- 5,232
- 159
Call me an Hippie, Ahole, ETC but.......
- Thread starter at1010
- Start date
Yes. Banning clips or specific guns or specific bullets will do nothing to thwart those wishing to inflict severe harm on innocent. Ban every gun. Guess what is going to start happening to schools next? I dare not type it out loud. Let's just say a simple youtube search on "how to make a. . . . " could easily be searched by my 10yr old. Inflicting harm is going to happen by those screwed in the head. I believe what milo was getting at is: Eliminate spoons and he is still going to eat his ice cream. Eliminating guns will not stop people. It isnt the gun that is the problem just like it isn't the cheeseburger that made Americans fat. The people CHOOSE to eat it. I believe the last gun proposal I heard suggested eliminating any semiautomatic gun holding more than 10rds. I guess that Marlin 60 I take squirrel hunting is now to be considered an "assault rifle"?
You're over 100 times more likely too be killed by a Medical professional in this country then by a gun..... You're worried and I understand that but things need too be put into perspective... What happened is horrible and perpetrated by a person who I can't begin too imagining what was going on in his head..... But banning large round clips isn't the answer either IMHO..... You're young as you've said, but with age comes wisdom (usually) and we've seen this before and we'll see it again (unfortunately).......
Milo
Tatonka guide.
- 8,187
- 171
do you really think that would have changed the outcome of this? do you honestly think after we pass a new law that this will not happen again? If you answer no then really what is the point of it?
- 5,232
- 159
Your going to continue to put me down on my argument but I have yet to figure out what your side is.
No changes?
I honestly think your response to my post is insulting to my intelligence. You say it takes not time at all to reload a clip, ok I understand that, but in the next shooting what if it takes responders 20mins to get there. The guy has 5, 30 round clips, I still see him doing a lot more dammage, is he really going to be carrying 15 ten round clips?
- 5,232
- 159
I honestly believe that it could have saved a few lives. How could less rounds not, in the time he takes to reload someone tackles him, IDK.
Milo
Tatonka guide.
- 8,187
- 171
Milo
Tatonka guide.
- 8,187
- 171
there ya go. god called these kids home for some reason..i dont know why but he did. you think a law is going to change that?
bthompson1004
Member
I personally don't think that the focus should be on guns at all....the people blaming guns on this issue have just taken the easy way out....these are people that don't care about any discussions beyond the fact that someone used a gun...I don't want to speak ill of anyone, dead or alive, but after everything I have read, it seems the mother prbly shouldn't have even let that kid use a butter knife, let alone taught him how to use a firearm........we all know that the parent is still ultimately responsible for their children....
but if it is compromise you want to talk about, then lets talk about a shooting show on t.v. that I saw awhile back.....I only remember the basics and not the details here....I'm sure somebody else has seen this or heard about it or prbly even use it...
A military shooting instructor (I believe) was picking up some new rifles (maybe it was Sons of Guns). before he purchased them he ran them through several tests on the range...they may have been called "Jam tests" or something...I think there was 3 different ones....He would shoot, purposely jam the gun and see how fast he could clear the jam, load the next round and continue firing...
Not sure why my mind jumped to this but....my thought is (for you compromisers) that maybe manufacturers could install a device that jams the gun after 3 rounds...after that, you must have a tool (that comes in the manual) or something with some kind of instructions on how to un-jam the gun?????
To a recreational shooter I wouldn't perceive this to be a huge issue at all, considering these are people that more than likely would be able to understand what the purpose of it is....and for a criminal in the most recent scenario, I can imagine this would have easily saved about 26 lives at that school....maybe this is too much detail for some, but maybe just an option to consider, if need be.
but if it is compromise you want to talk about, then lets talk about a shooting show on t.v. that I saw awhile back.....I only remember the basics and not the details here....I'm sure somebody else has seen this or heard about it or prbly even use it...
A military shooting instructor (I believe) was picking up some new rifles (maybe it was Sons of Guns). before he purchased them he ran them through several tests on the range...they may have been called "Jam tests" or something...I think there was 3 different ones....He would shoot, purposely jam the gun and see how fast he could clear the jam, load the next round and continue firing...
Not sure why my mind jumped to this but....my thought is (for you compromisers) that maybe manufacturers could install a device that jams the gun after 3 rounds...after that, you must have a tool (that comes in the manual) or something with some kind of instructions on how to un-jam the gun?????
To a recreational shooter I wouldn't perceive this to be a huge issue at all, considering these are people that more than likely would be able to understand what the purpose of it is....and for a criminal in the most recent scenario, I can imagine this would have easily saved about 26 lives at that school....maybe this is too much detail for some, but maybe just an option to consider, if need be.
You can ban the guns, you can ban the High Capacity magazines, but that isn't going to solve the problem. Simple as that.
I would be willing to bet that once a ban is in place, even giving it 6-12 months of soak time, that I could go to the private market and buy an AR-15 and as many 30 round mags as I wanted, within 24 hours.
These bans are only going to hurt the responsible gun owners like us.
I would be willing to bet that once a ban is in place, even giving it 6-12 months of soak time, that I could go to the private market and buy an AR-15 and as many 30 round mags as I wanted, within 24 hours.
These bans are only going to hurt the responsible gun owners like us.
- 39,048
- 274
Sorry if it seems like I'm insulting your intelligence, I can understand how it appears that way during an illogical debate. And yes, that's precisely my stance. Don't change a thing. These shooters have plenty of time to do their dastardly deeds. Making them reload isn't going to change anything. We can debate "what if's" all day long. But there are millions of variables. Each of them have a way around the other.
If we follow you line of logic then we should ban buckshot and any shotgun except single shots.. Each shell has 10-25 pellets.. One shot in a crowd can inflict massive damage. A 6 round shotgun has between 60-150 projectiles. Should we ban all shotguns except single shots?
The bottom line is this, banning guns, accessories, or magazines isn't going to change a thing. I also think you have forgotten the reason our founding fathers thought we should be armed in the first place.
Milo
Tatonka guide.
- 8,187
- 171
here is a good story for you
http://www.examiner.com/article/off-duty-texas-deputy-stops-theater-shooting?cid=rss
http://www.examiner.com/article/off-duty-texas-deputy-stops-theater-shooting?cid=rss
The bad guys will still get the guns regardless of restrictions. That's the bottom line.
We might as well have a right to own them and protect ourselves.
We might as well have a right to own them and protect ourselves.
Let me weigh on on this one. I have quite a few issues with this and this is gonna be a long post so grab your coffee or beverage of choice.
1.) Lets look at the 2nd amendment.
1.b) A lot of anti-gunners will also use the "Assault weapon or High capacity magazines" are military weapons and what normal person needs access to those. Our forefathers had just finished fighting a war against the most powerful military in the world at that time and had won against all odds. The British regulars had primarily smoothbore muskets where the colonists had rifled barrels in their rifles. Therefore the colonists actually had better weaponry than the military they were facing. Did this help them defeat the British? I'd put money on it and especially if you have ever listend to the historical aspect of an Appleseed you'll find out exactly how much. So the forefathers knew and understood exactly what it took to create change against a dominant government and they wanted the people to have the ability to keep the government in check IF it ever became necessary again. Not to sound too radical but without the 2nd amendment keeping reign on the government, what else protects any of the other rights in the constitution or bill of rights? Think about it.
1.c) Many of us have military backgrounds. We all swore an oath to defend the constitution, and that means all of it in my book.
2.) Magazine capacity, your first point. So you see no problems with banning a 30 round magazine b/c it doesn't affect you. What about the people it does affect? Are you only going to complain if the gun laws affect you? That's not being profirearms, that's "I don't care until it personally affects me" aka apathy. If they propose legislation that limits all magazines down to your random number of 10 what does that do, who does that affect? Well Glock 19 one of the most popular 9mms on the planet, comes with a 15 round magazine, Ruger SR9, Sig 9mms, my 10/22 with the 25 round magazine, etc. Then in a couple of weeks or a year when some evil person creates havoc with 30 individual 10 round magazines then are you going to say....well maybe we should just all have revolvers as those take longer to load than a semi-auto so the person can do less damage.
Oh wait the same day as the Conn shooting an evil person in China which has some of the most strict gun laws in the world had this happen to them. 22 Children stabbed by a knife
Well I suppose we out to ban all the knives b/c no one needs access to the really sharp ones, the dull butter knives will have to work the next time I field dress my deer.
3.) Why are we as a culture so bent on blaming everything but the person? A firearm is a tool, nothing more nothing less. People are killed by many means every day and yet nothing is said about that. How many people die each month from automobile accidents? More than died in Conn, and I would bet more kids are killed every year in automobiles than in school shooting. Where are the calls for common sense car laws? This is almost a cliche but blaming the gun for the Sandy Hook shooting is like blaming a spoon for making a person fat. Why are we so against a person having to deal with the consequences of their own actions?
4.) To those who think if we give a little as gun owners than the anti's will have less to complain about. Really? I mean really? Have you ever looked at the Ohio Coalition to stop gun violence's facebook page (here)? Do you think they would stop just b/c we gave a little? No, just like we fight for a step by step reinstatement of our gun rights, they will continue to fight for a step by step elimination of them.
5.) Do gun laws actually do anything to stop crime? Well lets look at something. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the US. Chicago Homicides Outnumber U.S. Troop Killings In Afghanistan and this was as of August. So a city with very strict gun laws is more dangerous than a war zone. How's that working out for the citizens of Chicago? Also, how many of the people who are outspoken for firearms laws actually have firearms protecting them and their families? An Illinois state senator tried to board a plane with a handgun
6.) Would additional laws stop school shootings? Well one of the most famous school shootings aka Columbine still occurred during the AWB. Also, the most deadly school killing in US history didn't even use firearms. The Bath School Disaster
7.) You cannot stop crazy, you can not legislate away evil. People will do whatever they have to to do what they want. Laws are not going to stop this from happening. Just look to see how well the banning of drugs has worked on the illegal drugs in our country.
What might stop this from happening? Well for one the media frenzy only makes things like this more appealing to the pyscho who wants to be famous. Also the media coverage makes it appear like they are happening more and more when in actuality that's not true. Look at This list of school shooting in the US. Not really an uptick in them, just more exposure to them makes it appear like they are happening more often.
1.) Lets look at the 2nd amendment.
1.a) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED - therefore any gun law that removes access is an infringement per the wording of the Bill of Rights. Now I know that the Supreme Court did rule that some laws can be constitutional but I personally disagree. I'm a big fan of the constitution and the definition shall not be infringed is pretty bluntly obvious.
1.b) A lot of anti-gunners will also use the "Assault weapon or High capacity magazines" are military weapons and what normal person needs access to those. Our forefathers had just finished fighting a war against the most powerful military in the world at that time and had won against all odds. The British regulars had primarily smoothbore muskets where the colonists had rifled barrels in their rifles. Therefore the colonists actually had better weaponry than the military they were facing. Did this help them defeat the British? I'd put money on it and especially if you have ever listend to the historical aspect of an Appleseed you'll find out exactly how much. So the forefathers knew and understood exactly what it took to create change against a dominant government and they wanted the people to have the ability to keep the government in check IF it ever became necessary again. Not to sound too radical but without the 2nd amendment keeping reign on the government, what else protects any of the other rights in the constitution or bill of rights? Think about it.
1.c) Many of us have military backgrounds. We all swore an oath to defend the constitution, and that means all of it in my book.
2.) Magazine capacity, your first point. So you see no problems with banning a 30 round magazine b/c it doesn't affect you. What about the people it does affect? Are you only going to complain if the gun laws affect you? That's not being profirearms, that's "I don't care until it personally affects me" aka apathy. If they propose legislation that limits all magazines down to your random number of 10 what does that do, who does that affect? Well Glock 19 one of the most popular 9mms on the planet, comes with a 15 round magazine, Ruger SR9, Sig 9mms, my 10/22 with the 25 round magazine, etc. Then in a couple of weeks or a year when some evil person creates havoc with 30 individual 10 round magazines then are you going to say....well maybe we should just all have revolvers as those take longer to load than a semi-auto so the person can do less damage.
Oh wait the same day as the Conn shooting an evil person in China which has some of the most strict gun laws in the world had this happen to them. 22 Children stabbed by a knife
Well I suppose we out to ban all the knives b/c no one needs access to the really sharp ones, the dull butter knives will have to work the next time I field dress my deer.
3.) Why are we as a culture so bent on blaming everything but the person? A firearm is a tool, nothing more nothing less. People are killed by many means every day and yet nothing is said about that. How many people die each month from automobile accidents? More than died in Conn, and I would bet more kids are killed every year in automobiles than in school shooting. Where are the calls for common sense car laws? This is almost a cliche but blaming the gun for the Sandy Hook shooting is like blaming a spoon for making a person fat. Why are we so against a person having to deal with the consequences of their own actions?
4.) To those who think if we give a little as gun owners than the anti's will have less to complain about. Really? I mean really? Have you ever looked at the Ohio Coalition to stop gun violence's facebook page (here)? Do you think they would stop just b/c we gave a little? No, just like we fight for a step by step reinstatement of our gun rights, they will continue to fight for a step by step elimination of them.
5.) Do gun laws actually do anything to stop crime? Well lets look at something. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the US. Chicago Homicides Outnumber U.S. Troop Killings In Afghanistan and this was as of August. So a city with very strict gun laws is more dangerous than a war zone. How's that working out for the citizens of Chicago? Also, how many of the people who are outspoken for firearms laws actually have firearms protecting them and their families? An Illinois state senator tried to board a plane with a handgun
6.) Would additional laws stop school shootings? Well one of the most famous school shootings aka Columbine still occurred during the AWB. Also, the most deadly school killing in US history didn't even use firearms. The Bath School Disaster
7.) You cannot stop crazy, you can not legislate away evil. People will do whatever they have to to do what they want. Laws are not going to stop this from happening. Just look to see how well the banning of drugs has worked on the illegal drugs in our country.
What might stop this from happening? Well for one the media frenzy only makes things like this more appealing to the pyscho who wants to be famous. Also the media coverage makes it appear like they are happening more and more when in actuality that's not true. Look at This list of school shooting in the US. Not really an uptick in them, just more exposure to them makes it appear like they are happening more often.
Big_Holla
Senior Member
As soon as you start limiting or banning anything then the process is started for the anti-gun folks. They will not stop and will continue to limit and ban more. Limiting the size clip is a moot point to them, it's their way of getting their foot in the door for what's to come in the future with a president willing to do their dirty deeds.
ImpalaSSpeed96
Junior Member
You guys can fumble around all day with what if's... As a gun owner and advocate, I see it being very hard to justify owning a AR type weapon. We all know it isn't for home defense. If anything, it's awful for home defense when you put a round through your house, into the neighbors... 10 rounds make save the arm for the time being, but the gangrene is going to get the better of it, sooner or later. What I'm worried about is the shotguns. We all know how much damage and uncorked gun with buckshot in it can cause...
Just because they don't have a practical use for you doesn't mean that gun collectors shouldn't be able to buy one for their collection. I don't think the amendment reads "right to bear certain types of arms".
Last edited:
Logic > Emotion
Chicago has some of the highest occurences of gun/violent crimes in the world and some of the most oppresive gun laws.
Since Australia had introduced new gun laws (1995) violent crimes have went up 17%
This list goes on and on.
Molon Aabe!
Chicago has some of the highest occurences of gun/violent crimes in the world and some of the most oppresive gun laws.
Since Australia had introduced new gun laws (1995) violent crimes have went up 17%
This list goes on and on.
Molon Aabe!
- 39,048
- 274
Plus limiting rounds in guns has a carryover affect by limiting rounds you may also add guns too that list that wasn't the original intent but a byproduct.... Say everything is limited too 10 rounds.... Your 10/22's and tube fed 22's would also fall under that realm of guns... Wasn't the intent but a byproduct which is a win win for gun control fanatics.....