Plenty of "Good Guys with Guns" But 6 Injured Anyway

[eflatminor]

Oh so now your making it from wire yourself. What is the proper hardness of the wire to get the correct tension? How will you bend it to get consistent tension to avoid jams? You should make one and document the process.

Holly shit...now you want to regulate ownership of pieces of wire.

My goodness.

Nope, you said that not me. I want criminals making magazines because they will jam.

I have put together dozens of magazines for pistol competitions. I do that to ensure they are perfectly tuned to my firearm SO THEY WON'T JAM. You can but the sheet metal and springs pretty much anywhere. It really isn't difficult.

But hey, at least I'm glad you're not advocating regulation of wire!

 

[Brain357]

Holly shit...now you want to regulate ownership of pieces of wire.

My goodness.

Nope, you said that not me. I want criminals making magazines because they will jam.

I have put together dozens of magazines for pistol competitions. I do that to ensure they are perfectly tuned to my firearm SO THEY WON'T JAM. You can but the sheet metal and springs pretty much anywhere. It really isn't difficult.

But hey, at least I'm glad you're not advocating regulation of wire!

Document making one from raw materials.

 

[eflatminor]

So then capacity does matter right? You just argued that it does.

Let's say is really, really, really does, for sake of argument.

Now, answer the fucking question, if you can.

Like I already said, they will become hard to get and used less and less. Just like machine guns.

Why, exactly, would they be hard to get? What would prevent a criminal from obtaining one of the millions and millions that are already in existence or acquiring one that would be made illegally?

We outlawed drugs under the idea they would be harder to get and used less and less. How'd that work out?

 

[eflatminor]

Nope, you said that not me. I want criminals making magazines because they will jam.

I have put together dozens of magazines for pistol competitions. I do that to ensure they are perfectly tuned to my firearm SO THEY WON'T JAM. You can but the sheet metal and springs pretty much anywhere. It really isn't difficult.

But hey, at least I'm glad you're not advocating regulation of wire!

Document making one from raw materials.

What the fuck are you talking about? I'm supposed to make a video because you're obtuse?

Good God man, it's sheet metal and a spring! You said you wouldn't regulated spring ownership and you sure can't stop people from owning two pieces of sheet metal (or plastic) in the shape of a box.

Now you're just trolling. Grow the fuck up.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Here's my solution. A complete ban on all weapons with semiautomatic firing systems. A buy back program on those weapons that extends for one year. If you have the receipt for the weapon, a full reembursement. If you do not have the receipt, you get either 80% of the current market value or a new bolt action rifle or revolver depending if you turned in a long gun or pistol.

After the year buy back program, turning in semi automatics will get you 50% of the market value of the previous year. After the second year, any semi automatic weapons in private hands results in a $5,000 fine and two years in federal prison. Any semi automatic weapons used in crimes results in a $250,000 fine and an additional 25 years to life sentence.

The ban extends to the manufacture, distribution and importation of such weapons. No longer will containers of guns be allowed through customs, gunmakers will have to settle on making bolt action. Rifles, shot guns and revolvers.

There would also be steep taxes on ammunition sales as well as reloading supplies.

That would make gun violence wither on the vinefasterthan any Conservative proposal to eliminate Medicare.

I have a solution as well.

Go fuck yourself, Comrade.

You desire an authoritarian system and seek to disarm the public so as to establish it.

So again, go fuck yourself, Comrade.

You'll never win, you think you will, but you'll fail. You import millions of Mexicans to be chattel for your system, in hopes of driving the Bourgeoisie out of existence, but we of the middle class are more resilient than you imagine. Yes, the nation made a very stupid mistake in 2008-12; and you are convinced that yours is a thousand year Reich - but the pendulum swings.

 

[WinterBorn]

Then pick a side now. Does capacity matter?

I have far more concerns about intrusive legislation based on vague information than I do about magazine capacity.

For me, magazine capacity is not an issue. But that does not mean I will support legislation to ban hi cap magazines.

I do not own a rifle that fits the current political definition of "assault rifle". But I do not support instituting a ban on assault weapons.

Just because I do not need or own one (hi cap magazine or "assault rifle) does not mean I will not fight against legislation to ban them.

So it does matter or it doesn't? You answer like a politician. Pick a side flopper.

I have not flipped at all. You simply latched on to this in place of actual discussion.

My explanation has been quite clear, despite your accusations.

I have shown plenty of evidence that the ban on high capacity magazines is a fool's errand and will not make enough difference to warrant either the legislation, the intrusion into the lives of gun owners, or the potential for the, otherwise law abiding, gun owners to be prosecuted for a minor oversight on their part.

 

[Brain357]

Let's say is really, really, really does, for sake of argument.

Now, answer the fucking question, if you can.

Like I already said, they will become hard to get and used less and less. Just like machine guns.

Why, exactly, would they be hard to get? What would prevent a criminal from obtaining one of the millions and millions that are already in existence or acquiring one that would be made illegally?

We outlawed drugs under the idea they would be harder to get and used less and less. How'd that work out?

Once they become illegal many of the millions would be destroyed. Anyone found with one would be fined heavily and the magazine destroyed.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There no rational reason to do this.

Sure there is.

His reason for wanting this is exactly the same as your reason for opposing it. Both sides know that an armed populace is the check against tyranny.

Nosmo seeks to remove that check.

There's also no way to argue that doing so is constitutional.
Your "solution" fails.

Uh, the primary enemy the democrats target is the Constitution.

 

[WinterBorn]

Like I already said, they will become hard to get and used less and less. Just like machine guns.

Why, exactly, would they be hard to get? What would prevent a criminal from obtaining one of the millions and millions that are already in existence or acquiring one that would be made illegally?

We outlawed drugs under the idea they would be harder to get and used less and less. How'd that work out?

Once they become illegal many of the millions would be destroyed. Anyone found with one would be fined heavily and the magazine destroyed.

And how many gun owners would be prosecuted because they inadvertently ran afoul of this useless law?

 

[Brain357]

I have far more concerns about intrusive legislation based on vague information than I do about magazine capacity.

For me, magazine capacity is not an issue. But that does not mean I will support legislation to ban hi cap magazines.

I do not own a rifle that fits the current political definition of "assault rifle". But I do not support instituting a ban on assault weapons.

Just because I do not need or own one (hi cap magazine or "assault rifle) does not mean I will not fight against legislation to ban them.

So it does matter or it doesn't? You answer like a politician. Pick a side flopper.

I have not flipped at all. You simply latched on to this in place of actual discussion.

My explanation has been quite clear, despite your accusations.

I have shown plenty of evidence that the ban on high capacity magazines is a fool's errand and will not make enough difference to warrant either the legislation, the intrusion into the lives of gun owners, or the potential for the, otherwise law abiding, gun owners to be prosecuted for a minor oversight on their part.

So your refusing to answer? Either it does or doesn't. Stop wasting our time and answer. Not going to let you have both sides.

 

[Brain357]

Why, exactly, would they be hard to get? What would prevent a criminal from obtaining one of the millions and millions that are already in existence or acquiring one that would be made illegally?

We outlawed drugs under the idea they would be harder to get and used less and less. How'd that work out?

Once they become illegal many of the millions would be destroyed. Anyone found with one would be fined heavily and the magazine destroyed.

And how many gun owners would be prosecuted because they inadvertently ran afoul of this useless law?

Whoever is dumb enough to try and keep one. Maybe this will balance out budget.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The right of the people to live without the fear of semi automatic guns discharged in schools, churches, places of business and the streets trumps the right of anyone to own such weapons.

Or more importantly, the ability of the NKVD to kick in a door in the middle of the night to dissappear enemies of the party without fear that the occupant will defend themselves is vital to the party.

It is GLORIOUS dream you have, Comrade.

 

[eflatminor]

Like I already said, they will become hard to get and used less and less. Just like machine guns.

Why, exactly, would they be hard to get? What would prevent a criminal from obtaining one of the millions and millions that are already in existence or acquiring one that would be made illegally?

We outlawed drugs under the idea they would be harder to get and used less and less. How'd that work out?

Once they become illegal many of the millions would be destroyed. Anyone found with one would be fined heavily and the magazine destroyed.

Many...but not all. So once again, the only people to have these supposedly devastating devices would be law breakers.

Setting aside the totalitarian and unconstitutional nature of your "solution", you've demonstrated my point. You can NEVER get criminals to obey your laws and you can NEVER remove the supply for that which there is a demand.

It's as though intentions are more important to you than actual results. What a way to think! Your plan will have the actual result of ensuring good people are at a tactical disadvantage. Amazing.

Either way, molon labe.

 

[Nosmo King]

Confiscate the magazines and melt them down to cast manhole covers! It's the appropriate thing to do. Cover the stench of death that high capacity magazines wrought the way we cover the stench from our sewers.

Gun nuts rationalize the absolute need for high capacity magazines because, in their warped fantasy world, they will be called upon to face down both the Bloods and the Cryps and then the entire Sioux Nation with the Corleone Family in reserve.

No one needs more than ten shots unless that person is going on the offensive with a gun.

Right, 'cuz those criminals and crazies will surely hand them over when asked to do so...

Why do they have them now? Wouldn't anyone stand up twenty years ago and admit to how hazardous they are? NO! The gun nuts fought for them. The NRA fought for them. And now everyone has to go down with the ship piloted by the idiots and their lobbyists!

 

[Uncensored2008]

The fact remains that more than ten rounds makes a weapon offensive rather than defensive.

Comrade, "fucking retarded claim" <> "fact."

You serve GLORIOUS party and say what you do in so doing - but when you say "fact" expect to be laughed at by the Capitalists.

 

[WinterBorn]

So it does matter or it doesn't? You answer like a politician. Pick a side flopper.

I have not flipped at all. You simply latched on to this in place of actual discussion.

My explanation has been quite clear, despite your accusations.

I have shown plenty of evidence that the ban on high capacity magazines is a fool's errand and will not make enough difference to warrant either the legislation, the intrusion into the lives of gun owners, or the potential for the, otherwise law abiding, gun owners to be prosecuted for a minor oversight on their part.

So your refusing to answer? Either it does or doesn't. Stop wasting our time and answer. Not going to let you have both sides.

And I am not going to play your silly game of demanding an answer to an irrelevant question. I have given you answer after answer. If it is not the answer you want that is not my problem.

Once again, in case you missed it, magazine capacity is not an issue for me. But the attempt to legislate the ban is very much an issue for me. I have explained why in several posts.

 

[Brain357]

Why, exactly, would they be hard to get? What would prevent a criminal from obtaining one of the millions and millions that are already in existence or acquiring one that would be made illegally?

We outlawed drugs under the idea they would be harder to get and used less and less. How'd that work out?

Once they become illegal many of the millions would be destroyed. Anyone found with one would be fined heavily and the magazine destroyed.

Many...but not all. So once again, the only people to have these supposedly devastating devices would be law breakers.

Setting aside the totalitarian and unconstitutional nature of your "solution", you've demonstrated my point. You can NEVER get criminals to obey your laws and you can NEVER remove the supply foru that which there is a demand.

It's as though intentions are more important to you than actual results. What a way to think! Your plan will have the actual result of ensuring good people are at a tactical disadvantage. Amazing.

Either way, molon labe.

As the study shows, defense on average is 2 shots. So citizens will not be affected.

 

[WinterBorn]

Confiscate the magazines and melt them down to cast manhole covers! It's the appropriate thing to do. Cover the stench of death that high capacity magazines wrought the way we cover the stench from our sewers.

Gun nuts rationalize the absolute need for high capacity magazines because, in their warped fantasy world, they will be called upon to face down both the Bloods and the Cryps and then the entire Sioux Nation with the Corleone Family in reserve.

No one needs more than ten shots unless that person is going on the offensive with a gun.

Right, 'cuz those criminals and crazies will surely hand them over when asked to do so...

Why do they have them now? Wouldn't anyone stand up twenty years ago and admit to how hazardous they are? NO! The gun nuts fought for them. The NRA fought for them. And now everyone has to go down with the ship piloted by the idiots and their lobbyists!

The gun owners and the NRA fought against stupid legislation that served no purpose. You insist that it would make a difference, and yet can show no evidence of such.

And you were the one who argued against keeping the violent felons locked up, and you still harp on the high capacity magazines, as if it were an answer.

I am also still amused that you think magazine capacity is the determining factor in whether a gun is offensive or defensive.

 

[Brain357]

I have not flipped at all. You simply latched on to this in place of actual discussion.

My explanation has been quite clear, despite your accusations.

I have shown plenty of evidence that the ban on high capacity magazines is a fool's errand and will not make enough difference to warrant either the legislation, the intrusion into the lives of gun owners, or the potential for the, otherwise law abiding, gun owners to be prosecuted for a minor oversight on their part.

So your refusing to answer? Either it does or doesn't. Stop wasting our time and answer. Not going to let you have both sides.

And I am not going to play your silly game of demanding an answer to an irrelevant question. I have given you answer after answer. If it is not the answer you want that is not my problem.

Once again, in case you missed it, magazine capacity is not an issue for me. But the attempt to legislate the ban is very much an issue for me. I have explained why in several posts.

So you want to keep arguing out of both sides of your mouth? Very honest you are. I guess we will throw you in with the capacity doesn't matter then. So you should have no problem with banning hi cap magazines.

 

[WinterBorn]

Once they become illegal many of the millions would be destroyed. Anyone found with one would be fined heavily and the magazine destroyed.

Many...but not all. So once again, the only people to have these supposedly devastating devices would be law breakers.

Setting aside the totalitarian and unconstitutional nature of your "solution", you've demonstrated my point. You can NEVER get criminals to obey your laws and you can NEVER remove the supply foru that which there is a demand.

It's as though intentions are more important to you than actual results. What a way to think! Your plan will have the actual result of ensuring good people are at a tactical disadvantage. Amazing.

Either way, molon labe.

As the study shows, defense on average is 2 shots. So citizens will not be affected.

Did that study show that more rounds were never used? Did it show that all defensive shootings involved less than 7 rounds? Or less than 10?

Averages are a wonderful thing. But they can be misleading.

You cannot show that any of the mass shootings (a very minor portion of the gun related murders) would be stopped by a ban on high capacity magazines. All you have is a study showing the average number of shots fired, and the HOPE that a shooter will make a mistake during reloading.

I, on the other hand, listed several mass shootings that involved no hi cap magazines at all.