Gun Control

[Redux]

"It's too hard to enforce" isn't an excuse. People are dying.

"But it won't prevent people from dying, knapplc."

Why create an arbitrary rule that can't realistically be enforced? That's what extremists like hf2000 get mad about when anti gun extremists don't look at it rationally.

I'm not condoning, just trying to add perspective.

 

[Redux]

Just not good with someone or some entity telling me what I can own.

How do you feel about having to have permission from the government to get married? Or do improvements to your house? Or be licensed to drive?What kind of engine do you have on your car? Do you realize your engine is restricted from what it can and can't do by the government?You have entities telling you what you can and can't do all over the place. Why should guns be any different?

I don't feel good about any form of government telling me those things. So just because we have allowed them to police us in those areas we should allow guns too? Bad example.

And that just gets us back to:

No amount of bloodshed will convince the pro-gun people.

All of these are excuses. At what point is anyone going to tell me why we NEED thirty-round clips, or semi-automatic weapons that are absurdly easy to convert to fully automatic?No other first-world nation has this problem. But in America, we NEED to have this stuff. We NEED to have three guns for every man, woman and child in the state of Nebraska. We NEED to have huge clips. We NEED to treat guns different than any other thing that society already regulates.But none of those are needs. They are WANTS. And this selfish want-it attitude is getting people killed.1,000 since Sandy Hook.And:

No amount of bloodshed will convince the pro-gun people.

You realize you are being just as irrational as the other side of this right?

 

[knapplc]

Boom. Too easy.

 

[Redux]

I get your reasoning. But how do you propose we enforce this?

There is no way to enforce a limit on magazines. Even if there were, people would just buy more handguns so they could own more magazines. Then we would have to limit how many guns a person could own and that dips into the territory of the Government taking guns from people.

Then they would buy them overseas and we would have to do a whole ban on international parcel shipping from wherever etc.

Do the same limitations go for Police or FBI/CIA/DEA/SS? If they do, how would they defend themselves against the criminals wth illegal firearms and magazines/clips?

Your heart is in the right place but you have to think realistically. As Takoda mentioned above, it doesn't take but a couple seconds to remove an empty mag and replace it with a pre loaded mag.

Those seconds could make all the difference.

Take the last line out, what about the rest?

 

[TAKODA]

Just not good with someone or some entity telling me what I can own.

How do you feel about having to have permission from the government to get married? Or do improvements to your house? Or be licensed to drive?

What kind of engine do you have on your car? Do you realize your engine is restricted from what it can and can't do by the government?

You have entities telling you what you can and can't do all over the place. Why should guns be any different?

No sir, you are wrong!

The government presets the table you are talking about. The cars are manufactured to meet the standards set forth by our government. It is my choice of what model (if so inclined) to buy. Thus, the make and model of guns are there for us consumers to choose from.

The marriage issue is simply a document saying it is recognized to which I can say, I have this marriage document as well as the documents to show I can buy and carry my my guns.

The housing permits, meh, (tax money). They need to know the value of your improvement to tax you on it).

Drivers license is a document that states I qualified. I would have no problem having to further qualify for each gun/weapon I own.

If the government elects to restrict the type of guns that can be sold and legally owned, so be it. There would be limited choice I suspect, and this conversation would be done, but until such time as they impose those restrictions on the manufacturers, well, ~

 

[Redux]

Boom. Too easy.

No, I guess you don't realize...

 

[knapplc]

You realize you are being just as irrational as the other side of this right?

The only people who think those are irrational questions are people who don't have good answers to those questions. Those are the key questions we have to ask ourselves.

 

[Saunders]

"It's too hard to enforce" isn't an excuse. People are dying.

That's the argument for prohibition too.

 

[Danny Bateman]

What meaningful gun legislation has happened that I missed? 1,000 killed since Sandy Hook, another 4,000 injured. What changes has that bloodshed inspired?

You're speaking in absolutes, only a Sith does that.
But seriously, I feel change is on the horizon. My fear is it is the wrong kind of change. The kind of change that is reactionary to ugly events and not the proper change that would prevent said events.

While I'm hopeful that some meaningful change is not too far off, I agree it could be largely reactionary. I think I am OK with that, though, because I fear that with the status quo being what it is and having the battle lines drawn where they currently are, I don't know that any other kind of real change could be on the horizon.

Sadly, I think this issue needs a catalyst to shift the paradigm.

 

[Saunders]

or semi-automatic weapons that are absurdly easy to convert to fully automatic?

Can you link me how many times this has been done and used in a crime.

 

[knapplc]

We could wait for a period of several months where there isn't a mass shooting in America so we could craft legislation that wouldn't be considered "reactionary." Unfortunately, they occur on a weekly, if not daily basis. So... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[Saunders]

I mean, is the argument here that we'll just let X number of people die because I'm too lazy to reload more often? What's the argument? Why do you need clips that hold more than 10 rounds, or five rounds? What are you doing that you need to carry 30 rounds in a magazine?

Why do you need more than one beer? Why do you need more than 150hp in a vehicle? Why do you need to drive faster than 55 mph?

C'mon man.

 

[Redux]

You realize you are being just as irrational as the other side of this right?

The only people who think those are irrational questions are people who don't have good answers to those questions. Those are the key questions we have to ask ourselves.

And when I tried to answer them you twist word and ignore points to futher your cause. I get it, standard anti____ tactic.

Still doesn't make it any more constructive than crying about the 2nd amendment.

 

[knapplc]

I mean, is the argument here that we'll just let X number of people die because I'm too lazy to reload more often? What's the argument? Why do you need clips that hold more than 10 rounds, or five rounds? What are you doing that you need to carry 30 rounds in a magazine?

Why do you need more than one beer? Why do you need more than 150hp in a vehicle? Why do you need to drive faster than 55 mph?
C'mon man.

Beer isn't designed to kill.

Vehicles aren't designed to kill.

Driving highway speeds aren't designed to kill.

C'mon, man.

 

[knapplc]

You realize you are being just as irrational as the other side of this right?

The only people who think those are irrational questions are people who don't have good answers to those questions. Those are the key questions we have to ask ourselves.

And when I tried to answer them you twist word and ignore points to futher your cause. I get it, standard anti____ tactic.

Still doesn't make it any more constructive than crying about the 2nd amendment.

Why do you need a thirty-round clip? Simple question.