-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
US gun debate: Obama unveils gun control proposals
- Thread starter Dead Man
- Start date
- Status
NullPointer
Member
Depends. I'm not proposing that biometrics will eliminate gun violence, just that it would help reduce it a decent amount. Moreso than these other measures.
How many home invasions involve all out gun-fights?
The Faceless Master
Member
i didn't mean literally nobody, i meant that it happens rarely and the magazine capacity decrease won't cause a noticeable increase
revolver sales increase for the win?
i know that it can be done faster, i used 3-5 because in non-ideal situations things happen.
Broken logic. The question is not if they would still happen, but if they would still happen at the same rate and severity.
Which is the whole point here. We aren't banning all guns, we're reducing the extremes.
I hate to break it to you, but we already do this.
PoweredBySoy
Banned
Trying to directly compare one mass-shooting to another seems a little misguided and pointless, but I don't think it's too far of a stretch in suggesting that, forcing somebody to reload more frequently lessens their ability to prolong a killing spree. I think that's the gist of the proposed legislation.
Why should we ban it and who would it affect the most?
They were. I was very surprised by that mention too. It might be more "chum," so to speak.
Unless you were being sarcastic I'm going to need you to justify this nonsense.
no way man there are loopholes that need to be closed.
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
This is all for the standoff when Americorps kicks down the door to seize the guns.
Sure there are loopholes, but we absolutely do have plenty of limits on ABV in wines and beers throughout the country.
Pristine_Condition
Member
Convenience and economy are actual benefits. Your so-called "alternative" will do nothing to deter a well-armed mass-shooter. It takes two seconds or less to reload a 10-round magazine. Tell me what miracle you think is going to happen in the two seconds it takes for that nut to reload that's going to save so many lives? The only thing it's going to do is maybe convince some unfortunate soul to abandon cover and get shot.
AnathemicOne
Banned
Don't we already do this?
PoweredBySoy
Banned
Plenty. But interesting condescension.
So then your argument is that you'd feel less safe, or that you'd need more than 7-10 rounds to defend yourself.
You know, except for when it led to them getting tackled.
It also provides a window for law enforcement.
I can buy a bottle of everclear and the state will make money from it.
Dude Abides
Banned
Except people have actually used the reloading period to stop a shooter.
Reposting:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...arrying-jack-o-lantern-as-he-opened-fire.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurston_High_School_shooting
Freshmaker
I am Korean.
Or the gun carrying civilian heroes that shut down mass shootings constantly.
SteveWinwood
Member
I don't understand your point. At all.
Unless we're going to start talking about how four lokos were the assault weapons of drinks.
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
Nope. He had already reloaded and was only taken down when his gun jammed. Try to stick with the facts.
I don't see how you wouldn't see my point.
GungHo
Single-handedly caused Exxon-Mobil to sue FOX, start World War 3
Cause I can. That's the only reason I have them. I honestly don't think it would cut down on my "efficacy", for lack of a better term a whole lot, if I had 2 30 round mags or 6 10 round mags when it comes to how many holes I can put in a paper target at the range. It's just a pain in the ass to manually reload and police all those mags after I've shot through them all. You're mostly inconvenencing me... or making me pay 5x what I'd have paid for a 30 round magazine in the first place when I go buy a pre-ban mag.
Still, if you're going to control firearms through limiting actual capabilities, it's a more worthy step than telling people they have to file off their bayonet lugs and pin all their collapsing stocks again.
Well, what it would do is keep "unauthorized" people from running around with the thing and using it for anything more than a club. I agree with that part of the concept (even if I gave you a hard time about it a few posts up). One of the worst things I could imagine is that someone stole my firearms while I was away and ended up using them in a crime... which is why they're locked up and disassembled.
CrunchyFrog
Member
But would a larger magazine be that much more effective? I would argue that if you've missed with 10 shots, that another 4-5 won't likely make much difference, though to be sure I would need to see some empirical studies on the effects of stress on weapon firing and handling accuracy to find an optimum magazine size.
This is also why I think it should be mandatory to show some official proof of (marksmanship) training when buying a weapon as well, especially since vigilante heroism in a public area could cause collateral damage when a weapon is fired by an inexperienced individual (even cited as a reason for not firing by that one guy at the recent mall shooting). Police officers and military require training in order to handle their firearms in their line of work, I should think an ordinary citizen should be required to do the same. It's one thing that's not been included in most proposals meant to curb gun violence and I'm not sure why, since it seems so common-sense to me.
In the United States, it is illegal to sell 190-proof Everclear in California, Florida, Hawaii, Iowa, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia.
It can be purchased in Ohio but only under severe restrictions.
No worries, Pristine - just come back with more anecdotes on how fast you or that guy you know or that gun enthusiast of a guy you know who is a friend of this guy can reload in mere split seconds while keeping good aim of multiple targets.
GoldenEye 007
Member
At the state level, though. Heck some states like LA waited until the mid 1990s to put the drinking age to 21 instead of 18. Most alcohol regulations are at the state level.
Not that guns have to be treated different necessarily.
AnathemicOne
Banned
Good for you? What's your point?
You say that enacting alcohol limits in drinks is stupid, yet we already do that in the US and it works out well.
Obama's proposal is a national one, what's your point?
No, we really don't.
Which is funny because non-standard high capacity magazines are much more likely to cause a jam.
But in this very thread people are talking about how having to reload makes apparently no difference.
So what is it?
Bulbo Urethral Baggins
Banned
You sound like someone who has never reloaded a mag. Have you?
That's right. The ironic thing is that the high capacity magazine may have saved lives in that instance due to jamming.
Takamura-San
Member
Can a Gun owner explain why the 10 round mag is being opposed?
I wasn't familiar with this shooting before now.
He used two revolvers, both with speedloaders[/URL], took what appears to be roughly as much time or longer as Adam Lanza took at Sandy Hook before killing himself, and killed just over half the number of children in the incident.
I don't think this makes the point you intended it to.
They have earlier in this thread, although not convincingly.
Dude Abides
Banned
Your point was "omg now we're going to do these other silly things, slippery slope, etc" and we already do those other "silly" things just fine, and most people don't even fucking notice.
My point was that your original point was stupid as hell.
Because apparently people are having shootouts in their homes, and they need those extra bullets for defense... or something.
SteveWinwood
Member
No really explain your point. Because I don't see it.
speculawyer
Member
Hey guys . . . rape is illegal and murder is illegal yet people still get raped and murdered. So we might as well just make them legal.
Hari Seldon
Member
Drop the assault weapon part that only hurts collectors and the mag part which is just annoying and I'm cool with it.
Most guns are designed to hold 17 or 18 in the mag +1 in the chamber. So considering the firearm is engineered to have 18 or 19 rounds, reducing that in half or more is stupid and annoying to law abiding gun owners. Also, if you wanted to go on a shooting spree, a limited gun mag isn't going to stop you.. it just isn't. Shoot 10 (or 7), drop clip, reload fire away.. repeat. Or, like in most cases the gunman isn't even using a limited magazines. They simply obtained full magazines illegally and do as they please. The limited gun mag laws are a diversion that does little to curb mass shootings, but really scratch the itch of anti gun folk that 'something' is being done. The only thing thats being done is that law abiding gun owners are being punished because of criminal activity, criminals who don't give two shits about mag limitations or the law in general.
That is the basic complaint from gun owners. A really poor analogy could be that its similar to piracy and DRM for video games. Pirates can download a game illegally, power it up and play immediately. They don't care about breaking the law, and they get exactly what they want. Legal consumers buy a game, are forced to use DRM, jump through endless hoops to get their game running and ultimately are often subjected to things like always on, and other annoying shit. Its the principal of the matter.
Thats not the best analogy, I get it.. but its similar in that it annoys gamers they are punished continually because of pirates. Fight the pirates instead of punishing legal consumers. Its the same concept really.
I'm not saying everyone should understand this, or agree with it. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but it is what it is.
GungHo
Single-handedly caused Exxon-Mobil to sue FOX, start World War 3
So... mag limits are a good idea in case the mass muderer ends up being a goof?
This also led manufacturers into a significant minaturization drive to create guns that were designed to only hold 10 rounds in very large calibers or in very concealable packages. Without the AWB, I am unsure folks like Kahr would have made as big a dent in the market as they did.
V
Vilix
Unconfirmed Member
Those criminals in NY must be really pissed they can only carry 7 bullets in their magazines now. Curious - In NY how many gun related crimes are carried out by people with a criminal history as opposed people who have never committed a crime?
So you're saying if we nationally limit all alcohol content to say 4%... nobody would notice? lol
would you oppose such a limit? why?
Latimes says it was a jam.
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/jan/09/nation/la-na-0110-gabrielle-giffords-20110110
GoldenEye 007
Member
How does this analogy even work? Raping or murdering someone infringes on someone else's rights. Owning a standard sized magazine for a gun does not.
Pristine_Condition
Member
Kip Kinkel didn't have a second rifle magazine, you silly person. He was trying to reload the one magazine he had. A process which can take minutes, not two seconds. He didn't even pull his second gun until the other students tried to tackle him. And it's not clear from the proposed legislation that the .22 round weapon Kinkel used would even be subject to a capacity ban. .22s aren't exactly renowned as a round for killing people. It's generally used for squirrels and rabbits and "plinking" targets.
The other shooting, the guy had a jam.
It's not an anecdote, it's a fact. You don't need to keep good aim on multiple targets when everybody is stationary ducking for cover.
Also, look into the facts behind the BS claims Dude Abides is making. Otherwise all I'm hearing from you is "Herp, Durp."
Someone I know made this and I thought it was pretty interesting.
http://americangunfacts.com/
http://americangunfacts.com/
- Status