Gun Control

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Also, reducing the magazine size has an apparent easy workaround--just get more magazines and voila, you have the same amount of bullets.

 

But there are a couple of big difference you're ignoring--time to reload and ability to carry more magazines. If either one can reduce the damage done by madmen, isn't it worth it?

 

I'm sick of the gun control debate being spun by the NRA and the right as "they want to take our guns." No, they don't. No one said you can't have pistols, no one said you can't have shotguns, no one said you can't have your hunting rifles. But why on earth do you need an assault rifle?

For when the G-Men come to take your guns and institute martial law of course. Don't you follow right wing conspiracies like infowars?

 

I mean, stuff like that is good for laughs

 

Apparently folks don't know how easily/quickly you can change magazines in a AR-15/M-4...

 

No I don't, but the idea here is that you'll HAVE to reload--that takes time, even if it appears insignificant.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Also, reducing the magazine size has an apparent easy workaround--just get more magazines and voila, you have the same amount of bullets.

 

But there are a couple of big difference you're ignoring--time to reload and ability to carry more magazines. If either one can reduce the damage done by madmen, isn't it worth it?

 

I'm sick of the gun control debate being spun by the NRA and the right as "they want to take our guns." No, they don't. No one said you can't have pistols, no one said you can't have shotguns, no one said you can't have your hunting rifles. But why on earth do you need an assault rifle?

 

Your whole argument seems to be premised on the number of rounds a magazine can hold. To me there really is no dramatic difference between a 20 round mag, a 10 round mag, or a 5 round mag. Anyone who knows how to use an "assault" weapon or any gun for that matter can probably change a magazine in 2 seconds. An insignificant amount of time really given the intention of the possibly situation.. Plus with tactical gear vests it makes it easier than ever... The problem with your argument is you want to save some lives by trying to find solutions for potential gun related situations with non-scientific theory and/or self opinion. For me, I want to find solutions so these types of events never even start.

 

I want to find solutions so that these issues should not need to be discussed in government and on message boards. Read some of my other posts.

 

My argument isn't scientific because it can't ever be scientific. How can we test the effects of reduced magazine size on the number of lives lost without actually having some raw data? How can we get that raw data? The only way we can do that is to run the same person through the same course in the same amount of time and measure how many people (critically hit dummies) the person hit. Then run an ANOVA to see if that difference was significant. That's how the argument becomes scientific.

 

The problem with that test is the fact that there are an incredible amount of confounds that really invalidate the findings. Not everybody operates a gun with the same amount of efficiency or accuracy (and even then a single person's efficiency changes on a daily (even hourly, basis), not every building is going to be laid out like the course, the reaction time of the targets (real people) are not the same. All of those can critically affect the effect of reduced magazines on the number of lives lost. So my argument can never be scientific.

 

But why can't it be researched? Answer that question and you'll find the real culprit. It has just three letters. N. R. A.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

You want to know something strange, Junior? People's gut feelings are often more correct than the decisions their minds convince them into after deliberation. I'm not sure if this flies in the realm of public policy--but it has been proven enough to be considered.

 

What are you talking about here?

 

That gut feeling (which may or may not figure into the poll you're talking about; they could have deliberated) is an accurate predictor of actual effect?

 

Adaptive and rapid cognition and thin slicing.

[zoogs]

I'm unsure how that applies here. Can I get a Cliff Notes or For Dummies version?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I'm not sure if it even does, and since I'm on my phone now, I'm not patient enough to type it all out.

[NebraskaHarry]

Also, reducing the magazine size has an apparent easy workaround--just get more magazines and voila, you have the same amount of bullets.

 

But there are a couple of big difference you're ignoring--time to reload and ability to carry more magazines. If either one can reduce the damage done by madmen, isn't it worth it?

 

I'm sick of the gun control debate being spun by the NRA and the right as "they want to take our guns." No, they don't. No one said you can't have pistols, no one said you can't have shotguns, no one said you can't have your hunting rifles. But why on earth do you need an assault rifle?

 

Your whole argument seems to be premised on the number of rounds a magazine can hold. To me there really is no dramatic difference between a 20 round mag, a 10 round mag, or a 5 round mag. Anyone who knows how to use an "assault" weapon or any gun for that matter can probably change a magazine in 2 seconds. An insignificant amount of time really given the intention of the possibly situation.. Plus with tactical gear vests it makes it easier than ever... The problem with your argument is you want to save some lives by trying to find solutions for potential gun related situations with non-scientific theory and/or self opinion. For me, I want to find solutions so these types of events never even start.

 

I want to find solutions so that these issues should not need to be discussed in government and on message boards. Read some of my other posts.

 

My argument isn't scientific because it can't ever be scientific. How can we test the effects of reduced magazine size on the number of lives lost without actually having some raw data? How can we get that raw data? The only way we can do that is to run the same person through the same course in the same amount of time and measure how many people (critically hit dummies) the person hit. Then run an ANOVA to see if that difference was significant. That's how the argument becomes scientific.

 

The problem with that test is the fact that there are an incredible amount of confounds that really invalidate the findings. Not everybody operates a gun with the same amount of efficiency or accuracy (and even then a single person's efficiency changes on a daily (even hourly, basis), not every building is going to be laid out like the course, the reaction time of the targets (real people) are not the same. All of those can critically affect the effect of reduced magazines on the number of lives lost. So my argument can never be scientific.

 

But why can't it be researched? Answer that question and you'll find the real culprit. It has just three letters. N. R. A.

You're essentially saying "..'This' many people shouldn't die in this type of event, because if we did this only 'this' many people would die." You don't even realize it, but by your logic you're admitting that we wouldn't even solve the actual real problem.

[husker rob]

Also, reducing the magazine size has an apparent easy workaround--just get more magazines and voila, you have the same amount of bullets.

 

But there are a couple of big difference you're ignoring--time to reload and ability to carry more magazines. If either one can reduce the damage done by madmen, isn't it worth it?

 

I'm sick of the gun control debate being spun by the NRA and the right as "they want to take our guns." No, they don't. No one said you can't have pistols, no one said you can't have shotguns, no one said you can't have your hunting rifles. But why on earth do you need an assault rifle?

correct me if I am wrong, but where in the 2nd Amendment does it talk about the right to keep and bear arms for hunting?

The most literal interpretation implies arms are for a well regulated militia. Not for any idiot who wants to have them

 

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Also, reducing the magazine size has an apparent easy workaround--just get more magazines and voila, you have the same amount of bullets.

 

But there are a couple of big difference you're ignoring--time to reload and ability to carry more magazines. If either one can reduce the damage done by madmen, isn't it worth it?

 

I'm sick of the gun control debate being spun by the NRA and the right as "they want to take our guns." No, they don't. No one said you can't have pistols, no one said you can't have shotguns, no one said you can't have your hunting rifles. But why on earth do you need an assault rifle?

 

Your whole argument seems to be premised on the number of rounds a magazine can hold. To me there really is no dramatic difference between a 20 round mag, a 10 round mag, or a 5 round mag. Anyone who knows how to use an "assault" weapon or any gun for that matter can probably change a magazine in 2 seconds. An insignificant amount of time really given the intention of the possibly situation.. Plus with tactical gear vests it makes it easier than ever... The problem with your argument is you want to save some lives by trying to find solutions for potential gun related situations with non-scientific theory and/or self opinion. For me, I want to find solutions so these types of events never even start.

 

I want to find solutions so that these issues should not need to be discussed in government and on message boards. Read some of my other posts.

 

My argument isn't scientific because it can't ever be scientific. How can we test the effects of reduced magazine size on the number of lives lost without actually having some raw data? How can we get that raw data? The only way we can do that is to run the same person through the same course in the same amount of time and measure how many people (critically hit dummies) the person hit. Then run an ANOVA to see if that difference was significant. That's how the argument becomes scientific.

 

The problem with that test is the fact that there are an incredible amount of confounds that really invalidate the findings. Not everybody operates a gun with the same amount of efficiency or accuracy (and even then a single person's efficiency changes on a daily (even hourly, basis), not every building is going to be laid out like the course, the reaction time of the targets (real people) are not the same. All of those can critically affect the effect of reduced magazines on the number of lives lost. So my argument can never be scientific.

 

But why can't it be researched? Answer that question and you'll find the real culprit. It has just three letters. N. R. A.

You're essentially saying "..'This' many people shouldn't die in this type of event, because if we did this only 'this' many people would die." You don't even realize it, but by your logic you're admitting that we wouldn't even solve the actual real problem.

 

Addressing one aspect of this problem won't fix the problem

[tschu]

Again, pro-gun people, answer this:

 

Why would you ever, EVER, need an assault rifle? Why would any civilian need an assault rifle?

[beanman]

Again, pro-gun people, answer this:

 

Why would you ever, EVER, need an assault rifle? Why would any civilian need an assault rifle?

 

I'm not pro gun, but my brother used an SKS for coyote hunting. That's about all I can come up with. I'm not real knowledgeable about firearms though.

[tschu]

Again, pro-gun people, answer this:

 

Why would you ever, EVER, need an assault rifle? Why would any civilian need an assault rifle?

 

I'm not pro gun, but my brother used an SKS for coyote hunting. That's about all I can come up with. I'm not real knowledgeable about firearms though.

 

That's like using a blast furnace to cook a hamburger

[beanman]

Again, pro-gun people, answer this:

 

Why would you ever, EVER, need an assault rifle? Why would any civilian need an assault rifle?

 

I'm not pro gun, but my brother used an SKS for coyote hunting. That's about all I can come up with. I'm not real knowledgeable about firearms though.

 

That's like using a blast furnace to cook a hamburger

 

I don't think it's uncommon man.

[tschu]

If the only good reason we can come up with is "to hit more coyotes" then I think the pro-assault-rifle argument is pretty weak

[zoogs]

I'm sort of seeing the other side to this. I believe the 2nd amendment shouldn't be considered unlimited (which it isn't) and there are good sense types of restrictions that should be placed on it, limits that come about with the advancement of technology and which do exist presently.

 

The thing with high capacity magazines or assault rifles is, hand guns or shotguns or any manner of whatever is left legal, are perfectly good enough to do the trick. A mass murderer or non-mass murderer may be marginally less effective but pull out a couple of handguns and fire a round every several seconds into a crowd ... those types of events are still going to happen.

 

So in banning them the government restricts a certain class of commercial items, and to what end? The people, I don't even want to call them mentally ill since I don't believe they are some total minority, separable class of the populace, the people who one day decide to do these things still have access to all the technology they need to accomplish what they want.

 

I think a couple things provide the best counter:

 

-government buyback & dismantle programs to provide a nice easy means and incentive for people who don't want them to give away their guns & ammunition. Less stuff out in circulation. Less people who sell them in other private deals to who knows who. Less semi-responsible people whose future crazy newphews gain access to their stockpile. Some track record of success in other countries.

 

-more friendly public carry laws. I think this has some track record as well, but I can't find the study now. Our constitution is based mainly on a certain level of confidence afforded to our citizens. I think this falls into line with that also does present a deterrent.

[tschu]

At some point I'm fairly confident that the second amendment will be totally repealed. Maybe a century or more down the line, but still. People will start to realize that having objects whose sole reason for existing is to kill, just out freely among the general population, is just not worth it. I know it sounds crazy, but a hundred years ago gay marriage being legal probably sounded insane. During the 1800s, women voting probably sounded insane. Just my prediction that will likely not come to fruition in my lifetime