| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/05/2013 07:05:16 PM · #101 |
| Watch it. I'm pretty sure Ray thinks that when Canada takes a dump the US smells roses... ;) |
|
|
|
04/05/2013 07:06:36 PM · #102 |
Hell, here's a link..
Just go read up on how well Canada's firearms registry is working out. Over budget, no metrics tracked to measure success or failure, police who say it's long on philosophy and short on results, etc.
Yeah, right, this seems like a perfectly fine idea, it's obviously working out pretty well up there. |
|
|
|
04/05/2013 07:37:42 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Hell, here's a link..
Just go read up on how well Canada's firearms registry is working out. Over budget, no metrics tracked to measure success or failure, police who say it's long on philosophy and short on results, etc.
Yeah, right, this seems like a perfectly fine idea, it's obviously working out pretty well up there. |
Whether it worked or not isn't really an answer to whether the mere existence of a registry will always lead to confiscation of weapons and I think the answer is "no". |
|
|
|
04/06/2013 12:33:54 AM · #104 |
Originally posted by frisca:
Originally posted by Cory:
Hell, here's a link..
Just go read up on how well Canada's firearms registry is working out. Over budget, no metrics tracked to measure success or failure, police who say it's long on philosophy and short on results, etc.
Yeah, right, this seems like a perfectly fine idea, it's obviously working out pretty well up there. |
Whether it worked or not isn't really an answer to whether the mere existence of a registry will always lead to confiscation of weapons and I think the answer is "no". |
Does it increase the likelihood of it?
Why support something that wouldn't even work in the first place, and can then later be used in unintended (or not so unintended) ways. |
|
|
|
04/06/2013 12:43:35 AM · #105 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I've already stated the reasons for limiting magazine capacity but apparently you missed it:
"To repeat a fact that has probably been stated dozens of times already, the Arizona shooter dropped the magazine, which allowed people to react and stop him shooting some more. So the fewer bullets he'd had in the first round, the fewer deaths and injuries would have resulted; and the more he's forced to reload, the greater the opportunity to get away or stop him. Pretty simple."
I'd say it's a no-brainer that the tradeoff -- a little inconvenience to you in return for fewer people being shot -- is worth making and one that rational people are willing to make. |
Hell, he was such a tool it's surprising he didn't drop the gun.
Realize that this guy was the epitome of incompetence, and realize that most people won't drop the clip and bend over to pick it up. In fact, larger capacity clips make this scenario MORE likely because they are heavier, and if the attacker is using many small capacity clips, they probably wouldn't bend over to grab the dropped one, but would just grab another from their bag.
No, I'm afraid your argument is much like a decorative pot - it just looks pretty on the surface, but doesn't really hold water. |
And I was reminded tonight that 11 children in the Connecticut school shooting escaped when the shooter changed magazines. Seems likely it took him a little longer than 1 second to make the switch. A few seconds in which to act can make the difference between life and death in these situations. |
|
|
|
04/06/2013 01:05:46 AM · #106 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I've already stated the reasons for limiting magazine capacity but apparently you missed it:
"To repeat a fact that has probably been stated dozens of times already, the Arizona shooter dropped the magazine, which allowed people to react and stop him shooting some more. So the fewer bullets he'd had in the first round, the fewer deaths and injuries would have resulted; and the more he's forced to reload, the greater the opportunity to get away or stop him. Pretty simple."
I'd say it's a no-brainer that the tradeoff -- a little inconvenience to you in return for fewer people being shot -- is worth making and one that rational people are willing to make. |
Hell, he was such a tool it's surprising he didn't drop the gun.
Realize that this guy was the epitome of incompetence, and realize that most people won't drop the clip and bend over to pick it up. In fact, larger capacity clips make this scenario MORE likely because they are heavier, and if the attacker is using many small capacity clips, they probably wouldn't bend over to grab the dropped one, but would just grab another from their bag.
No, I'm afraid your argument is much like a decorative pot - it just looks pretty on the surface, but doesn't really hold water. |
And I was reminded tonight that 11 children in the Connecticut school shooting escaped when the shooter changed magazines. Seems likely it took him a little longer than 1 second to make the switch. A few seconds in which to act can make the difference between life and death in these situations. |
And 20 more kids died because his mother allowed a psycho-fuck to have guns.
Think about that.
In truth though, what difference would it have made if it was just a super-soaker filled with gasoline? The problem is the psycho that was allowed to run free.
Message edited by author 2013-04-06 01:07:42. |
|
|
|
04/06/2013 01:24:10 AM · #107 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Does it increase the likelihood of it? |
Considering that you probably don't toss and turn at night fearing that your car will be taken away and the little fact that such a registry is against federal law, no. Does it freak out the gun nuts anyway? Absolutely.
I'm happy to see Connecticut take some steps to help reduce gun violence. The NRA has successfully lobbied to block agencies from conducting studies into the effectiveness of such measures because the results would have devastated their propaganda, but a study isn't even necessary to point out the obvious. |
|
|
|
04/06/2013 01:33:28 AM · #108 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
...... Does it freak out the gun nuts anyway? ....
.. |
Look Shannon, I don't refer to the folks on your side of this argument as "retarded illogical gun restriction assholes", so please try to think about what you're saying. I think you'll find that calling me, and others who support the second amendment "gun nuts" is disingenuous at best, and well in line with the denigration that many have abhorred throughout history, as you are clearly attempting to lump any one who isn't on your side into the same category as the shooters in these incidents. Besides, I promise you, I'm quite sane.
Message edited by author 2013-04-08 01:51:50. |
|
|
|
04/06/2013 01:36:04 AM · #109 |
Originally posted by Cory:
In truth though, what difference would it have made if it was just a super-soaker filled with gasoline? |
Aside from the inability of a super soaker to shoot out the glass of a locked school, the weapon's range, the difficulty of reloading, the comparative ease of victims shielding themselves or fleeing, the greater likelihood of being able to take on the shooter even if hit, the nature of the injuries and the vastly different fatality rate? This is not evidence of your claimed sanity... and watch the language, dude. I was referring specifically to the gun NUTS, not the majority of legal gun owners who don't have a problem with proposed measures like expanded background checks.
Message edited by author 2013-04-06 01:41:31. |
|
|
|
04/06/2013 08:44:38 AM · #110 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Cory:
In truth though, what difference would it have made if it was just a super-soaker filled with gasoline? |
Aside from the inability of a super soaker to shoot out the glass of a locked school, the weapon's range, the difficulty of reloading, the comparative ease of victims shielding themselves or fleeing, the greater likelihood of being able to take on the shooter even if hit, the nature of the injuries and the vastly different fatality rate? This is not evidence of your claimed sanity... and watch the language, dude. I was referring specifically to the gun NUTS, not the majority of legal gun owners who don't have a problem with proposed measures like expanded background checks. |
Oh, so denigrating those who disagree with you is OK, as long as they are are in the minority. Really man? Really?
|
|
|
|
04/06/2013 01:01:22 PM · #111 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Cory:
In truth though, what difference would it have made if it was just a super-soaker filled with gasoline? |
Aside from the inability of a super soaker to shoot out the glass of a locked school, the weapon's range, the difficulty of reloading, the comparative ease of victims shielding themselves or fleeing, the greater likelihood of being able to take on the shooter even if hit, the nature of the injuries and the vastly different fatality rate? This is not evidence of your claimed sanity... and watch the language, dude. I was referring specifically to the gun NUTS, not the majority of legal gun owners who don't have a problem with proposed measures like expanded background checks. |
Oh, so denigrating those who disagree with you is OK, as long as they are are in the minority. Really man? Really? |
Actually, the denigration aspect of it would only occur if YOU consider yourself an gun NUT... if you don't then their is no slight.
That's my take on it anyways.. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
04/06/2013 01:04:12 PM · #112 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Hell, here's a link..
Just go read up on how well Canada's firearms registry is working out. Over budget, no metrics tracked to measure success or failure, police who say it's long on philosophy and short on results, etc.
Yeah, right, this seems like a perfectly fine idea, it's obviously working out pretty well up there. |
Do take the time to familiarize yourself with the differences that exist between the Firearms Act and the now defunct Gun Registry that dealt with long barrel firearms, take into consideration the other limitations relative to these firearms and then we can talk.
Right now you are comparing apples to road apples... trust me they are not the same.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/06/2013 02:42:19 PM · #113 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
I've already stated the reasons for limiting magazine capacity but apparently you missed it:
"To repeat a fact that has probably been stated dozens of times already, the Arizona shooter dropped the magazine, which allowed people to react and stop him shooting some more. So the fewer bullets he'd had in the first round, the fewer deaths and injuries would have resulted; and the more he's forced to reload, the greater the opportunity to get away or stop him. Pretty simple."
I'd say it's a no-brainer that the tradeoff -- a little inconvenience to you in return for fewer people being shot -- is worth making and one that rational people are willing to make. |
Hell, he was such a tool it's surprising he didn't drop the gun.
Realize that this guy was the epitome of incompetence, and realize that most people won't drop the clip and bend over to pick it up. In fact, larger capacity clips make this scenario MORE likely because they are heavier, and if the attacker is using many small capacity clips, they probably wouldn't bend over to grab the dropped one, but would just grab another from their bag.
No, I'm afraid your argument is much like a decorative pot - it just looks pretty on the surface, but doesn't really hold water. |
And I was reminded tonight that 11 children in the Connecticut school shooting escaped when the shooter changed magazines. Seems likely it took him a little longer than 1 second to make the switch. A few seconds in which to act can make the difference between life and death in these situations. |
Unfortunately, the only way I see this issue changing for the better is if more conservatives get to experience this first hand or a family member like in the case of gay rights. |
|
|
|
04/06/2013 02:58:37 PM · #114 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Cory:
Again, if you go to a country where trucks are popular, and the roads are dangerous, and then conclude that all would be well if only trucks were banned, then you're tracking down the wrong path of logic. |
The false argument again.... not only is it impossible to accomplish, but no one is proposing that all guns be banned. |
Why not? You do realize that you really do need to ban them all to have any real effect whatsoever right?
I mean, these people we're talking about kinda seem to think that if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a bag full of puppies. They're not right, they don't play by the rules, and they generally tend to not give a *%@# about anyone or anything other than themselves.
And my argument wasn't false, it really isn't - we do live in a violent country - surely you don't dispute that fact? |
You can change the subject if you like, but we weren't arguing about whether this is a violent country. Everyone knows this is a violent country. Your implied argument in the original quotation is that the proposal is to ban guns, and it's not. |
Sure it is. It's just that it's the first step in a series of steps.
Don't deny it - history says otherwise. |
You're wrong. There are limits now on the private ownership of certain weapons. There used to be a ban on some semi-automatic weapons. There are legal requirements now that gun owners must comply with, various different ones depending on the state in which you live. None of these regulations has ever led to an outright complete ban on private ownership of firearms (and need I mention the recent Supreme Court decision?). The slippery slope argument and all the other excuses you've offered up are just that, excuses for inaction because... well, you admitted it, you just want what you want and everybody else can go f*ck themselves. Brownie points for your honesty. |
|
|
|
04/06/2013 06:16:05 PM · #115 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Oh, so denigrating those who disagree with you is OK, as long as they are are in the minority. Really man? Really? |
Denigrating? Most gun owners support universal background checks, bans on extended magazines, background checks for ammunition purchases, a national gun owner database, and 45% support an assault weapons ban, so we're not talking about regular gun owners here. "Gun nuts" seemed appropriate and even understated to me, but what term would you prefer... extremists, fanatics, zealots, radicals, or maybe 'ignorant fools' like your first post? |
|
|
|
04/06/2013 06:36:03 PM · #116 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Unfortunately, the only way I see this issue changing for the better is if more conservatives get to experience this first hand or a family member like in the case of gay rights. |
Don't place this too squarely in the conservative camp. Eleven democratic senators, including Harry Reid, get an A or B grade from the NRA. These days that qualifies as downright bipartisan.
Message edited by author 2013-04-06 18:36:25. |
|
|
|
04/06/2013 07:01:44 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Don't place this too squarely in the conservative camp. Eleven democratic senators, including Harry Reid, get an A or B grade from the NRA. These days that qualifies as downright bipartisan. |
Not squarely, but there is a strong correlation. 70% of gun-owning NRA members identify themselves as conservative or strongly conservative (and even more are Republican), while only 44% of gun owners who aren't members of the NRA identify themselves as conservative. As you might expect, there is a large difference of opinion between those two groups on gun control. Many of those democratic senators you mentioned, including Reid, were fair weather friends who courted the NRA for votes years ago, but have since backed stronger gun legislation. |
|
|
|
04/06/2013 09:21:04 PM · #118 |
I, of course, don't really fit into either group very well.
The truth is that I simply don't support that with doesn't make good sense.
Magazine bans = pure bullshit nonsense
Background checks = great idea
Mental Health Screening = great idea
wait periods = great idea
"assault weapons ban" = Shit idea
....
etc.
I've explained why, in detail previously, but it boils down to this : If it makes significant difference, then I'm ok with it - but if it's some stupid-assed ineffective measure that is doomed to only erode the rights of the lawful, then I'm dead-set against it. In all honesty, I'm not bullshitting when I say I'd support a full ban before I'll support magazine capacity limitations, or restricting weapons based upon the way the gun looks. I don't own a black-gun "assault" rifle, nor would I want one - but still, banning them is just stupidity at it's height.
And so, by Shannon's definition, since I think assault weapons bans, and magazine capacity bans are just going to be ineffective, and since I happen to like large magazines, now I'm a gun nut. *shrug* Whatever. You can call me what you want, but the truth is that I'm still using my brain, and many of you have simply shut yours off.
ETA: And to be clear, I don't support full bans, but only because we can't even keep guns out of prison, so keeping them off the street and out of the hands of criminals seems pretty damned unlikely.
Message edited by author 2013-04-06 21:22:34. |
|
|
|
04/06/2013 09:38:28 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Many of those democratic senators you mentioned, including Reid, were fair weather friends who courted the NRA for votes years ago, but have since backed stronger gun legislation. |
Lets not forget that the NRA was years ago primarily a sporting organization designed to educate and promote their sport, rather than the political organization they have become. A link to how the NRA was taken over in 1977 by radicals. It is an organization like the ACLU with roots in a good idea that has become so extreme that they no longer speak for the majority of those they purport to represent. About 90 million Americans own guns. The NRA claims to have about four million members. So the radical 5% have alienated 95% of gun owners, as well as the vast majority of Democrats who enjoy owning and using guns. |
|
|
|
04/06/2013 10:37:42 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by Cory:
it boils down to this : If it makes significant difference, then I'm ok with it ...magazine capacity bans are just going to be ineffective, and since I happen to like large magazines, now I'm a gun nut. *shrug* Whatever. You can call me what you want.. |
Ooh, can I call you clueless? |
|
|
|
04/06/2013 11:39:05 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Cory:
it boils down to this : If it makes significant difference, then I'm ok with it ...magazine capacity bans are just going to be ineffective, and since I happen to like large magazines, now I'm a gun nut. *shrug* Whatever. You can call me what you want.. |
Ooh, can I call you clueless? |
Ummm... People tend to hide illegal things... Duh.
You didn't really think this was significant did you? |
|
|
|
04/07/2013 12:19:39 AM · #122 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Don't place this too squarely in the conservative camp. Eleven democratic senators, including Harry Reid, get an A or B grade from the NRA. These days that qualifies as downright bipartisan. |
Not squarely, but there is a strong correlation. 70% of gun-owning NRA members identify themselves as conservative or strongly conservative (and even more are Republican), while only 44% of gun owners who aren't members of the NRA identify themselves as conservative. As you might expect, there is a large difference of opinion between those two groups on gun control. Many of those democratic senators you mentioned, including Reid, were fair weather friends who courted the NRA for votes years ago, but have since backed stronger gun legislation. |
Harry Reid has been an obstacle, not a boon for the latest attempts at gun control.
I'm pretty sure the NRA is smart enough to sniff out a fair weather friend and lower their grade... |
|
|
|
04/07/2013 01:00:19 AM · #123 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by Cory:
it boils down to this : If it makes significant difference, then I'm ok with it ...magazine capacity bans are just going to be ineffective, and since I happen to like large magazines, now I'm a gun nut. *shrug* Whatever. You can call me what you want.. |
Ooh, can I call you clueless? |
Ummm... People tend to hide illegal things... Duh. |
Haven't you consistently said that banning things or making them illegal is not going to impact their use by criminals? Make up your mind, you can't have it both ways. If you're going to insist that the drop is due to the criminals HIDING their "illegal" weapons from the cops, then you're stretching even further than I thought you were for rationales... |
|
|
|
04/07/2013 01:28:20 AM · #124 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Harry Reid has been an obstacle, not a boon for the latest attempts at gun control.
I'm pretty sure the NRA is smart enough to sniff out a fair weather friend and lower their grade... |
Are the 2013 ratings out yet? "Reid̢۪s advisers say the murder of 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., has changed the political landscape and Reid now views gun violence from a different perspective." |
|
|
|
04/07/2013 02:01:12 AM · #125 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
"Reid̢۪s advisers say the murder of 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., has changed the political landscape and Reid now views gun violence from a different perspective." |
While Sandy Hook was a great tragedy, I do find it sad that an event like it has so much greater effect on the majority than the 3,296 people who have been killed by guns since. Are we so numbed to the day to day murders in our nation that we can no longer feel them? |
|
