Gun Enthusiasts..... Please Don't View the Following:

[M14 Shooter]

I would like to hear the death statistics due to hammer. More importantly are the accidental or murder?

1995-2011
248797 murders
32281 involved bladed weapons
15593 involved personal weapos (hands, feet)
11360 involved blunt objects (hammers, etc)
07612 involved rifles of all kinds

There's no sound argument for banning 'hi-cap' mags or 'assault weapons'.

The FBI seems to disagree with your numbers
FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
2011 over 8500 firearm deaths. Blunt objects less than 500.

An amusing response as my number are from the FBI.
Read what I typed, bolded for clarity, and then respond.
Thank you.

 

[Brain357]

1995-2011
248797 murders
32281 involved bladed weapons
15593 involved personal weapos (hands, feet)
11360 involved blunt objects (hammers, etc)
07612 involved rifles of all kinds

There's no sound argument for banning 'hi-cap' mags or 'assault weapons'.

The FBI seems to disagree with your numbers
FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
2011 over 8500 firearm deaths. Blunt objects less than 500.

An amusing response as my number are from the FBI.
Read what I typed, bolded for clarity, and then respond.
Thank you.

I'm not arguing against rifles. Hi cap magazines are for semi auto guns which includes handguns. Interesting you didn't include numbers for all firearms. But you are correct it appears more people are killed by blunt objects than rifles. Haven't heard of a mass hammering yet though.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The FBI seems to disagree with your numbers
FBI ? Expanded Homicide Data Table 8
2011 over 8500 firearm deaths. Blunt objects less than 500.

An amusing response as my number are from the FBI.
Read what I typed, bolded for clarity, and then respond.
Thank you.

I'm not arguing against rifles. Hi cap magazines are for semi auto guns which includes handguns. Interesting you didn't include numbers for all firearms. But you are correct it appears more people are killed by blunt objects than rifles. Haven't heard of a mass hammering yet though.

Fact remians:
There's no sound argument for banning 'hi-cap' mags or 'assault weapons'.

 

[PratchettFan]

Slow down the mass shooter obviously.

Well, it won't. That has already been pointed out to you. So, since what you are proposing won't accomplish your stated goal, then why do you want it?

As I have stated if someone is shooting at me I want them to have to reload often. They may fumble for next magazine, drop one, look away long enough for people to escape....

So, this is really about a fantasy you have in your head. You have created this little scenario and based upon that I should accept this entirely arbitrary restriction. Your solution solves nothing and I see no reason to accept it.

The problem is not the size of the magazine. The problem is the nature of the weapon. As long as the weapon is there, the size of the magazine is irrelevant. However, in this country we have the 2nd amendment. You can't get rid of the weapon unless you repeal the 2nd amendment - which I would oppose and I doubt you would have any chance doing. So if you are going to propose solutions you can't point to other countries which do not have the equivelant of the 2nd amendment. You have to propose solutions which take into account the continued presence of these weapons - because they are not going away.

Unless you have a solution which complies with the Constitution and will actually do something, you are doomed to failure.

 

[paulitician]

What a country. Our Government arms brutal assholes all over the World with guns, tanks, planes, and so on. Yet it feels compelled to disarm its own Citizens. I mean, they're currently arming Al Qaeda terrorists in Libya, Egypt, and Syria for God's sake. Something's wrong with this picture. And i know i'm not the only one who sees that.

 

[BreezeWood]

An amusing response as my number are from the FBI.
Read what I typed, bolded for clarity, and then respond.
Thank you.

I'm not arguing against rifles. Hi cap magazines are for semi auto guns which includes handguns. Interesting you didn't include numbers for all firearms. But you are correct it appears more people are killed by blunt objects than rifles. Haven't heard of a mass hammering yet though.

Fact remians:
There's no sound argument for banning 'hi-cap' mags or 'assault weapons'.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

the point is whether it would be supported by the Constitution as a majority of Justices to define "Arms" in a manner pertaining to the configuration of a Firearm in particular - not its availability, and distinguishing the Militia and the right of the people.

as written in the document.

 

[PratchettFan]

I'm not arguing against rifles. Hi cap magazines are for semi auto guns which includes handguns. Interesting you didn't include numbers for all firearms. But you are correct it appears more people are killed by blunt objects than rifles. Haven't heard of a mass hammering yet though.

Fact remians:
There's no sound argument for banning 'hi-cap' mags or 'assault weapons'.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

the point is whether it would be supported by the Constitution as a majority of Justices to define "Arms" in a manner pertaining to the configuration of a Firearm in particular - not its availability, and distinguishing the Militia and the right of the people.

as written in the document.

I disagree. Certainly whether a law is Constitutional is important. However, it should also make sense. It should have some relationship to the problem being addressed. In this particular situation, I have to agree with Shooter. There is no sound argument for this ban.

 

[Brain357]

Well, it won't. That has already been pointed out to you. So, since what you are proposing won't accomplish your stated goal, then why do you want it?

As I have stated if someone is shooting at me I want them to have to reload often. They may fumble for next magazine, drop one, look away long enough for people to escape....

So, this is really about a fantasy you have in your head. You have created this little scenario and based upon that I should accept this entirely arbitrary restriction. Your solution solves nothing and I see no reason to accept it.

The problem is not the size of the magazine. The problem is the nature of the weapon. As long as the weapon is there, the size of the magazine is irrelevant. However, in this country we have the 2nd amendment. You can't get rid of the weapon unless you repeal the 2nd amendment - which I would oppose and I doubt you would have any chance doing. So if you are going to propose solutions you can't point to other countries which do not have the equivelant of the 2nd amendment. You have to propose solutions which take into account the continued presence of these weapons - because they are not going away.

Unless you have a solution which complies with the Constitution and will actually do something, you are doomed to failure.

It is not an arbitrary number as I have proven.

We've already had limitations on magazine capacity so clearly it can be done.

So I guess if someone is shooting at you and your family, you want them to have the biggest magazines?

 

[paulitician]

Arming Tyrants & Terrorists, while disarming American Citizens. What a mess. Can we ever get our Country back?

 

[Brain357]

Arming Tyrants & Terrorists, while disarming American Citizens. What a mess. Can we ever get our Country back?

We should definitely stop policing the world.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As I have stated if someone is shooting at me I want them to have to reload often. They may fumble for next magazine, drop one, look away long enough for people to escape....

So, this is really about a fantasy you have in your head. You have created this little scenario and based upon that I should accept this entirely arbitrary restriction. Your solution solves nothing and I see no reason to accept it.

The problem is not the size of the magazine. The problem is the nature of the weapon. As long as the weapon is there, the size of the magazine is irrelevant. However, in this country we have the 2nd amendment. You can't get rid of the weapon unless you repeal the 2nd amendment - which I would oppose and I doubt you would have any chance doing. So if you are going to propose solutions you can't point to other countries which do not have the equivelant of the 2nd amendment. You have to propose solutions which take into account the continued presence of these weapons - because they are not going away.

Unless you have a solution which complies with the Constitution and will actually do something, you are doomed to failure.

It is not an arbitrary number as I have proven.

This is a lie, as you know you have proven no such thing.

 

[Brain357]

So, this is really about a fantasy you have in your head. You have created this little scenario and based upon that I should accept this entirely arbitrary restriction. Your solution solves nothing and I see no reason to accept it.

The problem is not the size of the magazine. The problem is the nature of the weapon. As long as the weapon is there, the size of the magazine is irrelevant. However, in this country we have the 2nd amendment. You can't get rid of the weapon unless you repeal the 2nd amendment - which I would oppose and I doubt you would have any chance doing. So if you are going to propose solutions you can't point to other countries which do not have the equivelant of the 2nd amendment. You have to propose solutions which take into account the continued presence of these weapons - because they are not going away.

Unless you have a solution which complies with the Constitution and will actually do something, you are doomed to failure.

It is not an arbitrary number as I have proven.

This is a lie, as you know you have proven no such thing.

Here we go again for the slow people. I have never heard of anyone needing more than 10 shots for self defense. Clearly even the gun nuts here can't come up with a documented example either. That being true i feel that 10 rounds is plenty for defense. Since it is enough for defense I would limit magazine capacity to 10. Since I am using reason to arrive at the number it is not arbitrary.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It is not an arbitrary number as I have proven.

This is a lie, as you know you have proven no such thing.

Here we go again for the slow people. I have never heard of anyone needing more than 10 shots for self defense.

The fact that you do not know of anyone who has used a hi-cap mag for self-defense does not in any way prove that no one needs a hi-cap mag for self-defense.

You either fail to recognize this flaw in your ressoning or you choose to ignore it -- either way, because of that flaw, your argument is proven unsound, and you have thusly proven nothing.

For your to state that you have proven your position is a lie.

 

[paulitician]

You don't want to own a firearm, than don't. That's fine. But that doesn't mean you have the right to tell others they can't. Constitutional Rights trump opinions & agendas. Period, end of story.

 

[Brain357]

This is a lie, as you know you have proven no such thing.

Here we go again for the slow people. I have never heard of anyone needing more than 10 shots for self defense.

The fact that you do not know of anyone who has used a hi-cap mag for self-defense does not in any way prove that no one needs a hi-cap mag for self-defense.

You either fail to recognize this flaw in your ressoning or you choose to ignore it -- either way, because of that flaw, your argument is proven unsound, and you have thusly proven nothing.

For your to state that you have proven your position is a lie.

Read. I said I have proven it is not an arbitrary number. It is not random as I have shown so it is not arbitrary.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

It is not an arbitrary number as I have proven.

This is a lie, as you know you have proven no such thing.

Here we go again for the slow people. I have never heard of anyone needing more than 10 shots for self defense. Clearly even the gun nuts here can't come up with a documented example either. That being true i feel that 10 rounds is plenty for defense. Since it is enough for defense I would limit magazine capacity to 10. Since I am using reason to arrive at the number it is not arbitrary.

The Bill of Rights is not about need.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Here we go again for the slow people. I have never heard of anyone needing more than 10 shots for self defense.

The fact that you do not know of anyone who has used a hi-cap mag for self-defense does not in any way prove that no one needs a hi-cap mag for self-defense.

You either fail to recognize this flaw in your ressoning or you choose to ignore it -- either way, because of that flaw, your argument is proven unsound, and you have thusly proven nothing.

For your to state that you have proven your position is a lie.

Read. I said I have proven it is not an arbitrary number. It is not random as I have shown so it is not arbitrary.

You said:

Since I am using reason to arrive at the number it is not arbitrary

Why do you continue to ignore the fact that your reasoning is flawed and therefore any conclusion you reach using that flawed resoning is unsond?

Your number, arrived at without sound reason, is indeed arbitrary.

 

[Brain357]

You don't want to own a firearm, than don't. That's fine. But that doesn't mean you have the right to tell others they can't. Constitutional Rights trump opinions & agendas. Period, end of story.

I've not argued to take guns from anyone. But there are already lots of arms that are illegal so apparently it can be done.

 

[Brain357]

The fact that you do not know of anyone who has used a hi-cap mag for self-defense does not in any way prove that no one needs a hi-cap mag for self-defense.

You either fail to recognize this flaw in your ressoning or you choose to ignore it -- either way, because of that flaw, your argument is proven unsound, and you have thusly proven nothing.

For your to state that you have proven your position is a lie.

Read. I said I have proven it is not an arbitrary number. It is not random as I have shown so it is not arbitrary.

You said:

Since I am using reason to arrive at the number it is not arbitrary

Why do you continue to ignore the fact that your reasoning is flawed and therefore any conclusion you reach using that flawed resoning is unsond?

Your number, arrived at without sound reason, is indeed arbitrary.

You need a dictionary. Arbitrary is random. My number is not random. You can disagree with my reasoning, but the number is still not arbitrary.

 

[paulitician]

You don't want to own a firearm, than don't. That's fine. But that doesn't mean you have the right to tell others they can't. Constitutional Rights trump opinions & agendas. Period, end of story.

I've not argued to take guns from anyone. But there are already lots of arms that are illegal so apparently it can be done.

Well for many, the agenda is to disarm Citizens. But that just can't happen in America. And personally, i'll never trust a Government that arms brutal Tyrants & Terrorists all over the World, while trying to disarm its own People. Our Founding Fathers got it right. There is nothing to debate.