"Common Sense" Gun Control

[squeeze berry]

You can easily adapt a magazine to hold less rounds and I was talking about rifles, not revolvers, because they don't have a magazine. The gun illegal thing is nonsense.

have you read the proposed NY state law?

It would make any firearm capable of firing more than 7 rounds illegal to own.

I currently own a 9 shot .22 revolver. What would I do if I lived in NY?
Fill 2 cylinders with cement?

Too many firearms are designed for 10 rounds for this bill to not be restrictive on gun owneship.

What about a reproduction Henry rifle?
That holds 12

Wanna turn those into scrap metal too? Prosecute the owners?

Make some sense man.

No. The New York law does not affect weapons with internal magazines, except that shotguns must use a spacer to prevent the loading of more than 4 rounds (I think that's the number).

I have a .22 semi pistol with a 10 round mag.

That too?

why are liberals afraid of my .22 pistol?

 

[Dubya]

Magazine size has no effect on crime either way.

http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/6.1/gun_facts_6_1_screen.pdf

Myth: High capacity guns lead to more deadly shootings
Fact: Much of this myth comes from the fact that the general availability of high-capacity handguns briefly preceded the rise in the crack cocaine trade, which brought a new kind of violence in local drug wars.408
Fact: The number of shots fired by criminals has not changed significantly even with the increased capacity of handguns and other firearms. Indeed, the number of shots from revolvers (all with a 6-8 round capacity) and semi-automatics were about the same – 2.04 vs. 2.53.409 In a crime or gun battle, there is seldom time or need to shoot more.
Fact: Fatal criminal shootings declined from 4.3% to 3.3% from 1974 through 1995, when ownership of semi-automatics and large capacity handguns were rising at their fastest rate.410 Fatal shootings of police officers declined sharply from 1988 through 1993.411
Fact: Drug dealers tend to be “more deliberate in their efforts to kill their victims by shooting them multiple times.”412​

Maybe you should call for all guns to be single-shot only.

Check the polls on how many people want a limit on magazine size! You people keep saying it makes no difference, but you aren't going to convince us. We've seen shootouts with police.

I keep hearing about these polls... Perhaps you might provide a link to something other than a biased Liberal site.

Someone posted a good chart recently that matched a recent poll, but I couldn't find it in google images. Here's one from Pew, but I'm sure which poll it was (correction, it's just a chopped down version):

It may have been this one from the link that was posted:

Source: In Gun Control Debate, Several Options Draw Majority Support | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

 

[Newby]

For the progressives. Having gone through the list, point out the ones that would have, or will stop another Newtown.....

Be very specific on how this will stop a criminal bent on killing a room full of kids.

This question has been avoided, let's hear someone answer it?

There's no guarantee that any of that will prevent another shooting, or a guarantee that all of them together will. Even the President himself admitted that. But, that's not the point, is it? The point is that they MAY.


Unless, of course, you're willing to not even try and just accept that children will periodically be murdered. Are you?

There's nothing that you can do that will ever accomplish that, and taking away our freedoms to give government more control over our lives is not going to accomplish that either. It will accomplish a further move to the left in this country, which is what 'the children' are being used for. Someday 'the children' are going to be adults and will look back and see that they were used by this generation of leftists to further the tyranny over them and their lives.

When the left starts to care about the sanctity of human life when it doesn't further their agenda, then maybe I'll be more sympathetic to 'their cause', right now I see right thru it. Apparently you don't.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Check the polls on how many people want a limit on magazine size! You people keep saying it makes no difference, but you aren't going to convince us. We've seen shootouts with police.

I keep hearing about these polls... Perhaps you might provide a link to something other than a biased Liberal site.

Someone posted a good chart recently that matched a recent poll, but I couldn't find it in google images. Here's one from Pew, but I'm sure which poll it was (correction, it's just a chopped down version):

It may have been this one from the link that was posted:

Source: In Gun Control Debate, Several Options Draw Majority Support | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

Riddle me this:

How would have denying Adam Lanza the right to buy guns because he was mentally ill stopped Sandy Hook?

He did not buy the guns he stole them from his mother.

So tell me do we have to have psych evals for every person living in every home and every person who might visit that home if a sane person living there wants a weapon to protect himself?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I'm not impressed by someone misusing the term red herring.

It's just common sense to limit magazine size and I'd limit it to five rounds, like they do in hunting in some states.

You want to argue that limiting magazine size has no effect in a shootout or mass murder situation and that just doesn't make sense to any rational person. The fact is you are irrational and you don't have the sense to realize that when society has to deal with a group of irrational people, we are going to make laws harder on them than we would if they acting like rational people.

You are your own worse enemy. You don't have the numbers to win this battle and you're going to lose either way. We're not going to make laws based on what the kooks want.

Red Herring:A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue

Saying that magazine size is the deciding factor of a gun's lethality is a red herring.

And How am I irrational when you yourself realize that 2 10 round mags are just as effective as one 20 round mag.

Magazine size is not and has not ever been the issue here. So called "assault weapons" are not and have never been the issue here since there is no functional difference between a so called assault rifle and any other semiauto rifle other than cosmetics.

So tell me what do you really want?

I've explained why you are irrational. Does your brain wonder why they are talking about limiting magazine sizes? Crazy people always think others are crazy.

I stated many of the things that would be good changes. I don't want a ban on assault weapons, I just want them registered with periodic renewal to prevent them getting into the wrong hands.

I want the laws to assist law enforcement passed. I don't care if gun shops sell less guns as a result. I want the security around gun purchasing tightened enough so we can get the guns out of the hands of street gangs in our major cities. I don't want an open market for guns in America where they can supply the Drug Cartels in Mexico or street gangs.

There is a whole list, but I basically want common sense law to prevent violence, but still allow law abiding citizens to have their guns.

When you can prevent violence I'll give up my guns. Until then I will support the free access to weapons.

 

[squeeze berry]

banning all semi-auto guns is unreasonable.

banning magazines with 8 to 9 rounds is unreasonable

 

[Skull Pilot]

banning all semi-auto guns is unreasonable.

banning magazines with 8 to 9 rounds is unreasonable

Banning any magazine is unreasonable.

Three 10 round mags can deal the same damage in virtually the same time as one 30 round mag.

 

[Newby]

It's all baby steps, or '1000 cuts', to the same end goal. Pass enough laws to nullify the 2nd amendment without having to do so directly.

 

[Skull Pilot]

It's all baby steps, or '1000 cuts', to the same end goal. Pass enough laws to nullify the 2nd amendment without having to do so directly.

That is exactly the end game here the liberal sheep are just too fucking dishonest to come out and say it.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Let me ask you people something.

How many background checks do you want.

If I pass my checks for my concealed carry permit is that enough for you?

If it is I should be able to walk into any gun store and buy whatever I want right?

 

[Dubya]

limiting to 5 rounds would make practically every gun in the country illegal.

this includes black powder revolvers.

come back with some common sense

You can easily adapt a magazine to hold less rounds and I was talking about rifles, not revolvers, because they don't have a magazine. The gun illegal thing is nonsense.

have you read the proposed NY state law?

It would make any firearm capable of firing more than 7 rounds illegal to own.

I currently own a 9 shot .22 revolver. What would I do if I lived in NY?
Fill 2 cylinders with cement?

Too many firearms are designed for 10 rounds for this bill to not be restrictive on gun owneship.

What about a reproduction Henry rifle?
That holds 12

Wanna turn those into scrap metal too? Prosecute the owners?

Make some sense man.

You are the one who doesn't make sense. Just because someone isn't a complete gun kook doesn't mean they support all those things passed in NY. I've read articles on what was passed and people are allowed to keep their existing assault weapons. I haven't read the law. These are the consequences when we have the clowns running the circus. Harry Reid loves his guns, but you people act like only right-wing kooks have an interest in this. You're going to screw it up for everyone if you don't come to your sanity.

If you people know so much about guns, why don't you know it's easy to reduce magazine size? You simply place something small enough to fit within the spring and long enough to prevent adding the extra cartriges. On a round spring, just cut a properly sized wooden dowel. If you can't do it, a gun shop can easily reduce magazine size.

 

[Oldguy]

This question has been avoided, let's hear someone answer it?

There's no guarantee that any of that will prevent another shooting, or a guarantee that all of them together will. Even the President himself admitted that. But, that's not the point, is it? The point is that they MAY.


Unless, of course, you're willing to not even try and just accept that children will periodically be murdered. Are you?

There's nothing that you can do that will ever accomplish that, and taking away our freedoms to give government more control over our lives is not going to accomplish that either. It will accomplish a further move to the left in this country, which is what 'the children' are being used for. Someday 'the children' are going to be adults and will look back and see that they were used by this generation of leftists to further the tyranny over them and their lives.

When the left starts to care about the sanctity of human life when it doesn't further their agenda, then maybe I'll be more sympathetic to 'their cause', right now I see right thru it. Apparently you don't.

I don't try to read intent into most things and just accept the political realities, whether I happen to agree with it or not.

And, the reality is that the clamor for "something" to be done is intense right now and no politician dares resist it. Having said that, I think what the President has proposed is sane, reasonable and not as severe as it could have been...by a long shot.

The bottom line, for me, is that we're not going to get out of this without something, as doing nothing is not a practical, political option. So, what the President is doing is fine with me. Am I totally happy about it? No. But, I understand that it could have been far, far worse so I'm willing to accept this simply because it will quieten the uproar. Once time has passed, and passions have cooled, it can and will be looked at again. Nothing is permanent in politics.

I would suggest to the far right that they too get on board with this. If they don't, if they continue to hold out for nothing, they'll only empower the REAL gun-grabbers and might actually torpedo Obama's mild effort totally and bring on that which they fear the most.

In other words, my advice to the Nutter's? Sit down and shut up for now. Let it be until later, until the moment has passed. Which it will. The longer y'all resist, rebel and make a lot of noise over trivialities, the more likely it is that you'll bring on something much worse.

 

[Oldguy]

Let me ask you people something.

How many background checks do you want.

If I pass my checks for my concealed carry permit is that enough for you?

If it is I should be able to walk into any gun store and buy whatever I want right?

Yes, you can buy whatever is legal for you to buy.

No, I don't want you buying an RPG or a Ma Deuce or a box of Claymores.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Let me ask you people something.

How many background checks do you want.

If I pass my checks for my concealed carry permit is that enough for you?

If it is I should be able to walk into any gun store and buy whatever I want right?

Yes, you can buy whatever is legal for you to buy.

No, I don't want you buying an RPG or a Ma Deuce or a box of Claymores.

And just where do they sell those things?

 

[Dubya]

I keep hearing about these polls... Perhaps you might provide a link to something other than a biased Liberal site.

Someone posted a good chart recently that matched a recent poll, but I couldn't find it in google images. Here's one from Pew, but I'm sure which poll it was (correction, it's just a chopped down version):

It may have been this one from the link that was posted:

Source: In Gun Control Debate, Several Options Draw Majority Support | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

Riddle me this:

How would have denying Adam Lanza the right to buy guns because he was mentally ill stopped Sandy Hook?

He did not buy the guns he stole them from his mother.

So tell me do we have to have psych evals for every person living in every home and every person who might visit that home if a sane person living there wants a weapon to protect himself?

There is legislation requiring guns be locked away from people with mental problems.

People with mental problems show up on their own and demonstrate it to people. It's ridiculous to bring up searching to find them. It should be common sense to prevent access to firearms, if someone is showing signs of mental illness.

 

[Newby]

Someone posted a good chart recently that matched a recent poll, but I couldn't find it in google images. Here's one from Pew, but I'm sure which poll it was (correction, it's just a chopped down version):

It may have been this one from the link that was posted:

Source: In Gun Control Debate, Several Options Draw Majority Support | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

Riddle me this:

How would have denying Adam Lanza the right to buy guns because he was mentally ill stopped Sandy Hook?

He did not buy the guns he stole them from his mother.

So tell me do we have to have psych evals for every person living in every home and every person who might visit that home if a sane person living there wants a weapon to protect himself?

There is legislation requiring guns be locked away from people with mental problems.

People with mental problems show up on their own and demonstrate it to people. It's ridiculous to bring up searching to find them. It should be common sense to prevent access to firearms, if someone is showing signs of mental illness.

How did this stop Adam Lanza?

 

[Oldguy]

No, I don't want you buying an RPG or a Ma Deuce or a box of Claymores.

And just where do they sell those things?

They don't, which is the point. We've already accepted that some weapons should not be available to just anyone who wants them and few would argue with that.

All we're doing now is debating how much further we'll go with that, which is a reasonable and proper discussion in a democracy and under a government of self rule.

Once you agree that some weapons should not be legal, then you have no ground to claim YOUR favorite ones should be immune.

 

[Dubya]

Red Herring:A Red Herring is a fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is presented in order to divert attention from the original issue

Saying that magazine size is the deciding factor of a gun's lethality is a red herring.

And How am I irrational when you yourself realize that 2 10 round mags are just as effective as one 20 round mag.

Magazine size is not and has not ever been the issue here. So called "assault weapons" are not and have never been the issue here since there is no functional difference between a so called assault rifle and any other semiauto rifle other than cosmetics.

So tell me what do you really want?

I've explained why you are irrational. Does your brain wonder why they are talking about limiting magazine sizes? Crazy people always think others are crazy.

I stated many of the things that would be good changes. I don't want a ban on assault weapons, I just want them registered with periodic renewal to prevent them getting into the wrong hands.

I want the laws to assist law enforcement passed. I don't care if gun shops sell less guns as a result. I want the security around gun purchasing tightened enough so we can get the guns out of the hands of street gangs in our major cities. I don't want an open market for guns in America where they can supply the Drug Cartels in Mexico or street gangs.

There is a whole list, but I basically want common sense law to prevent violence, but still allow law abiding citizens to have their guns.

When you can prevent violence I'll give up my guns. Until then I will support the free access to weapons.

The easy access to weapons is creating the violence. The open market needs to be shut down. It can be done in ways that honest citizens can still purchase their weapons.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Someone posted a good chart recently that matched a recent poll, but I couldn't find it in google images. Here's one from Pew, but I'm sure which poll it was (correction, it's just a chopped down version):

It may have been this one from the link that was posted:

Source: In Gun Control Debate, Several Options Draw Majority Support | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press

Riddle me this:

How would have denying Adam Lanza the right to buy guns because he was mentally ill stopped Sandy Hook?

He did not buy the guns he stole them from his mother.

So tell me do we have to have psych evals for every person living in every home and every person who might visit that home if a sane person living there wants a weapon to protect himself?

There is legislation requiring guns be locked away from people with mental problems.

People with mental problems show up on their own and demonstrate it to people. It's ridiculous to bring up searching to find them. It should be common sense to prevent access to firearms, if someone is showing signs of mental illness.

And how is that legislation going to stop crazy people from getting guns?

It's unenforceable.

It should be common sense that's about as meaningful as saying we should all just be nice to each other and about as fucking likely.

I'll say it again.

When you can guarantee me with absolute certainty that no one will ever try to break into my house or business or attempt to physically assault me or my wife then and only then will I give up my weapons or my right to buy whatever weapon I want.

Let me know when that happens OK?

 

[Oldguy]

When you can prevent violence I'll give up my guns. Until then I will support the free access to weapons.

Will you also give up your car until someone can guarantee you won't be killed by a drunk driver? Why not?