U.S. Gun Violence

Post Reply New Topic

I was just following the logic (assuming there is any)...

It is ironic you talk about 'self defense' and 'common sense' and 'arms race'. My common sense says the main objective of 'self defense' is ensuring ones safety, STOPPING the attacker if necessary. Killing the other guy is NEVER a justifiable objective by itself. Therefore a gun is too lethal to be a 'self defense' weapon, compared with its stopping power. It is you pro-gunners who is starting 'a slippery slope to some arms race', and now you feel upset when I go one step further? (In fact my chlorine gas is a lot milder than a gun and is discriminate enough not to kill anyone outside my house).

A myth. There is no reason to think the constitution is trying to define any precise class of weapons to be owned by citizens. Imagine you are writing the constitution now any try to figure out what type of weapons would be available 200 years from now and precisely what should be allowed. Impossible, right?

hmm

the Virginia tech shooter used those so called safer 10 round mags

the columbine shooting happen during the so great assault weapons ban using the banned guns and 10 round mags

the DC navy shooting happen with a anti gun approved shotgun not the mythical AR15shotgun that the news made up

the shooting in Oregon mall stopped when his gun jammed on a drum mag

the Colorado theater shooting gun also jammed with drum mag

Drum mags hold like 100 rounds and require constant tinkling with to work some what decently

most pistols mags are standard 17 rounds, most modern rifles standard 30 rounds

so normal mag= mag gun was designed to use not some arbitrary number like 10 or 7 or the next 5 then 3 then 1 then none nonsense though i must hand it to the NY anti gun politicians most aren't smart enough to know anything about guns but by making it 7 rounds they got rid of pretty much anything buy .45 cal 1911s maybe they have stock in that gun .

here is a interesting info a lot of anti gun politicians have stock in gun makers, guess who makes money when a possible ban is talked about and gun sales sky rocket. lol so its two fold. look like your doing something for reelection and make a few million at the same time

on the guns just going off thing, all new guns since at least 2000 have anywhere from 2-3 safeties one being a thing called a firing pin block. the firing pin is the part of the gun either released by a spring or hit by a hammer that then hits the firing cap on the ammunition. what the FPB does is it blocks the firing pin during all situations except then the trigger is pulled, which pulls the block out of the way allowing the firing pin to go forward. for this reason when Glocks came out the sales person would load it up and slam the gun on the floor. This of course scared the cops at first cause doing so with a earlier gun would have possible gone off

on the matter of older guns without it they would still be required to be dropper or thrown, so just sitting in a holster wouldn't set them off unless its a old 1800s revolver and you hit the hammer really hard which is why almost no one carries them or did so on a empty gun hence the empty chamber for cowboys thing

Yeah i like to read and learn alot and guns are interesting and mechanical though its even with learning history and cars for me lol

again, if these extended magazines are so godawful, why does anyone, including you, want them? Does it take less time to clear a jam than to put in a separate magazine?

Because really they just want guns for fun.

They are being slightly silly, they know that a well made one, with proper springs is far less likely to jam and that firing on automatic for sustain periods with a weapon not designed with heavy barrel is always a bad idea. The point is that the magazine makes a good shooter, looking to fill a specific task more efficient. I am trying to figure out what the aim of the pro-gun chaps is; to prove their case or show off their weapons knowledge. One thing is for certain, these chaps love their guns and when they do their internal cost/benefit analysis, it always comes up ok, because they have a vested interest in their own weapons. Having actually been shot at I don't see the attraction nor do I buy gun safety talk. I have seen professionals accidentally brass up things through negligent gun safety and the idea that a chubby bloke from Texas can be trusted not to do the same is just silly.

As for the jam or reload, it depends on the jam and where the bullet is caught, many can be fixed just by pulling the charging handle.

My reasons for owning hi-cap magazines are mine and I don't need to justify my choices to anyone. Rather, you need to justify why banning hi-cap magazines would make any difference whatsoever.

Please, please, please point out to me the part in the thread where *anyone* is talking about automatic weapons. I'll give you a cookie.

Automatic weapons are both semi and fully automatic in how they fire... Note that whenever I wanted to talk about fully automatic, I have stated as such. Almost every semi automatic weapon is an 'automatic' because of the way the system reloads after firing. It refers to the method by which the weapon reloads not to the rate of rife. Now go sit in the corner, leave the cookie.

The heavy barrel and stronger springs are required to keep the rate of fire up, anyone firing an automatic on semi can and will cause jams when using it like a muppet. If you are going to be condescending towards a soldier, at least get your terminology right.

What's an extended magazine? If an AR-15 was designed to use 20 and 30 round mags then there's nothing extended about them. Same for handguns that were designed for high capacity magazines. Helps to know a little first. And all of my magazines work fine. It's very rare that they don't.

Then what would be the right tool for the job? I already know what your answer is going to be and it's as good as shredded already.

Militia tend to be light infantry.

Last edited by Sherlock03 on 21 Jan 2014, 10:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

I disagree to the extent that most schools have "zero tolerance" rules which actually only helps the bully who knows how to make themselves look like the victim.

Until you can guarantee that criminals can't get these items (and you never will), it makes no sense to deny ownership to law-abiding citizens.

High capacity magazine limitations are absurd. They provide no added security whatsoever.

That being said, I am in favor of gun regulations, just not any that have been proposed so far (at least not in their current incarnations).

I am somewhat in favor of a registry, but not the way that it has been proposed by a group of people who know nothing about firearms whatsoever. I think there should be more accountability for a weapon after it has left the custody of the manufacturer. I just think that it should be somewhat more difficult for someone to order a dozen firearms and then sell them at a premium to those elements of society that are unable to obtain them legally.

I think there needs to be a line drawn on what firearms people can possess without limitations and what is well beyond what would be needed for self-defense. I don't think that higher stopping power weapons should be illegal, but that a thorough background check (as opposed to the somewhat limited ones required now) for anything that would be more on the hobby side of things (fully automatics (possibly-still fence sitting), extremely high caliber weapons, grenade launchers, certain types of ammunition, etc.).

I also think that a concealed carry permit should only be granted after proof is provided with the application of some sort of minimum firearm safety training.

I guess what my big wish on firearm regulation would be is that the NRA and other gun advocacy groups would stop opposing anything with even a hint of limitations on firearms just because it is seen as extremist anti-gun nut driven, and instead took part in reasonable and realistic discussion on gun regulation. Neither extreme is very realistic, IMO.

Poor argument, at best. Most of your other arguments hold much more water. The whole "if criminals can get them, why bother" argument is flawed no matter what the issue. The right tries to use it for primarily for gun legislation issues, and the left uses it primarily for marijuana legislation issues.