What gun control do you want?

Originally posted by KellyJay
I promise you, and I believe science would back me up on this with NO PROBLEM, if you
end someone's sorry life that committed a crime with a gun, they will never do it again.

Unfortunately most violent crimes are committed by people who have not yet been convicted for committing a serious violent crime.

Originally posted by normbenign
I have handguns which have up to 17 round capacity, and rifles with 30. I carried a semi auto handgun for self defense, which had 14-1 capacity. You have an unrealistic presumption that defense is always going to be against a single attacker. I had robbery attempts, where as many as four people attempted to rob me. I never had to shoot anyone, but I c ...[text shortened]... ave a six shooter.

And this totally ignores the the Militia side of keeping and bearing arms.

I chose the figure 12 because it's a number, not for any reason connected with how large a magazine is. Provided the amount of ammunition someone can hold is limited then my criterion is satisfied.

I do not think that self-defence is a good reason to own a fire-arm.

In Britain the militias were absorbed into the Territorial Army (now the reserves) long ago. That is not an issue here. The militias in the U.S. have no defensive value whatsoever in our times, your Constitution badly needs amending in that respect.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I chose the figure 12 because it's a number, not for any reason connected with how large a magazine is. Provided the amount of ammunition someone can hold is limited then my criterion is satisfied.

I do not think that self-defence is a good reason to own a fire-arm.

In Britain the militias were absorbed into the Territorial Army (now the reserves) ...[text shortened]... defensive value whatsoever in our times, your Constitution badly needs amending in that respect.

The idea that anyone needs a greater than say 10 round magazine for self-defense is insane. In these types of shootings they could very well save lives - in the Giffords' one in Arizona the shooter was overpowered while he was trying to reload. In the San Bernardino case, most of those killed were in one room as access to other parts of the facility was restricted by locked doors and other security measures; it's very possible that an inability to fire a extra 20 rounds or so without reloading could have greatly increased the chances of more victims escaping with their lives.

The Constitution doesn't need amending in this particular; militias to the Framers were government organized groups where membership was mandatory and weapons regulated. The National Guard composed of various State units is now the "organized" militia as authorized by the Militia Act of 1903. All able-bodied men between 17 and 44 are part of the "unorganized" militia by that statute and subject to call up by the Federal government and regulation by Congress as to organization, arms and discipline.

EDIT: I'm not so sure that the other areas in the San Bernardino shooting were locked and secured after all; I may have confused the circumstances with the Planned Parenthood shooting. I'll check but that does not alter my conclusion that a restricted mag size could have saved lives.

Originally posted by no1marauder
The idea that anyone needs a greater than say 10 round magazine for self-defense is insane. In these types of shootings they could very well save lives - in the Giffords' one in Arizona the shooter was overpowered while he was trying to reload. In the San Bernardino case, most of those killed were in one room as access to other parts of the facility was ...[text shortened]... l check but that does not alter my conclusion that a restricted mag size could have saved lives.

I agree with your magazine limit. The advice they were giving on British media after the Paris shootings was to run away (rather than hide or attempt to play dead) as a shooter will in general not be very accurate and adding range increases one's safety, reloading takes time so the earlier they have to reload the better.

Interesting that the situation in the US is essentially the same as in the UK regarding militias. The media gave me the wrong impression.

Originally posted by DeepThought
I agree with your magazine limit. The advice they were giving on British media after the Paris shootings was to run away (rather than hide or attempt to play dead) as a shooter will in general not be very accurate and adding range increases one's safety, so the earlier they have to reload the better.

Interesting that the situation in the US is essentially the same as in the UK regarding militias. The media gave me the wrong impression.

There are hundreds of private groups here who call themselves "militias" so your confusion is understandable. But they are not militias in the sense the Framers referred to (though all their members would be part of the unorganized militia). Most are content to drink beers, shoot targets and complain about the guvamint every other weekend but a few are composed of dangerous extremists like the ones who travelled to Bundy ranch and pointed guns at Federal, State and local law enforcement agents.

Originally posted by KazetNagorra
Unfortunately most violent crimes are committed by people who have not yet been convicted for committing a serious violent crime.

Okay, but the question I answered was what gun control do I want.
There are violent people out there, and they get released back into society, as far as
I'm concern that should never happen, period. Will you stop those that have not
done anything wrong before with that law, no, agree! Those types of people hearts are
the issue not laws, no law is going to stop bad things from happening if someone is
bound to do it. People use house hold items to make bombs, they drown people in
bathtubs, they cut off others heads with knives.

If you want to do away with evil that is another issue, I'm focusing on what gun laws
I'd support.

The post that was quoted here has been removed

A successful suicide bomber self regulates their own sorry behinds out of this life to ever
do it again. They are also not part of the question on what gun control laws I'd support
either. Now you also want to add nuclear weapons? What discussion are you apart of
here?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

The only thing I recognize with you is your tasteless wit. Again, what gun control do you
want and you come up with this moronic sarcastic analogy?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

So what, it is what some people say, I didn't use those words so if you want to debate or
belittle someone who is saying it, I suggest you go argue with one of them. You've nothing
to say about those things I did write?

The post that was quoted here has been removed

You make being a suicide bomber sound like a virtue. 😏

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Well, it's true guns can not kill anyone. People put the bullets in the gun and pull the trigger. 😏

The post that was quoted here has been removed

Seriously you should look at the things your saying, if insults are bad and you acknowledge
that why do you use them?