Gun Control

[Redux]

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.

But they all still do kill! I see where you are going with this, very clever!

 

[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.

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

Me personally? I don't.

Only thing I can think of is for law enforcement or some dude in the wilderness fighting off a bear from humping him.

But how do we go about eliminating the 30 round clip? I mean really, how?

 

[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.

But they all still do kill! I see where you are going with this, very clever!

Teddy bears kill. What kind of point is that?

 

[knapplc]

But how do we go about eliminating the 30 round clip? I mean really, how?

Doesn't matter if I know the answer to that question. The answer that you don't need the clip is key.

 

[Redux]

But how do we go about eliminating the 30 round clip? I mean really, how?

Doesn't matter if I know the answer to that question. The answer that you don't need the clip is key.

And I don't own a 30 round mag or clip, sooooo?

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.

But they all still do kill! I see where you are going with this, very clever!

Teddy bears kill. What kind of point is that?

I was kidding...

 

[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.

Beer isn't designed to kill.

Vehicles aren't designed to kill.

Driving highway speeds aren't designed to kill.

C'mon, man.

You said it's about people are dying. All those things kill more people than guns but we aren't actively trying to ban them are we?

The mag thing isn't correlative to gun deaths. Hell, Even the states that already ban them are among leaders in gun violence per capita in the country.

 

[knapplc]

I also said:

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

And every one of these "I don't need it but I want it" replies confirms that.

 

[Redux]

Knapp: Why do you need a 30 round clip?

Redux: I don't need one, but how do we get rid...

Knapp: NOT THE POINT! YOU ADMITTED IT!

Redux: But I don't own....

Knapp: (plugs ears) LAAALALALALALLALALALALALALALAL

 

[knapplc]

Knapp: Why do you need a 30 round clip?

Redux: I don't need one, but how do we get rid...

Knapp: NOT THE POINT! YOU ADMITTED IT!

Redux: But I don't own....

Knapp: (plugs ears) LAAALALALALALLALALALALALALALAL

You're advocating for their availability for everyone. I'm not sure why you're having trouble understanding the discussion here... ?

 

[JJ Husker]

I don't think anyone who thinks there's a need for a magazine that holds more than ten rounds of ammunition truly gets what I've been saying in this thread.

I get what you're saying but I feel more effectively screening the potential gun owner and then making sure they are properly trained and licensed is a much better avenue to pursue than blaming an inanimate object for these tragedies. I get that high capacity magazines in semi-auto weapons make it possible to inflict a greater number of casualties more quickly and I am on the fence with that thought. But I keep coming back to the reality that people who have that intention are going to still get their hands on that type of weapon if it is what they desire. They can still carry a duffle bag full of weapons and extra magazines to their chosen location just as they did at Columbine or in the theatre shooting. I don't perceive these mass shootings as spur of the moment issues. They seem to be planned and any one with that goal in mind will still acquire the weapon(s) they want whether or not they are banned and still inflict great numbers of casualties. Why should law abiding citizens be placed in a position to be out gunned by lawless criminals and terrorists?

I'm all for more effective screening of potential gun owners and I'm for measures that might prevent even a few deaths, but I just fail to see how banning certain weapons would accomplish this without also infringing the rights of a person to protect themselves and their family. I'm sure I sound pro gun & pro NRA to those who want weapons banned and I'm also sure I sound like a gun control advocate to those who don't want any controls. Personally all I own is a shotgun for bird hunting. I really am pretty much on the fence on this issue but I just don't see where it would stop motivated persons.

 

[Saunders]

I also said:

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

And every one of these "I don't need it but I want it" replies confirms that.

I didn't say I don't need it. In fact, I do. Contrary to movies and stuff, people don't go down with one bullet. In a high stress situation where I would be forced to shoot someone (let's say a break in) I'd hope to get 50% of rounds on target at close range. And pretty much any firearms instructor will tell you the same. Even cops carry rounds with a lot more than 10 rounds for a reason.

 

[TAKODA]

Knapp, see post 469 above, also to respond to the question you posed to Redux of why do you need a 30 rd clip?

Have you ever shot one of these types of weapons Knapp?

Putting ten rounds at a time, through one of these guns would not be worth it.

Load, 5 seconds later reload, 5 seconds later reload. (wash, rinse, repeat)

The reason I am good with 30 rd clips is because it allows me to practice (range) with less wasted time.

Going through 500 rounds per practice is nothing in one of these guns.

Oops, here we go!

Why do you need a gun that can inflict so much damage if wielded by the wrong person? <-- Key point!

Can't you see this is the type of weapon that should not be lawful and is in the line of what our armed service uses?

Answer; see prior post. Over and over.

I am good with qualifying for such if need be or if they elect to outlaw them and want to remove them from society, well ~ good luck with that now. The crazy's would start a civil war like this country has never seen.

I do not recall who said this within this thread but the only fix to gun violence is a shift in society and how we view life.

Wake me up when there is enough interest by the masses where this is within our grasp! ↑

 

[Landlord]

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

That's the argument for prohibition too.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't prohibition like.... an actual prohibition? As in a ban? That's not the same argument, since nobody is arguing for a ban on guns. It would, however, be the same argument as increasing the drinking age from 18 to 21, creating stiffer penalties for DUIs, making bartenders legally responsible for serving intoxicated patrons, etc. etc. etc.

Guess what? I'm sure you already know, but the number of DUIs and drunken vehicular homicides has dropped precipitously since the 70's.

What we did was we saw a problem, we took actions towards the problem, and we improved upon the problem.

What we didn't do was say, "Well we need to be able to get sh#t faced drunk at all times". What we didn't do was say, "This isn't an alcohol problem, it's a people problem." What we didn't do was turn down any possible legislation because there's no PROOF that it will work and we didn't know how it would be enforced.

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.

You're defeating yourself here. Knapp's entire point is that we don't NEED guns, we WANT them.

And you are supporting his argument. Because we DON'T need more than one beer, 150hp in a vehicle, or to drive faster than 55mph. We want to do those things, and while people do die from those sorts of things, we've taken a lot of steps towards trying to limit the amount of damage, especially to innocent parties, for people who do those things, and none of those things were invented or designed with the sole purpose of efficiently taking lives.

 

[Saunders]

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

That's the argument for prohibition too.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't prohibition like.... an actual prohibition? As in a ban? That's not the same argument, since nobody is arguing for a ban on guns.

He's literally arguing that we don't need to have mags that hold more than a few rounds.

You're defeating yourself here. Knapp's entire point is that we don't NEED guns, we WANT them.

And you are supporting his argument. Because we DON'T need more than one beer, 150hp in a vehicle, or to drive faster than 55mph. We want to do those things, and while people do die from those sorts of things, we've taken a lot of steps towards trying to limit the amount of damage, especially to innocent parties, for people who do those things, and none of those things were invented or designed with the sole purpose of efficiently taking lives.

Negative. I need the best possible way to protect myself and family. Why? Because the cops are at least 15 minutes away and they aren't legally obligated to protect us. The best way to protect myself and my family is a good security system, a firearm, and training.

And that last line is a red herring.

 

[knapplc]

I didn't say I don't need it. In fact, I do. Contrary to movies and stuff, people don't go down with one bullet. In a high stress situation where I would be forced to shoot someone (let's say a break in) I'd hope to get 50% of rounds on target at close range. And pretty much any firearms instructor will tell you the same. Even cops carry rounds with a lot more than 10 rounds for a reason.

You're talking about convenience. It's less convenient for you to reload, so you want a bigger clip. That's not a compelling argument.

Yes, cops carry clips with more than 10 rounds. They're cops.