Gun Control

[TAKODA]

Really, because:

Bottom line, test me, investigate me, question me but don't screw me when it comes to me being competent enough to buy, own, shoot any gun I want.

Is part of the problem.

So you are saying that since someone may want to buy a semi automatic rifle that holds 30 rounds, that this is somehow different than someone wanting to buy a Glock 21/45 auto with a 10 rd clip?

We will have to agree to disagree on this. If they are going to increase background checks to insure someone is cleared to own a gun, it should not be based on a gun that simply holds more rounds!

I truly get the concern you have here Knapp, but replacing a 10 rd clip with another fully loaded 10 rd clip is at most 2 seconds of time.

Screen me, test me, qualify me, but once I pass your exams, don't dictate to me!

 

[Redux]

Here Knapp, I fixed it for you!

Right, because...

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

banning assault weapons would do nothing, just like banning drugs as done nothing. Both are human issues.

This is why nothing changes and nothing constructive gets settled. Because the people in place to make appropriate changes battle to the extreme sides of the issue just like this.

The answers to most questions typically lie somewhere in the middle.

 

[knapplc]

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.

 

[Redux]

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.

Okay, ban magazines that carry more than 10 rounds and limit people to owning 2 magazines. How many mass shootings did that really stop?

I sympathize with your stance but you are looking at it in a pretty unconstructive way.

 

[knapplc]

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.

Okay, ban magazines that carry more than 10 rounds and limit people to owning 2 magazines. How many mass shootings did that really stop?

I sympathize with your stance but you are looking at it in a pretty unconstructive way.

If it stops ONE MASS SHOOTING it's worth it. ONE.

 

[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?

 

[TAKODA]

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 really do Knapp, and again, I agree we need deeper and further reaching background checks prior to a legal purchase of any gun!

But again, the gun is not the issue!

If they want to institute some sort of tiered (size or type of gun) training or qualification requirements before, I am good with that too!

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

 

[knapplc]

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?

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[knapplc]

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

 

[ZRod]

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.

 

[knapplc]

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.

 

[knapplc]

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

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

 

[Redux]

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

Cancer is killing people too. But the government allows the treatment for it to be unaffordable to many of the people suffering from it. Hell, they are probably preventing an actual cure based off how much revenue the disease creates.

See how easy that was.