|
|
View Poll Results: Is this an acceptable compromise? | |||
Yes |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
4 | 12.50% |
No |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
22 | 68.75% |
Maybe, see my tweak to the proposal |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
1 | 3.13% |
Take out the restriction on the # of rounds in a clip, then we got a deal |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
5 | 15.63% |
We need to go further to restrict access to guns |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
0 | 0% |
Obligatory GAZ option |
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
0 | 0% |
Voters: 32. You may not vote on this poll |
![]() ![]() |
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
![]() |
#31 | |
I Lay Wood for a Living
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Who knows?
Casino cash: $39904
|
Quote:
How would you control magazine capacity? If they are going to be at the range, you can bet your ass they will end up in criminal hands. The only idea I can think of is treat +10 mags similar to a Class 3 weapon, only without the tax. Everyone that owns high-cap mags can register them, but if you get caught without registering them you get treated like a illegal hunter. The authorities can take everything you have on you and in your vehicle, and you expose yourself to an ATF search at your home/business. The registration is held locally (county), not federally. Oh, you CAN NOT sell your existing high-cap mags. All of this is only good for 5 years, and after that time it will need to be put up for renewal. Now, with that said, nothing of what is proposed will stop was happened the last few months. It will simply hinder the law-abiding gun owners. But, to help gun haters "feel" better, I am willing to compromise what I listed. |
|
Posts: 55,795
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#32 |
it's all right if you don't
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: on The Wall
Casino cash: $34950
|
|
Posts: 50,010
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#33 | |
Make America Great Again
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Springpatch
Casino cash: $33532
|
Quote:
First of all, I agree on point 5. If a gun owner has made a reasonable effort to prevent his gun from theft, and reports it, she/he should be fine legally. But I disagree with you that this kind of legislation won't help. The idea is to slow down mass shooters. Forcing them to replace their clip is how several mass shooters have been stopped. |
|
Posts: 53,689
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#34 | |
Seeking the Truth daily
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: In the Country in MO
Casino cash: $34409
|
Quote:
Like making rapists use a rubber
__________________
Frazod to KC Nitwit..."Hey, I saw a picture of some dumpy bitch with a horrible ****tarded giant back tattoo and couldn't help but think of you." Simple, Pure, Perfect. 7/31/2013 Dave Lane: "I have donated more money to people in my life as an atheist that most churches ever will." Come home to Jesus Dave. Come home. |
|
Posts: 41,643
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#35 | |||
Missing Dick Curl
Join Date: Sep 2005
Casino cash: $29019
|
Quote:
And let's take a look at the study you provided. Pages 5-6. To start, this study consisted of 2,568 participants. They asked them where they got their guns. From those participants, roughly 60% of them said from "Stores". On top of that, they are estimating the total number of guns sold. Which they would still have no data on guns sold privately, other than what was answered from the 2500 participants. So the total number of sales is questionable. And they extrapolate the 60% results from the 2,500 participants, and applied that to the roughly 300 million total gun owners in the country. They admit in several places that their participants might be "misremembering" or they assumed that the place they bought it from was a FFL. Yeah. Here's a few highlights of their study: Quote:
Quote:
__________________
![]() |
|||
Posts: 34,644
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#36 | |
Missing Dick Curl
Join Date: Sep 2005
Casino cash: $29019
|
Quote:
__________________
![]() |
|
Posts: 34,644
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#37 |
Knock Knock
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Southeast Wisconsin
Casino cash: $6650
|
|
Posts: 771
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#38 |
Veteran
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Alaska
Casino cash: $13639
|
"I understand that the constitution is also very clear on free speech but we restrict free speech in some circumstances (libel, yelling fire etc.)"
Actually we don't, we have consequences in place for those actions. If you commit one of those actions you are punished for it, you are not physically unable to say them. Same goes for gun ownership, guns are available, if you commit a crime with one, you are punished, to place restrictions on firearms is no different than to surgically modify every American's voice box to be unable to yell fire in a theater.
|
Posts: 2,275
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#39 | |
Make America Great Again
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Springpatch
Casino cash: $33532
|
Quote:
You can add that as an effective caveat to the information of the study, or discount it altogether because it only involved a few thousand people and information gathering, though professionally conducted, was imperfect. You're welcome to the former point of view, but the latter point of view discounts essentially all studies on human behavior. |
|
Posts: 53,689
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#40 | |
Make America Great Again
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Springpatch
Casino cash: $33532
|
Quote:
Last edited by Direckshun; 12-22-2012 at 11:51 AM.. |
|
Posts: 53,689
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#41 |
Veteran
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: ¿
Casino cash: $9875
|
maybe a proposal like this could help prevent something in the future, where a person has to buy all new items. but what do you do about all the high capacity mags currently in circulation? confiscate them?
even under the assault weapons ban, it only banned the production of certain items, not the sale. you could still buy a "banned" item online or wherever. still, evil in people is the problem, wouldn't everyone agree? blaming inanimate objects is a mistake, especially when the vast majority of all gun owners are good citizens. |
Posts: 2,236
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#42 |
Shit
Join Date: Jun 2008
Casino cash: $39167
|
|
Posts: 47,467
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#43 |
I Lay Wood for a Living
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Who knows?
Casino cash: $39904
|
|
Posts: 55,795
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#44 |
Missing Dick Curl
Join Date: Sep 2005
Casino cash: $29019
|
Private owners are not required to do background checks in most states. And as I've previously said, I wouldn't necessarily be against examining whether changing that would be a benefit. But since the background check costs money, it's going to be a hard sell for the private gun seller to submit themselves to it willingly and make less money on the gun sale. And there are so many guns already in private hands, that it wouldn't be hard to find somebody willing to overlook the background check and make money on it.
__________________
![]() |
Posts: 34,644
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
#45 | |
Has a particular set of skills
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: On the water
Casino cash: $39727
![]() |
Quote:
It's the bar we set for many other things in our society. Seems reasonable to me. |
|
Posts: 59,949
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
![]() |
![]() ![]() |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|