You can easily fashion larger magazines from a couple of blanks and some springs readily available at supply shops everywhere in the country. Limiting weapons based on magazine size is honestly one of the stupidest things I've heard in years.
Shit, even if you only had ten rounds in a magazine you could still tape magazines together and quickly reload - even as an amateur - essentially giving you a twenty round magazine. Experienced shooters can easily reload a magazine in less than a second... and this includes revolvers.
It's like the people writing and supporting this bill don't really understand what guns are or how they work, they've only read Wikipedia and editorials.
I am attacking your position and argument as being silly and pointless. I'm not making personal attacks. You should read more carefully, because there's a difference.
---------- Post added 2012-12-20 at 04:46 AM ----------
Banning guns in America is ridiculous. It'll never happen; it's like locking the barn after the horse got out. I agree with better regulation and mandatory training and re-testing, but a ban of any kind?
Absolutely ludicrous.
Ok, Pizza, you've been attacking the bill quite a bit, which is certainly something you have the right to do as a citizen, but I'm curious.
What do you suggest we do to firearms/ammunition that will allow people to keep guns for hunting and defense, but help cut down the amount of people that can die quickly if/when someone snaps.
And before we go off into talking about mental health and identifying causes, I agree, but it seems like some firearm legislation is going to happen. What should the legislation say that will help curtail the mass shootings but not cause problems with people that hunt or who think they need weapons for self defense?
it reads different, it sounds different, still all you´re saying is, you could kill people with a car if you so chose
ofcourse it would be possible, ofcourse people could just build their own weapons, but that´s not a very clever argument if the topic is "don´t give semi-auto weapons to allmost everyone who says 'please'" ... the ones who want to break the law, will break the law, the ones who want to kill, will find a way to kill, but the accidents and the ready available weapons are what do the most harm... because grabing your gun seems just to obvious when sorting out an argument these days and that is "stoopid"
I suggest we do nothing, because the guns themselves aren't the problem. There are other countries where guns are pretty available to the citizens (Sweden is the most commonly cited example) where people don't suffer a psychotic break and go murder a bunch of schoolkids.
Maybe you can argue the access to guns contributes, but I wouldn't even call it a major factor in whether or not a Sandy Hook takes place.
For starters? Require mandatory training for all gun owners by a licensed instructor; since most decent gun shops already have instructors on hand anyway, this wouldn't really be an issue.And before we go off into talking about mental health and identifying causes, I agree, but it seems like some firearm legislation is going to happen. What should the legislation say that will help curtail the mass shootings but not cause problems with people that hunt or who think they need weapons for self defense?
Require gun owners to be re-tested on this training on an annual or semi-annual basis - somewhere between every six months and every two years. By the way, we need to do this with driving tests and drivers licenses, too.
I'd like to also include something about requiring gun owners to keep the gun locked in a safe whenever it's not on their person, but I'm not sure how that could be implemented in a practical way.
There are a lot of other things that need addressing to prevent another Sandy Hook from happening, but they aren't specific to gun legislation.
He pretty much just quoted Sweden's gun laws, except it is illegal to carry in Sweden unless you are a security guard and have a special dispensation or going to or from the shooting club or hunting.
I've actually stated pretty much the entire thing that you just said previously in this thread, too
I still, however, think that fully automatic weapons should be illegal unless the entity purchasing is a shooting/firing range, and the gun must remain on site at all times, and it must be possible for ATF agents to check randomly should they feel the need.
I understand quite well how guns work and understand quick loading methods. However taping magazines to each other makes them thicker and less concealable, whether you like to believe it or not and does not work with handguns quit as well. Also not going to put the fact that taping 2 magazines together will solve your first reload, but when you want more you still have to dig through your pockets to get the next two, and with the thickness depending on the pocket you may have them in, is much harder.
This isn't Call of Duty son, your ammunition in these cases would be concealed and not on hand.
As per making larger magazines, it would be illegal to make them and sell items in order to make them as Magazines would be limited. (Materials to store over X amount of bullets).
It's like the pro-gun group is writing retorts without thinking of the difference between easy or harder. You put the road blocks in and things will slow down. It would be impossible to eliminate these things entirely, but there is nothing wrong with slowing people down or limiting them. Sitting there plugging your ears and repeating "Not going to help!", is in fact not going to help. We're coming up with possible solutions and you're simply saying "No.". Feel free to provide better solutions. "Oh, stricter gun sales check for mental disabilities.", because temporary insanity, or mental break downs etc do not exist am I correct?
You're insults speak volumes about yourself and the group you are "Protecting". Try to come at it with the intent of having a discussion and valuable input rather than "It won't work so lets do nothing instead!".
One thing is for certain, my Country has stricter gun laws and we don't have nearly as many gun related deaths per-capita as the US does, and I assure it has nothing to do with the people.
@Eisaderfrau: Please try to read over what I have said entirely, rather than jumping into a mid conversation. I meant you only need guns suitable for Hunting to Hunt with and even to protect your family with. A Hunting rifle can kill and animal, it certainly can kill/wound a person in your home. Not to mention that in years to come if laws like this were in place, everyone would eventually be down to said guns. This isn't an "Instant cure" it is a "Will take time to have the proper effect.".
I do not agree with removing what is there, you may keep them, however you may not give that weapon to anyone else. If you pass on (Die) you would not be allowed to pass said guns down the generations (Minus suitable guns for Hunting.), your children would have to dispose of them in some way. (I've nothing off hand because it's purely an idea)
A gun suitable for Hunting, is still more than suitable for self defense. I'll tell you one thing for absolute certain, if you need more than 1-2 bullets to defend yourself from another gun wielding person, you've probably lost.
---------- Post added 2012-12-20 at 06:13 AM ----------
Ooo actual input thank you.
Locking a gun in a gun safe? That completely destroys any chance of defending your home, thus it will not work in the pro second amendment people's eyes..
Testing? What happens if you've not gone for your testing? Police come and search your house for your guns to make sure you do not have any? Do you go to jail and cost tax payers more money?
This isn't about Sandy Hook it's about what the Country has become.
Last edited by Goldfingaz; 2012-12-20 at 11:16 AM.
I don't want to flame you or anything, but i just wonder why so many americans see the right to bear arms and free speech as equals? I mean, a weapon is a thing, you don't need it in your daily life. ( as a non cop/army guy etc ...) But freedom of speech, you'd be living in a dictatorship without that. Personally i'd prefer to be able to say what i want instead of pulling a trigger.
I don't want to start a discussion, i'm just wondering :-)
Edit: yay, 100th post! ^^
Last edited by DeadKennedy; 2012-12-20 at 11:17 AM.
Because, for the most part, I don't find any of Sweden's laws objectionable. I disagree with their restrictions on carrying, but otherwise they're pretty decent.
It's at this point I understand you're talking out of your ass, so I'm not going to bother with the rest.
---------- Post added 2012-12-20 at 05:18 AM ----------
Because as far as the Bill of Rights is concerned, they are equals.
For many of us, guns are a hobby. Computer games are a thing, and you don't need them in your daily life, but most people that like computer games like having them as part of their daily life.
Does that make sense?
Slippery slope arguments are a perfect example of why some people are just not worth debating with...
You seem to think that everything is all or nothing. That one limit will lead to a complete ban. That losing the ability to do one thing puts all your rights in jeopardy. That is simply not the case. You are already quite limited in what you can or can't do without penalty. You have a right to free speech, but there are certain things that will get you in trouble with the law if you say them (and for good reason). You have a right to bear arms, but that doesn't mean you have a right to arm yourself with whatever you want. As far as I know, you can't legally purchase Claymore mines, stationary machine guns, or fully automatic assault rifles in order to protect your home. Does that mean that your right to defend yourself is in danger? No. Last time I read it, the 2nd Amendment did not say that anyone has a right to own, for example, any of the weapons used in the Sandy Hook school massacre.
Since the Amendment doesn't actually specify what type of arms you can bear, should that mean that anything and everything is up for grabs? Clearly the answer is NO. Limits have to exist in one form or another, so it all comes down to a reasonable interpretation. What is necessary for citizens to be reasonably well armed. Maybe you think that high capacity magazines and AR-15s are necessary for Americans to be properly armed, but I think you would be hard pressed to effectively argue that. Where do you draw the line between adequate protection/deterrent and overkill? When does the danger of having so many weapons readily available outweigh the benefit they may or may not give? When does force multiplier become redundancy?
Last edited by Adamas102; 2012-12-20 at 11:51 AM.
Well, i understand that it's a hobby, but videogames don't kill people. Same goes here, i'd give up my pc in a heartbeat if i had to choose between free speech and a pc. I guess we (Europe-America) just have a completely different mentality as it comes to guns. I'm 28 now and never held a gun in my hands. It's not that i wouldn't want to, it's just not part of our culture. That does not mean that ours is better offcourse, it's just different :-)
I don't know if claymores are allowed, but you can definitely legally own heavy machine guns and selective-fire weapons. Hell, you can even legally own working (modern) field guns and even tanks, though I believe the tanks are required to have non-functional guns.
It's mostly just a matter of money and some ridiculously thorough background checks.
Knee jerk legislation so politicians can pat each on the back and pretend they did something meaningful in response to a tragedy. Once it's passed, they will move on and people will forget about the event. Meanwhile it will happen again, likely with an assault weapon anyway because it didn't stop Columbine in 1999. It likely won't stop the next mass shooting either.
What would have likely stopped it? An armed guard on campus.
We have armed guards at banks, government buildings, airports, subway stations, even private office buildings, but we don't at schools. Is there a reason?
Hey, people have died from playing computer games, just look at South Korea
Additionally, going to the range and blasting some clay pigeons or shooting a bunch of holes in paper targets or beer cans in your back pasture isn't killing anyone, either. Hell, it's not even killing animals.
And I can comfortably say that that kind of use - shooting targets - is the primary use for guns in the US, even over hunting.
and I agree with everything Pizza just said, I am and will always be for RESPONSIBLE gun ownership. Stupid people shouldn't have guns, the mentally ill should not have guns, criminals should not have guns. But they are getting them, but the solution isn't to ban them, as is the solution to stopping drunk drivers isn't to ban cars. Guns, cars, cell phones are all tools. they themselves Do not and Can not kill someone.... but, their MISUSE can lead to someone's injury and/or death.
Sandy Hook could have been prevented, not with gun bans or gun legislation, as is the boy DID try and buy a gun, and refused the background check so the sale of the gun was denied. so the CURRENT gun laws DID work, what failed was he was mentally ill, folks knew he had issues and they didn't act fast enough or in the proper way to get him the help he needed.
--- Want any of my Constitutional rights?, ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
I come from a time and a place where I judge people by the content of their character; I don't give a damn if you are tall or short; gay or straight; Jew or Gentile; White, Black, Brown or Green; Conservative or Liberal. -- Note to mods: if you are going to infract me have the decency to post the reason, and expect to hold everyone else to the same standard.