Only 1 shooting this week so far

[Patroklos]

The problem BS, is that you have not commented at all on what those reasons are.

 

[Farm Boy]

For the record, I think that talking without a hands-free set, or texting while driving should be illegal.

I'm on board with sane gun regulation as well, but I usually like to see numbers on what and why. Inches per barrel, types of magazines, etc. The wishy washy terms don't mean much to me.

I applaud at least your stance this far on phones, to be honest though, I'm not kidding much in my response to JR. I think either the drivers licenses or the cell phones need to go. Or maybe some form of mandatory signal jamming installed in cars.

 

[kochman]

What is really ironic is that this is occurring despite violent crime continuing to decrease.

What is even more ironic is that you continue to avoid the fact that crime has dropped more in all states that have concealed weapon permits...

 

[Formaldehyde]

I also am not advocating banning all guns. Not even close. I think some people are reading what I am saying and thinking that. I just want to ban the guns that facilitate the rapid killing of many people in a short period of time. Guns that really don’t have an alternative use in our society.

Exactly. It is quite revealing that those who advocate sane gun control laws like the one we had from 1994 to 2004 are being portrayed as the wing nuts by those who really have no valid argument for the continued sale of assault weapons and large capacity magazines to an extremely small percentage of Americans, which at least some of whom have serious mental and emotional health issues.

 

[ace99]

Gun ownership rates in Switzerland show statistically that you are wrong. So, the rest of your idea here is null and void.

Assault rifle ammo in Switzerland is strictly regulated. While many people may have assault rifles the ammo you can only get from military depots post-2007 and a few thousand specialist are allowed to keep a case or two at home.

Also http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...l-and-switzerland-are-not-gun-toting-utopias/

Both countries require you to have a reason to have a gun. There isn’t this idea that you have a right to a gun. You need a reason. And then you need to go back to the permitting authority every six months or so to assure them the reason is still valid.

Switzerland has also been moving away from having widespread guns. The laws are done canton by canton, which is like a province. Everyone in Switzerland serves in the army, and the cantons used to let you have the guns at home. They’ve been moving to keeping the guns in depots. That means they’re not in the household, which makes sense because the literature shows us that if the gun is in the household, the risk goes up for everyone in the household.

 

[BSmith1068]

You think it will never happen again. How odd.
As time passes, the odds of it happening again get closer to 1.
Also, their culture is not the same, and their population not nearly as big... so, yes, it will happen again. Guaranteed. You're living in a dream world if you don't think it will.

Where have I said gun control would eliminate entirely these killings? Even if they have one tomorrow, one mass killing in 16 years is better than 3-4 mass killings every year. Don’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good.

Specifics?
Define how easy it is. This kid stole his, as he had been turned down at a gun store.

From his Mother, in his own house. If his mother didn’t have them it would have been much harder to get them, as shown by him not being able to get one at the gun store.

I compared it to every country in the world that has guns, actually, including these which are in terrible positions, have massive access to guns (you could get an AK for $20 when I was in Afghanistan)... yet they don't have the problem.
You may have an emotional eek response to this statement, but it is factual... You liking it isn't really a concern.

Iraq and Afghanistan are countries that are war-zones. Are you saying that the streets of Anytown USA are a war zone? The people of Iraq and Afghanistan have far more problems and many more issues to deal with. Comparing the two is impossible without a serious laughing fit.

Oh, I didn't think this was specific, but I'll play along.
OK, so, that .22 rifle should be banned... it barely kills squirrels, but it's a threat to you.
What if it can only hold 10 rounds but be reloaded rapidly?

It is a starting place for the discussion. No one has the singular answer here. Otherwise this wouldn’t be a tough discussion. I’m borderline on the .22 caliber part. What makes that particular rifle more dangerous is the clip that can be changed quickly. The same rifle with without the changeable magazine is not one I would consider banning. A .22 shell is not that powerful and while deadly, is not as big a threat as even the .223 rifle rounds that pack a whole lot more punch.

Gun ownership rates in Switzerland show statistically that you are wrong. So, the rest of your idea here is null and void.

I'm sorry that you live in fear. I suggest that you look at statistics and figure out that guns violence is completely overblown by the media.

So sorry this is not a black and white, one variable problem. In our society, reducing the number of available guns would go a long way to helping reduce these killings. But it is not the only thing that should be done.

 

[kochman]

Assault rifle ammo in Switzerland is strictly regulated. While many people may have assault rifles the ammo you can only get from military depots post-2007 and a few thousand specialist are allowed to keep a case or two at home.

Do you have any idea how much ammunition is in a case?!
The author clearly didn't either.

From his Mother, in his own house. If his mother didn’t have them it would have been much harder to get them, as shown by him not being able to get one at the gun store.

Ok, so, then, no one should have them is what you are arguing now? Because you've said you aren't, but here you clearly are.

Iraq and Afghanistan are countries that are war-zones.

Having served there I am aware of this...
Anyhow, Iraq isn't anymore, btw.

Are you saying that the streets of Anytown USA are a war zone?

No.

The people of Iraq and Afghanistan have far more problems and many more issues to deal with. Comparing the two is impossible without a serious laughing fit.

I compared us to EVERY gun owning country in the world... why do you insist on talking about only these two?

It is a starting place for the discussion. No one has the singular answer here. Otherwise this wouldn’t be a tough discussion. I’m borderline on the .22 caliber part. What makes that particular rifle more dangerous is the clip that can be changed quickly. The same rifle with without the changeable magazine is not one I would consider banning. A .22 shell is not that powerful and while deadly, is not as big a threat as even the .223 rifle rounds that pack a whole lot more punch.

Ok, well, I was just using your "specific" definition...

So sorry this is not a black and white, one variable problem. In our society, reducing the number of available guns would go a long way to helping reduce these killings. But it is not the only thing that should be done.

How do you reduce? What do you want reduced?
You've now drawn a new line in the sand... .223 and greater...

Do you know Mossad used .22 pistols for assassinations for a long time? The Model 71 Beretta...

 

[hobbsyoyo]

1.) so do I, the difference between me and you is my position uses defendable logic and yours something else
2.) I did, to devastating effect
3.) Hardly, or are you denying you are talking about weapons not used?
4.) the issue is school shootings, you are talking about weapons not used in said school shootings. You are off topic.



You seem confused as to what that term means. Let me help you out with an example

For you.

 

[BSmith1068]

Do you have any idea how much ammunition is in a case?!
The author clearly didn't either.

The statement clearly implied that those that had access to a case of ammo were somewhat restricted. Not just whomever wanted one.

Ok, so, then, no one should have them is what you are arguing now? Because you've said you aren't, but here you clearly are.

By “them” I mean weapons like the AR-15. No one but law enforcement and the military should have weapons like that.

I compared us to EVERY gun owning country in the world... why do you insist on talking about only these two?

I addressed the others as well, but these two were so far out there that there really is no comparison.

How do you reduce? What do you want reduced?
You've now drawn a new line in the sand... .223 and greater...

I’m not drawing any lines anywhere. I am attempting to start a conversation around what is acceptable and what is not. I certainly don’t have all the answers. I am not a gun expert. But I do know what logically makes sense to me with respect to limits on what should be publically available for anyone who wants it.

There is a big difference between these two shells:

While the diameter of the bullet is about the same, one is fairly acceptable and one is not. I think you can figure out which is which.

Do you know Mossad used .22 pistols for assassinations for a long time? The Model 71 Beretta...

Way to miss my point entirely – yet again. Sure a .22 is deadly if used in the right hands. But I am pretty sure that the Mossad wasn’t assassinating 30 people in 10 minutes with a 71 Beretta.

 

[BSmith1068]

I should note that I am no stranger to guns. In High School I was on the rifle team, and was a Distinguished Expert Marksman. I owned my own gun and kept it in my closet at home in my room. While I don’t currently own any guns, I have shot plenty and am rather familiar with them.

 

[kochman]

The statement clearly implied that those that had access to a case of ammo were somewhat restricted. Not just whomever wanted one.

A case is literally hundreds of rounds.

By “them” I mean weapons like the AR-15. No one but law enforcement and the military should have weapons like that.

Thanks for clarifying.
So, you think .223 and above should definitely be illegal.

I addressed the others as well, but these two were so far out there that there really is no comparison.

The point that you are missing is they are in a way worse, more volatile situation, but yet they don't have the problems we have...
Compare death rates of Detroit to those of Baghdad.

There is a big difference between these two shells:

While the diameter of the bullet is about the same, one is fairly acceptable and one is not. I think you can figure out which is which.

.223 is more dangerous than a 9mm (not picture), which is bases purely on grain count within the shell... I get it.

Way to miss my point entirely – yet again. Sure a .22 is deadly if used in the right hands. But I am pretty sure that the Mossad wasn’t assassinating 30 people in 10 minutes with a 71 Beretta.

I was actually making a counter point, which you missed I guess.
A .22 is still quite deadly, but somehow people seem to think they are ok.
If it is a bullet, it is deadly. Sure, a .50 cal will blow your arm off... but what type of pistol is easier to port around, a .25 semi-auto? Or a .50 desert eagle?
Concealability is a factor too, one that many seem to be ignorning.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I should note that I am no stranger to guns. In High School I was on the rifle team, and was a Distinguished Expert Marksman. I owned my own gun and kept it in my closet at home in my room. While I don’t currently own any guns, I have shot plenty and am rather familiar with them.

It is sad you even feel obligated to point this out. The pro-gun crowd loves to destroy conversation by labeling people too ignorant to have valid points.

 

[Farm Boy]

It is sad you even feel obligated to point this out. The pro-gun crowd loves to destroy conversation by labeling people too ignorant to have valid points.

In all fairness, this isn't limited to pro-gun people. But yes, it's sad.

 

[kochman]

A lot of people need to express their experience, I don't think it is sad... It's the internet and we don't all know each other's backgrounds.

I, for one, never said I doubted that BS knew what he was talking about.

I, for one again, can generally tell pretty quickly when someone doesn't know about their topic (if I know about the topic, that is).

 

[bhsup]

There is a big difference between these two shells:

While the diameter of the bullet is about the same, one is fairly acceptable and one is not. I think you can figure out which is which.

Guessing you mean the one on the right is acceptable, yes? I think I'd rather get shot with a standard ball round going at high velocity which has a chance of just maybe punching through me as opposed to the lower velocity HOLLOW POINT round (from the looks of it) on the left which would just tear the crap out of me when it hits. YMMV.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

A lot of people need to express their experience, I don't think it is sad... It's the internet and we don't all know each other's backgrounds.

I, for one, never said I doubted that BS knew what he was talking about.

I, for one again, can generally tell pretty quickly when someone doesn't know about their topic (if I know about the topic, that is).

You have spent an entire thread telling people that they don't know enough about guns to have a valid opinion.

 

[Farm Boy]

Somebody put a any size buckshot 12 gauge shell in there if we are going over things I don't want to get hit by. Hell, add quail shot in there too.

 

[bhsup]

Somebody put a any size buckshot 12 gauge shell in there if we are going over things I don't want to get hit by. Hell, add quail shot in there too.

Heh, fair to say! I wasn't suggesting I want to be hit by either, mind you. It's just that he really picked the wrong comparison, imho, if he was trying to suggest the round on the right was definitely the worse/more dangerous.

 

[BSmith1068]

A case is literally hundreds of rounds.

I know. But the people who have access to the case are controlled. Not so here in the good ‘ole US of A.

Thanks for clarifying.
So, you think .223 and above should definitely be illegal.

I don’t think the answer lies in simply restricting the caliber of bullet available. A .50 caliber muzzle-loader is A-OK with me. But a .223 AR-15 with a bullet less than half the diameter of the .50 is not.

The point that you are missing is they are in a way worse, more volatile situation, but yet they don't have the problems we have...
Compare death rates of Detroit to those of Baghdad.

No, they have problems orders of magnitude greater than we do. So much so that trying to make a similarity on this point is useless.

.223 is more dangerous than a 9mm (not picture), which is bases purely on grain count within the shell... I get it.

The picture is a .22 and a .223, as we were discussing those two round sizes. But yes, grain count is a big factor, as is type of shell (armor piercing, fragmentation, etc). But grain count is not the end-all be all either. If I’m going moose hunting I certainly want a big shell with a lot of punch. But I don’t need to shoot several hundred shells a minute at the moose. One should do just fine if I know how to aim. (and if I don’t I probably shouldn’t be hunting).

.I was actually making a counter point, which you missed I guess.
A .22 is still quite deadly, but somehow people seem to think they are ok.
If it is a bullet, it is deadly. Sure, a .50 cal will blow your arm off... but what type of pistol is easier to port around, a .25 semi-auto? Or a .50 desert eagle?
Concealability is a factor too, one that many seem to be ignorning.

Any gun is deadly. I have been saying that since the beginning. That is not a point to debate. Some guns can be more deadly to more people in a shorter amount of time than others. It is these that we don’t need on the streets.

 

[kochman]

You have spent an entire thread telling people that they don't know enough about guns to have a valid opinion.

I have done no such thing.

I've said, in this thread, please present thought out arguments rather than emotional outbursts or quick snipes.