|
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 February 06 2013 08:53 Dawski wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 08:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 08:31 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:22 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 06:33 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:50 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:43 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:36 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:29 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:15 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
[quote]
You're not refusing to compromise on all the wrong points, you're simply refusing to compromise. What are the main three facets of the proposed legislation? Magazine capacity limits, assault weapons ban, and universal background checks. These are changes that will not have a sweeping and immediate effect on gun violence, but they are a start. Any legislation that was proposed that actually would have immediate substantial impact would be immediately shot down. The only legislation that has any hope of being passed is going to be relatively inconsequential.
Going by numbers, stricter regulation of handguns would the obvious choice. It would also be an infinitely more difficult fight to pass any legislation on it, and would be both politically suicidal and futile to try.
Also, although you think the proposed legislation is arbitrary, many other intelligent people could argue the contrary. Universal background checks in particular I think is hard to oppose with any rational argument.
There is no legislation being proposed that will turn 30% of the adult population overnight into felons. You're being sensational. Nobody is going to come and take your AR-15, even if they are banned. You will not be a felon if it passes.
This post essentially admits that you're more worried about taking away guns than fixing any problems. Saying you're ok with banning things that don't get used for crimes to prevent crimes is ludicrous. Spare me the crap about refusing to compromise when you can't even admit that "evil looking assault weapons" don't need to be banned since they're not the problem. You're missing the forest for trees (is that the expression?) I want effective legislation. Given the political climate, I know it will be a gradual process. That's why I support it. As I said in my post, any legislation that was made to address the actual problems has a zero chance of passing. Also, like I said earlier, many intelligent people can and do disagree with you about saying this legislation is ineffective. Personally, I find the universal background check the only real improvement. Many intelligent people have managed to formulate opinions without the facts, because the FBI statistics I've posted repeatedly show that rifles aren't exactly a weapon of choice for homicide. Handguns are, by far. You say nothing effective would pass, that's because we can't trust the anti-gun people to leave it alone. Saying you want to ban the guns that aren't used in the majority of homicides to stop homicides isn't a show of good faith. It strongly suggests that the desired end state is near-complete prohibition of firearms, else the laws would be targeted specifically to prevent the problems. You can go back and re-read my last few posts if you'd like. I think I explain pretty clearly why even though aspects of the proposed legislation are, by themselves, ineffectual, it is still progress towards making America safer. Also, again, I think that background checks will have a substantial impact. Background checks are fine, assault weapons bans are not. I've said this a million times. Why are you reiterating the point we agree on? You have NOT explained why banning weapons that get used for a tiny percentage of crimes is progress towards a better America, unless your definition of a better America is a gun free one. Here, let's turn on our rational brains for a second. Let's say we ban "assault weapons" today. It doesn't do much, for the simple reason that rifles barely get used in crimes. So, tomorrow we ban shotguns, because those things are pretty scary too. Unfortunately, they're barely used in more crimes than rifles. So, finally, we ban handguns. And... what fucking guns are left over after we start legislating the guns that get used in the majority of crimes? Paintball. Maybe. That's why it's not good faith to start with "assault weapons". Unless you honestly think they're going to give the guns back after it doesn't work? For the sake of discourse, it would be helpful if you toned down the aggressive tone that you have in most of your posts. I'll paraphrase what I said to Militron. In order to significantly affect gun violence in the US, some combination of drastic gun control measures would need to be implemented. I'm not saying banning guns outright, but certainly something more than magazine limits and AWB. Legislation such as this would certainly not pass right now. The currently proposed legislation looks like it might go through, and that's because its dumbed down. It's a step. Not a step to ban guns and retract the 2nd amendment, but a step towards effective legislation. I'll quote myself again... I get the impression that any legislation proposed that could make an impact would be opposed by you on the grounds of the federal government overstepping its bounds and infringing on your 2nd amendment rights, while anything that is less strict will be opposed by you because its ineffective. The reason he is being aggressive in his responses is you arn't understanding his point at all. You just repeated what he already answered to. To make this as simple as possible: What he's saying is he isn't for a complete gun ban. Banning assault rifles then figuring out they arn't the problem and banning handguns in turn IS a complete gun ban because are you going to then over-turn the ban on assault rifles? not very likely. The question to you is, are you for a complete gun ban? you say no and yet your idea for legislation states yes. I'm pretty sure I understand his point, and if I didn't, being aggressive won't help. Jingle: Why would we ban assault weapons when they are used in a low number of crimes. Me: You are using the AWB, which is rather silly, as a scapegoat to reject all proposed gun legislation. I'll say it for a third time. Anything that significantly reduces gun violence will be rejected as being too overbearing or as infringing on 2nd amendment rights. Anything else is rejected as being ineffectual. See the catch 22? Effective gun legislation does not equal unilateral gun bans. Your'e pretending that I'm making claims that I'm not. I own two rifles. No one disagrees with extensive background checks which, i doubt you could argue as you said it yourself, would be effective gun legislation. You're trying to say that if the assault rifle ban doesn't lower gun crime then there's no possible way they will ban hand guns because people will be up in arms (pun unintended) about it and at least it helps a little bit. I'm saying that I don't agree and I feel that it is perfectly valid to worry about a handgun ban followed sometime afterwards edit: also as he pointed out above me. You did in fact say that it was a step in the right direction towards effective gun legislation. What other than the banning of hand guns can you go further in the "right direction"?
I'll say it again for the record. I think the AWB is silly. I would prefer to see the final legislation without the AWB in it. However, I don't think they will be separated, and I think the benefits of the background checks far outweighs the negatives of the AWB.
I've never mentioned anything about banning handguns, I've only said that they are the primary cause of gun violence. As far as what the eventual, 'effective' legislation would be, that would be a conversation worth having. In my eyes, I see a sliding scale of a gun's potential lethality corresponding to how difficult it is to obtain. Personally, I feel a .22 rifle sale with a background check is fine. If you want to buy a glock, I think you should have a much more rigorous background check, required competency classes, and some form of accountability for your weapon.
The issue is not black and white, banned or not banned.
|
On February 06 2013 09:03 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 08:53 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 08:31 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:22 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 06:33 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:50 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:43 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:36 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:29 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
This post essentially admits that you're more worried about taking away guns than fixing any problems. Saying you're ok with banning things that don't get used for crimes to prevent crimes is ludicrous. Spare me the crap about refusing to compromise when you can't even admit that "evil looking assault weapons" don't need to be banned since they're not the problem. You're missing the forest for trees (is that the expression?) I want effective legislation. Given the political climate, I know it will be a gradual process. That's why I support it. As I said in my post, any legislation that was made to address the actual problems has a zero chance of passing. Also, like I said earlier, many intelligent people can and do disagree with you about saying this legislation is ineffective. Personally, I find the universal background check the only real improvement. Many intelligent people have managed to formulate opinions without the facts, because the FBI statistics I've posted repeatedly show that rifles aren't exactly a weapon of choice for homicide. Handguns are, by far. You say nothing effective would pass, that's because we can't trust the anti-gun people to leave it alone. Saying you want to ban the guns that aren't used in the majority of homicides to stop homicides isn't a show of good faith. It strongly suggests that the desired end state is near-complete prohibition of firearms, else the laws would be targeted specifically to prevent the problems. You can go back and re-read my last few posts if you'd like. I think I explain pretty clearly why even though aspects of the proposed legislation are, by themselves, ineffectual, it is still progress towards making America safer. Also, again, I think that background checks will have a substantial impact. Background checks are fine, assault weapons bans are not. I've said this a million times. Why are you reiterating the point we agree on? You have NOT explained why banning weapons that get used for a tiny percentage of crimes is progress towards a better America, unless your definition of a better America is a gun free one. Here, let's turn on our rational brains for a second. Let's say we ban "assault weapons" today. It doesn't do much, for the simple reason that rifles barely get used in crimes. So, tomorrow we ban shotguns, because those things are pretty scary too. Unfortunately, they're barely used in more crimes than rifles. So, finally, we ban handguns. And... what fucking guns are left over after we start legislating the guns that get used in the majority of crimes? Paintball. Maybe. That's why it's not good faith to start with "assault weapons". Unless you honestly think they're going to give the guns back after it doesn't work? For the sake of discourse, it would be helpful if you toned down the aggressive tone that you have in most of your posts. I'll paraphrase what I said to Militron. In order to significantly affect gun violence in the US, some combination of drastic gun control measures would need to be implemented. I'm not saying banning guns outright, but certainly something more than magazine limits and AWB. Legislation such as this would certainly not pass right now. The currently proposed legislation looks like it might go through, and that's because its dumbed down. It's a step. Not a step to ban guns and retract the 2nd amendment, but a step towards effective legislation. I'll quote myself again... I get the impression that any legislation proposed that could make an impact would be opposed by you on the grounds of the federal government overstepping its bounds and infringing on your 2nd amendment rights, while anything that is less strict will be opposed by you because its ineffective. The reason he is being aggressive in his responses is you arn't understanding his point at all. You just repeated what he already answered to. To make this as simple as possible: What he's saying is he isn't for a complete gun ban. Banning assault rifles then figuring out they arn't the problem and banning handguns in turn IS a complete gun ban because are you going to then over-turn the ban on assault rifles? not very likely. The question to you is, are you for a complete gun ban? you say no and yet your idea for legislation states yes. I'm pretty sure I understand his point, and if I didn't, being aggressive won't help. Jingle: Why would we ban assault weapons when they are used in a low number of crimes. Me: You are using the AWB, which is rather silly, as a scapegoat to reject all proposed gun legislation. I'll say it for a third time. Anything that significantly reduces gun violence will be rejected as being too overbearing or as infringing on 2nd amendment rights. Anything else is rejected as being ineffectual. See the catch 22? Effective gun legislation does not equal unilateral gun bans. Your'e pretending that I'm making claims that I'm not. I own two rifles. No one disagrees with extensive background checks which, i doubt you could argue as you said it yourself, would be effective gun legislation. You're trying to say that if the assault rifle ban doesn't lower gun crime then there's no possible way they will ban hand guns because people will be up in arms (pun unintended) about it and at least it helps a little bit. I'm saying that I don't agree and I feel that it is perfectly valid to worry about a handgun ban followed sometime afterwards edit: also as he pointed out above me. You did in fact say that it was a step in the right direction towards effective gun legislation. What other than the banning of hand guns can you go further in the "right direction"? Now see, if I wanted to go a smart step in the right direction, (and I know I only speak for myself while applying this chunk of common sense, there ARE some whackjobs in the gun lobby), I'd be perfectly fine with permits and registration for handguns. Assuming the process was reasonable, treat it roughly like cars. Take your written and practical exam for a moderate fee, and any handguns you own get registered by serial to your permit. Hell, I'd even be ok with every 3 years or so, having to demonstrate that I still have all handguns registered to my permit, at no additional cost, in the process of renewing. I have to have a license and registration to drive my damned car, I don't see a problem with it as part of owning a handgun, since they're easily concealed and used for homicide. Assuming there's some controls built into the legislation to prevent abuse down the road. I think it would have more effect than an AWB ever could, and if gun control people could show some good faith, a system like this might even happen.
This is strikingly similar to my last post. I don't think we disagree as much as we think.
|
On February 06 2013 09:03 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 08:53 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 08:31 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:22 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 06:33 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:50 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:43 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:36 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:29 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
This post essentially admits that you're more worried about taking away guns than fixing any problems. Saying you're ok with banning things that don't get used for crimes to prevent crimes is ludicrous. Spare me the crap about refusing to compromise when you can't even admit that "evil looking assault weapons" don't need to be banned since they're not the problem. You're missing the forest for trees (is that the expression?) I want effective legislation. Given the political climate, I know it will be a gradual process. That's why I support it. As I said in my post, any legislation that was made to address the actual problems has a zero chance of passing. Also, like I said earlier, many intelligent people can and do disagree with you about saying this legislation is ineffective. Personally, I find the universal background check the only real improvement. Many intelligent people have managed to formulate opinions without the facts, because the FBI statistics I've posted repeatedly show that rifles aren't exactly a weapon of choice for homicide. Handguns are, by far. You say nothing effective would pass, that's because we can't trust the anti-gun people to leave it alone. Saying you want to ban the guns that aren't used in the majority of homicides to stop homicides isn't a show of good faith. It strongly suggests that the desired end state is near-complete prohibition of firearms, else the laws would be targeted specifically to prevent the problems. You can go back and re-read my last few posts if you'd like. I think I explain pretty clearly why even though aspects of the proposed legislation are, by themselves, ineffectual, it is still progress towards making America safer. Also, again, I think that background checks will have a substantial impact. Background checks are fine, assault weapons bans are not. I've said this a million times. Why are you reiterating the point we agree on? You have NOT explained why banning weapons that get used for a tiny percentage of crimes is progress towards a better America, unless your definition of a better America is a gun free one. Here, let's turn on our rational brains for a second. Let's say we ban "assault weapons" today. It doesn't do much, for the simple reason that rifles barely get used in crimes. So, tomorrow we ban shotguns, because those things are pretty scary too. Unfortunately, they're barely used in more crimes than rifles. So, finally, we ban handguns. And... what fucking guns are left over after we start legislating the guns that get used in the majority of crimes? Paintball. Maybe. That's why it's not good faith to start with "assault weapons". Unless you honestly think they're going to give the guns back after it doesn't work? For the sake of discourse, it would be helpful if you toned down the aggressive tone that you have in most of your posts. I'll paraphrase what I said to Militron. In order to significantly affect gun violence in the US, some combination of drastic gun control measures would need to be implemented. I'm not saying banning guns outright, but certainly something more than magazine limits and AWB. Legislation such as this would certainly not pass right now. The currently proposed legislation looks like it might go through, and that's because its dumbed down. It's a step. Not a step to ban guns and retract the 2nd amendment, but a step towards effective legislation. I'll quote myself again... I get the impression that any legislation proposed that could make an impact would be opposed by you on the grounds of the federal government overstepping its bounds and infringing on your 2nd amendment rights, while anything that is less strict will be opposed by you because its ineffective. The reason he is being aggressive in his responses is you arn't understanding his point at all. You just repeated what he already answered to. To make this as simple as possible: What he's saying is he isn't for a complete gun ban. Banning assault rifles then figuring out they arn't the problem and banning handguns in turn IS a complete gun ban because are you going to then over-turn the ban on assault rifles? not very likely. The question to you is, are you for a complete gun ban? you say no and yet your idea for legislation states yes. I'm pretty sure I understand his point, and if I didn't, being aggressive won't help. Jingle: Why would we ban assault weapons when they are used in a low number of crimes. Me: You are using the AWB, which is rather silly, as a scapegoat to reject all proposed gun legislation. I'll say it for a third time. Anything that significantly reduces gun violence will be rejected as being too overbearing or as infringing on 2nd amendment rights. Anything else is rejected as being ineffectual. See the catch 22? Effective gun legislation does not equal unilateral gun bans. Your'e pretending that I'm making claims that I'm not. I own two rifles. No one disagrees with extensive background checks which, i doubt you could argue as you said it yourself, would be effective gun legislation. You're trying to say that if the assault rifle ban doesn't lower gun crime then there's no possible way they will ban hand guns because people will be up in arms (pun unintended) about it and at least it helps a little bit. I'm saying that I don't agree and I feel that it is perfectly valid to worry about a handgun ban followed sometime afterwards edit: also as he pointed out above me. You did in fact say that it was a step in the right direction towards effective gun legislation. What other than the banning of hand guns can you go further in the "right direction"? Now see, if I wanted to go a smart step in the right direction, (and I know I only speak for myself while applying this chunk of common sense, there ARE some whackjobs in the gun lobby), I'd be perfectly fine with permits and registration for handguns. Assuming the process was reasonable, treat it roughly like cars. Take your written and practical exam for a moderate fee, and any handguns you own get registered by serial to your permit. Hell, I'd even be ok with every 3 years or so, having to demonstrate that I still have all handguns registered to my permit, at no additional cost, in the process of renewing. I have to have a license and registration to drive my damned car, I don't see a problem with it as part of owning a handgun, since they're easily concealed and used for homicide. Assuming there's some controls built into the legislation to prevent abuse down the road. I think it would have more effect than an AWB ever could, and if gun control people could show some good faith, a system like this might even happen.
Who do you think you are, bringing rational and feasible suggestions to the gun control debate? The people want wild accusations, ludicrous proposals, and political grandstanding.
|
On February 06 2013 09:09 Zealotdriver wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 09:03 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 08:53 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 08:31 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:22 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 06:33 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:50 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:43 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:36 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
[quote]
You're missing the forest for trees (is that the expression?)
I want effective legislation. Given the political climate, I know it will be a gradual process. That's why I support it. As I said in my post, any legislation that was made to address the actual problems has a zero chance of passing.
Also, like I said earlier, many intelligent people can and do disagree with you about saying this legislation is ineffective. Personally, I find the universal background check the only real improvement. Many intelligent people have managed to formulate opinions without the facts, because the FBI statistics I've posted repeatedly show that rifles aren't exactly a weapon of choice for homicide. Handguns are, by far. You say nothing effective would pass, that's because we can't trust the anti-gun people to leave it alone. Saying you want to ban the guns that aren't used in the majority of homicides to stop homicides isn't a show of good faith. It strongly suggests that the desired end state is near-complete prohibition of firearms, else the laws would be targeted specifically to prevent the problems. You can go back and re-read my last few posts if you'd like. I think I explain pretty clearly why even though aspects of the proposed legislation are, by themselves, ineffectual, it is still progress towards making America safer. Also, again, I think that background checks will have a substantial impact. Background checks are fine, assault weapons bans are not. I've said this a million times. Why are you reiterating the point we agree on? You have NOT explained why banning weapons that get used for a tiny percentage of crimes is progress towards a better America, unless your definition of a better America is a gun free one. Here, let's turn on our rational brains for a second. Let's say we ban "assault weapons" today. It doesn't do much, for the simple reason that rifles barely get used in crimes. So, tomorrow we ban shotguns, because those things are pretty scary too. Unfortunately, they're barely used in more crimes than rifles. So, finally, we ban handguns. And... what fucking guns are left over after we start legislating the guns that get used in the majority of crimes? Paintball. Maybe. That's why it's not good faith to start with "assault weapons". Unless you honestly think they're going to give the guns back after it doesn't work? For the sake of discourse, it would be helpful if you toned down the aggressive tone that you have in most of your posts. I'll paraphrase what I said to Militron. In order to significantly affect gun violence in the US, some combination of drastic gun control measures would need to be implemented. I'm not saying banning guns outright, but certainly something more than magazine limits and AWB. Legislation such as this would certainly not pass right now. The currently proposed legislation looks like it might go through, and that's because its dumbed down. It's a step. Not a step to ban guns and retract the 2nd amendment, but a step towards effective legislation. I'll quote myself again... I get the impression that any legislation proposed that could make an impact would be opposed by you on the grounds of the federal government overstepping its bounds and infringing on your 2nd amendment rights, while anything that is less strict will be opposed by you because its ineffective. The reason he is being aggressive in his responses is you arn't understanding his point at all. You just repeated what he already answered to. To make this as simple as possible: What he's saying is he isn't for a complete gun ban. Banning assault rifles then figuring out they arn't the problem and banning handguns in turn IS a complete gun ban because are you going to then over-turn the ban on assault rifles? not very likely. The question to you is, are you for a complete gun ban? you say no and yet your idea for legislation states yes. I'm pretty sure I understand his point, and if I didn't, being aggressive won't help. Jingle: Why would we ban assault weapons when they are used in a low number of crimes. Me: You are using the AWB, which is rather silly, as a scapegoat to reject all proposed gun legislation. I'll say it for a third time. Anything that significantly reduces gun violence will be rejected as being too overbearing or as infringing on 2nd amendment rights. Anything else is rejected as being ineffectual. See the catch 22? Effective gun legislation does not equal unilateral gun bans. Your'e pretending that I'm making claims that I'm not. I own two rifles. No one disagrees with extensive background checks which, i doubt you could argue as you said it yourself, would be effective gun legislation. You're trying to say that if the assault rifle ban doesn't lower gun crime then there's no possible way they will ban hand guns because people will be up in arms (pun unintended) about it and at least it helps a little bit. I'm saying that I don't agree and I feel that it is perfectly valid to worry about a handgun ban followed sometime afterwards edit: also as he pointed out above me. You did in fact say that it was a step in the right direction towards effective gun legislation. What other than the banning of hand guns can you go further in the "right direction"? Now see, if I wanted to go a smart step in the right direction, (and I know I only speak for myself while applying this chunk of common sense, there ARE some whackjobs in the gun lobby), I'd be perfectly fine with permits and registration for handguns. Assuming the process was reasonable, treat it roughly like cars. Take your written and practical exam for a moderate fee, and any handguns you own get registered by serial to your permit. Hell, I'd even be ok with every 3 years or so, having to demonstrate that I still have all handguns registered to my permit, at no additional cost, in the process of renewing. I have to have a license and registration to drive my damned car, I don't see a problem with it as part of owning a handgun, since they're easily concealed and used for homicide. Assuming there's some controls built into the legislation to prevent abuse down the road. I think it would have more effect than an AWB ever could, and if gun control people could show some good faith, a system like this might even happen. Who do you think you are, bringing rational and feasible suggestions to the gun control debate? The people want wild accusations, ludicrous proposals, and political grandstanding.
I think the problem for most people has to do with the fact that his suggestion is essentially nothing more than posturing. It would cost money and have no positive effect on anything because it's a shy proposal and a waste of time.
|
On February 06 2013 09:03 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 08:53 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 08:31 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:22 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 06:33 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:50 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:43 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:36 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:29 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
This post essentially admits that you're more worried about taking away guns than fixing any problems. Saying you're ok with banning things that don't get used for crimes to prevent crimes is ludicrous. Spare me the crap about refusing to compromise when you can't even admit that "evil looking assault weapons" don't need to be banned since they're not the problem. You're missing the forest for trees (is that the expression?) I want effective legislation. Given the political climate, I know it will be a gradual process. That's why I support it. As I said in my post, any legislation that was made to address the actual problems has a zero chance of passing. Also, like I said earlier, many intelligent people can and do disagree with you about saying this legislation is ineffective. Personally, I find the universal background check the only real improvement. Many intelligent people have managed to formulate opinions without the facts, because the FBI statistics I've posted repeatedly show that rifles aren't exactly a weapon of choice for homicide. Handguns are, by far. You say nothing effective would pass, that's because we can't trust the anti-gun people to leave it alone. Saying you want to ban the guns that aren't used in the majority of homicides to stop homicides isn't a show of good faith. It strongly suggests that the desired end state is near-complete prohibition of firearms, else the laws would be targeted specifically to prevent the problems. You can go back and re-read my last few posts if you'd like. I think I explain pretty clearly why even though aspects of the proposed legislation are, by themselves, ineffectual, it is still progress towards making America safer. Also, again, I think that background checks will have a substantial impact. Background checks are fine, assault weapons bans are not. I've said this a million times. Why are you reiterating the point we agree on? You have NOT explained why banning weapons that get used for a tiny percentage of crimes is progress towards a better America, unless your definition of a better America is a gun free one. Here, let's turn on our rational brains for a second. Let's say we ban "assault weapons" today. It doesn't do much, for the simple reason that rifles barely get used in crimes. So, tomorrow we ban shotguns, because those things are pretty scary too. Unfortunately, they're barely used in more crimes than rifles. So, finally, we ban handguns. And... what fucking guns are left over after we start legislating the guns that get used in the majority of crimes? Paintball. Maybe. That's why it's not good faith to start with "assault weapons". Unless you honestly think they're going to give the guns back after it doesn't work? For the sake of discourse, it would be helpful if you toned down the aggressive tone that you have in most of your posts. I'll paraphrase what I said to Militron. In order to significantly affect gun violence in the US, some combination of drastic gun control measures would need to be implemented. I'm not saying banning guns outright, but certainly something more than magazine limits and AWB. Legislation such as this would certainly not pass right now. The currently proposed legislation looks like it might go through, and that's because its dumbed down. It's a step. Not a step to ban guns and retract the 2nd amendment, but a step towards effective legislation. I'll quote myself again... I get the impression that any legislation proposed that could make an impact would be opposed by you on the grounds of the federal government overstepping its bounds and infringing on your 2nd amendment rights, while anything that is less strict will be opposed by you because its ineffective. The reason he is being aggressive in his responses is you arn't understanding his point at all. You just repeated what he already answered to. To make this as simple as possible: What he's saying is he isn't for a complete gun ban. Banning assault rifles then figuring out they arn't the problem and banning handguns in turn IS a complete gun ban because are you going to then over-turn the ban on assault rifles? not very likely. The question to you is, are you for a complete gun ban? you say no and yet your idea for legislation states yes. I'm pretty sure I understand his point, and if I didn't, being aggressive won't help. Jingle: Why would we ban assault weapons when they are used in a low number of crimes. Me: You are using the AWB, which is rather silly, as a scapegoat to reject all proposed gun legislation. I'll say it for a third time. Anything that significantly reduces gun violence will be rejected as being too overbearing or as infringing on 2nd amendment rights. Anything else is rejected as being ineffectual. See the catch 22? Effective gun legislation does not equal unilateral gun bans. Your'e pretending that I'm making claims that I'm not. I own two rifles. No one disagrees with extensive background checks which, i doubt you could argue as you said it yourself, would be effective gun legislation. You're trying to say that if the assault rifle ban doesn't lower gun crime then there's no possible way they will ban hand guns because people will be up in arms (pun unintended) about it and at least it helps a little bit. I'm saying that I don't agree and I feel that it is perfectly valid to worry about a handgun ban followed sometime afterwards edit: also as he pointed out above me. You did in fact say that it was a step in the right direction towards effective gun legislation. What other than the banning of hand guns can you go further in the "right direction"? Now see, if I wanted to go a smart step in the right direction, (and I know I only speak for myself while applying this chunk of common sense, there ARE some whackjobs in the gun lobby), I'd be perfectly fine with permits and registration for handguns. Assuming the process was reasonable, treat it roughly like cars. Take your written and practical exam for a moderate fee, and any handguns you own get registered by serial to your permit. Hell, I'd even be ok with every 3 years or so, having to demonstrate that I still have all handguns registered to my permit, at no additional cost, in the process of renewing. I have to have a license and registration to drive my damned car, I don't see a problem with it as part of owning a handgun, since they're easily concealed and used for homicide. Assuming there's some controls built into the legislation to prevent abuse down the road. I think it would have more effect than an AWB ever could, and if gun control people could show some good faith, a system like this might even happen.
If you want to treat it like cars, people can own whatever gun they want at home,but if they want to have it in public they need to go through all that car stuff.
|
On February 06 2013 09:06 mynameisgreat11 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 08:53 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 08:31 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:22 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 06:33 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:50 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:43 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:36 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:29 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
This post essentially admits that you're more worried about taking away guns than fixing any problems. Saying you're ok with banning things that don't get used for crimes to prevent crimes is ludicrous. Spare me the crap about refusing to compromise when you can't even admit that "evil looking assault weapons" don't need to be banned since they're not the problem. You're missing the forest for trees (is that the expression?) I want effective legislation. Given the political climate, I know it will be a gradual process. That's why I support it. As I said in my post, any legislation that was made to address the actual problems has a zero chance of passing. Also, like I said earlier, many intelligent people can and do disagree with you about saying this legislation is ineffective. Personally, I find the universal background check the only real improvement. Many intelligent people have managed to formulate opinions without the facts, because the FBI statistics I've posted repeatedly show that rifles aren't exactly a weapon of choice for homicide. Handguns are, by far. You say nothing effective would pass, that's because we can't trust the anti-gun people to leave it alone. Saying you want to ban the guns that aren't used in the majority of homicides to stop homicides isn't a show of good faith. It strongly suggests that the desired end state is near-complete prohibition of firearms, else the laws would be targeted specifically to prevent the problems. You can go back and re-read my last few posts if you'd like. I think I explain pretty clearly why even though aspects of the proposed legislation are, by themselves, ineffectual, it is still progress towards making America safer. Also, again, I think that background checks will have a substantial impact. Background checks are fine, assault weapons bans are not. I've said this a million times. Why are you reiterating the point we agree on? You have NOT explained why banning weapons that get used for a tiny percentage of crimes is progress towards a better America, unless your definition of a better America is a gun free one. Here, let's turn on our rational brains for a second. Let's say we ban "assault weapons" today. It doesn't do much, for the simple reason that rifles barely get used in crimes. So, tomorrow we ban shotguns, because those things are pretty scary too. Unfortunately, they're barely used in more crimes than rifles. So, finally, we ban handguns. And... what fucking guns are left over after we start legislating the guns that get used in the majority of crimes? Paintball. Maybe. That's why it's not good faith to start with "assault weapons". Unless you honestly think they're going to give the guns back after it doesn't work? For the sake of discourse, it would be helpful if you toned down the aggressive tone that you have in most of your posts. I'll paraphrase what I said to Militron. In order to significantly affect gun violence in the US, some combination of drastic gun control measures would need to be implemented. I'm not saying banning guns outright, but certainly something more than magazine limits and AWB. Legislation such as this would certainly not pass right now. The currently proposed legislation looks like it might go through, and that's because its dumbed down. It's a step. Not a step to ban guns and retract the 2nd amendment, but a step towards effective legislation. I'll quote myself again... I get the impression that any legislation proposed that could make an impact would be opposed by you on the grounds of the federal government overstepping its bounds and infringing on your 2nd amendment rights, while anything that is less strict will be opposed by you because its ineffective. The reason he is being aggressive in his responses is you arn't understanding his point at all. You just repeated what he already answered to. To make this as simple as possible: What he's saying is he isn't for a complete gun ban. Banning assault rifles then figuring out they arn't the problem and banning handguns in turn IS a complete gun ban because are you going to then over-turn the ban on assault rifles? not very likely. The question to you is, are you for a complete gun ban? you say no and yet your idea for legislation states yes. I'm pretty sure I understand his point, and if I didn't, being aggressive won't help. Jingle: Why would we ban assault weapons when they are used in a low number of crimes. Me: You are using the AWB, which is rather silly, as a scapegoat to reject all proposed gun legislation. I'll say it for a third time. Anything that significantly reduces gun violence will be rejected as being too overbearing or as infringing on 2nd amendment rights. Anything else is rejected as being ineffectual. See the catch 22? Effective gun legislation does not equal unilateral gun bans. Your'e pretending that I'm making claims that I'm not. I own two rifles. No one disagrees with extensive background checks which, i doubt you could argue as you said it yourself, would be effective gun legislation. You're trying to say that if the assault rifle ban doesn't lower gun crime then there's no possible way they will ban hand guns because people will be up in arms (pun unintended) about it and at least it helps a little bit. I'm saying that I don't agree and I feel that it is perfectly valid to worry about a handgun ban followed sometime afterwards edit: also as he pointed out above me. You did in fact say that it was a step in the right direction towards effective gun legislation. What other than the banning of hand guns can you go further in the "right direction"? I'll say it again for the record. I think the AWB is silly. I would prefer to see the final legislation without the AWB in it. However, I don't think they will be separated, and I think the benefits of the background checks far outweighs the negatives of the AWB. I've never mentioned anything about banning handguns, I've only said that they are the primary cause of gun violence. As far as what the eventual, 'effective' legislation would be, that would be a conversation worth having. In my eyes, I see a sliding scale of a gun's potential lethality corresponding to how difficult it is to obtain. Personally, I feel a .22 rifle sale with a background check is fine. If you want to buy a glock, I think you should have a much more rigorous background check, required competency classes, and some form of accountability for your weapon. The issue is not black and white, banned or not banned.
LOL, it turns out we think the exact same thing. People were getting angry at the AWB and I thought you were defending it because it's likely to at least help a little bit. Extensive background checks and competency classes make a lot of sense, implement these and we will see reduced gun violence in my opinion
|
On February 06 2013 09:11 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 09:09 Zealotdriver wrote:On February 06 2013 09:03 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 08:53 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 08:31 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:22 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 06:33 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:50 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:43 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
Many intelligent people have managed to formulate opinions without the facts, because the FBI statistics I've posted repeatedly show that rifles aren't exactly a weapon of choice for homicide. Handguns are, by far. You say nothing effective would pass, that's because we can't trust the anti-gun people to leave it alone.
Saying you want to ban the guns that aren't used in the majority of homicides to stop homicides isn't a show of good faith. It strongly suggests that the desired end state is near-complete prohibition of firearms, else the laws would be targeted specifically to prevent the problems. You can go back and re-read my last few posts if you'd like. I think I explain pretty clearly why even though aspects of the proposed legislation are, by themselves, ineffectual, it is still progress towards making America safer. Also, again, I think that background checks will have a substantial impact. Background checks are fine, assault weapons bans are not. I've said this a million times. Why are you reiterating the point we agree on? You have NOT explained why banning weapons that get used for a tiny percentage of crimes is progress towards a better America, unless your definition of a better America is a gun free one. Here, let's turn on our rational brains for a second. Let's say we ban "assault weapons" today. It doesn't do much, for the simple reason that rifles barely get used in crimes. So, tomorrow we ban shotguns, because those things are pretty scary too. Unfortunately, they're barely used in more crimes than rifles. So, finally, we ban handguns. And... what fucking guns are left over after we start legislating the guns that get used in the majority of crimes? Paintball. Maybe. That's why it's not good faith to start with "assault weapons". Unless you honestly think they're going to give the guns back after it doesn't work? For the sake of discourse, it would be helpful if you toned down the aggressive tone that you have in most of your posts. I'll paraphrase what I said to Militron. In order to significantly affect gun violence in the US, some combination of drastic gun control measures would need to be implemented. I'm not saying banning guns outright, but certainly something more than magazine limits and AWB. Legislation such as this would certainly not pass right now. The currently proposed legislation looks like it might go through, and that's because its dumbed down. It's a step. Not a step to ban guns and retract the 2nd amendment, but a step towards effective legislation. I'll quote myself again... I get the impression that any legislation proposed that could make an impact would be opposed by you on the grounds of the federal government overstepping its bounds and infringing on your 2nd amendment rights, while anything that is less strict will be opposed by you because its ineffective. The reason he is being aggressive in his responses is you arn't understanding his point at all. You just repeated what he already answered to. To make this as simple as possible: What he's saying is he isn't for a complete gun ban. Banning assault rifles then figuring out they arn't the problem and banning handguns in turn IS a complete gun ban because are you going to then over-turn the ban on assault rifles? not very likely. The question to you is, are you for a complete gun ban? you say no and yet your idea for legislation states yes. I'm pretty sure I understand his point, and if I didn't, being aggressive won't help. Jingle: Why would we ban assault weapons when they are used in a low number of crimes. Me: You are using the AWB, which is rather silly, as a scapegoat to reject all proposed gun legislation. I'll say it for a third time. Anything that significantly reduces gun violence will be rejected as being too overbearing or as infringing on 2nd amendment rights. Anything else is rejected as being ineffectual. See the catch 22? Effective gun legislation does not equal unilateral gun bans. Your'e pretending that I'm making claims that I'm not. I own two rifles. No one disagrees with extensive background checks which, i doubt you could argue as you said it yourself, would be effective gun legislation. You're trying to say that if the assault rifle ban doesn't lower gun crime then there's no possible way they will ban hand guns because people will be up in arms (pun unintended) about it and at least it helps a little bit. I'm saying that I don't agree and I feel that it is perfectly valid to worry about a handgun ban followed sometime afterwards edit: also as he pointed out above me. You did in fact say that it was a step in the right direction towards effective gun legislation. What other than the banning of hand guns can you go further in the "right direction"? Now see, if I wanted to go a smart step in the right direction, (and I know I only speak for myself while applying this chunk of common sense, there ARE some whackjobs in the gun lobby), I'd be perfectly fine with permits and registration for handguns. Assuming the process was reasonable, treat it roughly like cars. Take your written and practical exam for a moderate fee, and any handguns you own get registered by serial to your permit. Hell, I'd even be ok with every 3 years or so, having to demonstrate that I still have all handguns registered to my permit, at no additional cost, in the process of renewing. I have to have a license and registration to drive my damned car, I don't see a problem with it as part of owning a handgun, since they're easily concealed and used for homicide. Assuming there's some controls built into the legislation to prevent abuse down the road. I think it would have more effect than an AWB ever could, and if gun control people could show some good faith, a system like this might even happen. Who do you think you are, bringing rational and feasible suggestions to the gun control debate? The people want wild accusations, ludicrous proposals, and political grandstanding. I think the problem for most people has to do with the fact that his suggestion is essentially nothing more than posturing. It would cost money and have no positive effect on anything because it's a shy proposal and a waste of time.
It would have no immediate effect on anything, I believe, much as no other gun legislation in a saturated market would have an immediate effect, particularly where criminal uses were concerned.
However, it would make straw purchases harder, reducing supply to criminals. It would reduce accidents (which anti-gun people usually laud as an associated goal) through training. Mandatory registration of handguns would absolutely require universal background checks on handgun sales.
It would, over some time, reduce handgun related deaths, turn itself around to a revenue stream for the state, and it would pave the way for universal background checks on all sales.
Explain how it would be useless, compared to, say, banning shit that doesn't get used in many crimes, or limiting magazine size (guess what, I can still carry more magazines).
On February 06 2013 09:14 Lockitupv2 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 09:03 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 08:53 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 08:31 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:22 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 06:33 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:50 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 05:43 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:36 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
[quote]
You're missing the forest for trees (is that the expression?)
I want effective legislation. Given the political climate, I know it will be a gradual process. That's why I support it. As I said in my post, any legislation that was made to address the actual problems has a zero chance of passing.
Also, like I said earlier, many intelligent people can and do disagree with you about saying this legislation is ineffective. Personally, I find the universal background check the only real improvement. Many intelligent people have managed to formulate opinions without the facts, because the FBI statistics I've posted repeatedly show that rifles aren't exactly a weapon of choice for homicide. Handguns are, by far. You say nothing effective would pass, that's because we can't trust the anti-gun people to leave it alone. Saying you want to ban the guns that aren't used in the majority of homicides to stop homicides isn't a show of good faith. It strongly suggests that the desired end state is near-complete prohibition of firearms, else the laws would be targeted specifically to prevent the problems. You can go back and re-read my last few posts if you'd like. I think I explain pretty clearly why even though aspects of the proposed legislation are, by themselves, ineffectual, it is still progress towards making America safer. Also, again, I think that background checks will have a substantial impact. Background checks are fine, assault weapons bans are not. I've said this a million times. Why are you reiterating the point we agree on? You have NOT explained why banning weapons that get used for a tiny percentage of crimes is progress towards a better America, unless your definition of a better America is a gun free one. Here, let's turn on our rational brains for a second. Let's say we ban "assault weapons" today. It doesn't do much, for the simple reason that rifles barely get used in crimes. So, tomorrow we ban shotguns, because those things are pretty scary too. Unfortunately, they're barely used in more crimes than rifles. So, finally, we ban handguns. And... what fucking guns are left over after we start legislating the guns that get used in the majority of crimes? Paintball. Maybe. That's why it's not good faith to start with "assault weapons". Unless you honestly think they're going to give the guns back after it doesn't work? For the sake of discourse, it would be helpful if you toned down the aggressive tone that you have in most of your posts. I'll paraphrase what I said to Militron. In order to significantly affect gun violence in the US, some combination of drastic gun control measures would need to be implemented. I'm not saying banning guns outright, but certainly something more than magazine limits and AWB. Legislation such as this would certainly not pass right now. The currently proposed legislation looks like it might go through, and that's because its dumbed down. It's a step. Not a step to ban guns and retract the 2nd amendment, but a step towards effective legislation. I'll quote myself again... I get the impression that any legislation proposed that could make an impact would be opposed by you on the grounds of the federal government overstepping its bounds and infringing on your 2nd amendment rights, while anything that is less strict will be opposed by you because its ineffective. The reason he is being aggressive in his responses is you arn't understanding his point at all. You just repeated what he already answered to. To make this as simple as possible: What he's saying is he isn't for a complete gun ban. Banning assault rifles then figuring out they arn't the problem and banning handguns in turn IS a complete gun ban because are you going to then over-turn the ban on assault rifles? not very likely. The question to you is, are you for a complete gun ban? you say no and yet your idea for legislation states yes. I'm pretty sure I understand his point, and if I didn't, being aggressive won't help. Jingle: Why would we ban assault weapons when they are used in a low number of crimes. Me: You are using the AWB, which is rather silly, as a scapegoat to reject all proposed gun legislation. I'll say it for a third time. Anything that significantly reduces gun violence will be rejected as being too overbearing or as infringing on 2nd amendment rights. Anything else is rejected as being ineffectual. See the catch 22? Effective gun legislation does not equal unilateral gun bans. Your'e pretending that I'm making claims that I'm not. I own two rifles. No one disagrees with extensive background checks which, i doubt you could argue as you said it yourself, would be effective gun legislation. You're trying to say that if the assault rifle ban doesn't lower gun crime then there's no possible way they will ban hand guns because people will be up in arms (pun unintended) about it and at least it helps a little bit. I'm saying that I don't agree and I feel that it is perfectly valid to worry about a handgun ban followed sometime afterwards edit: also as he pointed out above me. You did in fact say that it was a step in the right direction towards effective gun legislation. What other than the banning of hand guns can you go further in the "right direction"? Now see, if I wanted to go a smart step in the right direction, (and I know I only speak for myself while applying this chunk of common sense, there ARE some whackjobs in the gun lobby), I'd be perfectly fine with permits and registration for handguns. Assuming the process was reasonable, treat it roughly like cars. Take your written and practical exam for a moderate fee, and any handguns you own get registered by serial to your permit. Hell, I'd even be ok with every 3 years or so, having to demonstrate that I still have all handguns registered to my permit, at no additional cost, in the process of renewing. I have to have a license and registration to drive my damned car, I don't see a problem with it as part of owning a handgun, since they're easily concealed and used for homicide. Assuming there's some controls built into the legislation to prevent abuse down the road. I think it would have more effect than an AWB ever could, and if gun control people could show some good faith, a system like this might even happen. If you want to treat it like cars, people can own whatever gun they want at home,but if they want to have it in public they need to go through all that car stuff.
That would work if not for one little detail. I can stick a Glock under a jacket. Not so much a Buick. They'll notice if I'm driving a non-registered car, pull me over, and check my license.
|
On February 06 2013 09:18 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 09:11 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:09 Zealotdriver wrote:On February 06 2013 09:03 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 08:53 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 08:31 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:22 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 06:33 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 05:50 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
[quote]
You can go back and re-read my last few posts if you'd like. I think I explain pretty clearly why even though aspects of the proposed legislation are, by themselves, ineffectual, it is still progress towards making America safer.
Also, again, I think that background checks will have a substantial impact. Background checks are fine, assault weapons bans are not. I've said this a million times. Why are you reiterating the point we agree on? You have NOT explained why banning weapons that get used for a tiny percentage of crimes is progress towards a better America, unless your definition of a better America is a gun free one. Here, let's turn on our rational brains for a second. Let's say we ban "assault weapons" today. It doesn't do much, for the simple reason that rifles barely get used in crimes. So, tomorrow we ban shotguns, because those things are pretty scary too. Unfortunately, they're barely used in more crimes than rifles. So, finally, we ban handguns. And... what fucking guns are left over after we start legislating the guns that get used in the majority of crimes? Paintball. Maybe. That's why it's not good faith to start with "assault weapons". Unless you honestly think they're going to give the guns back after it doesn't work? For the sake of discourse, it would be helpful if you toned down the aggressive tone that you have in most of your posts. I'll paraphrase what I said to Militron. In order to significantly affect gun violence in the US, some combination of drastic gun control measures would need to be implemented. I'm not saying banning guns outright, but certainly something more than magazine limits and AWB. Legislation such as this would certainly not pass right now. The currently proposed legislation looks like it might go through, and that's because its dumbed down. It's a step. Not a step to ban guns and retract the 2nd amendment, but a step towards effective legislation. I'll quote myself again... I get the impression that any legislation proposed that could make an impact would be opposed by you on the grounds of the federal government overstepping its bounds and infringing on your 2nd amendment rights, while anything that is less strict will be opposed by you because its ineffective. The reason he is being aggressive in his responses is you arn't understanding his point at all. You just repeated what he already answered to. To make this as simple as possible: What he's saying is he isn't for a complete gun ban. Banning assault rifles then figuring out they arn't the problem and banning handguns in turn IS a complete gun ban because are you going to then over-turn the ban on assault rifles? not very likely. The question to you is, are you for a complete gun ban? you say no and yet your idea for legislation states yes. I'm pretty sure I understand his point, and if I didn't, being aggressive won't help. Jingle: Why would we ban assault weapons when they are used in a low number of crimes. Me: You are using the AWB, which is rather silly, as a scapegoat to reject all proposed gun legislation. I'll say it for a third time. Anything that significantly reduces gun violence will be rejected as being too overbearing or as infringing on 2nd amendment rights. Anything else is rejected as being ineffectual. See the catch 22? Effective gun legislation does not equal unilateral gun bans. Your'e pretending that I'm making claims that I'm not. I own two rifles. No one disagrees with extensive background checks which, i doubt you could argue as you said it yourself, would be effective gun legislation. You're trying to say that if the assault rifle ban doesn't lower gun crime then there's no possible way they will ban hand guns because people will be up in arms (pun unintended) about it and at least it helps a little bit. I'm saying that I don't agree and I feel that it is perfectly valid to worry about a handgun ban followed sometime afterwards edit: also as he pointed out above me. You did in fact say that it was a step in the right direction towards effective gun legislation. What other than the banning of hand guns can you go further in the "right direction"? Now see, if I wanted to go a smart step in the right direction, (and I know I only speak for myself while applying this chunk of common sense, there ARE some whackjobs in the gun lobby), I'd be perfectly fine with permits and registration for handguns. Assuming the process was reasonable, treat it roughly like cars. Take your written and practical exam for a moderate fee, and any handguns you own get registered by serial to your permit. Hell, I'd even be ok with every 3 years or so, having to demonstrate that I still have all handguns registered to my permit, at no additional cost, in the process of renewing. I have to have a license and registration to drive my damned car, I don't see a problem with it as part of owning a handgun, since they're easily concealed and used for homicide. Assuming there's some controls built into the legislation to prevent abuse down the road. I think it would have more effect than an AWB ever could, and if gun control people could show some good faith, a system like this might even happen. Who do you think you are, bringing rational and feasible suggestions to the gun control debate? The people want wild accusations, ludicrous proposals, and political grandstanding. I think the problem for most people has to do with the fact that his suggestion is essentially nothing more than posturing. It would cost money and have no positive effect on anything because it's a shy proposal and a waste of time. It would have no immediate effect on anything, I believe, much as no other gun legislation in a saturated market would have an immediate effect, particularly where criminal uses were concerned. However, it would make straw purchases harder, reducing supply to criminals. It would reduce accidents (which anti-gun people usually laud as an associated goal) through training. Mandatory registration of handguns would absolutely require universal background checks on handgun sales. It would, over some time, reduce handgun related deaths, turn itself around to a revenue stream for the state, and it would pave the way for universal background checks on all sales. Explain how it would be useless, compared to, say, banning shit that doesn't get used in many crimes, or limiting magazine size (guess what, I can still carry more magazines).
Supply to criminals is bottomless, I'm not convinced that adding tests would reduce accidents*, background checks are limited in utility.
As for magazine sizes, carrying more magazines still slows down your overall rate of fire. I don't know that your idea is any worse than clumsy bans but I know we're talking about a ****load of public funds and little to no results. How much do you think it would cost to nationalize that entire administrative process - what about the exam every 3 years? That's a lot of money.
*: Everyone passes driving tests, and the second they're done, they start driving like crap again. It's easy to fake being decent with a gun.
|
On February 06 2013 09:25 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 09:18 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 09:11 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:09 Zealotdriver wrote:On February 06 2013 09:03 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 08:53 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 08:31 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:22 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 06:33 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
Background checks are fine, assault weapons bans are not. I've said this a million times. Why are you reiterating the point we agree on?
You have NOT explained why banning weapons that get used for a tiny percentage of crimes is progress towards a better America, unless your definition of a better America is a gun free one. Here, let's turn on our rational brains for a second.
Let's say we ban "assault weapons" today. It doesn't do much, for the simple reason that rifles barely get used in crimes. So, tomorrow we ban shotguns, because those things are pretty scary too. Unfortunately, they're barely used in more crimes than rifles.
So, finally, we ban handguns. And... what fucking guns are left over after we start legislating the guns that get used in the majority of crimes? Paintball. Maybe.
That's why it's not good faith to start with "assault weapons". Unless you honestly think they're going to give the guns back after it doesn't work? For the sake of discourse, it would be helpful if you toned down the aggressive tone that you have in most of your posts. I'll paraphrase what I said to Militron. In order to significantly affect gun violence in the US, some combination of drastic gun control measures would need to be implemented. I'm not saying banning guns outright, but certainly something more than magazine limits and AWB. Legislation such as this would certainly not pass right now. The currently proposed legislation looks like it might go through, and that's because its dumbed down. It's a step. Not a step to ban guns and retract the 2nd amendment, but a step towards effective legislation. I'll quote myself again... I get the impression that any legislation proposed that could make an impact would be opposed by you on the grounds of the federal government overstepping its bounds and infringing on your 2nd amendment rights, while anything that is less strict will be opposed by you because its ineffective. The reason he is being aggressive in his responses is you arn't understanding his point at all. You just repeated what he already answered to. To make this as simple as possible: What he's saying is he isn't for a complete gun ban. Banning assault rifles then figuring out they arn't the problem and banning handguns in turn IS a complete gun ban because are you going to then over-turn the ban on assault rifles? not very likely. The question to you is, are you for a complete gun ban? you say no and yet your idea for legislation states yes. I'm pretty sure I understand his point, and if I didn't, being aggressive won't help. Jingle: Why would we ban assault weapons when they are used in a low number of crimes. Me: You are using the AWB, which is rather silly, as a scapegoat to reject all proposed gun legislation. I'll say it for a third time. Anything that significantly reduces gun violence will be rejected as being too overbearing or as infringing on 2nd amendment rights. Anything else is rejected as being ineffectual. See the catch 22? Effective gun legislation does not equal unilateral gun bans. Your'e pretending that I'm making claims that I'm not. I own two rifles. No one disagrees with extensive background checks which, i doubt you could argue as you said it yourself, would be effective gun legislation. You're trying to say that if the assault rifle ban doesn't lower gun crime then there's no possible way they will ban hand guns because people will be up in arms (pun unintended) about it and at least it helps a little bit. I'm saying that I don't agree and I feel that it is perfectly valid to worry about a handgun ban followed sometime afterwards edit: also as he pointed out above me. You did in fact say that it was a step in the right direction towards effective gun legislation. What other than the banning of hand guns can you go further in the "right direction"? Now see, if I wanted to go a smart step in the right direction, (and I know I only speak for myself while applying this chunk of common sense, there ARE some whackjobs in the gun lobby), I'd be perfectly fine with permits and registration for handguns. Assuming the process was reasonable, treat it roughly like cars. Take your written and practical exam for a moderate fee, and any handguns you own get registered by serial to your permit. Hell, I'd even be ok with every 3 years or so, having to demonstrate that I still have all handguns registered to my permit, at no additional cost, in the process of renewing. I have to have a license and registration to drive my damned car, I don't see a problem with it as part of owning a handgun, since they're easily concealed and used for homicide. Assuming there's some controls built into the legislation to prevent abuse down the road. I think it would have more effect than an AWB ever could, and if gun control people could show some good faith, a system like this might even happen. Who do you think you are, bringing rational and feasible suggestions to the gun control debate? The people want wild accusations, ludicrous proposals, and political grandstanding. I think the problem for most people has to do with the fact that his suggestion is essentially nothing more than posturing. It would cost money and have no positive effect on anything because it's a shy proposal and a waste of time. It would have no immediate effect on anything, I believe, much as no other gun legislation in a saturated market would have an immediate effect, particularly where criminal uses were concerned. However, it would make straw purchases harder, reducing supply to criminals. It would reduce accidents (which anti-gun people usually laud as an associated goal) through training. Mandatory registration of handguns would absolutely require universal background checks on handgun sales. It would, over some time, reduce handgun related deaths, turn itself around to a revenue stream for the state, and it would pave the way for universal background checks on all sales. Explain how it would be useless, compared to, say, banning shit that doesn't get used in many crimes, or limiting magazine size (guess what, I can still carry more magazines). Supply to criminals is bottomless, I'm not convinced that adding tests would reduce accidents, background checks are limited in utility. As for magazine sizes, carrying more magazines still slows down your overall rate of fire. I don't know that your idea is any worse than clumsy bans but I know we're talking about a ****load of public funds and little to no results. How much do you think it would cost to nationalize that entire administrative process - what about the exam every 3 years? That's a lot of money.
Well, the only option that's not going to cost something and have no immediate effect is to do nothing. You prefer that?
If supply to criminals is bottomless, then no legislation will work anyways, so actually, I assume you're either advocating no gun control, or you're done here?
Oh, and if you think criminals would get guns no matter what, surely you think they'd get 30+ round mags easily too?
|
On February 06 2013 09:27 JingleHell wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 09:25 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:18 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 09:11 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:09 Zealotdriver wrote:On February 06 2013 09:03 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 08:53 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 08:31 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:22 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
[quote]
For the sake of discourse, it would be helpful if you toned down the aggressive tone that you have in most of your posts.
I'll paraphrase what I said to Militron. In order to significantly affect gun violence in the US, some combination of drastic gun control measures would need to be implemented. I'm not saying banning guns outright, but certainly something more than magazine limits and AWB. Legislation such as this would certainly not pass right now. The currently proposed legislation looks like it might go through, and that's because its dumbed down. It's a step. Not a step to ban guns and retract the 2nd amendment, but a step towards effective legislation.
I'll quote myself again...
I get the impression that any legislation proposed that could make an impact would be opposed by you on the grounds of the federal government overstepping its bounds and infringing on your 2nd amendment rights, while anything that is less strict will be opposed by you because its ineffective.
The reason he is being aggressive in his responses is you arn't understanding his point at all. You just repeated what he already answered to. To make this as simple as possible: What he's saying is he isn't for a complete gun ban. Banning assault rifles then figuring out they arn't the problem and banning handguns in turn IS a complete gun ban because are you going to then over-turn the ban on assault rifles? not very likely. The question to you is, are you for a complete gun ban? you say no and yet your idea for legislation states yes. I'm pretty sure I understand his point, and if I didn't, being aggressive won't help. Jingle: Why would we ban assault weapons when they are used in a low number of crimes. Me: You are using the AWB, which is rather silly, as a scapegoat to reject all proposed gun legislation. I'll say it for a third time. Anything that significantly reduces gun violence will be rejected as being too overbearing or as infringing on 2nd amendment rights. Anything else is rejected as being ineffectual. See the catch 22? Effective gun legislation does not equal unilateral gun bans. Your'e pretending that I'm making claims that I'm not. I own two rifles. No one disagrees with extensive background checks which, i doubt you could argue as you said it yourself, would be effective gun legislation. You're trying to say that if the assault rifle ban doesn't lower gun crime then there's no possible way they will ban hand guns because people will be up in arms (pun unintended) about it and at least it helps a little bit. I'm saying that I don't agree and I feel that it is perfectly valid to worry about a handgun ban followed sometime afterwards edit: also as he pointed out above me. You did in fact say that it was a step in the right direction towards effective gun legislation. What other than the banning of hand guns can you go further in the "right direction"? Now see, if I wanted to go a smart step in the right direction, (and I know I only speak for myself while applying this chunk of common sense, there ARE some whackjobs in the gun lobby), I'd be perfectly fine with permits and registration for handguns. Assuming the process was reasonable, treat it roughly like cars. Take your written and practical exam for a moderate fee, and any handguns you own get registered by serial to your permit. Hell, I'd even be ok with every 3 years or so, having to demonstrate that I still have all handguns registered to my permit, at no additional cost, in the process of renewing. I have to have a license and registration to drive my damned car, I don't see a problem with it as part of owning a handgun, since they're easily concealed and used for homicide. Assuming there's some controls built into the legislation to prevent abuse down the road. I think it would have more effect than an AWB ever could, and if gun control people could show some good faith, a system like this might even happen. Who do you think you are, bringing rational and feasible suggestions to the gun control debate? The people want wild accusations, ludicrous proposals, and political grandstanding. I think the problem for most people has to do with the fact that his suggestion is essentially nothing more than posturing. It would cost money and have no positive effect on anything because it's a shy proposal and a waste of time. It would have no immediate effect on anything, I believe, much as no other gun legislation in a saturated market would have an immediate effect, particularly where criminal uses were concerned. However, it would make straw purchases harder, reducing supply to criminals. It would reduce accidents (which anti-gun people usually laud as an associated goal) through training. Mandatory registration of handguns would absolutely require universal background checks on handgun sales. It would, over some time, reduce handgun related deaths, turn itself around to a revenue stream for the state, and it would pave the way for universal background checks on all sales. Explain how it would be useless, compared to, say, banning shit that doesn't get used in many crimes, or limiting magazine size (guess what, I can still carry more magazines). Supply to criminals is bottomless, I'm not convinced that adding tests would reduce accidents, background checks are limited in utility. As for magazine sizes, carrying more magazines still slows down your overall rate of fire. I don't know that your idea is any worse than clumsy bans but I know we're talking about a ****load of public funds and little to no results. How much do you think it would cost to nationalize that entire administrative process - what about the exam every 3 years? That's a lot of money. Well, the only option that's not going to cost something and have no immediate effect is to do nothing. You prefer that? If supply to criminals is bottomless, then no legislation will work anyways, so actually, I assume you're either advocating no gun control, or you're done here?
That's how politicians view issues, and that's why governments waste so much more money than the private sector which has a tendency not to do stuff just for the hell of it.
Look at your solution, realize that it'd cost hundreds of millions over the years. Is this worth it, or is it a cop out that'd make the US like it did something?
I don't even know what you can do in the US. I have some ideas that may be validated or invalidated by actual research. As people have mentioned before, it has to be a gradual process. Tougher penalties for owning an illegal firearm, more restrictive policies on weapons and equipment deemed dangerous. Slowly remove illegal guns, knowing that the situation is so far out of control, it'll never be good again.
Fuck, the whole gun control conversation is a joke in the first place. All those things we talked about when in reality they'd only make marginal differences. You want to reduce crime in America, legalize drugs, that'll break down a shitload of criminal organizations, and work on the massive income disparity between the rich and the poor. Income inequality -> crime. So that's two of the huge sources of your problems.
Oh, and if you think criminals would get guns no matter what, surely you think they'd get 30+ round mags easily too?
Hence the whole "you're kinda fucked" thing. But if you can weed out some of the big things, that'd be great. Here in Canada, guns are a bit harder to come across. The Dawson college shooting guy for instance only had access to small caliber weapons, which probably saved many lives that day.
|
On February 06 2013 09:25 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 09:18 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 09:11 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:09 Zealotdriver wrote:On February 06 2013 09:03 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 08:53 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 08:31 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:22 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 06:33 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
Background checks are fine, assault weapons bans are not. I've said this a million times. Why are you reiterating the point we agree on?
You have NOT explained why banning weapons that get used for a tiny percentage of crimes is progress towards a better America, unless your definition of a better America is a gun free one. Here, let's turn on our rational brains for a second.
Let's say we ban "assault weapons" today. It doesn't do much, for the simple reason that rifles barely get used in crimes. So, tomorrow we ban shotguns, because those things are pretty scary too. Unfortunately, they're barely used in more crimes than rifles.
So, finally, we ban handguns. And... what fucking guns are left over after we start legislating the guns that get used in the majority of crimes? Paintball. Maybe.
That's why it's not good faith to start with "assault weapons". Unless you honestly think they're going to give the guns back after it doesn't work? For the sake of discourse, it would be helpful if you toned down the aggressive tone that you have in most of your posts. I'll paraphrase what I said to Militron. In order to significantly affect gun violence in the US, some combination of drastic gun control measures would need to be implemented. I'm not saying banning guns outright, but certainly something more than magazine limits and AWB. Legislation such as this would certainly not pass right now. The currently proposed legislation looks like it might go through, and that's because its dumbed down. It's a step. Not a step to ban guns and retract the 2nd amendment, but a step towards effective legislation. I'll quote myself again... I get the impression that any legislation proposed that could make an impact would be opposed by you on the grounds of the federal government overstepping its bounds and infringing on your 2nd amendment rights, while anything that is less strict will be opposed by you because its ineffective. The reason he is being aggressive in his responses is you arn't understanding his point at all. You just repeated what he already answered to. To make this as simple as possible: What he's saying is he isn't for a complete gun ban. Banning assault rifles then figuring out they arn't the problem and banning handguns in turn IS a complete gun ban because are you going to then over-turn the ban on assault rifles? not very likely. The question to you is, are you for a complete gun ban? you say no and yet your idea for legislation states yes. I'm pretty sure I understand his point, and if I didn't, being aggressive won't help. Jingle: Why would we ban assault weapons when they are used in a low number of crimes. Me: You are using the AWB, which is rather silly, as a scapegoat to reject all proposed gun legislation. I'll say it for a third time. Anything that significantly reduces gun violence will be rejected as being too overbearing or as infringing on 2nd amendment rights. Anything else is rejected as being ineffectual. See the catch 22? Effective gun legislation does not equal unilateral gun bans. Your'e pretending that I'm making claims that I'm not. I own two rifles. No one disagrees with extensive background checks which, i doubt you could argue as you said it yourself, would be effective gun legislation. You're trying to say that if the assault rifle ban doesn't lower gun crime then there's no possible way they will ban hand guns because people will be up in arms (pun unintended) about it and at least it helps a little bit. I'm saying that I don't agree and I feel that it is perfectly valid to worry about a handgun ban followed sometime afterwards edit: also as he pointed out above me. You did in fact say that it was a step in the right direction towards effective gun legislation. What other than the banning of hand guns can you go further in the "right direction"? Now see, if I wanted to go a smart step in the right direction, (and I know I only speak for myself while applying this chunk of common sense, there ARE some whackjobs in the gun lobby), I'd be perfectly fine with permits and registration for handguns. Assuming the process was reasonable, treat it roughly like cars. Take your written and practical exam for a moderate fee, and any handguns you own get registered by serial to your permit. Hell, I'd even be ok with every 3 years or so, having to demonstrate that I still have all handguns registered to my permit, at no additional cost, in the process of renewing. I have to have a license and registration to drive my damned car, I don't see a problem with it as part of owning a handgun, since they're easily concealed and used for homicide. Assuming there's some controls built into the legislation to prevent abuse down the road. I think it would have more effect than an AWB ever could, and if gun control people could show some good faith, a system like this might even happen. Who do you think you are, bringing rational and feasible suggestions to the gun control debate? The people want wild accusations, ludicrous proposals, and political grandstanding. I think the problem for most people has to do with the fact that his suggestion is essentially nothing more than posturing. It would cost money and have no positive effect on anything because it's a shy proposal and a waste of time. It would have no immediate effect on anything, I believe, much as no other gun legislation in a saturated market would have an immediate effect, particularly where criminal uses were concerned. However, it would make straw purchases harder, reducing supply to criminals. It would reduce accidents (which anti-gun people usually laud as an associated goal) through training. Mandatory registration of handguns would absolutely require universal background checks on handgun sales. It would, over some time, reduce handgun related deaths, turn itself around to a revenue stream for the state, and it would pave the way for universal background checks on all sales. Explain how it would be useless, compared to, say, banning shit that doesn't get used in many crimes, or limiting magazine size (guess what, I can still carry more magazines). Supply to criminals is bottomless, I'm not convinced that adding tests would reduce accidents*, background checks are limited in utility. As for magazine sizes, carrying more magazines still slows down your overall rate of fire. I don't know that your idea is any worse than clumsy bans but I know we're talking about a ****load of public funds and little to no results. How much do you think it would cost to nationalize that entire administrative process - what about the exam every 3 years? That's a lot of money. *: Everyone passes driving tests, and the second they're done, they start driving like crap again. It's easy to fake being decent with a gun.
Adam Lanza, the psycho who shot up Sandyhook Elementary, reloaded frequently. Sure he had big magazines, but the police found most of them over half full. He didn't really take advantage of them at all. It doesn't take all that long at all to reload. Hold both arms outstretched. Move one down to your belt, then back up to the other as fast as you can. That's how long reloading takes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_shooting
|
On February 06 2013 09:44 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 09:25 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:18 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 09:11 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:09 Zealotdriver wrote:On February 06 2013 09:03 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 08:53 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 08:31 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:22 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
[quote]
For the sake of discourse, it would be helpful if you toned down the aggressive tone that you have in most of your posts.
I'll paraphrase what I said to Militron. In order to significantly affect gun violence in the US, some combination of drastic gun control measures would need to be implemented. I'm not saying banning guns outright, but certainly something more than magazine limits and AWB. Legislation such as this would certainly not pass right now. The currently proposed legislation looks like it might go through, and that's because its dumbed down. It's a step. Not a step to ban guns and retract the 2nd amendment, but a step towards effective legislation.
I'll quote myself again...
I get the impression that any legislation proposed that could make an impact would be opposed by you on the grounds of the federal government overstepping its bounds and infringing on your 2nd amendment rights, while anything that is less strict will be opposed by you because its ineffective.
The reason he is being aggressive in his responses is you arn't understanding his point at all. You just repeated what he already answered to. To make this as simple as possible: What he's saying is he isn't for a complete gun ban. Banning assault rifles then figuring out they arn't the problem and banning handguns in turn IS a complete gun ban because are you going to then over-turn the ban on assault rifles? not very likely. The question to you is, are you for a complete gun ban? you say no and yet your idea for legislation states yes. I'm pretty sure I understand his point, and if I didn't, being aggressive won't help. Jingle: Why would we ban assault weapons when they are used in a low number of crimes. Me: You are using the AWB, which is rather silly, as a scapegoat to reject all proposed gun legislation. I'll say it for a third time. Anything that significantly reduces gun violence will be rejected as being too overbearing or as infringing on 2nd amendment rights. Anything else is rejected as being ineffectual. See the catch 22? Effective gun legislation does not equal unilateral gun bans. Your'e pretending that I'm making claims that I'm not. I own two rifles. No one disagrees with extensive background checks which, i doubt you could argue as you said it yourself, would be effective gun legislation. You're trying to say that if the assault rifle ban doesn't lower gun crime then there's no possible way they will ban hand guns because people will be up in arms (pun unintended) about it and at least it helps a little bit. I'm saying that I don't agree and I feel that it is perfectly valid to worry about a handgun ban followed sometime afterwards edit: also as he pointed out above me. You did in fact say that it was a step in the right direction towards effective gun legislation. What other than the banning of hand guns can you go further in the "right direction"? Now see, if I wanted to go a smart step in the right direction, (and I know I only speak for myself while applying this chunk of common sense, there ARE some whackjobs in the gun lobby), I'd be perfectly fine with permits and registration for handguns. Assuming the process was reasonable, treat it roughly like cars. Take your written and practical exam for a moderate fee, and any handguns you own get registered by serial to your permit. Hell, I'd even be ok with every 3 years or so, having to demonstrate that I still have all handguns registered to my permit, at no additional cost, in the process of renewing. I have to have a license and registration to drive my damned car, I don't see a problem with it as part of owning a handgun, since they're easily concealed and used for homicide. Assuming there's some controls built into the legislation to prevent abuse down the road. I think it would have more effect than an AWB ever could, and if gun control people could show some good faith, a system like this might even happen. Who do you think you are, bringing rational and feasible suggestions to the gun control debate? The people want wild accusations, ludicrous proposals, and political grandstanding. I think the problem for most people has to do with the fact that his suggestion is essentially nothing more than posturing. It would cost money and have no positive effect on anything because it's a shy proposal and a waste of time. It would have no immediate effect on anything, I believe, much as no other gun legislation in a saturated market would have an immediate effect, particularly where criminal uses were concerned. However, it would make straw purchases harder, reducing supply to criminals. It would reduce accidents (which anti-gun people usually laud as an associated goal) through training. Mandatory registration of handguns would absolutely require universal background checks on handgun sales. It would, over some time, reduce handgun related deaths, turn itself around to a revenue stream for the state, and it would pave the way for universal background checks on all sales. Explain how it would be useless, compared to, say, banning shit that doesn't get used in many crimes, or limiting magazine size (guess what, I can still carry more magazines). Supply to criminals is bottomless, I'm not convinced that adding tests would reduce accidents*, background checks are limited in utility. As for magazine sizes, carrying more magazines still slows down your overall rate of fire. I don't know that your idea is any worse than clumsy bans but I know we're talking about a ****load of public funds and little to no results. How much do you think it would cost to nationalize that entire administrative process - what about the exam every 3 years? That's a lot of money. *: Everyone passes driving tests, and the second they're done, they start driving like crap again. It's easy to fake being decent with a gun. Adam Lanza, the psycho who shot up Sandyhook Elementary, reloaded frequently. Sure he had big magazines, but the police found most of them over half full. He didn't really take advantage of them at all. It doesn't take all that long at all to reload. Hold both arms outstretched. Move one down to your belt, then back up to the other as fast as you can. That's how long reloading takes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_shooting
That's nice anecdotal evidence but I'm pretty sure that what this one guy did isn't necessarily representative of The World.
He could just as well have used all his ammunition, and gotten more shots out. Maybe he would have killed more kids. The fact that one person can reload quickly doesn't change the fact that maybe the extra one second helps little Sally run around a fucking corner and live an extra 75 happy years.
|
On February 06 2013 09:47 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 09:44 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 09:25 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:18 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 09:11 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:09 Zealotdriver wrote:On February 06 2013 09:03 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 08:53 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 08:31 Dawski wrote:
[quote]
The reason he is being aggressive in his responses is you arn't understanding his point at all. You just repeated what he already answered to.
To make this as simple as possible: What he's saying is he isn't for a complete gun ban. Banning assault rifles then figuring out they arn't the problem and banning handguns in turn IS a complete gun ban because are you going to then over-turn the ban on assault rifles? not very likely.
The question to you is, are you for a complete gun ban? you say no and yet your idea for legislation states yes. I'm pretty sure I understand his point, and if I didn't, being aggressive won't help. Jingle: Why would we ban assault weapons when they are used in a low number of crimes. Me: You are using the AWB, which is rather silly, as a scapegoat to reject all proposed gun legislation. I'll say it for a third time. Anything that significantly reduces gun violence will be rejected as being too overbearing or as infringing on 2nd amendment rights. Anything else is rejected as being ineffectual. See the catch 22? Effective gun legislation does not equal unilateral gun bans. Your'e pretending that I'm making claims that I'm not. I own two rifles. No one disagrees with extensive background checks which, i doubt you could argue as you said it yourself, would be effective gun legislation. You're trying to say that if the assault rifle ban doesn't lower gun crime then there's no possible way they will ban hand guns because people will be up in arms (pun unintended) about it and at least it helps a little bit. I'm saying that I don't agree and I feel that it is perfectly valid to worry about a handgun ban followed sometime afterwards edit: also as he pointed out above me. You did in fact say that it was a step in the right direction towards effective gun legislation. What other than the banning of hand guns can you go further in the "right direction"? Now see, if I wanted to go a smart step in the right direction, (and I know I only speak for myself while applying this chunk of common sense, there ARE some whackjobs in the gun lobby), I'd be perfectly fine with permits and registration for handguns. Assuming the process was reasonable, treat it roughly like cars. Take your written and practical exam for a moderate fee, and any handguns you own get registered by serial to your permit. Hell, I'd even be ok with every 3 years or so, having to demonstrate that I still have all handguns registered to my permit, at no additional cost, in the process of renewing. I have to have a license and registration to drive my damned car, I don't see a problem with it as part of owning a handgun, since they're easily concealed and used for homicide. Assuming there's some controls built into the legislation to prevent abuse down the road. I think it would have more effect than an AWB ever could, and if gun control people could show some good faith, a system like this might even happen. Who do you think you are, bringing rational and feasible suggestions to the gun control debate? The people want wild accusations, ludicrous proposals, and political grandstanding. I think the problem for most people has to do with the fact that his suggestion is essentially nothing more than posturing. It would cost money and have no positive effect on anything because it's a shy proposal and a waste of time. It would have no immediate effect on anything, I believe, much as no other gun legislation in a saturated market would have an immediate effect, particularly where criminal uses were concerned. However, it would make straw purchases harder, reducing supply to criminals. It would reduce accidents (which anti-gun people usually laud as an associated goal) through training. Mandatory registration of handguns would absolutely require universal background checks on handgun sales. It would, over some time, reduce handgun related deaths, turn itself around to a revenue stream for the state, and it would pave the way for universal background checks on all sales. Explain how it would be useless, compared to, say, banning shit that doesn't get used in many crimes, or limiting magazine size (guess what, I can still carry more magazines). Supply to criminals is bottomless, I'm not convinced that adding tests would reduce accidents*, background checks are limited in utility. As for magazine sizes, carrying more magazines still slows down your overall rate of fire. I don't know that your idea is any worse than clumsy bans but I know we're talking about a ****load of public funds and little to no results. How much do you think it would cost to nationalize that entire administrative process - what about the exam every 3 years? That's a lot of money. *: Everyone passes driving tests, and the second they're done, they start driving like crap again. It's easy to fake being decent with a gun. Adam Lanza, the psycho who shot up Sandyhook Elementary, reloaded frequently. Sure he had big magazines, but the police found most of them over half full. He didn't really take advantage of them at all. It doesn't take all that long at all to reload. Hold both arms outstretched. Move one down to your belt, then back up to the other as fast as you can. That's how long reloading takes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_shooting That's nice anecdotal evidence but I'm pretty sure that what this one guy did isn't necessarily representative of The World. He could just as well have used all his ammunition, and gotten more shot out. The fact that one person can reload quickly doesn't change the fact that maybe the extra one second helps little Sally run around a fucking corner and live an extra 75 happy years.
Its not that "one person can reload quickly" its that practically everyone can. Did you try my little experiment? If you did, it didn't take long did it?
Sure, people who practice can do it quicker, but its not like someone with no practice takes forever.
And when your Gunman-On-Premesis procedure is "lock the door and hide in a corner" it doesn't really make a difference if he has 5 shots or 500 per magazine.
|
On February 06 2013 09:51 Millitron wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 09:47 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:44 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 09:25 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:18 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 09:11 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:09 Zealotdriver wrote:On February 06 2013 09:03 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 08:53 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
[quote]
I'm pretty sure I understand his point, and if I didn't, being aggressive won't help.
Jingle: Why would we ban assault weapons when they are used in a low number of crimes.
Me: You are using the AWB, which is rather silly, as a scapegoat to reject all proposed gun legislation.
I'll say it for a third time. Anything that significantly reduces gun violence will be rejected as being too overbearing or as infringing on 2nd amendment rights. Anything else is rejected as being ineffectual. See the catch 22?
Effective gun legislation does not equal unilateral gun bans. Your'e pretending that I'm making claims that I'm not. I own two rifles.
No one disagrees with extensive background checks which, i doubt you could argue as you said it yourself, would be effective gun legislation. You're trying to say that if the assault rifle ban doesn't lower gun crime then there's no possible way they will ban hand guns because people will be up in arms (pun unintended) about it and at least it helps a little bit. I'm saying that I don't agree and I feel that it is perfectly valid to worry about a handgun ban followed sometime afterwards edit: also as he pointed out above me. You did in fact say that it was a step in the right direction towards effective gun legislation. What other than the banning of hand guns can you go further in the "right direction"? Now see, if I wanted to go a smart step in the right direction, (and I know I only speak for myself while applying this chunk of common sense, there ARE some whackjobs in the gun lobby), I'd be perfectly fine with permits and registration for handguns. Assuming the process was reasonable, treat it roughly like cars. Take your written and practical exam for a moderate fee, and any handguns you own get registered by serial to your permit. Hell, I'd even be ok with every 3 years or so, having to demonstrate that I still have all handguns registered to my permit, at no additional cost, in the process of renewing. I have to have a license and registration to drive my damned car, I don't see a problem with it as part of owning a handgun, since they're easily concealed and used for homicide. Assuming there's some controls built into the legislation to prevent abuse down the road. I think it would have more effect than an AWB ever could, and if gun control people could show some good faith, a system like this might even happen. Who do you think you are, bringing rational and feasible suggestions to the gun control debate? The people want wild accusations, ludicrous proposals, and political grandstanding. I think the problem for most people has to do with the fact that his suggestion is essentially nothing more than posturing. It would cost money and have no positive effect on anything because it's a shy proposal and a waste of time. It would have no immediate effect on anything, I believe, much as no other gun legislation in a saturated market would have an immediate effect, particularly where criminal uses were concerned. However, it would make straw purchases harder, reducing supply to criminals. It would reduce accidents (which anti-gun people usually laud as an associated goal) through training. Mandatory registration of handguns would absolutely require universal background checks on handgun sales. It would, over some time, reduce handgun related deaths, turn itself around to a revenue stream for the state, and it would pave the way for universal background checks on all sales. Explain how it would be useless, compared to, say, banning shit that doesn't get used in many crimes, or limiting magazine size (guess what, I can still carry more magazines). Supply to criminals is bottomless, I'm not convinced that adding tests would reduce accidents*, background checks are limited in utility. As for magazine sizes, carrying more magazines still slows down your overall rate of fire. I don't know that your idea is any worse than clumsy bans but I know we're talking about a ****load of public funds and little to no results. How much do you think it would cost to nationalize that entire administrative process - what about the exam every 3 years? That's a lot of money. *: Everyone passes driving tests, and the second they're done, they start driving like crap again. It's easy to fake being decent with a gun. Adam Lanza, the psycho who shot up Sandyhook Elementary, reloaded frequently. Sure he had big magazines, but the police found most of them over half full. He didn't really take advantage of them at all. It doesn't take all that long at all to reload. Hold both arms outstretched. Move one down to your belt, then back up to the other as fast as you can. That's how long reloading takes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_shooting That's nice anecdotal evidence but I'm pretty sure that what this one guy did isn't necessarily representative of The World. He could just as well have used all his ammunition, and gotten more shot out. The fact that one person can reload quickly doesn't change the fact that maybe the extra one second helps little Sally run around a fucking corner and live an extra 75 happy years. Its not that "one person can reload quickly" its that practically everyone can. Did you try my little experiment? If you did, it didn't take long did it? Sure, people who practice can do it quicker, but its not like someone with no practice takes forever. And when your Gunman-On-Premesis procedure is "lock the door and hide in a corner" it doesn't really make a difference if he has 5 shots or 500 per magazine.
That's complete bullshit and you know it, unless you're fooling yourself to feel better or something. If you can get more bullets out quicker without having to tinker around with your weapon, you can kill more people. Simple as that. Even if "almost everyone" can reload quickly, absolutely everyone can shoot fast when they don't have to reload as often, and when they don't have to look for the next clip which's corner got stuck in the bag, or that you can drop because you're clumsy being nervous or whatever.
It's absolutely mind blowing to see this ridiculous argument, frankly. It's insane how much people will lie to themselves.
But I imagine you'd do just as well with a bolt action rifle as you would crouched in front of a cafeteria full of people with a HMG.
|
United States24670 Posts
On February 06 2013 09:57 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 09:51 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 09:47 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:44 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 09:25 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:18 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 09:11 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:09 Zealotdriver wrote:On February 06 2013 09:03 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 08:53 Dawski wrote:
[quote]
No one disagrees with extensive background checks which, i doubt you could argue as you said it yourself, would be effective gun legislation.
You're trying to say that if the assault rifle ban doesn't lower gun crime then there's no possible way they will ban hand guns because people will be up in arms (pun unintended) about it and at least it helps a little bit.
I'm saying that I don't agree and I feel that it is perfectly valid to worry about a handgun ban followed sometime afterwards
edit: also as he pointed out above me. You did in fact say that it was a step in the right direction towards effective gun legislation. What other than the banning of hand guns can you go further in the "right direction"? Now see, if I wanted to go a smart step in the right direction, (and I know I only speak for myself while applying this chunk of common sense, there ARE some whackjobs in the gun lobby), I'd be perfectly fine with permits and registration for handguns. Assuming the process was reasonable, treat it roughly like cars. Take your written and practical exam for a moderate fee, and any handguns you own get registered by serial to your permit. Hell, I'd even be ok with every 3 years or so, having to demonstrate that I still have all handguns registered to my permit, at no additional cost, in the process of renewing. I have to have a license and registration to drive my damned car, I don't see a problem with it as part of owning a handgun, since they're easily concealed and used for homicide. Assuming there's some controls built into the legislation to prevent abuse down the road. I think it would have more effect than an AWB ever could, and if gun control people could show some good faith, a system like this might even happen. Who do you think you are, bringing rational and feasible suggestions to the gun control debate? The people want wild accusations, ludicrous proposals, and political grandstanding. I think the problem for most people has to do with the fact that his suggestion is essentially nothing more than posturing. It would cost money and have no positive effect on anything because it's a shy proposal and a waste of time. It would have no immediate effect on anything, I believe, much as no other gun legislation in a saturated market would have an immediate effect, particularly where criminal uses were concerned. However, it would make straw purchases harder, reducing supply to criminals. It would reduce accidents (which anti-gun people usually laud as an associated goal) through training. Mandatory registration of handguns would absolutely require universal background checks on handgun sales. It would, over some time, reduce handgun related deaths, turn itself around to a revenue stream for the state, and it would pave the way for universal background checks on all sales. Explain how it would be useless, compared to, say, banning shit that doesn't get used in many crimes, or limiting magazine size (guess what, I can still carry more magazines). Supply to criminals is bottomless, I'm not convinced that adding tests would reduce accidents*, background checks are limited in utility. As for magazine sizes, carrying more magazines still slows down your overall rate of fire. I don't know that your idea is any worse than clumsy bans but I know we're talking about a ****load of public funds and little to no results. How much do you think it would cost to nationalize that entire administrative process - what about the exam every 3 years? That's a lot of money. *: Everyone passes driving tests, and the second they're done, they start driving like crap again. It's easy to fake being decent with a gun. Adam Lanza, the psycho who shot up Sandyhook Elementary, reloaded frequently. Sure he had big magazines, but the police found most of them over half full. He didn't really take advantage of them at all. It doesn't take all that long at all to reload. Hold both arms outstretched. Move one down to your belt, then back up to the other as fast as you can. That's how long reloading takes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_shooting That's nice anecdotal evidence but I'm pretty sure that what this one guy did isn't necessarily representative of The World. He could just as well have used all his ammunition, and gotten more shot out. The fact that one person can reload quickly doesn't change the fact that maybe the extra one second helps little Sally run around a fucking corner and live an extra 75 happy years. Its not that "one person can reload quickly" its that practically everyone can. Did you try my little experiment? If you did, it didn't take long did it? Sure, people who practice can do it quicker, but its not like someone with no practice takes forever. And when your Gunman-On-Premesis procedure is "lock the door and hide in a corner" it doesn't really make a difference if he has 5 shots or 500 per magazine. That's complete bullshit and you know it, unless you're fooling yourself to feel better or something. If you can get more bullets out quicker without having to tinker around with your weapon, you can kill more people. Simple as that. Even if "almost everyone" can reload quickly, absolutely everyone can shoot fast when they don't have to reload as often, and when they don't have to look for the next clip which's corner got stuck in the bag, or that you can drop because you're clumsy being nervous or whatever. It's absolutely mind blowing to see this ridiculous argument, frankly. It's insane how much people will lie to themselves. But I imagine you'd do just as well with a bolt action rifle as you would crouched in front of a cafeteria full of people with a HMG.
It's ridiculous to say that we shouldn't ban things that will barely affect the severity of crimes? Obviously something much more lethal can be worth banning, but something slightly more lethal isn't an open and shut case, even when we consider that victims could be schoolchildren.
|
On February 06 2013 10:01 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 09:57 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:51 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 09:47 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:44 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 09:25 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:18 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 09:11 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:09 Zealotdriver wrote:On February 06 2013 09:03 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
Now see, if I wanted to go a smart step in the right direction, (and I know I only speak for myself while applying this chunk of common sense, there ARE some whackjobs in the gun lobby), I'd be perfectly fine with permits and registration for handguns. Assuming the process was reasonable, treat it roughly like cars. Take your written and practical exam for a moderate fee, and any handguns you own get registered by serial to your permit.
Hell, I'd even be ok with every 3 years or so, having to demonstrate that I still have all handguns registered to my permit, at no additional cost, in the process of renewing.
I have to have a license and registration to drive my damned car, I don't see a problem with it as part of owning a handgun, since they're easily concealed and used for homicide. Assuming there's some controls built into the legislation to prevent abuse down the road.
I think it would have more effect than an AWB ever could, and if gun control people could show some good faith, a system like this might even happen. Who do you think you are, bringing rational and feasible suggestions to the gun control debate? The people want wild accusations, ludicrous proposals, and political grandstanding. I think the problem for most people has to do with the fact that his suggestion is essentially nothing more than posturing. It would cost money and have no positive effect on anything because it's a shy proposal and a waste of time. It would have no immediate effect on anything, I believe, much as no other gun legislation in a saturated market would have an immediate effect, particularly where criminal uses were concerned. However, it would make straw purchases harder, reducing supply to criminals. It would reduce accidents (which anti-gun people usually laud as an associated goal) through training. Mandatory registration of handguns would absolutely require universal background checks on handgun sales. It would, over some time, reduce handgun related deaths, turn itself around to a revenue stream for the state, and it would pave the way for universal background checks on all sales. Explain how it would be useless, compared to, say, banning shit that doesn't get used in many crimes, or limiting magazine size (guess what, I can still carry more magazines). Supply to criminals is bottomless, I'm not convinced that adding tests would reduce accidents*, background checks are limited in utility. As for magazine sizes, carrying more magazines still slows down your overall rate of fire. I don't know that your idea is any worse than clumsy bans but I know we're talking about a ****load of public funds and little to no results. How much do you think it would cost to nationalize that entire administrative process - what about the exam every 3 years? That's a lot of money. *: Everyone passes driving tests, and the second they're done, they start driving like crap again. It's easy to fake being decent with a gun. Adam Lanza, the psycho who shot up Sandyhook Elementary, reloaded frequently. Sure he had big magazines, but the police found most of them over half full. He didn't really take advantage of them at all. It doesn't take all that long at all to reload. Hold both arms outstretched. Move one down to your belt, then back up to the other as fast as you can. That's how long reloading takes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_shooting That's nice anecdotal evidence but I'm pretty sure that what this one guy did isn't necessarily representative of The World. He could just as well have used all his ammunition, and gotten more shot out. The fact that one person can reload quickly doesn't change the fact that maybe the extra one second helps little Sally run around a fucking corner and live an extra 75 happy years. Its not that "one person can reload quickly" its that practically everyone can. Did you try my little experiment? If you did, it didn't take long did it? Sure, people who practice can do it quicker, but its not like someone with no practice takes forever. And when your Gunman-On-Premesis procedure is "lock the door and hide in a corner" it doesn't really make a difference if he has 5 shots or 500 per magazine. That's complete bullshit and you know it, unless you're fooling yourself to feel better or something. If you can get more bullets out quicker without having to tinker around with your weapon, you can kill more people. Simple as that. Even if "almost everyone" can reload quickly, absolutely everyone can shoot fast when they don't have to reload as often, and when they don't have to look for the next clip which's corner got stuck in the bag, or that you can drop because you're clumsy being nervous or whatever. It's absolutely mind blowing to see this ridiculous argument, frankly. It's insane how much people will lie to themselves. But I imagine you'd do just as well with a bolt action rifle as you would crouched in front of a cafeteria full of people with a HMG. It's ridiculous to say that we shouldn't ban things that will barely affect the severity of crimes? Obviously something much more lethal can be worth banning, but something slightly more lethal isn't an open and shut case, even when we consider that victims could be schoolchildren.
If I understand him correctly, I think he's indicting the notion that everyone and their grandmother can load and unload a firearm rather than speaking to the precise societal danger inherent in extended clip prevalence. Though, to be frank, I think when it comes to weighing the utility and ease extended clips provide law abiding citizens against the potential to make at least one more mass shooting more difficult to perform, I'm going to go with the latter every time.
Edit:In any case, I'm more concerned with proper background checks and an appropriately rigorous process of purchase, so IF those things could be implemented reasonably, I see no reason to ban extended clips. That's a big if though.
Good Djzaps, now you know how I feel when I read French semiotics 
|
On February 06 2013 10:07 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 10:01 micronesia wrote:On February 06 2013 09:57 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:51 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 09:47 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:44 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 09:25 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:18 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 09:11 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:09 Zealotdriver wrote:
[quote]
Who do you think you are, bringing rational and feasible suggestions to the gun control debate? The people want wild accusations, ludicrous proposals, and political grandstanding. I think the problem for most people has to do with the fact that his suggestion is essentially nothing more than posturing. It would cost money and have no positive effect on anything because it's a shy proposal and a waste of time. It would have no immediate effect on anything, I believe, much as no other gun legislation in a saturated market would have an immediate effect, particularly where criminal uses were concerned. However, it would make straw purchases harder, reducing supply to criminals. It would reduce accidents (which anti-gun people usually laud as an associated goal) through training. Mandatory registration of handguns would absolutely require universal background checks on handgun sales. It would, over some time, reduce handgun related deaths, turn itself around to a revenue stream for the state, and it would pave the way for universal background checks on all sales. Explain how it would be useless, compared to, say, banning shit that doesn't get used in many crimes, or limiting magazine size (guess what, I can still carry more magazines). Supply to criminals is bottomless, I'm not convinced that adding tests would reduce accidents*, background checks are limited in utility. As for magazine sizes, carrying more magazines still slows down your overall rate of fire. I don't know that your idea is any worse than clumsy bans but I know we're talking about a ****load of public funds and little to no results. How much do you think it would cost to nationalize that entire administrative process - what about the exam every 3 years? That's a lot of money. *: Everyone passes driving tests, and the second they're done, they start driving like crap again. It's easy to fake being decent with a gun. Adam Lanza, the psycho who shot up Sandyhook Elementary, reloaded frequently. Sure he had big magazines, but the police found most of them over half full. He didn't really take advantage of them at all. It doesn't take all that long at all to reload. Hold both arms outstretched. Move one down to your belt, then back up to the other as fast as you can. That's how long reloading takes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_shooting That's nice anecdotal evidence but I'm pretty sure that what this one guy did isn't necessarily representative of The World. He could just as well have used all his ammunition, and gotten more shot out. The fact that one person can reload quickly doesn't change the fact that maybe the extra one second helps little Sally run around a fucking corner and live an extra 75 happy years. Its not that "one person can reload quickly" its that practically everyone can. Did you try my little experiment? If you did, it didn't take long did it? Sure, people who practice can do it quicker, but its not like someone with no practice takes forever. And when your Gunman-On-Premesis procedure is "lock the door and hide in a corner" it doesn't really make a difference if he has 5 shots or 500 per magazine. That's complete bullshit and you know it, unless you're fooling yourself to feel better or something. If you can get more bullets out quicker without having to tinker around with your weapon, you can kill more people. Simple as that. Even if "almost everyone" can reload quickly, absolutely everyone can shoot fast when they don't have to reload as often, and when they don't have to look for the next clip which's corner got stuck in the bag, or that you can drop because you're clumsy being nervous or whatever. It's absolutely mind blowing to see this ridiculous argument, frankly. It's insane how much people will lie to themselves. But I imagine you'd do just as well with a bolt action rifle as you would crouched in front of a cafeteria full of people with a HMG. It's ridiculous to say that we shouldn't ban things that will barely affect the severity of crimes? Obviously something much more lethal can be worth banning, but something slightly more lethal isn't an open and shut case, even when we consider that victims could be schoolchildren. If I understand him correctly, I think he's indicting the notion that everyone and their grandmother can load and unload a firearm rather than speaking to the precise societal danger inherent in extended clip prevalence. Though, to be frank, I think when it comes to weighing the utility and ease extended clips provide law abiding citizens against the potential to make at least one more mass shooting more difficult to perform, I'm going to go with the latter every time.
Your vocabulary confuses my French brain.
|
United States24670 Posts
On February 06 2013 10:07 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 10:01 micronesia wrote:On February 06 2013 09:57 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:51 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 09:47 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:44 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 09:25 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:18 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 09:11 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:09 Zealotdriver wrote:
[quote]
Who do you think you are, bringing rational and feasible suggestions to the gun control debate? The people want wild accusations, ludicrous proposals, and political grandstanding. I think the problem for most people has to do with the fact that his suggestion is essentially nothing more than posturing. It would cost money and have no positive effect on anything because it's a shy proposal and a waste of time. It would have no immediate effect on anything, I believe, much as no other gun legislation in a saturated market would have an immediate effect, particularly where criminal uses were concerned. However, it would make straw purchases harder, reducing supply to criminals. It would reduce accidents (which anti-gun people usually laud as an associated goal) through training. Mandatory registration of handguns would absolutely require universal background checks on handgun sales. It would, over some time, reduce handgun related deaths, turn itself around to a revenue stream for the state, and it would pave the way for universal background checks on all sales. Explain how it would be useless, compared to, say, banning shit that doesn't get used in many crimes, or limiting magazine size (guess what, I can still carry more magazines). Supply to criminals is bottomless, I'm not convinced that adding tests would reduce accidents*, background checks are limited in utility. As for magazine sizes, carrying more magazines still slows down your overall rate of fire. I don't know that your idea is any worse than clumsy bans but I know we're talking about a ****load of public funds and little to no results. How much do you think it would cost to nationalize that entire administrative process - what about the exam every 3 years? That's a lot of money. *: Everyone passes driving tests, and the second they're done, they start driving like crap again. It's easy to fake being decent with a gun. Adam Lanza, the psycho who shot up Sandyhook Elementary, reloaded frequently. Sure he had big magazines, but the police found most of them over half full. He didn't really take advantage of them at all. It doesn't take all that long at all to reload. Hold both arms outstretched. Move one down to your belt, then back up to the other as fast as you can. That's how long reloading takes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_shooting That's nice anecdotal evidence but I'm pretty sure that what this one guy did isn't necessarily representative of The World. He could just as well have used all his ammunition, and gotten more shot out. The fact that one person can reload quickly doesn't change the fact that maybe the extra one second helps little Sally run around a fucking corner and live an extra 75 happy years. Its not that "one person can reload quickly" its that practically everyone can. Did you try my little experiment? If you did, it didn't take long did it? Sure, people who practice can do it quicker, but its not like someone with no practice takes forever. And when your Gunman-On-Premesis procedure is "lock the door and hide in a corner" it doesn't really make a difference if he has 5 shots or 500 per magazine. That's complete bullshit and you know it, unless you're fooling yourself to feel better or something. If you can get more bullets out quicker without having to tinker around with your weapon, you can kill more people. Simple as that. Even if "almost everyone" can reload quickly, absolutely everyone can shoot fast when they don't have to reload as often, and when they don't have to look for the next clip which's corner got stuck in the bag, or that you can drop because you're clumsy being nervous or whatever. It's absolutely mind blowing to see this ridiculous argument, frankly. It's insane how much people will lie to themselves. But I imagine you'd do just as well with a bolt action rifle as you would crouched in front of a cafeteria full of people with a HMG. It's ridiculous to say that we shouldn't ban things that will barely affect the severity of crimes? Obviously something much more lethal can be worth banning, but something slightly more lethal isn't an open and shut case, even when we consider that victims could be schoolchildren. If I understand him correctly, I think he's indicting the notion that everyone and their grandmother can load and unload a firearm rather than speaking to the precise societal danger inherent in extended clip prevalence. Though, to be frank, I think when it comes to weighing the utility and ease extended clips provide law abiding citizens against the potential to make at least one more mass shooting more difficult to perform, I'm going to go with the latter every time.
I've heard quite a few police chiefs and commissioners asked about this issue recently, and most of them (I say most because this may not be a representative sample, but none were opposed from what I saw) said larger clips doesn't make a big difference. These are not random forum goers; these were police leaders speaking to the nation. There's nothing wrong with considering limitations on magazine size and the like, but I just don't like how people here often pre-judge the issue, usually despite any significant knowledge on the subject.
|
On February 06 2013 09:57 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 09:51 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 09:47 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:44 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 09:25 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:18 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 09:11 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:09 Zealotdriver wrote:On February 06 2013 09:03 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 08:53 Dawski wrote:
[quote]
No one disagrees with extensive background checks which, i doubt you could argue as you said it yourself, would be effective gun legislation.
You're trying to say that if the assault rifle ban doesn't lower gun crime then there's no possible way they will ban hand guns because people will be up in arms (pun unintended) about it and at least it helps a little bit.
I'm saying that I don't agree and I feel that it is perfectly valid to worry about a handgun ban followed sometime afterwards
edit: also as he pointed out above me. You did in fact say that it was a step in the right direction towards effective gun legislation. What other than the banning of hand guns can you go further in the "right direction"? Now see, if I wanted to go a smart step in the right direction, (and I know I only speak for myself while applying this chunk of common sense, there ARE some whackjobs in the gun lobby), I'd be perfectly fine with permits and registration for handguns. Assuming the process was reasonable, treat it roughly like cars. Take your written and practical exam for a moderate fee, and any handguns you own get registered by serial to your permit. Hell, I'd even be ok with every 3 years or so, having to demonstrate that I still have all handguns registered to my permit, at no additional cost, in the process of renewing. I have to have a license and registration to drive my damned car, I don't see a problem with it as part of owning a handgun, since they're easily concealed and used for homicide. Assuming there's some controls built into the legislation to prevent abuse down the road. I think it would have more effect than an AWB ever could, and if gun control people could show some good faith, a system like this might even happen. Who do you think you are, bringing rational and feasible suggestions to the gun control debate? The people want wild accusations, ludicrous proposals, and political grandstanding. I think the problem for most people has to do with the fact that his suggestion is essentially nothing more than posturing. It would cost money and have no positive effect on anything because it's a shy proposal and a waste of time. It would have no immediate effect on anything, I believe, much as no other gun legislation in a saturated market would have an immediate effect, particularly where criminal uses were concerned. However, it would make straw purchases harder, reducing supply to criminals. It would reduce accidents (which anti-gun people usually laud as an associated goal) through training. Mandatory registration of handguns would absolutely require universal background checks on handgun sales. It would, over some time, reduce handgun related deaths, turn itself around to a revenue stream for the state, and it would pave the way for universal background checks on all sales. Explain how it would be useless, compared to, say, banning shit that doesn't get used in many crimes, or limiting magazine size (guess what, I can still carry more magazines). Supply to criminals is bottomless, I'm not convinced that adding tests would reduce accidents*, background checks are limited in utility. As for magazine sizes, carrying more magazines still slows down your overall rate of fire. I don't know that your idea is any worse than clumsy bans but I know we're talking about a ****load of public funds and little to no results. How much do you think it would cost to nationalize that entire administrative process - what about the exam every 3 years? That's a lot of money. *: Everyone passes driving tests, and the second they're done, they start driving like crap again. It's easy to fake being decent with a gun. Adam Lanza, the psycho who shot up Sandyhook Elementary, reloaded frequently. Sure he had big magazines, but the police found most of them over half full. He didn't really take advantage of them at all. It doesn't take all that long at all to reload. Hold both arms outstretched. Move one down to your belt, then back up to the other as fast as you can. That's how long reloading takes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_shooting That's nice anecdotal evidence but I'm pretty sure that what this one guy did isn't necessarily representative of The World. He could just as well have used all his ammunition, and gotten more shot out. The fact that one person can reload quickly doesn't change the fact that maybe the extra one second helps little Sally run around a fucking corner and live an extra 75 happy years. Its not that "one person can reload quickly" its that practically everyone can. Did you try my little experiment? If you did, it didn't take long did it? Sure, people who practice can do it quicker, but its not like someone with no practice takes forever. And when your Gunman-On-Premesis procedure is "lock the door and hide in a corner" it doesn't really make a difference if he has 5 shots or 500 per magazine. That's complete bullshit and you know it, unless you're fooling yourself to feel better or something. If you can get more bullets out quicker without having to tinker around with your weapon, you can kill more people. Simple as that. Even if "almost everyone" can reload quickly, absolutely everyone can shoot fast when they don't have to reload as often, and when they don't have to look for the next clip which's corner got stuck in the bag, or that you can drop because you're clumsy being nervous or whatever. It's absolutely mind blowing to see this ridiculous argument, frankly. It's insane how much people will lie to themselves. But I imagine you'd do just as well with a bolt action rifle as you would crouched in front of a cafeteria full of people with a HMG.
If those people are hiding in a corner, I might. I might actually be even more deadly specifically because I can't just spray lead, I have to aim.
I'm saying that you are not slowed a significant amount by reloading. Sure, your magazine might get caught in the bag, but then again, reloading slows the operation of the gun, and you're less likely to have a jam. So you might actually be faster overall. The shooter in Aurora Colorado had his gun jam specifically because his drum magazine was shitty, as many are. They're quite prone to failure. They are not an absolute advantage.
|
On February 06 2013 10:11 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 10:07 farvacola wrote:On February 06 2013 10:01 micronesia wrote:On February 06 2013 09:57 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:51 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 09:47 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:44 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 09:25 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:18 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 09:11 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
I think the problem for most people has to do with the fact that his suggestion is essentially nothing more than posturing. It would cost money and have no positive effect on anything because it's a shy proposal and a waste of time. It would have no immediate effect on anything, I believe, much as no other gun legislation in a saturated market would have an immediate effect, particularly where criminal uses were concerned. However, it would make straw purchases harder, reducing supply to criminals. It would reduce accidents (which anti-gun people usually laud as an associated goal) through training. Mandatory registration of handguns would absolutely require universal background checks on handgun sales. It would, over some time, reduce handgun related deaths, turn itself around to a revenue stream for the state, and it would pave the way for universal background checks on all sales. Explain how it would be useless, compared to, say, banning shit that doesn't get used in many crimes, or limiting magazine size (guess what, I can still carry more magazines). Supply to criminals is bottomless, I'm not convinced that adding tests would reduce accidents*, background checks are limited in utility. As for magazine sizes, carrying more magazines still slows down your overall rate of fire. I don't know that your idea is any worse than clumsy bans but I know we're talking about a ****load of public funds and little to no results. How much do you think it would cost to nationalize that entire administrative process - what about the exam every 3 years? That's a lot of money. *: Everyone passes driving tests, and the second they're done, they start driving like crap again. It's easy to fake being decent with a gun. Adam Lanza, the psycho who shot up Sandyhook Elementary, reloaded frequently. Sure he had big magazines, but the police found most of them over half full. He didn't really take advantage of them at all. It doesn't take all that long at all to reload. Hold both arms outstretched. Move one down to your belt, then back up to the other as fast as you can. That's how long reloading takes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_shooting That's nice anecdotal evidence but I'm pretty sure that what this one guy did isn't necessarily representative of The World. He could just as well have used all his ammunition, and gotten more shot out. The fact that one person can reload quickly doesn't change the fact that maybe the extra one second helps little Sally run around a fucking corner and live an extra 75 happy years. Its not that "one person can reload quickly" its that practically everyone can. Did you try my little experiment? If you did, it didn't take long did it? Sure, people who practice can do it quicker, but its not like someone with no practice takes forever. And when your Gunman-On-Premesis procedure is "lock the door and hide in a corner" it doesn't really make a difference if he has 5 shots or 500 per magazine. That's complete bullshit and you know it, unless you're fooling yourself to feel better or something. If you can get more bullets out quicker without having to tinker around with your weapon, you can kill more people. Simple as that. Even if "almost everyone" can reload quickly, absolutely everyone can shoot fast when they don't have to reload as often, and when they don't have to look for the next clip which's corner got stuck in the bag, or that you can drop because you're clumsy being nervous or whatever. It's absolutely mind blowing to see this ridiculous argument, frankly. It's insane how much people will lie to themselves. But I imagine you'd do just as well with a bolt action rifle as you would crouched in front of a cafeteria full of people with a HMG. It's ridiculous to say that we shouldn't ban things that will barely affect the severity of crimes? Obviously something much more lethal can be worth banning, but something slightly more lethal isn't an open and shut case, even when we consider that victims could be schoolchildren. If I understand him correctly, I think he's indicting the notion that everyone and their grandmother can load and unload a firearm rather than speaking to the precise societal danger inherent in extended clip prevalence. Though, to be frank, I think when it comes to weighing the utility and ease extended clips provide law abiding citizens against the potential to make at least one more mass shooting more difficult to perform, I'm going to go with the latter every time. I've heard quite a few police chiefs and commissioners asked about this issue recently, and most of them (I say most because this may not be a representative sample, but none were opposed from what I saw) said larger clips doesn't make a big difference. These are not random forum goers; these were police leaders speaking to the nation. There's nothing wrong with considering limitations on magazine size and the like, but I just don't like how people here often pre-judge the issue, usually despite any significant knowledge on the subject.
Yeah I think we agree more than not, though I'm not convinced that police chiefs or commissioners are in a position to make national policy decisions. They certainly are more likely to have a better understanding of the specifics of crime as a general phenomena, but when it comes to preventing fringe occurrences, the sort that no police chief wants to have to say just happened and are likely to flabbergast anyone involved on a local level, I think a different sort of criteria might be appropriate when judging the propriety of something like an extended clip ban.
I'm not entirely certain of my position, so bear with me, but let's say we consider the Colorado shootings. Holmes used a Glock 22 with a reportedly shoddy aftermarket extended clip that carried 40 rounds (a similar magazine would jam on Holmes' AR15, so I guess we have to be glad he was cheap). Let's say that, through effective legislation and either an outright ban or a big hoop to jump through, extended clips become far less common, and in this fantasy land a similar shooter is tackled to the ground as he fumbles for a clip that only holds 12 bullets. Would that be worth it? I'm inclined to think so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
