Gabby Giffords Gun Violence Initiative

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

1-9-13, 4:31pm
Alan

Quote:

Originally Posted by bicker

The word "except" wasn't supposed to be there. I was going to word things as the negative of the converse of what I wrote, and then changed the wording to be simpler but left the extraneous word there.

And you're entitled to your opinion, and only as much respect for your opinion as you're willing to give the people who disagree with you. (Again, it sucks that you've basically force the tenor of the discussion that such replies are the only replies that make sense to provide you.)

Thank you for admitting at least that much.

I might have the citation wrong. I'm doing this from memory. It was in the news yesterday I think. You'll have to just go on the description provided, because I'm not going to waste time providing you details that I have no reason to believe that you'll respect.

Well bicker, I'll have to be up front with you. If you insist that I (and others) respect your opinion, you should at least try a little harder to express it rather than simply roll off talking points and reject any discussion or questioning about what you've said. Remember, this is a discussion forum.
1-9-13, 4:31pm
Yossarian

Quote:

Originally Posted by bicker

But you don't get to determine which are which

LOL, of course I do, at least for me.

You can't just claim "this is reasonable" ... or "I have people skills"

http://youtu.be/sCC_PxRWVI4
1-9-13, 4:31pm
Midwest

Quote:

Originally Posted by bicker

And it is outrageously offensive for you to claim that there aren't reasonable people who see the facts of the matter directly contrary to you do.

Same facts, different perspectives; different conclusion. This is the reality that you're working so incredibly hard to evade, dodge, deny, etc.

I'm not attempting to evade anything. It's unreasonable to restrict the rights of people who aren't causing any problems (ie CCW).

I agree with you that high cap mags contribute to the additional deaths in certain cases (reason). I disagree given the proliferation in the marketplace that banning them will have any impact (reason) and seizing them tramples on property rights (reason). Given those set of facts, banning them is pointless. Same thing with certain rifles. In addition, my position is supported by facts such as the experience of several states who have enacted just such a ban and continue to have tragedies.

Many of the proposals are not written by reasonable people. I'm willing to listen to reason and agree to disagree. When, however, there is no reason or logic to a position, I'll call it out.

For instance, the Feinstein ban allows me to keep the weapons I own if I register them (for a fee). I can't sell them or transfer them to my heirs. Who cares about my property rights or the 2nd amendment, Diane doesn't like guns. Let's be honest, her proposal has very little to do with safety and everything to do with her hatred of guns and those who own them.

Finally, if the politicians and the anti-gun people were serious and reasonable, they wouldn't be proposing policies that have failed over and over again.
1-9-13, 4:34pm
CathyA

Rob.....there are alot of us who think like you. I think we're not as in-your-face as many gun rights people are.....but we're still here.
As I've said many, many times, the two distinct personalities I'm seeing among some people are very different. One type seems to be peaceful people who are willing to compromise on many issues, and they try to appreciate other people's positions/feelings. The other.........well, they want what they want dammit, and if they don't get it, then the world is trying very hard to destroy them, so they are constantly on guard.......with their protection at their side.
It isn't just a disagreement about weapons.........its an entirely different Weltanschauung.
And these discussions I guess are fine for back and forth stuff, but some people are never going to budge an inch.........so its fairly futile to try.
Try not to get discouraged Rob.
1-9-13, 4:55pm
bae

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midwest

I agree with you that high cap mags contribute to the additional deaths in certain cases (reason). I disagree given the proliferation in the marketplace that banning them will have any impact (reason) and seizing them tramples on property rights (reason). Given those set of facts, banning them is pointless.

Furthermore, these standard-capacity magazines (or "high cap" as the trendy seem to call them) are quite useful for law-abiding citizens.

And it isn't as if such things are new. I have a Browning pistol in my safe here, a model still produced to this day. It was designed in 1914, and takes a 20 or 30 round magazine, though it is usually carried with a 13 or 15 round magazine.

People who tell you 6 or 10 rounds are "sufficient" simply are unaware of modern firearms training curriculum, and do not understand the dynamics of the reactive fight. I as always am happy to suggest reliable instructors to any who PM me.
1-9-13, 4:56pm
gimmethesimplelife

Quote:

Originally Posted by CathyA

Rob.....there are alot of us who think like you. I think we're not as in-your-face as many gun rights people are.....but we're still here.
As I've said many, many times, the two distinct personalities I'm seeing among some people are very different. One type seems to be peaceful people who are willing to compromise on many issues, and they try to appreciate other people's positions/feelings. The other.........well, they want what they want dammit, and if they don't get it, then the world is trying very hard to destroy them, so they are constantly on guard.......with their protection at their side.
It isn't just a disagreement about weapons.........its an entirely different Weltanschauung.
And these discussions I guess are fine for back and forth stuff, but some people are never going to budge an inch.........so its fairly futile to try.
Try not to get discouraged Rob.

Thank you, Cathy A. Rob
1-9-13, 5:13pm
bUU

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan

Remember, this is a discussion forum.

It is a discussion forum. Your denying that I have expressed my perspective, and completely, is offensively disrespectful. It's you trying to claim that you get to dictate what constitutes a substantive perspective on the issue - conveniently applying your bias to justify labeling anything that disagrees with what you want as insubstantial - just like you're trying to dictate what is and isn't the correct approach for our nation. You don't get to dictate that. You keep trying to rationalize your questioning of value judgments, qualitative appraisals of the facts, the importance of one life, the actual rights people have, etc., but that's all based on your perspective which I disagree with, and yes, I disagree with them as a reasonable person disagreeing with your perspectives. And I will repeat that every single time you try to deny it, because your opposition doesn't deserve an unrebutted soapbox.

Besides, your are a partisan. You are biased against the perspective I support, so your qualitative appraisals of my perspective are literally worthless, because they're tainted by that bias. So the only purpose you could have for posting them is to be offensively insulting, or to distract attention from perspectives you don't like, because you want your perspective to be the only one voiced. Tough. Get over it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yossarian

LOL, of course I do, at least for me. You can't just claim "this is reasonable" ... or "I have people skills"

More blatant proof of the offensively insulting tactics that you seemingly think are appropriate to rely on to gird yourself against the reality that reasonable people disagree with your perspective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midwest

I'm not attempting to evade anything. It's unreasonable to restrict the rights of people who aren't causing any problems (ie CCW).

No it isn't; we restrict the rights of people who aren't causing problems all the time when they are in a population that includes people who do cause problems - the population in question in this case is "gun owners".

Your refusal to accept that we disagree about this, and that we can still remain both reasonable people in doing so, is indeed evasion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midwest

I agree with you that high cap mags contribute to the additional deaths in certain cases (reason). I disagree given the proliferation in the marketplace that banning them will have any impact (reason) and seizing them tramples on property rights (reason). ... Same thing with certain rifles.

And you're entitled to your agreement and disagreement. Just like everyone else. Including those who reasonably look at the data you look at and draw the opposition conclusion. Even though it is your preference to try to claim that it is not possible to reasonably look at that data and draw the opposite conclusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midwest

In addition, my position is supported by facts such as the experience of several states who have enacted just such a ban and continue to have tragedies.

This is a perfect example of the fallacious rhetoric from gun supporters that we've seen several time in this thread and see often in the broader public arena: The inane insinuation that anything that doesn't absolutely, completely and utterly eliminates 100% of the risk is not worthwhile. It's a fallacy. Since the risk if of death, the burden rests on you, supporting the contention you support, to prove that more people would die if the restrictions and bans would be put in place than if they are not.

Given that the Second Amendment is fully satisfied even with all the restrictions and bans proposed in place. Even though you disagree about that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midwest

Many of the proposals are not written by reasonable people.

False. Again, this is the nonsense we typically see coming from gun supporters from all quarters - the offensively self-centered presumption that proposals that go against what they want must therefore be unreasonable. That overt disrespect for people who disagree with them is a major source of the "heat" of these issues, as mentioned very early in this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midwest

I'm willing to listen to reason and agree to disagree. When, however, there is no reason or logic to a position, I'll call it out.

And I'm willing to listen to reason and agree to disagree. When, however, there is inadequate humane or moral standing included in the reason for a position, I'll call it out.
1-9-13, 5:24pm
freein05

Quote:

Originally Posted by bae

Why? Your assertion does not make it so.

I carry weapons into government offices almost every day. For reasons entirely to do with defense of self and others.

And I'm not sure why "crowds" diminish my interests in defense.

As I have said before in my 67 years I have never felt the need to carry a weapon. That includes the time my bank was robbed by 3 armed men. Me being armed would have done me or anyone else any good. To feel the need to be armed all the time seems silly to me.

The feeling in the US by many that you have the right to be armed all the time and that is a right stated in the 2nd amendment is crazy. People today now say the 2nd amendment was put in the constitution to protect them from the government. They are crazy enough to actually say the 2nd gives them the right to use those arms against the government. I think that is called treason.

We change government by the power of the ballot box that is what keeps us from becoming a third world country. I fear those people who think the 2nd amendment was written so they could have the firepower to over throw the government.

Gabby Gifford's efforts to establish a group that would offset the power of the gun lobby should be applauded. She will have my support. You must remember that gun sales is a business. The manufactures make millions of dollars off of installing fear in people. The gun lobby makes millions off of the blood running in the halls at Sandy Hook, Aura and the blood of the six people killed when Gabby was shot. We don't need anymore Sandy Hooks.

Guns KILL!
1-9-13, 5:38pm
Yossarian

Quote:

Originally Posted by bicker

It is a discussion forum.

So why not try discussing something instead of just stating conclusions?
1-9-13, 5:42pm
gimmethesimplelife

Quote:

Originally Posted by freein05

As I have said before in my 67 years I have never felt the need to carry a weapon. That includes the time my bank was robbed by 3 armed men. Me being armed would have done me or anyone else any good. To feel the need to be armed all the time seems silly to me.

The feeling in the US by many that you have the right to be armed all the time and that is a right stated in the 2nd amendment is crazy. People today now say the 2nd amendment was put in the constitution to protect them from the government. They are crazy enough to actually say the 2nd gives them the right to use those arms against the government. I think that is called treason.

We change government by the power of the ballot box that is what keeps us from becoming a third world country. I fear those people who think the 2nd amendment was written so they could have the firepower to over throw the government.

Gabby Gifford's efforts to establish a group that would offset the power of the gun lobby should be applauded. She will have my support. You must remember that gun sales is a business. The manufactures make millions of dollars off of installing fear in people. The gun lobby makes millions off of the blood running in the halls at Sandy Hook, Aura and the blood of the six people killed when Gabby was shot. We don't need anymore Sandy Hooks.

Guns KILL!

+1 and applause, too.
1-9-13, 5:48pm
Yossarian

Quote:

Originally Posted by freein05

As I have said before in my 67 years I have never felt the need to carry a weapon....

The feeling in the US by many that you have the right to be armed all the time and that is a right stated in the 2nd amendment is crazy. People today now say the 2nd amendment was put in the constitution to protect them from the government. They are crazy enough to actually say the 2nd gives them the right to use those arms against the government. I think that is called treason.

Free, I missed the part where someone asked you to carry anything. Does your support for civil rights really depend on your own personal use of that right?

The talk about treason is a red herring. The Supreme Court decided the Second Amendment protects a right of self defense. The Seventh Circuit decided that right extends outside the home. People have the right, but not the obligation, to use a weapon to defend themselves.
1-9-13, 5:59pm
Gregg

Quote:

Originally Posted by bicker

Criminal background checks on all gun sales

I also support this.

Quote:

Ban sales of semi-automatic weapons except to individuals

Strike "except", I understand. What I am not sure of is whether you mean assault rifles or all semi-automatic weapons. If you could clarify that bicker it would be easier to make sure we are talking about the same thing.

Quote:

Ban sales of high-capacity magazine clips

Alan said that it only takes a few seconds to switch out magazines if someone is untrained and obviously less if they have practiced. I have 100% confidence in his training and experience, but still wanted to see for myself. I do not have any high capacity magazines, but did go through the motions of changing out standard capacity examples to satisfy my own curiosity. If I simply let the empty magazine fall to the floor, which is what I would assume anyone in a combative situation would do, it quite literally took me one second to expel the empty and snap in what would be a full, new magazine (it was empty when I tried this) and less time than that to work a new round into the chamber. Keep in mind that while I am proficient in the use of this firearm speed reloading is not something I had ever practiced before.

If I apply that experience to what was going on in the most horrific situations (Newtown, Aurora, Blacksburg, etc.) the time it took me to reload would not give even the most highly trained, battle hardened people we have time to rush me before I could start shooting again. It MIGHT give someone who had intense training AND a suitable weapon on hand time to shoot me, but what are the chances of that person being in my very immediate area? Innocent bystanders who were terrorized by what was going on would likely never know I temporarily ran out of ammunition. It would be nothing more than a pause between shots. My experiment led me to the conclusion that, had I been a shooter, there would be no difference in the outcome of my actions based on the capacity of my magazine(s). With that in mind I am guessing these magazines are being offered as a political sacrificial lamb. If we get rid of them it would help make those opposed to them feel better even if in reality it did nothing to help solve the problem. It would not be the first time politicians took that road.

Quote:

Expand laws prohibiting carrying concealed weapons

"Expand laws" is too vague to be able to comment one way or the other because it could mean almost anything. Are you willing to provide a little more detail regarding what you have in mind to facilitate discussion?

Quote:

(Better) regulate sales of bullets (such as Assembly Bill 48 in California

I'm not in CA so don't know what the proposals out there are. When I googled this one it came up as the "Fair, Accurate, Inclusive, and Respectful Education Act". I'm guessing that's not the one.
1-9-13, 6:01pm
Alan

Quote:

Originally Posted by bicker

It is a discussion forum. Your denying that I have expressed my perspective, and completely, is offensively disrespectful. It's you trying to claim that you get to dictate what constitutes a substantive perspective on the issue - conveniently applying your bias to justify labeling anything that disagrees with what you want as insubstantial - just like you're trying to dictate what is and isn't the correct approach for our nation. You don't get to dictate that. You keep trying to rationalize your questioning of value judgments, qualitative appraisals of the facts, the importance of one life, the actual rights people have, etc., but that's all based on your perspective which I disagree with, and yes, I disagree with them as a reasonable person disagreeing with your perspectives. And I will repeat that every single time you try to deny it, because your opposition doesn't deserve an unrebutted soapbox.

Besides, your are a partisan. You are biased against the perspective I support, so your qualitative appraisals of my perspective are literally worthless, because they're tainted by that bias. So the only purpose you could have for posting them is to be offensively insulting, or to distract attention from perspectives you don't like, because you want your perspective to be the only one voiced. Tough. Get over it.

LOL, I can see already that you're gonna be....interesting. Welcome to the forums.
1-9-13, 6:02pm
Gregg

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yossarian

Free, I missed the part where someone asked you to carry anything. Does your support for civil rights really depend on your own personal use of that right?

+1 It's an important question in the big picture.
1-9-13, 6:12pm
Gregg

*** MOD HAT ON ***

Just a friendly reminder for old salts and a heads up for our newer members: Personal attacks, inflammatory language, etc. directed at other members is against our forum's mutually agreed upon rules of etiquette. Everyone kindly take a breath and consider your words before hitting the post button.
1-9-13, 6:31pm
freein05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yossarian

Free, I missed the part where someone asked you to carry anything. Does your support for civil rights really depend on your own personal use of that right?

The talk about treason is a red herring. The Supreme Court decided the Second Amendment protects a right of self defense. The Seventh Circuit decided that right extends outside the home. People have the right, but not the obligation, to use a weapon to defend themselves.

I am looking to protect myself from those who yearn for the Wild West days. I hope we live in civilized country. The need people feel to carry heat comes from comic books and the NRA.
1-9-13, 6:37pm
Alan

Quote:

Originally Posted by freein05

I am looking to protect myself from those who yearn for the Wild West days. I hope we live in civilized country. The need people feel to carry heat comes from comic books and the NRA.

I don't remember any weapons in my old Archie comics and have never been an NRA member. I did like The Wild Wild West though, James West was cool, and he had a train.
1-9-13, 6:42pm
bUU

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yossarian

So why not try discussing something instead of just stating conclusions?

I have been. I respect your right to try to make it seem otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan

LOL, I can see already that you're gonna be....interesting. Welcome to the forums.

Thanks. I will likely continue to discuss things based on criteria other than your own.
1-9-13, 6:45pm
Alan

Quote:

Originally Posted by bicker

Thanks. I will likely continue to discuss things based on criteria other than your own.

Great! That's what makes a discussion forum interesting.
1-9-13, 6:59pm
Yossarian

Quote:

Originally Posted by freein05

I am looking to protect myself from those who yearn for the Wild West days.

What is the crime rate for licensed concealed carry holders?
1-9-13, 7:40pm
peggy

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alan

Your George Zimmerman reference is insulting and misplaced.

Hummm...What a difference a day makes! You defended Zimmerman quite forcefully, and defended his actions, even though it was pretty obvious to most what the situation was. You defended his right to carry, and was quite certain, CERTAIN I tell you, that he was innocent. (Because we all know that someone who went through training with guns, and who carried to 'protect' his neighbors couldn't possibly be drawn into such a horrible abuse of gun rights/training)
I assumed you admired the guy.>8)
1-9-13, 7:53pm
Alan

Quote:

Originally Posted by peggy

Hummm...What a difference a day makes! You defended Zimmerman quite forcefully, and defended his actions, even though it was pretty obvious to most what the situation was. You defended his right to carry, and was quite certain, CERTAIN I tell you, that he was innocent. (Because we all know that someone who went through training with guns, and who carried to 'protect' his neighbors couldn't possibly be drawn into such a horrible abuse of gun rights/training)
I assumed you admired the guy.>8)

Yes, what a difference a day makes! (Now I'm humming that)

I recall as if it were only yesterday how you vilified him as a racist and an irresponsible, murdering cowboy. I'm glad to see that when you referenced myself and bae with his name, your opinions had changed. Maybe you weren't being insulting at all.

Sing it with me:

What a difference a day makes
Twenty-four little hours
Brought the sun and the flowers
Where there used to be rain

My yesterday was blue, dear
Today I'm a part of you, dear
My lonely nights are through, dear
Since you said you were mine

What a difference a day makes
There's a rainbow before me
Skies above can't be stormy
Since that moment of bliss, that thrilling kiss

It's heaven when you find romance on your menu
What a difference a day made
And the difference is you

What a difference a day makes
There's a rainbow before me
Skies above can't be stormy
Since that moment of bliss, that thrilling kiss

It's heaven when you find romance on your menu
What a difference a day made
And the difference is you
1-9-13, 8:42pm
DocHolliday

Quote:

Originally Posted by bae

Furthermore, these standard-capacity magazines (or "high cap" as the trendy seem to call them) are quite useful for law-abiding citizens.
...

People who tell you 6 or 10 rounds are "sufficient" simply are unaware of modern firearms training curriculum, and do not understand the dynamics of the reactive fight. I as always am happy to suggest reliable instructors to any who PM me.

There's a case in the news the last couple of days about an intruder at a home outside of Atlanta who searched for and found the homeowner and her children who were hiding. She shot him 5 times and her gun was empty. He left and wrecked his car, that's where the police found him.

http://loganville.patch.com/articles...-several-times
1-9-13, 8:57pm
DocHolliday

Quote:

Originally Posted by bicker

Self-defense is a red herring for most of what is being discussed today. A semi-automatic weapon is not required for personal protection. A 30 round magazine clips is not required for personal protection. Personal protection doesn't require the ability to buy bullets (or guns, for that matter) anonymously.

What you have the right to do is indeed limited and subject to regulation, whether we're talking about free speech (yelling "fire" in a crowded theater), free exercise of religion (polygamy), freedom of the press (publishing top secret documents), or Second Amendment rights.

A semi-auto may not be "required" for personal protection, but it may very well be the best possible tool for the job. I don't see police, secret service, or the military using revolvers these days...

Yes, there are defininitely restrictions on our Second Amendment rights. We can't just walk right in and buy a machine gun, less than 16" barrelled rifle, less than 18" barrelled shotgun, or suppressor like we can with "regular" firearms.
1-9-13, 9:04pm
DocHolliday

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

With all due respect, I am going to disagree with you.....Out of respect to the innocent schoolchildren in Connecticut, I disagree with you. These 20 children that recently lost their lives are ample reason - to me, anyway - that something needs to be done. We could discuss all day long what that something is, and I don't myself know what that will eventually look like, but to let 20 children die like that with nothing being done - is that an America that you wish to continue living in? For what purpose/reason if so? And what does that say about the US as a country if the majority disagrees with this? Food for thought. Rob

What we're seeing right now looks like a rush to judgment to me. In the aftermath of the shooting, there was talk about mental health, violent video games, guns, and sensationalistic media coverage. When the politicians returned to Washington, the other aspects seem to have fallen off the map or are being ignored. All that has came out so far that we've heard about is gun control. Why is that?
1-9-13, 9:12pm
DocHolliday

Quote:

Originally Posted by bicker

Ban sales of semi-automatic weapons except to individuals

How do you define "semi-automatic weapons"? Semi-automatics have been around since the late 1880. Do semi-auto hunting rifles and shotguns fit into your definition?
1-9-13, 9:15pm
DocHolliday

Quote:

Originally Posted by bae

Actual data indicates in the USA that CCW holders (as a group) are more responsible with their firearms than law enforcement officers.

Facts aren't the order of the day though.

Seems like there's a story every couple of weeks about an officer shooting a chained up or fenced-in dog. Shoot first ask questions later...
1-9-13, 9:30pm
Midwest

Quote:

Originally Posted by bicker

No it isn't; we restrict the rights of people who aren't causing problems all the time when they are in a population that includes people who do cause problems - the population in question in this case is "gun owners".

I was responding to you specifically advocating additional restrictions against CCW holders (among your other proposals). If your objective is to prevent gun violence, it makes little if any sense to target a group who, statisically speaking, is the cause of few problems and for the most part are law abiding citizens. In my state, a training course and an FBI background check is required to receive a CCW. We have had very little in the way of problems with the group.

Your proposal to single CCW holders out because they are gun owners is like banning the Amish from a road because the road a problem with people speeding. Sure they use the road, but the chances of the Amish speeding are fairly low. Guess it works if you don't like Amish, but probably makes more sense to target the problem (ie the people in cars).

On a lighter note, I generally agree with 2 of the 3 points proposed by Giffords. More background checks and investigating mental health issues. The devil could be in the details, but if we actually want to solve problems we need to find common ground.
1-9-13, 9:49pm
Spartana

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

I remember back in 1993 reading of an American who had fled Brooklyn - actually fled is a very melodramatic word - he immigrated - to Canada to get away from guns. I can see now why someone would do this - the aggressive rhetoric about guns - an instrument that can indeed harm, maim and kill - really has me wondering - is this acceptable? Is this what I want?

Beyond what I have just posted, is it acceptable that there will most likely never be a civil resolution about this issue, either? Rob

Rob - Canada is not a firearm free country. The only difference between it and the USA is the requirements to buy, own and carry certain firearms. Firearms are more restricted but they are there:

ACTUAL NUMBER OF FIREARMS IN CANADA

In 1945, despite massive non-compliance, the RCMP managed to register nearly 2 million firearms, comprised of 1.7 million rifles and shotguns and the remainder handguns. Add to this the nearly 8 million firearms imported between 1945 and 2000 and you get 10 million firearms.

Please note that to arrive at this figure of 10 million firearms we did not:

Add any portion of the more than 6 million firearms manufactured in Canada from the 1920s to present; or
Subtract up to one-quarter of a million guns destroyed by the RCMP between 1978-2000, or
Subtract the 1.6 million firearms exported between 1970-1998. The National Firearms Association Estimate of the Number of Firearms and Owners in Canada.

The National Firearms Association has come to conclusion there are approximately 7 million owners with 21 million firearms

According to Wikipedia, Canada is ranked number 13 of all countries in gun ownership per 100 people (approx. 31 guns /100 people in Canada). That is lower then the US (number one with 88/100) and such countries as Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Finland, and France - all in the top 10 of gun ownership per 100 people. All of those countries have very low death by firearms in all cases: crime, accidental, suicide, or mass shootings.
1-9-13, 10:36pm
Spartana

Quote:

Originally Posted by bicker

Criminal background checks on all gun sales
Ban sales of semi-automatic weapons except to individuals
Ban sales of high-capacity magazine clips
Expand laws prohibiting carrying concealed weapons
(Better) regulate sales of bullets (such as Assembly Bill 48 in California)

All these already exist in Calif (and several other states) yet have done nothing to curb gun violence or mass shootings.

And what do you mean by banning semi-auto's except to individuals? I have semi-auto rifles and handguns (as most pistols are) with Calif legal magazine capacities yet I can re-load them rapidly from as many pre-loaded 8 round (10 rounds in the case of a rifle) magazines in less then a second - thus firering many many rounds rapidly. So I don't understand the need to ban a certain type of firearm or even limit the magazine capacity to prevent a rapid fire mass shooting kind of situation. The same thing can be done with most any handgun. And as other's have pointed out in different threads - carrying several handguns and many magazines is easily concealable.

ETA: I finally caught up with all the posts and see that several other's mentioned the ease to to cahnge out mags fast. Also I understand Bicker meant "ban semi-autos for all individuals - not except for them. Next time I'll read it all before posting. I know..I say that every time and never do ;-)!
1-9-13, 10:50pm
Spartana

Quote:

Originally Posted by bicker

The proposed CCW restrictions I've heard discussed allow transporting guns and bullets to training grounds. They restrict concealed carrying of loaded weapons. You may wish to ignore the relative risks associated with people carrying loaded concealed weapons, but reasonable people disagree with you about those risks.

In Calif, CCW is a permit to carry a concealed loaded weapon. They are very difficult to get here unless you work in public safety or have a darned good reason. There are other laws that tell you how you are able to transport a firearm. Most require they be in a locked container, with the ammo seperate from the firearm. It is illegal to transport a loaded weapon or have an unlocked firearm - loaded or unloaded - on your person or in your vehicle. Except those who have a CCW permit.
1-9-13, 11:04pm
Spartana

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

Fair question Bae, though you might not like the answer. I have further thought about leaving the US - due to just not having any hope for resolution to this situation. I don't see any compromise coming down the pike between those who defend gun ownership and those who want gun control and I don't know that incidents like Sandy Hook can reasonably be prevented - so I take it to a place it doesn't seem like others here do. I.E. - is this citizenship viable for the long term and etc. Will leaving prevent Sandy Hook like incidents - no. I admit that. But I wonder if staying is indeed akin to condoning them in a way. But I do think that's great that you are getting training, I give you that. Rob

Be careful if you go to Mexico Rob!! This from todays Huff Post: A total of 34,612 people have died in drug-related killings in Mexico in the four years since Mexican President Felipe Calderon declared an offensive against drug cartels, officials said Wednesday. A

I know you've talked often of moving to Mexico, but like many places in the USA there is gun violence there too - and not just drug related killings but a high number of other crime, accidental, and suicides. And Mexico has very tough gun laws and a fairly low ownership/capita of legal firearms. So the gun violence there is probably much greater then here in terms of shootings and death. So while I DO support gun regulations, I feel that we need to look into other causes of gun violence and mass shootings then merely "what kind of gun did the person have?" hope I'm convincing you to stay around awhile longer :-)!
1-9-13, 11:20pm
Spartana

Quote:

Originally Posted by gimmethesimplelife

Not a bad take on this Bae, I'll give you that.....I just find the deaths of those children and the inability of society to do anything about it more than I can accept, but still overall I see the point in your take here. Rob

But it takes time for society to do anything. Just like in the Oklahoma city bombing, it took time to decide what was the best course of action to reduce or eliminate that kind of thing. The solution was to change the way people could enter the building, park near by, and some "attractive" concrete barricades to prevent vehicles from just driving up to ther front doors. That and more asrmed security. I don't think that it will do much good due to the extent of these kinds of bombs, but it is a reasonable solution.

The Oklahoma blast claimed 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6,[1] and injured more than 680 people.The blast destroyed or damaged 324 buildings within a sixteen-block radius, destroyed or burned 86 cars, and shattered glass in 258 nearby buildings[
1-9-13, 11:45pm
Spartana

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gregg

Alan said that it only takes a few seconds to switch out magazines if someone is untrained and obviously less if they have practiced. .

As well as with a speed loader (or multiple ones) for a standard 6 shot revolver. I have several and they can be used to reload in a sec or 2. A bit more cumbersome then putting in a new mag but still fast.
1-10-13, 12:23am
bae

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartana

As well as with a speed loader (or multiple ones) for a standard 6 shot revolver. I have several and they can be used to reload in a sec or 2. A bit more cumbersome then putting in a new mag but still fast.

I've seen this fellow shoot. I'm not *quite* this fast, but can do a semi-credible imitation.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uisHfKj2JiI

Now though I cheat when I carry a revolver:

https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-J...0/img_0325.jpg
1-10-13, 4:15am
bUU

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartana

All these already exist in Calif (and several other states) yet have done nothing to curb gun violence or mass shootings.

You mean you have a "practice" version of California, where people who are identical to "our" Californians live without such laws, and you can provide detailed evidence comparing these two Californias? Let's go visit this practice California you apparently have and verify your data. /s/

I didn't think so. So we're back to your decision to interpret the data the way that serves your preference and reasonable people who disagree with you interpreting the data in a completely different way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartana

So I don't understand the need to ...

And that's okay. Not every gun owner has to "understand the need" for every gun restriction. Some of my family members are gun owners and they don't even try to understand. Some of those family members also don't understand why we have to pay taxes. ... or why we have to be fair to minorities and women. And some other of my family members don't understand why we would hold Israel to account for their actions, and why would consider any Arab to be friendly. Heck, I don't understand why we need to allow anyone to have simultaneously possession of more than one or two guns - I've never seen anyone successfully shoot three guns simultaneously.

It is okay for some people to not understand. It's the nature of bias to obstruct understanding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spartana

In Calif, CCW is a permit to carry a concealed loaded weapon. They are very difficult to get here unless you work in public safety or have a darned good reason. There are other laws that tell you how you are able to transport a firearm. Most require they be in a locked container, with the ammo seperate from the firearm. It is illegal to transport a loaded weapon or have an unlocked firearm - loaded or unloaded - on your person or in your vehicle. Except those who have a CCW permit.

Those are the types of restrictions that they're proposing. You apparently already have them in place in your state. (I know I have them in place in my state.)
1-10-13, 7:28am
DocHolliday

Quote:

Originally Posted by bicker

Heck, I don't understand why we need to allow anyone to have simultaneously possession of more than one or two guns.

Just because you don't understand doesn't mean that reasonable people don't understand why someone would want more than one or two guns. A gun that is fine for squirrel hunting doesn't mean that it will be fine for bird hunting. A gun that is fine for bird hunting will not be fine for deer hunting. A gun that is fine for deer hunting isn't definitely fine for bear hunting. A bear gun isn't the best weapon for home defense. Your home defense gun won't be the best available tool for target shooting. Reasonable and knowledgeable people know these things.
1-10-13, 7:45am
Mrs-M

Background checks? http://emoticoner.com/files/emoticon...gif?1292867631
1-10-13, 7:54am
Mrs-M

Time for me to present MY "magic bullet" solution. How about two guns per person? http://emoticoner.com/files/emoticon...gif?1292867611

Instead of carrying just one on either your right or left side, how about two, one for each side? Theoretically, that in itself should keep America, twice as safe. http://emoticoner.com/files/emoticon...gif?1292867615
1-10-13, 7:57am
Mrs-M

At any rate, this thread supplies me with my recommended daily dose of comedy!

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page