Want to enact more gun control? Convince me.

[Lonestar_logic]

The saving lives argument is a red herring.

If you were really intent on saving lives, you would be all over banning or restricting alcohol.

You are not.

If it is common sense to restrict one to save lives, it is common sense to restrict the other to achieve the same.

But alcohol isn't guns, so you have zero interest in saving those lives by reducing the freedoms of others.



Bogus argument is bogus.

/thread.

Actually I very seldom drink and would be fine with banning alcohol. But the topic is guns and that is a completely different discussion. Why your talking alcohol is a mystery to me. If anything it supports my argument.

I thought your focus was banning high capacity magazines as if that in itself would save lives.

Have you ever owned a weapon that uses magazines? Do you know how simple and fast it easy it is to drop one mag and insert another? So you ban 30 rounds magazines, I'd simply carry three ten round magazines and get the same effect.

So what exactly is the difference and how would it save lives?

 

[Brain357]

The saving lives argument is a red herring.

If you were really intent on saving lives, you would be all over banning or restricting alcohol.

You are not.

If it is common sense to restrict one to save lives, it is common sense to restrict the other to achieve the same.

But alcohol isn't guns, so you have zero interest in saving those lives by reducing the freedoms of others.



Bogus argument is bogus.

/thread.

Actually I very seldom drink and would be fine with banning alcohol. But the topic is guns and that is a completely different discussion. Why your talking alcohol is a mystery to me. If anything it supports my argument.

I thought your focus was banning high capacity magazines as if that in itself would save lives.

Have you ever owned a weapon that uses magazines? Do you know how simple and fast it easy it is to drop one mag and insert another? So you ban 30 rounds magazines, I'd simply carry three ten round magazines and get the same effect.

So what exactly is the difference and how would it save lives?

You must not read very well. I have explained this multiple times and just today even.

Clearly you need to catch up. Please go back and read so that I'm not repeating everything. But here is one example from the Tucson shooting:
"When the suspect tried to load a fresh magazine into his weapon, Maisch was able to grab the bottom of the magazine and prevent it from being inserted. This pause in shooting allowed for two men, Roger Salzgeber and Bill D. Badger, to tackle the suspect to the ground and restrain him until deputies arrived."

Physics makes it clear that a shooter is slowed by having to reload. Having to reload allows more people to either run away or for someone to stop the attacker. There are many examples of this happening.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Actually I very seldom drink and would be fine with banning alcohol. But the topic is guns and that is a completely different discussion. Why your talking alcohol is a mystery to me. If anything it supports my argument.

I thought your focus was banning high capacity magazines as if that in itself would save lives.

Have you ever owned a weapon that uses magazines? Do you know how simple and fast it easy it is to drop one mag and insert another? So you ban 30 rounds magazines, I'd simply carry three ten round magazines and get the same effect.

So what exactly is the difference and how would it save lives?

You must not read very well. I have explained this multiple times and just today even.

Clearly you need to catch up. Please go back and read so that I'm not repeating everything. But here is one example from the Tucson shooting:
"When the suspect tried to load a fresh magazine into his weapon, Maisch was able to grab the bottom of the magazine and prevent it from being inserted. This pause in shooting allowed for two men, Roger Salzgeber and Bill D. Badger, to tackle the suspect to the ground and restrain him until deputies arrived."

Physics makes it clear that a shooter is slowed by having to reload. Having to reload allows more people to either run away or for someone to stop the attacker. There are many examples of this happening.

That's pretty weak.

Fact is this would have happened whether it was a hi-cap mag or not. Are you going to argue that all mags should hold one round? If so, then your example may have some validity.

 

[Brain357]

I thought your focus was banning high capacity magazines as if that in itself would save lives.

Have you ever owned a weapon that uses magazines? Do you know how simple and fast it easy it is to drop one mag and insert another? So you ban 30 rounds magazines, I'd simply carry three ten round magazines and get the same effect.

So what exactly is the difference and how would it save lives?

You must not read very well. I have explained this multiple times and just today even.

Clearly you need to catch up. Please go back and read so that I'm not repeating everything. But here is one example from the Tucson shooting:
"When the suspect tried to load a fresh magazine into his weapon, Maisch was able to grab the bottom of the magazine and prevent it from being inserted. This pause in shooting allowed for two men, Roger Salzgeber and Bill D. Badger, to tackle the suspect to the ground and restrain him until deputies arrived."

Physics makes it clear that a shooter is slowed by having to reload. Having to reload allows more people to either run away or for someone to stop the attacker. There are many examples of this happening.

That's pretty weak.

Fact is this would have happened whether it was a hi-cap mag or not. Are you going to argue that all mags should hold one round? If so, then your example may have some validity.

Really? So who shoots more people:
Shooter A has a 20 round magazine and gets stopped when he tries to reload.
Shooter B has a 6 round magazine and gets stopped when he tries to reload.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

You must not read very well. I have explained this multiple times and just today even.

Clearly you need to catch up. Please go back and read so that I'm not repeating everything. But here is one example from the Tucson shooting:
"When the suspect tried to load a fresh magazine into his weapon, Maisch was able to grab the bottom of the magazine and prevent it from being inserted. This pause in shooting allowed for two men, Roger Salzgeber and Bill D. Badger, to tackle the suspect to the ground and restrain him until deputies arrived."

Physics makes it clear that a shooter is slowed by having to reload. Having to reload allows more people to either run away or for someone to stop the attacker. There are many examples of this happening.

That's pretty weak.

Fact is this would have happened whether it was a hi-cap mag or not. Are you going to argue that all mags should hold one round? If so, then your example may have some validity.

Really? So who shoots more people:
Shooter A has a 20 round magazine and gets stopped when he tries to reload.
Shooter B has a 6 round magazine and gets stopped when he tries to reload.

How many magazines does "Shooter B" have?

 

[Brain357]

That's pretty weak.

Fact is this would have happened whether it was a hi-cap mag or not. Are you going to argue that all mags should hold one round? If so, then your example may have some validity.

Really? So who shoots more people:
Shooter A has a 20 round magazine and gets stopped when he tries to reload.
Shooter B has a 6 round magazine and gets stopped when he tries to reload.

How many magazines does "Shooter B" have?

10. Both are stopped at the first reload obviously. And that is how it has been with all the examples I have found BTW.

 

[Missourian]

Now that the "saves lives" ruse has been revealed...

...are police officer going to be held to the 10 round capacity magazines?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Really? So who shoots more people:
Shooter A has a 20 round magazine and gets stopped when he tries to reload.
Shooter B has a 6 round magazine and gets stopped when he tries to reload.

How many magazines does "Shooter B" have?

10. Both are stopped at the first reload obviously. And that is how it has been with all the examples I have found BTW.

You've shown one example.

How many shooters have there been that wasn't stopped at reloading but stopped by another armed individual?

* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.[3]

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.[4]

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.[5]

* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."[7]

* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year. [8] Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."

Source

 

[Brain357]

How many magazines does "Shooter B" have?

10. Both are stopped at the first reload obviously. And that is how it has been with all the examples I have found BTW.

You've shown one example.

How many shooters have there been that wasn't stopped at reloading but stopped by another armed individual?

* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day. [1] This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives. [2]

* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.[3]

* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.[4]

* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.[5]

* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).[6] And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."[7]

* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year. [8] Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."

Source

Actually I've given several examples. Go back and read like I told you to. You can't just jump into a thread and make claims when you haven't read all the posts.

None of your stats are in any way counter to what I've been saying. As I've given in previous posts, stats show that hi cap magazines are not needed for self defense.

 

[Brain357]

Now that the "saves lives" ruse has been revealed...

...are police officer going to be held to the 10 round capacity magazines?

You make less sense with each post. You've seen the examples of people stopping the shooter when he reloads. So based on that which shooter shoots more people?:
Shooter A has a 20 round magazine and is stopped at first reload.
Shooter B has a 6 round magazine and is stopped at first reload.

Limiting magazine capacity would save lives.

 

[Missourian]

Now that the "saves lives" ruse has been revealed...

...are police officer going to be held to the 10 round capacity magazines?

You make less sense with each post. You've seen the examples of people stopping the shooter when he reloads. So based on that which shooter shoots more people?:
Shooter A has a 20 round magazine and is stopped at first reload.
Shooter B has a 6 round magazine and is stopped at first reload.

Limiting magazine capacity would save lives.

Shooter A has a 20 round magazine that jams on round 3, because his Glock was designed for a 15 round magazine.

While he is confused and distracted, attempting to clear the jam, he is tackled and disarmed.

Shooter B, who has spent 100 hours practicing changing 10 round magazines under duress, chooses a location where he has plenty of space to trade for reloading time and kills 30 people then shoots himself when the armed first responders arrive.

/thread.

Still waiting for an answer to whether police must adhere to the 10 round magazine requirement.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Statistics show that people don't need that many rounds for defense. Only people using that many rounds are mass shooters. So with a limit on magazine capacity people have more than enough for defense and mass shooters are slowed down. Perfect solution. Only people who should be fighting this are people planning to become a mass shooter.

Do you want me to go into the long list of things you don't need that are no danger to anyone else?

The issue of need is irrelevant.

The only people fighting this are those who want to be mass shooters? Pardon my french but that is fucking ridiculous. It's a 2 dimensional view that inhibits your thinking.

I disagree with your premise and with your suggestion and I have no plans to shoot anyone. Your argument is proven false.

The important part of my statement was should. Just like good people should want to save lives and support banning hi cap magazines.

You have not proven that doing so would indeed save lives. it is conjecture,

And once again you break all people down into "good" or bad.

You are two dimensional.

And you say the average number of shots fired in self defense is less than 4 but what were the raw numbers and did firing no shots as in just brandishing a gun figure into the numbers?

Personally I would rather pick the largest number of rounds fired in self defense as a minimum number.

Would you like to see the speed limit that cars are allowed to travel as the average speed of all cars driven in the united states ?

We could put speed governors on every car so that no one could exceed the speed everyone "needs" to go.

It would save lives and "good" people care about saving lives.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Thank you for helping to prove that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorancr and/or dishonesty

 

[M14 Shooter]

Why do you feed the troll?

 

[Brain357]

Now that the "saves lives" ruse has been revealed...

...are police officer going to be held to the 10 round capacity magazines?

You make less sense with each post. You've seen the examples of people stopping the shooter when he reloads. So based on that which shooter shoots more people?:
Shooter A has a 20 round magazine and is stopped at first reload.
Shooter B has a 6 round magazine and is stopped at first reload.

Limiting magazine capacity would save lives.

Shooter A has a 20 round magazine that jams on round 3, because his Glock was designed for a 15 round magazine.

While he is confused and distracted, attempting to clear the jam, he is tackled and disarmed.

Shooter B, who has spent 100 hours practicing changing 10 round magazines under duress, chooses a location where he has plenty of space to trade for reloading time and kills 30 people then shoots himself when the armed first responders arrive.

/thread.

Still waiting for an answer to whether police must adhere to the 10 round magazine requirement.

Was there some part of stopped at first reload you didn't understand? I do like the jamming though. Doesn't play well with the idea that anyone can quickly and easily make a hi cap magazine that works flawlessly though.

Off duty police do. On duty police would require more research. I would think they would not as apprehending probably uses more rounds than defending.

 

[Missourian]

You make less sense with each post. You've seen the examples of people stopping the shooter when he reloads. So based on that which shooter shoots more people?:
Shooter A has a 20 round magazine and is stopped at first reload.
Shooter B has a 6 round magazine and is stopped at first reload.

Limiting magazine capacity would save lives.

Shooter A has a 20 round magazine that jams on round 3, because his Glock was designed for a 15 round magazine.

While he is confused and distracted, attempting to clear the jam, he is tackled and disarmed.

Shooter B, who has spent 100 hours practicing changing 10 round magazines under duress, chooses a location where he has plenty of space to trade for reloading time and kills 30 people then shoots himself when the armed first responders arrive.

/thread.

Still waiting for an answer to whether police must adhere to the 10 round magazine requirement.

Was there some part of stopped at first reload you didn't understand? I do like the jamming though. Doesn't play well with the idea that anyone can quickly and easily make a hi cap magazine that works flawlessly though.

Off duty police do. On duty police would require more research. I would think they would not as apprehending probably uses more rounds than defending.

You pulled that directly out of your ass.

If there is a situation where a police officer would need 15 rounds, there is a situation where a civilian could need 15 rounds.

This is the third failure of your premise.

Three strikes, it's out.

I'm sure you will continue to defend it, but it's DOA.

Nice civil debate though, appreciate that.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Your the one who was saying they are easy to make. Now you seem to be saying that there is some difficulty in making them? But you wouldn't prefer the guying shooting at you to be using a homemade magazine?

A 30-round RIFLE magazine is not "large", it's standard. A 30-round PISTOL magazine IS large! Do you or do you not know the difference between a handgun and an AR-15? God and goddess, THINK! I promise it won't hurt!

Ok so you repeated yourself 3 times how easy it was to make magazines. Then you admitted well you couldn't actually do it. And your telling me to think?

So now your saying that it's easy to make a 30 round rifle magazine, but not easy to make a 30 round pistol magazine? And your saying that the magazine works differently when used with a rifle than with a pistol? Really? I think you need to think before you post.

Now you're just trolling.

I give up. I am sick of reading a five-cent mind's five-dollar words.

 

[Jarlaxle]

The size of a magazine is irrelevant.

It's a red herring you control freaks like to fixate on; a feel good measure at best.

Anyone can fire 30 rounds with three ten round magazines almost as fast as with one 30 round magazine.

Only if you ignore the examples of shooters being stopped while they reload and physics. But I don't see why any intelligent person would do that.

With a little practice it only takes about 2 seconds to change a magazine.

Tape two together and it takes even less time.

Like I said red herring feel good control freak fixations.

Last semiauto I used was my grandmother's 1911. I haven't practiced much, and I can do a mag swap in ONE SECOND!

 

[Smilebong]

Only if you ignore the examples of shooters being stopped while they reload and physics. But I don't see why any intelligent person would do that.

With a little practice it only takes about 2 seconds to change a magazine.

Tape two together and it takes even less time.

Like I said red herring feel good control freak fixations.

Last semiauto I used was my grandmother's 1911. I haven't practiced much, and I can do a mag swap in ONE SECOND!

My friend is in the special forces and is a weapons specialist. He was at our home at Christmas and demonstrated how fast he could change one. It was almost instantaneous.

It is a red herring.

 

[Abatis]

So Brain, I hope you haven't exhausted yourself with 5 pages of completely pointless wheel-spinning because I am interested in your abilities to actually debate your gun control positions on a legal footing.

This thread was intended for your side to sell your proposals as worthwhile and explain how they are legally possible. To go on and on about what you want to do without any inspection of --if you are able to do it-- seems a bit foolish and useless to me.

So, you seem to believe that an "assault weapons ban" should be reinstated (and even expanded no doubt). Now is the time to explain how this can be done in conformance to the Constitution and recognizing / respecting the protection sphere that SCOTUS has established.


And this is not exclusive to Brain; any of the resident gun control advocates should feel free to rebut / explain the legal legitimacy of what you want to do . . .


What follows is my post #342 that you "missed":

-------------------------------

Why is it you think those arms are so protected, . . .

Because they meet ALL the protection criteria by which SCOTUS decides whether government is held impotent to dictate to the law-abiding citizen regarding their possession and use.

Those criteria are whether the arm is of the type that constitute the ordinary military equipment and can be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizen and whether the arm is of a type in common use by the citizens.

Only after failing ALL those tests can the arm be deemed "dangerous and unusual" and the government would be allowed to argue that a power should be recognized /afforded to it to allow it to restrict the civilian possession and use of that type of arm.

This means that the government can only regulate the people's keeping and bearing of arms that are not in common use, not of a type that is part of the ordinary military equipment and of a type that would be useless in the common defense of the citizen.

yet others are illegal?

No guns are 'illegal", there are some types that have been deemed to be "dangerous and unusual" by Congress who has claimed the power (through the tax code) to restrict the possession and use of those types of arms by civilians, without the application of the above criteria.

Note that none of those restrictions have been reviewed using a post Heller understanding or the right to arms nor with any recognition of McDonald's affirmation of the right to arms being a fundamental right (thus demanding the application of strict scrutiny to laws challenged as violative of the right).

Can you buy a brand new automatic rifle? Nope.

Heller applied the criteria "in common use" as a final filter, noting that while full auto's are obviously part of the ordinary military equipment (and thus protected under the 2nd), the law restricting them for over 70 years (NFA-34) has effectively made them currently, not in common use. Heller doesn't endorse or affirm the constitutionality of NFA-34's treatment of full auto's and makes a point of noting that the NFA-34 restrictions on full-auto's was not under examination in Miller . . .

So I see no reason why you can buy a hi cap semi-auto. Both can kill lots of people really fast.

You are advancing an emotional construct not a legal one.

Your unfamiliarity with the law is the only reason why you, "see no reason why".

"In common use" has been advanced as the final filter for the protection criteria and in Heller, for deciding the constitutionality of DC's handgun ban, held it to be stand alone.

The fact that semi-auto military look-alike rifles are "in common use" and of the type that constitutes the ordinary military equipment and of a type that could be employed advantageously in the common defense of the citizen, the argument that any law restricting the possession and use by citizens would be constitutional, is relegated to the status of wishful thinking.