Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

[alfablue]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Would adding more gun laws to our existing plethora of laws have done anything to stop this man who had no prior criminal record? Yes, he was under investigation by federal authorities, but being under investigation is not cause to deny someone their rights as he was never charged, least of all found guilty. He had a clean criminal record up until Saturday night. What law could you reasonably create that would have prevented such an attack? After entering that night club, he has already broken countless laws concerning existing weapons laws. What good would adding a couple more onto the heap do?

Had there been a restriction on the gun, it's likely that the number dead would be fewer. Fewer rounds in a clip is a good start, a rate of fire limit would be a good thing, a speed of clip change limit would be a good thing- none of those would change the legal use of an automatic weapon, realistically.

I don't think people are saying that the crime itself would have been prevented, but the scale of it probably would be changed. And that would be a good thing.

Why does the measure of a law have to be 100% when you and everyone else knows that 100% is not possible?

(then again, I'd like to repeat that women should feel more empowered to turn in abuse. If that allegation was true, and the first wife turned him in, it's likely that none of this would have happened by this guy)

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

What makes the 2nd so much riskier to regulate than any other Amendment?

We have regulations of what defines a religion, we have regulations of what actually defines free speech, we have regulations on what the press can do. There are openings in the search window that is gaping large, the time of "speedy" is large- and we know not all court proceedings are public, there are a LOT of voting rules, etc.

For every amendment- there are checks and balances for every law written that has to do with each amendment, too.

I don't see how regulation of the 2nd is any different than regulation of all the rest. All of which are still in place, applicable, and laws concerning them are constantly being heard in court.

Otherwise, you need to do a better job about the rest of the Amendments to lift the regulations on them, equally. Which I haven't seen happening.

Did they not teach the definition of "shall not be infringed" at Michigan? The point of this is to defend against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. And sometimes, that can even an oppressive government that is attempting to enslave you by means of control. Should people be responsible with their handling of this? Absolutely. However, once you get some third party to regulate every person's "responsibility", that is saying that you wish to live as a slave to that third party and accept whatever "scraps" that third party throws to you.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Willing to use it, and wanting to/actually doing it are 2 different things. If you pull the gun, you have to be willing to use it, but that doesn't mean it still isn't the last resort.

That gets at what I'm asking (I have never taken a gun safety course other than 5 minutes of dos and donts before shooting as a guest at a range). Are people trained to pull their gun as a last resort, or are they trained to pull their gun as an intermediate step to try to stop the attacker? Is "show him what you've got for him" a step in the process? In an attack situation where time is essential and the attacker may have a weapon which he can use before you fire, that seems problematic.

 

[alfablue]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

We regulate guns now too.
Go to Cabella's, right now, and try to buy a long gun, shot gun, or hand gun.
They'll be running you through the FBI database as part of the sale.

So then regulation to try to prevent the scale of this kind of event should be ok, then.

 

[Jimjamesak]

And if you try to buy a handgun (or an AR, FYI) they'll tell you leave and come back with a purchase permit.

Not in Alaska.

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Not in Alaska.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I am referencing laws in MN, since that is what I'm familiar with.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Would adding more gun laws to our existing plethora of laws have done anything to stop this man who had no prior criminal record? Yes, he was under investigation by federal authorities, but being under investigation is not cause to deny someone their rights as he was never charged, least of all found guilty. He had a clean criminal record up until Saturday night. What law could you reasonably create that would have prevented such an attack? After entering that night club, he has already broken countless laws concerning existing weapons laws. What good would adding a couple more onto the heap do?

Ok leave this incident out...if new laws can prevent 1 of these attacks is that enough?

Seriously, what is the fear here? No one wants to take away your guns or ban them...what exactly will these new regs do to harm the individual?

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Had there been a restriction on the gun, it's likely that the number dead would be fewer. Fewer rounds in a clip is a good start, a rate of fire limit would be a good thing, a speed of clip change limit would be a good thing- none of those would change the legal use of an automatic weapon, realistically.

I don't think people are saying that the crime itself would have been prevented, but the scale of it probably would be changed. And that would be a good thing.

Why does the measure of a law have to be 100% when you and everyone else knows that 100% is not possible?

(then again, I'd like to repeat that women should feel more empowered to turn in abuse. If that allegation was true, and the first wife turned him in, it's likely that none of this would have happened by this guy)

How do you limit how fast a person can pull a trigger?

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Like limiting clip sizes and whatnot.

The correct term is "magazine". Paper uses clips.

A magazine size limit just means swapping magazines more often.

The media reports state the folks in Orlando cowered while the guano loco gay Muslim updated his Facebook, called 911 to align to ISIS, and made a call to a television station. If the magazine limit is to force an active shooter to reload, and thus give the folks a chance to overpower him, hey, updating Facebook take much longer than to swap magazines. Why didn't folks overpower him?


PS - The "whatnot" makes folks like me want to disregard your opinion. If you are going to be against something, please understand it beyond a "whatnot" level. I'm not trying to be a jerk; I'm trying to help you make better arguments.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Did they not teach the definition of "shall not be infringed" at Michigan? The point of this is to defend against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. And sometimes, that can even an oppressive government that is attempting to enslave you by means of control. Should people be responsible with their handling of this? Absolutely. However, once you get some third party to regulate every person's "responsibility", that is saying that you wish to live as a slave to that third party and accept whatever "scraps" that third party throws to you.

And you still dont understand what infringing means...

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Ok leave this incident out...if new laws can prevent 1 of these attacks is that enough?

Seriously, what is the fear here? No one wants to take away your guns or ban them...what exactly will these new regs do to harm the individual?

Regulations are bans. You're basically just trying to put lipstick on a pig at this point.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

And sometimes, that can even an oppressive government that is attempting to enslave you by means of control.

The guns we are talking about won't stop a hypothetical tyrannical Trump regime from taking your stuff and selling you on the auction block. That train left the station with the evolution of close air support.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

How do you limit how fast a person can pull a trigger?

Fastest revolver shooter in the world can pull eight times (accurately) in one second. That's faster than some automatic weapons.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WzHG-ibZaKM

 

[bigblue_dl]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

That gets at what I'm asking (I have never taken a gun safety course other than 5 minutes of dos and donts before shooting as a guest at a range). Are people trained to pull their gun as a last resort, or are they trained to pull their gun as an intermediate step to try to stop the attacker? Is "show him what you've got for him" a step in the process? In an attack situation where time is essential and the attacker may have a weapon which he can use before you fire, that seems problematic.

As I understand it, it is taught as you are saying, that the last resort is to actually shoot the person. And by all means, put the gun down if there is a chance for collateral damage. Everything I've heard about the concealed carry course is that this is the case, but I've never actually taken that particular course, and I don't carry. I only target shoot and go hunting.

 

[alfablue]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

Did they not teach the definition of "shall not be infringed" at Michigan? The point of this is to defend against all enemies, both foreign and domestic. And sometimes, that can even an oppressive government that is attempting to enslave you by means of control. Should people be responsible with their handling of this? Absolutely. However, once you get some third party to regulate every person's "responsibility", that is saying that you wish to live as a slave to that third party and accept whatever "scraps" that third party throws to you.

What about the rest of the amendments that are regulated?

Address the fact that the definition of religion is there. Address the fact that "free speech" isn't completely unlimited. Address the fact that there should not be a poll tax, but an ID that you have to pay for is ok. Address the fact that the time for a quick hearing can be from weeks to years?

I could go on, but instead of focusing on not touching the 2nd, what about the rest?

The idea that the 2nd can be applied to attacking enemies and/or over throwing the government is comical. Maybe then, but not since about 1800. Certainly didn't work in 1861, when the arms against were far more organized.

So back to the rest- does that post mean you don't accept the restrictions placed on you for all of the rest of the Amendments??? Or do you only care about this one?

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

And if you try to buy a handgun (or an AR, FYI) they'll tell you leave and come back with a purchase permit.

Not in North Dakota. However, a North Dakota retailer is only allowed to sell handguns to North Dakota citizens. (Snarky comment here about Minnesotans. )

 

[Jimjamesak]

As I mentioned in an earlier post, I am referencing laws in MN, since that is what I'm familiar with.

Part of the argument for gun control measures is the fact that laws vary by state and that no laws are effective, given the fact you can freely transport firearms, unless they're universal. Despite your lack of familiarity it does remove these points from the debate.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

As I understand it, it is taught as you are saying, that the last resort is to actually shoot the person. And by all means, put the gun down if there is a chance for collateral damage. Everything I've heard about the concealed carry course is that this is the case, but I've never actually taken that particular course, and I don't carry. I only target shoot and go hunting.

Thank you.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

The guns we are talking about won't stop a hypothetical tyrannical Trump regime from taking your stuff and selling you on the auction block. That train left the station with the evolution of close air support.

Do you actually think I support the Clinton donor?

Some things are just worth fighting for.

 

[alfablue]

Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0 - II

The correct term is "magazine". Paper uses clips.

A magazine size limit just means swapping magazines more often.

The media reports state the folks in Orlando cowered while the guano loco gay Muslim updated his Facebook, called 911 to align to ISIS, and made a call to a television station. If the magazine limit is to force an active shooter to reload, and thus give the folks a chance to overpower him, hey, updating Facebook take much longer than to swap magazines. Why didn't folks overpower him?


PS - The "whatnot" makes folks like me want to disregard your opinion. If you are going to be against something, please understand it beyond a "whatnot" level. I'm not trying to be a jerk; I'm trying to help you make better arguments.

Funny. Dismiss people's ideas because they don't use the correct technical terms. Only qualified people are allowed to have a valid opinion.

Since a gun is a mechanical device, it's not all that hard to come up with a *magazine* that takes longer to swap out. Nor is it beyond comprehension to make a mechanical device that rate limits how fast you can pull the trigger.

The guns were designed to shoot fast- so it's easy to conceptualize the idea that they shoot slow.

Is it' really that hard to comprehend?