Gun Control

[sd'sker]

i guess the need to have an extended magazine outweighs the want to reduce mass shootings.

5 ten round mags vs 10 five round mags... I'm all for background checks. Tough one's in fact. But this idea that reducing the number of rounds in a magazine is going to make a difference is dumb. What those people really want are 0 round mags. We get the hint.

what people? and what is the purpose of larger magazines?

[sd'sker]

i guess the need to have an extended magazine outweighs the want to reduce mass shootings.

Those aren't mutually exclusive, and your statement is an exercise in bad logic.

and my wife complains i don't exercise enough.

[zoogs]

Do we have any non opinion data here?

[NebraskaHarry]

i guess the need to have an extended magazine outweighs the want to reduce mass shootings.

5 ten round mags vs 10 five round mags... I'm all for background checks. Tough one's in fact. But this idea that reducing the number of rounds in a magazine is going to make a difference is dumb. What those people really want are 0 round mags. We get the hint.

what people? and what is the purpose of larger magazines?

Those calling for a reduction in the number of rounds in a mag.

Before I can answer your second question I think you need to first ask what the purpose of a gun is.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

The purpose of a gun is dependent on the intentions of the person who owns the gun. If I want to use a gun to hunt deer, the purpose of the gun is 'to kill deer.' If I want to use a gun to shoot someone, the purpose of the gun changes to 'harming another person.' There's a problem with arguing against gun control using 'the purpose of the gun argument'.

 

beanman, I think what you're referring to is the idea of statistical power--are the results meaningful from a set population. It may have been a representative sample, but does it mean anything if the population you're trying to generalize it to is hundreds of thousands times larger?

[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?

[Junior]

i guess the need to have an extended magazine outweighs the want to reduce mass shootings.

Those aren't mutually exclusive, and your statement is an exercise in bad logic. There's no data that says that mag bans will reduce mass shootings. In fact, for the most part, the only people who say that it will, have little to no experience with guns. Cops don't think it will help, same as the "assault weapons" ban.

 

 

Interesting what they do think will help though.

 

Interesting that we are basing our policy around what people feel in their guts might or might not help, rather than looking at actual data.

[strigori]

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?

[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

[It'sNotAFakeID]

i guess the need to have an extended magazine outweighs the want to reduce mass shootings.

Those aren't mutually exclusive, and your statement is an exercise in bad logic. There's no data that says that mag bans will reduce mass shootings. In fact, for the most part, the only people who say that it will, have little to no experience with guns. Cops don't think it will help, same as the "assault weapons" ban.

 

 

Interesting what they do think will help though.

 

Interesting that we are basing our policy around what people feel in their guts might or might not help, rather than looking at actual data.

 

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.

[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?

[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.

[walksalone]

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...

[strigori]

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

[zoogs]

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?