Everyone is scared, everyone has guns.

[BraveUlysses]

Than what, cheap small capacity alternatives? Properly cared for magazines which aren't kept for a decade with rounds in them rarely jam up, so dont start making stupid excuses like these politicians do. The time it takes to change mag's is minimal, it's going to make no difference. That and people are just going to become better shots to make use of fewer rounds.

I'm not making any excuses...just pointing out that banning high capacity mags would not have a significant impact. I fully agree with you in all aspects.

[joshh]

No, see if they ban them, they will just Grandfather the existing. Thus not removing anything that is already out there. All this does is make the price of the weapons and magazines go up but still easily able to get.

Confiscation of firearms will cause a civil war and they are not ready for that

I was presenting the idea that even if all weapons had 10 round magazines, you're still going to have psychos killing people with guns that have 10 round magazines. It's not a solution.

[InuFaye]

I was presenting the idea that even if all weapons had 10 round magazines, you're still going to have psychos killing people with guns that have 10 round magazines. It's not a solution.

Just possibly less dead people.

[iamsam]

Just possibly less dead people.

yeah, I think it really makes a difference. The extra time needed to change a 10rd mag 3 times rather than not changing a 30rd mag, you can probably shoot one person a second, and at around 3 seconds to change a mag, you would tack on a total of 9 seconds duration onto your shooting spree, adding that very much needed 9 seconds to the police en route, 3 minutes away.

[InuFaye]

yeah, I think it really makes a difference. The extra time needed to change a 10rd mag 3 times rather than not changing a 30rd mag, you can probably shoot one person a second, and at around 3 seconds to change a mag, you would tack on a total of 9 seconds duration onto your shooting spree, adding that very much needed 9 seconds to the police en route, 3 minutes away.

Thats with the thinking that the shooter could switch a mag in 10 seconds.
There could be an opening for someone in those 10 seconds, or he could have packed the new mag wrong.

[frankenbeemer]

yeah, I think it really makes a difference. The extra time needed to change a 10rd mag 3 times rather than not changing a 30rd mag, you can probably shoot one person a second, and at around 3 seconds to change a mag, you would tack on a total of 9 seconds duration onto your shooting spree, adding that very much needed 9 seconds to the police en route, 3 minutes away.

I don't know where to go with this argument or why it matters, but in the spirit of specious logic, may I suggest that this still leaves 171 dead?

[mrsleeve]

Mrsleeve, how are you ignoring the fact that Australia had 13 mass shootings in the prior 18 years before introducing strict gun control and they went 10.5 years after with zero. 10 years with zero. No one is saying it'll never happen again, but the rates drop dramatically.

In 1996, they had 104 gun homicides and they called it quits. It dropped every year since then. They had 30 in 2009.

You really argued against yourself mentioning this. Studies have come to the conclusion that taking guns out of civilian hands leads to less mass shooting and homicides. You can bring up all the anecdotes you want, you can't ignore the evidence.

Like dub pointed out few Aussies owned guns and the only ones that carried them were, cops and criminals the whole country was and still is a giant gun free zone.

And in the 70's the Israelis used to have even more issues with school attacks by fanatic Muslims. Well you want to know how they solved that problem?? Yup they trained and ARMED select school staff. Yup once it became know that there was armed security at all those schools the attacks all but stopped in favor or softer less defended targets. Yup bet you wont hear that in the media, not even fox news will tell you that's how you fix these problems

One of the best firearms instruction schools in the country has been offering for years to train 3 staff from every school (not district SCHOOL ) and university in the country for FREE!!!! Yes Front Sight is offering its 4day hand gun courses for free to teachers and administrators being sent there by the school. That would cost you and me 2 grand, Front Sight is about 500 bucks a day plus the cost of travel, ammo, and lodging. But its well worth it, its on my list to take their 4 day defensive and combat pistol courses at some point.

We use firearms to protect our money, (banks and brinks have armed guards) We use armed security to protect our leaders in this country (our dignitaries in hostile countries not so much though I find that odd too). Why is it so outlandish to use trained armed people to protect the mass gathering of our children with firearms.

Thats with the thinking that the shooter could switch a mag in 10 seconds.
There could be an opening for someone in those 10 seconds, or he could have packed the new mag wrong.

In a fucking elementary school full of 6 year olds, and terrified teachers yeah ok, or a mall full or people running for their lives the other way. or a high school/ university ect.. when everyone is laying on the ground trying to keep under cover. By the time you even realize a mag change is going on its too late. It should not take someone with at least some practice 10 seconds to make a mag change anyway.

[cale]

Thats with the thinking that the shooter could switch a mag in 10 seconds.
There could be an opening for someone in those 10 seconds, or he could have packed the new mag wrong.

If you're motivated enough to be using more than a few rounds for whatever reason, you're likely prepared to do so or competent. Millions are supposed to be spent by the government and industry to outlaw 30 round mags and introduce a new standard based on the hope that a criminal cannot operate his gun effectively? That's logical.

[CorvallisBMW]

Yet knifes account for 5x the deaths in the United States last year over rifles.


http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr...e-data-table-8

This is why we can't have nice things...

Notice how you cherry-picked 'rifles', the least-used type of gun in the report, and then comapred it to all types of knife attacks. If you took your head out of your ass and looked at ALL guns compared to ALL knives, suddenly gun homicides killed 7.5x more people.

Cherry-picking facts doesn't help your case, it just makes you look like a desperate fool.

[cale]

This is why we can't have nice things...

Notice how you cherry-picked 'rifles', the least-used type of gun in the report, and then comapred it to all types of knife attacks. If you took your head out of your ass and looked at ALL guns compared to ALL knives, suddenly gun homicides killed 7.5x more people.

Cherry-picking facts doesn't help your case, it just makes you look like a desperate fool.

Guns aren't even weapons though, they're tools. They should be in the other category!

[mrsleeve]

This is why we can't have nice things...

Notice how you cherry-picked 'rifles', the least-used type of gun in the report, and then comapred it to all types of knife attacks. If you took your head out of your ass and looked at ALL guns compared to ALL knives, suddenly gun homicides killed 7.5x more people.

Cherry-picking facts doesn't help your case, it just makes you look like a desperate fool.

Yet this is the kind of weapon Fienstein and the administration are going to go after. You know the evil Military looking sporting rifles that they and the media have termed "Assault Weapons" you know the Assault Weapons Ban that you seemed advocate for about 5 pages ago.

So knives are responsible for 5x more deaths than these types of weapons in the USA but we are going to BAN those and not Knives ?????? Should you not be advocating for a knife ban too then.

I have a better idea how about we ban Killing of people..........................Oh wait.

While we are at it, lets ban Drugs........................Errr hang on

Or we can ban Alcohol too ............................ Shit we did that too and the we had to change it back


Yes banning things works great. Like I told Vitcle or what ever last night. Get a 2/3 majority in the US legislating bodies, then get 2/3 majority the legislating bodies of at least 2/3 of the states and AMEND THE CONSTITUTION to repeal the 2ed amendment then you can ban firearms. Thats too hard and too much work. YES there is a reason for that so things like this where hasty decisions may be made cant happen over night and change the constitution all willy nilly like

[InuFaye]

In a fucking elementary school full of 6 year olds, and terrified teachers yeah ok, or a mall full or people running for their lives the other way. or a high school/ university ect.. when everyone is laying on the ground trying to keep under cover. By the time you even realize a mag change is going on its too late. It should not take someone with at least some practice 10 seconds to make a mag change anyway.

Whats the reason why you should have them? Don't give me the "ITS AMERICUH, I'M ENTITLED"

All your giving me is excuses why it wouldn't stop the shootings.

[slammin.e28]

I have a better idea how about we ban Killing of people..........................Oh wait.

While we are at it, lets ban Drugs........................Errr hang on

Or we can ban Alcohol too ............................ Shit we did that too and the we had to change it back


Yes banning things works great........................................

I love this. Made me smile....but it's true.

[frankenbeemer]

This is why we can't have nice things...

Notice how you cherry-picked 'rifles', the least-used type of gun in the report, and then comapred it to all types of knife attacks. If you took your head out of your ass and looked at ALL guns compared to ALL knives, suddenly gun homicides killed 7.5x more people.

Cherry-picking facts doesn't help your case, it just makes you look like a desperate fool.

May I politely point out that advising someone to take "your head out of your ass" doesn't help your case either?

Didn't the Connecticut shooter use a rifle?

On the subject of desperation, an interesting opinion:

On Sunday night, President Obama delivered one of the finest prepared speeches I have heard in a very long time. In addressing Friday's terrible events in Newtown, Conn., the president oozed the sort of raw sincerity and grief that simply cannot be manufactured. "We can't tolerate this anymore," the president said. "These tragedies must end. And to end them, we must change." It really was a great speech.

It was also a tactical catastrophe that almost certainly ensures that this president will never sign into law a bill regulating firearms.
Obama should know better by now. Smart people warned of the perils of this path. Appearing on Face the Nation hours before President Obama began his remarks, my mentor and former boss, David Frum, explained that "[t]he president's role here will not be helpful. The more this becomes an issue of conventional politics, the more it is doomed to failure. The most successful public safety campaign of our lifetimes was Mothers Against Drunk Driving. That wasn't launched by President Carter or President Reagan. That was launched by people outside the political system."
If anything, David may have understated the degree to which the president’s involvement would doom any movement toward regulation. Before the president spoke on Sunday night, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, who will re-introduce the assault weapons ban on Monday, was the public face of the coming movement to regulate firearms. While political junkies may have strong opinions about Feinstein, the mention of her name does not exactly stir the emotions of your average American citizen. Most Americans outside of the District of Columbia or the state of California probably don't even know who she is. And those who do probably know nothing beyond the fact that she is a liberal Democrat from California. The NRA was never going to be able to rely on the public’s distrust of Sen. Feinstein to create the requisite political pressure necessary to crush the regulation movement before it gains momentum.

Barack Obama, however, is an entirely different story. When a president publicly advocates on behalf of legislation, the fate of legislative proposals invariably becomes tied to the president and all of the feelings — good or bad — that mere mention of any president’s last name (be it Obama, Bush, or Clinton) invariably stirs up in the citizenry. By injecting himself into the debate, the president enabled gun rights advocates to run a campaign that taps into all of the passion and suspicion that Obama inspires on the Right, including those who might have been inclined to view reasonable gun restrictions in a positive, or at the very least, inoffensive light.
It was always going to be hard to pass legislation regulating firearms. A new Huffington Post/YouGov survey found that support for gun regulation was (not surprisingly) up in the wake of the Newtown tragedy. By up, they mean that half the country supports more restrictive gun regulation. That number is, to put it very mildly, soft. If only half of the country supports more regulation two days after 20 children were ruthlessly murdered by a young man using legally purchased weapons, the regulation movement never had much hope to begin with. And the president’s involvement will only stir up the passionate opponents of regulation as well as the significant number of people who dislike the president no matter what he says or supports.

There is also a broader point here about President Obama: He has an astonishing belief in his own powers of persuasion — a belief that is not supported by any evidence. Obama needs to learn that sometimes, the path to success calls for private conversations with lawmakers, not rousing speeches. After all, presidential communication is not an end in itself, but rather a means to an end. Until President Obama internalizes this lesson, he will continue to leave a legacy defined by lots of sizzle and almost no steak.

Jeb Golinkin is a 3L at the University of Texas School of Law. From 2008 to 2011, he served as an editor and reporter for FrumForum.

[u3b3rg33k]

Why do the police need guns? Why do they need ar-15s?

seriously?
that's your argument?

the police have a purpose, they are also tested for mental health instabilities.

John Smith, local raging alcoholic, loves his nascar, spousal abuse and highpowered semi-automatics.

see the difference?
which one will likely abuse their right to arms?

And police forces generally find the need to "justify" the expense of having and maintaining things like swat teams, which means they get used. Do you honestly believe that the general good is served by police forces having such things at the ready?

A firearms sole purpose is to wound or kill living things, every time it is used is with the intent to do damage or to practice doing damage. Death is not a byproduct of the use of a firearm, it is the achievement of the intended design. I'm not going to tell you they are the same as a car/hammer/booze/stick because you're never going to agree. I think your vision of what they really are is clouded by the casual approach people have towards guns in America. You may be responsible and respectful sure, but they're still an everyday object to you. It's this casual approach that the OP started this thread for in the first place I believe.

So you're saying general marksmanship is a ruse for teaching people how to kill? Sorry i mean "do damage"? I don't buy that for a second. You can shoot trap for a lifetime and never kill a thing.


Just because a firearm is an "every day" object, does not mean I treat either the firearm or the responsibility causally. That attitude is part of the problem.

Firearm ownership is a right, and one important enough that the founding fathers saw fit to specifically mention it - yet there is no mandatory firearm education in this country. Driving a car on public roads is NOT a right, and yet we teach all the 16 year olds all about it in school.

That EVERYONE is not required to be taught how to safely handle and respect firearms blows my mind.