Gun ownership poll

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

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.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

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.

[irv]

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.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by irv

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.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

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.

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?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

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?

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

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

As far as 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.

[G1911]

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.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

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.

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?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

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?

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.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

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.

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.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

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.

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

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

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.

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?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

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?

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.

[bnorth]

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.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by bnorth

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.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by bnorth

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.

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.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by bnorth

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.

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

[BobbyStrawberry]

The amount of straw men on this thread is dizzying.