Senate Democrats plan to hold the floor to protest inaction on gun legislation

[iceberg]

don't really give a shit what you do man. just don't look for me to tag along.

you keep moving goal posts and i get tired of following so suddenly i'm the bad guy. whatever man.

So is that a No, you can’t point to an example of what you claim I’m doing?

That’s what I thought

you gone yet?

Well Ice, I’m sorry to see you digress into another evasive troll. There are far too many of those on this board. Hoping you’re just having a bad day.

i'm sorry to say you can't follow through to come to a conclusion on a topic without going LOOK 7-11 GUNS as a sidetrack.

i got tired of following your never ending sideshows and hey - now i'm the troll.

being sick of your shit doesn't make me a troll. just human.

711 guns isnt a side track is lays a foundation of consensus that we both agree on. Guns are dangerous and shouldnt be sold to anybody at 711 with out checks. Machine guns are dangerous and should be highly regulated. We both agreed on those points. But then you ask me for proof to back up my thoughts on mag regs and you accuse me of FEELZ... yet when I ask you to prove your support of those “711” scenarios you can’t answer. You dodge them because your answers would be the same ones that I’ve been using that you call FEELZ. It’s obvious what’s going on.

Did you say something?

Certainly nothing new.

 

[iceberg]

We have thousands of gun laws at the Federal, State, and local levels. We only need one gun law...Anyone found guilty of using a gun in a violent crime gets hanged by the neck until dead.

Well that does work to cut out the middlemen.

 

[Slade3200]

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

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 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".

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.

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.

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.

Well you would be wrong as the video I posted displayed the guy changing his magazine while still shooting. He's not a magician. What he did can be done by anybody with a little practice. If a person is counting their shots, you would never know when he changed his magazine by simply listing to the shooting.

I really don’t care what an internet video of one guy shows. Every situation has exceptions, outliers and anomalies if you look hard enough. Trained soldiers are quite different than average joe citizen.

Pull 10 people off the street and arm them with a pistol and 10 mags and then an AK with a 100 round mag and do you wanna make a bet on which weapon unloads those 100 bullets faster? No brainer

 

[Slade3200]

So what?! That doesn’t prove anything. Put two people In The exact same environment. Give one a knife. One a shotgun, and another a semi with 100 rounds and do you wanna take a bet on who is going to get more kills?! This isn’t hard to understand. Your stats don’t show anything to my point.

I’m not trying to make the case that limiting firepower will stop killing. I’m saying the less firepower a shooter has the LESS damage they can inflict. That’s just common sense

well quit moving your point around so you can always be right. in the end, your FEELZ doesn't prove a thing either.

prove a restriction on mags will slow down gun control. don't extrapolate and guesstimate - prove it.

Don’t get pissed but I’m going to bring up machine guns again because we’ve reached consensus that you support that regulation. Does your support of that law come from something you can prove or something you FEELZ?

If criminals felt that machine guns would benefit them greatly, they would smuggle them in like drugs. But the truth is even if they were legal, very few would buy them due to the expense, and their bulk, weight and inaccuracy makes them impractical.

Those who wish to kill don't need a machine gun. Any semi-automatic will do.

Probably true. Doesn’t make the high regulations on machine guns invalidated. It’s a responsible law IMO

It's also a law that didn't prevent anything ether.

Maybe, maybe not. You can’t say either with 100% confidence. But better safe than sorry

 

[iceberg]

well quit moving your point around so you can always be right. in the end, your FEELZ doesn't prove a thing either.

prove a restriction on mags will slow down gun control. don't extrapolate and guesstimate - prove it.

Don’t get pissed but I’m going to bring up machine guns again because we’ve reached consensus that you support that regulation. Does your support of that law come from something you can prove or something you FEELZ?

If criminals felt that machine guns would benefit them greatly, they would smuggle them in like drugs. But the truth is even if they were legal, very few would buy them due to the expense, and their bulk, weight and inaccuracy makes them impractical.

Those who wish to kill don't need a machine gun. Any semi-automatic will do.

Probably true. Doesn’t make the high regulations on machine guns invalidated. It’s a responsible law IMO

It's also a law that didn't prevent anything ether.

Maybe, maybe not. You can’t say either with 100% confidence. But better safe than sorry

And there we go again. We can't prove it but it makes you FEEL better.

 

[Slade3200]

So is that a No, you can’t point to an example of what you claim I’m doing?

That’s what I thought

you gone yet?

Well Ice, I’m sorry to see you digress into another evasive troll. There are far too many of those on this board. Hoping you’re just having a bad day.

i'm sorry to say you can't follow through to come to a conclusion on a topic without going LOOK 7-11 GUNS as a sidetrack.

i got tired of following your never ending sideshows and hey - now i'm the troll.

being sick of your shit doesn't make me a troll. just human.

711 guns isnt a side track is lays a foundation of consensus that we both agree on. Guns are dangerous and shouldnt be sold to anybody at 711 with out checks. Machine guns are dangerous and should be highly regulated. We both agreed on those points. But then you ask me for proof to back up my thoughts on mag regs and you accuse me of FEELZ... yet when I ask you to prove your support of those “711” scenarios you can’t answer. You dodge them because your answers would be the same ones that I’ve been using that you call FEELZ. It’s obvious what’s going on.

Did you say something?

Certainly nothing new.

You’re right I posed the same questions as before that you keep evading. Why can’t you answer a simple question ICE? I explained the validity of the 711 examples I’ve been using which you still mischaracterize as a side track.

Just cause you don’t like the answer you divert and attack? Grow up and lose the ego... just answer honestly. It makes things much easier

 

[Slade3200]

Don’t get pissed but I’m going to bring up machine guns again because we’ve reached consensus that you support that regulation. Does your support of that law come from something you can prove or something you FEELZ?

If criminals felt that machine guns would benefit them greatly, they would smuggle them in like drugs. But the truth is even if they were legal, very few would buy them due to the expense, and their bulk, weight and inaccuracy makes them impractical.

Those who wish to kill don't need a machine gun. Any semi-automatic will do.

Probably true. Doesn’t make the high regulations on machine guns invalidated. It’s a responsible law IMO

It's also a law that didn't prevent anything ether.

Maybe, maybe not. You can’t say either with 100% confidence. But better safe than sorry

And there we go again. We can't prove it but it makes you FEEL better.

That’s right. That’s how I feel. That’s how you feel about the machine gun laws as well. If you have some Magic proof explaining your support then post it otherwise you and I are using the same FEELZ justification for our positions.

 

[iceberg]

you gone yet?

Well Ice, I’m sorry to see you digress into another evasive troll. There are far too many of those on this board. Hoping you’re just having a bad day.

i'm sorry to say you can't follow through to come to a conclusion on a topic without going LOOK 7-11 GUNS as a sidetrack.

i got tired of following your never ending sideshows and hey - now i'm the troll.

being sick of your shit doesn't make me a troll. just human.

711 guns isnt a side track is lays a foundation of consensus that we both agree on. Guns are dangerous and shouldnt be sold to anybody at 711 with out checks. Machine guns are dangerous and should be highly regulated. We both agreed on those points. But then you ask me for proof to back up my thoughts on mag regs and you accuse me of FEELZ... yet when I ask you to prove your support of those “711” scenarios you can’t answer. You dodge them because your answers would be the same ones that I’ve been using that you call FEELZ. It’s obvious what’s going on.

Did you say something?

Certainly nothing new.

You’re right I posed the same questions as before that you keep evading. Why can’t you answer a simple question ICE? I explained the validity of the 711 examples I’ve been using which you still mischaracterize as a side track.

Just cause you don’t like the answer you divert and attack? Grow up and lose the ego... just answer honestly. It makes things much easier

Because I have answered it many times and I'm not going to keep playing situational games with you.

 

[iceberg]

If criminals felt that machine guns would benefit them greatly, they would smuggle them in like drugs. But the truth is even if they were legal, very few would buy them due to the expense, and their bulk, weight and inaccuracy makes them impractical.

Those who wish to kill don't need a machine gun. Any semi-automatic will do.

Probably true. Doesn’t make the high regulations on machine guns invalidated. It’s a responsible law IMO

It's also a law that didn't prevent anything ether.

Maybe, maybe not. You can’t say either with 100% confidence. But better safe than sorry

And there we go again. We can't prove it but it makes you FEEL better.

That’s right. That’s how I feel. That’s how you feel about the machine gun laws as well. If you have some Magic proof explaining your support then post it otherwise you and I are using the same FEELZ justification for our positions.

And I prefer we enact processes, policy or law that will have a know positive effect on the problem.

You are OK doing something that "sounds" good whether you can prove it or not.

I've said and continue to say that only leads to MORE "feels" laws that reduce our rights to a greater extent.

I am simply not for sacrificing rights for no other reason than you feel good about it.

 

[Slade3200]

Well Ice, I’m sorry to see you digress into another evasive troll. There are far too many of those on this board. Hoping you’re just having a bad day.

i'm sorry to say you can't follow through to come to a conclusion on a topic without going LOOK 7-11 GUNS as a sidetrack.

i got tired of following your never ending sideshows and hey - now i'm the troll.

being sick of your shit doesn't make me a troll. just human.

711 guns isnt a side track is lays a foundation of consensus that we both agree on. Guns are dangerous and shouldnt be sold to anybody at 711 with out checks. Machine guns are dangerous and should be highly regulated. We both agreed on those points. But then you ask me for proof to back up my thoughts on mag regs and you accuse me of FEELZ... yet when I ask you to prove your support of those “711” scenarios you can’t answer. You dodge them because your answers would be the same ones that I’ve been using that you call FEELZ. It’s obvious what’s going on.

Did you say something?

Certainly nothing new.

You’re right I posed the same questions as before that you keep evading. Why can’t you answer a simple question ICE? I explained the validity of the 711 examples I’ve been using which you still mischaracterize as a side track.

Just cause you don’t like the answer you divert and attack? Grow up and lose the ego... just answer honestly. It makes things much easier

Because I have answered it many times and I'm not going to keep playing situational games with you.

You havent answered it once. You’ve only attacked the question. That’s not an answer

 

[Slade3200]

Probably true. Doesn’t make the high regulations on machine guns invalidated. It’s a responsible law IMO

It's also a law that didn't prevent anything ether.

Maybe, maybe not. You can’t say either with 100% confidence. But better safe than sorry

And there we go again. We can't prove it but it makes you FEEL better.

That’s right. That’s how I feel. That’s how you feel about the machine gun laws as well. If you have some Magic proof explaining your support then post it otherwise you and I are using the same FEELZ justification for our positions.

And I prefer we enact processes, policy or law that will have a know positive effect on the problem.

You are OK doing something that "sounds" good whether you can prove it or not.

I've said and continue to say that only leads to MORE "feels" laws that reduce our rights to a greater extent.

I am simply not for sacrificing rights for no other reason than you feel good about it.

Well that’s exactly what your doing with your support for the machine gun laws. I don’t see any difference and you haven’t made a case to show the difference

 

[iceberg]

i'm sorry to say you can't follow through to come to a conclusion on a topic without going LOOK 7-11 GUNS as a sidetrack.

i got tired of following your never ending sideshows and hey - now i'm the troll.

being sick of your shit doesn't make me a troll. just human.

711 guns isnt a side track is lays a foundation of consensus that we both agree on. Guns are dangerous and shouldnt be sold to anybody at 711 with out checks. Machine guns are dangerous and should be highly regulated. We both agreed on those points. But then you ask me for proof to back up my thoughts on mag regs and you accuse me of FEELZ... yet when I ask you to prove your support of those “711” scenarios you can’t answer. You dodge them because your answers would be the same ones that I’ve been using that you call FEELZ. It’s obvious what’s going on.

Did you say something?

Certainly nothing new.

You’re right I posed the same questions as before that you keep evading. Why can’t you answer a simple question ICE? I explained the validity of the 711 examples I’ve been using which you still mischaracterize as a side track.

Just cause you don’t like the answer you divert and attack? Grow up and lose the ego... just answer honestly. It makes things much easier

Because I have answered it many times and I'm not going to keep playing situational games with you.

You havent answered it once. You’ve only attacked the question. That’s not an answer

I am not going to answer the same question in your various scenarios over n over again.

Build a bridge. Get over it.

 

[Slade3200]

711 guns isnt a side track is lays a foundation of consensus that we both agree on. Guns are dangerous and shouldnt be sold to anybody at 711 with out checks. Machine guns are dangerous and should be highly regulated. We both agreed on those points. But then you ask me for proof to back up my thoughts on mag regs and you accuse me of FEELZ... yet when I ask you to prove your support of those “711” scenarios you can’t answer. You dodge them because your answers would be the same ones that I’ve been using that you call FEELZ. It’s obvious what’s going on.

Did you say something?

Certainly nothing new.

You’re right I posed the same questions as before that you keep evading. Why can’t you answer a simple question ICE? I explained the validity of the 711 examples I’ve been using which you still mischaracterize as a side track.

Just cause you don’t like the answer you divert and attack? Grow up and lose the ego... just answer honestly. It makes things much easier

Because I have answered it many times and I'm not going to keep playing situational games with you.

You havent answered it once. You’ve only attacked the question. That’s not an answer

I am not going to answer the same question in your various scenarios over n over again.

Build a bridge. Get over it.

I don’t want you to answer it over and over again. I just want you to answer it once.

 

[Blues Man]

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.

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.

Again.....

Dayton ...10 killed, rifle with the magazines you want banned.

Russia... no rifle, no magazine, 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun...20 killed 40 injured.

Navy Yard.... pump action shotgun 12 killed.

Santa Fe school...no rifle, no magazine...10 killed shotgun and .38 revolver

So...we are about at the end of rational discussion. I have shown you over and over that it isn't the weapon or the magazine..... so if you get what you want, banning anything over 10 bullets....and the AR-15 ban....mass shooters will kill with 10 round magazines in gun free zones and then you will be back for the 10 round magazines, pistols, revolvers and shotguns....

You have no rational argument....you refuse to see the truth, you don't like the thought of these magazines in an irrational way.....so you want them banned....then you will be back for the rest.

Listing mass shootings doesn’t prove anything. Listing car murders and knife murders and pistol murders doesn’t prove that the power of the gun doesn’t make a difference. Logic and common sense tells that the stronger the weapon and the more ammo the more damage you can inflict. That’s why strong weapons and large cap mags were developed in the first place. You’re trying to convince us that blue is red by showing us green. It isn’t working

At least, if not more, 18 million AR-15 rifles with even more millions of the magazines you want banned.

How many were used for mass public shootings.....3.

You have an irrational position. You can't support it with facts, or reality.

If you didn’t deny the obvious, that more powerful guns can inflict more damage, then it would be easier to take your argument more seriously. But when you throw smoke like you do it becomes a spin game.

There are many solid arguments to combat regulating guns you don’t need the BS denials and spin.

The problem there is that an AR 15 is not a powerful rifle

In fact it is one of the smallest caliber rifles on the market

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

 

[Slade3200]

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.

Again.....

Dayton ...10 killed, rifle with the magazines you want banned.

Russia... no rifle, no magazine, 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun...20 killed 40 injured.

Navy Yard.... pump action shotgun 12 killed.

Santa Fe school...no rifle, no magazine...10 killed shotgun and .38 revolver

So...we are about at the end of rational discussion. I have shown you over and over that it isn't the weapon or the magazine..... so if you get what you want, banning anything over 10 bullets....and the AR-15 ban....mass shooters will kill with 10 round magazines in gun free zones and then you will be back for the 10 round magazines, pistols, revolvers and shotguns....

You have no rational argument....you refuse to see the truth, you don't like the thought of these magazines in an irrational way.....so you want them banned....then you will be back for the rest.

Listing mass shootings doesn’t prove anything. Listing car murders and knife murders and pistol murders doesn’t prove that the power of the gun doesn’t make a difference. Logic and common sense tells that the stronger the weapon and the more ammo the more damage you can inflict. That’s why strong weapons and large cap mags were developed in the first place. You’re trying to convince us that blue is red by showing us green. It isn’t working

At least, if not more, 18 million AR-15 rifles with even more millions of the magazines you want banned.

How many were used for mass public shootings.....3.

You have an irrational position. You can't support it with facts, or reality.

If you didn’t deny the obvious, that more powerful guns can inflict more damage, then it would be easier to take your argument more seriously. But when you throw smoke like you do it becomes a spin game.

There are many solid arguments to combat regulating guns you don’t need the BS denials and spin.

The problem there is that an AR 15 is not a powerful rifle

In fact it is one of the smallest caliber rifles on the market

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Then perhaps it doesn’t qualify as something that needs to be regulated. Parameters as to what should be allowed and not allowed first need to be set up. What exactly qualifies as a “weapon of war”

 

[2aguy]

i ain't playing cause you jump around like someone shoved a roll of quarters up your ass and tweaked a nipple.

I’m not jumping. Ive answered every question you’ve asked. If I missed one then it was not intentional. You are now dodging the questions I pose back because you don’t like the obvious answers. That’s gameplay

actually it's being done with the game-playing.

keep the change.

Another dodge, nice. I’m ready to dig in any time but I guess we are onto the insults now

Both cases of a shooter with a rifle and 100 round drums? Killed fewer people than the guys with the pump action shotguns........ you have no rational argument.........

Sure I do. Those were different situations and different environments. Apples and oranges.

No....you have been caught out..... the two cases of shooters actually using the weapon and magazine you say is so dangerous...killed fewer people than guys with shotguns...pump action....5 shot.......you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[2aguy]

Again.....

Dayton ...10 killed, rifle with the magazines you want banned.

Russia... no rifle, no magazine, 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun...20 killed 40 injured.

Navy Yard.... pump action shotgun 12 killed.

Santa Fe school...no rifle, no magazine...10 killed shotgun and .38 revolver

So...we are about at the end of rational discussion. I have shown you over and over that it isn't the weapon or the magazine..... so if you get what you want, banning anything over 10 bullets....and the AR-15 ban....mass shooters will kill with 10 round magazines in gun free zones and then you will be back for the 10 round magazines, pistols, revolvers and shotguns....

You have no rational argument....you refuse to see the truth, you don't like the thought of these magazines in an irrational way.....so you want them banned....then you will be back for the rest.

Listing mass shootings doesn’t prove anything. Listing car murders and knife murders and pistol murders doesn’t prove that the power of the gun doesn’t make a difference. Logic and common sense tells that the stronger the weapon and the more ammo the more damage you can inflict. That’s why strong weapons and large cap mags were developed in the first place. You’re trying to convince us that blue is red by showing us green. It isn’t working

At least, if not more, 18 million AR-15 rifles with even more millions of the magazines you want banned.

How many were used for mass public shootings.....3.

You have an irrational position. You can't support it with facts, or reality.

If you didn’t deny the obvious, that more powerful guns can inflict more damage, then it would be easier to take your argument more seriously. But when you throw smoke like you do it becomes a spin game.

There are many solid arguments to combat regulating guns you don’t need the BS denials and spin.

The problem there is that an AR 15 is not a powerful rifle

In fact it is one of the smallest caliber rifles on the market

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Then perhaps it doesn’t qualify as something that needs to be regulated. Parameters as to what should be allowed and not allowed first need to be set up. What exactly qualifies as a “weapon of war”

Actual weapons of war today..... the Bolt Action Deer Hunting Rifle...standard sniper rifle in all services. The pump action shotgun...used by all branches of the military and Coast Guard...as well as all militaries around the world.....

What weapon is not used by the military...? The AR-15.

Other actual weapons of war...

The Lever Action rifle.

The 6 shot revolver...

So there...now what?

 

[2aguy]

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 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".

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.

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.

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.

Well you would be wrong as the video I posted displayed the guy changing his magazine while still shooting. He's not a magician. What he did can be done by anybody with a little practice. If a person is counting their shots, you would never know when he changed his magazine by simply listing to the shooting.

I really don’t care what an internet video of one guy shows. Every situation has exceptions, outliers and anomalies if you look hard enough. Trained soldiers are quite different than average joe citizen.

Pull 10 people off the street and arm them with a pistol and 10 mags and then an AK with a 100 round mag and do you wanna make a bet on which weapon unloads those 100 bullets faster? No brainer

The 100 round drum would jam the weapon........you have been told this.

 

[2aguy]

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 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".

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.

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.

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.

Well you would be wrong as the video I posted displayed the guy changing his magazine while still shooting. He's not a magician. What he did can be done by anybody with a little practice. If a person is counting their shots, you would never know when he changed his magazine by simply listing to the shooting.

I really don’t care what an internet video of one guy shows. Every situation has exceptions, outliers and anomalies if you look hard enough. Trained soldiers are quite different than average joe citizen.

Pull 10 people off the street and arm them with a pistol and 10 mags and then an AK with a 100 round mag and do you wanna make a bet on which weapon unloads those 100 bullets faster? No brainer

We don't need to pull 10 people off the street...we had two shooters with rifles who used 100 round drum magazines in real life....

They killed fewer people than the 2 guys who used pump action shotguns...

No need to guess....we have those actual examples.

 

[iceberg]

Again.....

Dayton ...10 killed, rifle with the magazines you want banned.

Russia... no rifle, no magazine, 5 shot, tube fed, pump action shotgun...20 killed 40 injured.

Navy Yard.... pump action shotgun 12 killed.

Santa Fe school...no rifle, no magazine...10 killed shotgun and .38 revolver

So...we are about at the end of rational discussion. I have shown you over and over that it isn't the weapon or the magazine..... so if you get what you want, banning anything over 10 bullets....and the AR-15 ban....mass shooters will kill with 10 round magazines in gun free zones and then you will be back for the 10 round magazines, pistols, revolvers and shotguns....

You have no rational argument....you refuse to see the truth, you don't like the thought of these magazines in an irrational way.....so you want them banned....then you will be back for the rest.

Listing mass shootings doesn’t prove anything. Listing car murders and knife murders and pistol murders doesn’t prove that the power of the gun doesn’t make a difference. Logic and common sense tells that the stronger the weapon and the more ammo the more damage you can inflict. That’s why strong weapons and large cap mags were developed in the first place. You’re trying to convince us that blue is red by showing us green. It isn’t working

At least, if not more, 18 million AR-15 rifles with even more millions of the magazines you want banned.

How many were used for mass public shootings.....3.

You have an irrational position. You can't support it with facts, or reality.

If you didn’t deny the obvious, that more powerful guns can inflict more damage, then it would be easier to take your argument more seriously. But when you throw smoke like you do it becomes a spin game.

There are many solid arguments to combat regulating guns you don’t need the BS denials and spin.

The problem there is that an AR 15 is not a powerful rifle

In fact it is one of the smallest caliber rifles on the market

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Then perhaps it doesn’t qualify as something that needs to be regulated. Parameters as to what should be allowed and not allowed first need to be set up. What exactly qualifies as a “weapon of war”

maybe you should stop trying to define things to extreme terms and just understand what they are on their own.

just ... maybe.