US Gun Laws

[Cort Haus]

Twinkies probably kill more people in the US than guns. (I'm not saying we shouldn't ban twinkies... but maybe just sell them in packs of 6 instead of 12? COMPROMISE )

(Click teh smilie)

[KrazyHorse]

Anybody who spends ANY AMOUNT OF TIME worried about being the victim of a mass shooting needs to step back and punch themselves in the face. You're 20 or 30 times more likely to be killed by being struck by lightning.

EDIT: apparently only 2 or 3 times more likely. You're much more likely to survive a lightning strike than I would have assumed.

You are, however, about 12 times more likely to drown in a bathtub than you are to be a victim of a mass shooting.

How come the government doesn't mandate that the safety drain in tubs be set lower? Nobody could reasonably need more than 15 inches of water.

[Felch]

How do you feel about hollow point rounds?

In a 9mm or smaller pistol, they're a necessity. I'd prefer a .45 with an expanding bullet, but I'd be confident that it has stopping power even with an FMJ.

[Felch]

YES, I KNOW.

Do you need 30 rounds per clip to hunt? Nope.
To defend yourself from muggers? Nuh-uh.
To kill burglars? Well, sure, provided they're crazy and stick around playing OK Corral long after it's obvious the burglary has gone sour and they ought to bail. Gimme a figure on how many of those there are per year, why doncha?

So there are now only three reasons to have a huge magazine? What if I want to go shooting a gun at a range, and I want to shoot it a lot of times in rapid succession? Isn't that a legal reason to have a firearm?

Switching magazines can be a real pain if there isn't a round chambered already. Especially if you're being shot at. Why do you feel entitled to tell other people what they are allowed to do to defend themselves?

[The Mad Monk]

x-magazine'd

Yep. There's also the safety aspect; missed shots are far more likely to be stopped by interior walls than FMJ, so they're less likely to hit someone you don't want hit.

[Elok]

No, it means that I think you're acting like a ****ing idiot.

If you hadn't noticed, I tend to be much more polite to those who make reasonably intelligent points.

And if you hadn't noticed, most of our arguments follow this same general pattern of a few more or less polite posts either direction, you insisting on framing the argument in a certain way, my refusing, and then you repeating the same point with more caps and asterisks while I shrug at you until one of us gets pissed off or bored enough to quit the argument. Just FYI, I have no intention of budging (and if anything, your becoming increasingly hostile would decrease my likelihood of admitting error, if only for pride/spite). I might give up on the argument, or I might concede defeat if you show me that extended home gunfights are a more common occurrence than mass shootings. Or mention another legitimate reason for a civilian to need to fire a couple of dozen shots without needing to reload.

[KrazyHorse]

So there are now only three reasons to have a huge magazine? What if I want to go shooting a gun at a range, and I want to shoot it a lot of times in rapid succession? Isn't that a legal reason to have a firearm?

Switching magazines can be a real pain if there isn't a round chambered already. Especially if you're being shot at. Why do you feel entitled to tell other people what they are allowed to do to defend themselves?

a) I think that this type of reason is much discounted. Freedom for its own sake is continually undervalued.
b) I don't take this type of libertarian position, and see a valid case to be made for virtually banning handguns. However, the focus on detailed regulations about precisely how many bullets can be put in the gun or what caliber they can be or whatever else seems ridiculous to me

[KrazyHorse]

And if you hadn't noticed, most of our arguments follow this same general pattern of a few more or less polite posts either direction, you insisting on framing the argument in a certain way, my refusing, and then you repeating the same point with more caps and asterisks while I shrug at you until one of us gets pissed off or bored enough to quit the argument. Just FYI, I have no intention of budging (and if anything, your becoming increasingly hostile would decrease my likelihood of admitting error, if only for pride/spite). I might give up on the argument, or I might concede defeat if you show me that extended home gunfights are a more common occurrence than mass shootings. Or mention another legitimate reason for a civilian to need to fire a couple of dozen shots without needing to reload.

You have no intention of budging because you have no intention of allowing yourself to think. That's the type of statement which causes me to lose whatever shreds of respect I might have had for your position here.

What's patently obvious is that you:

a) Have the vague "shouldn't the government have DONE something" feeling that people viscerally get in response to specific events
b) Are previously opposed to effective gun control
c) Are attempting to find your way out by proposing some ineffective feel-good measure designed to look as though it might somehow have prevented the previously-mentioned incredibly rare occurrence (which it wouldn't have, even more hilariously)

[Felch]

a) I think that this type of reason is much discounted. Freedom for its own sake is continually undervalued.

Definitely something people need to remember. The cost of freedom isn't just blood spilled on a Normandy beach, it's also being exposed to offensive entertainment, putting money on the line in a small business, and maybe getting shot by a drunken reveler.

b) I don't take this type of libertarian position, and see a valid case to be made for virtually banning handguns. However, the focus on detailed regulations about precisely how many bullets can be put in the gun or what caliber they can be or whatever else seems ridiculous to me

Fair enough.

[Elok]

So there are now only three reasons to have a huge magazine? What if I want to go shooting a gun at a range, and I want to shoot it a lot of times in rapid succession? Isn't that a legal reason to have a firearm?

I don't know how feasible it is to restrict large magazines to firing ranges (probably not very). That would be my response. The same as if you want to fire a rocket launcher at a firing range.

Switching magazines can be a real pain if there isn't a round chambered already. Especially if you're being shot at. Why do you feel entitled to tell other people what they are allowed to do to defend themselves?

Well, if it comes to that, I feel entitled to tell them they can't do a lot of things to defend themselves (no car-mounted machine guns, to cite an extreme example). I'm not exactly opposed to private gun ownership, but I think they're a matter for very strict regulations based on socially constructive uses. If I actually had any say in the law, of course I'd ask for a lot more data before making an actual decision, but as far as casual internet arguments go, if it doesn't control the animal population or have a direct and substantial impact on the ability to defend your person/family/home, I'm agin it.

A big-ass magazine doesn't seem like it's going to make a big difference for a law-abiding citizen unless s/he gets in a full-fledged gun battle that just doesn't sound very likely (if I'm wrong and this is a real threat, do tell me; I've never read about MAN FENDS OFF FIVE BURGLARS IN THRILLING GUNFIGHT in the paper, and that sounds like a gimme for a headline). It does sound useful for crazies and criminals in gun battles with cops, however.

[Elok]

a) Have the vague "shouldn't the government have DONE something" feeling that people viscerally get in response to specific events

More of a "wait, why do civilians need thirty-round magazines?" feeling. I'm not the sort who freaks out in response to news. I went about my business as usual after 9/11, during that beltway sniper scare, etc.

b) Are previously opposed to effective gun control

No, I'm ambivalent on gun control matters, and have been for a while. I was raised by strictly anti-gun parents, but I can see a number of legitimate uses for them. Like thinning out the vile local deer population that keeps trying to commit vehicular seppuku right as I drive by. I don't, or at least didn't, have hard positions on anything gun-related, really. Except I think the courts were wrong to overturn the D.C. handgun ban, but that's more of a "that's the district's business, not theirs" thing. Oh, and like others who have posted in this thread, I think the keep-the-gummint-in-its-place argument is stupid.

c) Are attempting to find your way out by proposing some ineffective feel-good measure designed to look as though it might somehow have prevented the previously-mentioned incredibly rare occurrence (which it wouldn't have, even more hilariously)

No, it wouldn't have prevented it. I don't know if it would even have alleviated it; I haven't read any detailed accounts of the assault because I don't care all that much. I believe nothing (in terms of gun control laws) would have actually prevented this short of the guy at the gun shop/FBI agents realizing he was cuckoo for Cocoa Puffs before selling him the gun. And it's not practical, or desirable, for the Feds to keep the kind of ultra-detailed records they'd have needed to catch him. I'm not sure how it could have been prevented. Like I said, I'm just scratching my head over the public need to squeeze off thirty before reloading.

So you're 0/3.

[Aeson]

How come the government doesn't mandate that the safety drain in tubs be set lower? Nobody could reasonably need more than 15 inches of water.

Have you seen the average American? 15 inches of water wouldn't be enough to properly wet the backside... you might as well be proposing a "shower only" law...

[Felch]

More of a "wait, why do civilians need thirty-round magazines?" feeling. I'm not the sort who freaks out in response to news. I went about my business as usual after 9/11, during that beltway sniper scare, etc.

Wait, why do government thugs need thirty-round magazines?

[Elok]

Bank robberies? Gangs? Escaped rabid zoo elephant?

[giblets]

Wait, why do government thugs need thirty-round magazines?

18 people... that's an impressive list.