Thread: Nat'l Security Let's research gun violence.
View Single Post
Old 12-25-2012, 12:03 AM   #859
AustinChief AustinChief is online now
Administrator
 
AustinChief's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Austin
Casino cash: $8808
Quote:
Originally Posted by Direckshun View Post
For instance, you seem okay with limiting magazines to 15 rounds. What's the difference between 15 rounds and 16?
No difference between 15 and 16.. so, yes I agree if a line is drawn it will be somewhat arbitrary. Again, I am not "ok" with it but it isn't something I would shoot you over.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Direckshun View Post
The reason we're seeing so many mass shootings is because there's virtually no barrier whatsoever to flying off the handle and going nuts. Erecting some barriers will deter some folks from doing so. Erecting more barriers will deter more people. The goal is to improve what is clearly a dire situation.
This is where you are simply guessing and where I assert that your guesswork is completely wrong. There is absolutely no evidence that any of these "barriers" on legal gun ownership will prevent mass shootings. None.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Direckshun View Post
Which is, of course, another problem with your line of thinking: you don't think 10,000-12,000 gun related deaths a year is a dire situation, for reasons that pass understanding.
No, here again you are wrong. I think it is tragic that ANYONE is killed in any manner. BUT I don't agree that it is some sort of massive epidemic that requires histrionic over reactions that will, in the end, do nothing to address the real problem. Unlike with you and voter id, I recognize that ANY problem in the system is worth addressing and am willing to look at reasonable measures to address it. Banning all semi-automatics is not even close to reasonable. Requiring better training and education is a much more productive way to address the issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Direckshun View Post
Centralizing background checks, mental health reform, closing the gun show loophole, some extra security measures aren't out of the question. But gun restrictions on when and where you carry, and on what you carry, are a necessary part of the package.
I have no problem with most of these, until you get to the the last sentence which shows that you either a)don't know what you are talking about or b)don't CARE about actual results and just want to push an anti-gun agenda.

Having more trained armed people (the key here is better/more comprehensive training, current CHL/CCW classes are a joke) creates a safer society. Making laws regarding where/when you carry won;t do a damn thing to limit homicides. In fact it does the exact opposite. You really think that a criminal or a madman is going to say "Oh damn, I shouldn't carry these guns to the theatre... it's against the law!"
Posts: 14,934
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