Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Page 8 of 20 FirstFirst ... 56789101118 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 160 of 391
Like Tree156Likes

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

  1. #141
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,844

    Default

    Originally Posted by FireMedic049

    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.

    Semantical nonsense. Any gun that was offered for sale to the general public was legal to own. Show me where it defines in the 2nd Ammendment the type of firearms I can own...

    If you "FULLY REALIZE" that normal citizens (read law abiding gun owners) aren't committing these crmes, why would you take what looks like the rantings of a lunatics position to support restricting their rights? It makes no sense at all and even you know that. Punish the innocent for the deeds of the guilty. When did that little gem get written into the laws of the land?



    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.

    It is ridiculous because as you admitted above you would be restricting the rights of law abiding, innocent gun owners and in reality doing nothing but feel good nonsense.

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

    Did you reread this gem before you posted it? You would support a law restricting law abiding citizens from possessing a type of firearm and you freely admit it would essentially do NOTHING to stop the flow of illegal guns into the hands of criminals that, gosh darn it all, actually commits the crimes. So ineffect you want to disarm a segment of the society to make them easier prey for the illegal segment of society you admit you can't disarm. WOW! You are a seriously brainwashed anti-gunner.


    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.

    Woking them up into a frenzy? Really? The threat of draconian gun laws and a President essentially flipping the bird to proper procedure and saying I'll do this by executive order if I have to wasn't enough on its own? Get a grip and stop guzzling the anti-gun kool-aid. Obama spurred a massive spike in gun purchases the first time he was elected and golly he did it again with his rhetoric.


    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.

    Actually it was good enough for the Founding Fathers.


    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.

    Why can't you offer an explanation. The federal government, under the leadership of President Obama and the Attorney General operated an illegal gun smuggling ring to supply actual assault rifles to Mexican drug cartels. those weaons were in turn used to kill2 US law enforcement officers and in numerous other violent crimes and murder both in Mexico and the US. So before you preach about keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding American citizens ask why your President seems okay with giving weapons to criminals.

    Your idiotic response that it doesn't matter where they came from simply shows how out of touch and brain washed you are. You want to stop the manufacturers but have no issue at all with the federal government supplying weapons to criminals. Pathetic, absolutely pathetic.


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

    When you have people like senator feinstein and attorney general holder openly calling for elimination of private ownership of firearms it doesn't take much to see where this is all headed if they get there way. Who are you to tell me that I can't own a semi-automatic AR-15 if I want one?



    Who's playing games?

    You with the law abiding citizen question and your reciting from the anti-gun propaganda. Sorry, we don't buy the give this much and we will leave the rest alone nonsense anymore.


    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.

    Oh we hear you loud and clear. Believe me and that is why people are angry and notgoing to roll over and play dead this time. Semantics and game playing and outright deception is all the anti-gun side has ever had.


    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.

    No, but you hope to punish them by adding new restrictions to their firearms rights.

    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.

    And with that flawed logic you hope to win pro-gun people to your side. Not a chance.

    Drunk drivers kill more people in a year than guns do. I think we should restrict the driving privilieges of everyone never convicted of drunk driving. IF they are require to drive far less then there are far fewer opportunites for driving drunk. Punish the innocent while realizing we simply can't truly stop all drunk drivers so we don't intend to. Same flawed logic as your gun control scheme.


    So what's your solution?

    I have listed them before. Mandatory, non-plea bargainable sentences for gun crimes, fix the mental health care system in this country, a better background check to show criminal history AND if treated for mental illness.

    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.

    You make it sound like the majority of gun owers are illegally selling legally ourchased forearms to criminals. Let's see some statistics to support that. otherwise this is just more non-supportable anti-gun rights propaganda.






    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.

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

    Okay so again you just want to deter law abiding citizens from buying a legal to own firearm. Gotcha, clear as mud.

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

    No we don't if it means your idea of discussing that means to infringe upon my rights while openly admitting the BS you propose will do virtually nothing to prevent criminals from getting and using guns in violent crimes.



    Too bad th anti-gun propaganda machine let you down today.
    Chenzo likes this.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate


  2. #142
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Okay, so you did prove you really are that stupid. At least that one thing is cleared up for certain.

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

    You're the one claiming that magazine capacity is not an issue because they are so easily changed rapidly.

    Now it matters because you've been confronted with the incongruity of your statements.

    If what you say is true about the ability to rapidly change magazines, there is no reason why the military switched to a larger capacity. We both know why and it doesn't work with your narrative.

    Please keep name calling. It tells me you have nothing left.
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-21-2013 at 11:49 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  3. #143
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Ha ha ha.

    You're the one claiming that magazine capacity is not an issue because they are so easily changed rapidly.

    Now it matters because you've been confronted with the incongruity of your statements.

    If what you say is true about the ability to rapidly change magazines, there is no reason why the military switched to a larger capacity. We both know why and it doesn't work with your narrative.

    Please keep name calling. It tells me you have nothing left.
    I have explained this repeatedly to you. I will not apologize for your inability to comprehend simple facts.

    But go ahead keep quoting the anti-gun talking points and posting ridiculous irrelevant diversions trying to hide your ignorance of the topic.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  4. #144
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    I have explained this repeatedly to you. I will not apologize for your inability to comprehend simple facts.
    The simple facts are that you and others have been stating that limiting magazine capacity would not make a difference because magazine are easily and rapidly changed.

    Now you're backpedaling.

    Now capacity is a factor.

    Fun stuff.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  5. #145
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    Originally Posted by FireMedic049

    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.

    Semantical nonsense. Any gun that was offered for sale to the general public was legal to own. Show me where it defines in the 2nd Ammendment the type of firearms I can own...
    Exactly, it doesn't. So passing a law that says you can't buy an AR-15 is not taking any right away from you unless AR-15s are the only guns on the market.


    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.

    It is ridiculous because as you admitted above you would be restricting the rights of law abiding, innocent gun owners and in reality doing nothing but feel good nonsense.
    Right, reducing the number of guns available that could easily be used in illegal guns sales is just "feel good nonsense".

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

    Did you reread this gem before you posted it? You would support a law restricting law abiding citizens from possessing a type of firearm and you freely admit it would essentially do NOTHING to stop the flow of illegal guns into the hands of criminals that, gosh darn it all, actually commits the crimes. So ineffect you want to disarm a segment of the society to make them easier prey for the illegal segment of society you admit you can't disarm. WOW! You are a seriously brainwashed anti-gunner.
    I'm sure you'll respond to this with a rant about semantics, but I'll say it anyway. You assumed that the intent of what I stated was to stop illegal gun sales as in ALL gun sales. I'm not foolish enough to think that any illegal activity can be fully stopped. As such, the goal would not be to eliminate ALL illegal sales, but rather reduce them. I admit that I would support the restricting of ALL citizens from privately owning specific types of weapons. However, I did not say that it would "essentially do NOTHING to stop the flow of illegal guns into the hands of criminals". That was purely your assertion because I was only discussing a segment of firearms currently available. I'm simply saying that it would stop some illegal gun sales of these particular weapons. That is certainly more than just NOTHING.

    If I'm a brainwashed anti-gunner, then you've clearly been brainwashed by the gun lobby.


    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.

    Woking them up into a frenzy? Really? The threat of draconian gun laws and a President essentially flipping the bird to proper procedure and saying I'll do this by executive order if I have to wasn't enough on its own? Get a grip and stop guzzling the anti-gun kool-aid. Obama spurred a massive spike in gun purchases the first time he was elected and golly he did it again with his rhetoric.
    Obama didn't directly spur that spike in sales. It was a direct result of people in the gun crowd making people think that Obama was going to come take their guns away. He never said he was going to that and it never happened. The same thing happened leading up to re-election. He didn't run on gun control and it wasn't on the short list of priorities for the second term until Sandy Hook happened. My grip is just fine thanks and I haven't been drinking the kool-aid. As I stated, I'm in the middle on this issue.


    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.

    Actually it was good enough for the Founding Fathers.
    A lot in our world has changed since then.


    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.

    Why can't you offer an explanation. The federal government, under the leadership of President Obama and the Attorney General operated an illegal gun smuggling ring to supply actual assault rifles to Mexican drug cartels. those weaons were in turn used to kill2 US law enforcement officers and in numerous other violent crimes and murder both in Mexico and the US. So before you preach about keeping guns out of the hands of law abiding American citizens ask why your President seems okay with giving weapons to criminals.
    I can't offer an explanation for what happened because I had nothing to do with it and have no idea what they were thinking. To think I would be able to explain that mess is absurd.

    Your idiotic response that it doesn't matter where they came from simply shows how out of touch and brain washed you are. You want to stop the manufacturers but have no issue at all with the federal government supplying weapons to criminals. Pathetic, absolutely pathetic.
    No, you simply didn't understand what I said. I didn't say that it didn't matter where they came from. I said that regardless of how they were obtained, all guns originate from a manufacturer. Big difference. The gun that isn't manufactured is the gun that can't be illegally sold and used for a crime.

    Where did I even remotely indicate that I don't have a problem with the federal government supplying guns to criminals? Maybe you should put down your glass of kool-aid?

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

    When you have people like senator feinstein and attorney general holder openly calling for elimination of private ownership of firearms it doesn't take much to see where this is all headed if they get there way. Who are you to tell me that I can't own a semi-automatic AR-15 if I want one?
    Right, because every elected official that expressed an extreme view or position on an issue has never been out voted by the majority of ones that don't share that same extreme position.

    Who am I? I'm nobody to tell you that you can't own one. If your ability to own one changes, it won't because I decided it should be that way.



    Who's playing games?

    You with the law abiding citizen question and your reciting from the anti-gun propaganda. Sorry, we don't buy the give this much and we will leave the rest alone nonsense anymore.
    Wasn't playing games. Just clarifying the definition in use.


    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.

    Oh we hear you loud and clear. Believe me and that is why people are angry and notgoing to roll over and play dead this time. Semantics and game playing and outright deception is all the anti-gun side has ever had.
    If you (as in the gun crowd) truly were hearing the message loud and clear, then you wouldn't be bitching about semantics and maybe you'd actually have a response other than yelling "2nd Amendment" and "because I want one".



    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.

    No, but you hope to punish them by adding new restrictions to their firearms rights.
    So then you admit that what you stated about blame wasn't true?

    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.

    And with that flawed logic you hope to win pro-gun people to your side. Not a chance.
    Where's the flaw?

    Truthfully, I have no hope of winning over the "pro-gun" side.

    Drunk drivers kill more people in a year than guns do. I think we should restrict the driving privilieges of everyone never convicted of drunk driving. IF they are require to drive far less then there are far fewer opportunites for driving drunk. Punish the innocent while realizing we simply can't truly stop all drunk drivers so we don't intend to. Same flawed logic as your gun control scheme.
    It's really not the same thing. You are talking about actually restricting the person's ability to drive altogether rather than just restricting them from driving sports cars.

    So what's your solution?

    I have listed them before. Mandatory, non-plea bargainable sentences for gun crimes, fix the mental health care system in this country, a better background check to show criminal history AND if treated for mental illness.
    I agree with this, but I don't think that fully addresses the issue.

    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.

    You make it sound like the majority of gun owers are illegally selling legally ourchased forearms to criminals. Let's see some statistics to support that. otherwise this is just more non-supportable anti-gun rights propaganda.
    No, that's just your biased interpretation. I'm in no way saying that the majority of gun owners are doing this, but it's clearly not an infrequent thing. If you want those statistics, then go look them up for yourself.

    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.

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

    Okay so again you just want to deter law abiding citizens from buying a legal to own firearm. Gotcha, clear as mud.
    No, I'm not saying that at all, which is probably why it's clear as mud for you. I'm essentially disputing whether or not a particular firearm should be legal to be purchased and owned by a private citizen.

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

    No we don't if it means your idea of discussing that means to infringe upon my rights while openly admitting the BS you propose will do virtually nothing to prevent criminals from getting and using guns in violent crimes.
    Just because you don't like my ideas doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be discussed. Again, it's your assertion that I'm saying that.

  6. #146
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    The simple facts are that you and others have been stating that limiting magazine capacity would not make a difference because magazine are easily and rapidly changed.

    Now you're backpedaling.

    Now capacity is a factor.

    Fun stuff.
    If you would stop playing your stupid little games and go back and read what I wrote your pathetic need to try and look cool here could easily end. But let me type it for you one last time.

    The difference between the mass killings at columbine, Sandy Hook, and the Colorado theater and military troops in combat engaging the enemy is simply this, no one was shooting back at Columbine, Sandy Hook, or the Colorado theater. In combat military troops face enemy troops trying to kill them by shooting back at them. Hence magazine capacity in that case DOES matter, not only for the reason I previously mentioned but also because you may face multiple enemy troops trying to kill you. If you don't believe me ask a current military veteran how he would feel about going down to a 5 or 10 round magazine.

    Now I typed that slow for you so it might sink in this time. I know it won't though because game playing and semantics are all you have since you can't discuss this topic from any kind of fact based knowledge.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  7. #147
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Exactly, it doesn't. So passing a law that says you can't buy an AR-15 is not taking any right away from you unless AR-15s are the only guns on the market.


    Right, reducing the number of guns available that could easily be used in illegal guns sales is just "feel good nonsense".

    I'm sure you'll respond to this with a rant about semantics, but I'll say it anyway. You assumed that the intent of what I stated was to stop illegal gun sales as in ALL gun sales. I'm not foolish enough to think that any illegal activity can be fully stopped. As such, the goal would not be to eliminate ALL illegal sales, but rather reduce them. I admit that I would support the restricting of ALL citizens from privately owning specific types of weapons. However, I did not say that it would "essentially do NOTHING to stop the flow of illegal guns into the hands of criminals". That was purely your assertion because I was only discussing a segment of firearms currently available. I'm simply saying that it would stop some illegal gun sales of these particular weapons. That is certainly more than just NOTHING.

    If I'm a brainwashed anti-gunner, then you've clearly been brainwashed by the gun lobby.


    Obama didn't directly spur that spike in sales. It was a direct result of people in the gun crowd making people think that Obama was going to come take their guns away. He never said he was going to that and it never happened. The same thing happened leading up to re-election. He didn't run on gun control and it wasn't on the short list of priorities for the second term until Sandy Hook happened. My grip is just fine thanks and I haven't been drinking the kool-aid. As I stated, I'm in the middle on this issue.


    A lot in our world has changed since then.


    I can't offer an explanation for what happened because I had nothing to do with it and have no idea what they were thinking. To think I would be able to explain that mess is absurd.

    No, you simply didn't understand what I said. I didn't say that it didn't matter where they came from. I said that regardless of how they were obtained, all guns originate from a manufacturer. Big difference. The gun that isn't manufactured is the gun that can't be illegally sold and used for a crime.

    Where did I even remotely indicate that I don't have a problem with the federal government supplying guns to criminals? Maybe you should put down your glass of kool-aid?

    Right, because every elected official that expressed an extreme view or position on an issue has never been out voted by the majority of ones that don't share that same extreme position.

    Who am I? I'm nobody to tell you that you can't own one. If your ability to own one changes, it won't because I decided it should be that way.



    Wasn't playing games. Just clarifying the definition in use.


    If you (as in the gun crowd) truly were hearing the message loud and clear, then you wouldn't be bitching about semantics and maybe you'd actually have a response other than yelling "2nd Amendment" and "because I want one".



    So then you admit that what you stated about blame wasn't true?

    Where's the flaw?

    Truthfully, I have no hope of winning over the "pro-gun" side.

    It's really not the same thing. You are talking about actually restricting the person's ability to drive altogether rather than just restricting them from driving sports cars.

    I agree with this, but I don't think that fully addresses the issue.

    No, that's just your biased interpretation. I'm in no way saying that the majority of gun owners are doing this, but it's clearly not an infrequent thing. If you want those statistics, then go look them up for yourself.

    No, I'm not saying that at all, which is probably why it's clear as mud for you. I'm essentially disputing whether or not a particular firearm should be legal to be purchased and owned by a private citizen.

    Just because you don't like my ideas doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be discussed. Again, it's your assertion that I'm saying that.
    I will answer this sometime tomorrow. I am on shift tomorrow and 5 am comes damn early in Wisconsin!!
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  8. #148
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FyredUp View Post
    If you would stop playing your stupid little games and go back and read what I wrote your pathetic need to try and look cool here could easily end. But let me type it for you one last time.

    The difference between the mass killings at columbine, Sandy Hook, and the Colorado theater and military troops in combat engaging the enemy is simply this, no one was shooting back at Columbine, Sandy Hook, or the Colorado theater. In combat military troops face enemy troops trying to kill them by shooting back at them. Hence magazine capacity in that case DOES matter, not only for the reason I previously mentioned but also because you may face multiple enemy troops trying to kill you. If you don't believe me ask a current military veteran how he would feel about going down to a 5 or 10 round magazine.

    Now I typed that slow for you so it might sink in this time. I know it won't though because game playing and semantics are all you have since you can't discuss this topic from any kind of fact based knowledge.
    Regardless of your rationalizations now, you were the one claiming magazine capacity wasn't a factor due to the ability to change them quickly. None of your explanations change that.

    Your response has been personal insults.

    Please proceed.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  9. #149
    Truckie SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    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.
    Are you being funny or are you that obtuse? How can you expect to have an intelligent discussion on a subject without the proper definitions? I sure hope you aren't responsible for any official reports or EMS documentation that may get called into court. Judges and Lawyers happen to be a stickler for proper terminology. It's even more critical when you have politicians trying to pass laws on the subject. The issue is NOT the firearm, it's the individual wielding it.
    That a BS argument and you know it.

    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?
    I'm not trying to ban anything so in esence I need to data to support such an arbitrary number. But I have posted many links to evidence and statistics that prove that high capacity magazines made no difference if they where even present.
    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.
    Again, arbitrary number with no data. Funny, I posted what could be a logical rule as a starting point to discuss on magazines and it has yet to be commented on by you, bones, or SC. To me, it just shows you are not at all interested in discussing the facts, data, or statistics. Made even more poignant in the fact you don't even care to agree on what terms are acceptable
    I can certainly acknowledge that there is hype and fear mongering and spin going on, but again it isn't one sided.

    While I don't dispute this, it's not a one-way street.
    What is one sided is the simple fact you have yet to come up with any solid evidence that high capacity magazines made a difference, any type of ban has been effective, or certain firearms make people killers.
    Last edited by SPFDRum; 01-22-2013 at 10:34 AM.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  10. #150
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,844

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Regardless of your rationalizations now, you were the one claiming magazine capacity wasn't a factor due to the ability to change them quickly. None of your explanations change that.

    Your response has been personal insults.

    Please proceed.
    And if your ridiculus pathetic single minded approach to this doesn't allow you to differentiate between a scenario where a gun man, or gun men, are indiscriminately shooting unarmed civilians over a scenario where military combat troops are facing multiple enemy combatants shooting back and trying to kill them there is no hope that you are a rational person capable of logical thought.

    There is no need to proceed on this point. Once again facts beat you and you resort to childish nonsense with your fingers in your ears. Your attempts to discredit me have become weak, boring and tiresome.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

  11. #151
    Truckie SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    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."
    So you are going to take 2 completely different scenarios, military v. civilian and sew together a point on magazines?
    Frankly I'm surprised you would use such a tactic, it's well beneath you.

    Military-large capacity is a mater of life and death when you have a skilled advisory engaged. I'll add a technical point, it for the most part is for man to man killing, it's for suppressing fire for cover or movement. PS fwiw-I had 20 round magazines in my M14 while in the gulf.
    Civilian-large capacity magazines, legal, maybe cheesy, but fun. Have yet to be statistically proven to be a factor in any of the mass shootings.
    Hope this spells my thought on magazines out for you.
    Chenzo likes this.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  12. #152
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SPFDRum View Post
    So you are going to take 2 completely different scenarios, military v. civilian and sew together a point on magazines?
    Frankly I'm surprised you would use such a tactic, it's well beneath you.

    Military-large capacity is a mater of life and death when you have a skilled advisory engaged. I'll add a technical point, it for the most part is for man to man killing, it's for suppressing fire for cover or movement. PS fwiw-I had 20 round magazines in my M14 while in the gulf.
    Civilian-large capacity magazines, legal, maybe cheesy, but fun. Have yet to be statistically proven to be a factor in any of the mass shootings.
    Hope this spells my thought on magazines out for you.
    Magazine capacity is important in both scenarios for the same reason.

    Having a large capacity (I define as >10 rounds) enables the soldier to go longer in between having to change magazines when in a firefight against similarly armed opponents.

    In a mass shooting where the shooter has to change out magazines, those same seconds can be the difference between being able to rush the shooter (as has been done on at least two occasions) or run away to safety (who knows how many times).

    Those seconds count when one is in a fight for one's life.

    According to both of you, those seconds matter for a soldier, but don't matter for a potential victim.

    Either those seconds matter or they don't.

    Which is it?
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  13. #153
    Forum Member Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    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.
    The .223 round is a very popular varmint hunting round. The AR15 is a very popular varmint hunting gun.

    Furthermore, in a "free" country, I want one is more than enough of a reason. Especially when there is an amendment to the founding document of this country that says I can own one.
    "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    "Because if you don't think you're good, nobody else will." -- DC Tom Laun (ret) Syracuse

  14. #154
    Forum Member Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    If that is the case, why does the military and law enforcement all use 30 round magazines?
    Because it's the standard capacity, standard issue magazine with such a firearm. Not a "high capacity" magazine.
    "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    "Because if you don't think you're good, nobody else will." -- DC Tom Laun (ret) Syracuse

  15. #155
    Truckie SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Magazine capacity is important in both scenarios for the same reason.

    Having a large capacity (I define as >10 rounds) enables the soldier to go longer in between having to change magazines when in a firefight against similarly armed opponents.

    In a mass shooting where the shooter has to change out magazines, those same seconds can be the difference between being able to rush the shooter (as has been done on at least two occasions) or run away to safety (who knows how many times).

    Those seconds count when one is in a fight for one's life.

    According to both of you, those seconds matter for a soldier, but don't matter for a potential victim.

    Either those seconds matter or they don't.

    Which is it?
    You would have a valid point if, and its a big if, you could find any data that proves a "high capacity" magazine had any factor or played any roll in any mass shooting. Until then, its nothing more then lip service.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  16. #156
    Forum Member Chenzo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Rural WI
    Posts
    1,225

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by scfire86 View Post
    Magazine capacity is important in both scenarios for the same reason.

    Having a large capacity (I define as >10 rounds) enables the soldier to go longer in between having to change magazines when in a firefight against similarly armed opponents.

    In a mass shooting where the shooter has to change out magazines, those same seconds can be the difference between being able to rush the shooter (as has been done on at least two occasions) or run away to safety (who knows how many times).

    Those seconds count when one is in a fight for one's life.

    According to both of you, those seconds matter for a soldier, but don't matter for a potential victim.

    Either those seconds matter or they don't.

    Which is it?
    Here, I can slow this point down for you even better than Fyred and SPFD did.

    I found this on another site, regarding limiting magazine capacity. The explanation doesn't get any simpler than this:

    "If a criminal is shooting back at you, then hell yes a limited magazine capacity diminishes your chance of successful self-defense.

    If you are a nut-job shooting 6-year olds, with nobody around to shoot back, then swapping out mags is hardly an inconvenience."

    Do you get it now? Or do you need pictures too?
    "A fire department that writes off civilians faster than an express line of 6 reasons or less is not progressive, it's dangerous, because it's run by fear. Fear does not save lives, it endangers them." -- Lt. Ray McCormack FDNY

    "Because if you don't think you're good, nobody else will." -- DC Tom Laun (ret) Syracuse

  17. #157
    Forum Member scfire86's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    HB
    Posts
    10,118

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    Here, I can slow this point down for you even better than Fyred and SPFD did.

    I found this on another site, regarding limiting magazine capacity. The explanation doesn't get any simpler than this:

    "If a criminal is shooting back at you, then hell yes a limited magazine capacity diminishes your chance of successful self-defense.

    If you are a nut-job shooting 6-year olds, with nobody around to shoot back, then swapping out mags is hardly an inconvenience."

    Do you get it now? Or do you need pictures too?
    Seconds count in both cases. Those seconds count for the potential victim as well. Maybe the six year old or adult has the wherewithal to duck around the corner so as not to be in the direct of line of fire of the shooter. This is a critical and relevant scenario until they create bullets that can magically go around corners or over obstacles in their path. Or duck into a closet and barricade the door. There are any number of possibilities that are possible in that type of close quarter scenario. I spoke to WW II vets who fought in the ETO using that exact tactic of ducking around a corner to avoid being shot by the enemy. So I know it's possible.

    You do understand that bullets don't curve around corners inside structures, do you? I can easily draw a diagram that details how vectors work and their application to ballistics.

    Do I need a visual aid for you as well? Or should I get you a picture?

    I'm willing to give potential victims every opportunity to avoid that fate. You believe there is only one possible outcome. I guess we have different ideas of what the term "seconds count" means.

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    Furthermore, in a "free" country, I want one is more than enough of a reason. Especially when there is an amendment to the founding document of this country that says I can own one.
    Once again. The SCOTUS has opined that the 2nd Amendment is not an absolute. There have been laws passed that prohibit ownership of certain types of weapons.
    Last edited by scfire86; 01-22-2013 at 05:30 PM.
    Politics is like driving. To go forward select "D", to go backward select "R."

  18. #158
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    2,947

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chenzo View Post
    The .223 round is a very popular varmint hunting round. The AR15 is a very popular varmint hunting gun.
    Is it the only gun that can be used for that purpose?

    Furthermore, in a "free" country, I want one is more than enough of a reason. Especially when there is an amendment to the founding document of this country that says I can own one.
    It may be enough of a reason to go buy one today, but when the discussion is about whether or not it should be available to buy tomorrow, you should probably have an argument that is more substantial.

    Regardless, that amendment only affords you the opportunity to own that particular gun if it's legally available for sale to the public.

  19. #159
    Truckie SPFDRum's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 1999
    Location
    St Paul, MN
    Posts
    2,513

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by FireMedic049 View Post
    Is it the only gun that can be used for that purpose?


    It may be enough of a reason to go buy one today, but when the discussion is about whether or not it should be available to buy tomorrow, you should probably have an argument that is more substantial.

    Regardless, that amendment only affords you the opportunity to own that particular gun if it's legally available for sale to the public.
    I get it, you are anti-gun/anti 2nd amendment.
    Say for the sake of argument, a new AWB is passed much like the Clinton era version, which by the way was a complete and utter failure, what makes you think all of a sudden criminals will now follow the law?
    Is it because there is a liberal in the white house and he says so?
    You have yet to put any solid evidence, facts or data to back up any statement you have made.
    Chenzo likes this.
    My posts reflect my views and opinions, not the organization I work for or my IAFF local. Some of which they may not agree. I.A.C.O.J. member
    "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
    Elevator Rescue Information

  20. #160
    Forum Member FyredUp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 1999
    Location
    Rural Wisconsin, Retired from the burbs of Milwaukee
    Posts
    9,844

    Default

    Originally Posted by FireMedic049

    Exactly, it doesn't. So passing a law that says you can't buy an AR-15 is not taking any right away from you unless AR-15s are the only guns on the market.

    You are in favor of eliminating a inanimate object because a statistical microblip of incidents include the use of that weapon. Yet you oppose limiting the use of cars because many more thousands a year are killed by drunk drivers. Interesting bit of hypocrisy on your part.

    And yes it is restricting my rights you are just too blinded to see it



    Right, reducing the number of guns available that could easily be used in illegal guns sales is just "feel good nonsense".

    No, the fact that you actually believe that your ridiculous plan of restricting access to a particular rifle to law abiding guns owner will make one bit of difference is the "feel good nonsense".

    I'm sure you'll respond to this with a rant about semantics, but I'll say it anyway. You assumed that the intent of what I stated was to stop illegal gun sales as in ALL gun sales. I'm not foolish enough to think that any illegal activity can be fully stopped. As such, the goal would not be to eliminate ALL illegal sales, but rather reduce them. I admit that I would support the restricting of ALL citizens from privately owning specific types of weapons. However, I did not say that it would "essentially do NOTHING to stop the flow of illegal guns into the hands of criminals". That was purely your assertion because I was only discussing a segment of firearms currently available. I'm simply saying that it would stop some illegal gun sales of these particular weapons. That is certainly more than just NOTHING.

    All your plan will do is create a black market for those weapons and turn SOME previously law abiding citizens into criminals, and further, do NOTHING to stop the flow of those weapons to the hard core criminal element.

    Ever hear of prohibition? It didn't work either.


    If I'm a brainwashed anti-gunner, then you've clearly been brainwashed by the gun lobby.

    No, the difference is I can speak on the topic of firearms, firearms nomenclature, and to a greater extent than the anti-gun crowd, firearms law, with knowledge, experience, and facts. I don't need knee jerk, rambling, fed to me, talking points. I don't need to hide behind semantics when you and so many other anti-gunners can't even define the terms you throw around about guns properly and use made up words like assault weapon.

    Obama didn't directly spur that spike in sales. It was a direct result of people in the gun crowd making people think that Obama was going to come take their guns away. He never said he was going to that and it never happened. The same thing happened leading up to re-election. He didn't run on gun control and it wasn't on the short list of priorities for the second term until Sandy Hook happened. My grip is just fine thanks and I haven't been drinking the kool-aid. As I stated, I'm in the middle on this issue.

    The facts are senator feinstein has made no bones about wanting to end private citizens from owning firearms. Attorney general holder has said he believes we must brainwash people into thinking differently about guns. Apparently that means it is okay to illegally supply guns to Mexican drug cartels at the same time you want to disarm American citizens.

    Add to both of those president obama openly stating that if Congress desn't do what he thinks is needed for gun cntrol he will use executive orders to bypass the legislative process.

    No, I see your point, there is no way the democrats, led by obama, have had anything to do with turning people on the fence on the issue of private ownership of firearms into gun owners. Thank you Mr President for increasing the nuber of gun owners exponentially!!



    A lot in our world has changed since then.

    And not all change is good...


    I can't offer an explanation for what happened because I had nothing to do with it and have no idea what they were thinking. To think I would be able to explain that mess is absurd.

    Free your mind, the US government, led by president obama, illegally sold guns to Mexican drug cartels who then used those guns to murder 2 US law enforcement officials as well as many Mexican citizens, some chldren. But apparently we are giving obama and holder a free pass on that.

    No, you simply didn't understand what I said. I didn't say that it didn't matter where they came from. I said that regardless of how they were obtained, all guns originate from a manufacturer. Big difference. The gun that isn't manufactured is the gun that can't be illegally sold and used for a crime.

    Ah, I got it now, the government is not responsible for selling those guns ILLEGALLY to Mexican CRIMINALS, the firearms manufacturer is responsible because they produced the guns 100% legally. You do realize how completely phukked up that line of thinking is don't you? It is akin to blaming GM for manufacturing cars driven by drunk drivers that kill people. Completely illogical, stupid and baseless. But then again so is most of the anti-gun crowd rhetoric.

    Where did I even remotely indicate that I don't have a problem with the federal government supplying guns to criminals? Maybe you should put down your glass of kool-aid?

    You passed the blame to the gun manufacturer in your statement above.

    Right, because every elected official that expressed an extreme view or position on an issue has never been out voted by the majority of ones that don't share that same extreme position.

    That my delusional friend is called DEMOCRACY! The majority, elected by their consitituents and doing what they want, get their position moved forward.

    Who am I? I'm nobody to tell you that you can't own one. If your ability to own one changes, it won't because I decided it should be that way.

    But it will be because you, and more like you, believe you have the right to infringe upon the rights of law abiding citizens.



    Wasn't playing games. Just clarifying the definition in use.

    Oh you were playing games alright. Sorry we won't play the role of appeaser anymore. No more give a little and we will leave the rest alone lies.


    If you (as in the gun crowd) truly were hearing the message loud and clear, then you wouldn't be bitching about semantics and maybe you'd actually have a response other than yelling "2nd Amendment" and "because I want one".

    Semantics is EVERYTHING when you are proposing new rules, laws, or legislation. If you can't properly define it how can you regulate it?


    So then you admit that what you stated about blame wasn't true?

    No.

    Where's the flaw?

    Your assumption that law abiding citizens are breaking the law and illegally selling their legally purchased rifles.

    Truthfully, I have no hope of winning over the "pro-gun" side.

    Good, because like Don Quixote you would be tlting at windmills.

    It's really not the same thing. You are talking about actually restricting the person's ability to drive altogether rather than just restricting them from driving sports cars.

    Um, I didn't mention sports cars at all. I said restrict all non-drunk drivers from drivng as much.

    I agree with this, but I don't think that fully addresses the issue.

    It certainly does a better job than punishing the innocent, which is YOUR plan.

    No, that's just your biased interpretation. I'm in no way saying that the majority of gun owners are doing this, but it's clearly not an infrequent thing. If you want those statistics, then go look them up for yourself.

    You clearly, and plainly, said stopping law abiding citizens from being able to purchase that gun stops the from being sold illegally.

    No, I'm not saying that at all, which is probably why it's clear as mud for you. I'm essentially disputing whether or not a particular firearm should be legal to be purchased and owned by a private citizen.

    So you admit you want to restrict my rights. Now that is crystal clear.


    Just because you don't like my ideas doesn't mean that it doesn't need to be discussed. Again, it's your assertion that I'm saying

    Here is your idea. Restrict law abiding citizens from owning a type of firearm that when legally purchased and owned is used in a miniscule amount of crimes. Sorry NO, I don't wish to discuss your idea when you essentially say mine won't work when in fact it deals with criminals and the mentally ill.
    Last edited by FyredUp; 01-22-2013 at 11:38 PM.
    Crazy, but that's how it goes
    Millions of people living as foes
    Maybe it's not too late
    To learn how to love, and forget how to hate

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Anyone else see a trend.....
    By BCmdepas3280 in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 02-16-2006, 01:12 AM
  2. Noticeable Trend?
    By ltoffd in forum Federal FIRE ACT Grants & Funding
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 09-02-2004, 01:30 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-24-2004, 11:11 AM
  4. Disturbing Trend - MUTT x 4
    By RspctFrmCalgary in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 06-21-2002, 10:42 AM
  5. Disturbing Trend
    By firedog11ku in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-01-2001, 10:03 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts