Why Pro and Anti-Gun Advocates Are Not Speaking The Same Language

[beowulf 1]

I understand this is an emotional response, but it won't make any real difference.

Quote

What if it took a more thorough background check and/or justification to possess more than one magazine of an agreed to size for any given type of firearm, and a law making it illegal to possess otherwise?

Damn near impossible to implement and with so many already in circulation it wouldn't make a difference. It's not a middle of the road compromise if it doesn't work. It's just another useless law.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I see this event as the "tipping point" at which the politicians will have to do something.

I would like to see some serious (non theater) suggestions from gun enthusiasts. If all they do is delay, deny and procrastinate they will probably have something thrust upon them that they don't like. If they came up with some realistic suggestions that they can live with, we'd all be better off.

Magazine sizes should be on the table.

Easy access to large capacity semi-auto weapons makes mass murder just a little too convenient.

I just bought a dozen 30 5.56 magazines

I dont own a 5.56 anymore but views like this are likely to make worth 10 times what I paid for them soon

BTW, the US's major shooting/gun suppliers just told thier distributors that they are completely sold out of all high cap mags and AR15 type weapons

I dont know how many that is but, you can bet it is a lot

Sure they're sold out, because that's the obvious conversation to have about gun control right now. Semi-auto weapons will never be touched, nor should they be, but legal magazine sizes are worth a chat.

. . =(_8^(1)

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I see this event as the "tipping point" at which the politicians will have to do something.

I would like to see some serious (non theater) suggestions from gun enthusiasts. If all they do is delay, deny and procrastinate they will probably have something thrust upon them that they don't like. If they came up with some realistic suggestions that they can live with, we'd all be better off.

Magazine sizes should be on the table.

Easy access to large capacity semi-auto weapons makes mass murder just a little too convenient.

I just bought a dozen 30 5.56 magazines

I dont own a 5.56 anymore but views like this are likely to make worth 10 times what I paid for them soon

BTW, the US's major shooting/gun suppliers just told thier distributors that they are completely sold out of all high cap mags and AR15 type weapons

I dont know how many that is but, you can bet it is a lot

Sure they're sold out, because that's the obvious conversation to have about gun control right now. Semi-auto weapons will never be touched, nor should they be, but legal magazine sizes are worth a chat.

Not if you actually want to make a difference. The previous ban on high capacity magazines didn't make any difference. So why do you think it will work in the future?

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>people who are likely to get victimized carry guns.

I will take your word for that although I have not seen that data.

why would you need data to confirm the obvious. When a wife/girlfriend is threatened, she is much more likely to try to obtain a gun. If a gang member is engaged in a turf war, he will be carrying. Most violent acts are not random, but result of preexisting knowledge.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

I understand this is an emotional response, but it won't make any real difference.

Quote

What if it took a more thorough background check and/or justification to possess more than one magazine of an agreed to size for any given type of firearm, and a law making it illegal to possess otherwise?

Damn near impossible to implement and with so many already in circulation it wouldn't make a difference. It's not a middle of the road compromise if it doesn't work. It's just another useless law.

Would require outlawing and confiscation of existing large mags to have any impact. Yea I know, good luck with that.

. . =(_8^(1)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I see this event as the "tipping point" at which the politicians will have to do something.

I would like to see some serious (non theater) suggestions from gun enthusiasts. If all they do is delay, deny and procrastinate they will probably have something thrust upon them that they don't like. If they came up with some realistic suggestions that they can live with, we'd all be better off.

Magazine sizes should be on the table.

Easy access to large capacity semi-auto weapons makes mass murder just a little too convenient.

I just bought a dozen 30 5.56 magazines

I dont own a 5.56 anymore but views like this are likely to make worth 10 times what I paid for them soon

BTW, the US's major shooting/gun suppliers just told thier distributors that they are completely sold out of all high cap mags and AR15 type weapons

I dont know how many that is but, you can bet it is a lot

Sure they're sold out, because that's the obvious conversation to have about gun control right now. Semi-auto weapons will never be touched, nor should they be, but legal magazine sizes are worth a chat.

Could be
and I could take the position that I dont care because I personally like 10 round magazines or less

But the small ones can be taped back to back and you have 20 rounds

In the end we are still only addressing a symptom that in the end will have no real affect

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

What if it took a more thorough background check and/or justification to possess more than one magazine of an agreed to size for any given type of firearm, and a law making it illegal to possess otherwise?

how much more of a background check is necessary to say: yes, you can have more than one magazine? Because if you deny people that, you're really denying their ability to use a gun in self defense.

short of changing handgun designs to a fixed magazine, which would make loading for practice a real pain in the ass ( and thus discourage safety practice/shooting), you have merely a law to prevent killers from carrying multiple. If they're going to commit these acts, they don't care.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I see this event as the "tipping point" at which the politicians will have to do something.

I would like to see some serious (non theater) suggestions from gun enthusiasts. If all they do is delay, deny and procrastinate they will probably have something thrust upon them that they don't like. If they came up with some realistic suggestions that they can live with, we'd all be better off.

Magazine sizes should be on the table.

Easy access to large capacity semi-auto weapons makes mass murder just a little too convenient.

Doesn't make any difference. Ejecting an empty magazine and inserting a full one doesn't take much time at all and is especially irrelevant when attacking unarmed people.

Also there are so many high capacity magazines out there that banning future sales will make very little difference in the availability. It will only affect the cost.

I do understand the futility of bans, and am very much pro SA. But I am also distraught over all the mass killings lately.

What if it took a more thorough background check and/or justification to possess more than one magazine of an agreed to size for any given type of firearm, and a law making it illegal to possess otherwise?

How about some mid-road compromise along those lines, the goal being to eventually mitigate easy access to large magazines.

We see and hear about more mass kill but in reality, the numbers are down from the 1990's

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Would require outlawing and confiscation of existing large mags to have any impact. Yea I know, good luck with that.

As you I am sure know, banning something doesn't make it go away. It just creates a black market.

Marijuana is currently under a Federal ban. How easy is it to buy?

[billvon 2,384]

>why would you need data to confirm the obvious.

Would you need data to confirm that banning assault weapons would end massacres? That's obvious to a lot of people.

In general data is preferable to people's preconceptions. Actual stats often surprise me.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

The previous ban on high capacity magazines didn't make any difference. So why do you think it will work in the future?

The previous 90's ban was weak, including grandfathering in existing high capacity mags. A stronger ban might "work", as in fewer children being summarily executed by loons so easily.

. . =(_8^(1)

[billvon 2,384]

>Why Pro and Anti-Gun Advocates Are Not Speaking The Same Language

Answer is right here:

>your kind

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

The previous ban on high capacity magazines didn't make any difference. So why do you think it will work in the future?

The previous 90's ban was weak, including grandfathering in existing high capacity mags. A stronger ban might "work", as in fewer children being summarily executed by loons so easily.

Wouldn't make any difference. The police don't have enough resources to confiscate all of the high capacity magazines and the public would not stand for that. 10 round or 20 round magazines would not slow down the carnage by any noticeable difference.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

Quote

Would require outlawing and confiscation of existing large mags to have any impact. Yea I know, good luck with that.

As you I am sure know, banning something doesn't make it go away. It just creates a black market.

Marijuana is currently under a Federal ban. How easy is it to buy?

You're asking a Coloradoan?
No, banning something won't make it go away, but it might make it more difficult for a loony young adult to obtain.

. . =(_8^(1)

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

every one of them, if you listen to your kind talk about it. Brady likes to take advantage of fact that too many people only "know" about guns from watching action movies. Good thing they don't see too many Hong Kong movies - they'd think a single Beretta in the hands of Chow Yun Fat could kill 50 people before running out of bullets.

You seem to be getting a little agitated.

Fact remains that very few crimes are perpetrated with fully automatic weapons.

Fully automatic weapons are hard and expensive to acquire. I think there is a correlation. I also think that correlation will hold for other weapons. I think that will reduce the number and the severity of mass shootings.

I guess that makes me of a certain kind.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Would require outlawing and confiscation of existing large mags to have any impact. Yea I know, good luck with that.

As you I am sure know, banning something doesn't make it go away. It just creates a black market.

Marijuana is currently under a Federal ban. How easy is it to buy?

You're asking a Coloradoan?
No, banning something won't make it go away, but it might make it more difficult for a loony young adult to obtain.

It was already difficult for this latest shooter to get them. He had to kill his mother.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

every one of them, if you listen to your kind talk about it. Brady likes to take advantage of fact that too many people only "know" about guns from watching action movies. Good thing they don't see too many Hong Kong movies - they'd think a single Beretta in the hands of Chow Yun Fat could kill 50 people before running out of bullets.

You seem to be getting a little agitated.

Fact remains that very few crimes are perpetrated with fully automatic weapons.

Fully automatic weapons are hard and expensive to acquire. I think there is a correlation. I also think that correlation will hold for other weapons. I think that will reduce the number and the severity of mass shootings.

I guess that makes me of a certain kind.

Not considering the number of semi automatic weapons currently in circulation. Banning "assault weapons" won't make them as expensive or as hard to find as full auto weapons.

[OHCHUTE 0]

Quote

>I disagree based on my personal life experience.

========================
Carrying a gun increases risk of getting shot and killed
New Scientist
15:26 06 October 2009 by Ewen Callaway

Packing heat may backfire. People who carry guns are far likelier to get shot – and killed – than those who are unarmed, a study of shooting victims in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, has found.

. . .

Overall, Branas's study found that people who carried guns were 4.5 times as likely to be shot and 4.2 times as likely to get killed compared with unarmed citizens. When the team looked at shootings in which victims had a chance to defend themselves, their odds of getting shot were even higher.
==========================

Sensible gun owners can't even get to guns and ammo in the house to thwart a perp. Besides it would be much more fun taking off body parts with the samari sword. No sense waking the neighbors with gun shots. (google Johns Hopkins student and samari sword on perp) Beautifully done and no ticket since gun wasn't used for self defense, which he would have gotten considering state laws. Yes we own 6000 grit steel polishing stones

[SkyDekker 1,121]

Quote

Banning "assault weapons" won't make them as expensive or as hard to find as full auto weapons.

I didn't say anything about banning. Fully automatic weapons aren't necessarily banned either.

Just indicating that making things harder to get does influence the crimes perpetrated with those hard to acquire items.

[normiss 620]

I don't think it's that obvious at all.
We can't even agree what "assault weapon" is.

[beowulf 1]

Quote

Quote

Banning "assault weapons" won't make them as expensive or as hard to find as full auto weapons.

I didn't say anything about banning. Fully automatic weapons aren't necessarily banned either.

Just indicating that making things harder to get does influence the crimes perpetrated with those hard to acquire items.

How does changing what is used to commit a crime make it better? Considering the number of semi auto weapons in the US it's going to very difficult to make them harder to get.

[billvon 2,384]

>I don't think it's that obvious at all.

Exactly.

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

In the end we are still only addressing a symptom that in the end will have no real affect

Agreed. Guns, being the inanimate objects that they are, are not the "cause" of anything. The people who use them for bad purposes are the cause indeed.

But here we are in 2012, and we've somehow arrived at the point where mass murders of innocents by one-off lunatics is an aspect of our culture.

Yes, people intent on killing innocents will find a way, large mags or no large mags, but the easy availability of them today makes mass killing REAL easy. Is there just nothing we can do about it?

. . =(_8^(1)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

>why would you need data to confirm the obvious.

Would you need data to confirm that banning assault weapons would end massacres? That's obvious to a lot of people.

In general data is preferable to people's preconceptions. Actual stats often surprise me.

this feels like evasion to me. Data can be surprising, but refusing to accept anything at face value is counter productive as well.

A lot of people buy guns because they see potential shrinking opportunity later. Some do it for the shooting fun. And a significant portion do it for a reason specific to their well being.

[normiss 620]

So given this guy WAS PROPERLY denied the purchase of a weapon...proving the process works as it should, then stepped up his criminal activity to include a felony theft of weapons...

Why are we missing that point?