The Gun Control Debate Thread

[twa]

54 minutes ago, tshile said:

 

Shhhh with your rational thoughts

 

 

 

like this?

 

https://www.dwmmag.com/schools-focus-on-glass-after-parkland-shooting/

In many parts of Florida, hurricane-resistant glass is required. And it’s this type of glazing that’s thought to have saved lives during the Parkland shooting, which left 17 people dead. According to CBS New York, “investigators believe 19-year-old Nikolas Cruz tried to make a sniper’s nest by shooting out a window in a third-floor stairwell. He fired 16 rounds into the glass, but the hurricane-proof material didn’t shatter.”

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Well you are welcome to lobby for a 10 round limit but just remember how much something like that would motivate even more of the GOP base.  Better hope the Left's base gets just as motivated.  You are welcome to roll the dice, just don't cry when it comes up snake eyes.

 

EDIT:  Also, you are aware that carrying around six 10 round magazines would weigh virtually the same as two 30 round magazines, right?

 

 

I’m sure having to deal with multiple magazines, reloading, ect, would have an impact on the amount of shot a shooter could take.  That should be really easy to test though. Go to a range and fire off 60 shots then get a gun with a 10 round clip and reload it six times.

[twa]

23 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

I’m sure having to deal with multiple magazines, reloading, ect, would have an impact on the amount of shot a shooter could take.  That should be really easy to test though. Go to a range and fire off 60 shots then get a gun with a 10 round clip and reload it six times.

 

something else to consider is the impact large/extended magazines impact accuracy.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

When your firing into groups of people accuracy isn’t a limiting factor 

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

I’m sure having to deal with multiple magazines, reloading, ect, would have an impact on the amount of shot a shooter could take.  That should be really easy to test though. Go to a range and fire off 60 shots then get a gun with a 10 round clip and reload it six times.

 

What you are failing to realize is that there is not really any burden on dealing with multiple magazines that are already pre-loaded and ready to go, even for someone with minimal experience.  A 10 round clip isn't that large and not heavy at all.  One can easily pre-load six 10 round clips, put them in their pants or jacket pockets and have easy, quick access to them.  

 

Hell, anyone can purchase tactical gear (vests, pants, leg bags, etc.) with plenty of pouches, etc. to hold multiple clips.  Simple cargo pants with the extra pockets could hold three 10 round clips on each leg.    

 

And again, you are failing to acknowledge that the location of a lot of mass shootings means everything.  Especially schools, kids are in class rooms with no where to run/hide.  Most schools were not designed in a way to keep those people out.  My daughters school has an SRO that is there daily, they also have the school locked down as far as access from the outside.  When you go to her school, there is only one way in, through the front door which is locked and you have to be buzzed in.

 

I'm lucky that hers offers at least that much protection.  But, I'm a worrier, I think beyond that, because there is no way to stop some lunatic from parking and walking right around the back into the baseball fields, playground area when multiple classes are out for recess.  When her class is outside, it's with the other five 5th grade classrooms (so 6 total classes, around 25 kids per class, that's 150 children).  I just asked her if the SRO was outside during that and she said no (I think he has to patrol the entire area, inside and out - and it's just one officer).  That entire area could be accessed by anyone easily.  My priorities lie with my child and others children being safe, so my main focus is what do we do to accomplish that first.  

 

As I stated earlier, I'm not against magazine capacity limitations, but how will the local law enforcement enforce those new laws?  What checks and balances would or could be implemented?  Where is the money/budget going to come from to provide the extra resources needed to enforce or what department or area does the current funding/budget get cut to allow for this?  

 

And the above goes for my suggestions on securing the schools.  ****, most schools can't even afford supplies (klenex, paper, pencils, pens, etc.) and already rely on the parents to donate/provide that.  I know my daughters school does.  Where is the funding going to come from?

Edited January 16, 2019 by Dont Taze Me Bro

[TheGreatBuzz]

2 hours ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

 

 

I’m sure having to deal with multiple magazines, reloading, ect, would have an impact on the amount of shot a shooter could take.  That should be really easy to test though. Go to a range and fire off 60 shots then get a gun with a 10 round clip and reload it six times.

You buying the ammo?  **** ain't free.

 

In reflection, I think 10 round mags could actually make things easier.  Still big enough to grab but size makes them less cumbersome.  I dont have any 10 round mags to test this though.

 

Now I'll go dig out some guns and check reload time.

[twa]

1 hour ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

When your firing into groups of people accuracy isn’t a limiting factor 

 

I disagree if your intent is to kill, of course they can always bleed out ect if the response takes awhile.

[TheGreatBuzz]

Pistol was 2.6 seconds to reload with a mag on my belt holster.  That includes releasing the slide.  

 

AR-15 was right at 4 seconds with a 30 round mag.  The new mag was on a table behind me because it wouldn't fit in my pockets.

 

Note this is from someone whose very familiar with guns but has no practice at speed reloading.  And I only did it once each.  Give me an hour to practice and I bet I get those numbers down more.

[twa]

10 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Pistol was 2.6 seconds to reload with a mag on my belt holster.  That includes releasing the slide.  

 

 

hard to get below 2, of course swapping before empty eliminates slide time

[CousinsCowgirl84]

If your argument is that larger magazines have no tactical advantage the army and police would beg to differ.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/handguns-magazine-capacity/

 

 

this website agrees with me... larger magazines better for killing

 

A truth of gun fighting: Having more ammo immediately on board lessens the likelihood of ever needing to reload. Not needing to reload translates into more time delivering lead and less time manipulating the weapon. More trigger time increases the likelihood of hitting, which increases survivability.

So the question is this: Given that there is a limit to the size of the pistol that one can carry, do I want that pistol to hold more rounds? My answer is a strong YES!

 

Edited January 16, 2019 by CousinsCowgirl84

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

21 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

If your argument is that larger magazines have no tactical advantage the army and police would beg to differ.

 

If your argument is that reducing magazine capacity will greatly increase reload times and somehow generate enough weight to slow down the lunatic committing mass murder on innocent civilians, then I guess a lot of us on here beg to differ. 

 

Huge difference when talking tactical advantage when used by the military engaged in combat with the enemy or the police engaged in a shoot-out with criminals versus the actions of one mentally disturbed shooter firing into crowds of unarmed men, women and children.  But I suspect you already know that and just feel the need to troll the issue.

[TheGreatBuzz]

30 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/handguns-magazine-capacity/

 

 

this website agrees with me... larger magazines better for killing

 

 

 

 

I don't think anyone said larger magazines weren't better for killing.  Closest thing is my questioning if a smaller magazine would be easier to load.

 

But you have yet to answer most of my pointed questions.  Are you prepared to offer any type of compensation for the roughly 50% of the handguns that would be illegal under this 10-round limit?  Or for the near 100% of magazine fed long guns that would be illegal?  Are you prepared to buy back EVERY AR-15, many of which value well over $1,000?  AND all the magazines and associated equipment?  And don't forget the many other non-AR-15 style guns that would have to be turned over also.  ***Note:  Based on the assumption that every person in Virginia has one gun with an average value of $800 (rough estimate but I don't think it would be terribly far off), it would cost $6.77 BILLION to buy them back.  You good with that?

 

And what many of us are questioning is the value of a  10 round limit.  Does that 2-4 second reload time really offer that much of a chance for those getting shot at?  Or would there be better ways to use that money in controlling these situations?

 

And how confident are you that this would motivate the Lefts base at least as much if not more as it would motivate the Rights base?  Are you willing to spend that money for so little in return and risk getting more GOP people in positions of power?

 

And lastly, how do you plan on enforcing this rule in regards to guns already in circulation?

 

Please and thank you.

Edited January 16, 2019 by TheGreatBuzz
important word correction

[Dont Taze Me Bro]

35 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/handguns-magazine-capacity/

 

 

this website agrees with me... larger magazines better for killing

 

 

 

 

 

 

You pulled an article in regards to concealed carry.......and quoted only one small part of it.  The article goes on to explain that in the event one (that is conceal carrying) runs into a situation where someone is a viable deadly threat to them, they have a small window of time to react.  And having a handgun that can hold more rounds is more effective than one that doesn't.  That's just common knowledge.  This article has nothing to do with lunatics that go shooting up schools, churches, etc.

 

 

7 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I don't think anyone said larger magazines weren't better for killing.  Closest thing is my questioning if a smaller magazine would be easier to load.

 

But you have yet to answer most of my pointed questions.  Are you prepared to offer any type of compensation for the roughly 50% of the handguns that would be illegal under this 10-round limit?  Or for the near 100% of magazine fed long guns that would be illegal?  Are you prepared to buy back EVERY AR-15, many of which value well over $1,000?  AND all the magazines and associated equipment?  And don't forget the many other non-AR-15 style guns that would have to be turned over also.  ***Note:  Based on the assumption that every person in Virginia has one gun with an average value of $800 (rough estimate but I don't think it would be terribly far off), it would cost $6.77 BILLION to buy them back.  You good with that?

 

And what many of us are questioning is the value of a  10 round limit.  Does that 2-4 second reload time really offer that much of a chance for those getting shot at?  Or would there be better ways to use that money in controlling these situations?

 

And how confident are you that this would motivate the Lefts base at least as much if not more as it would motivate the Rights base?  Are you willing to spend that money for so little in return and risk getting more GOP people in positions of power?

 

And lastly, how do you plan on enforcing this rule in regards to guns already in circulation?

 

Please and thank you.

 

She won't answer anything or elaborate on any of the points shes trying to make.  Or debate the issues or offer possible solutions to the problem, she's just trolling at this point.  

 

Edit:  I'm all for hearing ideas to stop mass killings and gun related deaths.  The problem is, a lot just want to either make extreme suggestions or toss out ideas like limiting this or that to this, but don't want to debate the issue of how that will be accomplished.  Unfortunately, there is funding and budgets needed to implement most of these ideas.  Which in turn makes it more difficult, along with the whole legal part and involvement by the NRA, etc.

Edited January 16, 2019 by Dont Taze Me Bro

[TheGreatBuzz]

4 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

she's just trolling at this point.  

Seems like it.  Luckily I have a fair amount of free time.

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

I don't think anyone said larger magazines weren't better for killing.  Closest thing is my questioning if a smaller magazine would be easier to load.

 

But you have yet to answer most of my pointed questions.  Are you prepared to offer any type of compensation for the roughly 50% of the handguns that would be illegal under this 10-round limit?  Or for the near 100% of magazine fed long guns that would be illegal?  Are you prepared to buy back EVERY AR-15, many of which value well over $1,000?  AND all the magazines and associated equipment?  And don't forget the many other non-AR-15 style guns that would have to be turned over also.  ***Note:  Based on the assumption that every person in Virginia has one gun with an average value of $800 (rough estimate but I don't think it would be terribly far off), it would cost $6.77 BILLION to buy them back.  You good with that?

 

The reason i didn’t answer is because i don’t see how your question is relevant.  The short answer is no, you do not need to offer any compensation. But to the question “is making guns that have a capacity over ten rounds illegal a good idea” the question of how much compensation to pay to keep gun owners legal seems like it would come after answering the first question and therefore isn’t relevant to the first question.

 

 

Quote

 

And what many of us are questioning is the value of a  10 round limit.  Does that 2-4 second reload time really offer that much of a chance for those getting shot at?  Or would there be better ways to use that money in controlling these situations?

 

What money? Two to four seconds every ten seconds, yes, i do thing that would give people who can run more of a chance.   Also, it’s not a this or that like you framed it. It’s this, and that.

 

 

 

Quote

And how confident are you that this would motivate the Lefts base at least as much if not more as it would motivate the Rights base? 

 

Who cares.

 

 

Quote

 

And lastly, how do you plan on enforcing this rule in regards to guns already in circulation?

 

Please and thank you.

 

The same way that police enforce any new laws. This is a rediculous question. They are illegal, turn them in, or if you get caught you’ll be arrested. Did you now that there are a lot of people breaking laws right now and aren’t being caught? Yeah, because the law doesn’t catch all criminals. The goal isn’t to stop all criminals.  Just make incremental improvements. 

 

A 10 round limit makes incremental improvements, it doesn’t solve the problem. That’s all you can hope for. And it’s a lot more concrete that some abstract “improve mental health” alternative.  There is no downside afaik to the 10 round limit, except for the fact you want your toys. I get it but that’s not a reason to make a change that can save some lives.

Edited January 17, 2019 by CousinsCowgirl84

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said:

 

 

You pulled an article in regards to concealed carry.......and quoted only one small part of it.  The article goes on to explain that in the event one (that is conceal carrying) runs into a situation where someone is a viable deadly threat to them, they have a small window of time to react.  And having a handgun that can hold more rounds is more effective than one that doesn't.  That's just common knowledge.  This article has nothing to do with lunatics that go shooting up schools, churches, etc.

 

IMO, tactical advantage is tactical advantage.

 

 

Quote

 

 

 

She won't answer anything or elaborate on any of the points shes trying to make.  Or debate the issues or offer possible solutions to the problem, she's just trolling at this point. 

 

 

Possible solutions to the problem? All i said was the 10 round limit seems reasonable. That is a possible solution. I mean, not a solution, more of an easy first step.

 

 

Edited January 17, 2019 by CousinsCowgirl84

[TheGreatBuzz]

11 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

The short answer is no, you do not need to offer any compensation

So you feel comfortable telling citizens to voluntarily turn over thousands of dollars of personal property without any form of compensation?  And you think this is a good precedent?

 

14 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

What money? Two to four seconds every ten seconds, yes, i do thing that would give people who can run more of a chance.   Also, it’s not a this or that like you framed it. It’s this, and that.

It very much so is a this or that when you consider the cost of implementing this 10 round ban even if you assume you wouldn't have to compensate people for their now illegal guns.  How about the cost of the legal fight?  And I don't think the Supreme Court would uphold a law that said you didn't have to buy the guns back (assuming they would even support 10 round limit).  So you may end up paying that cost if you want to or not.  I'm not sure if there is a similar case where something was legal on such a large scale is suddenly made illegal and the government did/didn't have to pay for it.  Maybe @PleaseBlitz can cite a similar situation.

 

18 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

Who cares.

?????  Pretty much every person who is paying even a little attention in todays world.  Almost every political decision considers what effects it would have on each base.

 

21 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

The same way that police enforce any new laws. This is a rediculous question. They are illegal, turn them in, or if you get caught you’ll be arrested. Did you now that there are a lot of people breaking laws right now and aren’t being caught? Yeah, because the law doesn’t catch all criminals. The goal isn’t to stop all criminals.

I usually hate this argument but I feel like you deserve it here.  So you are saying that the only people that would now have 10 round limited guns are the law-abiding ones?  And that criminals would still have large capacity guns?  You realize it is the criminals (mass shooters are criminals) who we would want to keep these guns from, right?

 

17 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

IMO, tactical advantage is tactical advantage

Based on some of the things you have revealed about your level of knowledge on the situation, I am hesitant to give your opinion regarding tactical advantage much credence.  

 

19 minutes ago, CousinsCowgirl84 said:

more of an easy first step.

You think it will be easy?  Hell it will be tied up in courts for years before you even have to worry about enforcing it.  You're going to go up against not only the NRA but gun manufactures themselves, companies that make magazines, other groups that are against it for whatever reasons.  And forget the seizing personal property part, do you really thing the SC would uphold this considering the Heller decision and the court having become more conservative since them?

 

Pipe dreams.........

[PleaseBlitz]

Having only read this one post, I’ll note that 1) the takings clause ("private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation”) doesn’t apply here, because of the public use part. 2) both legally and politically, i highly highly doubt that such a law could be passed that applies retroactively. Instead, almost certainly, it would prohibit the sale and purchase of such guns going forward, and be accompanied by an optional buyback program. 

 

Finally, I’m wouldn’t worry about the cost of the legal battle, both sides have gobs of money. 

 

Finally number 2, ive been drinking, so read the above with that in mind.

[twa]

7 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

 

Finally, I’m wouldn’t worry about the cost of the legal battle, both sides have gobs of money. 

 

 

A lawyer not worried about the legal costs?

 

I'll drink to that 

 

 

[PleaseBlitz]

6 minutes ago, twa said:

 

A lawyer not worried about the legal costs?

 

I'll drink to that 

 

 

 

We worry when both sides don’t have gobs of money. Here, all is as it should be. 

[TheGreatBuzz]

17 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

Having only read this one post, I’ll note that 1) the takings clause ("private property [shall not] be taken for public use, without just compensation”) doesn’t apply here, because of the public use part. 2) both legally and politically, i highly highly doubt that such a law could be passed that applies retroactively. Instead, almost certainly, it would prohibit the sale and purchase of such guns going forward, and be accompanied by an optional buyback program. 

 

Finally, I’m wouldn’t worry about the cost of the legal battle, both sides have gobs of money. 

 

Finally number 2, ive been drinking, so read the above with that in mind.

Thanks.

 

I tried to find how it was handled with the start of prohibition but couldn't find a clear answer.  That was the most similar thing I could think of.

[PleaseBlitz]

19 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

Thanks.

 

I tried to find how it was handled with the start of prohibition but couldn't find a clear answer.  That was the most similar thing I could think of.

 

18th amendment:  “After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.”

 

Applies going forward. Did not require anyone to turn their stash over. Actually gave people a year to stock up. 

Edited January 17, 2019 by PleaseBlitz

[CousinsCowgirl84]

1 hour ago, TheGreatBuzz said:

So you feel comfortable telling citizens to voluntarily turn over thousands of dollars of personal property without any form of compensation?  And you think this is a good precedent?

 

It wouldn’t set precedent. The precedent has been set. 

 

Quote

 

It very much so is a this or that when you consider the cost of implementing this 10 round ban even if you assume you wouldn't have to compensate people for their now illegal guns.  How about the cost of the legal fight?  And I don't think the Supreme Court would uphold a law that said you didn't have to buy the guns back (assuming they would even support 10 round limit).  So you may end up paying that cost if you want to or not.  I'm not sure if there is a similar case where something was legal on such a large scale is suddenly made illegal and the government did/didn't have to pay for it.  Maybe @PleaseBlitz can cite a similar situation.

 

I find the whole discussion “but imagine how much it cost to regulate my guns” to be ineffective. If we are worried about the costs that can easily be solved by increasing concealed carry permit costs, taxes on weapons, ect.  Meh.  

 

Quote

 

?????  Pretty much every person who is paying even a little attention in todays world.  Almost every political decision considers what effects it would have on each base.

 

Thats a real shame. I say if you can get the votes you get to make the laws. So dems have taken over in va so thy get to write the laws, if that causes a red wave then the republicans get to write laws, That’s how democracy works. That’s how it’s always been.  

 

Quote

 

I usually hate this argument but I feel like you deserve it here.  So you are saying that the only people that would now have 10 round limited guns are the law-abiding ones?  And that criminals would still have large capacity guns?  You realize it is the criminals (mass shooters are criminals) who we would want to keep these guns from, right?

 

You hate the argument because it’s a bad argument. The parkland shooter and lanza, they got the guns because their parents had them, not because they were some career criminals with th street knowledge to obtain illicit guns When is the last time a mass shooter did his business with an illegal gun. QED.

 

 

Quote

 

Based on some of the things you have revealed about your level of knowledge on the situation, I am hesitant to give your opinion regarding tactical advantage much credence.  

 

I only fired a gun once, when i was like 8, so no, I am not an expert on the tactical advantage of larger clips,  but hey, you know, if the mass shooters main weapon of choice was a revolver or two shot shotgun your argument might have more credence. All the evidence (aside from your protests) i can find seems to indicate larger clips represent a tactical advantage.

 

Quote

 

You think it will be easy?  Hell it will be tied up in courts for years before you even have to worry about enforcing it.  You're going to go up against not only the NRA but gun manufactures themselves, companies that make magazines, other groups that are against it for whatever reasons.  And forget the seizing personal property part, do you really thing the SC would uphold this considering the Heller decision and the court having become more conservative since them?

 

Pipe dreams.........

 

 

easier than evaluating everyone’s mental state.

Edited January 17, 2019 by CousinsCowgirl84

[TheGreatBuzz]

24 minutes ago, PleaseBlitz said:

 

18th amendment:  “After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all the territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.”

 

Applies going forward. Did not require anyone to turn their stash over. Actually gave people a year to stock up. 

Thanks.  I didn't know that.