Just to prove gun control nuts are full of shit

[RedDuke]

BSAM,

I hold the same view as you and Captain.

The change to guns laws is coming, some will deny it until the day it passes.

What form and shape, I have no clue, it will be a fierce battle no doubt.

I would say the the best odds would be some assault weapons ban, and somewhat streamlined law about background checks and gun shows.

I have a strong feeling most of it is already written, it just took this horrific tragedy to give it a chance of passing. There is pretty much 0 chance that there will be a status quo. I just do not understand why so many refuse to acknowledge even the possibility of it.

Regards,
redduke

 

[nutmeg]

Eric Holder has been conspicuously quiet about this debate.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from RedDuke:

The fact is a lunatic can just buy a gun at the show for cash. Should nothing be changed to stop it?

I don't think so and here is why.
Only about 0.7% of guns used in crimes are purchased at gun shows.
It's not even an issue. Let alone a problem that needs a "solution" in the form of yet more regulations.

The fact, there has been no reason presented why a citizen needs a military grade weapon to protect himself.

According to the 2nd amendment we don't have to prove we "need" them in the first place. What specifically is it about "military grade" rifles that you find so dangerous that they need banning? The flash suppressor, the bayonet lug maybe?

And how 2nd amendment is violated if a ban is instituted on such weapons. It is as simple as this.

The 2nd amendment specifically says the right to keep and bear arms "shall not be infringed". Technically ANY restrictions or limits are an infringement.

The fact, we waste so much money on various program, closing one or two and bringing gun buy back in a smart way might help a bit.

Actually NO, the buy back programs "success" of the past is a lie and a myth.
I posted relevant stats just a little while ago

The fact, Victoria Soto faced the killer and had a short conversation with him, that piece of shit could have been knocked out by one punch, even from a woman. But one needs to get close, the smaller clip capacity the better the chance.

Being armed gives one an even better chance.
Again, with practice a semi auto can be reloaded with a fresh mag in under 3 seconds. And while I'm not questioning the bravery of Soto I'm unconvinced "one punch" from her was going to accomplish much. No offense, but the whole argument that smaller mag capacity is somehow going to give the victims a "better chance" just doesn't hold up to scrutiny imo.
You would need to make ALL firearms single shot to make that a reality.
Did you know back in the day pirates would wear half a dozen or more pistols on lanyards around their neck? Even packing nothing more than black powder muzzle loaders you could still get 6 or 8 shots in before drawing your sword.

The fact, most if not all kids had multiple bullets in their bodies, some could have survived if only one bullet would hit them. It would have been a lot tougher for him to do the same with hand guns.

I don't see how, it's takes the same amount of time to squeeze a rifle trigger as it does a pistol trigger.

So ask yourself a question, if we had an assault weapons ban, his mom would not bought the rifle

Assuming the ban was in place WHEN she bought it. Assuming she didn't ignore the ban and buy it on the black market.

and the massacre would most probably happen on a lesser scale.

Again I don't see how. In fact I can spray bullets faster firing a pair of handguns one in each hand than I can from a single rifle.

"Even" one saved life would have been worth the ban . Do you agree or disagree with this statement?

Absolutely NOT.
Unless you confiscate EVERY assault weapon on the planet, your "ban" is an exercise in futility to begin with.

 

[wjk]

Quote from nutmeg:

Eric Holder has been conspicuously quiet about this debate.

More F & F guns popping up across the border again, or so it's been reported.

 

[RedDuke]

Quote from Lucrum:

I don't think so and here is why.
Only about 0.7% of guns used in crimes are purchased at gun shows.
It's not even an issue. Let alone a problem that needs a "solution" in the form of yet more regulations.

We can go back a forth on all your points or mine. I'll just pick the first. 0.7 is not verifiable since gun lobby prevented traceability. The number is most probably much higher. But let's say it is 0.7, it is still too much since it only takes one lunatic to carry out another massacre. We not talking about preventing all crimes, it is impossible. What we are talking making it harder for lunatics to massacre people, and some what reducing and making it harder for criminals to get their hands on weapons.

 

[Lucrum]

Quote from RedDuke:

We can go back a forth on all your points or mine.

Except that mine are backed up with studies and statistics neither you or any other anti gun guys have even tried to refute.

I'll just pick the first. 0.7 is not verifiable since gun lobby prevented traceability.

Then it's not disputable either.
Do you have personal experience or knowledge that gun show sales are a significant problem?

The number is most probably much higher.

Personally, I think this subject is too important to be making convenient unsubstantiated assumptions. But, so far anyway, that's just me.

But let's say it is 0.7, it is still too much since it only takes one lunatic to carry out another massacre. We not talking about preventing all crimes, it is impossible. What we are talking making it harder for lunatics to massacre people, and some what reducing and making it harder for criminals to get their hands on weapons.

Lunatics don't need guns to massacre people.

You could ban and confiscate EVERY firearm on the planet. And you would still have lunatics committing mass murders. Be it with bombs, poison gas - or meat cleavers.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/3FV47GWxKz8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Trader666]

Nor do liberals need facts or logic to emote their pointy headed agendas

Quote from Lucrum:

Lunatics don't need guns to massacre people.

You could ban and confiscate EVERY firearm on the planet. And you would still have lunatics committing mass murders. Be it with bombs, poison gas - or meat cleavers.

 

[377OHMS]

Quote from Lucrum:

Except...

Perhaps a gross generalization on my part but I've noticed that many on the left *feel* that some policy is right and *feel* that it must be the right thing even in the face of data that refutes that belief.

Taxes: You can show data all day depicting the fact that increasing tax rates reduces the tax revenue collected by the government overall.

Guns: You can show data all day depicting the fact that cities, counties, states and countries that ban guns or strictly control them end up having more violent crime than places where there are not bans or controls.

Terrorism: Same here. There is plenty of data asserting that if you attempt to placate, buy off or otherwise negotiate with terrorists they are going to attack regardless. Its the same for rogue nations. We have paid off North Korea over and over and over with cash, fuel and food aid and they defy us every time and distribute nuclear weapons technology or test nuclear devices or launch ballistic missiles or launch devices into orbit contravening every international agreement or regulation that exists.

Its a weird disregard for data and data products that express what is happening in the real world. The lefties believe that some idea must be true based on their feelings and somehow rationalize that the data is incorrect or misinterpreted.

 

[Trader666]

Wrong. M16s have, in addition to a semi-automatic mode, a fully automatic mode or a 3 round burst mode (in later models). AR-15s only fire in semi-automatic mode.

How about the intent of the Founding Fathers? Which was for the right to bear arms to be a paramount right with which to protect all other rights.

Quote from RedDuke:

I hope that ar15, which is a disguised m16, and its counter parts will not be easily available to any psycho to acquire.

Still waiting for at lest one decent reason why a citizen needs this kind of a weapon.

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

I've told this gun control fanatic this at least three times, but here goes again.

There is no functional difference between an AR or AK and a semi-auto hunting rifle or shotgun. The so-called assault weapons have pistol grips and flash supressors. Typically they have bigger magazines.

I'll grant that having a bigger magazine, say 30 rounds versus 10, can be an advantage. You don't have to carry as many spare mags. Now who is more likely to have spare mags loaded and at the ready? A crazed school shooter or some homeowner awakened by crashes at 2:00AM?


He says ten rounds is enough. Most times, that will be right. Consider though that national statistics show that police are on target from 20 to 50 percent of the time in gun fights. These are trained professionals. Now granted, these are largely handgun misses, but if a trained policeman, who gets lots of top instruction and range time, misses that often, the average citizen is going to be worse.

Ten rounds can go pretty quickly in a standoff or if there are multiple intruders. It's even worse with a handgun.

Someone posted a video a few weeks ago of an attempted robbery at what appeared to be a trading arcade or PC cafe. An old guy in the back came out firing with a small handgun and chased the would-be robbers off. At the time, i pointed out he probably used up his ammo and questioned what he would do if he didn't have a spare mag. I wouldn't want to be in that situation.