Gun ownership poll

[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?

[cgjackson222]

Originally Posted by G1911

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?

Yep, Scalia's majority opinion in Heller (which was decided 5-4). Hopefully some laws will get passed that are deemed constitutional and allow our country to reduce gun violence.

Obviously, with the current makeup of the Court, its hard to see how Heller gets struck down any time soon.

What a shame.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by cgjackson222

Yep, Scalia's majority opinion in Heller (which was decided 5-4). Hopefully some laws will get passed that are deemed constitutional and allow our country to reduce gun violence.

Obviously, with the current makeup of the Court, its hard to see how Heller gets struck down any time soon.

What a shame.

A crying shame that your half of the country isn’t able to criminalize my half of the country quite so easily.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by G1911

A crying shame that your half of the country isn’t able to criminalize my half of the country quite so easily.

No, it’s generally a good thing that these processes are difficult and littered with checks and balances. Fast change is scarier. But we can and should do better. Too many kids are getting murdered.

[Mark17]

Originally Posted by Carter08

No, it’s generally a good thing that these processes are difficult and littered with checks and balances. Fast change is scarier. But we can and should do better. Too many kids are getting murdered.

Gun in the hands of a bad guy kill kids.
Gun in the hands of a good guy stops the bad guy and saves kids.

Simpletons think the gun is the problem when guns are the problem AND the solution. More accurately, guns themselves are neither good nor bad; they are tools.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by Mark17

Gun in the hands of a bad guy kill kids.
Gun in the hands of a good guy stops the bad guy and saves kids.

Simpletons think the gun is the problem when guns are the problem AND the solution. More accurately, guns themselves are neither good nor bad; they are tools.

They are tools. Saying the gun alone is not the problem is a straw man argument. Literally no one thinks guns are inherently evil and will do damage on their own. I’ll take my chances against someone with a hammer, a bat, etc. The guy in Vegas was not chucking those things out of the window and if he was that wouldn’t be such a big deal.

If you’re against giving anything up, I guess we need to do what we can always do. Impose a tax and make guns or bullets prohibitively expensive. Chris Rock said $5k a bullet would ensure they are used more wisely. Starting to agree.

I’m at least on board with a training commitment from gun purchasers. As soon as I have faith that a gun owner is responsible I’d be more comfortable with them out there. As it stands, the bad guys with a gun seem to be winning against the good guys with a gun.