America needs a new constitution.
That may be true, but take a look at the two clowns that the major parties are putting up as candidates for the Presidency, then ask yourself: Who would be drafting this new document?
I can’t disagree with you. I can’t disagree with you at all.
If by “small arms” you mean IEDs, and by “stand their own quite well against the most powerful military in the world” you mean retake neighborhoods after we sweep them and leave, then you’re 100% correct. I assume you’ll support the legalization of IEDs in the US?
I’m simply refuting the assertion that ordinary citizens stand no chance against a modern, professional military. No one is proposing legalizing IEDs.
Not really. You’re asserting that widespread, legal small arms substantially contribute to the success of ordinary citizens fighting a modern professional military. Your example of Iraq does nothing to establish that claim, for about a bajillion reasons, not the least of which is the relative lack of importance of small arms in that conflict. Another big one is that if all the Second Amendment secures is the ability to run a ragtag insurgency inflicting just enough casualties on civilians to keep things disorderly, then that’s probably not worth the cost.
And I say all that as someone who thinks there’s not much point in enacting gun control legislation in the US.
What if I am a bad shot and I’m being attacked by more than one attacker. Like i said 10 is probably more than enough in 99% of situations but considering how rare mass shootings are and the other avenues available to mass shooter to commit mass murder (see Tsarnaev brothers), why isn’t it a greater harm to restrict me than to pass a law that tries to restrict people who aren’t going to obey the law.
So then how about we go with 30 rounds? I can live with any restriction that we are willing to impose on our police and common ground soldier.
If you were a shopkeeper during the LA riots and your family’s livelihood depended on your store not being looted or burned down, would you prefer a rifle with 10 round magazines or one with 30 round magazines? What if those riots spilled over into your neighborhood (like it did into mine) and they were threatening your home and family?
It doesn’t have to be a mass shooting to be a tense situation.
I thought I did. I am willing to abide by whatever restrictions we place on our police and common foot soldiers.
I think that there is nothing wrong with law abiding citizens having access to the same firepower as the police.
Why do you think law enforcement needs larger magazines than law abiding citizens?
There are few others that need the protection.
They did, time and time again but people kept suing despite the fact that the courts kept throwing out their cases. Noone sues car manufacturers because soomeone died in a car accident. Noone sues Jim Beam because the driver was drunk. Because it would be frivolous. But they sue Smith and Wesson when a criminal shoots someone. The case gets thrown out and then someone else sues. It was a bit ridiculous. Then some states started to move to apply liability to gun manufacturers if their guns are used in a crime. When else does that sort of shit happen?
In case you didn’t know…
Are you under the impression that we don’t have gun regulations at the moment?
I’ve proposed licensing and registration many many many times on this board to the chagrin of some on the gun rights side. You can see my proposal in post 26. The typical response from the gun control side has been something along the lines of “I like licensing and registration but you have to get rid of everything else. That would be a good start. Lets see what happens and go from there”
The government already controls guns. Very few things are controlled as much as guns are. Can you acknowledge THAT?
I don’t think they are trying to put us in camps. I think a lot of politicians would ban guns if they thought they could get the votes. I don’t think they could ever get the votes so I am not really worried about it.
I don’t think you stand in the way of a good idea because a bad idea might follow. I don’t think that licensing and registration leads to confiscation any more than I think that guns lead to significantly higher rates of suicide. IOW, I don’t. I have problem with licensing and registration as long as we implement some good ideas going in the other directions like pre-emption, national carry licenses, and repeal of all other gun laws.
Glock 19s have 15 round magazines. His .22 had ten round magazines.
Since this is the usual “lets do something” thread after a terrorist attack I need to ask how many rounds of ammunition should be allowed in pressure cookers and what kind of background check should be used?
Not one person died in that bar as a result of gun violence. Not one law suggested would have stopped the attack. What would have stopped the attack was people with guns and they were late to the rescue. Had the bar owners carried guns the result would have been different.
What killed 49 people was a person who planned to do so. With or without a gun.
I think that the need to own a firearm is reflective of a violent mentality. Americans need firearms because we accept living in a violent society, and we accept violence as a way to solve problems. I don’t mean that eliminating guns will eliminate violence, but if we can divorce ourselves from the idea that we need guns, if we can divorce ourselves from the idea that we need a death penalty as retribution for murder, and if we can divorce ourselves from the idea that we need to use violence to impose American style “democracy” and capitalism on others…maybe then we might see a decline in violence. America lives by the sword (gun), and die by the sword (gun) she will.
Lets say we capture a murderer with a gun, we trace it back to you but you tell us that you sold it to some guy that had a a valid permit. You don’t remember who.
Or lets say you wrote down his name and address. The guy says he never heard of you.
Your idea is basically universal background checks. There is a reason the gun lobby thinks that universal background checks lead to registries. Its hard to enforce universal background checks without a gun registry.
For the record i am in favor of gun registries. It is a boogeyman that the NRA has gotten everyone afraid of without really explaining why its so scary. heck if it makes people feel better we can limit the gun registry to handguns and get a handle on the most commonly used guns in crime.
Its possible for people without specific knowledge to speak at the theoretical level but that’s not what you are doing when you (and I am not directing this specifically at you) say you want to ban guns with collapsible stocks, pistol grips, detachable magazines etc. You are saying that there are very specific things that are bad but you only think they are bad because someone else is telling you they are bad.
It is possible to have policy positions but when you say guns are the problem without really understanding the problem you are just repeating something that someone else told you. Gun rights advocates are not all original thinkers and are repeating what others have told them in many cases as well but what they are being told are at least consistent with actual real facts.
I think the ownership of a firearm is reflective of a person willing to take responsibility for his/her safety.
I grew up in an era where we carried knives to school and the rural kids kept guns in their vehicles so they could shoot in school clubs.
You’re fear of guns is misdirected nonsense. The problem isn’t the gun, it’s the person who wishes to do harm. Taking away the gun doesn’t change that desire or ability to do harm.
This seemed like a worthwhile question that didn’t get answered (at least that I saw). So here’s my answer to it:
Full-auto weapons are extremely expensive, rare, and difficult to legally acquire. In our country with maybe 100 million gun owners who collectively own several hundred million guns, there are maybe 100,000 - 200,000 (bit of a guess here) privately-owned full-auto weapons. They are usually the crown jewels of very serious gun collectors’ collections.
That being said, guns are, as far as machines go, relatively simple ones, and it wouldn’t take an individual of average skill and intelligence much effort to illegally turn a semi-automatic weapon into a fully-automatic one (this would be EXTREMELY ILLEGAL!DO NOT DO IT! You’ll go to federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison for ten years!). If someone like this latest shooter is already planning on going out with a bang, an extra 10-year prison sentence isn’t much of a disincentive, so why not do it? Two reasons I can think of:
-
mass shooters aren’t individuals of average skill and intelligence. They’re often dumb, and may not know that it’s possible, or how to do it
-
even if they do know how, they may choose to stick with semi-auto fire (one shot per pull of the trigger) for the same reason that most infantry riflemen usually use semi-auto fire: it’s more accurate and conserves ammunition. Full-auto weapons are difficult to control and aim accurately while they’re firing, and they burn through ammo at an astounding rate. If you’re trying to hit targets, like bobbing and weaving people, full-auto fire is not a recipe for success.
Typical models cost $10,000, I think the cheapest was around $6000 last I checked. Plus $200 tax stamp, plus a months long wait. Exact prices are often hard to determine due to limited quantity.
Armies like full auto (or in the US, burst fire), but it’s not necessarily the better option in many cases, and may even be less effective for someone untrained. The Hollywood experience is that they are effective in mowing down tons of VC/Mafiosi/terrorists, but really you hold down that trigger and your magazine is completely spent in under 4 seconds, not enough time to “sweep” effectively. Machine guns when used militarily are typically not used because they are more effective at killing but because they are used for suppressive fire.
The standard size of nutmeg that Costclub Mart sells is 10 lbs. That is a large amount of nutmeg.
Doesn’t seem too torturous to me.
This makes me laugh.
So many of you are the same people who criticize the federal government for ineptitude on hundreds of matters, yet are paranoid that one day the government will become evil and efficiently confiscate all registered firearms. So which is it, are they inept or deadly efficient, or is it one or the other depending on convenience to your argument?
The point was that warning shots are not safer. That’s why police don’t generally fire warning shots.
If there is no reason that magazines should be limited, then I don’t see why your proposed limits can, or need to be, debated.
‘We should limit magazines to no more than 10.’
‘Why?’
‘No reason.’
Now you are claiming that there is a reason. Great - please demonstrate how limiting magazine size to 10 will cut down on mass murder.
Why 10?
That doesn’t happen. At all.
[/quote]
It happened in the OP.
That’s where you get it wrong. No one has to prove you wrong. You have to prove your proposals are right.
You apparently didn’t grasp the distinction between fully automatic and semi-automatic weapons. Thus your proposal about that characteristic of guns is not based on accurate information. It is therefore up to you to prove that your opinion about magazine size, or any other proposal that you might make, is better founded.
So you might want to try that.
Regards,
Shodan
If you think it through it may make more sense. Large is a relative measure - it needs to be with respect to something else. So if Costclub only sells one size, it would make so sense to call it large. It could be the standard Costclub size, but large compared to other stores who sell smaller sizes.
Now, some states have legislated magazine size limits. So a standard CA magazine for a Glock 17 in CA for example, is 10 rounds. A standard magazine for that exact same pistol in every other state that doesn’t have a magazine limit is 17 rounds. If 99% of Glock 17s are sold with 17 round mags, and 1 % are sold with 10 round mags, what would you say the standard size is? (these %'s are hypothetical)
It’s an obvious farce to call a 17 round magazine “large” or “high capacity” when it is the default standard magazine. Only where legislation has restricted the size is the magazine size reduced. Remember when the term “assault weapon” was popularized? It was done in part as an effort to confuse people. Calling standard mags large or high capacity is the same transparent BS.
Why would anyone need a high capacity magazine?!?! The horror!
No, that’s the standard magazine it comes with.
Oh.