0
normiss

Is America finally ready to talk about guns?

Recommended Posts

DanG

I don't know what you're getting at.

Yes, if someone is using a gun with a capacity of one round they will not get off as many rounds per minute as someone with a higher capacity.

What's your point?



That magazine capacity does make a difference, just not at higher capacities.

If you limit magazine capacity at 1 or 2 it would limit the effectiveness of the weapon.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you limited it to zero it would have an ever greater effect. Or negative one, then the gun would suck bullets out of previous shooting victims.

Unless you want to limit guns to single shot only, I'm not sure why we are talking about this.

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanG

If you limited it to zero it would have an ever greater effect. Or negative one, then the gun would suck bullets out of previous shooting victims.



Quick - apply for a patent.
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanG

If you limited it to zero it would have an ever greater effect. Or negative one, then the gun would suck bullets out of previous shooting victims.

Unless you want to limit guns to single shot only, I'm not sure why we are talking about this.



So magazine size limit does have an effect. Why did you state earlier it didn't?

Interesting to see a conversation kept within tight limits, ensuring that nothing would have ay effect. Then subsequently resigning to the fact that nothing could possibly be done.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

***If you limited it to zero it would have an ever greater effect. Or negative one, then the gun would suck bullets out of previous shooting victims.

Unless you want to limit guns to single shot only, I'm not sure why we are talking about this.



So magazine size limit does have an effect. Why did you state earlier it didn't?

Interesting to see a conversation kept within tight limits, ensuring that nothing would have ay effect. Then subsequently resigning to the fact that nothing could possibly be done.

Hooknswoop


For gun control, the low hanging fruit is gone. To make any sort of significant impact on annual firearm fatalities, it would require a large restriction on the 2nd amendment. That is why you are not seeing anyone put forth solid ideas to limit firearms related fatalities. We are at the point of diminishing returns.

Derek V


Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc

We kinda have a universal background check here in IA that everyone I know uses if they are selling a gun privately.

So, I will sell you a gun if you can produce an active permit to carry or permit to purchase.

For MY safety, I take a picture of one or the other with the buyers drivers license.

I get support from many anti gunners here until I tell them that there is NO paper work that goes to any government agency. It goes in MY file and stays there (BTW, I have only sold two) then most of them back off of their support. Their ultimate goal, IMO, is a gun database to be used at a later date.

I've said before that I like that approach, and I'll add that it does not bother me that no paperwork goes to the government. I see no need for a registry, indeed the Canadian experience is that registries are a waste of money that do not solve crimes and only discourages lawful ownership.

Enforcement of such a requirement, or indeed any law regarding background checks for private gun sales, could be enforced the same way age restrictions on alcohol sales are enforced, with occasional "buys" by undercover officers, and severe penalties for violating the law. A credible risk of being caught and punished is all that would be required, not an absolute certainty. As it is, the police make no effort at all to identify and prosecute people who knowingly sell firearms to prohibited buyers. Of course such laws are "unenforceable" if the police decide not to enforce them. Does anyone think bar owners would refuse to sell to underage patrons if nobody every bothered to check on them?

There is no way to prevent every mass shooting, and no easy way to prevent many of them without crapping on medical privacy laws. If seeking help for a mental illness exposes you to public "outing", such as reporting to courts, government agencies, local gun shops, maybe your employer, then no-body would ever seek such help, and it's likely the problem would be worse than it already is.

Anyway, mass shootings such as school shootings or the Colorado theater incident are horrific but very rare. A much larger toll is attributable to the ready flow of guns to criminals and people with restraining orders against them. Until it becomes difficult for such people to get their hands on a gun, the carnage will continue. I find it amazing that so many people are unwilling to make the smallest effort to make that happen, for fear that they will be personally inconvenienced. Instead they raise the false flag that such laws are unenforceable (because they work to block any enforcement), or claim that such efforts are not worthwhile because they won't prevent every single murder (otherwise known as "making the perfect the enemy of the good").

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nolhtairt

***The fact that you're ok with that tells us you don't understand responsible and legal gun ownership.



I don't think he said anything about being okay with that. Just merely stated what he has seen and how they get around that restriction.

If a woman is married to a felon, that felon should not have access to any guns she may own.

As you can see, you are responding to people who cannot accurately comprehend what they read. Their strategy is to attack and get one up.

You are correct in your assessment. I did not say I was 1)OK with the practice, 2)these people were friends or that 3)I knew anyone who was following that procedure now.

BTW, my profession was as a counselor to convicted felons in court ordered drug treatment.
Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

So magazine size limit does have an effect. Why did you state earlier it didn't?



Ooh, you trapped me. Very impressive.

My point was limiting magazine size to ten rounds won't have an impact. If you want to limit weapons to single shot, then sure it will impact the number of rounds a shooter, any shooter, can get off. Maybe you think they should limit magazines to two rounds, or five. If you do, say so. Otherwise we're not going anywhere.

- Dan G

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DanG

Quote

So magazine size limit does have an effect. Why did you state earlier it didn't?



Ooh, you trapped me. Very impressive.

My point was limiting magazine size to ten rounds won't have an impact. If you want to limit weapons to single shot, then sure it will impact the number of rounds a shooter, any shooter, can get off. Maybe you think they should limit magazines to two rounds, or five. If you do, say so. Otherwise we're not going anywhere.



No, what they should do is repeal the 2nd amendment. You have shown as a society you are unable to handle the responsibility. I mean you guys can't even decide which damn bathroom to use. It would take a couple of decades, but eventually it would make a difference.

I didn't trap you. You said limiting magazine size was not useful. Clearly it can be, if it is significantly enough reduced.

To Bolas: restricting magazine size to 2 would not be a restriction on the second amendment. They didn't even have guns that could shoot more than two bullets in succession when it was written.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote



To Bolas: restricting magazine size to 2 would not be a restriction on the second amendment. They didn't even have guns that could shoot more than two bullets in succession when it was written.



yes they did the first machine gun was patented in 1718 the Puckle gun
Handguns are only used to fight your way to a good rifle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
gowlerk

***Just had to share this. :D




Because it's such a disrespectful image and you needed to show how disrespectful you can be?

Making fun of our elected leaders is a national pastime. You're canadian so what do you care?

Maybe you need this to keep the sand out. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BartsDaddy

Quote



To Bolas: restricting magazine size to 2 would not be a restriction on the second amendment. They didn't even have guns that could shoot more than two bullets in succession when it was written.



yes they did the first machine gun was patented in 1718 the Puckle gun


But no TV, radio, or definitely Internet so if one wants to take such an interpretation of the Constitution that only things that existed at the time are protected unless added by amendment.

Would things produced by modern printers and copiers be protected or would they have to only use devices available at the time?

The Constitution ain't the bible, ya can't just pick and choose pieces and interpret them differently. ;)
Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker

No, what they should do is repeal the 2nd amendment. You have shown as a society you are unable to handle the responsibility.

The majority of us handle the responsibility just fine. Let's take Michigan for example. About 70% of gun related homicides were committed in Wayne and Genesee Counties - which is basically like Detroit and Flint. (I don't know, maybe there's something in the water)

The other 30% of gun related homicide is spread throughout 60 other counties - most of which is concentrated in other smaller poverty stricken urban areas like Saginaw and Lansing.

That leaves 20 counties primarily in Northern MI that don't have any gun related homicides - and let me tell you, the folks in Northern Michigan have quite an arsenal.

SkyDekker

It would take a couple of decades, but eventually it would make a difference.


The gun related homicide rate has already been cut nearly in half over the last 20 years, and we didn't need to repeal the 2nd amendment to do it, nor did we need to have a bunch of ineffective regulations and gun buy-back programs - in fact, we have more guns per person now than we did back then.

The decline has been attributed to a variety of causes, but here are some from the Wash Post:

1. More cops

2. More cops using technology to efficiently address crime.

3. Less consumption of alcohol.

4. Less Lead (take a hint, Flint)

5. Better Economy

There's obviously more we can do. I think I read recently that there are still like 35 states that don't impose gun restrictions on violent misdemeanors/domestic violence - so that would need to be addressed.

Also, the CDC's biggest recommendation is to address our violent culture in central cities when the kids are very young, and to implement programs "to reduce the burden of firearm-related mortality in the United States."

I think if we can impose some additional, but moderate restrictions and address this country's violent culture more effectively through education/maturity, then I think we could cut the rate in half once again within a single generation - and at the same time reduce the rate of the 30-40% of murders that are NOT gun related.
Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BartsDaddy

Quote



To Bolas: restricting magazine size to 2 would not be a restriction on the second amendment. They didn't even have guns that could shoot more than two bullets in succession when it was written.



yes they did the first machine gun was patented in 1718 the Puckle gun



Correct, should have written quick succession. I would be more than willing to allow the operation of the Puckle Gun, it shoots 9 rounds per minute.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

one wants to take such an interpretation of the Constitution that only things that existed at the time are protected unless added by amendment.



Saying that a limit on magazine capacity would not be unconstitutional isn't the same as saying it should be restricted to items only available in those days.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
nolhtairt

******Just had to share this. :D




Because it's such a disrespectful image and you needed to show how disrespectful you can be?

Making fun of our elected leaders is a national pastime. You're canadian so what do you care?

Maybe you need this to keep the sand out. :P

Well, at least you are equally disrespectful of Canadians and your President.
Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's a few suggestions...

1) Enact legislation that doesn't allow slimy lawyers and judges to cut back-room deals to reduce charges and sentences with respect to crimes involving firearms.

2) Crush the gangs; gangs are responsible for more than 50% of the crimes with firearms. The CDC and FBI's statistics don't match up but both are north of 50%.

3) Stop using the 2nd Amendment as an agenda item. If you want to tackle a real issue - go after the healthcare industry. According to the Journal of Patient Safety, 440,000 people die each year due to medical malpractice and "mistakes" which is the 3rd leading cause of death. Now compare that to the 11,250 deaths each year that are a result of firearms.

4) According to the CDC and the FBI, homicides and violent crimes have been trending downward for the past 10+ years while gun ownership is at an all-time high.

So if you want to start a bullshit argument then it will be easy to crush you with real statistics. You people that want to F*&# with the 2nd Amendment can kiss my backside!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"You people that want to F*&# with the 2nd Amendment"

Who exactly are "you people" you're referring to?
It's been repeatedly stated that is not the case.
"Well regulated", right there in the amendment itself, and as the SCOTUS has decided.
Maybe you should kiss their backside?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
normiss

"You people that want to F*&# with the 2nd Amendment"

Who exactly are "you people" you're referring to?



I suppose people like dekker that think we should repeal the 2nd Amendment - they tend to get a little butt-hurt when we don't include them in our affairs.

However, I think it's safe to say that many in this country probably feel the same way, even if they aren't dumb enough to actually say it.

normiss

It's been repeatedly stated that is not the case.
"Well regulated", right there in the amendment itself, and as the SCOTUS has decided.



What does that mean, "well regulated?" Kallend wants us to have safety classes every two years along with government inspections of our arsenals and transponders on all firearms, lol. . .
Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

I suppose people like dekker that think we should repeal the 2nd Amendment



Only if you want to see some results in a few decades. Other then that, don't repeal it and continue to see multitudes of mass shootings.

Quote

they tend to get a little butt-hurt when we don't include them in our affairs.



Yes! it is really rough to be part of a civilized society where our first instinct isn't murdering each other, where we are free to decide which washroom we want to use, and when we get sick we don't get bankrupted by health care costs. If only we could be like you.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SkyDekker



Yes! it is really rough to be part of a civilized society where our first instinct isn't murdering each other, where we are free to decide which washroom we want to use, and when we get sick we don't get bankrupted by health care costs. If only we could be like you.....



Hey, it's not that bad. First, you don't HAVE to own a gun, which data show will reduce your chance of being murdered. Second, you can always shop at Target if you need a restroom. Third, marry a physician like I did. See - it's freedom in action!
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0