The semantics of gun control...

[Photographer]

I don't care if the gun is this or that. I don't care if the gun is fully auto or semi auto. For my purposes in regarding a firearm in a "peacetime" suburban setting, if a weapon can fire as fast as a finger can twitch with a reserve of ammunition of 30+ projectiles has no business being available to the general populace.

The semantics don't fucking matter.

So often when debates happen on the subject of guns, the pro gun people argue "you don't know what you're talking about" because of a misidentified weapon or the firepower of the weapon. Therefore they postulate that any argument or further argument that you might offer is moot.

It is amazing to me that these claims of lack of knowledge about the manufacturing designs and processes should garner any reality to defeat the idea that guns are designed to kill and they are killing friends, family and neighbors daily. Look it up.

Thanks for letting me rant.

[TeddyR]

1. Great

Ban large capacity magazines. Maryland did. You can own a semi-auto that fires as fast as you pull the trigger but only 10 round magazines.

[Sherman A1]

2. That I believe is the key

the control of the magazines. I would go to a 6 round clip/magazine limit, but 10 is better than nothing.

[Duckhunter935]

6. What do you do with the billions in circulation?

They can be printed, it is a box with a spring.

[Sherman A1]

10. Fast reply and the expected question.

It's pretty simple. On a date certain it would be illegal to own a magazine beyond the legal capacity. They could either be turned in or fixed to only hold the new limit. I would also think that a 2 mag limit would be appropriate per weapon. It would not solve every circumstance, but it would be a good start.

[Act_of_Reparation]

12. It will never fly, however sensible it is.

There are thousands of high-capacity magazines floating around the country. Collecting or fixing them all is a logistical impossibility, never mind the gun-fondlers' aversion to anything even resembling confiscation.

The genie's out of the bottle, I'm afraid.

Maybe price-controlling ammunition would be an alternative.

[Duckhunter935]

20. Not thousands but hundreds of millions

But more likely billions if you now classify every one over 6-10 high capacity.

[Sherman A1]

61. I do not believe it impossible to accomplish

we have done much more difficult things. I believe it unlikely that it will occur. I do like your suggestion of ammunition price controls and think it could be something to look at. That said I do not believe using the term "gun-fondlers'" advances any possibility of a reasonable discussion.

[Jerry442]

78. Not as difficult as you think.

Make it illegal to manufacture high capacity magazines.

Make it illegal to sell them, import them, or give them away.

Make it illegal (after a grace period) to transport them through a public thoroughfare of any kind. Add an additional penalty if someone is found transporting them with a compatible firearm or ammunition. There would be an open-ended amnesty for anyone who surrenders one to law enforcement.

After five years, how many do you think would be out there that weren't just rotting away in people's basements?

On edit: Bonus penalties for anyone found to be transporting more than one. Suspicion of trafficking, dontcha know.

[Straw Man]

102. But more difficult than YOU think...

Make it illegal to manufacture high capacity magazines.

Many millions are already in circulation. They can be made by 3-D printers with astonishing ease. And who is going to supply the military?

Make it illegal to sell them, import them, or give them away.

Creating a profitable black market such as already exists for drugs. Give them away? How would that ever be prosecuted? Sting operations where undercover agents go around panhandling for illegal magazines?

Make it illegal (after a grace period) to transport them through a public thoroughfare of any kind.

What's the advantage there if simple possession is already illegal?

After five years, how many do you think would be out there that weren't just rotting away in people's basements?

Plastic magazines don't "rot away." There would still be millions in people's homes, which is where most of them are already. People might risk a trip to a private club ranges with them once in a while. I wouldn't expect much compliance -- certainly no more than the 10 to 15% that New York and Connecticut got with their assault-weapons registration schemes.

Meanwhile, spree killers who intend to go out in a blaze of glory wouldn't be deterred one whit. They don't need that many magazines to carry out their monstrosities. It shouldn't be that hard for them to source four or five illegal ones.

On edit: Bonus penalties for anyone found to be transporting more than one. Suspicion of trafficking, dontcha know.

Isn't it fun to sit around thinking about what you would do if you were king? Oh, I'd make 'em sweat, I would ...

[Jerry442]

108. The point is not to achieve sterility, which no one believes possible.

The point is to make it much harder for the next Adam Lanza to lay his hands on high-capacity magazines.

Yes, you could use your 3-D printer (which of course, everyone has and knows how to use) to fabricate one, assuming you could find a design that you were fairly confident was created by someone who knew his ass from a hole in the ground. You'd then have to purchase the non-plastic parts, like fasteners and springs. Then you'd have to assemble and test your baby, unless on your planet, mechanical devices that have never been tested always work. Unless you have a gun range in your basement, you'd have to take the magazine somewhere to test it. Ooops, that's illegal, hope you don't get caught. (Oh my, you weren't transporting a compatible firearm and ammo at the same time, were you?) If you decide not to go out to the woods and take it to a gun range, hope the owners of the gun range don't rat you out.

Congrats. You now have invested a lot of effort and assumed significant risk to make two or three high-capacity magazines. There's not much you can do with them, unless you're a deranged killer.

You're right, a truly obsessed and talented person is pretty unstoppable. The Unabomber made some of his bombs out of match heads. He hand-made his own screws. But you know what, there haven't been a lot of Unabomber copycats. There have been a lot of Adam Lanzas who use whatever they can easily pick up.

Isn't it fun fantasizing about a world where everybody is armed to the teeth and yet nobody dies.

[Straw Man]

115. Yet only sterility achieves the goal ...

... of safety.

The point is not to achieve sterility, which no one believes possible.

The point is to make it much harder for the next Adam Lanza to lay his hands on high-capacity magazines.

In other words, the goal is to inconvenience spree killers. That'll show 'em.

A thirty-round AR magazine is not "high-capacity." It is standard-capacity.

Yes, you could use your 3-D printer (which of course, everyone has and knows how to use) to fabricate one, assuming you could find a design that you were fairly confident was created by someone who knew his ass from a hole in the ground.

Design? We're not reinventing the wheel here. The design comes from one of the millions of extant magazines.

You'd then have to purchase the non-plastic parts, like fasteners and springs.

Yeah, that's a daunting task in modern America. Springs and fasteners? Omigod, where are we ever going to find those?

Then you'd have to assemble and test your baby, unless on your planet, mechanical devices that have never been tested always work.

Assembly is a snap-together process. Test? We're working from a proven design -- remember? The first few would have to be function-tested, yes, but after that it's good-to-go. A magazine is a spring in a box. It's not rocket surgery.

Unless you have a gun range in your basement, you'd have to take the magazine somewhere to test it.

Function testing of a magazine can be done without firing the gun. Manual cycling will identify any major problems. However, live-fire testing in a basement is eminently do-able. The main challenge of indoor ranges is air quality, which is a non-issue with the limited number of rounds that would have to fired to test prototype magazines. Then there are the trackless deserts of our Western states. Lots of illegal shit goes on there.

Congrats. You now have invested a lot of effort and assumed significant risk to make two or three high-capacity magazines. There's not much you can do with them, unless you're a deranged killer.

Two or three? Why stop there? We're talking about a criminal enterprise that could generate substantial profit. It's bootlegging, man: criminal commercial enterprise, and highly profitable.

You're right, a truly obsessed and talented person is pretty unstoppable. The Unabomber made some of his bombs out of match heads. He hand-made his own screws. But you know what, there haven't been a lot of Unabomber copycats.

The Unabomber was creating a one-off of his own design. He had no proven model to work from. The difference between that and 3-D printing of a ubiquitous and proven item is like the difference between carving your own furniture from wood and assembling it from Ikea out of the box.

There have been a lot of Adam Lanzas who use whatever they can easily pick up.

How many Adam Lanzas have there been? He might not have been able to acquire his magazines on the black market. Do you think you could say the same of the San Bernardino, Orlando, and Dallas shooters? I don't.

[Jerry442]

119. Oh, by the way, did I mention my law...

...makes it a felony to fabricate one of these with the intent of selling it -- intent that would be pretty well established by actually, y'know, selling it. If you were convicted on multiple counts, the judge might let the sentences all run concurrently but I doubt it.

If I were you, all excited about making illegal stuff to sell to fellow lawbreakers, I'd do a meth lab. Now there's a proven business model if ever there was one.

[Straw Man]

120. More authoritarian daydreams.

If I were you, all excited about making illegal stuff to sell to fellow lawbreakers, I'd do a meth lab. Now there's a proven business model if ever there was one.

Beg your pardon? I'm not a lawbreaker, and I have no intention of becoming one. I was merely pointing out to you the flaws with your prohibitionist model. Minus 10 points for gratuitous ad hominem.

Do you really consider 10+ capacity magazines to be a social ill on the scale of methamphetamine? I think your moral compass needs some calibration.

[Jerry442]

122. Yes. NT

[MH1]

145. Moral compass ...

Do you really consider 10+ capacity magazines to be a social ill on the scale of methamphetamine? I think your moral compass needs some calibration.

Jerry442 isn't the one whose moral compass is in need of calibration.

[Straw Man]

156. So ...

Jerry442 isn't the one whose moral compass is in need of calibration.

... you agree with him that magazines over 10-round capacity are a social ill equivalent to methamphetamine use in this country? In the ten years that the AWB was in force in the US, it was found that only 3% of gunfire incidents involved more than 10 shots being fired, and that "it is not clear how often the outcomes of gun attacks depend on the ability to fire more than 10 shots (the current limit on magazine capacity) without reloading." (https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/204431.pdf).

How much suffering and how many deaths were attributable to the production, distribution, and use of methamphetamine in those 10 years?

Calibrate.

[calimary]

141. But I'd have to ask - "so then we do NOTHING?"

I'm always left asking that question.

[Jerry442]

148. Look at the bright side...

...if the gun folk really believe that nothing can be done, why do they argue so passionately that nothing should be done?

I mean, I happen to believe that reinstating Prohibition is a bad idea, but I don't spend time arguing against it cuz there ain't no way it's ever gonna happen.

[jmg257]

152. I think there is plenty that can be done...when in most cities, less then 1% of the people

are responsible for 70-80% of gun violence - and the police KNOW who they are - seems it would only take a bit of REAL effort, with known programs and remedies, etc., to vastly reduce the number of gun-related violence incidents.

Just think, 50-80% less gun-violence deaths...doable to some extent if we were really serious.

[calimary]

154. Exactly. You mean there's NOTHING we can do? I can't buy that for a nanosecond.

Hey, let's do it like the anti-choicers do. Take a page from their book. Start whittling away at it around the edges. Be creative. Look for any and all ways to chip it away, loosen it up, make cracks and crumbles and holes in the wall. Seek out EVERY possible soft spot and mouse hole and weakness and thinness and looseness in the supports underneath. Look everywhere and anywhere. By ANY manipulative means possible. After all, look how hard it is to get an abortion now. Shouldn't the same strategy be used here, too? WHY CAN'T the same strategy be used here, too? We can't out-think this? We can't out-maneuver this? We can't attack from every direction - up, down, and sideways?

I remember in, I think it was, the second "Star Trek" movie - "The Wrath of Khan." They're in this cloudy expanse and having trouble scanning for Khan's ship. And at one point, Mr. Spock says - "his pattern (or behavior) indicates two-dimensional thinking." Which gave Kirk an inspiration for a way AROUND that two-dimensional thinking. Add another unexpected (and unanticipated) dimension. I think the pro-choice forces have been so ridiculously out-classed and only now are starting to get the way their opposition fights, and all too often wins. Seems to me we, trying to make a dent in the gun-wall, need to start thinking AROUND and OUTSIDE of that box.

[jmg257]

155. Hear hear - Cheers!

Sometimes the dangling carrot is just too easy to resist, while the carrot and stick* approach may be more effective.


*Combination of rewards and/or punishment, both shown as beneficial.

[Calista241]

92. I agree, way too hard to accomplish.

There are over 100 million of these magazines out there by even a conservative estimate, and that's just for rifle magazines. In addition, making more of them in a 3D printer is child's play.

You're looking at billions of dollars in funding for a program just to confiscate these magazines. The hardcore crazy people that we most need to get them from will never be the ones to turn them over.

The most popular pistol in the US, the Glock 19, has a 15 round magazine. Glock makes variants for states that restrict magazine sizes, but untold millions of those high capacity magazines already exist. And that's just Glock, we haven't even looked at any other manufacturers yet. No serial numbers, no records, no nothing exists to trace these magazines.

And they don't rot away. I suppose in 50 years, you might need to replace a spring to keep one operational, but if they're sitting around in someone's basement of closet, they will reliably function for the foreseeable future.

[benEzra]

123. Not in 50 years; maybe 500 years, if not stored carefully.

The oldest gun I own is 111 years old this year, and the magazine spring looks and works like new. And that's with the metallurgy available in 1905 rather than 2016.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

15. How do you plan on compensating the owners?

[X_Digger]

33. Dang that pesky 'takings' clause! n/t

[Sherman A1]

60. Personally I wouldn't, however

I believe a tax credit with proof of surrender or distruction would do the trick. Seemed to work in the auto bailout.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

69. Private citizens were still free to sell cars amongst themselves.

[Sherman A1]

72. and....

the point?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

90. If people are allowed to engage in private commerce they will.

[Sherman A1]

91. Yes

And we are not going to change each other's opinions.

Good Day.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

98. It's not opinion. It's observed fact and you can't just wish it away.

[Sherman A1]

101. Yes, they are going to do so

There are many private transactions for controlled substances everyday, they are also outside the scope of the legal system. When those are detected by law enforcement they generally have some repercussions.

Individuals and businesses sometimes conduct transactions that are outside of what is considered legal and when they are detected they have repercussions to those who conducted them. I am not proposing a perfect solution, a solution that will be popular with some, but I have yet to hear any idea offered by you will be of help to control the massive numbers of high capacity weapons or their magazines that have taken such a toll on so many families and this nation.

Criticize my concept all you want, nitpick the idea to death if you would, but what will you offer?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

106. "When those are detected by law enforcement they generally have some repercussions."

Which brings us to the other aspect of this issue: The police, by an overwhelming majority, are not enforcing these laws.

A better solution, which is more legally and logistically plausible, it to forego dealing with tens of millions of innocent people with hundreds of millions of items of private property and instead focus on the handful of would-be spree killers. Seeing as the majority of them have a history with law enforcement and mental health professionals they already have inroads into the system.

[MohRokTah]

51. So now at least 40,000,000 refuse to comply. They are all heavily armed and you have instantly made

them all pissed of felons.

What do you do?

[Sherman A1]

64. No,

In the scenario I have portrayed many will choose to comply with the law and change out their magazines and take advantage of the tax incentive I have described in another response.

[MohRokTah]

66. Some may comply. I don't believe most will.

Where do you come up with the billions upon billions to pay for the proposal not in the post I responded to but apparently elsewhere in this thread?

You do realize there are probably hundreds of millions of these things in circulation (no way to know for sure exactly how many).

BTW, odds are, California's ban on magazines will most likely be struck down as people are being deprived of property without compensation, right?

[Sherman A1]

71. Your opinion

I tend to disagree.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

70. If the experiences of CO, NY and VT (hardly rock-ribbed conservative bastions, they) serve as

an indication you will find compliance among the population to hover around 10%, and that's being generous. Among the police, enforcement is even lower.

If you make laws that are not obeyed or enforced you undermine your authority.

[Lee-Lee]

4. They can be 3D printed now

And within a few years 3D printers are expected to be as widespread in homes as gaming consoles are.

A law banning magazines would literally stop nobody who wants to commit a crime in this modern age. Even as little as 10 years it might stand a change of keeping someone from having them, but now? No. Technology has evolved to make laws banning simple metal or plastic items impossible.

Besides, California banned the transfer or possession of any magazine over 10 rounds back in the 90's, the only legal way to have them now in CA is be grandfathered with ones you have owned 2 decades (and they just now banned that). Yet the criminals all still get them. And if your response is "well they just get them from other states" you are missing the point- if there is a way to get them they will and the law won't matter to them. So now is just a matter of getting that used 3D printer on Craigslist and downloading a program.

[morningfog]

57. "now is just a matter of getting that used 3D printer on Craigslist and downloading a program." lol.

In your dreams.

[SeattleVet]

82. No - the means have been around for a while now...

any old cheap 3D printer, along with any one of the many files you can easily find using "3d printer file 30 round magazine" as a Google search, and you can be making magazines of pretty much any size (and completely untraceable) very quickly and cheaply.

It's not rocket science; it's essentially a box with a spring.

[Lee-Lee]

105. Look around, it's already being done

The only part of a magazine that can't be printed is the spring. Spring wire stock can be bought buy wrapping it to the right shape free-form is almost impossible.

So the folks who design the magazine blueprint to feed the printer also just design a form that is printed out that you wrap your spring wire around to creat a spring that works.

All one needs is the printer, the design, the printer filament and some spring stock. Printer, filament and spring stock are all on Amazon, the designs are downloadable for free and if you make the magazines illegal even more varieties will be uploaded.

[Kang Colby]

87. False.

Maryland did not ban the possession of magazines holding more than ten rounds. It is perfectly legal to purchase magazines out of state and bring them into Maryland.

Maryland's law bans the buying, selling, manufacturing (by a non-FFL), and transferring of the magazines within state borders.

However, I agree with the spirit of your comment.

[Lee-Lee]

3. And when you espouse your opinions from a place of ignorance on the subject

you sound like a fool.

You know how we rightfully mock old white cons who talk about reproductive rights or growing up black when they don't have a clue? When you don't have a clue how a gin works or what you are talking about while talking about policy or demanding new laws about them you sound just as ignorant.

[baldguy]

7. And when you refuse to acknowledge or even recognize the problem

and offer no solutions, you sound just as foolish & ignorant - more so, in fact.

The reason we're in this situation is because we've allowed "gun owners" (really the terrorist organization called the NRA & the gun-manufacturing death merchants that support it) to set the agenda for gun control.

And it's been an absolutely devastating horrific failure.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

9. The problem is a very small number of individuals who are determined to act.

They cannot be dissuaded because they already consider their own lives forfeit. They cannot be disarmed because they plot their actions for extended periods of time. As long as they are allowed to move through society they will be a threat to society regardless of the tools at their disposal be they semi-automatic rifles, shotguns or pressure cookers. Even France and Belgium are finding out you can't ban your way into safety.

[baldguy]

11. The problem is too many guns.

My post stands.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. Were there too many guns in France when the Charlie Hebdo office was attacked?

Was there too many guns when McVeigh and the Tsarnaev brothers made their attacks?

You blanch at the thought of interdicting a handful of deranged individuals but somehow think disarming 80 million people with 300 million weapons is rational, let alone justified.

[baldguy]

18. Refusing to acknowledge the problem - and slipping in a few RW talking points.

Good for you. You've presented the NRA position well.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. How do you hope to effectively deal with anything, let alone something as profound as gun

violence, by retreating behind impotent cliches?

[Calista241]

93. Didn't you hear? If you label something an NRA talking point

It invalidates anything else you might say. Regardless of whether it's true, accurate, or obvious.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

99. They get angry when their initiatives fail but their initiatives fail

because they would rather be angry.

[beevul]

38. The problem was accurately acknowledged.

The problem is a very small number of individuals who are determined to act.

Theres the proof.

You're the one denying the problem and blaming guns.

[Exilednight]

125. Over 8000 gun deaths in the US in just one year.

The problem is two fold, the sheer number of available guns and the type of guns we allow.

Compare that to England that had less than 30, under 150 when adjusted to per capita. England doesn't have a no gun policy, but it is highly regulated on who may own a gun and limited to what can be purchased.

You bring up France, which has had how many mass shootings this year?

We're not even half way through July and we have already had 10 mass shootings where 5 or more people were killed or injured - That's just a two week period.

[beevul]

126. In a nation of 300+ million...

Over 8000 gun deaths in the US in just one year.

In a nation of 300+ million, where citizens own more than 300+ million guns.

If it were the guns, that 8000 number would be 100 times what it is, but it isn't.

The problem is two fold, the sheer number of available guns and the type of guns we allow.

That's an opinion, and one heavily weighted by bias.

Compare that to England that had less than 30, under 150 when adjusted to per capita.

We aren't England, nor will we be.

[Exilednight]

129. It's the ease of access to guns that is the biggest

Problem.

10 mass shootings in two weeks, and someone has to be stupid to argue that guns aren't a problem.

[beevul]

131. Again, thats an opinion, not supported by ALL the facts.

It's the ease of access to guns that is the biggest Problem.

Again, thats an opinion, not supported by ALL the facts. If it were simply ease of access that was the problem, and not people making bad choices, the death toll annually would be in the millions. But it isn't. You want to ignore 100 millionish gun owners who play no part in gun violence, but we aren't going away.

10 mass shootings in two weeks, and someone has to be stupid to argue that guns aren't a problem.

Guns aren't THE problem. If they were the death toll annually would be in the millions. but it isn't.

The problem, is people making bad choices that involve gun violence. Making it about the rest of us who don't, isn't going to fix the problem.

[Exilednight]

134. yet America has the softest gun laws of

Industrial and post industrial countries and we lead in the amount of gun violence.

Yep, you're right there is no evidence.

[jmg257]

127. Threefold - the sheer number of people in the US who don't mind killing other people...

In Richmond, Calif, 70 percent of their gun violence in 2008 was caused by fewer than 1 percent of the city’s residents.

In Cincinnati, less than 1 percent of the city’s population was responsible for 74 percent of homicides in 2007.

In Chicago - a city of 2.7 million people, about 1,400 are responsible for 70-80% of the violence.

[Exilednight]

128. I'm sure other countries have just as many loons, the difference

Is the ease of access to guns.

[beevul]

132. What about all the places with the ease of acccess and little to no gun violence?

Those places prove you wrong.

[Exilednight]

133. Every country and post industrial country in the

World has more stringent gun laws than the US.

[beevul]

138. That doesn't negate the high gun ownership states in America...

That doesn't negate the high gun ownership states in America, who don't have the gun violence problems of some of their heavy gun control counterparts.

[sanatanadharma]

30. At least one too many guns in each case

Too many arguments for guns over lives

It is not the gun, it is the toddler
[img][/img]

[Nuclear Unicorn]

36. This can be addressed without trampling the rights of others.

[Photographer]

140. Yup. I likes to shoot things and killum dead. That's my right like it done said in that

constitution thingie.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

143. That's that same constitution thingy what lets you post banal non-answers.

[jmg257]

146. Ha ha - sorry - just funny that someone who ignores linguistics and logic

makes fun of others speech and intelligence.

[Marengo]

147. Are you suggesting the poster you responded to talks like this?

[Duckhunter935]

41. Out of 80-100 million

Firearms owners and 300+ million firearms.

[MohRokTah]

44. More toddlers are killed by toppling televisions onto themselves each year.

On average, 21 toddlers are killed annually by toppling televisions onto themselves. Even more are injured. Many adults are injured and killed as well.

Shall we ban televisions, too?

[MohRokTah]

136. Can you come up with an argument that is not a personal attack?

Calling somebody a Republican is against TOS.

I offered factual statistics. More toddlers are killed by toppling a television on themselves than from guns. Maybe anti-gun folks should come up with a better argument than the number of toddlers who kill themselves because their parents were irresponsible with their guns since more parents are irresponsible with their televisions annually.

[Lee-Lee]

14. And another reason is people crafting the proposed laws are clueless about what they try to regulate

Take background checks- on its own the idea in general sounds good, and just presented as "expanded background checks" it sounds great and people say they like it.

But then you write it into a bill that is badly crafted and would make things people don't see as a problem into felonies and it doesn't get passed- because the people wiring the bill don't really know about guns or what they are trying to regulate.

That was the pitfall of Toomey-Manchin. One big example is the issue of loaning a gun to a hunting buddy. Most people would say if the person already owns guns and just wants to borrow a certain kind of shotgun to go hunting that should require a trip to a licensed dealer, paperwork and a fee to loan it and then another trip to a dealer, paperwork and a few to return it.

So they supposedly put an exception in the law for temporary loan of a gun for pis purposes of hunting. The problem is the people writing the law don't know anything about hunting, so they wrote it saying that the gun could only be possessed by the borrower in places and at times where hunting is legal. They probably thought that they were saying in hunting season in states where is legal, but that's not how the wrote the law. Most hunting is legal only in daylight hours and you cannot hunt in city limits or from a road or within a certain distance of a road- so quite literally the only way the hunting loan exemption would work would be if the person loaning the gun woke up early the day of the hunt, drove to the hunting location and carried the firearm a legal distance from the road and handed it off- and got it back the same way. It would be a felony for the person to borrow the gun the night before and transport it themselves to the hunt and take it back to the owners house like every reasonable person would see acceptable.

And that's how bills like that fail- things that sound reasonable in concept get put into bills by people with no clue on the details so they make bad law.

I and a lot of gun owners here have been proposing a good solution that can pass- open NICS up so private sellers can use it, so you eliminate the hassle of trips to a gun dealer and paying them fees for every check. It's 2016 there is no reason why there can't be an app and website for that.

[beevul]

37. LOL,@ "allowed".

It isn't your place to allow or deny gun owners.

Sorry.

[Photographer]

39. I used to sell them back in the 80's and was a sport shooter since before you were born

I'm guessing. And who is this "we" you speak of?

[TipTok]

5. A subjective definition of 'scary' is not enough to establish law or policy...

You either need to know what you are talking about or wait until you do.

[Captain Stern]

8. At some point, semantics have to matter.

When we make laws, semantics, details, and definitions are of extreme importance. Our speed limit signs don't say "don't go too fast", they have a specific number on them. We don't have drug laws that read "you can't have drugs". The laws specifically state which drugs are illegal, which ones are controlled, and which ones aren't controlled. So, saying "ban all assault rifles", and leaving it there, accomplishes nothing.

You said: if a weapon can fire as fast as a finger can twitch with a reserve of ammunition of 30+ projectiles has no business being available to the general populace. . That means that you're in favor of banning semi-automatic guns that can hold over thirty bullets. That actually means something. That's the kind of thing people should be saying.

[Calista241]

94. And when gun manufacturers start selling 29 round magazines

the banners will be up in arms again saying how manufacturers are circumventing the laws. In any case, most shooters I know don't fill the magazine to capacity when they're loading them. Putting 25-27 rounds in a 30 round magazine is probably the norm.

In the shooting in Dallas, the shooter killed 5 people, and wounded 11 over a 5 hour firefight. How many rounds did he fire during that time? He didn't even have a removable magazine in his rifle.

[Captain Stern]

95. I understand what you're saying.

I'm not claiming that I have the perfect answer for stopping mass shootings. Maybe there isn't even a perfect answer. I'm just saying that the words we use when we make laws have to be specific. The laws written actually have to mean something clear.

[Scuba]

16. I'm now seeing the same tactic used regarding healthcare. "Those nurses don't know the difference ..

... between single-payer and universal healthcare so their demands for Medicare for All should be ignored."

Those who posted such drivel must have learned it from the NRA.

[aikoaiko]

17. It appears semantics do matter because you are learning

What you describe is a semi-auto firearm with a detachable magazine.

Unfortunately for you that covers most guns sold today and you'll not have any success banning them.

Why does it matter? Take CT for example. They implemented a Assault Weapons Ban presumably to prevent massacres. Of course Assault Weapons are poorly defined and the Lanza family had a AWB compliant AR rifle. And we saw what happened.

[Taitertots]

19. "Ignorance is strength"

Who needs to actually understand the words they use when advocating for a policy?

[jmg257]

21. Way simple then - ban ammunition reserve holders* with a capacity of 30+ rounds.

*would need to be defined


I'd be on board with that.

[Straw Man]

104. "Magazines" is the term you want.

Way simple then - ban ammunition reserve holders* with a capacity of 30+ rounds.

*would need to be defined


I'd be on board with that.

I think you'd find that most gun people would find that an acceptable compromise. Thirty rounds is the outer edge of the envelope for standard rifle magazines, and is beyond the same for handgun magazines. Thirty rounds is the standard AR or AK magazine. A thirty-round limit would accommodate the highest of the "high-cap" handguns.

Magazines holding more than thirty rounds are curiosities at best. Banning them wouldn't ruffle all that many feathers. So shall we agree on a thirty-round magazine capacity limit?

[jmg257]

107. Sure - 30 round mags are quite copious.

Don't forget all that ""Large capacity ammunition feeding device" semantics no one wants to talk about though - 'belts, drums, feed strips, or similar devices' don't want to be left out.

[Matrosov]

22. Of course semantics matter

If we want to have more effective laws, we need to be able to articule how to make them more effective. It's kind of difficult to sign 'I don't care about the details, we just have too many guns!' into law

[Photographer]

24. It's really pretty simple,you put a lock down on any gun that can be used

to effectively kill lots of people in a short amount of time. Either that or go the Australia route.

[jmg257]

27. That isn't so clear...now you need to define "lots" & "short amount of time".

Not nearly as clear "ammo holder of 30+ rounds"

[DustyJoe]

62. Australia again ?

Australia is an island a long way from anywhere and can control what comes in.

After decades of totally failed border/smuggling control and interdiction on just ONE US border of drugs and people just howinthehell can anyone think an Australian type plan could work ?

Hint: on edit .. they'd have to build one helluva wall around the US fully patrolled by the military and only one party so far advocates that.

[AntiBank]

103. lol at "go the Australian route"

go luck with that one

The 2nd Amendment isn't going anyway.

[Igel]

25. Because when it's time to actually form a real opinion

and you don't know what you're talking about, you form fantasy opinions.

There are guitarists who can play 10-15 notes per second. It shouldn't be hard to rig up something to convert that to taps on a trigger.

If that's how fast a gun has to function to qualify for banning, good luck. That's as fast or faster than most fully automatic weapons can fire. Sure, outlaw guns that fire 800 rounds a minute. Then selective fire AK-47s are legal. Congratulations, you've just undermined your goal.

Now, I know people who are impaired and they could perhaps pull the trigger 10, 15 times a minute. By that standard, bolt action rifles would be banned.

There are ways to get around magazine capacity limits and allow very fast reloading. If you ban one, another'll come along. It's like every other type of prohibition--people who want to engage in the activity will find ways around it.

It's frustrating, being asked to be precise and not being able to answer with the necessary precision. You know the goal, but can't figure out how to get there. There has to be a way, you just don't know enough to say how to get to your goal, or even define your goal precisely enough so that the executive and court systems have carte blanche. And it's humiliating to be asked to learn what's necessary, because, well, that might make all the objections reasonable and they just have to be unreasonable. All that's left is the Jean-Luc Picard solution, "Make it so." Except he'd listen to the proposal and understand it first.

[Hoyt]

26. A BIG K&R. Gunners playing the nomenclature game is just obfuscation.

[MohRokTah]

46. Legislators without understanding of specifics write pointless law.

Especially when coerced into doing so by a laity that cannot fathom the specifics but demand action any way.

The Assault Weapons Ban is perhaps the best example of this in history. It was the biggest flop of anti-gun legislation in the history of the issue and it failed miserably because of the specifics.

Only the ignorant dismiss the specifics of issues when it comes to legislation.

[Hoyt]

47. Bull. Just ban semi-autos, or write the basics of legislation and let a gun nut with integrity

flesh it out to describe the obvious intent. The AWB tried too hard to coddle gunners and gun profiteers, so here we are.

[MohRokTah]

50. semi-automatic weapons are the most popular and numerous type of firearm in this country.

How do you propose making more than 100,000,000 firearms illegal and collect them all?

What you propose is more preposterous than any other form of prohibition in history. All you will do is create more than 60,000,000 pissed off criminals overnight who are armed heavily and will refuse to comply.

What do you do once you get your ban?

[Hoyt]

53. Who cares what lethal weapons are the most popular. Slavery was popular, smoking was popular, etc.,

before people wised up and restricted them and told those that wouldn't voluntarily do the right thing, "tough chit."

The fact that you admit gunners aren't as "law-abiding" as they say, is interesting.

[friendly_iconoclast]

54. Slavery was only ended by a bloody war. I don't imagine you'll be joining a 'war on guns'...

[Hoyt]

55. A "bloody war" worth the sacrifice of the victors, don't you think?

[MohRokTah]

56. So you would actually advocate going to civil war over guns????

Ain't happening.

As far as law abiding, unconstitutional laws have no need to be abided by and any law that bans 100,000,000 firearms in general circulation would be unconstitutional on its face. The only way you can get such a ban is to repeal the second amendment.

Hell, the entire argument for effectively banning automatic weapons via the National Firearms Act of 1934 in the first place was there were not many in circulation and gun owners were free to have semi-automatic weapons, thus there is not a constitutional concern

[Hoyt]

58. Not sure you are correct, but we can start with banning future production and restricting how many

guns you guys can accumulate, what types, and what you can do with them.

Enjoyed the back and forth, but time for me to go oil my machete, which, BTW, I can't carry in most states.

[MohRokTah]

59. Not going to happen

You cannot ban the most circulated and produced firearm in the nation that has been produced and completely protected under the constitution for well over a century.

Ain't happening.

[Hoyt]

63. We are about to get a Supreme Court that doesn't agree with you on guns.

[jmg257]

68. Do you think the Stevens Dissent in Heller will become the interpretation of the 2nd?

The opinion stating "the 2nd encompasses the right to keep and use weapons for certain military purposes" AKA - people are constitutionally allowed to KEEP and bear arms for the role they fill related to the efficiency of the militias, and "the legislature may regulate civilian use of arms as long as they do not interfere with the preservation of a well-regulated militia"?


Whoa...We better also get legislators who will change US Code that describes most of the people as the militia of the United States, and the intent of the constitution that all the people had the right and duty to serve, because M4s, M16s, M9s etc. may not be better then ARs.

[Hoyt]

73. Actually, the legislation says people under 45. I'd like to see all the old white wingers have to

turn their guns in because they are no longer considered militia. I think Stevens' Dissent just about gets us where we need to be, and I think you are misinterpreting his Dissent as you likely misread the 2nd Amendment. Even racist Tony Scalia, at best, approved certain guns, like a pistol, for HOME DEFENSE.

And the Code Section even goes further:

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

I think you will be out of luck. Better start liquidating some of those guns, no matter how painful.

Besides, who in the world would define gun fanciers as "well organized militia," like these guys:

[jmg257]

75. Pistols and rifle are both viable weapons of the militias, which I have no problem relating

the correct intentions of the 2nd amendment to maintaining.

Stevens' dissent compared the self-defense intent interpretation pushed by the Scalia/majority, to the militia intent as he sees it - there really isn't much more to it then that. Stevens pretty much said what USSC said in Miller, a right to be enjoyed by individuals, in their role of maintaining effective militias.

"The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right.

Guns are used to hunt, for self-defense, to commit crimes, for sporting activities, and to perform military duties. The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case."


Curious question - which would you prefer - a Militia interpretation per Miller and Stevens - allowing military arms for everyone 17-45, or a self-defense/legal sport Scalia interpretation, allowing restrictions on arms chosen by anyone of any age?

On edit: I wonder if Vice Presidents John Adams, Jefferson, Burr etc. and all the members of Congress turned in all their guns, as they were exempt from militia duty.

[Hoyt]

79. If you want to go by a point at each word interpretation of Constitution, you gotta do it with Code.

I think you are completely wrong and a newly constituted Supreme Court will greatly limit your bad hobby.

[jmg257]

83. They may indeed...but I don't get too worried or all worked up over it - I have lots of hobbies!

The whole role of people in the militia has changed of course, based on laws passed by legislators chosen by the people. Sort of makes the militia-purposes of the 2nd obsolete. But the original articles are still there, and so their intent is still part of the ruling process. A different USSC interpretation may make some small difference, but in the end it will be up to people to make the changes and pass the laws (constitutional ones) they want.

We shall see!

[Hoyt]

84. Not really, states will get tough on guns and Supreme Court will uphold those laws.

[jmg257]

85. As I'm sure you are aware, that has already begun, but not all states are NY, CT or CA.

Gotta get the people on board.

[Statistical]

74. Ban the most commonly class of firearm sold in the world in direct violation of the Heller ruling?

Sure that is going to work.

This is why terminology matters. You can't say "ban x" and "I don't care what x means".

I would point out that this is far more draconian than anything in Australia, UK, or other countries with tough gun control laws and they didn't have the second amendment to contend with.

While you're at it why not just outlaw poverty.

[Hoyt]

80. I think you need to reread Heller, as well as Stevens' Dissent.

[Hoyt]

81. You also need to look closer at Austrailia and UK laws. Actually, getting guns out of the hands of

white wingers will help poverty for all people.

[Brickbat]

28. Sorry; a nation of laws needs to pay attention to semantics.

When I realized that 2A proponents got as annoyed with me as I did about pro-life activists who thought the morning after pill caused abortions, it was time to get educated. Be careful, though -- getting educated changed my mind about gun control.

[sanatanadharma]

29. Two semantic sides in the public safety debate": technical and moral

And both by words demonstrate the presenters place on a continuum of humanity on a Jesus scale (a Jesus scale is a measure of morality wherever/however you derive it.)

'So often when debates happen on the subject of guns, the pro gun people argue "you don't know what you're talking about"...'

...because I do not know guns nor the tech of them. I only know their destructive power.

But I say and it is my opinion that, 'so often when debates happen on the subject of guns', the anti-gun people argue "you don't know what you're talking about"...

...because you lack knowledge about morality and ethical processes needed to defeat the idea that guns, "designed to kill (and they are killing friends, family and neighbors daily&quot are a summum bonum.
[img][/img]

[MohRokTah]

48. And your argument just left out a key specific about this issue and it is both moral and technical.

For nearly any item, object, or substance in existence, legislation, whether good or bad, can be written to ban it.

Guns, however, are different on both a technical and a moral level as the second amendment exists within our constitution putting a much higher level of scrutiny from a legal standpoint. Morally, we are guaranteed a right to keep and bear arms by our constitution. This means there is a highly technical requirement for in depth specificity on any attempt to regulate that right.

[citood]

31. Here's why semantics matter

Many preface their opposition to assault weapons with statements about not wanting to take all guns away, being 'ok' with hunting rifles, etc.

Well, if those statements are sincere, there are some issues to be rectified - because the aspect of the assault weapons that makes them deadly (semi-automatic fire) is so common. A huge number of pistols and hunting rifles in this country are, in fact, semi-automatic - likely the majority of them. And, large capacity magazines are available for most of them, even older models that initially had a small fixed magazine.

So the impasse is that one group sees this as an attempt to remove a certain style of weapon, while another group sees it more as an 'all or nothing' proposition. And we should be able to discuss it, without one side sticking their fingers in their ears.

[MohRokTah]

49. Over 1/3 of all firearms in this nation are semi-automatic.

That's in excess of 100,000,000 firearms.

[Paladin]

32. I'm a gun control advocate who knows plenty about guns.

And I know for a fact that a Ted Nugent-level grasp of firearms semantics is not necessary to formulate a meaningful opinion on the gun problem in this country. For years and years, pro-gun militants have controlled the vocabulary of the debate, using that control to intimidate pro-control advocates and stifle meaningful discussions on gun policy. You see it every day here at DU---and it needs to stop.

[friendly_iconoclast]

43. "You see it every day here at DU---and it needs to stop." Ask the Admins. awaits your request:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1259

Unless and until the TOS is changed, you'll just have to deal with it.

[Eleanors38]

45. You can't ban your way outta guns, and you damn well can't ban free speech.

[Eko]

52. Naw.

"You can't ban your way outta guns" Other countries have had great success in doing so.
"and you damn well can't ban free speech." Free speech only applies to the government regulating your speech, not DU.

[Eleanors38]

130. You can't ban your way out of guns HERE. DU can indeed ban free speech.

[Eko]

137. Why cant we?

We can certainly change the constitution so that you actually have to be part of a militia to have a gun and the guns are kept under lock and key at a storage facility just like the Armed forces has. We can make it illegal to purchase a new gun if a person is not going to be part of the militias. We can do a lot of things. Gun insurance, once a year mental health check ups. No rational adult thinks that banning something means that thing will never be around, it just means that there will be less.

[beevul]

139. There isn't enough of you...

There isn't enough of you gun control pushers to make a big enough "we" to get that done.

[Eko]

142. Ya,

I'm a gun control pusher. "I got ya gun control over here for $5", "get cha gun control". Just that, that calling me a "pusher" lets me know that you are not on the level to actually talk to, there is no way any kind of logical or rational discussion is going to happen between us. You could surprise me, I mean actually the majority of Americans want more gun control http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx but ya got your narrative so instead you call me a pusher instead of actually having a rational discussion with facts and numbers and such things that are dangerous to you. There is more than enough of us. There has been for a while. A lot of us even have guns and cant understand the disconnect between what it takes to have guns versus a car. ID=gun, Drivers license, insurance, taxes, registration, testing = car. Your only argument is the constitution, the same one that said slaves were fine. There is no moral argument, no intellectual argument, no argument based on logic at all that guns cant be more controlled. Just strict (not really) adherence to words on a paper that itself gave the power to change as the times do.

[beevul]

153. Did I mistake you for someone who uses the terms ammosexual and gun humper?

I'm a gun control pusher. "I got ya gun control over here for $5", "get cha gun control". Just that, that calling me a "pusher" lets me know that you are not on the level to actually talk to, there is no way any kind of logical or rational discussion is going to happen between us.

Did I mistake you for someone who uses the terms ammosexual and gun humper? If so, My mistake, but its an easy mistake to make, as I'm sure you understand, given the behavior of some of those on your side of the issue.

You could surprise me, I mean actually the majority of Americans want more gun control http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx but ya got your narrative so instead you call me a pusher instead of actually having a rational discussion with facts and numbers and such things that are dangerous to you.

Support for gun control is a mile wide and a millimeter deep.

A lot of us even have guns and cant understand the disconnect between what it takes to have guns versus a car. ID=gun, Drivers license, insurance, taxes, registration, testing = car.

Wrong. Drivers license, insurance, taxes, registration, testing does NOT = car. It = authorization to use a car in public. No drivers license insurance registration tax or testing is required for simple ownership, or for a vehicle not used on public roads. And theres no background check. An equivalent already exists too. Its called concealed carry. Somehow, I don't think that's what you had in mind. No, I'm pretty sure you meant, was applying the same requirements to simply own a gun, as are required to drive a car in public.

No dice. Driving in public is a privilege, owning a gun is a constitutionally protected fundamental civil right.

Your only argument is the constitution, the same one that said slaves were fine.

I could swear that the constitution didn't originally mention slavery at all.

There is no moral argument, no intellectual argument, no argument based on logic at all that guns cant be more controlled.

That's your opinion, and far from fact. In my view, there is no morale argument, there is no intellectual argument, no argument based on logic at all, for making the lives of the innocent more difficult, for zero exchange in public safety, at the cost of the rights of the innocent. The majority of proposals I've seen do that, and people like you know it, and just say "well, we have to start somewhere".

Just strict (not really) adherence to words on a paper that itself gave the power to change as the times do.

Like I said: There isn't enough of you gun control folks to make a big enough "we" to get that (amending the constitution) done.

[Eko]

159. Dont believe I have ever used those words. I tend to not use deragatory words instead of logic.

"Did I mistake you for someone who uses the terms ammosexual and gun humper? If so, My mistake, but its an easy mistake to make, as I'm sure you understand, given the behavior of some of those on your side of the issue."

I have no idea if you did or not seeing as you did not say any of that, what you did say was I was a pusher.

"Support for gun control is a mile wide and a millimeter deep."

Nice opinion.

"Wrong. Drivers license, insurance, taxes, registration, testing does NOT = car. It = authorization to use a car in public."

Some of that is correct, taxes on vehicles in most states is required and the no license on private land is only applicable if you have permission, be that as it is the disconnect is still there for a lot of us considering that having a car and only driving it on private property not feasible for the majority of people with cars and they actually use them to drive places. So once again the disconnect people would have with so much to do and maintain with a car versus what you need for a gun is quite real.

"I could swear that the constitution didn't originally mention slavery at all."

Only that they counted as 3/5ths of a person. Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3, and that was fine with them, the fact that we had slaves and they did not count as much as a white person.

"That's your opinion, and far from fact. In my view, there is no morale argument, there is no intellectual argument, no argument based on logic at all, for making the lives of the innocent more difficult, for zero exchange in public safety, at the cost of the rights of the innocent. The majority of proposals I've seen do that, and people like you know it, and just say "well, we have to start somewhere". "

But somehow other countries do it and they don't have near the gun violence we do. That doesn't sound like zero at all.

[beevul]

160. Fair enough.

Some of that is correct, taxes on vehicles in most states is required and the no license on private land is only applicable if you have permission, be that as it is the disconnect is still there for a lot of us considering that having a car and only driving it on private property not feasible for the majority of people with cars and they actually use them to drive places.

That's because you're focused on where the driving is being done, rather than what does and does not constitute ownership, and what criteria is required for either.

In any case, the lack of understanding or disconnect on the part of others is not my problem, and I'm not real interested in letting others make it my problem.

But somehow other countries do it and they don't have near the gun violence we do. That doesn't sound like zero at all.

That can only be true if you believe that the American people are essentially the same as the people of other Nations.

I don't believe they are, and there are numerous objective ways to show it, starting with the non-gun violent crime rate.

[Eleanors38]

149. You are welcome to try and change the Constitution, and then pile on the restrictions.

I just don't think such efforts will succeed, for very clear reasons having to do with what the American public thinks, the lack of a grassroots "movement" to undertake such a campaign, and the probable wide-spread disobedience and disruption which would result should such a move be majically implemented.

[jmg257]

65. Opinions are wonderful to form, but you need to be a bit more specific if you want to articulate,

and legislate, exactly what it is you want to accomplish.

"We need more gun control" is a great opinion - one many agree with, but just what exactly is meant by that this time becomes VERY important when people are going to banned from having things they want, and possibly removing those they already own.

IOW - Exactly which guns, etc. are 'you' hoping to control?

Figure 100 million+ gun owners might want to know.

[Paladin]

76. This is an on-line talk site, not a Senate mark-up session.

Gun discussions here at DU shouldn't be driven into a ditch over the difference between a "magazine" and a "clip" (the terms are still used interchangeably in the Real World).

I stand by my earlier comments.

[jmg257]

77. Gotcha - and understood. But there is often much discussion over Assault Weapon Bans,

and other notions for control based on lethality, action-type, capacity, & etc.

It would be nice to know with some clarity on how such recommendations would affect the public.

But agreed minute details are not necessary, especially to battle over. As long as intentions are clear.

[Paladin]

86. Fair enough. (nt)

[bighart]

34. I certainly understand your passion and your point

but the fact is semantics matter when the point is to craft meaningful and effective legislation.
Poorly researched and poorly worded legislation leads to very bad law.

[Locrian]

35. bingo

Look at just about any law (economics, criminal, environmental). It really is "the devil is in the details". It's the difference between swill cheese laws with a million loop holes and effective legislation.

[Dr. Strange]

40. Technical issues of semantics don't matter when you're ranting.

But if you want to pass legislation, then words really do matter. It's important to know what your law means, otherwise you end up with laws like those that dealt with "crack" cocaine.

[Jerry442]

89. Actually there's very little doubt that the laws on crack cocaine...

...did exactly what was intended. Lamont and Letisha got hard time for smoking crack and Buffy and Jody got a slap on the wrist for snorting powder.

[Mendocino]

42. Come on

if you don't know the twist rate of the .58 caliber AR2000 Skullwhacker Supercharged Sniperviper, you just as may just climb back under the redwoods, eat granola and learn to play the flute. Damn hippies!

[jack_krass]

67. Cartridge limits are silly. An experienced operator can fire almost continuously,

Loading a new cartridge in a fraction of a second, plus cartridges can be easily made with 3d printers and springs.

This is nothing but a feel good measure, and a will detract from deeper exploration of the problem.

[Paladin]

110. Time and again, those "almost continuously" pauses are shown to save lives.

But you already knew that, didn't you?

[hack89]

111. How about some examples?

since it happens all the time.

[jack_krass]

113. I don't believe that, but hey if it makes you feel good, go ahead and ban the

High capacity cartridges, I really don't care. I'm just stating my opinion which is that this is an absolutely useless gesture, designed to make (some) sheeple think that the politicians are being useful.

I've stated in other threads I don't think guns are the correct focus for stopping this current peague of mass killings.

I believe more and more every day that the media, through glamoriztion of the killers perpetuate these event via "wall to wall coverage" of the events

[Paladin]

114. Magazines can be "high capacity." Cartridges: not so much.

And blaming the media is yet another Gun Enthusiast diversion that's not working nearly as well as it used to. That's strictly Trumpville.....

[karadax]

88. Why does gun control lose every damned time?

The semantics don't fucking matter.

Right here. More people agree with the above quote than not.

If you're not willing to get into the weeds to discuss issues with a common language you will always end up taking past the opposing view.

[Photographer]

96. Amazing to me yhst so many repies are from low post counts than even me.

[karadax]

97. What's the implication ?

I post when I feel compelled to. 200 + posts in nearly 3 years being here isn't much I will admit. I just don't feel compelled to contribute to a majority of the posts that occur. Many of them lack substance. It's a personal preference of mine.

Am I to believe that you feel that low post count means unimportant opinion or are you one of the people that see hidden spies all over the place ? Serious question because you did mention it.

[Photographer]

100. Take what you will from the question.

[Paladin]

112. Pro-gun advocates turn up in clusters at DU. Over and over again.

It's a phenomenon I started noticing years ago. There are plenty of pro-gun organizations and on-line sites that devote time and efforts to drive a wedge into the Democratic Party on gun policy. DU's Gun Control & RKBA group is ground zero for this---lots of "good Democrats" down there, continuously spouting the NRA/Republican line......

[Marengo]

117. Why the quotation marks around "good democrats"?

[Duckhunter935]

121. I expect a typical insult

It's all some have. That and penis jokes

[beevul]

118. Pro-gun advocates turn up in clusters at everywhere.

Which makes sense, since America is a pro-gun nation.

[Marengo]

109. I believe that poster is suggesting you are a troll.

[karadax]

116. Fair enough. Nt.

[benEzra]

124. "Semantics" is the study of the meanings of words.

Definitions matter.

If the anti-abortion lobby introduces a bill to ban "late term abortions" and defines a late-term abortion as anything after 10 weeks' gestation, then pointing out the bait-and-switch does indeed deal in semantics. It is also true.

The gun control lobby isn't trying to ban 31-round magazines; they are trying to ban 11-round magazines, or even 8-round magazines (e.g. the NY SAFE Act as passed). Unfortunately for that approach, the very first Winchesters ever made (since 1866) had 15-round magazines, as did their predecessor, the Henry carbine of 1860-1861. That's why the compliance rate with New York's magazine and rifle-handgrip ban is estimated at 5%, and the compliance rate with Sunnyvale's magazine ban was zero; it's like setting the national speed limit on the Interstates to 35 mph.

A couple of years ago, I guesstimated the number of over-10-round magazines in U.S. homes at around a third of a billion, owned by around 50 million people. I don't know how many are sold a year, but it is probably in the many tens of millions, so that number may be half a billion now. You'd likely double that number if you want a 7-round limit. That would make the "war on magazines" much bigger than the "war on drugs".

As to the "saving lives" aspect, the head of Americans for Gun Safety a couple years ago stated that the most dangerous bullets in a magazine are the first 10, not numbers 11 and up. Rifles are used in only ~270 murders/year out of ~12,000; of those, magazine capacity is almost always irrelevant for offensive use if the shooter plans their tactics around reloads; the rate of aimed fire between a 10- or 15-round magazine and a 30-round magazine is not that different. Capacity matters a lot more for defensive use than offensive.

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

144. It should be as simple as the new GMO labeling act.

Of course, after the prez signs it, there will be a two-year period in which the semantics of GMO definition and labeling will be hammered out, probably by wordsmiths, lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians at Dept of Agriculture.

Rant all you like. But to do anything effective, semantics will matter.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

150. All this talk of gun control is just making us buy more guns.

Especially when the west is under attack from terrorists. We've in the market for something like a AR 15 right now.

[oneshooter]

157. Might I recommend a Ruger 556.

Priced less than $600 and quite accurate. Not as heavy as some others. You can also purchase a dedicated 22LR upper for cheaper practice.

[Boudica the Lyoness]

158. Thank you.

Outside gunshop now. Thanks.

[deathrind]

151. Agreed.

100%

We are never going to get rid of firearms but we should at the very least be able to limit the carnage they produce (capacity limits on mags/clips/drums) and make the acquisition of one similar to acquiring a drivers license (training for safety and storage).