- The 2nd Amendment.
- Lacks value. Homicide rates are negatively correlated to gun ownership, globally, even when comparing countries that are similar politically and historically.
I think some of us may be more armed than our city’s police force. I only have two hands though.
OK, I’m confused. I thought you were talking about assault weapons. Assault weapons are one pull one shot so you would likely be OK with an assault weapon as long as I didn’t use it with a “large” magazine.
Why not 11?
You are invoking ninjas because you want to portray any desire for more than 10 rounds as something you would only really need if you were fantasizing about mythical threats to your safety. You could just as easily have said any army of orcs and gotten the same response from me. You are basically just turning your nose up at the notion that anyone would ever need more than 10 rounds.
You want magazine limits so that the small number of mass murderers will have to stop to reload with their legal magazines. I don’t want those limits so that the average citizen will not have to reload while they are in a tense situation. 10 shots is probably enough 99% of the time but considering the fact that these mass murders are still vanishingly rare relative to the rate of crime in this country, why impose a limit on our ability to defend ourselves when its it not at all clear that these mass murderers will abide by any magazine limits you place on them.
Because no one has given me a good reason yet.
I am willing to accept a limit if you are able to give me a reason to accept one. I am not willing to accept a limit just because you would like one.
I’m challenging you to come up with a good reason for a limit.
I am trying to make the point that there is this tendency to treat gun rights with much less respect and deference than other constitutional rights.
So you weren’t talking about assault weapons when you said “rapid fire” Cause it really seemed like you were.
I think I’ll bow out of this conversation for the usual reason: Those on the “pro-gun” side say they are willing to have a reasonable conversation about reasonable restrictions…but the only people they think are capable of having a reasonable conversation about reasonable restrictions are those that are already “pro-gun”, because those that aren’t either just don’t know enough about the subject, or aren’t capable of arguing in an “honest” fashion.
Why isn’t “So someone could only kill 10 people before they had to reload” a reason for a limit?
and no, I don’t know why 5 would be better, or 15 would be worse.
This goes both ways. Try this:
Those on the “anti-gun” side say they are willing to have a reasonable conversation about reasonable restrictions…but the only people they think are capable of having a reasonable conversation about reasonable restrictions are those that are already “anti-gun”, because those that aren’t either just don’t feel bad enough about the subject, or aren’t capable of arguing in an “honest” fashion.
There is no compromise with someone who’s goal is to kill you.
Gee, not much I can say to “No-you!”, is there? :rolleyes:
I know right? How do you respond to a completely vacuous and intellectually bankrupt argument? I suggest mockery.
I’m still surprised about that. But it doesn’t really change anything here or in that topic. The point isn’t that people shouldn’t fire warning shots into water because it could ricochet, the point is that warning shots seem to be safer than none if properly trained, and one can fire into water without it bouncing off.
I think its kind of funny that in this topic, we have people like Damuri who want civilians and law enforcement to have equal capabilities and over in that other topic we’re talking about how police in this country are so bad they should be limited in their weapons. I was going to half-jokingly propose that US cops should keep their guns, but only get 2 bullets each to avoid the kind of senseless slaughter our cops are too often a part of. Just a funny observation 
No, yours is an example of trying to frame the debate in favorable terms. There’s no universal reason why a magazine should be one size or another. It is perfectly ok to debate what size magazine should be standard for the types of weapons that will be allowed
Then realize the totality of the argument includes things that your response does not cover. Its like how some religious types argue evolution: they think its a 3 legged stool and that if you knock one leg off, the whole thing will tip over. Instead evolution, and in this case the gun debate on safety, is more like a table with a hundred legs. Knocking one off does nothing, and the original point still stands. The kind of rapid shooting capability that I described is one thing that should be banned from private gun ownership, and along with other regulation such as limited magazine size, promote safety and cuts down on the kind of mass murder that is all to prevalent in the US
This would only make sense if you’re facing the same type of attacks that police and the military are, or plan on taking over the government. Since you don’t, there is no reason to uniformly enforce the same standards between civilians and law enforcement. If there is one conspiracy theory that the Dope condones, its this fantasy that the government is out to kill all of you. You should not have the same capability to wage violence as the government. They enforce the law, you don’t
I’ve mentioned this before. Just because the dwarves cannot agree on where Loki’s neck ends and where his head starts doesn’t mean that we cannot have a discussion or make a determination. 10 is the limit.
Here’s where you’re right. I am, and people don’t.
Average citizens do not stop mass shootings. They stop a guy at a 7/11 robbing the clerk. The stop a road rage incident. They scare off a coyote that wandered into a yard. But they don’t stop the likes of mass killings we see
Honestly, I don’t think you want to, or else you’d have proposed one already. I think your mind is set and any arguments will be bogged down by semantics or wild examples or conspiracy theories. One does not claim that civilians and the military should have the same capabilities without thinking there’s something wrong with law enforcement having more firepower
That doesn’t happen. At all. There are little other industries that have laws protecting them from being sued. The more fair thing would be, if these people actually cared about the Constitution, to let people sue for what they want and let the courts decide. Also, not many things go from 0 to OMG TYRANNY in each and every single debate. And people don’t generally claim that their pet industry CANNOT (not merely “should not”) be regulated. Every single right you have is subject to regulation, free speech isn’t completely free, freedom of religion doesn’t mean you can sacrifice humans, but apparently its the default in gun debates that the government cannot regulate guns at all.
But by all means, prove me wrong. Take a reasonable stance like guns can and should be regulated, and we’ll debate what regulation. Acknowledge that just because the government wants to control guns, it doesn’t signal anything nefarious. Admit that there is no slippery slope that makes guns unique in any way, that if a politician is for gun control, they are not secretly plotting to ban all guns and put you all in camps. Really, I’d love to be proven wrong, but this has been my experience in every single gun debate except one. One of my earliest posts on the SDMB is when I requested a gun debate where one cannot assume that there will be a slippery slope to gun banning. That one did well, I think, for a while.
because it didn’t do much to impede Seung-Hui Cho. he just took along a bunch of loaded 10-round magazines.
The point is your fundamental ignorance about guns. If you really really wanted more gun control, you shouldn’t talk about it because you tarnish any effort with your ignorance.
Favorable in this case is synonymous with accurate. There is no universal reason, sure. But the fact remains that firearms when sold new often come standard with a magazine of a particular size. That is a standard size magazine for that firearm. Only by torturing the English language are you able to say that standard = large.
Here’s where your ignorance is on display again. Average citizens are no guarantee to stop mass shootings, but they can and they have. Here are a few examples. Google is great.
Guns can and should be regulated. They are regulated. What do I win? The marginal value of proving you wrong again is decreasing.
That’s true. But I personally doubt any amount of gun-control regulations will stop someone determined to kill a bunch of people. I was just offering out a reason. The argument of “Well, it didn’t stop this ONE guy” doesn’t seem like a great rebuttal to me.
Why don’t mass shooters use fully automatic weapons to commit their mass murders? Seems like that would be better for them.
I completely realize this. I am not trying to nullify your entire argument. I am pro-gun control. I am simply pointing out an error in your understanding of how these guns in question work. Gun control legislation to date where assault rifles are concerned has been about as effective as the TSA for many of the same reasons. It comes from not understanding how these weapons work, so we end up regulating superficial shit. They’re not more rapid fire than any other pistol, revolver shotgun or rifle you’re likely to be thinking of.
The guy from this weekend could have done the exact same business with a Ruger Mini-14 (looks like grandpa’s rifle) as with an AR-15, despite the fact that it doesn’t meet any of the standards of ‘assault rifle’. That’s because the stuff that makes an assault rifle deadly is not the stuff that we mention in the context of banning them.
The proposal is dead on arrival because it make s assumptions about game law that are wrong. I’m going to expand on August West’s point about how broad “hunting licenses” currently are.
In Indiana it costs $17 to buy an annual license for small game. There’s no tag for each animal that is taken under it just the license. When you add all the species, and bag limits, together there’s a lot of ammo that can be purchased. There’s also crow season with no limit. Infinite ammo allowed for a cheap license!
There are also nuisance species designated that can be shot or trapped either with no license or a free license. On your own property it’s usually no license required. Generally they have no limit at all or are “limited” only by the justification that they are causing problems (Crows can also be taken under this classification out of season.) Again to basically infinite ammo except this time the license is free to get (and relatively quickly applied for online.)
I’m not sure why we’d want to require a hunting license for those engaged in strictly target shooting. The bright side is in Indiana you can effectively get that license for free to buy your non-hunting related guns.
This proposal isn’t strong; it’s effectively meaningless. All it does in many states is create a little bit of hassle to get a cheap/free license to buy an entire armory and stockpile ammo.
What currently-legal use of assault weapons outside of a range are you trying to prohibit, and what benefit is achieved by this prohibition?
The proposal in the OP is a nonstarter. It is not a “gun control” proposal, it is a “gun elimination” proposal with a substantial grandfather clause.
Any gun control proposal in the US should recognize that the value in the fact US is the only first-world nation that entrusts its citizens with the ability to go to a store and purchase the same weapons and ammunition that are given to its own soldiers and police. If you don’t accept that this trust is a fundamental, defining characteristic of the United States and the relationship of its people with the government, a characteristic that is valuable and worth preserving as part of the essence of what “freedom” means in the US, there’s not much point in having any discussion.
Here’s my proposal for gun control:
-
Anyone can apply for and get issued a “gun possession permit” after a background check. This permit allows them to legally possess a gun of any type. The background check verifies that you meet certain legal requirements to possess a gun (not a felon, not on a terrorist watch list, etc.)
-
If you take a few legally-mandated training classes, you can get a concealed carry endorsement which is good nationwide.
-
On January 1, 2018, a gun possession permit is required in any circumstances where a firearm is under your direct control. If you fail to apply for and receive a permit by January 1, 2018, you cannot possess any firearms after that date. There is a substantial penalty for violating this provision.
Your permit can be revoked once it is granted if something occurs that would cause you to fail a background check if you were to re-apply. Otherwise, it does not expire and does not need to be renewed.
If your permit is revoked, you have 30 days to sell your guns or transfer them to someone with a valid permit (including a gun broker who may sell them for you on consignment).
-
You can purchase any gun by showing your “gun possession permit”. The seller can verify that your permit is valid and not a forgery using an online database. No background check is required at time of purchase (the permit indicates you have already passed a background check), and the government keeps no record of private firearms transactions.
-
If you transfer a gun to a person (either by a gift or through sale), you are legally required to verify that they have a valid gun possession permit. If you fail to do so, you are liable as an accessory for any crimes that they commit with that gun.
-
Careless storage of a gun that leads to it being stolen or otherwise used by a non-permitted individual is a class A misdemeanor.
-
There are no restrictions on magazine capacity or weapon type beyond those already in place at the federal level.
This proposal provides the government with a strong means of controlling who is authorized to possess guns, while granting something that gun owners have wanted for a while (nationwide concealed carry) and avoiding the dreaded “gun registry”.
No, you can’t “just dismiss” it. The experience of the past decade in Iraq shows that a population equipped with small arms can stand their own quite well against the most powerful military in the world, despite all the tanks and attack helicopters we’ve sent over there.
See, this is the whole problem. You want to mock and insult people for no reason other than the fact that they are making arguments on topics they don’t understand. Why can’t you accept that people who are utterly ignorant about a topic can still have valid and important ideas that need to be respected?
because they don’t. if you don’t know what you’re talking about, your opinions carry no weight. An opinion with no facts behind it is worthless.
this notion that “all opinions are equally valid and carry equal weight” is nonsense and should not be promoted.