Plenty of "Good Guys with Guns" But 6 Injured Anyway

[Uncensored2008]

Where's your solution to the problem of gun violence? Add more guns?!?

Comrade, if a person is drowning in a pool, scooping out a cup of water, or pouring one in will have zero impact.

There are 200 million guns in the USA - more or less has no impact on anything.

I realize that your party seeks to disarm the Bourgousie, but your desire for a disarmed middle class has nothing to do with preventing gun violence. After all, typically when you Communists succeed in disarming the public, you proceed to shooting about a thousand times as many people as were dying in violence.

 

[Brain357]

Right, 'cuz those criminals and crazies will surely hand them over when asked to do so...

Why do they have them now? Wouldn't anyone stand up twenty years ago and admit to how hazardous they are? NO! The gun nuts fought for them. The NRA fought for them. And now everyone has to go down with the ship piloted by the idiots and their lobbyists!

The gun owners and the NRA fought against stupid legislation that served no purpose. You insist that it would make a difference, and yet can show no evidence of such.

And you were the one who argued against keeping the violent felons locked up, and you still harp on the high capacity magazines, as if it were an answer.

I am also still amused that you think magazine capacity is the determining factor in whether a gun is offensive or defensive.

Have you forgotten the Giffords shooting already? Will only save lives, thats good in my book.

When have I said don't keep felons locked up?

 

[Nosmo King]

Here's my solution. A complete ban on all weapons with semiautomatic firing systems. A buy back program on those weapons that extends for one year. If you have the receipt for the weapon, a full reembursement. If you do not have the receipt, you get either 80% of the current market value or a new bolt action rifle or revolver depending if you turned in a long gun or pistol.

After the year buy back program, turning in semi automatics will get you 50% of the market value of the previous year. After the second year, any semi automatic weapons in private hands results in a $5,000 fine and two years in federal prison. Any semi automatic weapons used in crimes results in a $250,000 fine and an additional 25 years to life sentence.

The ban extends to the manufacture, distribution and importation of such weapons. No longer will containers of guns be allowed through customs, gunmakers will have to settle on making bolt action. Rifles, shot guns and revolvers.

There would also be steep taxes on ammunition sales as well as reloading supplies.

That would make gun violence wither on the vinefasterthan any Conservative proposal to eliminate Medicare.

I have a solution as well.

Go fuck yourself, Comrade.

You desire an authoritarian system and seek to disarm the public so as to establish it.

So again, go fuck yourself, Comrade.

You'll never win, you think you will, but you'll fail. You import millions of Mexicans to be chattel for your system, in hopes of driving the Bourgeoisie out of existence, but we of the middle class are more resilient than you imagine. Yes, the nation made a very stupid mistake in 2008-12; and you are convinced that yours is a thousand year Reich - but the pendulum swings.

thus spake the babbling idiot.

I want a society free from the fear of a gun nut going postal in a school playground or a crowded theater or a shopping center. I don't want just one voice: the NRA dictating gun policy. I want to eliminate at the very least, the threat from semi-automatic firing systems. I want everyone on the same page and acknowledgement that semi automatics are ASSAULT WEAPONS without equivocation. I want high capacity magazines gone because more than ten rounds makes the weapon and offensive weapon, not one for 'self defense'. I want universal background checks to keep weapons out of the hands of the irrational, the irresponsible and the mentally frazzled. I want an end to the glorification of guns which makes them more attractive to kids, therefore more dangerous.

Now, take the rest of your political imaginings and ram them up your barrel! You cannot effectively distract the debate by bringing moronic conspiracies and fantasies driven by narrow minded partisanship.

 

[WinterBorn]

So your refusing to answer? Either it does or doesn't. Stop wasting our time and answer. Not going to let you have both sides.

And I am not going to play your silly game of demanding an answer to an irrelevant question. I have given you answer after answer. If it is not the answer you want that is not my problem.

Once again, in case you missed it, magazine capacity is not an issue for me. But the attempt to legislate the ban is very much an issue for me. I have explained why in several posts.

So you want to keep arguing out of both sides of your mouth? Very honest you are. I guess we will throw you in with the capacity doesn't matter then. So you should have no problem with banning hi cap magazines.

The dishonest one in this discourse is you. You insist that I make a determination that is irrelevant. And yet you have shown no evidence that mass shootings would be effected. And your only claim to the defensive side is a single study that lists averages, but not the highest number of rounds fired, and was limited to less than 500 examples with specific parameters of that sample.

No, you have failed to prove the ban is worthwhile, and now want to harangue at me until I make a choice.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Says he who declares people need no more that 10 rounds to defend themselves and that a firearm loaded with nmore than 10 rounds is an offensive, rather than defensive weapon.

The fact remains that more than ten rounds makes a weapon offensive rather than defensive.

the only problem with your claim is that it's not a fact.

Well that, and that his claim is jaw-droppingly fucking stupid...

 

[Nosmo King]

The right of the people to live without the fear of semi automatic guns discharged in schools, churches, places of business and the streets trumps the right of anyone to own such weapons.

Or more importantly, the ability of the NKVD to kick in a door in the middle of the night to dissappear enemies of the party without fear that the occupant will defend themselves is vital to the party.

It is GLORIOUS dream you have, Comrade.

What's more realistic: kids shot in school or your fantasy of the NKVD? Should we accept the stench of death in our schools as the cost of your warped fantasy

 

[Brain357]

Many...but not all. So once again, the only people to have these supposedly devastating devices would be law breakers.

Setting aside the totalitarian and unconstitutional nature of your "solution", you've demonstrated my point. You can NEVER get criminals to obey your laws and you can NEVER remove the supply foru that which there is a demand.

It's as though intentions are more important to you than actual results. What a way to think! Your plan will have the actual result of ensuring good people are at a tactical disadvantage. Amazing.

Either way, molon labe.

As the study shows, defense on average is 2 shots. So citizens will not be affected.

Did that study show that more rounds were never used? Did it show that all defensive shootings involved less than 7 rounds? Or less than 10?

Averages are a wonderful thing. But they can be misleading.

You cannot show that any of the mass shootings (a very minor portion of the gun related murders) would be stopped by a ban on high capacity magazines. All you have is a study showing the average number of shots fired, and the HOPE that a shooter will make a mistake during reloading.

I, on the other hand, listed several mass shootings that involved no hi cap magazines at all.

Then list examples of a defender needing a hi cap magazine. Your previous example used 4 shots to scare off 3 thugs.

 

[Brain357]

And I am not going to play your silly game of demanding an answer to an irrelevant question. I have given you answer after answer. If it is not the answer you want that is not my problem.

Once again, in case you missed it, magazine capacity is not an issue for me. But the attempt to legislate the ban is very much an issue for me. I have explained why in several posts.

So you want to keep arguing out of both sides of your mouth? Very honest you are. I guess we will throw you in with the capacity doesn't matter then. So you should have no problem with banning hi cap magazines.

The dishonest one in this discourse is you. You insist that I make a determination that is irrelevant. And yet you have shown no evidence that mass shootings would be effected. And your only claim to the defensive side is a single study that lists averages, but not the highest number of rounds fired, and was limited to less than 500 examples with specific parameters of that sample.

No, you have failed to prove the ban is worthwhile, and now want to harangue at me until I make a choice.

Again the Giffords shooting. Stop lying that I have no evidence. That's a real example where lives would have been saved.

 

[WinterBorn]

Why do they have them now? Wouldn't anyone stand up twenty years ago and admit to how hazardous they are? NO! The gun nuts fought for them. The NRA fought for them. And now everyone has to go down with the ship piloted by the idiots and their lobbyists!

The gun owners and the NRA fought against stupid legislation that served no purpose. You insist that it would make a difference, and yet can show no evidence of such.

And you were the one who argued against keeping the violent felons locked up, and you still harp on the high capacity magazines, as if it were an answer.

I am also still amused that you think magazine capacity is the determining factor in whether a gun is offensive or defensive.

Have you forgotten the Giffords shooting already? Will only save lives, thats good in my book.

When have I said don't keep felons locked up?

I was quoting Nosmo King when I said "...you were the one who argued against keeping violent felons locked up..."

I have not forgotten the Giffords shooting. It was stopped because he dropped the magazine when reloading.

 

[WinterBorn]

So you want to keep arguing out of both sides of your mouth? Very honest you are. I guess we will throw you in with the capacity doesn't matter then. So you should have no problem with banning hi cap magazines.

The dishonest one in this discourse is you. You insist that I make a determination that is irrelevant. And yet you have shown no evidence that mass shootings would be effected. And your only claim to the defensive side is a single study that lists averages, but not the highest number of rounds fired, and was limited to less than 500 examples with specific parameters of that sample.

No, you have failed to prove the ban is worthwhile, and now want to harangue at me until I make a choice.

Again the Giffords shooting. Stop lying that I have no evidence. That's a real example where lives would have been saved.

The Giffords shooting was stopped because the shooter dropped a magazine, not because of the magazine capacity.

 

[WinterBorn]

As the study shows, defense on average is 2 shots. So citizens will not be affected.

Did that study show that more rounds were never used? Did it show that all defensive shootings involved less than 7 rounds? Or less than 10?

Averages are a wonderful thing. But they can be misleading.

You cannot show that any of the mass shootings (a very minor portion of the gun related murders) would be stopped by a ban on high capacity magazines. All you have is a study showing the average number of shots fired, and the HOPE that a shooter will make a mistake during reloading.

I, on the other hand, listed several mass shootings that involved no hi cap magazines at all.

Then list examples of a defender needing a hi cap magazine. Your previous example used 4 shots to scare off 3 thugs.

You are the one wishing to deprive law abiding gun owners of their property. The onus is on you to show, beyond a doubt, that the magazine capacity is a critical factor in murders but never in defensive shootings.

 

[WinterBorn]

Here's my solution. A complete ban on all weapons with semiautomatic firing systems. A buy back program on those weapons that extends for one year. If you have the receipt for the weapon, a full reembursement. If you do not have the receipt, you get either 80% of the current market value or a new bolt action rifle or revolver depending if you turned in a long gun or pistol.

After the year buy back program, turning in semi automatics will get you 50% of the market value of the previous year. After the second year, any semi automatic weapons in private hands results in a $5,000 fine and two years in federal prison. Any semi automatic weapons used in crimes results in a $250,000 fine and an additional 25 years to life sentence.

The ban extends to the manufacture, distribution and importation of such weapons. No longer will containers of guns be allowed through customs, gunmakers will have to settle on making bolt action. Rifles, shot guns and revolvers.

There would also be steep taxes on ammunition sales as well as reloading supplies.

That would make gun violence wither on the vinefasterthan any Conservative proposal to eliminate Medicare.

I have a solution as well.

Go fuck yourself, Comrade.

You desire an authoritarian system and seek to disarm the public so as to establish it.

So again, go fuck yourself, Comrade.

You'll never win, you think you will, but you'll fail. You import millions of Mexicans to be chattel for your system, in hopes of driving the Bourgeoisie out of existence, but we of the middle class are more resilient than you imagine. Yes, the nation made a very stupid mistake in 2008-12; and you are convinced that yours is a thousand year Reich - but the pendulum swings.

thus spake the babbling idiot.

I want a society free from the fear of a gun nut going postal in a school playground or a crowded theater or a shopping center. I don't want just one voice: the NRA dictating gun policy. I want to eliminate at the very least, the threat from semi-automatic firing systems. I want everyone on the same page and acknowledgement that semi automatics are ASSAULT WEAPONS without equivocation. I want high capacity magazines gone because more than ten rounds makes the weapon and offensive weapon, not one for 'self defense'. I want universal background checks to keep weapons out of the hands of the irrational, the irresponsible and the mentally frazzled. I want an end to the glorification of guns which makes them more attractive to kids, therefore more dangerous.

Now, take the rest of your political imaginings and ram them up your barrel! You cannot effectively distract the debate by bringing moronic conspiracies and fantasies driven by narrow minded partisanship.

Your claims that all semi-automatic weapons are assault weapons is ridiculous. As is your claim that more than 10 rounds in a magazine makes a gun an offensive weapon instead of a defensive on. Your ignorance on the issue is astounding.

But you are not just ignorant on the issue. I have shown several examples of semi-automatic hunting rifles that are not even close to being assault weapons. So you choose to ignore the presented information, thereby showing yourself to be, not only willfully obtuse but ignorant as well.

What you are ranting about (mass shootings) constitutes only 1% of the gun related murders. Yet you argue against keeping violent felons locked up, when they commit 75% of the gun related murders. Amazing.

 

[Nosmo King]

Right, 'cuz those criminals and crazies will surely hand them over when asked to do so...

Why do they have them now? Wouldn't anyone stand up twenty years ago and admit to how hazardous they are? NO! The gun nuts fought for them. The NRA fought for them. And now everyone has to go down with the ship piloted by the idiots and their lobbyists!

The gun owners and the NRA fought against stupid legislation that served no purpose. You insist that it would make a difference, and yet can show no evidence of such.

And you were the one who argued against keeping the violent felons locked up, and you still harp on the high capacity magazines, as if it were an answer.

I am also still amused that you think magazine capacity is the determining factor in whether a gun is offensive or defensive.

You say that banning high capacity magazines serves no purpose? It makes the assault weapon an offensive weapon. Unless you really REALLY believe that you will need more than ten rounds of ammunition to extricate yourself from a dangerous situation, you must agree. Unless, of course, you harbor some fantasy of holding back hordes of zombies or Chinese troops landing off the coast of Sarasota or fending off all the gangbangers in Detroit all by yourself. Ten rounds serves for self defense. More than that enables postal workers to go postal, mass shooters to shoot masses of people, and bank robbers to pin down the LAPD.

 

[hunarcy]

So you want to keep arguing out of both sides of your mouth? Very honest you are. I guess we will throw you in with the capacity doesn't matter then. So you should have no problem with banning hi cap magazines.

The dishonest one in this discourse is you. You insist that I make a determination that is irrelevant. And yet you have shown no evidence that mass shootings would be effected. And your only claim to the defensive side is a single study that lists averages, but not the highest number of rounds fired, and was limited to less than 500 examples with specific parameters of that sample.

No, you have failed to prove the ban is worthwhile, and now want to harangue at me until I make a choice.

Again the Giffords shooting. Stop lying that I have no evidence. That's a real example where lives would have been saved.

Well, it's interesting about the magazine. He supposedly had a 33 round magazine, there were 31 rounds fired and even though there should have been 2 more shots, he stopped and was changing the magazine when he dropped it and was subdued. Something is fishy there.

 

[hunarcy]

The fact remains that more than ten rounds makes a weapon offensive rather than defensive.

the only problem with your claim is that it's not a fact.

Well that, and that his claim is jaw-droppingly fucking stupid...

Trolls like that like to claim that the standard sized magazine is a "high capacity" magazine. They are dishonest and add nothing to a serious discussion.

The fact is that I can be shot dead with one bullet. I can be stabbed to death with one knife. I can be killed with one blow of a club or baseball bat. I can be killed in one collision with a drunk driver. I'm not more dead if I'm killed by one method over the other. So, instead of focusing on irrelevancies like the number of bullets that can be carried, a serious discussion would be addressing how do we identify people who are committing crimes and remove them from our presence in order to prevent them from being a danger to us or themselves.

 

[Nosmo King]

the only problem with your claim is that it's not a fact.

Well that, and that his claim is jaw-droppingly fucking stupid...

Trolls like that like to claim that the standard sized magazine is a "high capacity" magazine. They are dishonest and add nothing to a serious discussion.

The fact is that I can be shot dead with one bullet. I can be stabbed to death with one knife. I can be killed with one blow of a club or baseball bat. I can be killed in one collision with a drunk driver. I'm not more dead if I'm killed by one method over the other. So, instead of focusing on irrelevancies like the number of bullets that can be carried, a serious discussion would be addressing how do we identify people who are committing crimes and remove them from our presence in order to prevent them from being a danger to us or themselves.

More bullets makes assailants more dangerous to more people. You cite instances in which you may be killed with one bullet. But what about the rest of the people around you? What about the crowd in the theater or the classroom full of children? Does your concern run only to yourself? Is it responsible to allow killers more chances to kill more people?

 

[Brain357]

The dishonest one in this discourse is you. You insist that I make a determination that is irrelevant. And yet you have shown no evidence that mass shootings would be effected. And your only claim to the defensive side is a single study that lists averages, but not the highest number of rounds fired, and was limited to less than 500 examples with specific parameters of that sample.

No, you have failed to prove the ban is worthwhile, and now want to harangue at me until I make a choice.

Again the Giffords shooting. Stop lying that I have no evidence. That's a real example where lives would have been saved.

The Giffords shooting was stopped because the shooter dropped a magazine, not because of the magazine capacity.

So the more the shooter reloads the more chances for a drop. You yourself have admitted mistakes happen. Why not give the mass shooter more opportunities for mistakes?

 

[WinterBorn]

Why do they have them now? Wouldn't anyone stand up twenty years ago and admit to how hazardous they are? NO! The gun nuts fought for them. The NRA fought for them. And now everyone has to go down with the ship piloted by the idiots and their lobbyists!

The gun owners and the NRA fought against stupid legislation that served no purpose. You insist that it would make a difference, and yet can show no evidence of such.

And you were the one who argued against keeping the violent felons locked up, and you still harp on the high capacity magazines, as if it were an answer.

I am also still amused that you think magazine capacity is the determining factor in whether a gun is offensive or defensive.

You say that banning high capacity magazines serves no purpose? It makes the assault weapon an offensive weapon. Unless you really REALLY believe that you will need more than ten rounds of ammunition to extricate yourself from a dangerous situation, you must agree. Unless, of course, you harbor some fantasy of holding back hordes of zombies or Chinese troops landing off the coast of Sarasota or fending off all the gangbangers in Detroit all by yourself. Ten rounds serves for self defense. More than that enables postal workers to go postal, mass shooters to shoot masses of people, and bank robbers to pin down the LAPD.

And how is it that you know, for sure, that no one will ever need more than 10 rounds to defend themselves?

And just to educate you, the difference between an offensive weapon and a defensive weapon (in this context) is the way it is used. Magazine capacity has no bearing on the matter. If I attack you with a derringer, that makes the two shot pistol an offensive weapon.

 

[Uncensored2008]

thus spake the babbling idiot.

I want a society free from the fear of a gun nut going postal in a school playground or a crowded theater or a shopping center.

One of the features of your party is the utter and complete lack of ethics and integrity you have. To say I question the veracity of your stated desires is an understatement.

Because I doubt the integrity of you claims, pointing out the stupidity of disarming the middle class, law abiding, is a waste of time.

I don't want just one voice: the NRA dictating gun policy.

You don't want the Constitution dictating gun policy - or more accurately, your shameful party doesn't.

I want to eliminate at the very least, the treat from semi-automatic firing systems.

You rely on your ignorance and the ignorance of others to personify inanimate objects.

I want everyone on the same page and acknowledgement that semi automatics are ASSAULT WEAPONS without equivocation.

You want everyone stupid, then?

I want high capacity magazines gone because more than ten rounds makes the weapon and offensive weapon, not one for 'self defense'.

Repeating stupidity doesn't make it less stupid.

I want universal background checks to keep weapons out of the hands of the irrational, the irresponsible and the mentally frazzled. I want an end to the glorification of guns which makes them more attractive to kids, therefore more dangerous.

So, you want it where a certain class or caste is charged with protecting those in their care? And those who are protected will exchange service to this protector class in exchange?

Now, take the rest of your political imaginings and ram them up your barrel! You cannot effectively distract the debate by bringing moronic conspiracies and fantasies driven by narrow minded partisanship.

LOL;

You know full well that your goal is to disarm the peasants and establish a ruling class who cannot be constrained by force of arms.

 

[WinterBorn]

Again the Giffords shooting. Stop lying that I have no evidence. That's a real example where lives would have been saved.

The Giffords shooting was stopped because the shooter dropped a magazine, not because of the magazine capacity.

So the more the shooter reloads the more chances for a drop. You yourself have admitted mistakes happen. Why not give the mass shooter more opportunities for mistakes?

So your reason for banning high capacity magazines is because you HOPE the shooter will make a mistake? Not much of a reason.