Thread: Nat'l Security Let's research gun violence.
View Single Post
Old 12-25-2012, 12:36 AM   #856
AustinChief AustinChief is offline
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $10647
Quote:
Originally Posted by Direckshun View Post
I see no difference in what you said versus what is virtually always said every time I don't post for a few days -- that I'm running away from some argument, or some poster, or some thread. If there's some difference ("I was crossing my fingers as I typed that out!"), it's invisible to me.

I should mention that I don't give a flip either way, I just think it's a bewildering pattern, when you consider my considerable history on this forum, as well as the fact that I'm already like 200 posts strong in this thread.

If you want to back off the obvious implication you made that I was running away from a discussion, well then that's on you. I don't really care.
I am here to state that I did not intend that implication to come across, at least not in a serious manner. I have never seen anyone accuse you of running away so the implication didn't occur to me. And like you, I really don;t care too much either.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Direckshun View Post
There's such a vast array of guns out there, that I treat it as functionally infinite. There's no line you can draw in gun bans, no line that I can think of, where there isn't compelling similarities between some legal firearm and some illegal one. Every time I've tried to look one up, it is quickly disproven by firearms experts who intimately know the vast array of firearms. It's the same thing with magazine limits -- should I want to limit legal magazines to 10 rounds, there's obviously little difference in a magazine that holds 10 rounds versus one that holds 12.

But that doesn't mean that kind of ban should not be done. The line I would personally draw would be semiautomatic weapons (though I often go with the skinnier category of assault weapons, since that's far more politically feasible), along with deep magazines, and certain kinds of ammunition. I believe the banning of these firearms, as imperfect the lines I may draw would be, would do more good than harm.

Earlier in the thread, Radar Chief was dispelling some useful information at how freaking difficult it is to acquire fully automatic weapons, should one be so inclined. I think a fair compromise position would be to make all semi-automatic weapons, along with deep mags and armor-piercing bullets for starters, subject to that kind of extreme scrutiny. But I'd prefer them to be altogether banned.
You want to ban all semiautomatic weapons??? That is crazy talk. The high capacity magazine and possibly even looking at certain ammo are somewhat reasonable things to consider. (even if I don't agree entirely, compromises could be made here, personally a 15 round limit wouldn't really bother me but as I have pointed out, it will not make an ounce of difference but to sooth people like yourself) but banning all semi-autos is nuts.

You want every pistol to be a revolver and every rifle to be a pump/slide, bolt or lever action?

Yo do realize that with a revolver you get the exact same effectiveness as a semi-auto with a 6 round magazine? (well technically, it would need to be 5 rounds with one in the chamber I guess)
Posts: 15,106
AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.AustinChief has enough rep power to blowy ou to bits.
  Reply With Quote