guns: senate to vote on large magazine ban

We aren't, so stop being an shiny happy person and implying we are.

The AWB didn't do E36 M3 to stop gun crime, and it banned high capacity mags, even if the gun came with it. Bringing it back isn't going to fix a berkeleying thing. Until the government trys to plant a chip into our skulls you can never tell who's going to flip and start shooting people. If you can pass a background check you can buy a gun, making it illegal to buy a certain kind does nothing to stop those who are going to commit crimes from using whatever they can to commit them.

The DC sniper, bolt action rifle and a buick. Does this mean all bolt actions and old buicks have to be banned as well? It's called a slippery slope for a reason, the people calling for these bans wont stop there because they generally want to see all guns banned and will use whatever tragedy they can exploit to do it.

You know every time I see this argument it reminds me of the CWP statistics in Florida.

99.9% of the gun CCP holders don't commit a violent crime with a legally owned and firearm. When the graduation rate of the high schools reaches that same point then we can have a discussion about firearms.

The percentage of people committing crimes with legally purchased guns is probably not as good but you're still talking a small percentage. E36 M3 happens no matter how hard you work to prevent it but imposing more restrictions on people who go through the correct process will not fix anything.

Also please see gun deaths vs traffic deaths in the US. I'm more scared that some distracted or drunk driver will kill me than the one in a billion chance that I will get shot going about my daily business.

4cylndrfury wrote: When I read this:

pres589 wrote: That's exactly the kind of response that earns people arguing against limiting the capacity of magazines the label of "gun nut". It's the talk of cult members, not rational individuals hoping for a discussion about a serious issue.

What I really saw was:

pres589 wrote: I invite everyone to a debate. Feel free to enter into a discussion about gun control with me at any time. *WARNING: I reserve the right to brow beat and publicly laud anyone who disagrees with me , and label them a cultist hate monger...CONSIDER YOURSELVES WARNED* Who's first? anyone? ANYONE? Bueller?

Did you even read what he was replying to? Because he was right. Sticks are not equivalent to a 30 round magazine and acting like they are is going to really discredit your argument, just like pres said.

Last I checked cars have seatbelt, airbags, speeding enforcement, and driver safety tests.

When was the last time you wore a bullet proof vest to a movie theater?

I guess we should just start putting signs up at movie theaters saying "WARNING THIS THEATER IS AT RISK FOR TERRORISTS PLEASE DRESS ACCORDINGLY"

PHeller wrote: Last I checked cars have seatbelt, airbags, speeding enforcement, and driver safety tests. When was the last time you wore a bullet proof vest to a movie theater? I guess we should just start putting signs up at movie theaters saying "WARNING THIS THEATER IS AT RISK FOR TERRORISTS PLEASE DRESS ACCORDINGLY"

They already did. The theater was a gun free zone.

The0retical wrote: You know every time I see this argument it reminds me of the CWP statistics in Florida. 99.9% of the gun CCP holders don't commit a violent crime with a legally owned and firearm. When the graduation rate of the high schools reaches that same point then we can have a discussion about firearms.

We can't talk about guns... until high school student graduation rates rise? What?

PHeller wrote:

Conquest351 wrote: In reply to PHeller: So you're going to stick someone up at a convenience store with a Browning M2? Ok. Have fun with that. That argument is absolutely as absurd as thinking me, Brian, can outgun the US army.

But if we completely deregulated the sale of guns and ammunition, why wouldnt people grab the biggest gun they could find? Again, in a world like that, we'd all have to wear body armor or just be comfortable with facing death daily.

When I was 17, a kid asked me if I wanted to buy his full auto AK. Illegal heavy weaponry is out there and not hard to obtain. That won't change. You can't regulate the black market.

OK guys and girls. We're all getting a little excited about this. Myself included. Let's all take a breath and calm down on the name calling. This is one of those debates that gets people worked up rather quickly.

Take a breath...

Ok, now. We're all friends here. Some of the comparisons are rather illogical and funny. The point remains the same, and the point is this...

Overregulating ANYTHING doesn't mean that those who don't follow laws or regulations will change their ways. In this case, overregulating the purchase and ownership of a firearm makes it harder for law abiding citizens to protect themselves and enforce the 2nd Amendment. Disarming the people makes the powers at be even more powerful and removes their fear of the public. Yes, fear of the public is a good thing, it keeps the higher ups in check. At least it's meant to.

The0retical wrote: You know every time I see this argument it reminds me of the CWP statistics in Florida. 99.9% of the gun CCP holders don't commit a violent crime with a legally owned and firearm. When the graduation rate of the high schools reaches that same point then we can have a discussion about firearms. The percentage of people committing crimes with legally purchased guns is probably not as good but you're still talking a small percentage. E36 M3 happens no matter how hard you work to prevent it but imposing more restrictions on people who go through the correct process will not fix anything. Also please see gun deaths vs traffic deaths in the US. I'm more scared that some distracted or drunk driver will kill me than the one in a billion chance that I will get shot going about my daily business.

Now don't go bringing logic.

In reply to Grizz:

How do you have a gun free zone when people in this very discussion thready say that they bring fire arms to the movies?

I don't want metal detectors on doors and gov. agents watching doorways but is that what you're asking for?

The0retical wrote: Also please see gun deaths vs traffic deaths in the US. I'm more scared that some distracted or drunk driver will kill me than the one in a billion chance that I will get shot going about my daily business.

I'm not. If I'm sitting at a light and I see the guy behind me isn't stopping, I brace for impact or I get the hell out of his way.

If I'm driving down the road and I see headlight in my lane, I get the hell off the road.

If a guy walks in my movie theater with an AR15, what can I do?

That's what I don't like about lax gun control. It assumes that everyone will own a gun and a vest.

PHeller wrote: Last I checked cars have seatbelt, airbags, speeding enforcement, and driver safety tests. When was the last time you wore a bullet proof vest to a movie theater? I guess we should just start putting signs up at movie theaters saying "WARNING THIS THEATER IS AT RISK FOR TERRORISTS PLEASE DRESS ACCORDINGLY"

So you'd prefer we have a new gun owners course? I'm not totally against it however I feel it is the responsibility of the owner get educated and ask questions. My wife took an NRA course before we got married because I keep guns in the house. I educate her about how to check if they are unloaded and everyone I instruct I make sure that they realize how important safety is and take the appropriate steps to ensure that they don't do anything that would endanger myself or others around me.

But no one has signs on the road warning me that some 14 year old might steal a car and hit me. Or that some licensed 16 year olds might be street racing.

PHeller wrote:

The0retical wrote: Also please see gun deaths vs traffic deaths in the US. I'm more scared that some distracted or drunk driver will kill me than the one in a billion chance that I will get shot going about my daily business.

I'm not. If I'm sitting at a light and I see the guy behind me isn't stopping, I brace for impact or I get the hell out of his way. If I'm driving down the road and I see headlight in my lane, I get the hell off the road. If a guy walks in my movie theater with an AR15, what can I do? That's what I don't like about lax gun control. It assumes that everyone will own a gun and a vest.

It doesn't assume anything beyond everyone respecting the signs. Speed limit signs should reinforce how effective signs are at controlling peoples actions.

pres589 wrote: In reply to Javelin: Javelin is in a militia.

Maybe pres589 should do a little more research before making ASSumptions. I don't own a gun. I haven't fired a gun since I got out of the military 6 years ago. I'm not in a gun club, militia, or the NRA.

I do, however, support our Constitution and have serious issues with both knee-jerk reaction idiotic lawmakers AND uninformed people on the internet who spout off about Constitutional issues and have no idea what they are talking about.

Have a nice day!

pres589 wrote: In reply to 4cylndrfury: If you want to engage in an intellectually dishonest comparison where sticks equal guns carrying over ten rounds in the magazine (like the person I addressed with that bit of text was doing), be my guest, but don't be surprised if I call a spade a spade. That you're this excitable makes me wonder what kind of logical grounding you base your opinions on.

Ok, so whats your response to this particular question posed earlier:

Should we ban cars because they kill hundreds if not thousands of people a day? Or should we limit their distance to only say 50 miles a day? Or perhaps their speed shouldnt be capable of exceeding 30mph? Or what about Airplanes? ZOMFG I saw one kill a handfull of people at an airshow - BAN ALL THE PLANES!!!

Neither of those things were "designed to kill people". Neither are guns. Guns propel a projectile at an extremely high rate of speed. A lot of people choose to throw lead bits at targets. Some toss them at animals. Most people hang them over a fireplace or lock them up in a safe. Then, after all those people are those who have no guns. Next in the list are babies, and then there are hairless racoons on sunroofs. Last in the list, all the way down at the bottom, in the lowest percentage, are the people who do wild ass crazy e36m3 with em. So, are you suggesting that ALL the rest of the list are all to be held accountable for the lowest common denominator?

pres589 wrote:

The0retical wrote: You know every time I see this argument it reminds me of the CWP statistics in Florida. 99.9% of the gun CCP holders don't commit a violent crime with a legally owned and firearm. When the graduation rate of the high schools reaches that same point then we can have a discussion about firearms.

We can't talk about guns... until high school student graduation rates rise? What?

Yea.... It's about priorities. Low percentage of legal gun owners committing crimes and enforcing a laws with diminishing returns vs prioritizing education. I think I know where my priorities would lie.

The0retical wrote: So you'd prefer we have a new gun owners course?

Yes. You must take a course prior to purchasing a weapon. I did at 14. Never purchased a weapon. Passed my test with a higher score than my father who had been a gun owner and hunter for decades.

The0retical wrote: But no one has signs on the road warning me that some 14 year old might steal a car and hit me. Or that some licensed 16 year olds might be street racing.

But think of it this way, the car is your bullet proof vest.

The raised curb is your bullet proof vest. The median is too. They are things designed to keep you safe from other crazy drivers.

I don't like guns because the make the playing field uneven. A guy comes after me with a knife, I'll grab a chair, or throw something at him, or outrun him.

Guns require technology to defeat, technology that 99% of the population doesnt have.

You want to pay higher taxes for bullet proof vests? Or do you want to limit the nut jobs with the guns?

PHeller wrote: That's what I don't like about lax gun control. It assumes that everyone will own a gun and a vest.

How many people have been murder using legally owned firearms? Versus how many people die from illegal gotten firearms or in traffic accidents or on motorbikes or 8 million other thing we do everyday? We can't sit around in a little bubble all day.

PHeller wrote: Bob, no I have not. I have several friends who have CCPs, I have had the privilege of firing a full auto AR15, AK, and MP5 at a club demonstration day. I don't feel the need to own a gun, aside from the hand me downs from family members.

I knew the answer to that question before I ever asked it because of your response. Want to know why? You don't just go into a store and buy a gun off the rack. You fill out the federal form. They call in your information to the federal database. If you pass, THEN you can take the firearm home. If they are busy (which happens wuite often) you wait 7 days THEN you can take it home. If something isn't right, you are denied.

You cannot "purchase a firearm off the internet". Period. You may buy it online, but it must be shipped to your local FFL holder (gunshop) then you go in, fill out the paperwork, they call in the background check etc. It's not annonymous. It's not easy. I have my Indiana LTCH, and I still have to wait 7 days at times because the federal background check cannot be completed quickly.

4cylndrfury wrote: Neither of those things were "designed to kill people". Neither are guns. Guns propel a projectile at an extremely high rate of speed.

You're serious with this? How can we have a discussion when something so disingenuous is held out like an honest retort?

pres589 wrote:

The0retical wrote: You know every time I see this argument it reminds me of the CWP statistics in Florida. 99.9% of the gun CCP holders don't commit a violent crime with a legally owned and firearm. When the graduation rate of the high schools reaches that same point then we can have a discussion about firearms.

We can't talk about guns... until high school student graduation rates rise? What?

hes saying we shouldnt allow our government to commit its resources to "correct" as small a problem as gun control until theyve actually addressed an entirely more important one...or ALL the entireley more important ones...such as...UNEMPLOYMENT,GOVT CORRUPTION, BUDGETARY PROBLEMS, and yes, HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION RATES.

In reply to Bobzilla:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instant_Criminal_Background_Check_System

"By law, an FFL must receive a response from the NICS within 3 days or the firearm sale can proceed, although they are not required to do so. If, after 3 days, the sale is completed and later it is determined the buyer should not have received the firearm, then the firearm must be retrieved. "

I've never purchased a gun but are you finding this to not be the case?

pres589 wrote:

4cylndrfury wrote: Neither of those things were "designed to kill people". Neither are guns. Guns propel a projectile at an extremely high rate of speed.

You're serious with this? How can we have a discussion when something so disingenuous is held out like an honest retort?

Whats disingenuous about my statement? Your not discussing anything here...please see my brow beat statement earlier

PHeller wrote: If a guy walks in my movie theater with an AR15, what can I do? That's what I don't like about lax gun control. It assumes that everyone will own a gun and a vest.

I get the wife to cover, assess the situation, find the threat and do my damnedest to nuetralize it. He may be wearing kevlar, but taking a few .45ACP slugs to the chest will definately slow him down and might allow others that had no chance, some chance. THose others may be my friends, family etc.

Look, I NEVER EVER want to have to use a firearm to defend myself or my family. But I'll be damned if I am going to cower in fear while some berkeleyed up jack wagon takes my/their lives without fighting back. You might take me down, but I'm taking you with me. If I've got nothing to lose, you're berkeleyed.

PHeller wrote: Guns require technology to defeat, technology that 99% of the population doesnt have. You want to pay higher taxes for bullet proof vests? Or do you want to limit the nut jobs with the guns?

Theres nothing stopping the 99% from getting that technology...well except for those proposing the 2nd amendment crushing bans. Just because you dont have something that is available to you doesnt mean that those who have that thing shouldnt be allowed to.

Also, please see the Ben Franklin statment regarding those who would sacrifice liberty for security...