Gun Control

[Saunders]

 

I didn't say I don't need it. In fact, I do. Contrary to movies and stuff, people don't go down with one bullet. In a high stress situation where I would be forced to shoot someone (let's say a break in) I'd hope to get 50% of rounds on target at close range. And pretty much any firearms instructor will tell you the same. Even cops carry rounds with a lot more than 10 rounds for a reason.

You're talking about convenience. It's less convenient for you to reload, so you want a bigger clip. That's not a compelling argument.

 

Yes, cops carry clips with more than 10 rounds. They're cops.

 

It's 100% a compelling argument. They've done studies of police shootings, and the average accuracy is in the neighborhood of 25%... and that's with 15-20 rounds in a firearm. Not having to reload is literally the point if you're forced to shoot someone. People can take multiple gunshots and not be slowed down. It's why in the training I've done they teach you to not draw unless absolutely necessary, but if you do, keep firing until they are on the ground.

[knapplc]

 

 

I didn't say I don't need it. In fact, I do. Contrary to movies and stuff, people don't go down with one bullet. In a high stress situation where I would be forced to shoot someone (let's say a break in) I'd hope to get 50% of rounds on target at close range. And pretty much any firearms instructor will tell you the same. Even cops carry rounds with a lot more than 10 rounds for a reason.

You're talking about convenience. It's less convenient for you to reload, so you want a bigger clip. That's not a compelling argument.

 

Yes, cops carry clips with more than 10 rounds. They're cops.

 

It's 100% a compelling argument. They've done studies of police shootings, and the average accuracy is in the neighborhood of 25%... and that's with 15-20 rounds in a firearm. Not having to reload is literally the point if you're forced to shoot someone. People can take multiple gunshots and not be slowed down. It's why in the training I've done they teach you to not draw unless absolutely necessary, but if you do, keep firing until they are on the ground.

 

The police carry fully automatic weapons and have badges. They have armored personnel carriers, heavy weapons, body armor, shields, all kinds of stuff.

 

I'm cool with the police having that stuff. Not civilians.

[zoogs]

I'd have to agree that not having to reload does sound really useful for purposes of killing someone, or many ones.

[Saunders]

 

 

 

I didn't say I don't need it. In fact, I do. Contrary to movies and stuff, people don't go down with one bullet. In a high stress situation where I would be forced to shoot someone (let's say a break in) I'd hope to get 50% of rounds on target at close range. And pretty much any firearms instructor will tell you the same. Even cops carry rounds with a lot more than 10 rounds for a reason.

You're talking about convenience. It's less convenient for you to reload, so you want a bigger clip. That's not a compelling argument.

 

Yes, cops carry clips with more than 10 rounds. They're cops.

 

It's 100% a compelling argument. They've done studies of police shootings, and the average accuracy is in the neighborhood of 25%... and that's with 15-20 rounds in a firearm. Not having to reload is literally the point if you're forced to shoot someone. People can take multiple gunshots and not be slowed down. It's why in the training I've done they teach you to not draw unless absolutely necessary, but if you do, keep firing until they are on the ground.

 

The police carry fully automatic weapons and have badges. They have armored personnel carriers, heavy weapons, body armor, shields, all kinds of stuff.

 

I'm cool with the police having that stuff. Not civilians.

 

Why? They're more likely to commit a violent crime than me.

[knapplc]

 

 

 

 

I didn't say I don't need it. In fact, I do. Contrary to movies and stuff, people don't go down with one bullet. In a high stress situation where I would be forced to shoot someone (let's say a break in) I'd hope to get 50% of rounds on target at close range. And pretty much any firearms instructor will tell you the same. Even cops carry rounds with a lot more than 10 rounds for a reason.

You're talking about convenience. It's less convenient for you to reload, so you want a bigger clip. That's not a compelling argument.

 

Yes, cops carry clips with more than 10 rounds. They're cops.

 

It's 100% a compelling argument. They've done studies of police shootings, and the average accuracy is in the neighborhood of 25%... and that's with 15-20 rounds in a firearm. Not having to reload is literally the point if you're forced to shoot someone. People can take multiple gunshots and not be slowed down. It's why in the training I've done they teach you to not draw unless absolutely necessary, but if you do, keep firing until they are on the ground.

 

The police carry fully automatic weapons and have badges. They have armored personnel carriers, heavy weapons, body armor, shields, all kinds of stuff.

 

I'm cool with the police having that stuff. Not civilians.

 

Why? They're more likely to commit a violent crime than me.

 

Because they're vetted better than civilians. Again, not an imperfect system.

[Saunders]

I'd have to agree that not having to reload does sound really useful for purposes of killing someone, or many ones.

Correct. The issue is in enforcement. I've said I'm on board with changes. But, I will take it to the mat that a mag ban is only going to affect people who actually follow the law. "High cap" mags are used in crimes in states with bans regardless of the law. They're easy to make, and there are multitudes of them in circulation. I'd estimate that on the safe side, in the US civilian population, there's easily over a billion in circulation. Easily.

[knapplc]

I'd have to agree that not having to reload does sound really useful for purposes of killing someone, or many ones.

Not only that, but I bet it's a heck of a lot of fun to shoot off 30 rounds in a single burst. I'd love to do that. Then I'd reload and do it again. I'd enjoy that immensely.

 

But if me not being able to do that saves even one life, or dissuades even one person from using a gun to carry out a mass shooting, I'm OK with never doing that.

[knapplc]

 

I'd have to agree that not having to reload does sound really useful for purposes of killing someone, or many ones.

Correct. The issue is in enforcement. I've said I'm on board with changes. But, I will take it to the mat that a mag ban is only going to affect people who actually follow the law. "High cap" mags are used in crimes in states with bans regardless of the law. They're easy to make, and there are multitudes of them in circulation. I'd estimate that on the safe side, in the US civilian population, there's easily over a billion in circulation. Easily.

 

Thanks NRA!

[Saunders]

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't say I don't need it. In fact, I do. Contrary to movies and stuff, people don't go down with one bullet. In a high stress situation where I would be forced to shoot someone (let's say a break in) I'd hope to get 50% of rounds on target at close range. And pretty much any firearms instructor will tell you the same. Even cops carry rounds with a lot more than 10 rounds for a reason.

You're talking about convenience. It's less convenient for you to reload, so you want a bigger clip. That's not a compelling argument.

 

Yes, cops carry clips with more than 10 rounds. They're cops.

 

It's 100% a compelling argument. They've done studies of police shootings, and the average accuracy is in the neighborhood of 25%... and that's with 15-20 rounds in a firearm. Not having to reload is literally the point if you're forced to shoot someone. People can take multiple gunshots and not be slowed down. It's why in the training I've done they teach you to not draw unless absolutely necessary, but if you do, keep firing until they are on the ground.

 

The police carry fully automatic weapons and have badges. They have armored personnel carriers, heavy weapons, body armor, shields, all kinds of stuff.

 

I'm cool with the police having that stuff. Not civilians.

 

Why?

Because they're vetted better than civilians. Again, not an imperfect system.

 

So was Omar Mateen. He had a higher class license than I do, along with security clearances and it was his job. Even if they were banned in state for civilians, he still would have had access due to his licenses.

[Saunders]

 

 

I'd have to agree that not having to reload does sound really useful for purposes of killing someone, or many ones.

Correct. The issue is in enforcement. I've said I'm on board with changes. But, I will take it to the mat that a mag ban is only going to affect people who actually follow the law. "High cap" mags are used in crimes in states with bans regardless of the law. They're easy to make, and there are multitudes of them in circulation. I'd estimate that on the safe side, in the US civilian population, there's easily over a billion in circulation. Easily.

 

Thanks NRA!

 

This is a silly reply. They've been in existence since long before the NRA turned into a lobbying arm.

[knapplc]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I didn't say I don't need it. In fact, I do. Contrary to movies and stuff, people don't go down with one bullet. In a high stress situation where I would be forced to shoot someone (let's say a break in) I'd hope to get 50% of rounds on target at close range. And pretty much any firearms instructor will tell you the same. Even cops carry rounds with a lot more than 10 rounds for a reason.

You're talking about convenience. It's less convenient for you to reload, so you want a bigger clip. That's not a compelling argument.

 

Yes, cops carry clips with more than 10 rounds. They're cops.

 

It's 100% a compelling argument. They've done studies of police shootings, and the average accuracy is in the neighborhood of 25%... and that's with 15-20 rounds in a firearm. Not having to reload is literally the point if you're forced to shoot someone. People can take multiple gunshots and not be slowed down. It's why in the training I've done they teach you to not draw unless absolutely necessary, but if you do, keep firing until they are on the ground.

 

The police carry fully automatic weapons and have badges. They have armored personnel carriers, heavy weapons, body armor, shields, all kinds of stuff.

 

I'm cool with the police having that stuff. Not civilians.

 

Why?

Because they're vetted better than civilians. Again, not an imperfect system.

 

So was Omar Mateen. He had a higher class license than I do, along with security clearances and it was his job. Even if they were banned in state for civilians, he still would have had access due to his licenses.

 

Cops are vetted better than that guy. I don't even know where you're going with this.

[knapplc]

 

 

 

I'd have to agree that not having to reload does sound really useful for purposes of killing someone, or many ones.

Correct. The issue is in enforcement. I've said I'm on board with changes. But, I will take it to the mat that a mag ban is only going to affect people who actually follow the law. "High cap" mags are used in crimes in states with bans regardless of the law. They're easy to make, and there are multitudes of them in circulation. I'd estimate that on the safe side, in the US civilian population, there's easily over a billion in circulation. Easily.

 

Thanks NRA!

 

This is a silly reply. They've been in existence since long before the NRA turned into a lobby.

 

 

 

The NRA is currently aiding lawsuits trying to overturn high-capacity magazine bans. I stand by my reply.

[Landlord]

So was Omar Mateen. He had a higher class license than I do, along with security clearances and it was his job. Even if they were banned in state for civilians, he still would have had access due to his licenses.

 

 

You wanna talk about red herrings...let's dismiss ideas as "that won't work" because a single person wouldn't have been stopped by it.

 

 

Every single thing I'm hearing sounds like bullet points from an NRA propaganda pamphlet. Has anyone here ever had to shoot someone that broke into their home? Maybe not shoot, but at least draw their weapon? Ever had someone break into their home period? Think they'd be able to actually pull the trigger? Think that the threat of a homeowner pointing a gun at them wouldn't probably be enough? Feel certain that they'd have time during a break-in to go find their gun that's either locked in a safe or hidden away in a closet upstairs somewhere?

 

 

If someone breaks into my home, pretty much the only scenario I can think of where having a gun is an effective and reliable solution is if I'm within 10-20 feet of my firearm with no tv/music noise to prevent me from hearing the break-in right away (or a nice security system). If I'm watching tv in the living room, if I'm having sex, if I'm cleaning with headphones in, if I'm a deep sleeper, if a/b/c/d/e/f/g/h/i/j/k/etc., the gun is probably not going to be of much use to me and if it is, if 10 rounds doesn't do it, I imagine 20 won't do much more.

 

The number of defensive gun uses in our country are extraordinarily low. VASTLY lower than the numbers of homicides and suicides. Now maybe gun-owners don't focus on that but rather on the worst case scenario, which I can understand and respect, but that's a pretty selective and inconsistent argument. We live our lives with accepted risk in all kinds of contexts all the time without batting an eye. Keep in mind I'm not anti-gun at all. I think guns are cool and fun and I've got no qualms with people who own them. But like, it would at least be a START for the CDC to be allowed to research gun violence and deaths. Why can't they do that?

 

It's not the entirety of the problem, but anyone that suggests that America doesn't have a bizarre gun fetish embedded into our culture is living in fantasy land.

[knapplc]

But like, it would at least be a START for the CDC to be allowed to research gun violence and deaths. Why can't they do that?

Thanks NRA!

[Landlord]

Here's something to ponder - most of us don't really have any desire to see responsible, law-abiding citizens not be able to have guns.

 

 

How many gun homicides and suicides are at the hands of people who were responsible, law-abiding citizens? Nobody is immune to depression and mental breaks. If I suddenly and unexpectedly become severely depressive and want to kill myself, or kill the guy sleeping on my wife, and I've got a pistol in my night stand next to my bed, that becomes a pretty easily accomplished temptation.

 

Is the risk of armed home invasion greater than the risk of a manic depressive episode?

 

 

 

Some other questions I don't have answers to but that half of our country doesn't really seem interested in actually diving into:

 

 

There have been 23 shootings at the hands of toddlers so far in 2016. How the hell did those babies get their hands on guns? There's gotta be something we can do about that, right?

 

Why does the rest of the world find our gun culture so batsh#t crazy? America isn't the only free country on the globe by a long shot, yet the consensus of non-Americans towards all of this stuff is pretty succinctly summed up as, "What the f#*k?"

 

If people aren't necessarily going to fall over when you shoot them, your accuracy under duress probably won't be that great, how effective is something like this for self defense really? Is the added effectiveness of a gun over a baseball bat over a knife greater than the added risk of you killing yourself or your kid getting their hands on it?

 

Why is the Constitution revered as this sacred document in the first place? Is there not at least even a decent chance that the founders, 300 years removed from technology and culture advancements, would be like, "This isn't exactly what we envisioned..."

 

Why are we the only country with this obscene fascination with guns, and also the only country with these kinds of acts of violence on this scale? Surely those can't be connected at all? Really? Why are we 40 times more likely to be shot than people in Canada/UK/Germany?