From what I remember about James Bond, we're talking pistols, right? Pull trigger, Bang, pull trigger, Bang?
Pretty sure nobody is interested in taking those, unless there are a few grandstanding politicians out there. Maybe it's my middle-America upbringing, but I have never heard a single person say to get rid of all the guns. (Not counting a fringe politician or two.)

What about people who have worked with guns, like ex-military? If someone can become a policeman whom people trust to bring help in the form of gun expertise, why can't someone who's primary job is a teacher, custodian, or administrator go through similar training? In fact, why not specifically look for guys coming out of military service with honorable discharge, and train them to be admins?

I don't care how fat your administrators are, they will still be faster to and from their office than the response time of police.

Obviously, you, and most, teachers wouldn't want to carry. I'm not saying every single adult in a school needs to. Just a few. And some people would put up with a little discomfort in exchange for protecting the kids.

You seemed upset when you objected to me asking what you are proposing, before asking what I am proposing and then started dropping F bombs in 372.

See posts 180, 385, 388, and several others through this thread. Copying in one of the old ones:

I am out of here for the evening. I have enjoyed the posts today and wish all of you a great evening.

Then what are we proposing to ban, as automatics are already de facto illegal and cost tens of thousands of dollars for a legal one as a toy for the super rich? Every AR-15 sold in every gun store in America is pull trigger, bang, pull trigger, bang.

See 180, 385, 388, 403, and several others in this thread.

I said, and I quote, "I have not been able to find any evidence that a waiting period works to reduce violence, but it is something that might reasonably be expected to maybe have an impact - reducing a moment of hotheaded anger and letting tempers cool. It doesn't seem to have produced results in states that have it, but I see the logic behind it." See post 369.

Go through the same background checks and training that a military recruit goes through.

What an absolute slap? That’s the rhetoric that is just silly. I could stand on the same high horse and talk about why you’re not thinking about all of the kids that have died in mass shootings.

Spare me the BS propaganda. The whole “I give a damn about our law enforcement and military” is nothing more than political talking points and/or virtue signaling.

As someone who has worked as a corrections officer (no weapon on duty), served in the Army conducting ~75 combat missions, gone through extensive training on/with an M4 rifle and an M9 pistol, and know what the weapons can do, go pound sand.

So sick and tired of people using veterans/law enforcement as a talking point.

I was not upset with you at all for asking. I dropped one f bomb, Greg, and it was not directed at you to instigate an argument. It was for emphasis because I figured you would not care if your wait time for your 31st gun was 45 days or 10 days.

Will go back and read your posts closer.

Please refer to all of my posts. I've been very focused on how to protect our children. My "silly rhetoric" you're referencing was to make a point; calling these people pansies, while you're not doing a damn thing yourself besides clambering for law abiding citizens to have their rights stripped. Pathetic.

Thank you for not responding to the rest of my points, which were discussion points I thought we were engaging in. Again, further proof you're not actually willing to have a conversation and hear the other side.

I give a damn about people who put others and their country first. If you want to call that BS propaganda, that's your choice. I was talking about their willingness to make sacrifices to potentially protect our kids. Nothing more, nothing less.

Thank you for your service. I believe you took an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, which includes the 2nd Amendment.

Once people start throwing around phrases and words like slap in the face and pathetic, yeah you’re not going to sway people with your misguided views. Most people want to reach a solution that benefits everyone given what seems to be a serious problem. Some do not. I’ll place you in the latter camp but hope you prove me wrong.

Put me in whatever camp you want to. There is a time and a place for compromise, and excuse me for thinking protecting our children & our rights as citizens in this country are not the place. And let's be honest, I was pre-determined to be in whatever camp you're referencing simply based on my previous posts in this thread. Again, based on your lack of a response to my other discussion points, you're not coming off as a person who really wants to hear the "other side" and have a productive conversation.

Not one anti-gun proposal in this thread or really in politics would ever prevent all murders/mass shootings/mass killings. That is a fact. I'm not in the business of using my kids as an experiment, nor am I in the business of giving up my God-given rights as an American born citizen so that you and others can "feel" better.

Yeah, I’ll keep you in that camp. Thankfully there are others that are better that will keep their rights and also realize we can do better.

Joe Biden, the President of the United States, just said a few days ago, that there is no reason a person should need a 9mm weapon. What is the most popular, most common pistol caliber in the United States? Why, it's the 9mm. The 9mm cartridge is also the NATO standard caliber for pistols; making it probably the most common caliber on the planet! And the President of the United States wants to ban it!

Every one on the left constantly says they want to ban all semi-automatic weapons.

The Walther PPK (James Bond's pistol), is a semi-automatic weapon.

Beretta pistols (used by James Bond), are semi-automatic weapons.

The Colt M1911 .45 caliber pistol (1911 is the year it first came out), is a semi-automatic weapon.

The left also wants to ban all magazines that hold more than ten rounds. Most semi-automatic pistols hold between ten, and 19 rounds in their magazines. The Glock 17 holds 17 rounds, and the Glock 19 holds 15 rounds. The Glock 19 is the most popular pistol in the country. The Glock 17 had been the most popular until the 19 came out. The 19 is more popular, simply because it is, due to its smaller size, easier to conceal. What caliber bullet do the Glock 17 and 19 fire? The 9mm; I refer you back to Joe Biden's comment about it.

So, they admit almost-unanimously, that they want to eliminate all semi-automatic weapons, which includes pistols.

Steve

How would you feel about: 1) Banning the sale of any semi-automatic rifle or semi-automatic centerfire shotgun to anyone under the age of 21. 2) Ban magazines that exceed 5 rounds?

No and no.

1) You're limiting an 18-20 year old's ability to defend himself/his family.

2) What does this prevent? A shooter could simply carry a bunch of pre-loaded magazines.

Both of these measures would reduce mass shootings in schools. I think that is pretty obvious. Having to reload a weapon increases the chance that the mass shooter can be taken out before they start shooting again.

Some people are under the illusion that criminals obey laws and that illegal importation of weapons/magazines and other hardware doesn't exist.

Some likely believe a simple sign like this would also help in our countries because criminals/nut cases obey signs too.

We just had a mass shooting in a school where an 18 year old legally bought an AR-15. And you are deflecting the issue and talking about how criminals break laws?

What is your point? That we shouldn't have laws? Give me a break.

I will try to do a baseball related example so people can see how banning or adding more gun laws are seen by many gun owners.

I have a life long friend doing life for taking a baseball bat to someones head till he was no longer alive. I am serious this really happened. Sadly it has happened many many times in the history of baseball bats.

Since we are blaming the tool. I think banning baseball bats would be a great idea. They also need to remove ALL baseball bats from the public so they can be destroyed to save people from these awful baseball bats.

Then maybe we can take it a one step better. We could just ban everything baseball and remove all things associated with this horrible weapon and the history of baseball. Don't worry about all the people that work in baseball as long as we can get rid of those horrible baseball bats that go out and murder people. Aslo who cares about the collectors if we can save lives.

No one is calling to ban or take away all guns.

One whacko with a baseball bat is rather limited in how much damage he or she can do. Mass baseball bat murders are not currently a problem in this country. Mass shootings are. Some people would like to try to make them less of an issue.

False. Reloading pre-loaded magazines would only take 2 seconds to accomplish. It also would not have prevented Uvalde, as the police did not engage for over an hour.

You also failed to discuss the inevitable increase in burglary attempts/in-home crimes/murders. Those lives matter, too, right?

Reloading may not have done anything for Uvalde, but could potentially help in future mass shootings.

As far your theory that preventing 18 to 20 year olds from buying semi-automatic weapons will lead to increased burglary attempts/crimes/murders, I think that is an unfounded claim. Why do they need a semi-automatic weapon to prevent a burglary/murder?

If it wouldn't have prevented one of the largest school mass shootings, how will it prevent future mass shootings? In addition, even preventing him from buying the rifle in the first place would just force him or any future POS to look at other means of obtaining a firearm. There are 300-400 million firearms in this country. Even if you wanted to be a totalitarian and remove all firearms, it's not feasible. There are illegal drugs that run rampant in our streets; firearms would be no different. You would simply be disarming the law abiding population.

Why do government buildings & prominent businesses need security if their buildings have signs that say, "No Firearms/Weapons"? Gun Free Zones are personal invitations for criminals, and they'll have semi-automatic firearms because by definition they don't follow the laws. It's not an unfounded claim; it's common sense.

Pull trigger, bang, pull trigger again, bang again has been normal since the Double Action Revolver rose in the post Civil War period. Magazine fed handguns with a capacity over 5 that work as pull trigger, bang, pull trigger, bang have been common place since the turn of the 20th century. Rifles followed not long after.

Magazines over 5 rounds have been normal since the very first detachable box magazine fed weapons in the 19th century. A ban that bans a Borchardt is probably a clue it’s extreme.

Semi-automatic rifles have been normal for about a century.

Magazines are a box with a spring and a follower to keep the rounds stacked together. Many guns do not have one made that holds 5 or less. Many guns cannot really fit one so tiny, and the magazine would have to be extended to mechanically function properly. Which means one could just open it and cut down the internal block preventing the spring from going down. Or just making one. Or using the one of tens or hundreds of millions that already exist in the US.

The data (though I am a “form authoritarian” when it comes to data, whatever this means) suggests that 0% of people who stage a massacre care about the law and have a propensity to consult it and follow it.

I am sure it will end well for me and my family should I have another attempted home invasion. If the intruder cannot be reasoned with or scared off, using the best technology of 1888 will, I am sure, put me on an even footing.

There may be some things gun owners will budge a little on, for the tenth or twentieth time since 1934. Banning pretty much any design using advancements since 1900 is not one of them. This is a big part of why gun owners are against most laws proposed; we all know what the end game is. It always starts as framed as a ‘compromise’ or ‘reaching across the aisle’, and then it quickly becomes an extensive ban that tries to take away any technology from our own lifetimes. Nothing is ever given in return, it’s never an actual compromise.

Umm, what does the age of the technology have to do with anything? Gatling guns are pretty old too.

Also, your slippery slope argument is weak. At least come up with a historical example to back your claims.

I think we all agree citizens do not have the right to personally own and operate a nuclear weapon. That is technology from many people’s lifetime or older. It’s a matter of determining what is allowed under the second amendment. Unfettered access to any and all arms is not what is provided.

Common use standard. Read Heller. Banning common use items since my great-grandfathers life pretty clearly violates the common use standard precedent.

Like 1934? Like 1968? Like 1986? Like 1994?

Note what was actually written. “Normal”, “common place”, etc. see Heller and the common use standard.

Yep, Scalia's majority opinion in Heller (which was decided 5-4). Hopefully some laws will get passed that are deemed constitutional and allow our country to reduce gun violence.

Obviously, with the current makeup of the Court, its hard to see how Heller gets struck down any time soon.

What a shame.

A crying shame that your half of the country isn’t able to criminalize my half of the country quite so easily.

You seem to think that bad guys obey laws. They don't. The bad guys will get illegal guns with illegal clips and only the good guys will be hampered in their effort to defend themselves and others. Why can't some people understand this?

Cocaine is illegal everywhere. It is also available everywhere. Can you understand, bad guys don't obey laws? If they are breaking laws against murder, what do they care about breaking laws about obtaining and using illegal weapons?

No, it’s generally a good thing that these processes are difficult and littered with checks and balances. Fast change is scarier. But we can and should do better. Too many kids are getting murdered.

Well you see, the next perpetrator of a massacre will dispose of his 30 round magazines and not acquire one of the hundreds of millions of them in the country because… Well there’s a narrative. Anyways, we need to criminalize the other half of the country and if you don’t agree with it, you’re okay with the deaths of these innocent children.

Yes! It's worth it if it will save just one life!

The amount of straw men on this thread is dizzying.

Gun in the hands of a bad guy kill kids.
Gun in the hands of a good guy stops the bad guy and saves kids.

Simpletons think the gun is the problem when guns are the problem AND the solution. More accurately, guns themselves are neither good nor bad; they are tools.

Going by the same standards use to qualify something as a mass shooting...

https://www.spokesman.com/stories/20...hammer-attack/

https://www.liherald.com/hempstead/s...-mother,138650

https://www.nytimes.com/1988/03/09/n...buildings.html


https://www.durangoherald.com/articl...at-strip-club/

Has anyone changed their opinion? If so please post what has changed.

My opinion has been the same for decades. The only change I would be open to is also one I have had for decades. Require gun safety classes to purchase your first gun. I would even be all for needing to take refresher classes every 5 years to continue to own guns.

Banning guns and more gun laws criminals don't obey are as silly to me as my baseball bat banning example.

I have been avoiding this thread as it predictably devolved into a complete mess as expected.

I just was wondering as with even the prevalence of requests for sub 10 round magazines, where did this call for 5 come from? It is new to me as even a simple cowboy revolver cylinder would exceed this 5 idea. The Lone Ranger had a pistol that breaks the law on this premise.

Also, I can tell you have unfamiliarity with firearms, nothing wrong with that, it is commonplace. In your posts you state it is logical that reloading would provide time to stop a shooter. As I can very easily eject and reload a fresh magazine in sub 2 seconds with a blowback slide locking pistol or rifle (standard feature), do you believe that time is adequate?

Please, not fighting here that is pointless...only general curiosity on others thoughts.

I'm a little confused as to why multiple people have found it necessary to point out that it takes only 2 seconds to reload a magazine. Yet others keep pounding home the point that only a "good guy with a gun" can prevent these mass shootings. I guess a good guy with a gun couldn't shoot someone during a reload? Not sure what the point of the good guy with a gun is then.

As for the 5 rounds. That wasn't my idea, that was part of recently proposed legislation, so I thought I'd see what people think about it. Clearly people that are pro gun rights are not open to this idea.

Are to talking Police?

Normal good guys with guns are going target shooting or hunting they are not out trying to stop some moron from killing others.

A bad guy with a gun won’t follow mag restrictions.

Even pretending they will and that a magazine over 5 no longer even exists:

A bad guy with a gun is coming loaded to do damage, they don’t have to conceal their stuff at the scene. They will bring lots of magazines. Having to reload more when they are up against a room of unarmed people does not really slow them.

The good guy with the gun (unless the gun control crowd would like to suggest it’s fine for me to carry my M4 openly, which is legal in some states but uncommonly done even there as a course of normal life for the obvious reason that citizens don’t expect to need to use heavy gear) is generally concealing a light handgun, and aren’t carrying 10 pounds of gear. It’s a pistol, and maybe an extra mag or two.

The good guy having 17 rounds instead of 5 that won’t even fit in the magazine well because it’s too short sounds a lot better.

Forcing pre-Civil War capacities is extreme, even if it wasn’t blatantly illegal by the most clear violation of the common use standard there could be.

1. No. A Federal Appeals Court has already ruled earlier this year that this is Unconstitutional.

2. No. A standard revolver holds six rounds. There are revolvers now, that actually hold more; some even hold 10 rounds. Banning magazines that hold more than five rounds would effectively make every semi-automatic pistol illegal, as very, very, few magazines hold only five rounds. Think about it.....magazines fit in the grip of the pistol, so how many rounds can you hold in your hand?

Steve

They are tools. Saying the gun alone is not the problem is a straw man argument. Literally no one thinks guns are inherently evil and will do damage on their own. I’ll take my chances against someone with a hammer, a bat, etc. The guy in Vegas was not chucking those things out of the window and if he was that wouldn’t be such a big deal.

If you’re against giving anything up, I guess we need to do what we can always do. Impose a tax and make guns or bullets prohibitively expensive. Chris Rock said $5k a bullet would ensure they are used more wisely. Starting to agree.

I’m at least on board with a training commitment from gun purchasers. As soon as I have faith that a gun owner is responsible I’d be more comfortable with them out there. As it stands, the bad guys with a gun seem to be winning against the good guys with a gun.

Just catching up without reading the last several pages. I was genuinely interested in your thoughts. Thank you for responding, I did not see any information recently on the proposed 5 rounds.

This is again, a subject that I think much like religion, finding a middle ground is impossible as minds are concreted. However, I do like to actually hear people's thoughts and the reasoning.

As to the "good guy with a gun" statement, as 95%+ historically of these incidents other than the supermarket were "soft targets" (IE: areas where guns are illegal to carry and or possess for non-criminal elements) I would think without change to the carry laws that only police whom are the current solution would be the available responders. I personally do not see a possibility of a civilian response to a school, church, or government building currently a viable thought. Even if successful in stopping an attack, a zealous prosecutor could provide a minimum 5 year stint to the "good guy" with little effort. I think this issue is the structure toward the difficulty of solution on these incidents (for any side).