Gun ownership poll

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by Steve D

Joe Biden, the President of the United States, just said a few days ago, that there is no reason a person should need a 9mm weapon. What is the most popular, most common pistol caliber in the United States? Why, it's the 9mm. The 9mm cartridge is also the NATO standard caliber for pistols; making it probably the most common caliber on the planet! And the President of the United States wants to ban it!

Every one on the left constantly says they want to ban all semi-automatic weapons.

The Walther PPK (James Bond's pistol), is a semi-automatic weapon.

Beretta pistols (used by James Bond), are semi-automatic weapons.

The Colt M1911 .45 caliber pistol (1911 is the year it first came out), is a semi-automatic weapon.

The left also wants to ban all magazines that hold more than ten rounds. Most semi-automatic pistols hold between ten, and 19 rounds in their magazines. The Glock 17 holds 17 rounds, and the Glock 19 holds 15 rounds. The Glock 19 is the most popular pistol in the country. The Glock 17 had been the most popular until the 19 came out. The 19 is more popular, simply because it is, due to its smaller size, easier to conceal. What caliber bullet do the Glock 17 and 19 fire? The 9mm; I refer you back to Joe Biden's comment about it.

So, they admit almost-unanimously, that they want to eliminate all semi-automatic weapons, which includes pistols.

Steve

How would you feel about: 1) Banning the sale of any semi-automatic rifle or semi-automatic centerfire shotgun to anyone under the age of 21. 2) Ban magazines that exceed 5 rounds?

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

How would you feel about: 1) Banning the sale of any semi-automatic rifle or semi-automatic centerfire shotgun to anyone under the age of 21. 2) Ban magazines that exceed 5 rounds?

No and no.

1) You're limiting an 18-20 year old's ability to defend himself/his family.

2) What does this prevent? A shooter could simply carry a bunch of pre-loaded magazines.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

No and no.

1) You're limiting an 18-20 year old's ability to defend himself/his family.

2) What does this prevent? A shooter could simply carry a bunch of pre-loaded magazines.

Both of these measures would reduce mass shootings in schools. I think that is pretty obvious. Having to reload a weapon increases the chance that the mass shooter can be taken out before they start shooting again.

[irv]

Some people are under the illusion that criminals obey laws and that illegal importation of weapons/magazines and other hardware doesn't exist.

Some likely believe a simple sign like this would also help in our countries because criminals/nut cases obey signs too.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by irv

Some people are under the illusion that criminals obey laws and that illegal importation of weapons/magazines and other hardware doesn't exist.

Some likely believe a simple sign like this would also help in our countries because criminals/nut cases obey signs too.

We just had a mass shooting in a school where an 18 year old legally bought an AR-15. And you are deflecting the issue and talking about how criminals break laws?

What is your point? That we shouldn't have laws? Give me a break.

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Both of these measures would reduce mass shootings in schools. I think that is pretty obvious. Having to reload a weapon increases the chance that the mass shooter can be taken out before they start shooting again.

False. Reloading pre-loaded magazines would only take 2 seconds to accomplish. It also would not have prevented Uvalde, as the police did not engage for over an hour.

You also failed to discuss the inevitable increase in burglary attempts/in-home crimes/murders. Those lives matter, too, right?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by KMayUSA6060

False. Reloading pre-loaded magazines would only take 2 seconds to accomplish. It also would not have prevented Uvalde, as the police did not engage for over an hour.

You also failed to discuss the inevitable increase in burglary attempts/in-home crimes/murders. Those lives matter, too, right?

Reloading may not have done anything for Uvalde, but could potentially help in future mass shootings.

As far your theory that preventing 18 to 20 year olds from buying semi-automatic weapons will lead to increased burglary attempts/crimes/murders, I think that is an unfounded claim. Why do they need a semi-automatic weapon to prevent a burglary/murder?

[KMayUSA6060]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Reloading may not have done anything of Uvalde, but could potentially help in future mass shootings.

As far as your theory that preventing 18 to 20 year olds from buying semi-automatic weapons will lead to increased burglary attempts/crimes/murders, I think that is an unfounded claim. Why do they need a semi-automatic weapon to prevent a burglary/murder?

If it wouldn't have prevented one of the largest school mass shootings, how will it prevent future mass shootings? In addition, even preventing him from buying the rifle in the first place would just force him or any future POS to look at other means of obtaining a firearm. There are 300-400 million firearms in this country. Even if you wanted to be a totalitarian and remove all firearms, it's not feasible. There are illegal drugs that run rampant in our streets; firearms would be no different. You would simply be disarming the law abiding population.

Why do government buildings & prominent businesses need security if their buildings have signs that say, "No Firearms/Weapons"? Gun Free Zones are personal invitations for criminals, and they'll have semi-automatic firearms because by definition they don't follow the laws. It's not an unfounded claim; it's common sense.

[G1911]

Pull trigger, bang, pull trigger again, bang again has been normal since the Double Action Revolver rose in the post Civil War period. Magazine fed handguns with a capacity over 5 that work as pull trigger, bang, pull trigger, bang have been common place since the turn of the 20th century. Rifles followed not long after.

Magazines over 5 rounds have been normal since the very first detachable box magazine fed weapons in the 19th century. A ban that bans a Borchardt is probably a clue it’s extreme.

Semi-automatic rifles have been normal for about a century.

Magazines are a box with a spring and a follower to keep the rounds stacked together. Many guns do not have one made that holds 5 or less. Many guns cannot really fit one so tiny, and the magazine would have to be extended to mechanically function properly. Which means one could just open it and cut down the internal block preventing the spring from going down. Or just making one. Or using the one of tens or hundreds of millions that already exist in the US.

The data (though I am a “form authoritarian” when it comes to data, whatever this means) suggests that 0% of people who stage a massacre care about the law and have a propensity to consult it and follow it.

I am sure it will end well for me and my family should I have another attempted home invasion. If the intruder cannot be reasoned with or scared off, using the best technology of 1888 will, I am sure, put me on an even footing.

There may be some things gun owners will budge a little on, for the tenth or twentieth time since 1934. Banning pretty much any design using advancements since 1900 is not one of them. This is a big part of why gun owners are against most laws proposed; we all know what the end game is. It always starts as framed as a ‘compromise’ or ‘reaching across the aisle’, and then it quickly becomes an extensive ban that tries to take away any technology from our own lifetimes. Nothing is ever given in return, it’s never an actual compromise.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

Pull trigger, bang, pull trigger again, bang again has been normal since the Double Action Revolver rose in the post Civil War period. Magazine fed handguns with a capacity over 5 that work as pull trigger, bang, pull trigger, bang have been common place since the turn of the 20th century. Rifles followed not long after.

Magazines over 5 rounds have been normal since the very first detachable box magazine fed weapons in the 19th century. A ban that bans a Borchardt is probably a clue it’s extreme.

Semi-automatic rifles have been normal for about a century.

Magazines are a box with a spring and a follower to keep the rounds stacked together. Many guns do not have one made that holds 5 or less. Many guns cannot really fit one so tiny, and the magazine would have to be extended to mechanically function properly. Which means one could just open it and cut down the internal block preventing the spring from going down. Or just making one. Or using the one of tens or hundreds of millions that already exist in the US.

The data (though I am a “form authoritarian” when it comes to data, whatever this means) suggests that 0% of people who stage a massacre care about the law and have a propensity to consult it and follow it.

I am sure it will end well for me and my family should I have another attempted home invasion. If the intruder cannot be reasoned with or scared off, using the best technology of 1888 will, I am sure, put me on an even footing.

There may be some things gun owners will budge a little on, for the tenth or twentieth time since 1934. Banning pretty much any design using advancements since 1900 is not one of them. This is a big part of why gun owners are against most laws proposed; we all know what the end game is. It always starts as framed as a ‘compromise’ or ‘reaching across the aisle’, and then it quickly becomes an extensive ban that tries to take away any technology from our own lifetimes. Nothing is ever given in return, it’s never an actual compromise.

Umm, what does the age of the technology have to do with anything? Gatling guns are pretty old too.

Also, your slippery slope argument is weak. At least come up with a historical example to back your claims.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Umm, what does the age of the technology have to do with anything? Gatling guns are pretty old too.

Also, your slippery slope argument is weak. At least come up with a historical example to back your claims.

Common use standard. Read Heller. Banning common use items since my great-grandfathers life pretty clearly violates the common use standard precedent.

Like 1934? Like 1968? Like 1986? Like 1994?

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

Pull trigger, bang, pull trigger again, bang again has been normal since the Double Action Revolver rose in the post Civil War period. Magazine fed handguns with a capacity over 5 that work as pull trigger, bang, pull trigger, bang have been common place since the turn of the 20th century. Rifles followed not long after.

Magazines over 5 rounds have been normal since the very first detachable box magazine fed weapons in the 19th century. A ban that bans a Borchardt is probably a clue it’s extreme.

Semi-automatic rifles have been normal for about a century.

Magazines are a box with a spring and a follower to keep the rounds stacked together. Many guns do not have one made that holds 5 or less. Many guns cannot really fit one so tiny, and the magazine would have to be extended to mechanically function properly. Which means one could just open it and cut down the internal block preventing the spring from going down. Or just making one. Or using the one of tens or hundreds of millions that already exist in the US.

The data (though I am a “form authoritarian” when it comes to data, whatever this means) suggests that 0% of people who stage a massacre care about the law and have a propensity to consult it and follow it.

I am sure it will end well for me and my family should I have another attempted home invasion. If the intruder cannot be reasoned with or scared off, using the best technology of 1888 will, I am sure, put me on an even footing.

There may be some things gun owners will budge a little on, for the tenth or twentieth time since 1934. Banning pretty much any design using advancements since 1900 is not one of them. This is a big part of why gun owners are against most laws proposed; we all know what the end game is. It always starts as framed as a ‘compromise’ or ‘reaching across the aisle’, and then it quickly becomes an extensive ban that tries to take away any technology from our own lifetimes. Nothing is ever given in return, it’s never an actual compromise.

I think we all agree citizens do not have the right to personally own and operate a nuclear weapon. That is technology from many people’s lifetime or older. It’s a matter of determining what is allowed under the second amendment. Unfettered access to any and all arms is not what is provided.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Carter08

I think we all agree citizens do not have the right to personally own and operate a nuclear weapon. That is technology from many people’s lifetime or older. It’s a matter of determining what is allowed under the second amendment. Unfettered access to any and all arms is not what is provided.

Note what was actually written. “Normal”, “common place”, etc. see Heller and the common use standard.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Both of these measures would reduce mass shootings in schools. I think that is pretty obvious. Having to reload a weapon increases the chance that the mass shooter can be taken out before they start shooting again.

You seem to think that bad guys obey laws. They don't. The bad guys will get illegal guns with illegal clips and only the good guys will be hampered in their effort to defend themselves and others. Why can't some people understand this?

Cocaine is illegal everywhere. It is also available everywhere. Can you understand, bad guys don't obey laws? If they are breaking laws against murder, what do they care about breaking laws about obtaining and using illegal weapons?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Mark17

You seem to think that bad guys obey laws. They don't. The bad guys will get illegal guns with illegal clips and only the good guys will be hampered in their effort to defend themselves and others. Why can't some people understand this?

Cocaine is illegal everywhere. It is also available everywhere. Can you understand, bad guys don't obey laws? If they are breaking laws against murder, what do they care about breaking laws about obtaining and using illegal weapons?

Well you see, the next perpetrator of a massacre will dispose of his 30 round magazines and not acquire one of the hundreds of millions of them in the country because… Well there’s a narrative. Anyways, we need to criminalize the other half of the country and if you don’t agree with it, you’re okay with the deaths of these innocent children.

[bnorth]

I will try to do a baseball related example so people can see how banning or adding more gun laws are seen by many gun owners.

I have a life long friend doing life for taking a baseball bat to someones head till he was no longer alive. I am serious this really happened. Sadly it has happened many many times in the history of baseball bats.

Since we are blaming the tool. I think banning baseball bats would be a great idea. They also need to remove ALL baseball bats from the public so they can be destroyed to save people from these awful baseball bats.

Then maybe we can take it a one step better. We could just ban everything baseball and remove all things associated with this horrible weapon and the history of baseball. Don't worry about all the people that work in baseball as long as we can get rid of those horrible baseball bats that go out and murder people. Aslo who cares about the collectors if we can save lives.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I will try to do a baseball related example so people can see how banning or adding more gun laws are seen by many gun owners.

I have a life long friend doing life for taking a baseball bat to someones head till he was no longer alive. I am serious this really happened. Sadly it has happened many many times in the history of baseball bats.

Since we are blaming the tool. I think banning baseball bats would be a great idea. They also need to remove ALL baseball bats from the public so they can be destroyed to save people from these awful baseball bats.

Then maybe we can take it a one step better. We could just ban everything baseball and remove all things associated with this horrible weapon and the history of baseball. Don't worry about all the people that work in baseball as long as we can get rid of those horrible baseball bats that go out and murder people. Aslo who cares about the collectors if we can save lives.

No one is calling to ban or take away all guns.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I will try to do a baseball related example so people can see how banning or adding more gun laws are seen by many gun owners.

I have a life long friend doing life for taking a baseball bat to someones head till he was no longer alive. I am serious this really happened. Sadly it has happened many many times in the history of baseball bats.

Since we are blaming the tool. I think banning baseball bats would be a great idea. They also need to remove ALL baseball bats from the public so they can be destroyed to save people from these awful baseball bats.

Then maybe we can take it a one step better. We could just ban everything baseball and remove all things associated with this horrible weapon and the history of baseball. Don't worry about all the people that work in baseball as long as we can get rid of those horrible baseball bats that go out and murder people. Aslo who cares about the collectors if we can save lives.

One whacko with a baseball bat is rather limited in how much damage he or she can do. Mass baseball bat murders are not currently a problem in this country. Mass shootings are. Some people would like to try to make them less of an issue.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I will try to do a baseball related example so people can see how banning or adding more gun laws are seen by many gun owners.

I have a life long friend doing life for taking a baseball bat to someones head till he was no longer alive. I am serious this really happened. Sadly it has happened many many times in the history of baseball bats.

Since we are blaming the tool. I think banning baseball bats would be a great idea. They also need to remove ALL baseball bats from the public so they can be destroyed to save people from these awful baseball bats.

Then maybe we can take it a one step better. We could just ban everything baseball and remove all things associated with this horrible weapon and the history of baseball. Don't worry about all the people that work in baseball as long as we can get rid of those horrible baseball bats that go out and murder people. Aslo who cares about the collectors if we can save lives.

Yes! It's worth it if it will save just one life!

[BobbyStrawberry]

The amount of straw men on this thread is dizzying.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

How would you feel about: 1) Banning the sale of any semi-automatic rifle or semi-automatic centerfire shotgun to anyone under the age of 21. 2) Ban magazines that exceed 5 rounds?

I have been avoiding this thread as it predictably devolved into a complete mess as expected.

I just was wondering as with even the prevalence of requests for sub 10 round magazines, where did this call for 5 come from? It is new to me as even a simple cowboy revolver cylinder would exceed this 5 idea. The Lone Ranger had a pistol that breaks the law on this premise.

Also, I can tell you have unfamiliarity with firearms, nothing wrong with that, it is commonplace. In your posts you state it is logical that reloading would provide time to stop a shooter. As I can very easily eject and reload a fresh magazine in sub 2 seconds with a blowback slide locking pistol or rifle (standard feature), do you believe that time is adequate?

Please, not fighting here that is pointless...only general curiosity on others thoughts.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by JustinD

I have been avoiding this thread as it predictably devolved into a complete mess as expected.

I just was wondering as with even the prevalence of requests for sub 10 round magazines, where did this call for 5 come from? It is new to me as even a simple cowboy revolver cylinder would exceed this 5 idea. The Lone Ranger had a pistol that breaks the law on this premise.

Also, I can tell you have unfamiliarity with firearms, nothing wrong with that, it is commonplace. In your posts you state it is logical that reloading would provide time to stop a shooter. As I can very easily eject and reload a fresh magazine in sub 2 seconds with a blowback slide locking pistol or rifle (standard feature), do you believe that time is adequate?

Please, not fighting here that is pointless...only general curiosity on others thoughts.

I'm a little confused as to why multiple people have found it necessary to point out that it takes only 2 seconds to reload a magazine. Yet others keep pounding home the point that only a "good guy with a gun" can prevent these mass shootings. I guess a good guy with a gun couldn't shoot someone during a reload? Not sure what the point of the good guy with a gun is then.

As for the 5 rounds. That wasn't my idea, that was part of recently proposed legislation, so I thought I'd see what people think about it. Clearly people that are pro gun rights are not open to this idea.

[bnorth]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I'm a little confused as to why multiple people have found it necessary to point out that it takes only 2 seconds to reload a magazine. Yet others keep pounding home the point that only a "good guy with a gun" can prevent these mass shootings. I guess a good guy with a gun couldn't shoot someone during a reload? Not sure what the point of the good guy with a gun is then.

As for the 5 rounds. That wasn't my idea, that was part of recently proposed legislation, so I thought I'd see what people think about it. Clearly people that are pro gun rights are not open to this idea.

Are to talking Police?

Normal good guys with guns are going target shooting or hunting they are not out trying to stop some moron from killing others.

[G1911]

A bad guy with a gun won’t follow mag restrictions.

Even pretending they will and that a magazine over 5 no longer even exists:

A bad guy with a gun is coming loaded to do damage, they don’t have to conceal their stuff at the scene. They will bring lots of magazines. Having to reload more when they are up against a room of unarmed people does not really slow them.

The good guy with the gun (unless the gun control crowd would like to suggest it’s fine for me to carry my M4 openly, which is legal in some states but uncommonly done even there as a course of normal life for the obvious reason that citizens don’t expect to need to use heavy gear) is generally concealing a light handgun, and aren’t carrying 10 pounds of gear. It’s a pistol, and maybe an extra mag or two.

The good guy having 17 rounds instead of 5 that won’t even fit in the magazine well because it’s too short sounds a lot better.

Forcing pre-Civil War capacities is extreme, even if it wasn’t blatantly illegal by the most clear violation of the common use standard there could be.

[JustinD]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

I'm a little confused as to why multiple people have found it necessary to point out that it takes only 2 seconds to reload a magazine. Yet others keep pounding home the point that only a "good guy with a gun" can prevent these mass shootings. I guess a good guy with a gun couldn't shoot someone during a reload? Not sure what the point of the good guy with a gun is then.

As for the 5 rounds. That wasn't my idea, that was part of recently proposed legislation, so I thought I'd see what people think about it. Clearly people that are pro gun rights are not open to this idea.

Just catching up without reading the last several pages. I was genuinely interested in your thoughts. Thank you for responding, I did not see any information recently on the proposed 5 rounds.

This is again, a subject that I think much like religion, finding a middle ground is impossible as minds are concreted. However, I do like to actually hear people's thoughts and the reasoning.

As to the "good guy with a gun" statement, as 95%+ historically of these incidents other than the supermarket were "soft targets" (IE: areas where guns are illegal to carry and or possess for non-criminal elements) I would think without change to the carry laws that only police whom are the current solution would be the available responders. I personally do not see a possibility of a civilian response to a school, church, or government building currently a viable thought. Even if successful in stopping an attack, a zealous prosecutor could provide a minimum 5 year stint to the "good guy" with little effort. I think this issue is the structure toward the difficulty of solution on these incidents (for any side).

[Steve D]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

How would you feel about: 1) Banning the sale of any semi-automatic rifle or semi-automatic centerfire shotgun to anyone under the age of 21. 2) Ban magazines that exceed 5 rounds?

1. No. A Federal Appeals Court has already ruled earlier this year that this is Unconstitutional.

2. No. A standard revolver holds six rounds. There are revolvers now, that actually hold more; some even hold 10 rounds. Banning magazines that hold more than five rounds would effectively make every semi-automatic pistol illegal, as very, very, few magazines hold only five rounds. Think about it.....magazines fit in the grip of the pistol, so how many rounds can you hold in your hand?

Steve

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

How would you feel about: 1) Banning the sale of any semi-automatic rifle or semi-automatic centerfire shotgun to anyone under the age of 21. 2) Ban magazines that exceed 5 rounds?

I do not know how you can expect me to read your mind. I can only read your actual words.

I specified quite explicitly in 491 that I am talking about the gun control proposals in this thread. People are discussing here what they think, not solely or even mostly pending legislation. Almost nothing has been said about the vague 'framework' in the Senate or the House bill.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

I do not know how you can expect me to read your mind. I can only read your actual words.

I specified quite explicitly in 491 that I am talking about the gun control proposals in this thread. People are discussing here what they think, not solely or even mostly pending legislation. Almost nothing has been said about the vague 'framework' in the Senate or the House bill.

Well now you know. And you can stop repeating yourself about half the country being criminalized.

By the way, typically, legislative "Bans" are not retroactive.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Well now you know. And you can stop repeating yourself about half the country being criminalized.

I'm glad you've walked it back to only eradicating constitutional liberties for the next generation.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

I'm glad you've walked it back to only eradicating constitutional liberties for the next generation.

Well, fortunately, the Bill of Rights is fluid. Its changed for the better in the past. Let's hope it changes for the better in the future.

And hopefully the expansive ruling in Heller doesn't doom us all to continued excessive cycles of gun violence.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Well, fortunately, the Bill of Rights is fluid. Its changed for the better in the past. Let's hope it changes for the better in the future.

And hopefully the expansive ruling in Heller doesn't doom us all to continued excessive cycles of gun violence.

Let’s hope our rights continue to remain rights instead of temporal privileges to be voided anytime people find it politically convenient.

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

Let’s hope our rights continue to remain rights instead of temporal privileges to be voided anytime people find it politically convenient.

I think you are confusing political convenience with "anytime mass shootings become normal"

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Well, fortunately, the Bill of Rights is fluid. Its changed for the better in the past. Let's hope it changes for the better in the future.

And hopefully the expansive ruling in Heller doesn't doom us all to continued excessive cycles of gun violence.

Plus one. Same people that said you can’t infringe my freedoms of speech have been successfully sued for defamation when they act like jackasses.