Everyone is scared, everyone has guns.

[joshh]

You can regulate "assault" rifles and limit magazines to 10 rounds on pistols as well all you like. If those laws get passed are you liberals going to be satisfied with the just 10 children being killed instead of 20 because it's "not" as bad or do you want to start a constructive discussion about how we can stop unstable people from getting their hands on firearms?

[Vedubin01]

You can regulate "assault" rifles and limit magazines to 10 rounds on pistols as well all you like. If those laws get passed are you liberals going to be satisfied with the just 10 children being killed instead of 20 because it's "not" as bad or do you want to start a constructive discussion about how we can stop unstable people from getting their hands on firearms?

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

[Vedubin01]

You say that, yet the 'stupid fucking crazy criminal' with a knife in China wounded 22 children and killed 0, yet the 'stupid fucking crazy criminal' with a gun in the US killed 26 and wounded 0.

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

[iamsam]

The likelyhood that another armed person would have the easy opportunity to just shoot the murderer in the back is very low. Killing somebody who is armed and trying to kill everyone else around them is a very hard thing to do. See the North Hollywood bank robbery. I think my analogy stands.

I googled your reference, looks like a huge shootout between some bank robbers and cops. How does that relate exactly? What I was trying to say is the armed civilian appears like just another victim (because of his civilian attire, hidden weapon, etc) UNTIL the armed civilian pulls out his/her gun at the time it seems most opportunistic to him/her. I believe that is different than the incident you quoted in that the cops showed up in full force and the robbers knew exactly who they were fighting before the fighting began. In the scenario I was speaking about, the shooter would not know he was fighting anyone until the civilian is already shooting, thus giving the civilian the advantage. The civilian has the ability to choose WHEN he/she will begin the firefight. I think that makes all the difference.

Ok, so you're armed. What about the rest of us? Must we be always armed also to prevent shootings? This rationale says it will be every schoolteacher's job responsibility to be well armed and tactically trained to deal with incoming shooters. They probably should wear a bulletproof vest and helmet to school each day also. Actually we should have little vests for all the kids as well. Is this what we'd rather have than inconviniencing responsible gun owners or disarming crazies?

Yes, I will be armed. The rest of you can be armed if you want, that's your choice, not mine. Also, my rationale stated that some schoolteachers can be armed (and those that are have done so on their own free will, and therefore have some sort of training and confidence with a gun), and no, not vests, helmets, etc, that is ridiculous. Refer to my paragraph above regarding anonymity and its advantage. So that way, no one is inconvenienced.

Also, I would LOVE to disarm the crazies, that would be ideal. But how do you propose we do that? You would have to destroy every gun already under private ownership, and I don't see a non-civil war way to do it.

I agree that breathalyzers and more regular testing would be annoying, take extra time and push the cost of vehicles higher. And while I have never had a DUI either, I'd be willing to make the relatively small sacrafice for the rest of us.

I am glad you are willing, maybe they can selectively install breathalyzers in people's cars who are willing. I however am not. That said, I am all for the complete enforcement of drunk driving laws, no tolerance, etc.

Going further with the car/license thing, I think their should be tiered licences for different driving abilities and safety records. A person that tests high and has a good driving record should be allowed greater highway speeds. At the other end bad drivers should be restricted. No reason gun ownership should be different. Along the same lines, if a gun owner who can regularly prove safe keeping, knowledgeable operation, household mental stability, no criminal history, etc... I'd have no problem with this person having fully automatic rifles with drum magazines. The other end of the spectrum, you get a slingshot.

Now that bolded parts there I can agree with. I hate some of these speed limits, but that is a different argument for a different thread. And yeah, absolutely allow responsible citizens to buy guns. (and by responsible I mean all the things you listed above).

So, I guess I never really introduced my overarching argument for what I would like to see happen in the US: CWP availability on a national level, i.e. not specific by state. Everyone would be able to get one provided they passed the required exams, independent of what state they live in.

Given what you posted above, victell, it seems like you would agree with my statement proposition.

[iamsam]

Still haven't replied to any of my posts to you, eh? ;)

But anyway, above is another example of an oversimplification made into an analogy.

Here goes: no one prevents us from buying shoes. No one prevents us from wearing shoes on an airplane, no one prevents us from wearing shoes anywhere. Well except immaculately clean private homes, etc... they only check our shoes at the airport. Guns, however, aren't checked for ammo (or whatever) anywhere, they are simply banned in areas. Totally different, and the analogy falls apart.

Of course, That above analogy stated simply and quickly in a clever quote with big font does have an immediate appeal to anyone reading it with the predisposition to agree, because they are disinclined to immediately think about the analogy more deeply and analyze it's true validity.

[BraveUlysses]

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

Furthermore, large capacity ( > 30 ) magazines are more prone to jamming, which probably stopped the colorado shooter from killing more people than he did.

[Vedubin01]

Furthermore, large capacity ( > 30 ) magazines are more prone to jamming, which probably stopped the colorado shooter from killing more people than he did.

There are very few magazines that carry greater than 30 rounds. Those that do suck. (Beta Mags etc...) Also don't buy cheap mags and you would not have that problem.

[cale]

Furthermore, large capacity ( > 30 ) magazines are more prone to jamming, which probably stopped the colorado shooter from killing more people than he did.

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.

[Kershaw]

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.

[Vedubin01]

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.

Cause only about 11 percent of Australia owned guns before the ban. Much different here in the States.

[slammin.e28]

In for data on non-gun related deaths/homicides before and after ban.

[Vedubin01]

T Properly cared for magazines which aren't kept for a decade with rounds in them rarely jam up,

Storing rounds in a Magazine for decades does not make the mags weaker. The cause of weak mags is the constant loading and unloading of the mag, weakening the spring that causes mags to fail.

Springs compressed or uncompressed with out movement does not compromise the springs.

[frankenbeemer]

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?

Seriously? That's your argument?
http://www.policemisconduct.net/

Also:

On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.

[cale]

Storing rounds in a Magazine for decades does not make the mags weaker. The cause of weak mags is the constant loading and unloading of the mag, weakening the spring that causes mags to fail.

Springs compressed or uncompressed with out movement does not compromise the springs.

I learned otherwise, however that is irrelevant. Arbitrary rules don't make differences.

[Vedubin01]

I learned otherwise, however that is irrelevant. Arbitrary rules don't make differences.

well know you know...