Another gun control topic

[Old Crow]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/apr/21/boston-marathon-bombs-us-gun-law

This article made me think about this issue again. I just think its crazy that more people died being shot that day then from the bombing (although there were many many injured, which is not brought up).

I just don't get how we can't even pass anything concerning background checks. I don't think its any violation of the 2nd amendment that loopholes be closed and guns are better tracked for people that buy guns.

Thoughts hos?

[Christovski]

More background checks, less bullshit, more regulation of AMMUNITION cause nothing in the constitution says we have the right to have unlimited ammo

Also impeach congress for never getting anything done.

[Link236]

Also impeach congress for never getting anything done.

^ This.

[Kwaurtz]

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/


Firearm incidents and firearm crime rates are about a third of what they used to be.

[SkiesAhoy]

That article is so incredibly spot on it hurts. I said it before in another thread: There is way too much 'MURICA when it comes to these things.
Let's not even talk about domestic violence. What about the hundreds of civilians murdered by drone strikes? Who mourns them? Who wears lovely little black ribbons on their chests for the senselessly slaughtered children?

[AlphaWeeaboo]

I'm really split when it comes to the topic of gun control. I kinda lean back and forth on both sides.

ALTHOUGH I think guns aren't the main problem. It's the people behind the guns. Sure you can take away all the guns and shit but mentally messed up people are still going to be mentally messed up and just possibly hurt people through other means (although less body counts in most cases).

It's ridiculous how ignorant the public is towards people with mental disorders and quickly jump to the conclusion that guns are the main problem. It's a SHORT TERM SOLUTION for a LONG TERM PROBLEM

[SkiesAhoy]

That's the problem! Nobody is talking about removing ALL THE GUNS. That's what republicans don't seem to get.
"Hey it would be nice if we could introduce broader background che-I CANT HEAR YOU OVER THE SOUND OF MY FREEDOM SECOND AMENDMENT BLAH BLAH

[Jorgen]

I must say I in all honesty feel way safer living in a weaponless society.

Kwaurtz this does not reach even last year need something more recent.
It also even states "Most homicides in the United States are committed with firearms, especially handguns." The firearm victims have gone down drasticly due to increased knowledge on firearms and increased reliability of firearms therefor resulting in less accidents leading to being wounded.
The amount of homicides comitted in the US connected to firearms may not have gone down at all, statistics say alot but there are some statistics that are worded in a particular way that it can give you a faulty impression.
If you can find something to support your claim that goes outside of what I have said then I have no case, do so please.

Guns are not inherently bad, however there should be a sorta strong restriction to aquiring firearms and also how many bullets, which types of bullets, which types of guns you are allowed to have. Having a pistol for your protection is fine, but having a fucking gatling gun for your protection goes against its own purpose. Yes I know I am the master of hyperbols but pay no attention to that.

[Old Crow]

Which is why I have never understood that you can get extended magazines. They only serve two purposes, target shooting and killing people. Any hunter worth his weight will not have to expend 30 rounds to kill one deer, and most still use the good ole bolt action that only carry's five rounds in a magazine. Are they really necessary for civilians to get their hands on?

[Blackllama]

Which is why I have never understood that you can get extended magazines. They only serve two purposes, target shooting and killing people. Any hunter worth his weight will not have to expend 30 rounds to kill one deer, and most still use the good ole bolt action that only carry's five rounds in a magazine. Are they really necessary for civilians to get their hands on?

You don't even need one for target shooting. Just have a couple magazines already loaded sitting nearby.

[SkiesAhoy]

What's most amusing is the feeble understanding a lot of people have in terms of the Constitution. The second amendment is not immutable. As any constitutional text, it gives AMPLE space for interpretation and the establishment of regulatory jurisprudence, via Supreme Court ruling.

[chitoryu12]

Which is why I have never understood that you can get extended magazines. They only serve two purposes, target shooting and killing people. Any hunter worth his weight will not have to expend 30 rounds to kill one deer, and most still use the good ole bolt action that only carry's five rounds in a magazine. Are they really necessary for civilians to get their hands on?

Actually, magazines that hold 20 or 30 rounds are the most practical for defense. For a self-defense situation on the street, it's often not practical to carry multiple magazines or speedloaders along with the gun and its holster. For home defense, it's likely downright IMPOSSIBLE to have more than one magazine (the one loaded in the gun) when you take up your gun for defense, as it's doubtful that you'll be sitting in full tactical gear ready to go up against whoever's breaking in or shooting into your house or whatnot. Especially in a panic situation, it's very possible that you may expend all 6 rounds in your revolver or all 10 rounds in your California legal magazine without hitting or stopping the target, in which case you need to reload; if you just got out of bed in your skivvies and the guy in your house starts shooting back down the hall, now you need to try and run for the rest of your ammo when you run out because you can't even carry any spare mags. Having magazines with a decent capacity is the best and most practical option for self-defense.

This is why I found Joe Biden's comments on "Just use a double-barrel shotgun!" utterly ridiculous. His entire statement about it was ridiculous and downright dangerous (like suggesting that you shoot through the door, which will get you arrested and jailed, or that you fire both shots into the air to scare people away, which will ALSO get you arrested and jailed when those pellets land on someone's car or head), but having a weapon with only 2 shots to defend yourself, your property, and your family is plain dumb.

On the subject of ammo purchase restrictions, do you have a number in mind? On top of the ammo kept for the intended purpose of the gun (target shooting, defense, hunting, or recreation), anyone who properly practices will often expend hundreds of rounds in a single session. And practice isn't something you just do once a month or once a year. Not if you want to actually maintain your skills. And don't suggest "Practice less often." YOU may not care about my aim being shit, but I do.

The usual argument for ammo restrictions is that it prevents mass shootings. Keeping in mind how much ammo a single practice session can go through, look at how many rounds are typically fired in mass shootings: about 200 at the absolute most. The Virginia Tech massacre remains the deadliest mass shooting in the United States and only 174 rounds were fired, with less than 50 people actually being hit. Unless you plan on restricting ammo purchases to one or two magazines worth per year, you're not really going to put a dent in anything.

[Leetgrain]

Which is why I have never understood that you can get extended magazines. They only serve two purposes, target shooting and killing people. Any hunter worth his weight will not have to expend 30 rounds to kill one deer, and most still use the good ole bolt action that only carry's five rounds in a magazine. Are they really necessary for civilians to get their hands on?

-snip-

PLEASE do not necro, Chitoryu, we've had many newcomers post on old threads.

But... Maybe it can be called for, depends.

[Tyber]

Which is why I have never understood that you can get extended magazines. They only serve two purposes, target shooting and killing people. Any hunter worth his weight will not have to expend 30 rounds to kill one deer, and most still use the good ole bolt action that only carry's five rounds in a magazine. Are they really necessary for civilians to get their hands on?

-snip-

PLEASE do not necro, Chitoryu, we've had many newcomers post on old threads.

But... Maybe it can be called for, depends.

Well, it's not like he just said "LOLOLOLOL LOLOLOL" like most newbies do, his post was actually meaningful (I think).

[Cadaver]

Well, it does meet the exception to the rule, but... I also think it means he may not have read the forum rules...

So, please read, and I think I will talk to Inject about how to ensure the new guys read the rules.

http://www.conjointgaming.com/forum/index.php?topic=4404.0 <-da rulez