It would depend on if you had a rational reason for the arbitrary limit…which you don’t. You simply pulled 20 out of your ass with zero thought and less basis in drawing that number. If there was a rational reason to put a limit on it then that would be something different. But this gets back to my earlier point about having limits on anything. We don’t put limits on the number or type of alcohol someone has, or the number or type of tobacco products or myriad other things…so, what would be the purpose of such a limit besides that it would make you feel good?
True in the instance, but not so in the aggregate. Until you become god-king, which seems like it would be worse than Trump as President.
Depends on what it would be used for. In your case, I’d be HIGHLY skeptical, since it’s clear what you really want it for is to set some sort of ridiculous arbitrary limit and then be able to enforce that through such a list.
"Your second yes casts doubt on the truth of your first yes.
Perhaps if you’d elaborated on how granny needs to triple-tap that mugger (who I’ve been assured was probably scared off at the mere sight of the gun) then your pat answer wouldn’t smell so much like cow. "
Shortly after showing a high degree of ignorance abut guns generally. You are expressing your ignorant uninformed doubts about statements made by someone who has proven to be infinitely more knowledgeable than you about the issues. He may be on the other side of the argument from you but you can’t just call bullshit because you don’t like what he says especially when you don’t know what you are talking about.
So by all means, PLEASE go out there and get educated. Relieve yourself of your ignorance (and I don’t mean that in the perjorative). If past experience is any indication of what will happen, you will realize that this issue isn’t as simple as you might have thought and the weight of the argument isn’t all on one side of the debate. Too many gun control folks see the issues exceptionally clearly because they are ignorant and that ignorance allows them to reach incorrect conclusions with almost absolute certainty.
True, but you do need a shit ton more support than you have now. Yay democracy.
AFAIK, I have been advocating for licensing and registration for longer than anyone else on this board. So I don’t have a personal objection to licensing or registration but when you say: “Common sense tells me that anyone with more than 20 guns ought to be watched closely.”
And then propose a system of licensing and registration and that allows you to more easily keep track of who you need to “watch closely,” it is not unreasonable for people to point at your statement and say “see, they want registration so they can persecute gun owners.”
I’ve already been educated, in this very thread. I asked questions, and the answers I got back from gun fans cast severe doubts on whether semi-autos are required for personal defense. I’ve been told repeatedly that single-shot weapons can be fired repeatedly in a great hurry. I’ve been told that people who intimate that there’s nothing between a semiautomatic and a muzzle loader are full of crap. The information I’ve been given -by you folks here- paints a consistent picture that as long as the pistol isn’t too hard to work from a mechanical perspective, granny could have a goddamn old west six-shooter in her purse and be pretty much fine - especially since I’ve repeatedly been told that just pointing the gun in the mugger’s face and not shooting it at all is probably enough to diffuse the situation anyway.
So that “yes and yes”? The second yes was indeed a load of biased shit. Naturally, true facts placed next to biased shit are cast in a doubtful light, especially when the true fact in question is an unvarnished unsupported “yes”.
But sure, keep going on and on about the fact that I misunderstood “semi-automatic” to mean “burst fire”. Just go on and on and on and on. I’m sure it will convince somebody of, well, something.
When “common sense” told you this, did it bother to provide any sources? Or is the idea that people with 20+ guns more prone to criminal acts than people with, for example, 5-10 guns just a WAG on your part?
It would be nice if these “public policies” actually served some sort of public purpose other than to fuck with gun owners. Is there any reliable evidence that having more guns makes a person more likely to shoot people?
When you really don’t give a shit about the rights you are infringing or the negative consequences of your policies, you can come up with all sorts of fucked up laws. Its how we ended up with vaginal sonogram laws.
There is a category of gun that requires manual reloading every time it is fired. The most familiar example is a break action single shot gun.
Imagine the shotgun in this wiki link but with only one barrel:
Then there is a category of gun that requires some manual manipulation but does not require manual loading of every round. Pump action shot guns, lever action rifles and single action revolvers might fall into this category.
Then there is a category of weapons where you can repeated fire shots by repeatedly pulling the trigger. Double action revolvers and semi-automatic firearms fall into this category.
Finally you have automatic weapons that can fire multiple shots with one trigger pull. Sometimes they can fire two shots like an echo trigger or they can fire 3 shots like burst fire guns or they can just keep firing as long as you keep the trigger pulled like full auto machine guns.
Well, yes and no. Pulling the trigger on a double action revolver is not easy. You are physically rotating the cylinder, drawing the hammer and firing the shot with that one trigger pull, that can be an 8 pound trigger pull. That’s hard for granny to pull off in rapid succession and after 6 shots she has to reload the cylinder which can be done relatively quickly with a speedloader but still not as quickly as a magazine.
How so?
The category of weapons that can be fired in rapid succession (without being automatic is pretty much limited to semi-automatic and double action revolvers).
The first yes might have been based on the assumption that the pistol is either a semi-automatic or double action revolver because those are the only ones that can be turned into bumpfire stock. You can’t turn a single shot derringer into a bumpfire weapon. You can’t turn a single action revolver into a bumpfire weapon.
Your continued insistence that your ignorance doesn’t matter doesn’t do your arguments any good. You don’t know what you’re talking about but you’re mad because we don’t take you seriously when you make conclusory statements that are based mostly on ignorance.
Like I said, there is no one so sure of themselves as the ignorant.
What is your definition of “fucking with gun owners”?
There doesn’t need to be any data on “more guns= more likely” to make rational laws for public safety. People are a complex animal.
Your second paragraph should be addressed to someone else, maybe someone who didn’t vote for HRC? Those are the people who failed to vote against a full monty of your second paragraph abuses.
Doing something arbitrarily with no good reason for it other than you want to make things difficult for them. Such as…
…this. You have yet to come up with a rational reason for a limit, any limit let alone your 20 limit other than ‘People are a complex animal.’ I mean, that’s some horseshit there. Why a limit? Well, people are complex animals. Why 20 guns? Well, people are complex animals. Why ban alcohol? People are complex animals. Should we deport all of the illegal immigrants? Well, you know, people are complex animals. Should we ban people from immigrating from arbitrarily selected countries without any evidence that it will do anything and no evidence that people from those countries cause any problems? Of course…people are complex animals.
Essentially, you could use this horseshit to justify anything. Based on previous posts, I’m sure you don’t get any of this, but I about fell out of my chair with your reply.
You know how everyone just knew that twitler was speaking to them and winking even when he wasn’t making sense or lying. It was their common sense telling them that he was cutting through the BS and had a new way to govern. Remember when you heard about hillary’s email server and you just knew it was a big fucking deal, the fulcrum around which our security as a nation was hanging.
You think progressives shouldn’t have gut feelings too? We have them, but they’re based on more real and present concerns. Sorry if they sound totalitarian, or persecutory to you, but welcome to the club. The reality based community, basically.
Here’s an idea I’ve posted a couple of times before: I’d be perfectly fine with requiring anyone who chooses to own a gun to have to pass a gun training class every five years. The only stipulation I’d make is that no one could be denied the right to own a gun for not passing the class; instead, it would be viewed as a civil requirement like jury duty, and anyone who didn’t pass would keep getting dragged back to training every 60 days until either they passed or chose not to own guns.
You really do get hot and bothered about this. And you don’t own a gun IIRC. Why the vulgarity? You don’t agree with someone so it’s all horseshit this, coming out of ones ass that etc etc.
How many guns do you want? Are you going to the mat about the right to own an unlimited number of firearms, without restriction at all, just for the principle of it?
I was more thinking of a “use it at all” permit, which you’d also have to have to legally carry, concealed or openly. Perhaps with a little test prior to issuing, which likely would result in a crop of ‘shooter’s ed’ courses popping up.
We do all this for cars, after all - the other deadly weapon that a lot of adults in the US own.
Anything whatsoever could be justified on the basis of public safety. Taking speech. liberty and religion in that order, public safety could require: that “hate speech” (we’ll leave who gets to define what is and isn’t for later) be criminally prosecuted for violating minorities’ rights; could require anyone who somehow got on a bureaucrat’s secret list of “dangerous people” to be denied the right of unrestricted travel; and could declare an entire religion in fundamental opposition to secular government and the adherents of that religion made second class citizens as a result. You forgot freedom of assembly- how about a crowd control ordinance pre-defining all unauthorized public gatherings as riots?
I think they are apt descriptors. Now, back to the subject at hand…
Oh, was this supposed to be another distraction? It didn’t work.
I’ve answered this. Now, back to the subject at hand. Do you have anything besides ‘People are complex animals’ for a limit? Is there any rational reason you can think of? I know you are distracted (or want to seem distracted) by my use of horseshit to describe your points, so try and stay focused here.
Let me explain WHY it’s horseshit. You have nothing to back it up. It actually is exactly the same horseshit that our carrot-haired president is using in his Muslim ban. There is simply no good evidence tying the countries on his list to terrorist attacks, while countries not on his list (like, oh, say Saudi Arabia) DO actually have at least some correlation to terrorist attacks (like, I don’t know, 9/11 say). You are using the same logic. Do gun owners with 20 guns cause more crime? You don’t know…in fact, you have no fucking idea. You THINK it must, but have nothing to back it up. But, really, the reason you want a limit is because you have already come to a conclusion (Trump: Muslims are bad, You: Guns are bad) and you simply want to create a limit justified by your feelings and whatever else is bouncing about in your head.
I’m not interested enough in dealing with this bullshit to bother. Read back through the thread if you really care.
Your continued insistence that I’m too ignorant to participate in the discussion only indicates to me that you realize that your arguments and position can’t stand up to scrutiny. Why else would you be devoting so much time to desperately trying to discredit me?
I’m not up on the fine points of gun mechanics, true. (Well, actually I am NOW, after this thread, but let’s not split hairs.) But I am knowledgeable about the difference between ad hominem and having an argument. And which one you harping endlessly on my prior mistake is.
Speaking as a guy would would literally never touch a gun, ever, even I’m aware that most gun collectors are just that - collectors. Once you get past the (sometimes absurd-sounding) list of different specific special-purpose firearms a person might find uses for, you have people who just collect the things because they think they’re awesome.
In my opinion, what you have to watch out for is not how many guns they have, but how they act with them. For example, taking an AK-47 to McDonalds would immediately make me question their intentions, not to mention their mental stability, in a way that merely owning a few dozen of them would not. (Well, not more than I question the mental stability of other obsessive collectors, anyway.)
I think if some of the trust issues could be gotten past that registration would be a big help. Personally, my own concern would be more buying a lot of guns in a short period of time. I think THAT would or could be a red flag, and I think registration would help with that.
Of course, as you can see, registration is also a big concern on the pro-gun side. And the reason is pretty apparent in this thread. It’s clear that at least some on the anti-gun side would use such a list to first identify what all is out there than to use it to confiscate weapons down the road or to set some sort of arbitrary number and use this to enforce it. I think we could get past that, and I do think that such a list could be helpful, but it would take compromise on both sides, and I’m not seeing a lot of that.
I mean, that’s some horseshit there. Why a limit? Well, people are complex animals. Why 20 guns? Well, people are complex animals. Why ban alcohol? People are complex animals. Should we deport all of the illegal immigrants? Well, you know, people are complex animals. Should we ban people from immigrating from arbitrarily selected countries without any evidence that it will do anything and no evidence that people from those countries cause any problems? Of course…people are complex animals.