Forums | MacLife

Daniel wrote:

You're going to have to define high capacity, and justify excluding revolvers.  I have semi-auto pistols with total capacities of 7, 13, and 17 shots; the first in .40, the latter two in 9mm.  I think you're overestimating the effect of a few additional bullets.  If I wanted to mow down people, I would not pick a semi-auto handgun with which to do it.

Anything >= 10 in the mag. Point being that you could kill several people in rapid succession before having to reload.

Really?  Where in the constitution is such a distinction made?

Hunting rifles have a legitimate use beyond killing people. They're also more difficult to conceal.

Others of us pay attention to the Constitution and don't make illegal laws on top of it.  Yes, I should be able to buy a hydrogen bomb if I so desire.

I hope you see how ludicrous that is.

So banning civilian possession of handguns would have stopped that police officer from shooting that unarmed, defenseless, helpless man in the back?  What?

No, I'm saying that not all law enforcement offices need to be armed - transit cops among them. But get in a heated argument and the chance of it escalating to violence is worse when you're carrying.

This is false.  The NRA publishes a monthly column of stories of people using their guns to defend themselves.

I don't trust the NRA's propaganda, find another legitimate source.

You don't have to take a test in each individual car you want to buy, nor do you have to run it around the Nurburgring in less than 8 minutes.

No, but for each class of vehicle you need a separate license or endorsement. Your normal license doesn't cover motorcycles or big rigs.

Why?

So they can be tracked.

Businesses selling firearms must already do this.

Now get individuals and gun shows to do it too.

What on earth use is a self-defense weapon if it's kept disassembled with a lock on it inside a safe?  Uh, excuse me rapist-murderer, could you hold on a second while I open this thing, unlock it, and reassemble it?  No way.  There are already criminal liability laws to punish those who cause their guns to be used carelessly or recklessly.

Great, then when someone else takes your loaded gun and shoots someone with it, you can go to jail too. At least you'd have insurance to cover the victims' losses.

NYC, Chicago, Orlando, Tampa, Miami, San Francisco, Washington DC...yes I've been to major cities.  No I wouldn't take out bystanders.

Take a physics class. Bullets don't always stop in the person you shoot - at least not the legal ones. You're also assuming that you're not scared smurf and can shoot straight - takes a lot of training to reach that point. Shooting a target on a gun range is one thing, shooting another human being in an intense situation is completely different.

The exact same hand motion that would remove my wallet from its pocket can also remove one of my guns from its holster.  But you're missing the point.  I don't want shootouts on every street corner, I want criminals to be so intimidated that they'll stop committing crime.  And places that allow their citizens to properly protect themselves already see dramatically reduced crime rates.

In Europe where there are far less guns? Or Canada? It's not guns, it's the culture - ours is violent and can't handle it. And I'm sorry, but the gangbangers here will take you out before you get a shot off.

Guns used in committing crimes is far more prevalent than guns being used to prevent crime.

So you're justifying making laws for the whole country based on your own unique misinterpretations of life in an urban environment?  There are a lot more non-urban environments in this country than there are urban.

Yes and if you and Billy Bob want to carry guns and go shootin' that's fine by me, but you don't get to carry them here - leave them at home. I and other citizens of the city should have the right to tell you not to bring your guns into our city or our state. This is a shall carry state, if you're not a law enforcement officer or have a legitimate threat on your life then you don't get to carry a concealed weapon here. If you're caught with one, then the city and state have every right to confiscate your weapons and prosecute you if they see fit.

Countries are sovereign.  States are not in this federal system of government.  Some level of uniformity is required.  Otherwise we'd have each state issuing its own currency.  Wouldn't that be fun!

States are indeed sovereign, check out the tenth amendment. There are some things legal in some states but not others. Even traffic laws vary from state to state. If states have no sovereignty, why bother having them at all?

I may pout about Canada or the UK's laws, but I have no basis with which to challenge their validity.  California's on the other hand, I do.

Already been done. The ban lost, but other restrictions remain.

These systems are already in place.

No, they're not.

Yes, I agree.  And it is.

No, it isn't. Growing up I knew a family that lost a child because he got into his father's closet, found a loaded pistol and put a bullet through his brain. Everyone felt pity, but he remains free to this day. He killed his son as sure as he shot him himself and should have gone to prison for it.

The point is that we have these systems in place already and additional restrictions aren't necessary.  You're trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist.

Problems do exist, or do we need yet another shooting spree or more and more people being killed by gun violence and gun accidents each year?

This seems more like a personal problem that you have.  If you don't like guns, that's fine, but they do serve a purpose, and if you're uneasy with armed police guarding Windsor Castle, maybe your trepidation has some other root.

Pistols I can see, but keep the submachine guns somewhere else. People are not rational, someone should have to think before they can take lethal action.

I'm worried about those stocking up for the imminent "war on children."

sturner wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

The most important thing is gun. Big, shiny, killorific guns!

Now here I must disagree with you.

They should definately not be shiny. Only pimps have shiny guns. With pearl grips.

Paraphrasing from "Patton" again?

They don't need to be big. Sometimes small is better.

Of course if you go hunting elephants take your .500 Holland & Holland with you.

You betcha- altho I s'pose I could get by with a .425 Rigby if needs be.

sturner wrote:

I can lend you one of mine.

Don't waste it! Bestow it on the deserving.

Do you want one small enough to pocket? Or one large enough to bring down a tank?

I thought most tanks were already down- hovertanks aren't here yet, really. (I'm down for the first spot in the Slammers, tho. Will you be in Hotel, Kitchen, Michael or Lariat?).

More on this in a bit, likely in Unplugged.

bratboy wrote:

I'm worried about those stocking up for the imminent "war on children."

Say what?

Pariah wrote:

I lived on The Avenue in Ventura, Ca, in a neighborhood 2 blocks from the whore stroll in Denver and in the poorest part of the west side of Rockford, Il which has tons of Chicago gangs.
Never needed a weapon.
The Buddhist in me tells me that things done out of fear are to be avoided.

It's always seemed to me that people who are afraid are the most conspicuous people out there.  They seem vulnerable even to me.

Bat wrote:

jkahless wrote:

Pariah wrote:

I lived on The Avenue in Ventura, Ca, in a neighborhood 2 blocks from the whore stroll in Denver and in the poorest part of the west side of Rockford, Il which has tons of Chicago gangs.
Never needed a weapon.
The Buddhist in me tells me that things done out of fear are to be avoided.

It's always seemed to me that people who are afraid are the most conspicuous people out there.  They seem vulnerable even to me.

Even you're vulnerable to zumbies, tho. :whistle:

Shush!  They might discover my gun controlling ways are just a means of trying to ensure the only survivors of the coming plague of zombies are me and my harem of sexy sailor ladies.

Bren's mom is a MILF?


hubba hubba

If you are afraid to walk down a city street unless you are packing you have larger issues than gun control.
I think the increase in the desire to carry arms is just another symptom of the Culture Of Fear we have developed in the USA. Americans have turned into a mass of craven cowards, afraid of their own shadows.

Pithecanthropus wrote:

Pariah wrote:

If you are afraid to walk down a city street unless you are packing you have larger issues than gun control.

Don't let the gun fans hear you say that!! They'll come at you with some devastating and oh, so logical arguments.

The same sort of devastating and oh, so logical arguments like "I would like to carry a weapon = I am afraid to walk down the street unarmed" ?

Tallgeese wrote:

Pithecanthropus wrote:

Pariah wrote:

If you are afraid to walk down a city street unless you are packing you have larger issues than gun control.

Don't let the gun fans hear you say that!! They'll come at you with some devastating and oh, so logical arguments.

The same sort of devastating and oh, so logical arguments like "I would like to carry a weapon = I am afraid to walk down the street unarmed" ?

That's not even close to what Pariah said.

The insinuation is that people who are afraid are more likely to feel the need to carry, not that everyone who carries is afraid.

robco, I had a big response half-done to your post, and then Leopard smurf the bed and I was forced to reboot by holding the power button and I lost it.  I'm not ignoring you; I'll recreate the response when I have time.

I've been saying for quite some time now that most gun advocacy seems driven by the liking of guns and the desire to own and carry them. It's all just excuses and rationalization for that.

Up to and including H-bombs, apparently.