The “right to serve in the armed forces” while noble is not a right in any sense that I can fathom.
And thank you for your service. Seriously.
And your point is?
Branas’s study has some serious selction bias issues. As I tried to illustrate, people who are in dangerous situtauons are more likely to carry firearms.
It’s like saying that soldiers in the Iraqi army have been more likely to be killed than say, people who live in Chicago condos, despite the fact that they’re 100% armed.
Did lower capacity magazines slow down the Virginia Tech shooter?
Having to change magazines more frequently might slow up a shooter who’s not had much practice with his firearms, so reducing magazine capacity might help a bit with some of these shootings… But I doubt it would have fazed Lanza, as he was experienced. And given what I’ve read about her, I suspect his mother would have had more total magazines around if they were lower capacity (as she was a prepper).
Again, I go back to solosam’s statement:
“It is abjectely terrifying to me that the future of firearms in this country is being decided by people who have no concept of how they are realistically or properly employed.”
Anyone with any familiarity with guns at all knows that, if you’re intent on killing a school full of unarmed children, the type of firearm makes little difference. They’re unarmed. They’re kids. It takes me all of 2 seconds to swap out a magazine, or load two rounds (nine pellets each) of double-aught buck in a 100-year-old side by side shot gun. What do you think will happen? The six year olds are going to bum rush the the psycho while he takes two seconds to reload?
Yes. All of the people killed by firearms are helpless children.
solosam is a fucktwat.
Hey, if you feel safer, ok?
I read that Lanza dropped partially full magazines all over the place, constantly swapping for full mags, as if he was in a video game. (remains to be confirmed - I forget where I read it.)
These guys have small magazine capacities. Are they less dangerous? (Each shell of typical 00 buckshot contains nine pellets.) Gun people realize that the answer is “not much, if at all.” Many gun banners know this too. They’ll eventually work their way down to 100+ year old shotguns, sure enough.
Thanks. I will. I’m going to have a nightcap, then turn in. Be well.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t use the “oh, think of the children” argument to exploit everyone’s emotions, and then dismiss it when you find it inconvenient.
All this recent gun control bullshit is in response to the Newtown shooting. It is appropriate to discuss whether any of the crazed, stupid, misguided measures being proposed would have actually done anything to avert that tragedy.
Did Washington really say this:
“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which should include their own government.”
No, he didn’t, but even if he did, the gun control advocates would just call him an archaic relic.
Liberals are not concerned with history or the past. They think the Constitution is irrelevant if they don’t like it today. Who cares what some old white slave-owning male thought?
I was not seeking thanks but you are welcome.
Whether you can fathom them or not, we have many more rights and responsibilities as citizens than just those in the Bill of Rights. You have not yet explained how “we don’t normally require responsibility to exercise our rights”, as you claimed.
Nonsense. Plenty of liberals care passionately for the Constitution. And more of them than you’d think own guns.
This is prohibited in Great Debates.
This is a formal Warning that you need to refrain from such behavior.
[ /Moderating ]
Yeah, you’re right, I was just being a smartass.
People should like it for the simple logic it uses, not because it was supposedly delivered by Washinton (who had bigger cajones than most anti-gun advocates today, IMHO.)
I am thinking…Maybe if all gun owners had to have Insurance and be responsible for any one killed or maimed by a gun they owned,(we do this now with car owners). Perhaps if they were responsible for the deaths it caused, or if the dealers sold a gun with out insurance they too could be libel. Perhaps it would then at least see to it that their guns were used for things other than killing people. They should be trained to be able to shoot a person in the arm etc. without killing them if they were attacked? One has to be tested to drive a car safely, so why not a gun owner?
Now these criminals you speak of, that would acquire their guns illegally and would still keep their old guns, what kinds of crimes could they commit with these illegally owned guns? (List as many as you can.)