iceberg
Diamond Member
- May 15, 2017
- 36,788
- 14,920
i don't think he's ever picked up an AR15 w/a full 100 round drum.I don’t believe your “proof”. I think there would have been less death in Dayton if the shooter didn’t have a 100 round mag.If I’m being completely honest I have more issues with regulations than I show when I debate on this board. I usually pick a side and then argue that position. My hope is to bring out as many arguments from both sides as possible to get a wide variety of perspectives.didn't piss me off - just got old to keep going back to vast extremes when we're trying to pin down why you want to regulate mag capacity. it's like you were avoiding giving a simple answer.I don’t mean to suggest they are normal situations the are extreme situations to make the point I’m trying to make painfully clear. It’s effective with clarifying boundary’s and defining concepts that I’m trying to communicate. I wasn’t trying to piss you off. That’s how I think
i wanted to equate suggestions to the goal. you are ok with "well we did SOMETHING" of which i think is bullshit. if doing "something" doesn't fix it, then you do "something else". in this case, MORE regulation.
when do we stop going "well we did SOMETHING" and sit the fuck down and figure out what we can do that doesn't violate the constitution? all these mythical extremes you go to are chatter, to me, to avoid addressing why we don't fix this and are ok with "well we did something".
Personally I have concerns with cost, implementation, effectiveness and the many different “what ifs” that complicate regulatory ideas. They usually sound good in theory but turn out quite different when it comes to implementation.
Vets with PTSD is particularly a sticky issue. Do you take their guns away? If so, does that discourage some of them from getting much needed help?
Like I said, this is not an easy situation and there are many moving parts. I personally wouldn’t propose a lot of regulation. I could see myself giving a yes vote to some things like limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power. I’m honestly not super passionate about the issue... mental health is a bigger one in my book
limited mags and equipment that seem to hold an unnecessary amount of destructive power.
And yet you have been shown actual research that shows that none of that is true....that magazines have nothing to do with the number of deaths in a mass public shooting, as shown by actual mass public shootings. You don't like these magazines and it has nothing to do with the facts...there is no reason to ban them other than you don't like them.
A pump action shotgun in Russia was used to kill more people than rifles with magazines in Gilroy, and Dayton......and the Navy Yard shooter also used a pump action shotgun to kill more people than those shootings.....so magazines have nothing to do with it.....
You won't accept that the primary factor in the death toll in mass public shootings is the gun free zone the shooter attacks. That would force you to look at gun free zones and their desirability for these shooters...which would lead to the discussion of allowing normal people to carry guns into these zones to scare off shooters.
And there you go....100 round drum......that isn't what your side is stopping at....or you.....you want anything over 10 bullets...knowing full well that millions and millions of pistols come with standard 15-19 round magazines which will become illegal and useless...all without having to vote for it...... we know your tactics.