It's fair if there's an accepted standard on it, but as far as I'm aware there doesn't seem to be one, at least not for the US. If Canada has an objective legal framework that can identify which guns count then at least people can mean the same thing when they say it.
It works extremely well. It was one of those regulations that we just grew used to, like mandatory seatbelts. Our other regulations mainly involve limiting conceal ability and/or prevent a misfiring from at-home modifications of the guns.
We're stupider for pee pee smacks over adults and seatbelts. It slides the zeitgeist to authoritarian morons.
It provides yet one more discretionary excuse to selectively enforce. It infantilizes what is one of the simplest good decisions to make just to make a skill and habit of making good decisions. It's a terrible law.
Maybe. I know some people feel that way, and I certainly felt that way as well. You're not wrong about selective enforcement.
But it's been so long since 'putting on a sealbelt' is just a habit that, meh, I hear the complaints of people who don't want to and don't really care.
I getcha on the authoritarian paternalism, though. I getcha. I have spoken before about not liking sin taxes, even if I like taxes on externalities.
Like I said, the magazine limit grated at first. But after awhile, it's a bit 'meh'. Not like it really matters to me, and I think a good case can be made that it limits the damage from mass shootings.
Like I said, the magazine limit grated at first. But after awhile, it's a bit 'meh'. Not like it really matters to me, and I think a good case can be made that it limits the damage from mass shootings.
Sure, but I was speaking in the context of not having a 2nd Amendment. Our looney shooters have a harder time getting larger capacity magazines. There's some black market from the States, obviously (thanks Obama) as well as black market from elsewhere. But those aren't easy for a mass shooter to get, outside of a dedicated terrorist operation.
A person with smaller magazines has a harder time killing oodles of people. After that, it's just a function as to whether you can prevent mass-shooters from gaining illegal magazines. Easier up here. Harder in a nation where entire open-border communities are dedicated to the idea that guns should be cheap and easy to get.
Very few of our mass shootings involve illegal magazines, though there are certainly some. Bissonnette had higher capacity magazines, for example, and the massacre would probably have been worse if his gun hadn't jammed. But you have an uphill battle suggesting that any of the indiscriminate shootings would have had a better outcome if the perpetrators had easier access to cheaper and more lethal weapon combinations. I can easily think of some where limited magazine size surely affected the outcome.
How can reloading rifle times by mainly total amateurs not reduce the amount of death they can unload when in many of these situations seconds count? Please do elaborate on how this isn't a proactive measure on the worst mass shootings?
How can reloading rifle times by mainly total amateurs not reduce the amount of death they can unload when in many of these situations seconds count? Please do elaborate on how this isn't a proactive measure on the worst mass shootings?
Speaking from experience, reloading isn't something an amateur would find difficult. It's pretty much the most basic and easiest thing to learn in regards to firearms.
We're stupider for pee pee smacks over adults and seatbelts. It slides the zeitgeist to authoritarian morons.
It provides yet one more discretionary excuse to selectively enforce. It infantilizes what is one of the simplest good decisions to make just to make a skill and habit of making good decisions. It's a terrible law.
Emergency rooms are pretty much universally understaffed and overextended. If someone gets dragged in with injuries that are ten times worse than they really needed to be that is made worse. If a significant segment of the ER input is coming in with injuries ten times worse than they needed to be then everyone suffers for it.
There is no evidence to support this statement. In fact, earlier in the thread, I provided two instances that directly contradict it. Which I'm sure you saw but just chose to ignore because it doesn't fit your narrative.
Emergency rooms are pretty much universally understaffed and overextended. If someone gets dragged in with injuries that are ten times worse than they really needed to be that is made worse. If a significant segment of the ER input is coming in with injuries ten times worse than they needed to be then everyone suffers for it.
Such is always the argument, unavoidably. Undeniably. Jackasses that drink, that ride motorcycles, that own pools, that go skydiving, that are overweight, that have unmedicated mental issues. Still seems like a supply issue to me, but even if we solved it, I'd put just about any money that the other hand would be entirely indifferent to the change.
There is no evidence to support this statement. In fact, earlier in the thread, I provided two instances that directly contradict it. Which I'm sure you saw but just chose to ignore because it doesn't fit your narrative.
Keep in mind, you're also the same person who asked "what's wrong with bump stocks? In the context of mass shootings" As if it's a legitimate question. You've got a narrative, and you know it.
But yeah, I do have a narrative. I think that unlicensed gun ownership is dumb. Nearly every credible Second Amendment advocate that I know of is properly trained on firearm usage and the laws regarding them. And yet, they prefer a society where people have easy and anonymous access to weapons that can cause trouble everywhere. I think it's dumb.
I think it's dumb for the same reason I think allowing everybody to own and wear bomb vests would be dumb.
But no, don't be stupid. Everyone knows that higher-capacity magazines are better for killing oodles of people. There's literally a reason why magazines got bigger when it came to designing combat weapons.
You've literally taken pains to explain why higher-capacity magazines are desirable when it comes to killing. It's not like we will ever run this experiment in any statistically significant way, but we know why people want high-capacity magazines in their combat weapons
Emergency rooms are pretty much universally understaffed and overextended. If someone gets dragged in with injuries that are ten times worse than they really needed to be that is made worse. If a significant segment of the ER input is coming in with injuries ten times worse than they needed to be then everyone suffers for it.
This is only a problem because we force me to pay for someone else's ER bill. We are then left with an authoritarian conundrum, and the people who don't like authoritarianism recognize it. Socialized Healthcare is vastly more efficient, but once we socialized Healthcare we then have incentive to intrude on your life. Every step is logical, and that's what makes it a slippery slope.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
