Bill introduced to limit high-capacity ammo clips

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

There's a difference between someone being nuts and having a questionable state of mind, but if you must know I don't really trust you either. Again, not calling you nuts, just saying I don't trust you with assault weapons.

theone86

Guns could use a bit more regulation regarding how they are acquired, but restricting guns or parts of guns is ridiculous. People are the problem, not the object. Have fun with prohibition round two!!!!

Lawl, statistics, let's have some fun with statistics. I have been in two car accidents, I have never had any injuries in either of those accidents, statistically if someone else runs into me with their car there is a zero probability of me being injured. Now if someone were to fire their gun at me there is a hundred percent probability of me being injured, therefore guns are more dangerous. Now I know that's shoddy logic, but that's my entire point, just because something is statistically likely to happen, it doesn't always translate into real consequences.

I already said with car speeds that speed is not the only factor in accidents. If speed were truly the only factor, then sure I'd be all for speed limitation. By the way, car manufacturers DO put in safeguards that keep cars from exceeding certain excessive speeds. The drunk driver analogy is also terrible as drunk driving is illegal.

Yes, people are the problem, if they weren't then anyone could own a big, honking claymore and never use it. Since people ARE the problem, however, I find it in my and my fellow person's best interest to keep dangerous items like assault weapons out of the hands of people, seeing as how those people could be a problem. If I could also keep pistols and home defense rifles out of the hands of those people I would, but seeing as those serve a practical purpose to many people who own them responsibly I do believe that is overstepping my bounds. However, as assault weapons serve no practical purpose I see no problem in restricting their sale. By the way, cars also serve a practical purpose that assault weapons do not.

STOP interchangeably using assault rifle and assault weapon. If ANYTHING were to be banned it should be a pistol as that is what most gun murders are commited with. They are the most concealable, and much more threatening/wieldable in close quarters

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Verge_6"] Considering it's the entire basis of what determines a true "assault weapon", you'd best care.

Verge_6

Okay, whatI meant by that is I think that any repeating gun should be banned as I see no practical use for it.

I think handguns and hunting shotguns should be sufficient for home defense, and as for collecting that's fine but then I see no reason to own ammunition.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="theone86"]

Okay, whatI meant by that is I think that any repeating gun should be banned as I see no practical use for it.

theone86

I think handguns and hunting shotguns should be sufficient for home defense, and as for collecting that's fine but then I see no reason to own ammunition.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

If it's fully or semi automatic I don't much care about technical terminology.

theone86

Okay, whatI meant by that is I think that any repeating gun should be banned as I see no practical use for it.

[QUOTE="htekemerald"]

[QUOTE="racer8dan"]Yes, a poor choice of words on my part, lets go with "bad" Reputation;)

On3ShotOneKill

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

There's a difference between someone being nuts and having a questionable state of mind, but if you must know I don't really trust you either. Again, not calling you nuts, just saying I don't trust you with assault weapons.

Guns could use a bit more regulation regarding how they are acquired, but restricting guns or parts of guns is ridiculous. People are the problem, not the object. Have fun with prohibition round two!!!!

Lawl, statistics, let's have some fun with statistics. I have been in two car accidents, I have never had any injuries in either of those accidents, statistically if someone else runs into me with their car there is a zero probability of me being injured. Now if someone were to fire their gun at me there is a hundred percent probability of me being injured, therefore guns are more dangerous. Now I know that's shoddy logic, but that's my entire point, just because something is statistically likely to happen, it doesn't always translate into real consequences.

I already said with car speeds that speed is not the only factor in accidents. If speed were truly the only factor, then sure I'd be all for speed limitation. By the way, car manufacturers DO put in safeguards that keep cars from exceeding certain excessive speeds. The drunk driver analogy is also terrible as drunk driving is illegal.

Yes, people are the problem, if they weren't then anyone could own a big, honking claymore and never use it. Since people ARE the problem, however, I find it in my and my fellow person's best interest to keep dangerous items like assault weapons out of the hands of people, seeing as how those people could be a problem. If I could also keep pistols and home defense rifles out of the hands of those people I would, but seeing as those serve a practical purpose to many people who own them responsibly I do believe that is overstepping my bounds. However, as assault weapons serve no practical purpose I see no problem in restricting their sale. By the way, cars also serve a practical purpose that assault weapons do not.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"] Oh man :lol: I like how you fear people with guns more than you do with cars. Considering you are statisically at greater risk of getting in a car accident or hit by a drunk driver than you are getting shot. I also question your assumptions because I do not see you or any other anti gun people advocating for a restriction on car speeds (forcing manufacturers to not make vehicles go above a certain speed) when cars kill far more people than guns ever have in the US and they are just as widespread. This way, you can't pull the "we can't ban cars, we need dem!!!1111!!!!!" card. Where is the problem with this? We don't need really fast cars, they are unnecessary.

Guns could use a bit more regulation regarding how they are acquired, but restricting guns or parts of guns is ridiculous. People are the problem, not the object. Have fun with prohibition round two!!!!

DivergeUnify

Lawl, statistics, let's have some fun with statistics. I have been in two car accidents, I have never had any injuries in either of those accidents, statistically if someone else runs into me with their car there is a zero probability of me being injured. Now if someone were to fire their gun at me there is a hundred percent probability of me being injured, therefore guns are more dangerous. Now I know that's shoddy logic, but that's my entire point, just because something is statistically likely to happen, it doesn't always translate into real consequences.

I already said with car speeds that speed is not the only factor in accidents. If speed were truly the only factor, then sure I'd be all for speed limitation. By the way, car manufacturers DO put in safeguards that keep cars from exceeding certain excessive speeds. The drunk driver analogy is also terrible as drunk driving is illegal.

Yes, people are the problem, if they weren't then anyone could own a big, honking claymore and never use it. Since people ARE the problem, however, I find it in my and my fellow person's best interest to keep dangerous items like assault weapons out of the hands of people, seeing as how those people could be a problem. If I could also keep pistols and home defense rifles out of the hands of those people I would, but seeing as those serve a practical purpose to many people who own them responsibly I do believe that is overstepping my bounds. However, as assault weapons serve no practical purpose I see no problem in restricting their sale. By the way, cars also serve a practical purpose that assault weapons do not.

And statistics are not always applicable to real life. What's the statistical chance of someone getting injured in a car crash again? If I find ten people who buck that statistic does it make that statistic moot? Here's a quick lesson in statistics, when you come up with an average there is something called an outlier, in other words a data point in the set that is far greater or smaller than the average. Outliers occur because of something called variables, speed being one variable in car safety, driver proficiency being another. Just because some statistic says that if you drive so long you are x% likely to be involved in a crash does not mean that everyone who drives for so long will be equally as likely. Your use of statistics in this situation is completely fallacious.

And statistics are not always applicable to real life. What's the statistical chance of someone getting injured in a car crash again? If I find ten people who buck that statistic does it make that statistic moot? Here's a quick lesson in statistics, when you come up with an average there is something called an outlier, in other words a data point in the set that is far greater or smaller than the average. Outliers occur because of something called variables, speed being one variable in car safety, driver proficiency being another. Just because some statistic says that if you drive so long you are x% likely to be involved in a crash does not mean that everyone who drives for so long will be equally as likely. Your use of statistics in this situation is completely fallacious.

theone86

I'm not the one even using statistics as an argument, you are buddy. Your state of mind right now is somewhat questionable

And in terms of statistical significance outliers are normally thrown out, hence being outliers

And no 10 people bucking the statistic doesn't change anything, because you're seeking those people out( thus no mention of how you found them ,other than that you want to find them)

Lastly, 10 people is a ridiculously small sample size and thus irrelevent

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"] Oh man :lol: I like how you fear people with guns more than you do with cars. Considering you are statisically at greater risk of getting in a car accident or hit by a drunk driver than you are getting shot. I also question your assumptions because I do not see you or any other anti gun people advocating for a restriction on car speeds (forcing manufacturers to not make vehicles go above a certain speed) when cars kill far more people than guns ever have in the US and they are just as widespread. This way, you can't pull the "we can't ban cars, we need dem!!!1111!!!!!" card. Where is the problem with this? We don't need really fast cars, they are unnecessary.

Guns could use a bit more regulation regarding how they are acquired, but restricting guns or parts of guns is ridiculous. People are the problem, not the object. Have fun with prohibition round two!!!!

AutoPilotOn

Lawl, statistics, let's have some fun with statistics. I have been in two car accidents, I have never had any injuries in either of those accidents, statistically if someone else runs into me with their car there is a zero probability of me being injured. Now if someone were to fire their gun at me there is a hundred percent probability of me being injured, therefore guns are more dangerous. Now I know that's shoddy logic, but that's my entire point, just because something is statistically likely to happen, it doesn't always translate into real consequences.

I already said with car speeds that speed is not the only factor in accidents. If speed were truly the only factor, then sure I'd be all for speed limitation. By the way, car manufacturers DO put in safeguards that keep cars from exceeding certain excessive speeds. The drunk driver analogy is also terrible as drunk driving is illegal.

Yes, people are the problem, if they weren't then anyone could own a big, honking claymore and never use it. Since people ARE the problem, however, I find it in my and my fellow person's best interest to keep dangerous items like assault weapons out of the hands of people, seeing as how those people could be a problem. If I could also keep pistols and home defense rifles out of the hands of those people I would, but seeing as those serve a practical purpose to many people who own them responsibly I do believe that is overstepping my bounds. However, as assault weapons serve no practical purpose I see no problem in restricting their sale. By the way, cars also serve a practical purpose that assault weapons do not.

Well, for one according to that logic guns and cars are equally safe. Two, comparing statistics of what happens in the event of a shooting compared to in the event of a car crash is not the same as comparing personal experience of occurences of either. Three, all of these statistics are essentially meaningless as real life does not operate statisitically, as I have been trying to explain.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

And statistics are not always applicable to real life. What's the statistical chance of someone getting injured in a car crash again? If I find ten people who buck that statistic does it make that statistic moot? Here's a quick lesson in statistics, when you come up with an average there is something called an outlier, in other words a data point in the set that is far greater or smaller than the average. Outliers occur because of something called variables, speed being one variable in car safety, driver proficiency being another. Just because some statistic says that if you drive so long you are x% likely to be involved in a crash does not mean that everyone who drives for so long will be equally as likely. Your use of statistics in this situation is completely fallacious.

DivergeUnify

I'm not the one even using statistics as an argument, you are buddy. Your state of mind right now is somewhat questionable

No, you're not reading my posts, I explicitly said that my use of statistics proved nothing, as did the use of statistics by the poster who I was replying to.

[QUOTE="DivergeUnify"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

And statistics are not always applicable to real life. What's the statistical chance of someone getting injured in a car crash again? If I find ten people who buck that statistic does it make that statistic moot? Here's a quick lesson in statistics, when you come up with an average there is something called an outlier, in other words a data point in the set that is far greater or smaller than the average. Outliers occur because of something called variables, speed being one variable in car safety, driver proficiency being another. Just because some statistic says that if you drive so long you are x% likely to be involved in a crash does not mean that everyone who drives for so long will be equally as likely. Your use of statistics in this situation is completely fallacious.

theone86

I'm not the one even using statistics as an argument, you are buddy. Your state of mind right now is somewhat questionable

No, you're not reading my posts, I explicitly said that my use of statistics proved nothing, as did the use of statistics by the poster who I was replying to.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Verge_6"] Defense? Collecting? See how well one can do MOA (That's "Minute of Accuracy", by the way)?Verge_6

I think handguns and hunting shotguns should be sufficient for home defense, and as for collecting that's fine but then I see no reason to own ammunition.

Handguns I have no problem with, now you're just nitpicking at technicalities. Machine guns, is that the correct terminology? As for recreation, why can't we make it so that ammo can only be bought at firing ranges and kept on the premises?

[QUOTE="AutoPilotOn"][QUOTE="theone86"]

Lawl, statistics, let's have some fun with statistics. I have been in two car accidents, I have never had any injuries in either of those accidents, statistically if someone else runs into me with their car there is a zero probability of me being injured. Now if someone were to fire their gun at me there is a hundred percent probability of me being injured, therefore guns are more dangerous. Now I know that's shoddy logic, but that's my entire point, just because something is statistically likely to happen, it doesn't always translate into real consequences.

I already said with car speeds that speed is not the only factor in accidents. If speed were truly the only factor, then sure I'd be all for speed limitation. By the way, car manufacturers DO put in safeguards that keep cars from exceeding certain excessive speeds. The drunk driver analogy is also terrible as drunk driving is illegal.

Yes, people are the problem, if they weren't then anyone could own a big, honking claymore and never use it. Since people ARE the problem, however, I find it in my and my fellow person's best interest to keep dangerous items like assault weapons out of the hands of people, seeing as how those people could be a problem. If I could also keep pistols and home defense rifles out of the hands of those people I would, but seeing as those serve a practical purpose to many people who own them responsibly I do believe that is overstepping my bounds. However, as assault weapons serve no practical purpose I see no problem in restricting their sale. By the way, cars also serve a practical purpose that assault weapons do not.

theone86

Well, for one according to that logic guns and cars are equally safe. Two, comparing statistics of what happens in the event of a shooting compared to in the event of a car crash is not the same as comparing personal experience of occurences of either. Three, all of these statistics are essentially meaningless as real life does not operate statisitically, as I have been trying to explain.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

I think handguns and hunting shotguns should be sufficient for home defense, and as for collecting that's fine but then I see no reason to own ammunition.

theone86

Handguns I have no problem with, now you're just nitpicking at technicalities. Machine guns, is that the correct terminology? As for recreation, why can't we make it so that ammo can only be bought at firing ranges and kept on the premises?

How is this going to accomplish anything? People will just duct tape 2 clips end to end like they have already been doing for decades. Waste of tax payer's time imo.

How is this going to accomplish anything? People will just duct tape 2 clips end to end like they have already been doing for decades. Waste of tax payer's time imo.

Alter_Echo

I bet it's possible with a shop smith

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"] Oh man :lol: I like how you fear people with guns more than you do with cars. Considering you are statisically at greater risk of getting in a car accident or hit by a drunk driver than you are getting shot. I also question your assumptions because I do not see you or any other anti gun people advocating for a restriction on car speeds (forcing manufacturers to not make vehicles go above a certain speed) when cars kill far more people than guns ever have in the US and they are just as widespread. This way, you can't pull the "we can't ban cars, we need dem!!!1111!!!!!" card. Where is the problem with this? We don't need really fast cars, they are unnecessary.

Guns could use a bit more regulation regarding how they are acquired, but restricting guns or parts of guns is ridiculous. People are the problem, not the object. Have fun with prohibition round two!!!!

DivergeUnify

Lawl, statistics, let's have some fun with statistics. I have been in two car accidents, I have never had any injuries in either of those accidents, statistically if someone else runs into me with their car there is a zero probability of me being injured. Now if someone were to fire their gun at me there is a hundred percent probability of me being injured, therefore guns are more dangerous. Now I know that's shoddy logic, but that's my entire point, just because something is statistically likely to happen, it doesn't always translate into real consequences.

I already said with car speeds that speed is not the only factor in accidents. If speed were truly the only factor, then sure I'd be all for speed limitation. By the way, car manufacturers DO put in safeguards that keep cars from exceeding certain excessive speeds. The drunk driver analogy is also terrible as drunk driving is illegal.

Yes, people are the problem, if they weren't then anyone could own a big, honking claymore and never use it. Since people ARE the problem, however, I find it in my and my fellow person's best interest to keep dangerous items like assault weapons out of the hands of people, seeing as how those people could be a problem. If I could also keep pistols and home defense rifles out of the hands of those people I would, but seeing as those serve a practical purpose to many people who own them responsibly I do believe that is overstepping my bounds. However, as assault weapons serve no practical purpose I see no problem in restricting their sale. By the way, cars also serve a practical purpose that assault weapons do not.

STOP interchangeably using assault rifle and assault weapon. If ANYTHING were to be banned it should be a pistol as that is what most gun murders are commited with. They are the most concealable, and much more threatening/wieldable in close quarters

I'm not interchangably using them, I never used the term assault riflein the first place, I have always been using the term assault weapon.

I don't have a problem with banning handguns, personally I have never had a need for them and believe that in an ideal situation no one should. I do realize that other people have the need for them and that trying to ban pistols would be an infringement on a right to home defense, I don't believe that banning assault weapons would be. I'm also not basing this on the ability or statistical use of such guns in certain crimes, you're right in one regard that if someone wanted to kill someone else with a knife/handgun/assault rifle/whatever they will probably do it despite legislation. I do hold, however, that assault weapons have no practical application in personal ownership, and when used incorrectly or by the wrong person have a great propensity to do damage. I believe that restricting their sale legally would cut off such easy access to these weapons and filter part of the undesirable owners who might use them to do harm to others.

[QUOTE="theone86"]

[QUOTE="Verge_6"] Because I like shooting my collections? You're awfully keen to start speaking out on what people can and should enjoy, you know. Also, handguns fall under "reapeating weapons". What about them now?

Verge_6

Handguns I have no problem with, now you're just nitpicking at technicalities. Machine guns, is that the correct terminology? As for recreation, why can't we make it so that ammo can only be bought at firing ranges and kept on the premises?

You're right, I'm by no means a master of gun terminology, but that doesn't mean I don't know which weapons I find impractical for commercial sale, I just have a hard time labeling them correctly. Assault weapons, SMGs, combat shotguns, anything that has no practical application for hunting and/or home defense.

As to regulation, you gave no reason why it couldn't be done, just an explanation of what would have to be done. I also have no illusions that the government will be able to restrict the sale of assault weapons and ammo for them outside of approved vendors, but I do believe that forcing such goods to the black market will shrink the number of undesirable buyers significantly. Only people who are dead-set on obtaining these weapons will be able to acquire them, which rules out instances where someone would buy one because of how easy it is with no intention of killing and then use it to harm others because he's in the wrong frame of mind and it's there.

I'm not interchangably using them, I never used the term assault riflein the first place, I have always been using the term assault weapon.

I don't have a problem with banning handguns, personally I have never had a need for them and believe that in an ideal situation no one should. I do realize that other people have the need for them and that trying to ban pistols would be an infringement on a right to home defense, I don't believe that banning assault weapons would be. I'm also not basing this on the ability or statistical use of such guns in certain crimes, you're right in one regard that if someone wanted to kill someone else with a knife/handgun/assault rifle/whatever they will probably do it despite legislation. I do hold, however, that assault weapons have no practical application in personal ownership, and when used incorrectly or by the wrong person have a great propensity to do damage. I believe that restricting their sale legally would cut off such easy access to these weapons and filter part of the undesirable owners who might use them to do harm to others.

theone86

Anyways the only reason I would oppose the idea of limiting ammunition is just because police agencies wouldn't follow suit. While that might not mean anything now, I think our undeniable move into a more surveillance based-government, paired with time makes it a bit scary

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

Handguns I have no problem with, now you're just nitpicking at technicalities. Machine guns, is that the correct terminology? As for recreation, why can't we make it so that ammo can only be bought at firing ranges and kept on the premises?

theone86

You're right, I'm by no means a master of gun terminology, but that doesn't mean I don't know which weapons I find impractical for commercial sale, I just have a hard time labeling them correctly. Assault weapons, SMGs, combat shotguns, anything that has no practical application for hunting and/or home defense.

As to regulation, you gave no reason why it couldn't be done, just an explanation of what would have to be done. I also have no illusions that the government will be able to restrict the sale of assault weapons and ammo for them outside of approved vendors, but I do believe that forcing such goods to the black market will shrink the number of undesirable buyers significantly. Only people who are dead-set on obtaining these weapons will be able to acquire them, which rules out instances where someone would buy one because of how easy it is with no intention of killing and then use it to harm others because he's in the wrong frame of mind and it's there.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

If it's fully or semi automatic I don't much care about technical terminology.

theone86

Okay, whatI meant by that is I think that any repeating gun should be banned as I see no practical use for it.

[QUOTE="Alter_Echo"]

How is this going to accomplish anything? People will just duct tape 2 clips end to end like they have already been doing for decades. Waste of tax payer's time imo.

DivergeUnify

I bet it's possible with a shop smith

[QUOTE="Alter_Echo"]

How is this going to accomplish anything? People will just duct tape 2 clips end to end like they have already been doing for decades. Waste of tax payer's time imo.

I bet it's possible with a shop smith

[QUOTE="Alter_Echo"][QUOTE="DivergeUnify"] Or make their own :P

I bet it's possible with a shop smith

AutoPilotOn

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJyLmsuoG8Q&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx0JzYcwUiY

I can reload about that fast, a bit slower with the rifle, about the same speed with the pistol.

There is a lot going on in this thread, but I see a few glaring misconceptions that I feel should be corrected:

1. The thing that holds the rounds (prior to chambering) inside most weapons is called a magazine. The term "clip" is generally used to refer to a metallic object used to hold rounds in place before loading into a magazine or, in some cases, used to hold rounds inside of a magazine. Don't believe me? Look up the term "magazine" on any shooting supply store website or any weapon manufacturer (Brownells, Natchez, Glock, etc.) The term "Magazine" is an industry wide standard while the term "clip" is used by people who wish to convey their lack of knowledge on the subject of firearms.

2. It is not illegal to own a "High capacity" Magazine in the United States. Any civilian who can legally purchase a firearm, can legally purchase a magazine like the 33 round one made by Glock. There was once a law that prevented the manufacture and importation of new "High capacity" magazines, but that law expired. If memory serves me correctly, it was called the "Violent crimes and law enforcement act" Among other things, it attempted to ban high capacity magazines but since no law of Ex Post Facto can be passed in the U.S. there was no restriction on magazines created before ban took hold. In other words it did little to limit the amount of 30 round AR-15 magazines in the U.S.

3. I had something else to say here but I forgot what it was.

The following is opinion:

The man in question was insane. Just look at his youtube channel It was not a political position that motivated his behavior, rather, it was a mental disorder. Also; I really doubt that measures like preventing the access to magazines that hold a large number of rounds would have been effective in preventing this sort of tragedy or crime in general. if he couldn't get that magazine or even a weapon, he would have found another way to hurt people. You live in a world where there is violence, no amount of legislation will stop that.

To the issue at hand: I really lament this kind of knee jerk legislation. This was an isolated incident and it was not in any way prompted by the availability of 33 round Glock magazines. Removing them from the market will not stop crazy people from hurting other people. Senator Lautenberg is capitalizing on a tragedy to push a political agenda. This behaviour is vulgar and reprehensible. In my mind this man is no better than the Westboro Baptist church.

Let's ban everything that can hurt people. That includes cars, trains, planes, automobiles, knives, bats, all sports that use an instrument including lacrosse and girls field hockey, forks, sporks, motorcycles, electricity, vaccinations and a whole host of other things that can possibly kill someone.:roll:

Let's ban everything that can hurt people. That includes cars, trains, planes, automobiles, knives, bats, all sports that use an instrument including lacrosse and girls field hockey, forks, sporks, motorcycles, electricity, vaccinations and a whole host of other things that can possibly kill someone.:roll:

WhiteKnight77

Have you picked up Railworks yet? I love it.

Have you picked up Railworks yet? I love it.

WhiteKnight77

I just get to watch the CSX trains run between Atlanta and Chattanooga.:(

I've rarely seen a clip over 5 bullets. And never seen one past 10.

I've rarely seen a clip over 5 bullets. And never seen one past 10.

Mr_Sesshomaru

I just get to watch the CSX trains run between Atlanta and Chattanooga.:(

WhiteKnight77

You're missing out. Chama is where it's at. 8)

I've noticed something. Whenever there's a gun topic in OT, it's always the anti-gun users that resort to calling people lunatics and mentally impaired. You'd think it'd be the other way around...

[QUOTE="Mr_Sesshomaru"]

I've rarely seen a clip over 5 bullets. And never seen one past 10.

racer8dan

Its still not going to decreease the mortality rate...

Even if you ban guns, rocks,bones, piece of wood, ya know,get creative ;)

Remember,guns wont kill you...you sticking your penis into the private parts of someone elses woman will ;)

I've noticed something. Whenever there's a gun topic in OT, it's always the anti-gun users that resort to calling people lunatics and mentally impaired. You'd think it'd be the other way around...

Verge_6

Ironic isn't it. What I don't get is liberals want me to share my income with everyone and their brother, yet want to take weapons from everybody. Liberals want to take everything from everyone. I guess I will have to empty out my spare bedroom so someone can use it other than me. I guess I have to give up one of my TVs to the guy down the street living under the bridge. I guess conservatives who work their rear ends off don't get to enjoy anything while rich liberals keep what they have.

It seems Midway is selling Glock 33 round magazines for 35.99 USD. That's almost ten dollars cheaper than most places. I'm tempted to pick up a few.

It seems Midway is selling Glock 33 round magazines for 35.99 USD. That's almost ten dollars cheaper than most places. I'm tempted to pick up a few.

Frattracide

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

It seems Midway is selling Glock 33 round magazines for 35.99 USD. That's almost ten dollars cheaper than most places. I'm tempted to pick up a few.

Verge_6

:?. . . Those are some. . . Peculiar. . . stipulations you have there.

[QUOTE="Verge_6"][QUOTE="Frattracide"]

It seems Midway is selling Glock 33 round magazines for 35.99 USD. That's almost ten dollars cheaper than most places. I'm tempted to pick up a few.

Frattracide

:?. . . Those are some. . . Peculiar. . . stipulations you have there.

[QUOTE="Frattracide"]

[QUOTE="Verge_6"] If it's not banana-shaped and not made of com-block steel, I ain't interested.Verge_6

:?. . . Those are some. . . Peculiar. . . stipulations you have there.

Who doesn't like a good Kalishnikov? When you are done shooting it, you can take it apart and use the components to fix your tractor. :P

I don't see what the fuss is about, if I remember correctly both the Columbine shooters and Virginia Tech shooters simply carried multiple weapons rather than reload. And I have never heard of any instances of people just randomly walking into public places with an AK and blasting away.

Gun control nuts baffle me, "get rid of automatic weapons!"- great, now the shooter actually aims. "get rid of high capacity magazines" great, now they carry multiple weapons. "get rid of guns" great, now only the crazies have the guns.

If people want to hurt others, they will find a way- Timothy McVeigh didn't have to use guns to kill people, did he?

[QUOTE="On3ShotOneKill"]

[QUOTE="theone86"]

There's a difference between someone being nuts and having a questionable state of mind, but if you must know I don't really trust you either. Again, not calling you nuts, just saying I don't trust you with assault weapons.

theone86

Guns could use a bit more regulation regarding how they are acquired, but restricting guns or parts of guns is ridiculous. People are the problem, not the object. Have fun with prohibition round two!!!!

Lawl, statistics, let's have some fun with statistics. I have been in two car accidents, I have never had any injuries in either of those accidents, statistically if someone else runs into me with their car there is a zero probability of me being injured. Now if someone were to fire their gun at me there is a hundred percent probability of me being injured, therefore guns are more dangerous. Now I know that's shoddy logic, but that's my entire point, just because something is statistically likely to happen, it doesn't always translate into real consequences.

I already said with car speeds that speed is not the only factor in accidents. If speed were truly the only factor, then sure I'd be all for speed limitation. By the way, car manufacturers DO put in safeguards that keep cars from exceeding certain excessive speeds. The drunk driver analogy is also terrible as drunk driving is illegal.

Yes, people are the problem, if they weren't then anyone could own a big, honking claymore and never use it. Since people ARE the problem, however, I find it in my and my fellow person's best interest to keep dangerous items like assault weapons out of the hands of people, seeing as how those people could be a problem. If I could also keep pistols and home defense rifles out of the hands of those people I would, but seeing as those serve a practical purpose to many people who own them responsibly I do believe that is overstepping my bounds. However, as assault weapons serve no practical purpose I see no problem in restricting their sale. By the way, cars also serve a practical purpose that assault weapons do not.

Car speed is not only factor involved in people getting killed as there are many. However, physics determines that velocity is the greatest factor in determining KE (Kinetic Energy) of an object. M * V^2 / 2 = KE. A 10 ton vehicle moving at 2 mph is going to be far less dangerous than a 1 ton vehicle moving at 100 mph. Speed isn't the only factor, but it is the most important (Aside from airbags, seatbelts, etc.) What are these "speed safegaurds" you speak of? Cars are not restricted by any mechanisms that I know of, only by their engine's capabilities. Drunk driving is indeed illegal, but so is shooting people. I do not know where you are going with this.

And as we have concluded, people are indeed the problem. However, people also miuse alchohol, which is something that is certainly not a necessity, but a luxury. Seeing as how this luxury causes more harm than an actual weapon nationwide, I do not see how the regulation of said weapon deserves more attention than the luxury. I do not disagree that firearms as a whole need more regulation and safeguards. However, I do not agree with an outright ban of firearms that would be no different than prohibition. I recognize you do not call for an outright ban, but many other anti-gun people do. They do not recognize the navite or impracticality of an action. That, or they just don't know history :P