re: gender and gun violence, I think it's simultaneously true that the great majority of deaths by gun are men, both suicide and homicide, and that a woman who has a gun in her home has an increased risk of being killed by a domestic partner.
re: gender and gun violence, I think it's simultaneously true that the great majority of deaths by gun are men, both suicide and homicide, and that a woman who has a gun in her home has an increased risk of being killed by a domestic partner.
The CDC is going to be allowed to keep stats on gun violence soon. When that happens and the inevitable reality of gun ownership really only dramatically increases your chances of gun death do you honestly think any gun enthusiast cares?
This is why I'm after the low hanging fruit of high capacity magazines being held at ranges and shops. None allowed in homes (there is no point and in the case of civil war can easily be ignored). Most mass shooters are domestic, law abiding up until the moment of insanity, and can be slowed down by this measure (at least a bit).
If you care a boodle about the stats people are ignoring, didn't bugfatty link data that mass shooters are good at reloading and fire until either killed by police or they run out of ammunition?
Or is this just sorta in the I don't like it territory? Long guns are not the tools that put out the numbers. They're the tools suburbanites who don't give a crap about numbers have as redneck boogiemen.
I think handguns are way ahead, yes. Similarly, the percentage of gun victims in the US killed or wounded in "mass shootings" every year might not even reach double digits. When we're looking at 60,000 people shot in one year, we can't really be too satisfied if it dropped to "only" 55,000 the following year.
The CDC is going to be allowed to keep stats on gun violence soon. When that happens and the inevitable reality of gun ownership really only dramatically increases your chances of gun death do you honestly think any gun enthusiast cares?
This is why I'm after the low hanging fruit of high capacity magazines being held at ranges and shops. None allowed in homes (there is no point and in the case of civil war can easily be ignored). Most mass shooters are domestic, law abiding up until the moment of insanity, and can be slowed down by this measure (at least a bit).
As soon as the research comes out, the GOP will push to suppress it and end future research efforts. If they have control of either the White House, Senate or Congress, they'll likely be successful at that. Right now they have enough other crises to fight that this one isn't worth the pushback - especially since the majority of voters support this and gun control. In a few years, the situation may be changed enough that they'll go back to fully insane.
When that happens and the inevitable reality of gun ownership really only dramatically increases your chances of gun death do you honestly think any gun enthusiast cares?
Well for one, it's not an "inevitable reality". If we assume it is though, it's not really the slam dunk point in your argument you think it is. Using the point of owning a gun puts you at greater risk to be injured by that gun as an argument for banning guns would be just as ridiculous as saying bleach should be banned because having bleach puts you at greater risk of bleach poisoning.
This is why I'm after the low hanging fruit of high capacity magazines being held at ranges and shops. None allowed in homes (there is no point and in the case of civil war can easily be ignored). Most mass shooters are domestic, law abiding up until the moment of insanity, and can be slowed down by this measure (at least a bit
You run into several issues with this plan though, none of which have easy solutions. The biggest issue is going to be enforcement. How are you going to enforce such a law when there is no registry of who owns what guns? "We'll just make gun shops keep records then" you might say. Problem is they have a vested interest in protecting their customers and will likely falsify records to foil attempts at enforcing this potential law of yours.
Another issue is property rights. Generally, the government is extremely limited in its ability to dictate to people what they can and can't do with their personal property. And I'm not sure but enforcement methods for such a law might have 4th Amendment issues attached to it as well.
Well for one, it's not an "inevitable reality". If we assume it is though, it's not really the slam dunk point in your argument you think it is. Using the point of owning a gun puts you at greater risk to be injured by that gun as an argument for banning guns would be just as ridiculous as saying bleach should be banned because having bleach puts you at greater risk of bleach poisoning.
You run into several issues with this plan though, none of which have easy solutions. The biggest issue is going to be enforcement. How are you going to enforce such a law when there is no registry of who owns what guns? "We'll just make gun shops keep records then" you might say. Problem is they have a vested interest in protecting their customers and will likely falsify records to foil attempts at enforcing this potential law of yours.
Another issue is property rights. Generally, the government is extremely limited in its ability to dictate to people what they can and can't do with their personal property. And I'm not sure but enforcement methods for such a law might have 4th Amendment issues attached to it as well.
If you care a boodle about the stats people are ignoring, didn't bugfatty link data that mass shooters are good at reloading and fire until either killed by police or they run out of ammunition?
Or is this just sorta in the I don't like it territory? Long guns are not the tools that put out the numbers. They're the tools suburbanites who don't give a crap about numbers have as redneck boogiemen.
I'm well aware of this reality actually and again I'm not after the guns I'm after the magazines and yes I know they will reload but this will slow them down. milliseconds count in these mass shootings.
Well for one, it's not an "inevitable reality". If we assume it is though, it's not really the slam dunk point in your argument you think it is. Using the point of owning a gun puts you at greater risk to be injured by that gun as an argument for banning guns would be just as ridiculous as saying bleach should be banned because having bleach puts you at greater risk of bleach poisoning.
You run into several issues with this plan though, none of which have easy solutions. The biggest issue is going to be enforcement. How are you going to enforce such a law when there is no registry of who owns what guns? "We'll just make gun shops keep records then" you might say. Problem is they have a vested interest in protecting their customers and will likely falsify records to foil attempts at enforcing this potential law of yours.
Another issue is property rights. Generally, the government is extremely limited in its ability to dictate to people what they can and can't do with their personal property. And I'm not sure but enforcement methods for such a law might have 4th Amendment issues attached to it as well.
I'm not sure you have to try enforce it on the front end, just prosecute violators on the back end a few times and compliance will come pretty naturally.
Ok then I guess the time it takes to get up and run away out adoor or something isn't relevant. We should probably just do nothing and let Sandy Hooks keep happening because @cardgame likes shooting targets with 30 round magazine in his ar 15.
They'll happen essentially the same with 15s. Doesn't make a lot of sense until you put yourself in the mechanics of the moment, but that's mostly how it works out.
Don't you trip and put that tremendously evil blip of horror on cardgame. I don't like 10 plus in a high powered clip either. Five with a bolt is what makes sense to me. I dislike semiautomatic firearms, but you want numbers in your discussion? Mass shootings work really well with standard mags and semi automatic handguns. People are big, slow, easy to hit, and they run away. Paintball can teach you that. Squirrels are significantly harder to bullseye. What we really don't want is the murderously stewing to put aside the tactile horror and start studying chemistry.
Though, then we could all get snippy at neat nicks for a change. That'd be... refreshing. Bu dum tis.
You do realize magazine size has a negligible effect on how many people a mass shooter can kill right? In fact, smaller magazines may actually help them kill more since they can carry more ammo. This is why, by his own admission, the Parkland shooter used 10-round magazines instead of 30-round magazines.
Ok then I guess the time it takes to get up and run away out adoor or something isn't relevant. We should probably just do nothing and let Sandy Hooks keep happening because @cardgame likes shooting targets with 30 round magazine in his ar 15.
That's really not that many when you consider we have the highest rate of gun ownership in the developed world and a population of about 320 million. That's 0.01875% of the population getting shot. Perspective is everything. 60,000 seems like a lot when you post it by itself like you did here, but when compared to the total population of the US, it's a drop in the bucket and hardly something that warrants the amount of panic the anti-gun crowd tries to generate from it.
You do realize magazine size has a negligible effect on how many people a mass shooter can kill right? In fact, smaller magazines may actually help them kill more since they can carry more ammo. This is why, by his own admission, the Parkland shooter used 10-round magazines instead of 30-round magazines.
Objection! Logical fallacy: appeal to emotion.
That's really not that many when you consider we have the highest rate of gun ownership in the developed world and a population of about 320 million. That's 0.01875% of the population getting shot. Perspective is everything. 60,000 seems like a lot when you post it by itself like you did here, but when compared to the total population of the US, it's a drop in the bucket and hardly something that warrants the amount of panic the anti-gun crowd tries to generate from it.
They'll happen essentially the same with 15s. Doesn't make a lot of sense until you put yourself in the mechanics of the moment, but that's mostly how it works out.
Don't you trip and put that tremendously evil blip of horror on cardgame. I don't like 10 plus in a high powered clip either. Five with a bolt is what makes sense to me. I dislike semiautomatic firearms, but you want numbers in your discussion? Mass shootings work really well with standard mags and semi automatic handguns. People are big, slow, easy to hit, and they run away. Paintball can teach you that. Squirrels are significantly harder to bullseye. What we really don't want is the murderously stewing to put aside the tactile horror and start studying chemistry.
Though, then we could all get snippy at neat nicks for a change. That'd be... refreshing. Bu dum tis.
Sure yes this seems like the logical take, of course you can use a car through a farmers market too and all sorts of other way but not near as many do. . .
You're right. Which is precisely why people who have suffered a tragedy shouldn't be the ones who set policy. They aren't in the proper state of mind to put things in perspective. That's why we don't let victims of crimes or their families determine the punishment for those crimes.
That's pretty cold. I guess we should repeal the "harsh" drunk driving laws we have since they were put into place by Mothers Against Drinkink & Driving.
That's pretty cold. I guess we should repeal the "harsh" drunk driving laws we have since they were put into place by Mothers Against Drinkink & Driving.
They're harsh enough we legit do have to worry if Habitual Offender means a speeding ticket and a urine test picking up last week's joint.
And in the era of harsh punishments and breathalyzer tests, we still have passenger open container laws and a drinking age three years higher than the draft age.
MADD is not an organization to laud too hard, its heart in the right place and everything. Bet a lot of them talk on thier little Bluetooth hands free, if we're talking about numbers. If you chat on those built ins in your car, hell, I'd lock you up like you were trashed.
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.
