"Fraud" is an awfully strong word. From where I sit it looks like a good-faith argument for the extension of the law. Just because some Yale law professor says "Oh, EVERYONE knew that the 2nd Amendment didn't mean squat" and a former Chief Justice really hates the argument doesn't mean that the NRA's argument was a "fraud."

lennavan: aelat: Lets not start by taking everything to the most extreme conclusion. I think everyone agrees that we have a balance in this country of keeping people safe while allowing a maximum degree of freedom. I'm not arguing that we should make everything legal "because criminals will do it anyway." But I want to know how much this legislation would actually do to reduce gun deaths. My opinion on this matter is very much tied to how much it would help, and I don't have those numbers. The fact that it would help SOMEONE isn't good enough.

It is if you're not giving anything up. If it helps someone at zero cost, why not do it? There may be something I'm missing out on that we'd be losing if we ban the sale of extended magazines. What is it that I'm missing? If we're losing out on something then we weigh the pros and the cons. The father of the 9 year old put it best, things like this is the price of living in a free society. I agree with him, I'm not for the banning of all guns because we'd lose out on our freedom and right to protect ourselves. But what do we lose if we ban extended magazines? What do we give up if we just say "normal size only?" This is the part of the argument I'm missing.

The problem is that "high capacity" and "normal capacity" are entirely subjective concepts. If someone said "13 bullets is 3 too many", would it really be any less valid to say "No, 10 bullets are far too many, nobody should be able to shoot more than 6 without reloading."

I own a 25-round mag for my 22-rifle (I know, not exactly assault-weapon material). And the fact that might be difficult to understand or accept is that there is value to reloading less often. It is a far more enjoyable shooting experience to be able to shoot 2.5x more often without reloading. I'm talking about blasting soda cans here. You might be shaking your head at the fact that I'm using my entertainment as justification, but hey, you asked. What would we be losing? I'd be losing some fun. You might reply to this with, "Well, you should lose some fun so someone else doesn't lose a life," and I'd really have no place to tell you that you're wrong. Except I think you are wrong. If I had my way, I'd outlaw backyard trampolines. I'm a thousand times more terrified of my child being on a trampoline than I am of him being killed with someone with a high-cap.

lennavan: aelat: Lets not start by taking everything to the most extreme conclusion. I think everyone agrees that we have a balance in this country of keeping people safe while allowing a maximum degree of freedom. I'm not arguing that we should make everything legal "because criminals will do it anyway." But I want to know how much this legislation would actually do to reduce gun deaths. My opinion on this matter is very much tied to how much it would help, and I don't have those numbers. The fact that it would help SOMEONE isn't good enough.

It is if you're not giving anything up. If it helps someone at zero cost, why not do it? There may be something I'm missing out on that we'd be losing if we ban the sale of extended magazines. What is it that I'm missing? If we're losing out on something then we weigh the pros and the cons. The father of the 9 year old put it best, things like this is the price of living in a free society. I agree with him, I'm not for the banning of all guns because we'd lose out on our freedom and right to protect ourselves. But what do we lose if we ban extended magazines? What do we give up if we just say "normal size only?" This is the part of the argument I'm missing.

Loughner used 'normal size' magazines. Glock makes them, they are standardized and designed to work with their pistols.

lennavan: GanjSmokr: lennavan: OregonVet: lennavan: If there was a law outlawing extended magazines, instead of 31 bullets the shooter in Tucson would have had 13. Instead of 19 victims, he would have had top 13 before he had to re-load.

How is this academic again?

LOL. It's academic because you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Good answer. Well thought out, well sourced and well stated. This certainly reminds me of an academic argument.

If you want to use numbers and not look like an idiot, use the right numbers - not ones you pull from your ass. That's why OregonVet said you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Please, by all means, do post what those correct numbers would be rather than be a pussy and dance around it.


To be completely honest, I don't like you. I think you are a douche. Not just because of this thread, but from other threads as well.

It's not a matter of me being a pussy... it's more a matter of why would I help you to look less idiotic. Go Google the correct numbers yourself instead of expecting others to help you to not look foolish.

Dammit-Hi: All of the "Obama's gunna take yer guns away!" sh*t is nothing more than gun sellers knowing their customers. The more paranoid they get, the more disenfranchised they feel, the more they're gonna stock up... just in case.

Why are you bringing Obama into it? He's not a legislater anymore; nor did I mention him in my examples. He came in after the AWB, nor has he made statements as extreme as others.

You said banning guns, I listed examples. That you don't rate those as 'serious' simply shows that you rate things differently than I do. I suppose you won't consider a gun ban 'serious' until it's ON the house floor and ban guns like England did.

However, that's just not how they were doing things - they were doing it by incrementalism.

Besides, Kennedy's bill that was to ban ALL calibers capable of penetrating soft body armor, rifle or not, designed to or not, made it awfully far before sanity prevailed.

lennavan: In this specific case, the shooter was stopped once he was forced to reload. As I said, this is not some academic exercise, that is what actually happened.

And in other cases, shooters have been stopped before they NEEDED to reload by defensive shooters.

Personally, I'd rather they be stopped sooner than later - restrict guns too much and they tend to switch to explosives. Thus my preference is to actually get them mental help - sooner rather than later.

BayouOtter: 10mm is going to be hard to find than Twinkies. 12 gauge is too much round for skull splitting and too bulky.
9mm!
FOR WHEN THE DEAD WALK.

In any zombie apocolypse though, you can bet the 'common' cartridges will be the first to be snapped up, because everybody has them.

'Most' stores will have at least a couple boxes of 10mm, and they likely won't be grabbed as quickly as the 9mm.

Out of a carbine even 10mm isn't going to be too punishing.

BayouOtter: What ranges are you engaging zombie targets at anyway? They can't snipe or shoot acid at you(I hope), so I have trouble imagining when I'd be shooting one beyond the effective reach of a carbine. Maybe if I'm covering for someone that can't shoot, but then I'd be trying to snap off head shots at pretty far and is the scope up to task to that or...hrmm. Thorny problem.

Personally, I see the problem as that many zombie strains are attracted to noise like gunfire. The extra range of a .223 can be used to 'snipe' zombies that aren't too close, but not yet far enough away, preferably without drawing too much attention your way. Plus, if you get an incoming horde, you have that extra couple hundred yards to be plinking them off before they get danger close. In addition, per round, .223 is actually lighter than most handgun calibers.

Oh, and per the earlier part, have your own stock of ammo BEFORE the apocolypse hits.

BayouOtter: Loughner used 'normal size' magazines. Glock makes them, they are standardized and designed to work with their pistols.

Bingo. For an AR-15, 30 round magazines is really the 'standard', it's what the weapon was designed for. You can get 20 round mags, but they're fairly rare now, as well as 10 rounders that were pretty much only made during the AWB period, probably right now only for states that have their own AWB.

For most full size 9mm handguns, 'standard' is around 15.

Want to know something funny? During the AWB, people couldn't have their 'fire all day' 9mm handguns with 15 rounds, so they started 'trading up' to .40S&W, 10MM, and even .45ACP(7 round standard) because the hit to ammo capacity was eliminated or reduced due to the ban on standard capacity magazines.

This started trickling to the criminals, because they normally steal them anyways.

Why is this funny? The average criminal confrontation with gunfire is 3 rounds. 3 rounds of .40S&W or .45ACP is more deadly than 3 rounds of 9mm. I don't have the figures necessary to do the calculations, but more people probably died because of the magazine ban, than the ban saved.

Same deal with banning hollowpoints(JHP) in favor of full metal jacket(FMJ) - studies show that because FMJ doesn't stop as well as JHP, people tend to shoot more to effect a stop. 3 rounds of FMJ kill more often than 2 JHP of the same caliber...

In the end, so much anti-gun legislation and rhetoric reek of so much ignorance about guns that it tends to turn those of us with 'some' clue off. I don't know everything, but at least I'm generally able to tell the difference between a 12 gauge shotgun and a .22LR rifle.

GanjSmokr: To be completely honest, I don't like you. I think you are a douche. Not just because of this thread, but from other threads as well.

It's not a matter of me being a pussy... it's more a matter of why would I help you to look less idiotic. Go Google the correct numbers yourself instead of expecting others to help you to not look foolish.

He had a 30 round magazine and one in the chamber, thus 31. The 13 was a 12 round 9mm magazine plus one in the chamber.

Google pulled up it was a Glock 19 so instead of a 12 round magazine it's a 15. So 31 and 16 instead of 31 and 13. This makes me look foolish how?

BayouOtter: Loughner used 'normal size' magazines. Glock makes them, they are standardized and designed to work with their pistols.

BayouOtter: To answer your question, silly as it is:
The liberty to exercise a Constitutionally protected inherent human right.

The extended magazines were illegal 7 years ago. George W Bush would have signed legislation to extend the ban had it crossed his desk. This is not such a shocking stance to take.

aelat: I own a 25-round mag for my 22-rifle (I know, not exactly assault-weapon material). And the fact that might be difficult to understand or accept is that there is value to reloading less often. It is a far more enjoyable shooting experience to be able to shoot 2.5x more often without reloading. I'm talking about blasting soda cans here. You might be shaking your head at the fact that I'm using my entertainment as justification, but hey, you asked

Actually, I think that's perfectly reasonable, I get it. I've been ignoring shooting for sport and hunting and those associated guns like your rifle for just that reason, I see the trade offs. I think we both get why this is a very different situation than a handgun.

aelat: The problem is that "high capacity" and "normal capacity" are entirely subjective concepts. If someone said "13 bullets is 3 too many", would it really be any less valid to say "No, 10 bullets are far too many, nobody should be able to shoot more than 6 without reloading."

That's very true, they are. But alternatively we could suggest that 100 bullets is not enough. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest there should be a maximum capacity to handgun magazines, whatever number that may be. What that actual number is I don't know but I cannot imagine a situation where someone would need a 30 bullet magazine for personal defense. If there are that many people attacking you, you're farked anyway.

lennavan: aelat: I own a 25-round mag for my 22-rifle (I know, not exactly assault-weapon material). And the fact that might be difficult to understand or accept is that there is value to reloading less often. It is a far more enjoyable shooting experience to be able to shoot 2.5x more often without reloading. I'm talking about blasting soda cans here. You might be shaking your head at the fact that I'm using my entertainment as justification, but hey, you asked

Actually, I think that's perfectly reasonable, I get it. I've been ignoring shooting for sport and hunting and those associated guns like your rifle for just that reason, I see the trade offs. I think we both get why this is a very different situation than a handgun.

aelat: The problem is that "high capacity" and "normal capacity" are entirely subjective concepts. If someone said "13 bullets is 3 too many", would it really be any less valid to say "No, 10 bullets are far too many, nobody should be able to shoot more than 6 without reloading."

That's very true, they are. But alternatively we could suggest that 100 bullets is not enough. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest there should be a maximum capacity to handgun magazines, whatever number that may be. What that actual number is I don't know but I cannot imagine a situation where someone would need a 30 bullet magazine for personal defense. If there are that many people attacking you, you're farked anyway.

I can't imagine why anyone would need an offset printing press. If you need one, you're obviously farked anway. They should be banned.

OLD NEWS IS SO EXCITING.
GEE SUBBY, GOT SOMETHING MORE RECENT, LIKE SAY 1992?

BayouOtter: That's very true, they are. But alternatively we could suggest that 100 bullets is not enough. I don't think it's unreasonable to suggest there should be a maximum capacity to handgun magazines, whatever number that may be. What that actual number is I don't know but I cannot imagine a situation where someone would need a 30 bullet magazine for personal defense. If there are that many people attacking you, you're farked anyway.

I can't imagine why anyone would need an offset printing press. If you need one, you're obviously farked anway. They should be banned.

I can't imagine why anyone would need a college education. If you need one, you're obviously on fark anyway. They should be banned.

lennavan: The extended magazines were illegal 7 years ago. George W Bush would have signed legislation to extend the ban had it crossed his desk. This is not such a shocking stance to take.

That's the thing. They're NOT 'extended capacity'. They're 'normal capacity' - My 9mm was designed, from day one, to accept 15 round magazines. 10 rounds magazines are actually LESS reliable on average, because it wasn't designed for them.

An extended magazine would be something that holds 20-25 or more rounds, which would stick out of the bottom of the gun a rather silly amount.

The amount a standard magazine holds depends on the weapon.

Felgraf: benlonghair: DamnYankees: Is this a sincere argument? Or are you just practicing making insane arguments and seeing if you can get away with it?

Explain to me what part is insane. A gun, exactly like a car or a hammer, does not have the capacity to make judgments or have intentions. It takes an irresponsible user to make them dangerous.

The same is true of nukes and rocket launchers (Which are arguably, also armaments) but we don't let people privately own those, for some reason. Which is weird, because if the 2nd ammendment is really there so people can rise up against the government if need be, you'd think people like the NRA would want folks to be able to own something that could take down a tank.

That's because they are ordnance, not small arms. The right to own ordnance is not a protected right under the Constitution or federal code.

I'm not a gun nut or anything at all. I don't own one. I thought that the 2nd basically says that we can the right to own arms just in case the gov. goes crazy or we are attacked or whatever. Now if you think about it, and once again it's not like I advocate every citizen having automatic weapons, but you can't say that they didn't mean for us to have the same weapons basically as the government. When the Bill was written, the only weapons were rifles and cannons. So they intended us to have at least the rifle part so that we could be equal.
I think population wise, and equality (firepower wise) we are too far removed from what the founders could have forseen maybe. I don't think there is a right answer anymore.
Plus one could argue...yeah well when was the last time a horrible government took over and was insane? Not that long ago... WWII Germany, African nations, hell...let's see what happens in Haiti. I honestly don't know how I feel about the 2nd. I believe in it, but we almost could never defend ourselves against our own army. Serious guerrilla shiat I guess maybe.

benlonghair: A hammer in the hands of a carpenter is a tool. A hammer in the hands of a psychopath is a weapon that can kill only one person at a time, and with great effort as that person will probably be fighting back.

/FTFY

Phil Herup: lennavan: Meanwhile the rest of the civilized world laughs at the United States with our ridiculous gun control laws or lackthereof



Not true. They want to be us.

I always love the lefty lib statements that have "the rest of the civilized world" in them. Like any other country even comes close to being as awesome as the United States.

POE'S LAW

i'm so confused.

is he trolling???!?

/brain asplode

Phil Herup: MeinRS6: Always looking for new ways to improve zombie defense.



You can never have enough zombie defense.


I'd like to get an AA-12 shotgun for zombies though.

It's a red banner day! Phil said something that wasn't entirely insane or evil.

Jesus Christ gun talk makes people stupid.

Communist nut case who killed half his own family, yeah, lets trust that guy.

I came for the gun pr0n.

I am disappoint.

Firethorn: lennavan: The extended magazines were illegal 7 years ago. George W Bush would have signed legislation to extend the ban had it crossed his desk. This is not such a shocking stance to take.

That's the thing. They're NOT 'extended capacity'. They're 'normal capacity' - My 9mm was designed, from day one, to accept 15 round magazines. 10 rounds magazines are actually LESS reliable on average, because it wasn't designed for them.

This was a 30 round magazine of course, that is what is being called an "extended capacity" magazine. If this was unclear, I apologize, I thought this was well understood and the mistake was mine.

jwilson07 Quote 2011-01-18 11:08:15 PM
Communist nut case who killed half his own family, yeah, lets trust that guy.


>>>

You're calling someone else a nut case?
And he was and always will be considered a Conservative, your smear campaign does nothing but show your brain pathetically trying to dismiss anything that doesn't agree with your narrow minded world view.
And where did that killed half his own family come from, Stormfront?

lennavan: When juxtaposed with the Tucson shooting where he wasn't stopped until he had to reload. Instead of 31 max shots, he could have been limited to 13 max shots

The only reason he was stopped is because he was an idiot and allowed himself to get the gun knocked out of his hand by an old lady and then pinned down by two guys. If he would have taken cover before doing that, we wouldn't even be having this conversation.

Tell me, why should I be limited to 13 shots? Because some random idiot out there might go on a shooting spree?

Writing laws to govern the many based on the actions of a few doesn't seem like very good sense to me.

TsukasaK: The only reason he was stopped is because

He had to reload. The witnesses who stopped him said so themselves.

TsukasaK: Tell me, why should I be limited to 13 shots? Because some random idiot out there might go on a shooting spree?

Because there is zero downside whatsoever to being limited to 13 shots. But there is an upside, a short window upon which to stop someone on a killing rampage while he reloads.

TsukasaK: Writing laws to govern the many based on the actions of a few doesn't seem like very good sense to me.

This law was already written, it is not based on this guy at all whatsoever. It relapsed in 2004 and George W. Bush himself wanted to renew it if Congress only sent it to his desk.

And on top of that, if someone plans a shooting spree and wants high-cap magazines, they will get high cap magazines regardless of what laws you write to say otherwise.

I'm pretty sure the shooter didn't go "Aw nuts, i'm about to go on this rampage, but I can't use these 30 round mags because they're illegal."

Actually, I question whether any gun law ever made anywhere has succeeded in stopping a determined shooter.

lennavan: He had to reload. The witnesses who stopped him said so themselves.

And if he'd gone to cover first, (freaking video games teach you this, let alone real military/polices training) it wouldn't have played out like that. You don't stand out in the middle of the battlefield playing with your magazines. Good way to get shot, or, yknow, disarmed and taken down.

lennavan: This law was already written, it is not based on this guy at all whatsoever. It relapsed in 2004 and George W. Bush himself wanted to renew it if Congress only sent it to his desk.

And that has what to do with what I said? It's a law to govern the many based on the actions of a few. Bad idea.

TsukasaK: And on top of that, if someone plans a shooting spree and wants high-cap magazines, they will get high cap magazines regardless of what laws you write to say otherwise.

This guy, who had mental issues, who bought a gun legally, you are contending he would purchase a gun legally and then rather than use the 15 round magazine that came with it, would for some reason go seek out illegal sources of higher cap magazines? That's your argument? I mean, perhaps I'm biased, I'm kinda lazy, if I'm mentally deranged wanting to kill a Congresswoman and some other people, I get a cool lookin powerful handgun and the largest mag I can buy. 15? Sure sounds great, I'll have one in the chamber and call it 16 and a day. Why on Earth would I walk out with my legal handgun, legal magazine and hit the streets for an illegal extended mag, if they were illegal (which they are not)?

TsukasaK: I'm pretty sure the shooter didn't go "Aw nuts, i'm about to go on this rampage, but I can't use these 30 round mags because they're illegal."

They were completely legal. So uhh, I'm pretty sure he didn't say that too.

lennavan: Why on Earth would I walk out with my legal handgun, legal magazine and hit the streets for an illegal extended mag, if they were illegal (which they are not)?

Oh, i dunno, maybe because you're planning to shoot up a f*cking supermarket and compliance with the law isn't exactly high on your list of priorities?

It's stupidly easy to import high-cap mags or make your own.

TsukasaK: freaking video games teach you this

I try not to learn things from video games. I suggest you do the same.

TsukasaK: And if he'd gone to cover first it wouldn't have played out like that.

So now you suggest if he had only a 15 round magazine, he instead would have gone to cover first? This wasn't a gunfight, this was a mentally sick dude wanting to make a statement. Hell, if he had done it with a sniper rifle it wouldn't have played out like this.

If if's and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a Merry Christmas. And if he had 15 round mags instead of 30 round mags, perhaps a few more people would be alive to see Christmas.

TsukasaK:
Oh, i dunno, maybe because you're planning to shoot up a f*cking supermarket and compliance with the law isn't exactly high on your list of priorities?

Then why did he purchase a gun and ammunition legally? Why didn't he use a machine gun? Or any other random firearms he could have obtained illegally?

lennavan: TsukasaK:
Oh, i dunno, maybe because you're planning to shoot up a f*cking supermarket and compliance with the law isn't exactly high on your list of priorities?

Then why did he purchase a gun and ammunition ILLEGALLY? Why didn't he use a machine gun? Or any other random firearms he could have obtained illegally?

/ftfm
//fme

lennavan: I try not to learn things from video games. I suggest you do the same.

Non sequitur.

lennavan: So now you suggest if he had only a 15 round magazine, he instead would have gone to cover first? This wasn't a gunfight, this was a mentally sick dude wanting to make a statement. Hell, if he had done it with a sniper rifle it wouldn't have played out like this.

Good point. Do you then advocate sniper rifles being illegal? The whole crux of my point is that just because a deranged idiot might abuse X doesn't mean we should ban X.

lennavan: Then why did he purchase a gun and ammunition legally? Why didn't he use a machine gun? Or any other random firearms he could have obtained illegally?

It's a lot easier to get high cap mags than whole weapons. Theoretically you're allowed to have the mags, just not actually use them. (ATF laws are some of the most inconsistent crap ever made)

TsukasaK: Non sequitur.

I must say it again because you did not respond:

lennavan: Because there is zero downside whatsoever to being limited to 13 shots. But there is an upside, a short window upon which to stop someone on a killing rampage while he reloads.

Do you agree or disagree and why?

TsukasaK: Good point. Do you then advocate sniper rifles being illegal?

Depends on how someone would define sniper rifle. If you could do so without infringing on hunters and their rifles I'd be okay with it. I don't have a definition that would do so off the top of my head.

TsukasaK: It's a lot easier to get high cap mags than whole weapons. Theoretically you're allowed to have the mags, just not actually use them

Let's take a step back and just be honest. Do you actually think if extended mags were illegal in this one singular specific situation, this guy would have thrown out his 15 bullet mag and hit the streets in search of a 30 bullet mag? What's your best guess?

lennavan: But there is an upside, a short window upon which to stop someone on a killing rampage while he reloads.

Do you agree or disagree and why?

Disagree. We have the Tucson incident, okay. Fine. Can you point to a single other incident in which an enforced magazine size limit has led to the premature end of a rampage?

I also disagree with zero downside. Reloading is a pain in the ass, and I say this as someone who goes to the range almost every week.

lennavan: Depends on how someone would define sniper rifle. If you could do so without infringing on hunters and their rifles I'd be okay with it. I don't have a definition that would do so off the top of my head.

I have a feeling this is going to boil down to us agreeing to disagree - I don't think banning something because that something may be (or even has been) misused by a infantessimally small minority is a good way to legislate. Look at the UK for an example of what that kind of thinking gets.

lennavan: Let's take a step back and just be honest. Do you actually think if extended mags were illegal in this one singular specific situation, this guy would have thrown out his 15 bullet mag and hit the streets in search of a 30 bullet mag? What's your best guess?

That doesn't even make sense, for one. For two, no - the rampage was stopped not because he had to reload, but because he went about it in a stupid way.

TsukasaK: Disagree. We have the Tucson incident, okay. Fine. Can you point to a single other incident in which an enforced magazine size limit has led to the premature end of a rampage?

You mean other than the Virginia Tech and Columbine school tragedies? I assume you didn't forget about those. Virginia Tech (new window) Columbine (new window)

Sure:
1) During a chilling 911 call, Thornton describes the handgun he used as a Sturm, Ruger SR9 pistol equipped with a high-capacity ammunition magazine. (new window)
2) Xerox Murders (new window)

3 (new window)

Would you like more?

TsukasaK: Disagree. We have the Tucson incident, okay. Fine. Can you point to a single other incident in which an enforced magazine size limit has led to the premature end of a rampage?

Oh, awkward, I misread that. The Tucson is not an example of where enforced magazine size led to the premature end. It is an example of where the lack of enforcement led to the extended rampage. I misread your post to mean as such when I gave examples above.

How the hell am I going to prove an enforced magazine size led to a premature end? Talk about an impossible standard of proof.

Isn't AZ one of the more liberal about concealed carry? So if a gun wasn't used to stop that rampage, what would we have to do? Force people to carry a gun 24/7?

TsukasaK: I have a feeling this is going to boil down to us agreeing to disagree - I don't think banning something because that something may be (or even has been) misused by a infantessimally small minority is a good way to legislate. Look at the UK for an example of what that kind of thinking gets.

I'm not asking to ban guns, I'm asking to ban a 30 round magazine. Is this really so contentious? This is the basis of my point. That this country cannot have any discussion whatsoever about the second amendment. If any side wants to say anything at all about the second amendment other than "you can have anything you want at all" then we hit a wall.

Out of curiosity, with respect to the 2nd, is there anything at all whatsoever that you agree should be restricted from civilian use? Seriously, let's start at nukes and work our way all the through tanks, bombers, jets, past machine guns and sniper rifles to armor piercing bullets and whatnot. Where do you draw the line, if at all? I'd really like to know in all honesty.

TsukasaK: That doesn't even make sense, for one. For two, no - the rampage was stopped not because he had to reload, but because he went about it in a stupid way.

It makes complete sense, I assume this means you agree with me, this guy would not have pursued the extended mags illegally. Look, just because it hurts your argument doesn't mean you shouldn't be honest. This is what we do, we be honest and discuss. I mean hell, it's the internet, at any point you can be like "I think ____" because monkeys from space told me so and I'm leaving the thread" and that's that.

That said, I'll revisit the thread tomorrow. No mashing at the keyboard for internet fights tonight for me.

lennavan: How the hell am I going to prove an enforced magazine size led to a premature end?

I'm asking if the same thing that happened here happened elesewhere, i.e. the moment of inattention caused by having to reload bringing an end to the rampage. Not impossible. Well, okay, yes, it is impossible, because it never happened elsewhere. Which is kind of my point. This was an edge case on more than one level. Writing laws based on mitigating edge cases is a waste of everybody's time and leads to some really stupid legislation.

Again, UK.

lennavan: I'm not asking to ban guns,

Yes you are, you said you'd be for banning sniper rifles if you could put a narrow enough definition to it. What was that about honesty? Did you even read what part of your post I quoted when I wrote that line?

lennavan: Where do you draw the line, if at all?

Personally?

Weapons that are very unlikely or completely impossible to use without causing unwanted damage, when used by the average person. So that knocks out aircraft, tanks, nukes, bombs above a certain size, etc.

Guns (even full auto machine guns) can be utilized safely. Even then, it's a fine balance, because, well, there's a word for the government taking something away because "you might hurt yourself or someone else". Rhymes with "fanny skate"

lennavan: That this country cannot have any discussion whatsoever about the second amendment.

Because such discussion always falls to limiting my right to do something which has never hurt another human being. Can you understand that tends to make folks a bit testy? It's personal - at least it is on my case. I don't know what you do for a hobby, but shooting is one of mine. It's a lot of fun. I'd react the same if someone were trying to ban video games or antiquing or something else based on the fact that some person somewhere might do it wrong and kill someone.

Combine that with any government's record on the slippery slope, and the "don't even give them an inch, lest they take a mile" mindset kicks in. It's the platform the NRA runs on, after all.

And on top of all that, we've got Heller vs. DC that affirmed the NRA's position.

In order to abridge the second amendment(or any part of the bill of rights, honestly), you need a damned good reason why.

lennavan: I assume this means you agree with me, this guy would not have pursued the extended mags illegally.

I'm saying it's irrelevant to the price of tea in china. Were he a bit more coherent (whilst still being as bloodthirsty), the circumstances might be different. I can't say what he would or wouldn't have done, and neither can you. But in this whole meta-argument, are we talking about Tucson, or just in general?

In general, people about to commit large crimes don't follow the law.

In Tucson, the guy was a paranoid schizo, so all bets are off.

lennavan: That said, I'll revisit the thread tomorrow. No mashing at the keyboard for internet fights tonight for me.

Aww!! Okay, later :)

lennavan: Because there is zero downside whatsoever to being limited to 13 shots.

Do you advocate subjecting law enforcement agents to an identical restriction?

TsukasaK: lennavan: Why on Earth would I walk out with my legal handgun, legal magazine and hit the streets for an illegal extended mag, if they were illegal (which they are not)?

Oh, i dunno, maybe because you're planning to shoot up a f*cking supermarket and compliance with the law isn't exactly high on your list of priorities?

It's stupidly easy to import high-cap mags or make your own.

I believe that you have misunderstood lennavan's argument and position. Because lennavan is advocating imposition of prohibition of firearm magazines of a capacity above an arbitrarily declared amount, rather than advocating improved mental health treatment services, lennavan is implicitly stating that homicidal actions committed by mentally unstable individuals are acceptable, so long as only certain approved tools are utilized in such actions.

lennavan: I'm not asking to ban guns, I'm asking to ban a 30 round magazine. Is this really so contentious?

Yes. The AR-15 rifle that I purchased in 2009 included two thirty-round capacity magazines as standard accessories. I recently acquired two additional magazines of the same standard capacity. You have provided no demonstration that my ownership of these magazines has resulted in any harm. You have, however, dishonestly claimed that "high capacity" magazines were utilized by Seung-Hui Cho, when in fact Mr. Cho utilized only standard capacity magazines.

Is it ironic that the common people need weapons to protect themselves from Militias?

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The trouble with that is that it is ambiguous. I wonder how different things would be if it were specific either way.

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The trouble with that is that it is ambiguous. I wonder how different things would be if it were specific either way.

The protection established by that text is legally defined and thus is not ambiguous.

TsukasaK: lennavan: That this country cannot have any discussion whatsoever about the second amendment.

Because such discussion always falls to limiting my right to do something which has never hurt another human being.

Guns have never led to something which has never hurt another human being? That's quite some statement. Or are you talking about just you personally?

TsukasaK: Yes you are, you said you'd be for banning sniper rifles if you could put a narrow enough definition to it. What was that about honesty? Did you even read what part of your post I quoted when I wrote that line?

By "I'm not asking to ban guns" I of course meant "all guns." Try not to purposely confuse the two and straw man me. Much like this attempt to strawman me that I'll otherwise ignore:

Dimensio: Because lennavan is advocating imposition of prohibition of firearm magazines of a capacity above an arbitrarily declared amount, rather than advocating improved mental health treatment services, lennavan is implicitly stating that homicidal actions committed by mentally unstable individuals are

TsukasaK: I'd react the same if someone were trying to ban video games

I think this is a great example. I'm completely with you, banning video games is retarded. But I'm perfectly fine with some regulation, such as not selling M rated games to 8 year old kids. Rights, while inalieable are not limitless. The first amendment does not give you the right to say whatever you want whenever you want. By similar reasoning the second amendment gives you the right to arms, not any and all arms you want. We all agree to limit the 1st, yet people get defensive about the 2nd.

I assume the reason (and please do correct me if I'm wrong) is it's an implied slippery slope. People don't actually give a fark about 30 round high-capacity magazines for 9mm guns here. What they care about is if the government comes for those first, then what's next? Again, for here, recall a weapons ban had already passed into law and expired in 2004. After it was passed, I don't recall there being such a big backlash, say in comparison to that of health care reform. When a ban was tried in Chicago it ended up in the SCOTUS (McDonald v. Chicago). Not only was there no challenge to the federal assault weapon ban brought to the SCOTUS (that I'm aware of), since it has expired people have tried to bring it back. Again, even George W. Bush said he'd sign it. So here it reasons no one actually gave a fark about what was banned in the assault weapons ban. But because of the slippery slope worry, they vehemently oppose it but once it's passed, meh. I think your post implies you'd agree:

TsukasaK: Because such discussion always falls to limiting my right to do something...

TsukasaK: But in this whole meta-argument, are we talking about Tucson, or just in general?

I use Tucson as an example of the "damned good reason why." I listed some other shootings using high capacity mags above that we could also use. I get it's a trade off and I'm not suggesting we're going to save even dozens of lives a year. So we lose the right to high capacity magazines and gain a life a year or thereabouts. If we lost the right to guns entirely, I'd imagine we better be talking about saving millions of lives a year or something damned good. We're talking about keeping your guns and just limiting the capacity size of your magazine. So buy 2 15 bullet magazines instead and reload. A very very small price to pay.

TsukasaK: In general, people about to commit large crimes don't follow the law.

In Tucson, the guy was a paranoid schizo, so all bets are off.

And again here, I agree he was a paranoid schizo. Magazine size argument aside, is it too much to ask we find a way to distinguish between paranoid schizos and normal adults when it comes to purchasing a gun? Or should we defend the paranoid schizo's right to buy a gun?