The Gun Control Debate.......Anybody else seeing this trend?

[scfire86]

You just prefer to not answer questions that disprove your anti-gun speaking points. Nice diversion with your "oh so superior attitude" that once again proves your true agenda.

I answered it perfectly. Feel free to reread it.

[scfire86]

Good luck finding a military issued 20 rounder today. They were fairly quickly, by military standards anyways, superceded with 30 round magazines.

Not the point. Though I'm sure you knew that.

Of course they will function with a 5 or 10 round magazine. ever wonder why the police or military don't carry 5 or 10 round magazines any longer? That is one of the very same reasons why law abiding gun owners should be able to have a 30 round magazine.

According to you and several others the magazine size makes no difference since it takes such a short time to change them. By your own standards there should be no opposition to a smaller magazine.

Try again, you aren't fairing too well here either.

[SPFDRum]

This has already been discussed on the thread regarding the Sandy Hook shooting. Feel free to reread it.

READ: I haven't a clue or a single shred of evidence any former "assault" weapons ban, or any proof that a high capacity magazine restriction has proved effective. Nor can I use the argument that conceal/carry laws have not proven anything but to be effective. Bummer.

[FyredUp]

Not the point. Though I'm sure you knew that.

Absolutely the point.


According to you and several others the magazine size makes no difference since it takes such a short time to change them. By your own standards there should be no opposition to a smaller magazine.

Once again, please explain to me how you expect that restricting LAW ABIDING citizens will prevent criminals and the mentally ill from breaking the law. You have yet to answer that question. Your method is like punishing the surviving chickens after a fox gets in the coop and kills several of them. They are not guilty of anything but surviving, yet they would suffer for wanting to be able to protect themselves against future attacks.



The smile of an idiot is still a smile...

Once again you have no real world solutions that will actually do anything except push an anti-gun agenda.

[BSFD9302]

Agreed. However, the SCOTUS had determined it is not an absolute. One isn't allowed to own RPG's or live artillery shells.

The ban actually referred to explosive rounds of ammunition. I must say I agree with that one. But others may not which is absolutely fine. But I do know people that have grenades.

SC I haven't actually understood your position. Do you believe in a total ban on firearms? Truly I am not trying to be sarcastic. I am just trying to understand your position.

And anyone else, what is your position?

(Given that convicted felons and proven mentally ill people should not own firearms)

**Edited for spelling and punctuation**

[FireMedic049]

Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
I absolutely agree that shouldn't be the course of action and I don't believe it is what's being discussed.

The fact is this is a multifaceted problem which will require a multifaceted approach to achieve any sort of "success". "Fixing" the shortcomings of our criminal justice system has to be a priority. "Fixing" the mental health system has to be a priority. While doing both of these things will probably provide positive results, the job would be incomplete and we can do better.

There's one part of the equation that has to be addressed also and that is the access to the weapons used in these tragic incidents. While a ban would in all likelihood not be able to guarantee there are no more of these incidents, I don't believe that it would be entirely fruitless either.

The problem with your thought process here is there are MILLIONS of these erroneously name assault rifles in the hands of private citizens. To go along with those rifles are double or maybe even triple digit millions of the standard capacity 30 round magazines for those rifles out there already. The good part is those are the LEGALLY owned by law abiding citizens firearms and magazines.

There really isn't a problem with my thinking. I realize that the stuff already out there will for the most part, stay out there. However, we can address whether or not it's a good idea to put even more out there.

It's been reported that there was a significant spike in sales of the weapons that could be on that "ban list" in the wake of Sandy Hook. It wasn't the first time this happened. If a ban had already been in place, then that spike in sales of those specific weapons would not have taken place as it did.

That is a ridiculous premise. Of course if they were already banned the sales of them wouldn't go up. More essential is the fact that there is no logical reason to ban them in the first place. Law abiding citizens didn't use them to break laws and the criminals don't buy them at gun stores anyways.

How can that possibly be even remotely ridiculous? Your acknowledgement that a ban would have prevented the sale of additional firearms in this category proves that a ban would be productive in preventing more of these weapons from hitting the streets.

There most definitely are logical reasons to ban these types of weapons from private ownership. Hunting and self-defense are probably the two main reasons for gun ownership and these types of weapons are simply not essential to those purposes. We can disagree on this, but this is certainly more logical than the "because I want one" argument.

Where do you think the guns that criminals obtain illegally come from? They may not be walking into the local gun shop and making a purchase, but the weapon ultimately comes from the same source - the manufacturer. If a product doesn't generate sufficient sales, then a company will stop producing that product because they aren't making any money on it. If a ban on AR-15s (just for arguments sake) is instituted, then sales of that weapon would be greatly reduced. If sales are reduced, then its manufacturer would likely reduce production of them proportionally if not stop altogether.

Less guns produced ultimately results in less guns available to the black market and other illegal sources.

What constitutes a "law abiding citizen"? Are you talking about all laws or just gun laws? Wouldn't a "first time offender" have been considered a "law abiding citizen" prior to that point?

If a ban were to be put in place for weapons like the AR-15 and high capacity magazines, then it would reasonably follow that gun dealers would no longer be selling them to the public (at least legally). If the gun dealers aren't selling the product, then the manufacturers would stop production of the product.

Okay let's look at some terminology, a 30 round magazine is a standard size magazine for those rifles, it is not a high capacity magazine. Secondly, the gun manufacturers will find a market and if not to police and military here they will sell them abroad if need be. Unless you are advocating bankrupting American companies for no logical reason.

How about we not get hung up on semantics? The correct terms may not be being used by people not familiar with the correct industry terminology for them, but let's not pretend that we don't know what's being discussed. "High capacity" may mean > 30 rounds within the industry, but it's pretty clear that we're discussing limiting capacity well below 30. The civilian M-16 variants may not be "assault" weapons per industry standard, but let's not pretend that we don't know they are what is being talked about regarding "assault weapon" bans.

The fact that a manufacturer might find a market for their product overseas is not a logical reason to not take action in our country when it's quite clear that there's a problem here.

I'm not advocating putting any company out of business.

The more of these weapons that we put on the streets, the more we increase the ability for them to fall into the wrong hands thru black market sales and straw purchases.

The truth is the black market deals in ILLEGAL frearms. Either smuggled into the country, or stolen, but not legally purchased firearms. It is virtually impossible to stop straw purchases.

So we shouldn't do anything to attempt to reduce them?

Will it make a huge difference? I don't know for sure, but it has to be part of any serious discussion.

Why? Your plan does nothing to address the issues of criminals not following the law and inadequate punishment and the massive failure of the mental health care system in this country.

You are correct that "gun control" measures will not address those three areas and that is why I clearly stated that we need a multifaceted approach to the problem. Focusing efforts in only one area will not produce the needed results.

The issue of "access" has to be part of the discussion because it's part of the overall problem. If criminals and crazy people didn't have access to firearms, then we wouldn't need to discuss it and they do obtain them thru legal channels. A straw purchase is essentially a legal purchase during the initial purchase process and then becomes illegal once the firearm changes hands. That's how the guy up in NY that shot those firefighters got those weapons.

The assumption that limiting law abiding citizens the legal right to own a specific firearm will stop gun crime is simply delusional.

This statement is an example of the complexity of this issue. The statement appears to assumes that those advocating for "gun control" measures assume that the measures will stop gun crime (as in ALL gun crime). I agree, that assumption would be delusional, just like thinking the government is going to come collect all your guns. I don't expect all gun crime to stop and I don't believe most people are that naive to think it would, but I do think we can at least make reductions.

[scfire86]

Once again, please explain to me how you expect that restricting LAW ABIDING citizens will prevent criminals and the mentally ill from breaking the law. You have yet to answer that question. Your method is like punishing the surviving chickens after a fox gets in the coop and kills several of them. They are not guilty of anything but surviving, yet they would suffer for wanting to be able to protect themselves against future attacks.

I stated my reasons several time for wanting a limit on magazine capacity. You've stated repeatedly it doesn't matter since changing magazines is an easy task to master and can be done quickly.

If that is the case, why does the military and law enforcement all use 30 round magazines?

[FireMedic049]

Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
Are you referring specifically to mass shooting events?
Yes, as that is gist of the post I was responding too.

If I'm following you correctly, the breaking of laws in the shooter's preparation for a mass shooting event was addressed in my post and should be part of the overall discussion on "gun control". As I stated, anybody in the chain of events that facilitated the illegal possession of a firearm should be strongly prosecuted and punished with real consequences that hopefully would discourage others from doing the same in the future. The mere fact that some may resort to illegal routes to obtain the needed weapons really isn't a reason to not impose sensible regulations that could at least make it more difficult to get those weapons and possibly deter other people's efforts.

I'm not sure what you mean by an assault rifle ban being an "uneducated reaction". Are you referring to not knowing the technical definition of what an "assault rifle" is? Are you referring to the "non-epidemic"? Something else?

The technical definition. The media and politicians have bastardized it to to the point that any semi-automatic firearm is suspect. How can you have an honest discussion of the facts when an the media, politicians, and the anti-gun crowd won't even use the proper terminology? We both know its for one reason and one reason only, fear mongering.

Why can't you have that discussion if "semantics" is the hang up? Industry definition may say the XYZ-3000 isn't an "assault weapon", but if the opposition is specifically identifying the XYZ-3000 when talking about "assault weapons", then it's pretty clear that the discussion should be about the XYZ-3000 and not whether it technically is or isn't an "assault weapon".

I agree that any discussion has to include all relevant information and statistics. If emotion and grandstanding are to not be part of the discussion, then I think the issue of "gun control" has to be considered on it's own merits. This would include understanding that the 2nd Amendment doesn't provide the right to own any specific type of firearm and not trying to compare the number of gun deaths to deaths by any other cause in order to insinuate that gun violence isn't that big of a deal (comparatively).
The 2nd also does not deny me the right to own certain firearms. Even fully automatic ones if I care to go through all the steps to own one. But when the anti-gun crowd starts to throw in tanks, grenade launchers, nukes, how can you even have an intelligent discussion on "gun control" or the 2nd Amendment? Is that any different than when the "pro-gun" crowd starts talking about banning hammers, baseball bats, kitchen knives, etc.?

I didn't say gun violence isn't a big deal, those are your words. I stated that the media is blowing violence out of proportion to the actual numbers. I believe that the money and energy spent trying to reenact a failed "assault weapons" ban when your are statistically more apt to get struck by lightning, while completely ignoring the laws already broken and our failed mental health system, especially as it pertains to background checks is, absolutely asinine.

I agree neglecting these other areas would be asinine and that is why I stated that those areas need addressed as well and a multifaceted approach is needed.

This would also include answering tough questions like, is it appropriate for a civilian to own and possess military style weapons even if they aren't being used for mass shootings in epidemic proportion? Does a civilian have a legitimate need for high capacity magazines?
Military style? I can take a Fod Pinto and buy enough plastic and make it look like a Porsch, I can take a Ruger 10-22, buy enough plastic and make it look like an M-4, but honestly, have I changed the basic performance of either one?

I was referring more to function than form. Yes, you could dress up a Pinto and pass it off as a Porsche on looks alone and have no where near the performance. However, it's also possible to take that Porsche, change some bodywork and components and still have a high-performance vehicle even though the top speed is now 150mph vs 200mph. M-16 vs AR-15.

As far as high capacity magazines, they have proven to be a non-factor statistically, but emotionally they have taken on a life of their own. Again, what is the anti-gun crowd basing their argument on, the emotion.
Legitimate need for high capacity magazines, why not? It's Legal and the law abiding gun enthusiast isn't using them for illegitimate purposes.

Yes, they may be legal now and the law abiding gun owner isn't using them improperly, but the fact remains that magazine capacity is essentially an arbitrary thing. A smaller magazine capacity doesn't alter the function of the weapon, only the number of rounds fired before needing to reload. The argument for smaller capacity magazines is pretty reasonable IMO - more frequent reloading in these incidents could provide the opportunity for a person under fire to escape rather than be shot, for the shooter to be overcome by bystanders or the possibility for less casualties before the PD arrives. The only argument I'm seeing for the larger capacity magazines is essentially the "just because" argument.

Take the emotion and the media spin out of the equation; we have tried bans, we have tried gun exclusion zones, we have put cute little signs up that say these premises ban guns, all have failed. Yet states with conceal carry laws have seen a dramatic drop in violent crime including gun crime, yet any of that fails to be mentioned. Honest debate, I'm still waiting.

I'm waiting for it too, but the obstacle to it is not just the "anti-gun" crowd.

[FyredUp]

I stated my reasons several time for wanting a limit on magazine capacity. You've stated repeatedly it doesn't matter since changing magazines is an easy task to master and can be done quickly.

If that is the case, why does the military and law enforcement all use 30 round magazines?

You can't be serious with this question. Even you can't possibly be that blatantly stupid.

The military uses 30 round OR GREATER magazines simply because as any fool with any understanding of combat knows that when faced with multiple combatants coming at you, all with rifles with magazines of 20 rounds or greater, you simply do not have the time to reload before you will be overtaken.

If the premise of your question had any merit at all the US would still be using 8 shot M1 Garand semi-automatic rifles, the British and the Germans would still be using 5 shot bolt action rifles aganst adversaries with fully automatic capable assault rifles. None of them do because they know they would be hopelessly outgunned. Kind of like ranchers in Texas and Arizona would be against drug and gun running criminals operating across the border every day with 5 and 10 round magazines.

[scfire86]

The military uses 30 round OR GREATER magazines simply because as any fool with any understanding of combat knows that when faced with multiple combatants coming at you, all with rifles with magazines of 20 rounds or greater, you simply do not have the time to reload before you will be overtaken.

If the premise of your question had any merit at all the US would still be using 8 shot M1 Garand semi-automatic rifles, the British and the Germans would still be using 5 shot bolt action rifles aganst adversaries with fully automatic capable assault rifles. None of them do because they know they would be hopelessly outgunned. Kind of like ranchers in Texas and Arizona would be against drug and gun running criminals operating across the border every day with 5 and 10 round magazines.

So let me get this straight. You believe that soldiers not having to change out their magazines as often as if they were only 10 round limits is a good thing, but.....a gunman shooting up a school or theater with a 10 round magazine is not relevant because of the speed with which one can change magazines with proper training and muscle memory techniques?

Which is it? Does a magazine limit matter or not?

[SPFDRum]

Why can't you have that discussion if "semantics" is the hang up? Industry definition may say the XYZ-3000 isn't an "assault weapon", but if the opposition is specifically identifying the XYZ-3000 when talking about "assault weapons", then it's pretty clear that the discussion should be about the XYZ-3000 and not whether it technically is or isn't an "assault weapon".
Because an "assault" weapon has a FULLY automatic ability. Not a single one of these shotting has been by a firearm with that capability. If you are going to make a law banning something, shouldn't that something be relevant?
I agree neglecting these other areas would be asinine and that is why I stated that those areas need addressed as well and a multifaceted approach is needed.

I was referring more to function than form. Yes, you could dress up a Pinto and pass it off as a Porsche on looks alone and have no where near the performance. However, it's also possible to take that Porsche, change some bodywork and components and still have a high-performance vehicle even though the top speed is now 150mph vs 200mph. M-16 vs AR-15.
They anti-gun crowd and politicians are not worried about performance, that is obvious in the fact they fail to call firearms in their proper terms. Their worry is that it looks "military" style, or menacing.
Yes, they may be legal now and the law abiding gun owner isn't using them improperly, but the fact remains that magazine capacity is essentially an arbitrary thing. A smaller magazine capacity doesn't alter the function of the weapon, only the number of rounds fired before needing to reload. The argument for smaller capacity magazines is pretty reasonable IMO - more frequent reloading in these incidents could provide the opportunity for a person under fire to escape rather than be shot, for the shooter to be overcome by bystanders or the possibility for less casualties before the PD arrives. The only argument I'm seeing for the larger capacity magazines is essentially the "just because" argument.
It not "just because", look at the latest knee jerk reaction in New York. They stated 7 is the limit. How and why? What are they using for data that makes 7 a magic number. Especially when you add the fact that high capacity magazines had absolutely no affect in any of these mass shootings. All you managed to do is make every Ruger 1022 illegal, 10 round removable clip, and every rifle with a tubular magazine illegal.
If the anti-gun crowd or politicians where to truly be interested in intelligent legislation, they could have easy argued for a ban on magazines "that significantly alters appearance of the fire arm for the purpose increasing bullet capacity". Now you won't have a 100 round clip on a Ruger 1022, or or a hand gun with a clip hanging 5 inches below the handle. But nope, instead its the number 7. No intelligence, no research, no common sense, any and all of which would at least give the appearance that they are not straight up anti-gun/anti 2nd amendment.

I'm waiting for it too, but the obstacle to it is not just the "anti-gun" crowd.

No, you are right, it's not just the anti-gun crowd, its the politicians looking for publicity and the media adding hype, fear mongering and spin to sell news.
But it sure in the hell isn't the law abiding gun owner that has been cast by the above as a villain. As soon as you get tired of being crapped on and you stand up for your rights or make a case against the fallacy of bans or restrictions, you are soon painted out to be a right wing wacko.
I will let you prove otherwise.

[SPFDRum]

So let me get this straight. You believe that soldiers not having to change out their magazines as often as if they were only 10 round limits is a good thing, but.....a gunman shooting up a school or theater with a 10 round magazine is not relevant because of the speed with which one can change magazines with proper training and muscle memory techniques?

Which is it? Does a magazine limit matter or not?

In one very important fact, in a military firefight, you have skilled adversaries shooting back.
In a school or the other "gun free" zones, you have zero opposition.

[FyredUp]

Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049


There really isn't a problem with my thinking. I realize that the stuff already out there will for the most part, stay out there. However, we can address whether or not it's a good idea to put even more out there.

YES, there is. The entire premise of your thought process is if you eliinate law abiding citizens rights to own a particular type of weapon then crimes with that weapon will decline or cease. What you fail to realize is that the majority of crimes with those weapons are not committed by normal, sane, law abiding citizens, but by the mentally ill (Colorado theater shooting, Sandy Hook, and some might say Columbine), and criminals like the shooter in Webster New York who had been released after 17 years for murdering his grandmother with a hammer.

How can that possibly be even remotely ridiculous? Your acknowledgement that a ban would have prevented the sale of additional firearms in this category proves that a ban would be productive in preventing more of these weapons from hitting the streets.

No, all it does is restrict the LEGALLY OWNED amount of those weapons on the street. It does absolutely NOTHING to stop the illegal sale and possession of firearms, whether stolen or smuggled into the country.

To be honest Obama and the anti-gun crowd have turned many Americans that were on the fence about gun ownership into gun owners. They have been the best sales people the firearms industry have ever seen by their foolish, nosensical threats of bans. All they have done is succeed in MORE of ALL TYPES of guns to be in the hands of law abiding citizens. So in a funny kind of way, gun owners owe you all a debt of gratitde for expanding the ranks of gun owners.

There most definitely are logical reasons to ban these types of weapons from private ownership. Hunting and self-defense are probably the two main reasons for gun ownership and these types of weapons are simply not essential to those purposes. We can disagree on this, but this is certainly more logical than the "because I want one" argument.

Tell that to a rancher along the mexican border confronted on his property by several heavily armed men. Or the person who owns rural forest who is confronted by drug dealers who have converted part of his land to producing marijuana. Or the single mom at home who house is the target of a mob smash and grab break in. The only answer I need for owning one is it is legal and that is enough.

Where do you think the guns that criminals obtain illegally come from? They may not be walking into the local gun shop and making a purchase, but the weapon ultimately comes from the same source - the manufacturer. If a product doesn't generate sufficient sales, then a company will stop producing that product because they aren't making any money on it. If a ban on AR-15s (just for arguments sake) is instituted, then sales of that weapon would be greatly reduced. If sales are reduced, then its manufacturer would likely reduce production of them proportionally if not stop altogether.

Actually, I would guess a good portion of them along the Mexican/Texas border right now are coming from the US's absolutely insane Fast and Furious program to supply drug cartels with weapons. Wepons that ultimately murdered US law enforcement agencies. Why hasn't the Attorney General or the President explained how giving criminals guns was supposedly a good idea? Frankly, it seems like a beautiful way to flood an area with the type of firearm you ultimately want to ban...

Less guns produced ultimately results in less guns available to the black market and other illegal sources.

It also means less guns to law abiding citizens to protect themselves with. Did you see the spike in gun murders in Chicago last year? Guess what Illinois has no concealed carry.

What constitutes a "law abiding citizen"? Are you talking about all laws or just gun laws? Wouldn't a "first time offender" have been considered a "law abiding citizen" prior to that point?

Look I don't consider speeding as any kind of disqualifier for gun ownership. Care to get serious on this topic or do you want to play silly games?


How about we not get hung up on semantics? The correct terms may not be being used by people not familiar with the correct industry terminology for them, but let's not pretend that we don't know what's being discussed. "High capacity" may mean > 30 rounds within the industry, but it's pretty clear that we're discussing limiting capacity well below 30. The civilian M-16 variants may not be "assault" weapons per industry standard, but let's not pretend that we don't know they are what is being talked about regarding "assault weapon" bans.

The problem with the anti-gun position is it is ALL about semantics. Improper terminology, made up terms like assault weapon, diverting, and never directly answering questions. Did you know that the term assault weapon was a ficticious word made up by an anti-gun group to dramatize their cause? Semantics is all YOU have because facts clearly prove the premise your side pushes is wrong.

The fact that a manufacturer might find a market for their product overseas is not a logical reason to not take action in our country when it's quite clear that there's a problem here.

There is a problem, it is called punish the criminals and treat the mentally ill. Stop blaming the innocent for the evil deeds of others.

I'm not advocating putting any company out of business.

In fact YES, you are. you have no idea how many companies make their living from selling AR-15 rifles and accessories for them. Again, you would be decimating jobs in a ridiculous wrong attempt to stop gun violence by punishing the innocent.

The more of these weapons that we put on the streets, the more we increase the ability for them to fall into the wrong hands thru black market sales and straw purchases.

Yet all your attempts will not stop criminals from getting weapons from illegal sources. More will just be smuggled in because THAT market will become so much more lucrative. Nice work, kind of like how the fed actually helped build organized crime during prohibition by creating an illegal market for them to supply with alcohol.

So we shouldn't do anything to attempt to reduce them?

Of course we should try to stop guns purchased legally to be used by others illegally. Care to tell me how you plan to do that? I'll wait, because there is NO way to stop that.


The issue of "access" has to be part of the discussion because it's part of the overall problem. If criminals and crazy people didn't have access to firearms, then we wouldn't need to discuss it and they do obtain them thru legal channels. A straw purchase is essentially a legal purchase during the initial purchase process and then becomes illegal once the firearm changes hands. That's how the guy up in NY that shot those firefighters got those weapons.

Believe me I am far more educated on gun law than you are and I am fully aware of what a straw purchase is. So show me a plan how you will stop straw purchases...


This statement is an example of the complexity of this issue. The statement appears to assumes that those advocating for "gun control" measures assume that the measures will stop gun crime (as in ALL gun crime). I agree, that assumption would be delusional, just like thinking the government is going to come collect all your guns. I don't expect all gun crime to stop and I don't believe most people are that naive to think it would, but I do think we can at least make reductions.

Not through knee jerk, emotionally driven and politically motivated clap trap legislation or executive action that fails ONCE AGAIN to adress the true issue, criminals don't follow laws and the mentally ill need help. Until we stop jagging around and actually get to the root proble nothing will change dramatically.

[FyredUp]

So let me get this straight. You believe that soldiers not having to change out their magazines as often as if they were only 10 round limits is a good thing, but.....a gunman shooting up a school or theater with a 10 round magazine is not relevant because of the speed with which one can change magazines with proper training and muscle memory techniques?

Which is it? Does a magazine limit matter or not?

Ask one of the shooters from Columbine, well if you could since he ended the killing spree by committing suicide. He reloaded at least 10 times with 10 round magazines and no one attempted to jump him to stop him...

Further, in a military situation you are often faced with multiple hostile combatants trying to SHOOT you. They are not going to run up jump on you tag you and say you are it. They are trying to KILL you back.

[FireMedic049]

Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
Why can't you have that discussion if "semantics" is the hang up? Industry definition may say the XYZ-3000 isn't an "assault weapon", but if the opposition is specifically identifying the XYZ-3000 when talking about "assault weapons", then it's pretty clear that the discussion should be about the XYZ-3000 and not whether it technically is or isn't an "assault weapon".
Because an "assault" weapon has a FULLY automatic ability. Not a single one of these shotting has been by a firearm with that capability. If you are going to make a law banning something, shouldn't that something be relevant?

See, this is exactly why we can't have that serious discussion that you are looking for. You're hung up on a technical definition rather than engaging in discussing the actual issue. The issue has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the weapon has a "FULLY automatic" mode of operation. The issue is about firearms whose design and function is pretty much for the sole purpose of killing other people in a rapid fashion.

I agree neglecting these other areas would be asinine and that is why I stated that those areas need addressed as well and a multifaceted approach is needed.

I was referring more to function than form. Yes, you could dress up a Pinto and pass it off as a Porsche on looks alone and have no where near the performance. However, it's also possible to take that Porsche, change some bodywork and components and still have a high-performance vehicle even though the top speed is now 150mph vs 200mph. M-16 vs AR-15.

They anti-gun crowd and politicians are not worried about performance, that is obvious in the fact they fail to call firearms in their proper terms. Their worry is that it looks "military" style, or menacing.

That a BS argument and you know it.

Yes, they may be legal now and the law abiding gun owner isn't using them improperly, but the fact remains that magazine capacity is essentially an arbitrary thing. A smaller magazine capacity doesn't alter the function of the weapon, only the number of rounds fired before needing to reload. The argument for smaller capacity magazines is pretty reasonable IMO - more frequent reloading in these incidents could provide the opportunity for a person under fire to escape rather than be shot, for the shooter to be overcome by bystanders or the possibility for less casualties before the PD arrives. The only argument I'm seeing for the larger capacity magazines is essentially the "just because" argument.

If the anti-gun crowd or politicians where to truly be interested in intelligent legislation, they could have easy argued for a ban on magazines "that significantly alters appearance of the fire arm for the purpose increasing bullet capacity". Now you won't have a 100 round clip on a Ruger 1022, or or a hand gun with a clip hanging 5 inches below the handle. But nope, instead its the number 7. No intelligence, no research, no common sense, any and all of which would at least give the appearance that they are not straight up anti-gun/anti 2nd amendment.It not "just because", look at the latest knee jerk reaction in New York. They stated 7 is the limit. How and why? What are they using for data that makes 7 a magic number. Especially when you add the fact that high capacity magazines had absolutely no affect in any of these mass shootings. All you managed to do is make every Ruger 1022 illegal, 10 round removable clip, and every rifle with a tubular magazine illegal.

You are right, I'm sure that 7 is an arbitrary number. You don't like it, that's fine, but what data are you using to dispute the selection of that number? What number do you think it should be and what data do you have to support that?

Since you are big on using the correct terminology, then I assume you mean a magazine with greater than 30 rounds in it when you say "high capacity". As such, you may be correct that they weren't used in any of these shootings, but magazines with a capacity greater than 7 were used. Again, the terminology may be being misused, but the message on magazine size is pretty clear.

I'm waiting for it too, but the obstacle to it is not just the "anti-gun" crowd.

No, you are right, it's not just the anti-gun crowd, its the politicians looking for publicity and the media adding hype, fear mongering and spin to sell news.
But it sure in the hell isn't the law abiding gun owner that has been cast by the above as a villain.

I can certainly acknowledge that there is hype and fear mongering and spin going on, but again it isn't one sided.

As soon as you get tired of being crapped on and you stand up for your rights or make a case against the fallacy of bans or restrictions, you are soon painted out to be a right wing wacko.
I will let you prove otherwise.

While I don't dispute this, it's not a one-way street.

[FireMedic049]

In one very important fact, in a military firefight, you have skilled adversaries shooting back.
In a school or the other "gun free" zones, you have zero opposition.

Right, so if you aren't or won't likely be engaged in a military firefight, which pretty much encompasses civilian ownership and use, then what's the justification for magazines with more than a nominal number of rounds?

[scfire86]

In one very important fact, in a military firefight, you have skilled adversaries shooting back.
In a school or the other "gun free" zones, you have zero opposition.

Ask one of the shooters from Columbine, well if you could since he ended the killing spree by committing suicide. He reloaded at least 10 times with 10 round magazines and no one attempted to jump him to stop him...

Further, in a military situation you are often faced with multiple hostile combatants trying to SHOOT you. They are not going to run up jump on you tag you and say you are it. They are trying to KILL you back.

According to both of you, magazine capacity is not an issue to the one doing the shooting because magazine changing takes less than a second with practice and defined muscle memory.

Yet both of you now state it is important for soldiers or LEO's in a firefight with individuals possessing larger capacity magazines.

Both of you have put yourself in a corner based upon your own writings.

Either magazine capacity doesn't matter because of the ability to change out rapidly or those seconds count in not having to change out with a larger capacity. Which is it? I can't answer why no one jumped one of the Columbine shooters. I do know that rushing a shooter has occurred in several other instances and we don't know how many potential victims were able to run away while they were changing magazines. Since that is your standard, do you believe military personnel are better or less trained than the Columbine shooters?

If a gunman mowing down theater goers or school children has to change out every 10 rounds instead of every 30, that is an advantage to potential victims to take some type of defensive action or try to run away.

I appreciate you walking right into that one.

To paraphrase my favorite line from the 2012 Presidential debates:

"Please proceed gentlemen."

[FireMedic049]

Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049
There really isn't a problem with my thinking. I realize that the stuff already out there will for the most part, stay out there. However, we can address whether or not it's a good idea to put even more out there.

YES, there is. The entire premise of your thought process is if you eliinate law abiding citizens rights to own a particular type of weapon then crimes with that weapon will decline or cease. What you fail to realize is that the majority of crimes with those weapons are not committed by normal, sane, law abiding citizens, but by the mentally ill (Colorado theater shooting, Sandy Hook, and some might say Columbine), and criminals like the shooter in Webster New York who had been released after 17 years for murdering his grandmother with a hammer.

I fully realize that "normal" citizens aren't committing these crimes. Let's be clear though, we aren't talking about eliminating anybody's rights to own a particular gun because they don't have that right now. They only have the right to own firearms in general.

How can that possibly be even remotely ridiculous? Your acknowledgement that a ban would have prevented the sale of additional firearms in this category proves that a ban would be productive in preventing more of these weapons from hitting the streets.

No, all it does is restrict the LEGALLY OWNED amount of those weapons on the street. It does absolutely NOTHING to stop the illegal sale and possession of firearms, whether stolen or smuggled into the country.

Yes, it won't stop ALL illegal sales and possession of firearms, but it wouldn't be intended to.

To be honest Obama and the anti-gun crowd have turned many Americans that were on the fence about gun ownership into gun owners. They have been the best sales people the firearms industry have ever seen by their foolish, nosensical threats of bans. All they have done is succeed in MORE of ALL TYPES of guns to be in the hands of law abiding citizens. So in a funny kind of way, gun owners owe you all a debt of gratitde for expanding the ranks of gun owners.

You shouldn't discount the efforts of the gun crowd on the increase in ownership. They did a pretty good job of working people up into a frenzy over a threat that really wasn't there on the level they asserted.

There most definitely are logical reasons to ban these types of weapons from private ownership. Hunting and self-defense are probably the two main reasons for gun ownership and these types of weapons are simply not essential to those purposes. We can disagree on this, but this is certainly more logical than the "because I want one" argument.

Tell that to a rancher along the mexican border confronted on his property by several heavily armed men. Or the person who owns rural forest who is confronted by drug dealers who have converted part of his land to producing marijuana. Or the single mom at home who house is the target of a mob smash and grab break in. The only answer I need for owning one is it is legal and that is enough.

That may be good enough for you, but there's a good chance it won't get you very far in the discussion that is trying to take place.

Where do you think the guns that criminals obtain illegally come from? They may not be walking into the local gun shop and making a purchase, but the weapon ultimately comes from the same source - the manufacturer. If a product doesn't generate sufficient sales, then a company will stop producing that product because they aren't making any money on it. If a ban on AR-15s (just for arguments sake) is instituted, then sales of that weapon would be greatly reduced. If sales are reduced, then its manufacturer would likely reduce production of them proportionally if not stop altogether.

Actually, I would guess a good portion of them along the Mexican/Texas border right now are coming from the US's absolutely insane Fast and Furious program to supply drug cartels with weapons. Wepons that ultimately murdered US law enforcement agencies. Why hasn't the Attorney General or the President explained how giving criminals guns was supposedly a good idea? Frankly, it seems like a beautiful way to flood an area with the type of firearm you ultimately want to ban...

I can't offer an explanation regarding what happened with that, but it isn't really relevant to the point. Regardless of who physically puts the weapons in the hands of the gun runners and criminals, they all originally came from a manufacturer. If the weapon isn't manufactured, then it can't be sold illegally.

Less guns produced ultimately results in less guns available to the black market and other illegal sources.

It also means less guns to law abiding citizens to protect themselves with. Did you see the spike in gun murders in Chicago last year? Guess what Illinois has no concealed carry.

No, not necessarily. We aren't talking about stopping access to all guns, just specific ones.

What constitutes a "law abiding citizen"? Are you talking about all laws or just gun laws? Wouldn't a "first time offender" have been considered a "law abiding citizen" prior to that point?

Look I don't consider speeding as any kind of disqualifier for gun ownership. Care to get serious on this topic or do you want to play silly games?

Who's playing games?

How about we not get hung up on semantics? The correct terms may not be being used by people not familiar with the correct industry terminology for them, but let's not pretend that we don't know what's being discussed. "High capacity" may mean > 30 rounds within the industry, but it's pretty clear that we're discussing limiting capacity well below 30. The civilian M-16 variants may not be "assault" weapons per industry standard, but let's not pretend that we don't know they are what is being talked about regarding "assault weapon" bans.

The problem with the anti-gun position is it is ALL about semantics. Improper terminology, made up terms like assault weapon, diverting, and never directly answering questions. Did you know that the term assault weapon was a ficticious word made up by an anti-gun group to dramatize their cause? Semantics is all YOU have because facts clearly prove the premise your side pushes is wrong.

A primary problem with the "pro-gun" position is thinking that the "anti-gun position is ALL about semantics" and being too busy talking about the 2nd Amendment to truly hear the message from the other side of the issue.

The fact that a manufacturer might find a market for their product overseas is not a logical reason to not take action in our country when it's quite clear that there's a problem here.

There is a problem, it is called punish the criminals and treat the mentally ill. Stop blaming the innocent for the evil deeds of others.

Yes, those two item have been a problem and that needs rectified, but NOBODY is blaming innocent people for the evil deeds of other people.

I'm not advocating putting any company out of business.

In fact YES, you are. you have no idea how many companies make their living from selling AR-15 rifles and accessories for them. Again, you would be decimating jobs in a ridiculous wrong attempt to stop gun violence by punishing the innocent.

The more of these weapons that we put on the streets, the more we increase the ability for them to fall into the wrong hands thru black market sales and straw purchases.

Yet all your attempts will not stop criminals from getting weapons from illegal sources. More will just be smuggled in because THAT market will become so much more lucrative. Nice work, kind of like how the fed actually helped build organized crime during prohibition by creating an illegal market for them to supply with alcohol.

So what's your solution?

So we shouldn't do anything to attempt to reduce them?

Of course we should try to stop guns purchased legally to be used by others illegally. Care to tell me how you plan to do that? I'll wait, because there is NO way to stop that.

Right, that's why the best we can do is take action that primarily serves to curb at least some of that behavior. If people can't buy a particular weapon in the first place, then they can't illegally sell it. If we seriously punish illegal gun sales, then hopefully it'll reduce them because those people would be in prison for a period of time and maybe it'll deter others from following suit.

The issue of "access" has to be part of the discussion because it's part of the overall problem. If criminals and crazy people didn't have access to firearms, then we wouldn't need to discuss it and they do obtain them thru legal channels. A straw purchase is essentially a legal purchase during the initial purchase process and then becomes illegal once the firearm changes hands. That's how the guy up in NY that shot those firefighters got those weapons.

Believe me I am far more educated on gun law than you are and I am fully aware of wht a straw purchase is. So show me a plan how you will stop straw purchases...

As I stated, we won't be able to stop them all.

This statement is an example of the complexity of this issue. The statement appears to assumes that those advocating for "gun control" measures assume that the measures will stop gun crime (as in ALL gun crime). I agree, that assumption would be delusional, just like thinking the government is going to come collect all your guns. I don't expect all gun crime to stop and I don't believe most people are that naive to think it would, but I do think we can at least make reductions.

Not through knee jerk, emotionally driven and politically motivated clap trap legislation or executive action that fails ONCE AGAIN to adress the true issue, criminals don't follow laws and the mentally ill need help. Until we stop jagging around and actually get to the root proble nothing will change dramatically.

I agree we need to stop "jagging around" on the issue, but that includes discussing access to firearms.

[FyredUp]

Okay, so you did prove you really are that stupid. At least that one thing is cleared up for certain.

According to both of you, magazine capacity is not an issue to the one doing the shooting because magazine changing takes less than a second with practice and defined muscle memory.

The point you are failing to see here is take the Columbine shooting for example, none of the intended victims were shooting back, and it seems none of them fought back when magazines were changed.

In combat the enemy is trying to KILL you whule you are trying to kill them. They are not fleeing or hiding. So they ability to put a ton of bullets down range rapidly, while your fellow soldier are doing the same is a definite advantage.

Yet both of you now state it is important for soldiers or LEO's in a firefight with individuals possessing larger capacity magazines.

See above and frankly stop playing dumb. Or perhaps since we are talking about firearms you aren't playing.

Most police departments went from 6 shot revolvers to semi automatic pistols with 7 to 15 round magazines because they were being outgunned by the bad guys. Capacity matters when you are being shot at.


Both of you have put yourself in a corner based upon your own writings.

Nope, at much as you wish it to be true your analogy is fataly flawed because the circumstances have absolutely nothing in common. Nice try, but no points will be awarded.

Either magazine capacity doesn't matter because of the ability to change out rapidly or those seconds count in not having to change out with a larger capacity. Which is it? It matters more when you are being shot at than when you are shooting defenseless unarmed civilians caught in a gun free zone that the criminal or mentally ill person ignored. I can't answer why no one jumped one of the Columbine shooters. I do know that rushing a shooter has occurred in several other instances and we don't know how many potential victims were able to run away while they were changing magazines. You listed 2 cases, I could list at least more where they didn't. Your scenario is NOT the commonplace and you very well know that. Since that is your standard, do you believe military personnel are better or less trained than the Columbine shooters? Stupid, irrelevant, nonsensical, baiting type of question right out of the liberal anti-gun tactics book. So stupid I will not even give you the satisfaction of a serious answer. Nice try tbut this question makes you look like an a z z.

If a gunman mowing down theater goers or school children has to change out every 10 rounds instead of every 30, that is an advantage to potential victims to take some type of defensive action or try to run away.

Yet the facts are in the majority of cases once the situation is identified as a gunman firing on the crowd the overwhelming majority flee or hide. Not attack the gunman as you say. Too bad in all these mass shootings in "Gun Free Zones" no one was allowed there with a legally carried concealed weapon to stop the shooter.

I appreciate you walking right into that one.

I didn't walk into anything. You have 2 cases where people fought back. There are many more where able bodied people did not. Nice try though.

To paraphrase my favorite line from the 2012 Presidential debates:

"Please proceed gentlemen."

When all you have is irrelevant clap trap that must be the best you can do.

[Bones42]

...Do you believe in a total ban on firearms?...
And anyone else, what is your position?

....

No. Not believing in total ban on firearms.