Gun violence turns GD into a really sick place.

[krispos42]

85. So you're wimping out?

Don't have the guts?

The AWB banned specific guns by name, so people changed the names. Ta-da. Stop playing around and declare that all semi-automatic guns can be easily used in mass shooting, so they should all be banned. Stop playing around and say that the real problem with 'military style' guns is not the black non-reflective finish or the protruding pistol grip or the bayonet mount, but the fact that they are semi-automatic guns that are fed from a magazine which can have very high capacities and thus can kill many people in a short period of time.

So simply ban them. Argue that effective hunting and self-defense can be easily done with handguns, lever-action rifles, and pump-action shotguns, and so that banning semi-auto long guns will increase public safety while not decreasing private safety. Can't you do that? Isn't that reasonable?


2. I was proposing specific alternatives. You're not. "What's so hard about agreeing that no one needs 30 rounds to defend themselves, hunt or sport shoot?" Okay, then 29? 25? It's real easy to say "you don't need 30 rounds", but you can't tell me how many people DO need, so you yank "10" out of your butts because you also have ten fingers and ten toes.

Here's a clue, though... if I'm in a situation where I'm defending myself with a gun, I don't want to have to reload in the middle of it. I don't plan on stuffing spare magazines in my boxer-briefs or in my mouth or under my man-boobs or in my asscrack. So I'm going to want to have as many as I can have in the magazine without compromising reliability and ergonomics. That means, a flush or nearly flush magazine in my handgun. That means, no drum magazine in my rifle.

Your side is pulling 10 out of the air because it's a nice round number, and now you've latched onto that like a drowning man clinging to a board. YOUR side gets all cranky at the thought of a person with a pistol and a big giant protruding magazine, a la the Gabby Giffords shooting. Well, if you limit magazine length to "flush with the butt", then you don't get any 33-round pistol magazines unless some maker out there produced a gun with a giant fucking grip.

And all you do is laugh and cling to your arbitrary 10-round limit. Either come up with a reality based number, or make your ban based on the standard handgun magazine, which fits flush or nearly so to the bottom of the gun.

I don't know, maybe the average number of shots fired in self-defense is 5, so that a 10-round limit would work 90% of the time. Maybe it's reasonable and valid. Or maybe 9 or 11 is. But, dammit, show your work.



And comparable countries have total homicide rates lower than our non-gun homicide rates. Even if you took away all the gun murders, we're still more violent. And that assumes that NOBODY that would have been killed with a gun was instead killed with "other".

What percentage of people that would be killed with guns would instead be killed with "other". Can you give me an estimate?

C'mon. There are 11,000 gun homicides a year. Now, thanks to the miraculously effective ellisonz gun-control law of 2013, only 1,000 people were killed with guns in 2014. How many of the 10,000 that would have been killed before the law changed will instead be killed with "other"?

Give me a number. Show me your prediction on how effective your laws will be. People are reading this; they want to know what you think. You seem to be very confident that your laws will effective. Give the class an estimate.


Don't like 2014? Too soon? Okay, then, 2024. In 2024, 1,000 people were killed with firearms. Other crime indicators have remained steady. So in 2024, after 11 years of the miraculously effective ellisonz gun-control law of 2013, how many of the 10,000 that would have been killed with guns were instead killed with "other"?

Zero?

5,000?

1,000?


I noticed you didn't bother defending ballistic fingerprinting or microstamping. *smirk* Those are "reasonable", too, or so I'm told.



And other countries do have mass killings. They are rarer, but they happen. The Norwegian guy, with his semi-automatic rifle, for example. And of course there are plenty of bombings and such.


But I'll tell you this, ellisonz... we could drop the homicide rate in this country by probably 20% overnight and save 3,200 people a year simply by legalizing pot. Unlike your gun-control schemes, it would take effect instantly. Not decades.

Unlike your gun-control schemes, it would reduces, not increase, the number and severity of laws that we live under, which I'm told is a measure of individual freedom.

We could probably drop it another 20% if we legalized the harder drugs.

And another 10% if we had Medicare for all, including comprehensive mental-health care, in this country. Imagine that... not only fewer murders, but less divorce, happier children, more productive people... if only we had Medicare for all. Freeing people from corporate slavery, freeing people to start their own business on their own time, instead of working shitty hours that destroys family life because they can't take a change on losing their insurance. Freeing people from life-destroying, family-destroying financial stress.

But no, we're focusing on guns again because we're not allowed to even consider legalizing pot or passing USP. I'm told that ObamaCare is the last health-insurance change we'll get in a generation, and that pot is Evil and as bad as heroin and has no medical use and we can't even try to legalize it.


You seem to feel it's okay that we have family-destroying health insurance and 2 million people languishing in prisons, just as long as they're not killing people.