So your concern is criminals... the ppl that WOULD circumvent the laws by punishing law abiding gun owners like myself. Ok that makes perfect sense.
You want to make my handgun which holds 9 rounds only hold 6. Hmmm... how would this be accomplished? Do I get to incur this cost or will you be taking care of this for me? Your not in any danger of me shooting you unless your trying to assault me or your a paper target with a silhouette. And this is the case with every gun owner I know.
Why not start with cars which kill alot of ppl by hmmm... I don't know limiting all cars top speed to 25mph? Not many traffic deaths are caused at that speed so it seems pretty reasonable. Sure a car could still drive thru a crosswalk full of kids and probably kill a few but 6 rounds on a playground could do the same thing.
I'm also confused by your use of the term "more modern-day technology" do you mean something like since the American Civil War? Since there was a 16 round rifle used in that conflict those 150+ year old relics would need to be modified as well. My guess is that you were completely unaware of such a thing and are therefore spouting off on a subject you actually know pretty much nothing about. Like most ppl in favor of yet more ineffective firearm legislation your guided by your owm fear and not by reality. Why not stick to a subject your actually knowledgable about? I'm sure there must be some area where you know what your talking about.
Every year in America, the number of drunk driving fatalities (*13,365 in 2010)roughly exceeds the number of **gun related homicides. (The gun related homicides also include justifiable homicides by law enforcement and self)
To the OP,Should we limit how much alcohol can be purchased by an individual? Should we continue to sell alcohol to repeated DWI offenders? How about background checks?
* Source The Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
**According to the FBI, in 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US
This is a very typical response of a gun owner (with some exceptions). I have had a similar conversation probably 5 times at least with people who own guns. Every time, they get very defensive very fast. Before I continue my response, I'll say that I am pro second amendment. I believe that because guns exist and are difficult to control, the people, for safety reasons, have the right to own them if they feel they would like to. I have nothing against you being a gun owner.
That being said, I think that considering that the technology that we have in modern day weapons (which yes, is more than it was back in the day), we have to have regulations. I agree that 20,000+ regulations is a lot and you're right, they probably aren't being upheld and enforced properly a lot of the time. I also think that we need to step that part up as well to enforce the laws that we do have. But I think that we have to accept that with the nature of a weapon, considering that we have hundreds of millions of people in this country, and people and items come into this country unmonitored regularly, we are going to have to have a lot of laws.
I mean hundreds of millions of people... can you imagine if all of those people had guns? And not only a gun... but a gun that could in some cases, come close to matching military grade firearms? You might think I sound dumb... but really think about it. The goal of restrictions in my view is to make it harder to obtain firearms, make it a slower process, and reduce the number of guns circulating around. People who really want it for self defense who are law abiding citizens will still have no problem having something to defend themselves.
I am not proposing a specific regulation. However, if the 6 shot hypothetical were put into place, my proposal would be that we only apply that to guns purchased after a certain date and make illegal the resale of any firearms of that type. The goal would be to decrease the rate that those types of firearms are being distributed. I know that there is really no way to completely get rid of anything like that.
I have heard the car argument before by the way, but it's not comparable in my book. A car is something that has a purpose to transport people and items. A gun only has one purpose really, and that is to kill. And by the way, we heavily regulate automobiles and we have a lot of law enforcement on the road. We have that for a reason. It doesn't completely stop all accidents, but it would be a lot worse without the enforcement.
gun =/= capacity or magazine. Some guns have an internal magazine or capacity such as a shotgun or some rifles, or a revolver, which you load rounds directly into and there is a max as the capacity is built in and is usually 6 or less. Other guns require a magazine which feeds loads into it. It's an external part. It can vary wildly in capacity.
She's asking you to buy her a special 6 round magazine since you want to make the standard clip for her gun obsolete and illegal. Are you going to pay to retrofit every gun and gun accesory that holds more than 6 rounds?
And heh...I am sitting on too many 30 round clips for my AR-15 to even count. I could go buy hundreds of them tomorrow if I wanted to. There are too many out there to even make a difference at this point. And I also have a double barrel 12 gauge that only holds two shots that will cut you in half even if I miss. You don't know what you're talking about.
I specifically said that it would only be for the purchase of products after a certain date and to make illegal the resale of ones that are circulating.
Did you even read my post?
Secondly, I also said twice now that it wasn't the pinpoint of my argument. I don't care about the 6 shot thing specifically. I don't know enough about guns to make that call. I don't know what you're trying to prove.
I was mainly opposing the logic she was using to make her argument.
If I was trying to debate gun mechanics with you, I'm sure you'd win over me in that debate. But I am talking about the logic behind regulations and why people shouldn't just blow off the proposal of a regulation when it comes to firearms.
"But I am talking about the logic behind regulations and why people shouldn't just blow off the proposal of a regulation when it comes to firearms."
Ah yes, the good ol' logic coming from people who don't know anything about guns.
It would be illogical to NOT blow you off, moron. You don't know ANYTHING about guns, current gun laws, gun owners or anything. Your ingenius solution is to limit round capacity yet you don't even know how this works as policy, mechanically and practically.
So you say my answer is typical and just dismiss the whole argument. I'd say thats typical of ppl that don't have a strong argument. The best part is you admit you don't know about guns. Boom. Right there it says it all.
No ma'am. That is not what I said at all. I was making an observation about how defensive you got. That does not dismiss your argument. I responded pretty clearly to what you were saying.
Gun owners are rightly defensive when ppl who don't know what there talking about start in on how other ppls rights should be curbed.
I'm sure you have some liberty you enjoy and would be irritated if someone wanted to impinge on your ability to enjoy it especially if that person admitted they didn't know anything about it.
This is what I don't think a lot of gun owners quite understand. The second amendment isn't there to promote your recreational gun use over all other freedoms in this country. " A well regulated militia" is what it says. It is there for safety reasons. For security. To protect our freedoms in one way or another. At that time probably from government as well as other people, but today mostly just to protect ourselves from other people because let's be realistic... no one can fight the military with the massive amount of firepower that it now has.
I don't need to know anything about guns to interpret the second amendment... fair enough? It's someone else's words, not mine.
If gun violence starts to impose on other people's rights to just walk around and feel safe and feel like they can say and do what they want without being attacked, then we have to consider actions necessary in order to uphold the other freedoms that people are entitled to.
Questions on gun control
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
So your concern is criminals... the ppl that WOULD circumvent the laws by punishing law abiding gun owners like myself. Ok that makes perfect sense.
You want to make my handgun which holds 9 rounds only hold 6. Hmmm... how would this be accomplished? Do I get to incur this cost or will you be taking care of this for me? Your not in any danger of me shooting you unless your trying to assault me or your a paper target with a silhouette. And this is the case with every gun owner I know.
Why not start with cars which kill alot of ppl by hmmm... I don't know limiting all cars top speed to 25mph? Not many traffic deaths are caused at that speed so it seems pretty reasonable. Sure a car could still drive thru a crosswalk full of kids and probably kill a few but 6 rounds on a playground could do the same thing.
I'm also confused by your use of the term "more modern-day technology" do you mean something like since the American Civil War? Since there was a 16 round rifle used in that conflict those 150+ year old relics would need to be modified as well. My guess is that you were completely unaware of such a thing and are therefore spouting off on a subject you actually know pretty much nothing about. Like most ppl in favor of yet more ineffective firearm legislation your guided by your owm fear and not by reality. Why not stick to a subject your actually knowledgable about? I'm sure there must be some area where you know what your talking about.
--
VirgilManly
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
Cocomilktitties
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
I think I love you! :)
Every year in America, the number of drunk driving fatalities (*13,365 in 2010)roughly exceeds the number of **gun related homicides. (The gun related homicides also include justifiable homicides by law enforcement and self)
To the OP,Should we limit how much alcohol can be purchased by an individual? Should we continue to sell alcohol to repeated DWI offenders? How about background checks?
* Source The Bureau of Transportation Statistics.
**According to the FBI, in 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US
--
mysistersshadow
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I get that "I think I love you" alot. :)
--
VirgilManly
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
A woman who knows her firearms just melts my heart.
<3
--
mysistersshadow
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Aw. I have good teachers. Both of my male roommates are ex military and we are all responsible gun owners.
This is a very typical response of a gun owner (with some exceptions). I have had a similar conversation probably 5 times at least with people who own guns. Every time, they get very defensive very fast. Before I continue my response, I'll say that I am pro second amendment. I believe that because guns exist and are difficult to control, the people, for safety reasons, have the right to own them if they feel they would like to. I have nothing against you being a gun owner.
That being said, I think that considering that the technology that we have in modern day weapons (which yes, is more than it was back in the day), we have to have regulations. I agree that 20,000+ regulations is a lot and you're right, they probably aren't being upheld and enforced properly a lot of the time. I also think that we need to step that part up as well to enforce the laws that we do have. But I think that we have to accept that with the nature of a weapon, considering that we have hundreds of millions of people in this country, and people and items come into this country unmonitored regularly, we are going to have to have a lot of laws.
I mean hundreds of millions of people... can you imagine if all of those people had guns? And not only a gun... but a gun that could in some cases, come close to matching military grade firearms? You might think I sound dumb... but really think about it. The goal of restrictions in my view is to make it harder to obtain firearms, make it a slower process, and reduce the number of guns circulating around. People who really want it for self defense who are law abiding citizens will still have no problem having something to defend themselves.
I am not proposing a specific regulation. However, if the 6 shot hypothetical were put into place, my proposal would be that we only apply that to guns purchased after a certain date and make illegal the resale of any firearms of that type. The goal would be to decrease the rate that those types of firearms are being distributed. I know that there is really no way to completely get rid of anything like that.
I have heard the car argument before by the way, but it's not comparable in my book. A car is something that has a purpose to transport people and items. A gun only has one purpose really, and that is to kill. And by the way, we heavily regulate automobiles and we have a lot of law enforcement on the road. We have that for a reason. It doesn't completely stop all accidents, but it would be a lot worse without the enforcement.
--
wigz
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
-
mysistersshadow
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
gun =/= capacity or magazine. Some guns have an internal magazine or capacity such as a shotgun or some rifles, or a revolver, which you load rounds directly into and there is a max as the capacity is built in and is usually 6 or less. Other guns require a magazine which feeds loads into it. It's an external part. It can vary wildly in capacity.
--
Cocomilktitties
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-1
-1
Okay, then let me correct myself. *Guns and gun accessories* Although like I said, that's not the pinpoint of my argument.
She was talking about: "You want to make my handgun which holds 9 rounds only hold 6." So I was partially replying to that.
--
wigz
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
She's asking you to buy her a special 6 round magazine since you want to make the standard clip for her gun obsolete and illegal. Are you going to pay to retrofit every gun and gun accesory that holds more than 6 rounds?
And heh...I am sitting on too many 30 round clips for my AR-15 to even count. I could go buy hundreds of them tomorrow if I wanted to. There are too many out there to even make a difference at this point. And I also have a double barrel 12 gauge that only holds two shots that will cut you in half even if I miss. You don't know what you're talking about.
--
mysistersshadow
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
-
Cocomilktitties
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
I didn't even bother mentioning my AR that sits in the corner of my room with a 30 round clip loaded with 25 rounds at all time.
I specifically said that it would only be for the purchase of products after a certain date and to make illegal the resale of ones that are circulating.
Did you even read my post?
Secondly, I also said twice now that it wasn't the pinpoint of my argument. I don't care about the 6 shot thing specifically. I don't know enough about guns to make that call. I don't know what you're trying to prove.
I was mainly opposing the logic she was using to make her argument.
If I was trying to debate gun mechanics with you, I'm sure you'd win over me in that debate. But I am talking about the logic behind regulations and why people shouldn't just blow off the proposal of a regulation when it comes to firearms.
--
wigz
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
See More Comments =>
"But I am talking about the logic behind regulations and why people shouldn't just blow off the proposal of a regulation when it comes to firearms."
Ah yes, the good ol' logic coming from people who don't know anything about guns.
It would be illogical to NOT blow you off, moron. You don't know ANYTHING about guns, current gun laws, gun owners or anything. Your ingenius solution is to limit round capacity yet you don't even know how this works as policy, mechanically and practically.
The voice of reason and logic right here....
So you say my answer is typical and just dismiss the whole argument. I'd say thats typical of ppl that don't have a strong argument. The best part is you admit you don't know about guns. Boom. Right there it says it all.
--
Cocomilktitties
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
-2
-2
No ma'am. That is not what I said at all. I was making an observation about how defensive you got. That does not dismiss your argument. I responded pretty clearly to what you were saying.
--
mysistersshadow
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Gun owners are rightly defensive when ppl who don't know what there talking about start in on how other ppls rights should be curbed.
I'm sure you have some liberty you enjoy and would be irritated if someone wanted to impinge on your ability to enjoy it especially if that person admitted they didn't know anything about it.
--
Cocomilktitties
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
This is what I don't think a lot of gun owners quite understand. The second amendment isn't there to promote your recreational gun use over all other freedoms in this country. " A well regulated militia" is what it says. It is there for safety reasons. For security. To protect our freedoms in one way or another. At that time probably from government as well as other people, but today mostly just to protect ourselves from other people because let's be realistic... no one can fight the military with the massive amount of firepower that it now has.
I don't need to know anything about guns to interpret the second amendment... fair enough? It's someone else's words, not mine.
If gun violence starts to impose on other people's rights to just walk around and feel safe and feel like they can say and do what they want without being attacked, then we have to consider actions necessary in order to uphold the other freedoms that people are entitled to.
--
mysistersshadow
7 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
When you can articulate how another law will help you might have a point. Now your just advocating a "solution" that will change nothing.