mljdeckard
Member
And yet.....here you are. 
Can I resume our discussion/debate?
- Thread starter timmy4
- Start date
- Status
Well, timmy has a vanishing amount of time to respond. Any statement that immediately breaks down under examination could and should be challenged appropriately. "The police should protect me" is easily refutable by mature 7 year-olds. Knowing the Supreme Court has already spoken to the subject just makes if that much easier.
timmy4 said:
timmy4 said:
Please respond to this story.
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=8769572
This story was from August of last year. It took me 1 minute to find on Google. How sure are you of your safety if you aren't even alert enough to know what happens in your own neck of the woods? Who are you to tell me what equipment I need to defend myself and my family from a situation that I cannot predict, nor control?
Maybe a little closer to home?
Even if we assumed that Huntington Beach, CA was magically safe, why do you feel you should be able too impose control over those of us who live in the real world?
Rights are a funny thing. They are inherent to the very nature of our existence. The Constitution of the United States of America grants no rights. It only recognizes some of those rights and prohibits the nation created by that Constitution from violating those rights.
On another note . . .
Timmy4,
I think you are vastly underestimating how much a single individual can achieve after a minimal amount of training with a low capacity semi-automatic handgun. It is not an extraordinary feat hit a 10 inch diameter target at a range of 20 feet, once every second. If the shooter was using a 1911 45 caliber pistol, with a 7 round magazine, and if the reload time between magazines was a slow 2 seconds, that would easily allow the shooter 49 shots per minute. I'll round up to 50 for easy math.
Now, let's move the shooter to a mass shooting situation. Let's say that the shooter only hits with 1 out of 20 shots, or a 5% accuracy rate. Then let's say that it takes law enforcement 4 minutes to arrive, evaluate the situation, and stop the shooter. In those 4 minutes the shooter fires 200 rounds, with a total of 10 hits. The shooter has expended 27 magazines. There would be the potential for 10 victims of this mass shooter.
Now, let's add a concealed weapon licensee (CWL) into the scenario. We will assume that the CWL has the same weapon, the same skill, and is serious about self protection and so carries 3 total magazines. The CWL responds to the shooter and begins to return fire when the shooter is making the first magazine change.
At this point it is debatable as to whether the shooter would recognize the opposition of the CWL. To be honest, for this discussion it probably doesn't matter. In this second situation, there exists the possibility that the CWL will stop the shooter within the first 30 seconds of this encounter.
In neither situation was a magazine with a capacity over 10 rounds used. A magazine of twice the capacity used would only have a small impact on the number of bullets fired. 200 bullets compared to 210. ((240 seconds / 9 seconds per magazine) X 7 bullets per magazine = 187 bullets, 240 seconds / 16 seconds per magazine) X 14 bullets per magazine = 210 bullets). Okay, so that rounding up caused a bit of an error, but 187 bullets vs 210 bullets over the course of 4 minutes isn't that much.
Now, for a little bit of reality. 5% hit rate on a 10 inch target at 20 feet is low. At a shooting range, that would be considered poor shooting. However, with the stress of a real shooting conflict, it is possible. For people on the receiving end of this barrage, 5% would be a Godsend. In our scenario, the police response time was 4 minutes. Again, that would be a Godsend. At Sandy Hook Elementary, the reported response time from the first emergency call to the first officer on the scene (not when the shooter was stopped) was 20 minutes. It took 20 minutes for the first officer to arrive at a well known location, not 123 Random Street. In our scenario, that would equate to 935 rounds. Now, I cannot conceive how firing that many round from a handgun would feel like, but from a pistol cartridge rifle, 935 rounds would be easy. The magazine changes would get tiresome though.
While you might not believe it, but if the Sandy Hook shooter used a sawed off shotgun, the slaughter would have been increased many fold. A single shot of 3" buck into a group of school kids would have mown them down like wheat before a scythe. Short barreled shotguns were made illegal much like fully automatic machineguns were because of there extreme lethality. Unlike the machinegun though, a short barrel shotgun can be made by taking a hack saw to a regular shotgun.
On another note . . .
Timmy4,
I think you are vastly underestimating how much a single individual can achieve after a minimal amount of training with a low capacity semi-automatic handgun. It is not an extraordinary feat hit a 10 inch diameter target at a range of 20 feet, once every second. If the shooter was using a 1911 45 caliber pistol, with a 7 round magazine, and if the reload time between magazines was a slow 2 seconds, that would easily allow the shooter 49 shots per minute. I'll round up to 50 for easy math.
Now, let's move the shooter to a mass shooting situation. Let's say that the shooter only hits with 1 out of 20 shots, or a 5% accuracy rate. Then let's say that it takes law enforcement 4 minutes to arrive, evaluate the situation, and stop the shooter. In those 4 minutes the shooter fires 200 rounds, with a total of 10 hits. The shooter has expended 27 magazines. There would be the potential for 10 victims of this mass shooter.
Now, let's add a concealed weapon licensee (CWL) into the scenario. We will assume that the CWL has the same weapon, the same skill, and is serious about self protection and so carries 3 total magazines. The CWL responds to the shooter and begins to return fire when the shooter is making the first magazine change.
At this point it is debatable as to whether the shooter would recognize the opposition of the CWL. To be honest, for this discussion it probably doesn't matter. In this second situation, there exists the possibility that the CWL will stop the shooter within the first 30 seconds of this encounter.
In neither situation was a magazine with a capacity over 10 rounds used. A magazine of twice the capacity used would only have a small impact on the number of bullets fired. 200 bullets compared to 210. ((240 seconds / 9 seconds per magazine) X 7 bullets per magazine = 187 bullets, 240 seconds / 16 seconds per magazine) X 14 bullets per magazine = 210 bullets). Okay, so that rounding up caused a bit of an error, but 187 bullets vs 210 bullets over the course of 4 minutes isn't that much.
Now, for a little bit of reality. 5% hit rate on a 10 inch target at 20 feet is low. At a shooting range, that would be considered poor shooting. However, with the stress of a real shooting conflict, it is possible. For people on the receiving end of this barrage, 5% would be a Godsend. In our scenario, the police response time was 4 minutes. Again, that would be a Godsend. At Sandy Hook Elementary, the reported response time from the first emergency call to the first officer on the scene (not when the shooter was stopped) was 20 minutes. It took 20 minutes for the first officer to arrive at a well known location, not 123 Random Street. In our scenario, that would equate to 935 rounds. Now, I cannot conceive how firing that many round from a handgun would feel like, but from a pistol cartridge rifle, 935 rounds would be easy. The magazine changes would get tiresome though.
While you might not believe it, but if the Sandy Hook shooter used a sawed off shotgun, the slaughter would have been increased many fold. A single shot of 3" buck into a group of school kids would have mown them down like wheat before a scythe. Short barreled shotguns were made illegal much like fully automatic machineguns were because of there extreme lethality. Unlike the machinegun though, a short barrel shotgun can be made by taking a hack saw to a regular shotgun.
nazshooter
Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2011
- Messages
- 123
Timmy
The problem is that while you may be able to point to a small number of cases where a lower capacity magazine in the hand of the BG may have saved a few lives you're completely ignoring those who, in other situations, would have lost their lives due to having a low capacity magazine. This is likely a small number as well but I don't think it's obvious which number is smaller.
The problem is that while you may be able to point to a small number of cases where a lower capacity magazine in the hand of the BG may have saved a few lives you're completely ignoring those who, in other situations, would have lost their lives due to having a low capacity magazine. This is likely a small number as well but I don't think it's obvious which number is smaller.
Newcatwalt
Member
Why? Why? WHY??? Why is everone wasting their time with this frig'n troll. Instead of wasting your time on this thread wouldn't it make more sense writing your representatives in D.C.? Come on people -- you're wasting your time with this person. :banghead:
nazshooter
Member
- Joined
- May 7, 2011
- Messages
- 123
Timmy:
One thing that I think you aren't considering is the deterrent effect of firearms. There are something on the order of 1 million defensive gun uses every year and only a tiny percent of those involve anyone actually firing their gun. In the U.K a much higher percentage of home burglary's happen when the residents are at home than in America, possibly due to the fact that in America the buglers know that the home owners may be armed. I think this also applies to the "defense against a tyrannical government" argument. The mere fact that so many Americans are armed and the government has no reliable way to know who has what guns and no reliable system in place to keep guns out of the hands of political opponents means that they are far less likely to do anything that would require us to defend ourselves in that way. Anything that gives the government more control over the arms of the citizens makes them more likely to abuse their other powers. Just look at how the police act in some of our big and gun free cities such as New York. I read a while back that in NY they stop and search (without a warrant or probable cause) over 600,000 people each year. Do you think it's a coincidence that in a place where only the police have the right to be armed they feel free to violate the other rights of their citizens?
One thing that I think you aren't considering is the deterrent effect of firearms. There are something on the order of 1 million defensive gun uses every year and only a tiny percent of those involve anyone actually firing their gun. In the U.K a much higher percentage of home burglary's happen when the residents are at home than in America, possibly due to the fact that in America the buglers know that the home owners may be armed. I think this also applies to the "defense against a tyrannical government" argument. The mere fact that so many Americans are armed and the government has no reliable way to know who has what guns and no reliable system in place to keep guns out of the hands of political opponents means that they are far less likely to do anything that would require us to defend ourselves in that way. Anything that gives the government more control over the arms of the citizens makes them more likely to abuse their other powers. Just look at how the police act in some of our big and gun free cities such as New York. I read a while back that in NY they stop and search (without a warrant or probable cause) over 600,000 people each year. Do you think it's a coincidence that in a place where only the police have the right to be armed they feel free to violate the other rights of their citizens?
http://www.ocregister.com/video/v/914162672001/brea-news-yorba
Not sure if it's near where you are, but per a friend of mine who went to school in Yorba Linda...extremely nice area.
You guys are throwing away time on this guy. He's trolling the hell out of this board, whether people are getting wise to it or not.
I'm going to speak my mind on this but don't have any illusion about whether or not this will change anybody's mind on the issue.
Reducing capacity does not "slow it down" or "limit the damage" as gun control advocates want us to believe. I could tell my grandparents had been watching CNN too much when they used these media catch phrases on me during a heated discussion. Anyone who can't examine the basic facts and make a logical conclusion is being willfully ignorant and is not worth wasting time on.
Even the guys behind these bills have stated that it wouldn't have made a difference, which is more or less admitting that these are just things that they have been wanting to push through for years but haven't had the support. They're playing on people's emotions in order to try and rush these things through before the support dies down.
This is why they brought the barely coherent Gabrielle Giffords out and paraded her around for everyone to see, to try and play on emotions. What happened to Giffords is horrible but using her as a pawn to push their agenda when she can barely speak and barely knows where she's at is almost as reprehensible.
If anyone thinks that an assault weapons ban would have prevented either of the last two mass shootings they're being completely ignorant of the facts. The Aurora shooter had improvised explosives all through his house, whether he had an AR15 or not, he was going to do some damage to innocent people.
Lets examine both the Columbine and Virginia Tech shootings to see how it wouldn't have mattered if the Sandy Hook shooter had only gotten 10 round magazines for his rifle. The Columbine and Virginia Tech shootings used so many magazines it wouldn't have mattered if they were 5 round magazines. For the record, there were lots of 10 rounders used in both of the aforementioned shootings and it didn't "limit the damage" one bit. In the case of the Columbine shooting, 10 round magazines were used almost exclusively.
The fact is that bad people are going to do bad things no matter what. There are attacks in places without access to firearms all the time using explosives and knives. In fact the UK is working to make kitchen knives illegal because despite guns being illegal (and they're still picking them up to this day in small numbers), there has been an increase in violent crime and some have estimated that there are over 60,000 stabbings per year.
I'm going to speak my mind on this but don't have any illusion about whether or not this will change anybody's mind on the issue.
Reducing capacity does not "slow it down" or "limit the damage" as gun control advocates want us to believe. I could tell my grandparents had been watching CNN too much when they used these media catch phrases on me during a heated discussion. Anyone who can't examine the basic facts and make a logical conclusion is being willfully ignorant and is not worth wasting time on.
Even the guys behind these bills have stated that it wouldn't have made a difference, which is more or less admitting that these are just things that they have been wanting to push through for years but haven't had the support. They're playing on people's emotions in order to try and rush these things through before the support dies down.
This is why they brought the barely coherent Gabrielle Giffords out and paraded her around for everyone to see, to try and play on emotions. What happened to Giffords is horrible but using her as a pawn to push their agenda when she can barely speak and barely knows where she's at is almost as reprehensible.
If anyone thinks that an assault weapons ban would have prevented either of the last two mass shootings they're being completely ignorant of the facts. The Aurora shooter had improvised explosives all through his house, whether he had an AR15 or not, he was going to do some damage to innocent people.
Lets examine both the Columbine and Virginia Tech shootings to see how it wouldn't have mattered if the Sandy Hook shooter had only gotten 10 round magazines for his rifle. The Columbine and Virginia Tech shootings used so many magazines it wouldn't have mattered if they were 5 round magazines. For the record, there were lots of 10 rounders used in both of the aforementioned shootings and it didn't "limit the damage" one bit. In the case of the Columbine shooting, 10 round magazines were used almost exclusively.
The fact is that bad people are going to do bad things no matter what. There are attacks in places without access to firearms all the time using explosives and knives. In fact the UK is working to make kitchen knives illegal because despite guns being illegal (and they're still picking them up to this day in small numbers), there has been an increase in violent crime and some have estimated that there are over 60,000 stabbings per year.
Last edited:
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
re:
Go back and look at history, timmy. Start with "Trail of Tears" and "Wounded Knee" and proceed from there.
That's a nice fantasy, and...while the choice not to own a gun is yours alone...you might want to know that the Supreme Court ruled many years ago that the police have no duty to protect you...either as an individual or as a group. Most will, of course...if the opportunity presents itself...but it seldom does. The duty of the policeman is to enforce the law and maintain public order. They don't carry guns to protect you. They carry guns to protect themselves.
And, of course the old adage: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." applies. Another one: "Order a pizza and call the cops, and see which one you get first." can also play. You can dial 911 when somebody is kicking in your door, or already inside your domicile. Then, your task is staying out of his way until the cavalry arrives.
Lastly...If you're not willing to see to your own security...why would you expect a policeman to come and risk his life to protect you? I've always thought that was a rather odd attitude, but I'm a self-sufficient sort...and I live way out in the boonies. Response time for the county sheriff's office out here averages about 45 minutes. In town, the Lexington PD takes anywhere from 5 to 15 minutes, depending on how busy they are. Saturday nights in August might take upward of a half-hour. That's an awfully long time when the wolf is at your door, tim. As Gordon Lightfoot noted..."When the waves turn the minutes to hours." A man who is armed with a knife can do you and yours a world of hurt in 5 minutes.
Go back and look at history, timmy. Start with "Trail of Tears" and "Wounded Knee" and proceed from there.
That's a nice fantasy, and...while the choice not to own a gun is yours alone...you might want to know that the Supreme Court ruled many years ago that the police have no duty to protect you...either as an individual or as a group. Most will, of course...if the opportunity presents itself...but it seldom does. The duty of the policeman is to enforce the law and maintain public order. They don't carry guns to protect you. They carry guns to protect themselves.
And, of course the old adage: "When seconds count, the police are only minutes away." applies. Another one: "Order a pizza and call the cops, and see which one you get first." can also play. You can dial 911 when somebody is kicking in your door, or already inside your domicile. Then, your task is staying out of his way until the cavalry arrives.
Lastly...If you're not willing to see to your own security...why would you expect a policeman to come and risk his life to protect you? I've always thought that was a rather odd attitude, but I'm a self-sufficient sort...and I live way out in the boonies. Response time for the county sheriff's office out here averages about 45 minutes. In town, the Lexington PD takes anywhere from 5 to 15 minutes, depending on how busy they are. Saturday nights in August might take upward of a half-hour. That's an awfully long time when the wolf is at your door, tim. As Gordon Lightfoot noted..."When the waves turn the minutes to hours." A man who is armed with a knife can do you and yours a world of hurt in 5 minutes.
I stayed out of the original conversation, but read through them.
Don't let the door hit you on the backside, on the way out.
We've been compromising our rights away for over an hundred years, and "anti's" are still not happy.
Obviously, nothing we can ever give up will make you happy, short of losing everything.
So, so long and farewell.
NO MORE CONCESSIONS.
LiveLife
Member
timmy4, how about a "reality" check?
You do realize that "The High Road" is one of countless internet forums? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_forum
Example: Although you may want to discuss the virtues of Fords/Chevys, reception may not be warm at internet forums for Toyota/Honda. Same for wanting to discuss virtues of Mac on PC forums. If you persist, you'll probably get warnings from Mods/Admins, get your posts deleted/threads locked and/or eventually be banned. That's the reality of internet forums. If you don't like a particular forum, you can simply leave and find another forum that supports your ideas and people who think like you.
What if you want to stay at a particular internet forum and participate while not getting warnings, posts deleted and threads locked or you came to THR because you have been permanently banned from other forums?
Easy. Simply follow the particular forum's rules or THR's forum rules - http://www.thehighroad.org/announcement.php?a=20
I participate and lurk in several internet forums on various topics (Guns, reloading, 4x4/offroad, outdoors/camping/RV, BBQ/grilling, cooking, computers/IT, home improvement/repair, dogs, gardening, etc.) and find the Admins/Mods/Staff of THR quite patient, fair/objective and more temperamental than Admins/Mods/Staff of other internet forums.
You do realize that "The High Road" is one of countless internet forums? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_forum
THR is a gathering place for people interested in the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms", shooting/hunting sports, the hobby of reloading cartridges and related topics where gun owners and like-minded people hang out and socialize like how you often find golfers on golf courses.
Example: Although you may want to discuss the virtues of Fords/Chevys, reception may not be warm at internet forums for Toyota/Honda. Same for wanting to discuss virtues of Mac on PC forums. If you persist, you'll probably get warnings from Mods/Admins, get your posts deleted/threads locked and/or eventually be banned. That's the reality of internet forums. If you don't like a particular forum, you can simply leave and find another forum that supports your ideas and people who think like you.
What if you want to stay at a particular internet forum and participate while not getting warnings, posts deleted and threads locked or you came to THR because you have been permanently banned from other forums?
Easy. Simply follow the particular forum's rules or THR's forum rules - http://www.thehighroad.org/announcement.php?a=20
I participate and lurk in several internet forums on various topics (Guns, reloading, 4x4/offroad, outdoors/camping/RV, BBQ/grilling, cooking, computers/IT, home improvement/repair, dogs, gardening, etc.) and find the Admins/Mods/Staff of THR quite patient, fair/objective and more temperamental than Admins/Mods/Staff of other internet forums.
Last edited:
Constrictor
Member
I have zero use for anti second ammendment people. This is a basic right settled over 200 years ago and is not up for discussion. If you don't like our Constitution you are free to relocate.
Closed for now. Timmy pm a mod when you return to have it opened.
Now that this thread is open again, I'll limit my posts to it.
There seems to be quite a bit of confusion about my beliefs here, so let me restate them:
1. I do not believe in banning assault weapons; I never have.
2. I do not believe in banning high capacity magazines. I used to, but no longer believe in it, thanks in large part to some of the arguments made in this forum.
3. I do not believe that guns are unnecessary for home defense. I don't use them, but that doesn't mean that others shouldn't.
4. I do not believe in seizing anyone's guns, now or ever.
If you guys want to argue any of the above points, you're arguing with the wrong guy.
Here's what I do believe in:
1. Universal background checks are a good idea.
2. A national registration database for all guns is a good idea.
3. None of the most common gun control proposals, whether good or bad ideas, actually violate the 2nd Amendment.
4. There is no "slippery slope" to worry about.
Those are the points I am willing and eager to discuss and debate.
There seems to be quite a bit of confusion about my beliefs here, so let me restate them:
1. I do not believe in banning assault weapons; I never have.
2. I do not believe in banning high capacity magazines. I used to, but no longer believe in it, thanks in large part to some of the arguments made in this forum.
3. I do not believe that guns are unnecessary for home defense. I don't use them, but that doesn't mean that others shouldn't.
4. I do not believe in seizing anyone's guns, now or ever.
If you guys want to argue any of the above points, you're arguing with the wrong guy.
Here's what I do believe in:
1. Universal background checks are a good idea.
2. A national registration database for all guns is a good idea.
3. None of the most common gun control proposals, whether good or bad ideas, actually violate the 2nd Amendment.
4. There is no "slippery slope" to worry about.
Those are the points I am willing and eager to discuss and debate.
timmy4 said:
Do you believe that guns used in crimes are routinely purchased through licensed dealers/legitimate sources?
Do you feel that the government's inability to control drugs in this country demonstrates how ineffective it would be attempting to control the flow of firearms?
hogshead
Member
Just to let you know who your dealing with. probably doing some kind of research paper on the crazy right wing gun nuts. So guard your response or better yet ignore the TROLL.
Timmy 4 first post
"Hello, I am new to this forum. I probably disagree with most of you here on several issues. I own no guns, and frankly they scare me. I believe in gun control. I believe in what President Obama is trying to do on this issue. I joined this forum hoping for some respectful debate and to learn the thoughts of those who don't agree with me on these subjects."
It goes down hill from there.
Timmy 4 first post
"Hello, I am new to this forum. I probably disagree with most of you here on several issues. I own no guns, and frankly they scare me. I believe in gun control. I believe in what President Obama is trying to do on this issue. I joined this forum hoping for some respectful debate and to learn the thoughts of those who don't agree with me on these subjects."
It goes down hill from there.
Bianchi?
Member
Timmy,
Here's the main issue (I have read through all of your threads, very interesting debate):
The problem with registration is that it leads to confiscation. It may not happen in 5, 10, 15 years, but it will happen.
In addition, national registration does nothing to help stop crime. Canada had national registration, and they recently abandoned it because it was too expensive and they had a extremely low compliance rate.
A national registry can be hacked. The data can be leaked. Take a look at New York. A newspaper there published the information of everyone who had a permit to own a handgun. What did that accomplish? Absolutely nothing good. In fact, there were a few houses broken into and their guns stolen directly after the newspaper published the information.
What I own is none of the government's business. It is not anyone's business but mine. I, and I alone, should be the sole decider on who gets to know what I own.
Here's the main issue (I have read through all of your threads, very interesting debate):
The problem with registration is that it leads to confiscation. It may not happen in 5, 10, 15 years, but it will happen.
In addition, national registration does nothing to help stop crime. Canada had national registration, and they recently abandoned it because it was too expensive and they had a extremely low compliance rate.
A national registry can be hacked. The data can be leaked. Take a look at New York. A newspaper there published the information of everyone who had a permit to own a handgun. What did that accomplish? Absolutely nothing good. In fact, there were a few houses broken into and their guns stolen directly after the newspaper published the information.
What I own is none of the government's business. It is not anyone's business but mine. I, and I alone, should be the sole decider on who gets to know what I own.
Let's skip past the registration leads to confiscation argument. I would like to bring up two points.
1. Where are the police going to get enough manpower to register the +200 million firearms in circulation in the US while retaining enough time to provide all the other services they currently offer? If police had to divert time to registering these weapons, that means less officers on patrol to answer distress calls. And I think we can see all see an obvious problem with that. Assuming registering one weapon takes 5 minutes, that means we need... 16,666,667 hours to register all of them.
2. Does registration actually do anything productive? Many other countries, Canada, for example, have registration. Has it reduced crime in Canada, or anywhere else?
Edit: Bianchi seems to be quicker on the draw than I.
SoCalNoMore
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2013
- Messages
- 107
Here is something that may help you Timmy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgkKKTtdkqE&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgkKKTtdkqE&feature=player_embedded
1. Some are, some aren't. According to law enforcement, a significant number of guns possessed by convicted felons are obtained through illegal purchases in which the seller is unaware of the illegality. The percentages vary depending on who you read.
2. No. The difference with guns is that the vast majority of gun-owners in this country are law-abiding citizens. Comparing a lawful gun owner who desires to sell his gun in a private sales to a drug pusher is frankly pretty insulting to gun owners, and I'm surprised you would make such an analogy. The whole key to my argument is that, in the case of most gun owners, the government would not need to enforce the law- it will be enforced by the gun owners themselves, because you guys are the law abiding type.
1. Universal background checks are a good idea.
So when somebody is selling a gun out of the back of their car in Chicago, they're gonna do a NICS check?
2. A national registration database for all guns is a good idea.
After said gun is purchased, they are going to register it with the Feds?
3. None of the most common gun control proposals, whether good or bad ideas, actually violate the 2nd Amendment.
infringe: to act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy". :banghead:
4. There is no "slippery slope" to worry about.
What the hell has been happening since 1934 if this is not a slippery slope?
So when somebody is selling a gun out of the back of their car in Chicago, they're gonna do a NICS check?
2. A national registration database for all guns is a good idea.
After said gun is purchased, they are going to register it with the Feds?
3. None of the most common gun control proposals, whether good or bad ideas, actually violate the 2nd Amendment.
infringe: to act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on: "infringe on his privacy". :banghead:
4. There is no "slippery slope" to worry about.
What the hell has been happening since 1934 if this is not a slippery slope?
Bianchi?
Member
I don't think that c4v3man is equating gun owners with drug dealers, but the point he's making is that government can't control the flow of illegal drugs. They spend billions of dollars every year trying, but they're barely making a dent. Now we're going to try to spend billions more every year to control the flow of guns?
I don't understand your argument. Could you expand/clarify a bit, please?
timmy4 said:
I don't understand your argument. Could you expand/clarify a bit, please?
Well you raise several issues:
1. No, I don't believe that registration leads to confiscation. Israel is a country which gun owners often cite, especially when making the argument that high private ownership of guns leads to lower violence. Israel has complete and full registration of all firearms, and there are strict gun control regulations in place. Neither of these have led to confiscation; in fact, private gun ownership has increased there to the point where it's nearly universal.
2. I believe that national registration would fight crime. It has in Israel and other countries as well. It allows the police to isolate illegal firearms.
3. I don't like what the newspaper did. I believe that the database information should be protected from the FOIA, as are Social Security numbers.
4. For us to live in a safe society, what you own has to be the government's business. Should you be allowed to construct a bomb in your backyard, which, if it went off, would kill all of your neighbors as well as yourself? Should you be allowed to pour gasoline all over your house and then light a match? Obviously there has to be some limits. I do agree that private ownership is vital to this country, but all rights have limitations.
timmy4 said:
But wouldn't you agree that us "law-abiding types" aren't the problem? So aren't the police going to have to be involved in controlling "criminal-trade"? How well is that working out for them?
Assuming that controlling the "law-abiding-owners" made an impact on private gun sales to criminals, what makes you think drug dealers won't start simply adding a few guns to their shipments, and sell through existing channels? Secondly, what makes you think these guns that are brought illegally into our country WON'T be full-auto weapons that are currently difficult to acquire in our country?
Last edited:
- Status
