same with cars. But semi automatic 30 clip magazine rifles does not serve any purpose other than recreational, which I'm also fine with. But there needs to be a checkup before you can buy one, and preferably a couple of mandatory lessons in gun safety before you get your license.
Large magazines are actually better for training. The less often you have to reload, the easier it is to keep your point of aim steady. Basically, you get better practice if you have larger magazines, because you don't break your focus as often to reload.
Nonsense, unless you're "training" for target shooting from a rest, the best training will come as close as possible to mimicking the scenario you're training for. If you're training for self defense, IDPA or something similar is better, and that has fairly frequent reloading.
My brother and I have legal .22 magazines that hold 30+ rounds. It's a real pain in the ass to stop and reload the 10 round clips that come with the 10/22 over and over when you just shooting cans or something. It's only legal to have more than 5 round capacity in a .22 in Canada. If you shave down a little piece of metal in the SKS clip it can hold 7 but you can get into big big trouble for doing that.
Ok, but that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. If it's a pain in the ass for you, that's one thing, get speedloaders. But as far as having to change mags or take the sights off the target "interfering" which is what I was responding to, what I said still stands.
When I was in a youth riflery club shooting target 22s, we used single-shots and had to reload after each round. I found that to make more sense for target shooting than semi-auto. Semi-auto does have its purposes, but single-shots have some real advantages as well.
EPT
![[image loading]](https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc6/375445_432479896821641_1449476806_n.jpg)
