Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Then perhaps it doesn’t qualify as something that needs to be regulated. Parameters as to what should be allowed and not allowed first need to be set up. What exactly qualifies as a “weapon of war”The problem there is that an AR 15 is not a powerful rifleIf you didn’t deny the obvious, that more powerful guns can inflict more damage, then it would be easier to take your argument more seriously. But when you throw smoke like you do it becomes a spin game.Listing mass shootings doesn’t prove anything. Listing car murders and knife murders and pistol murders doesn’t prove that the power of the gun doesn’t make a difference. Logic and common sense tells that the stronger the weapon and the more ammo the more damage you can inflict. That’s why strong weapons and large cap mags were developed in the first place. You’re trying to convince us that blue is red by showing us green. It isn’t workingAgain.....
Dayton ...10 killed, rifle with the magazines you want banned.
Russia... no rifle, no magazine, 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun...20 killed 40 injured.
Navy Yard.... pump action shotgun 12 killed.
Santa Fe school...no rifle, no magazine...10 killed shotgun and .38 revolver
So...we are about at the end of rational discussion. I have shown you over and over that it isn't the weapon or the magazine..... so if you get what you want, banning anything over 10 bullets....and the AR-15 ban....mass shooters will kill with 10 round magazines in gun free zones and then you will be back for the 10 round magazines, pistols, revolvers and shotguns....
You have no rational argument....you refuse to see the truth, you don't like the thought of these magazines in an irrational way.....so you want them banned....then you will be back for the rest.
At least, if not more, 18 million AR-15 rifles with even more millions of the magazines you want banned.
How many were used for mass public shootings.....3.
You have an irrational position. You can't support it with facts, or reality.
There are many solid arguments to combat regulating guns you don’t need the BS denials and spin.
In fact it is one of the smallest caliber rifles on the market
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Maybe, maybe not. You can’t say either with 100% confidence. But better safe than sorryProbably true. Doesn’t make the high regulations on machine guns invalidated. It’s a responsible law IMODon’t get pissed but I’m going to bring up machine guns again because we’ve reached consensus that you support that regulation. Does your support of that law come from something you can prove or something you FEELZ?well quit moving your point around so you can always be right. in the end, your FEELZ doesn't prove a thing either.
prove a restriction on mags will slow down gun control. don't extrapolate and guesstimate - prove it.
If criminals felt that machine guns would benefit them greatly, they would smuggle them in like drugs. But the truth is even if they were legal, very few would buy them due to the expense, and their bulk, weight and inaccuracy makes them impractical.
Those who wish to kill don't need a machine gun. Any semi-automatic will do.
It's also a law that didn't prevent anything ether.
and this is what i just don't get. he proclaims he doesn't like the "extreme verbiage" but yet we must define WEAPONS OF WAR.Then perhaps it doesn’t qualify as something that needs to be regulated. Parameters as to what should be allowed and not allowed first need to be set up. What exactly qualifies as a “weapon of war”The problem there is that an AR 15 is not a powerful rifleIf you didn’t deny the obvious, that more powerful guns can inflict more damage, then it would be easier to take your argument more seriously. But when you throw smoke like you do it becomes a spin game.Listing mass shootings doesn’t prove anything. Listing car murders and knife murders and pistol murders doesn’t prove that the power of the gun doesn’t make a difference. Logic and common sense tells that the stronger the weapon and the more ammo the more damage you can inflict. That’s why strong weapons and large cap mags were developed in the first place. You’re trying to convince us that blue is red by showing us green. It isn’t working
At least, if not more, 18 million AR-15 rifles with even more millions of the magazines you want banned.
How many were used for mass public shootings.....3.
You have an irrational position. You can't support it with facts, or reality.
There are many solid arguments to combat regulating guns you don’t need the BS denials and spin.
In fact it is one of the smallest caliber rifles on the market
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
The problem with parameters is once in place, the Democrats want to expand them whenever possible. I'm sure I can find plenty of footage when the assault weapons ban was in of what Democrats suggested or wanted to do to stop mass killings during that period. I don't recall any Democrats saying "We are fine, we are happy with the results of the assault weapon ban, and therefore, no need for further regulation!"
I really don’t care what an internet video of one guy shows. Every situation has exceptions, outliers and anomalies if you look hard enough. Trained soldiers are quite different than average joe citizen.I don’t believe your “proof”. I think there would have been less death in Dayton if the shooter didn’t have a 100 round mag.If I’m being completely honest I have more issues with regulations than I show when I debate on this board. I usually pick a side and then argue that position. My hope is to bring out as many arguments from both sides as possible to get a wide variety of perspectives.didn't piss me off - just got old to keep going back to vast extremes when we're trying to pin down why you want to regulate mag capacity. it's like you were avoiding giving a simple answer.
i wanted to equate suggestions to the goal. you are ok with "well we did SOMETHING" of which i think is bullshit. if doing "something" doesn't fix it, then you do "something else". in this case, MORE regulation.
when do we stop going "well we did SOMETHING" and sit the fuck down and figure out what we can do that doesn't violate the constitution? all these mythical extremes you go to are chatter, to me, to avoid addressing why we don't fix this and are ok with "well we did something".
Personally I have concerns with cost, implementation, effectiveness and the many different “what ifs” that complicate regulatory ideas. They usually sound good in theory but turn out quite different when it comes to implementation.
Vets with PTSD is particularly a sticky issue. Do you take their guns away? If so, does that discourage some of them from getting much needed help?
Like I said, this is not an easy situation and there are many moving parts. I personally wouldn’t propose a lot of regulation. I could see myself giving a yes vote to some things like limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power. I’m honestly not super passionate about the issue... mental health is a bigger one in my book
limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power.
And yet you have been shown actual research that shows that none of that is true....that magazines have nothing to do with the number of deaths in a mass public shooting, as shown by actual mass public shootings. You don't like these magazines and it has nothing to do with the facts...there is no reason to ban them other than you don't like them.
A pump action shotgun in Russia was used to kill more people than rifles with magazines in Gilroy, and Dayton......and the Navy Yard shooter also used a pump action shotgun to kill more people than those shootings.....so magazines have nothing to do with it.....
You won't accept that the primary factor in the death toll in mass public shootings is the gun free zone the shooter attacks. That would force you to look at gun free zones and their desirability for these shooters...which would lead to the discussion of allowing normal people to carry guns into these zones to scare off shooters.
Well you would be wrong as the video I posted displayed the guy changing his magazine while still shooting. He's not a magician. What he did can be done by anybody with a little practice. If a person is counting their shots, you would never know when he changed his magazine by simply listing to the shooting.
Pull 10 people off the street and arm them with a pistol and 10 mags and then an AK with a 100 round mag and do you wanna make a bet on which weapon unloads those 100 bullets faster? No brainer
and this is what i just don't get. he proclaims he doesn't like the "extreme verbiage" but yet we must define WEAPONS OF WAR.Then perhaps it doesn’t qualify as something that needs to be regulated. Parameters as to what should be allowed and not allowed first need to be set up. What exactly qualifies as a “weapon of war”The problem there is that an AR 15 is not a powerful rifleIf you didn’t deny the obvious, that more powerful guns can inflict more damage, then it would be easier to take your argument more seriously. But when you throw smoke like you do it becomes a spin game.At least, if not more, 18 million AR-15 rifles with even more millions of the magazines you want banned.
How many were used for mass public shootings.....3.
You have an irrational position. You can't support it with facts, or reality.
There are many solid arguments to combat regulating guns you don’t need the BS denials and spin.
In fact it is one of the smallest caliber rifles on the market
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
The problem with parameters is once in place, the Democrats want to expand them whenever possible. I'm sure I can find plenty of footage when the assault weapons ban was in of what Democrats suggested or wanted to do to stop mass killings during that period. I don't recall any Democrats saying "We are fine, we are happy with the results of the assault weapon ban, and therefore, no need for further regulation!"
very definition of having to define extreme shit. a weapon of war is anything from a bayonet to nukes.
Weapons of warThen perhaps it doesn’t qualify as something that needs to be regulated. Parameters as to what should be allowed and not allowed first need to be set up. What exactly qualifies as a “weapon of war”The problem there is that an AR 15 is not a powerful rifleIf you didn’t deny the obvious, that more powerful guns can inflict more damage, then it would be easier to take your argument more seriously. But when you throw smoke like you do it becomes a spin game.Listing mass shootings doesn’t prove anything. Listing car murders and knife murders and pistol murders doesn’t prove that the power of the gun doesn’t make a difference. Logic and common sense tells that the stronger the weapon and the more ammo the more damage you can inflict. That’s why strong weapons and large cap mags were developed in the first place. You’re trying to convince us that blue is red by showing us green. It isn’t workingAgain.....
Dayton ...10 killed, rifle with the magazines you want banned.
Russia... no rifle, no magazine, 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun...20 killed 40 injured.
Navy Yard.... pump action shotgun 12 killed.
Santa Fe school...no rifle, no magazine...10 killed shotgun and .38 revolver
So...we are about at the end of rational discussion. I have shown you over and over that it isn't the weapon or the magazine..... so if you get what you want, banning anything over 10 bullets....and the AR-15 ban....mass shooters will kill with 10 round magazines in gun free zones and then you will be back for the 10 round magazines, pistols, revolvers and shotguns....
You have no rational argument....you refuse to see the truth, you don't like the thought of these magazines in an irrational way.....so you want them banned....then you will be back for the rest.
At least, if not more, 18 million AR-15 rifles with even more millions of the magazines you want banned.
How many were used for mass public shootings.....3.
You have an irrational position. You can't support it with facts, or reality.
There are many solid arguments to combat regulating guns you don’t need the BS denials and spin.
In fact it is one of the smallest caliber rifles on the market
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
