There is no catastrophe so ghastly that we will reform our gun laws

[martybegan]

My question is: why is it every solution proffered is dismissed out of hand as ineffective, impractical or unconstitutional? I believe the right approach can be found in taking the wisest parts of each suggestion. For instance: universal back ground checks. They are not an infringement of rights, the can be fine tuned to be more effective and they are embraced as a bipartisan solution. An effective assault weapons ban not written by the gun lobby and focusing on cosmetics, but a ban on firing and reloading systems.

So far the only solutions I've seen offered by the gun nuts is more guns.

They are dismissed out of hand because we have over 100 years experience with different attempts at gun control and every one of them is a failure. Universal background checks will not prevent thugs from trading guns for drugs. They will impede commerce from one citizen to another. This is so obvious it seems unnecessary even to say it.
As for an assault weapons ban, what do you consider an assault weapon? The focus was on cosmetics because that is the ONLY defining characteristic of an assault weapon. The term itself is ludicrous, simply made up by the press.

An Assault weapon, as I define it, is a gun with a semi automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a high capacity ammunition magazine. Bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shot guns do not apply.

So a glock semi auto pistol is an assault weapon?

 

[The Rabbi]

My question is: why is it every solution proffered is dismissed out of hand as ineffective, impractical or unconstitutional? I believe the right approach can be found in taking the wisest parts of each suggestion. For instance: universal back ground checks. They are not an infringement of rights, the can be fine tuned to be more effective and they are embraced as a bipartisan solution. An effective assault weapons ban not written by the gun lobby and focusing on cosmetics, but a ban on firing and reloading systems.

So far the only solutions I've seen offered by the gun nuts is more guns.

They are dismissed out of hand because we have over 100 years experience with different attempts at gun control and every one of them is a failure. Universal background checks will not prevent thugs from trading guns for drugs. They will impede commerce from one citizen to another. This is so obvious it seems unnecessary even to say it.
As for an assault weapons ban, what do you consider an assault weapon? The focus was on cosmetics because that is the ONLY defining characteristic of an assault weapon. The term itself is ludicrous, simply made up by the press.

An Assault weapon, as I define it, is a gun with a semi automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a high capacity ammunition magazine. Bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shot guns do not apply.

What is "high capacity"?
In any case, what makes them more dangerous than anything else? The number of people killed with so called "assault weapons" is miniscule. The real killer is small caliber handguns.

 

[Nosmo King]

They are dismissed out of hand because we have over 100 years experience with different attempts at gun control and every one of them is a failure. Universal background checks will not prevent thugs from trading guns for drugs. They will impede commerce from one citizen to another. This is so obvious it seems unnecessary even to say it.
As for an assault weapons ban, what do you consider an assault weapon? The focus was on cosmetics because that is the ONLY defining characteristic of an assault weapon. The term itself is ludicrous, simply made up by the press.

An Assault weapon, as I define it, is a gun with a semi automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a high capacity ammunition magazine. Bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shot guns do not apply.

What is "high capacity"?
In any case, what makes them more dangerous than anything else? The number of people killed with so called "assault weapons" is miniscule. The real killer is small caliber handguns.

Greater than 10 rounds. Those are the weapons that change a 'shooting' into a 'mass shooting'. Those are the weapons of choice for a drive by shooting. Those are the weapons designed for warfare, not sport.

 

[martybegan]

An Assault weapon, as I define it, is a gun with a semi automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a high capacity ammunition magazine. Bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shot guns do not apply.

What is "high capacity"?
In any case, what makes them more dangerous than anything else? The number of people killed with so called "assault weapons" is miniscule. The real killer is small caliber handguns.

Greater than 10 rounds. Those are the weapons that change a 'shooting' into a 'mass shooting'. Those are the weapons of choice for a drive by shooting. Those are the weapons designed for warfare, not sport.

How well did the 10 round limit stop the last shooting?

He just brought more of them.

 

[The Rabbi]

An Assault weapon, as I define it, is a gun with a semi automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a high capacity ammunition magazine. Bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shot guns do not apply.

What is "high capacity"?
In any case, what makes them more dangerous than anything else? The number of people killed with so called "assault weapons" is miniscule. The real killer is small caliber handguns.

Greater than 10 rounds. Those are the weapons that change a 'shooting' into a 'mass shooting'. Those are the weapons of choice for a drive by shooting. Those are the weapons designed for warfare, not sport.

Bullshit.
The 10 round capacity is nonsense. They are not used in drive by shootings. They are not designed for warfare. They are often used for sport.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8v7BlZSpDMk]Dustin Ellermann Local IDPA 3 Gun Match Stage 2 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[The Rabbi]

What is "high capacity"?
In any case, what makes them more dangerous than anything else? The number of people killed with so called "assault weapons" is miniscule. The real killer is small caliber handguns.

Greater than 10 rounds. Those are the weapons that change a 'shooting' into a 'mass shooting'. Those are the weapons of choice for a drive by shooting. Those are the weapons designed for warfare, not sport.

How well did the 10 round limit stop the last shooting?

He just brought more of them.

People are simply ill informed about the time it takes to reload. Here's a guy who's pretty fast but it wouldnt take much to be half as fast. And that's still fast.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUqaXjnRUBc]The World Fastest Gun Reload.flv - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Nosmo King]

And again, any and all solutions are dismissed out of hand BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT A PANACEA. The gun lovers continue to rationalize everything and dismiss everything just so more and more and more guns can get out there on our streets.

Just think what could happen if the gun lovers ever had enough imagination to concoct a workable solution to gun violence. I promise you that I would consider all solutions rather than dismissing them out of hand and concocting a ham handed rationalization against them.

 

[martybegan]

And again, any and all solutions are dismissed out of hand BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT A PANACEA. The gun lovers continue to rationalize everything and dismiss everything just so more and more and more guns can get out there on our streets.

Just think what could happen if the gun lovers ever had enough imagination to concoct a workable solution to gun violence. I promise you that I would consider all solutions rather than dismissing them out of hand and concocting a ham handed rationalization against them.

Because arbitrary things like a 10 round mag limit do nothing but put a potential defender at a disadvantage simply because they follow a law. Considering the police exempt themselves from this any time it is passed, I consider it hypocritical that they would impose it on other law abiding civilians. A criminal would care less about exceeding a max limit, because they are a criminal, and the crime they are probably intending is far worse than having 17 bullets in a magazine.

 

[RKMBrown]

My question is: why is it every solution proffered is dismissed out of hand as ineffective, impractical or unconstitutional? I believe the right approach can be found in taking the wisest parts of each suggestion. For instance: universal back ground checks. They are not an infringement of rights, the can be fine tuned to be more effective and they are embraced as a bipartisan solution. An effective assault weapons ban not written by the gun lobby and focusing on cosmetics, but a ban on firing and reloading systems.

So far the only solutions I've seen offered by the gun nuts is more guns.

They are dismissed out of hand because we have over 100 years experience with different attempts at gun control and every one of them is a failure. Universal background checks will not prevent thugs from trading guns for drugs. They will impede commerce from one citizen to another. This is so obvious it seems unnecessary even to say it.
As for an assault weapons ban, what do you consider an assault weapon? The focus was on cosmetics because that is the ONLY defining characteristic of an assault weapon. The term itself is ludicrous, simply made up by the press.

An Assault weapon, as I define it, is a gun with a semi automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a high capacity ammunition magazine. Bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shot guns do not apply.

Got it. So this .22 semi auto is an assault weapon:

And this pump 12 gauge is not:

Thanks for the info.

 

[Nosmo King]

And again, any and all solutions are dismissed out of hand BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT A PANACEA. The gun lovers continue to rationalize everything and dismiss everything just so more and more and more guns can get out there on our streets.

Just think what could happen if the gun lovers ever had enough imagination to concoct a workable solution to gun violence. I promise you that I would consider all solutions rather than dismissing them out of hand and concocting a ham handed rationalization against them.

Because arbitrary things like a 10 round mag limit do nothing but put a potential defender at a disadvantage simply because they follow a law. Considering the police exempt themselves from this any time it is passed, I consider it hypocritical that they would impose it on other law abiding civilians. A criminal would care less about exceeding a max limit, because they are a criminal, and the crime they are probably intending is far worse than having 17 bullets in a magazine.

If you cannot hit your target with 10 rounds, why should you take that weapon into a theater, school, church or shopping center and claim it is for defense? those ten bullets are going somewhere, if not at your target. And those ten bullets are lethal when fired among innocent bystanders.

Yours is just another badly formed rationalization to defend a Rambo fantasy.

 

[RKMBrown]

And again, any and all solutions are dismissed out of hand BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT A PANACEA. The gun lovers continue to rationalize everything and dismiss everything just so more and more and more guns can get out there on our streets.

Just think what could happen if the gun lovers ever had enough imagination to concoct a workable solution to gun violence. I promise you that I would consider all solutions rather than dismissing them out of hand and concocting a ham handed rationalization against them.

No. The problem is folks like you are irrational.

 

[The Rabbi]

And again, any and all solutions are dismissed out of hand BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT A PANACEA. The gun lovers continue to rationalize everything and dismiss everything just so more and more and more guns can get out there on our streets.

Just think what could happen if the gun lovers ever had enough imagination to concoct a workable solution to gun violence. I promise you that I would consider all solutions rather than dismissing them out of hand and concocting a ham handed rationalization against them.

No, they are dismissed out of hand because they dont work.
How many 30 rd magazines do you imagine are out there? Probably hundreds of millions by now. Do you imagine they will all disappear once a law is passed? And if you dont grandfather them in, do you think law abiding people will turn them in, or criminals will turn them in? If criminals dont turn them in, then what have you accomplished, exactly?
This inability to think beyond Stage One marks the liberal mind.

 

[Nosmo King]

They are dismissed out of hand because we have over 100 years experience with different attempts at gun control and every one of them is a failure. Universal background checks will not prevent thugs from trading guns for drugs. They will impede commerce from one citizen to another. This is so obvious it seems unnecessary even to say it.
As for an assault weapons ban, what do you consider an assault weapon? The focus was on cosmetics because that is the ONLY defining characteristic of an assault weapon. The term itself is ludicrous, simply made up by the press.

An Assault weapon, as I define it, is a gun with a semi automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a high capacity ammunition magazine. Bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shot guns do not apply.

Got it. So this .22 semi auto is an assault weapon:

And this pump 12 gauge is not:

Thanks for the info.

It's not cosmetics. It's the firing and reloading systems. Reagan was shot with a .22

 

[The Rabbi]

And again, any and all solutions are dismissed out of hand BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT A PANACEA. The gun lovers continue to rationalize everything and dismiss everything just so more and more and more guns can get out there on our streets.

Just think what could happen if the gun lovers ever had enough imagination to concoct a workable solution to gun violence. I promise you that I would consider all solutions rather than dismissing them out of hand and concocting a ham handed rationalization against them.

Because arbitrary things like a 10 round mag limit do nothing but put a potential defender at a disadvantage simply because they follow a law. Considering the police exempt themselves from this any time it is passed, I consider it hypocritical that they would impose it on other law abiding civilians. A criminal would care less about exceeding a max limit, because they are a criminal, and the crime they are probably intending is far worse than having 17 bullets in a magazine.

If you cannot hit your target with 10 rounds, why should you take that weapon into a theater, school, church or shopping center and claim it is for defense? those ten bullets are going somewhere, if not at your target. And those ten bullets are lethal when fired among innocent bystanders.

Yours is just another badly formed rationalization to defend a Rambo fantasy.

So why does virtually every law enforcement agency issue pistols with high capacity magazines?

 

[The Rabbi]

An Assault weapon, as I define it, is a gun with a semi automatic firing system and the ability to be fitted with a high capacity ammunition magazine. Bolt action rifles, revolvers and pump action shot guns do not apply.

Got it. So this .22 semi auto is an assault weapon:

And this pump 12 gauge is not:

Thanks for the info.

It's not cosmetics. It's the firing and reloading systems. Reagan was shot with a .22

.22LR revolver, maed by RG in fact. George Wallace was shot with the same type of gun.
What was your point here again?

 

[martybegan]

And again, any and all solutions are dismissed out of hand BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT A PANACEA. The gun lovers continue to rationalize everything and dismiss everything just so more and more and more guns can get out there on our streets.

Just think what could happen if the gun lovers ever had enough imagination to concoct a workable solution to gun violence. I promise you that I would consider all solutions rather than dismissing them out of hand and concocting a ham handed rationalization against them.

Because arbitrary things like a 10 round mag limit do nothing but put a potential defender at a disadvantage simply because they follow a law. Considering the police exempt themselves from this any time it is passed, I consider it hypocritical that they would impose it on other law abiding civilians. A criminal would care less about exceeding a max limit, because they are a criminal, and the crime they are probably intending is far worse than having 17 bullets in a magazine.

If you cannot hit your target with 10 rounds, why should you take that weapon into a theater, school, church or shopping center and claim it is for defense? those ten bullets are going somewhere, if not at your target. And those ten bullets are lethal when fired among innocent bystanders.

Yours is just another badly formed rationalization to defend a Rambo fantasy.

Then the police should be limited to 10 round mags as well.

Considering a person competent with a gun can reload in about a second or two, whats the difference between someone carrying one 17 round mag or two 10 round mags? Are we going to ban carrying more than one mag at a time as well?

RKBA proponents have given rational and reasoned arguments why a 10 round mag limit is basically feel good nonsense, and yet you keep trying to portray us as irrational.

I suggest you look in the mirror for irrationality on this topic.

 

[RKMBrown]

Got it. So this .22 semi auto is an assault weapon:

And this pump 12 gauge is not:

Thanks for the info.

It's not cosmetics. It's the firing and reloading systems. Reagan was shot with a .22

.22LR revolver, maed by RG in fact. George Wallace was shot with the same type of gun.
What was your point here again?

I think he's saying you can't assault someone with a 12 gauge pump shotgun or a .50cal sniper rifle, but you can assault someone with a .22lr semi-auto pistol. I think he thinks that the type of action of the weapon makes it evil or something if it includes the ability to fire rounds in rapid succession.

 

[The Rabbi]

Probably. But the fact is Reagan was shot with a revolver.

 

[Nosmo King]

Because arbitrary things like a 10 round mag limit do nothing but put a potential defender at a disadvantage simply because they follow a law. Considering the police exempt themselves from this any time it is passed, I consider it hypocritical that they would impose it on other law abiding civilians. A criminal would care less about exceeding a max limit, because they are a criminal, and the crime they are probably intending is far worse than having 17 bullets in a magazine.

If you cannot hit your target with 10 rounds, why should you take that weapon into a theater, school, church or shopping center and claim it is for defense? those ten bullets are going somewhere, if not at your target. And those ten bullets are lethal when fired among innocent bystanders.

Yours is just another badly formed rationalization to defend a Rambo fantasy.

So why does virtually every law enforcement agency issue pistols with high capacity magazines?

Training? Experience?

 

[Nosmo King]

Got it. So this .22 semi auto is an assault weapon:

And this pump 12 gauge is not:

Thanks for the info.

It's not cosmetics. It's the firing and reloading systems. Reagan was shot with a .22

.22LR revolver, maed by RG in fact. George Wallace was shot with the same type of gun.
What was your point here again?

A revolver does not make an effective weapon in a 'mass shooting'. Could Adam Lanza killed as many children with six rounds?