[QUOTE=areolop;39224436]Literally no good reason for it. Its excessive for hunting and sporting.[/QUOTE]
good luck running 3gun with a 10 round mag
[QUOTE=Disotrtion;39225125]Sorry its just an often repeated fallacy that banning hi-cap mags would save lives, you'd think people would learn. In the Virgina Tech shooting the shooter used only 10 round mags and killed 32 people. Fact of the matter is there's no reason to ban them, and "they're unnecessary" isn't enough. There's no correlation between smaller mags and fewer victims when it comes to mass shootings.
We're talking about 30 round magazines here. That's not high grade weaponry.
The difference here is between necessity and luxury. hi-cap mags are a luxury, like fast cars or powerful computers. We don't need any of these things, they're just nice to have. I agree that in the modern world, phones and internet are regarded as necessity.
First, "assault weapons" is a term manufactured by politicians and activists to get you to react in a certain way. It is not in actual term ever used by anyone knowledgeable in firearms, and never was.
Stanford Law and Policy review:
gun-control activist Joe Sugarmann:
essentially your ignorance is being exploited. An "assault weapon" can be any firearm, the legal definition has been changed multiple times.
in regards to high cap mags, it takes a fraction of a second to reload magazines
[URL]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXrAt7-ij2k&list=UUZ-qxagOkAmCEP-Tu6YliUQ&feature=player_detailpage#t=552s[/URL]
In specific, a half a second difference. Not enough to save lives.[/QUOTE]
You and ridge are my heroes.
I've used one of my AR's for hunting before... It worked very well. Especially for hog hunting!
[QUOTE=Aman VII;39225201]wrong
and wrong[/QUOTE]
if you think reducing your ability to fire 30 rounds in a short period of time 10 ten rounds is treasonous then maybe you've sort of lost it?
From the New York State Senate, which just tonight passed a bill that would ban many firearms and limit magazine capacity to 7 rounds (currently 10).
[video=youtube;2rRSUEaLKvA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2rRSUEaLKvA[/video]
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39225218]if you think reducing your ability to fire 30 rounds in a short period of time 10 ten rounds is treasonous then maybe you've sort of lost it?[/QUOTE]
I'm not the one arguing that am I?
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39225202]good luck running 3gun with a 10 round mag[/QUOTE]
i don't particularly care what a three gun is but it can't be possibly more important than hindering the ability of an individual to kill very large amounts of people in a very short period of time
[QUOTE=thisispain;39225150]why do i feel like this is all just a giant red herring and we're wasting our time discussing guns even tho guns are like the least important thing in the world right now
like i get it, people like guns, cool, but who cares? why is this like a hot button issue? what is exactly even accomplished by making this legislation?
america has a huge problem with class and wealth inequality, not to mention a lot of people in this country can't get fucking proper health care, and so we use our freedom of choice to discuss this shit?
cool u banned 30 round magazines, what the fuck are you going to do for our fellow human-beings next door in Oakland who are getting murdered?[/QUOTE]
Because it's [i]far[/i] easier to pass feel-good bills to make the public feel like the Government accomplished something, rather than the government actually accomplishing something.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39225228]i don't particularly care what a three gun is but it can't be possibly more important than hindering the ability of an individual to kill very large amounts of people in a very short period of time[/QUOTE]
[quote]in regards to high cap mags, it takes a fraction of a second to reload magazines
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXrAt...ailpage#t=552s[/url]
In specific, a half a second difference. Not enough to save lives.[/quote]
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39225228]i don't particularly care what a three gun is but it can't be possibly more important than hindering the ability of an individual to kill very large amounts of people in a very short period of time[/QUOTE]
Again, magazine capacity limits did not stop Fred Cho or Harris Klebold, who both used AWB compliant firearms, from murdering a shitload of people.
Human violence does not care about legislation.
And wow holy shit that is terrible for anyone owning a gun in new york
[QUOTE=Aman VII;39225174]Oh I know, everyone loves to hype up a tragedy to ridiculous proportions to where we talk about it for months on end. Welcome to the western media.[/QUOTE]
don't act like the media just does shit by itself. we all participate in this. gun owners love to use this as a prop to push this romanticised notion of guns as a liberating instrument, i see this happen in every fucking thread lol
like seriously, impeachment? when i say 30 round magazines don't matter and i don't care, i'm completely serious. to say you want to impeach the president because he wants to ban 30 round magazines says you don't obviously care about anything except gun accessories, and you're perfectly willing to lock up the opportunity for political change over something completely insignificant
meanwhile next door, people in Oakland are getting killed because of an understaffed police force who cannot effective police a de facto segregated population devoid of opportunities due to exploitative capitalism and institutional racism.
but no-one gives a fuck because they aren't guns
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39225228]i don't particularly care what a three gun is but it can't be possibly more important than hindering the ability of an individual to kill very large amounts of people in a very short period of time[/QUOTE]
I can kill just as many people just as quickly with the chemicals under my sink
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39225228]i don't particularly care what a three gun is but it can't be possibly more important than hindering the ability of an individual to kill very large amounts of people in a very short period of time[/QUOTE]
Seriously?
Take guns away from criminals and they will find other ways to harm people. Criminals DO NOT follow laws. How hard is that to understand?
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;39225240]Again, magazine capacity limits did not stop Fred Cho or Harris Klebold, who both used AWB compliant firearms, from murdering a shitload of people.[/QUOTE]
A 100 round drum magazine was used in the Aurora shooting.
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39225255]A 100 round drum magazine was used in the Aurora shooting.[/QUOTE]
and it failed after about 10 shots and he switched to his sidearm
[QUOTE=thisispain;39225247]don't act like the media just does shit by itself. we all participate in this. gun owners love to use this as a prop to push this romanticised notion of guns as a liberating instrument, i see this happen in every fucking thread lol
like seriously, impeachment? when i say 30 round magazines don't matter and i don't care, i'm completely serious. to say you want to impeach the president because he wants to ban 30 round magazines says you don't obviously care about anything except gun accessories, and you're perfectly willing to lock up the opportunity for political change over something completely insignificant
meanwhile next door, people in Oakland are getting killed because of an understaffed police force who cannot effective police a de facto segregated population devoid of opportunities due to exploitative capitalism and institutional racism.
but no-one gives a fuck because they aren't guns[/QUOTE]
Yell at the politicians or the interest groups, not us. We can't do shit other than write angry letters to our local politicians.
As a gun owner myself I'm pretty neutral on the topic of hi-cap magazines. I can see the arguments from both sides.
That said, implying it's an impeachable offense to institute a law that prohibits them is nonsense. We already set a precedent that the federal government is allowed to control how many rounds a gun can carry because that doesn't directly prohibit a citizens right to own a gun.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39225232]Because it's [i]far[/i] easier to pass feel-good bills to make the public feel like the Government accomplished something, rather than the government actually accomplishing something.[/QUOTE]
what are you blaming the government for???
this is yours, ours, and every american's fault, not the government
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39225255]A 100 round drum magazine was used in the Aurora shooting.[/QUOTE]
And it jammed up on him rather quickly. I own several high capacity magazines, including a 75 round drum similar to what the Aurora shooter had, and I haven't shot anybody nor do I intend to. Because the mentally ill harm someone is not justification to start banning things.
[QUOTE=Raidyr;39225266]As a gun owner myself I'm pretty neutral on the topic of hi-cap magazines. I can see the arguments from both sides.
That said, implying it's an impeachable offense to institute a law that prohibits them is nonsense. We already set a precedent that the federal government is allowed to control how many rounds a gun can carry because that doesn't directly prohibit a citizens right to own a gun.[/QUOTE]
we also set a precident that alcohol should be illegal but look how that went
[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;39225255]A 100 round drum magazine was used in the Aurora shooting.[/QUOTE]
Your point being?
75 round drum magazines were used in the Hollywood Shootout and no one was killed besides the shooters.
They had a whole truck full of them, even.
Also, both shootings I referenced were more deadly, despite the limitations of the shooter's armaments. There is no correlation between magazine capacity and "deadliness".
`snip-
[QUOTE=kman866;39225250]
Take guns away from criminals and they will find other ways to harm people. Criminals DO NOT follow laws. How hard is that to understand?[/QUOTE]
but not as effectively as if they had guns
Is it hard to understand that it's mad easier to kill large amounts of people with a gun than with wicked karate kicks, in the same way that you can kill more people with a bomb than with a gun?
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39225264]Yell at the politicians or the interest groups, not us. We can't do shit other than write angry letters to our local politicians.[/QUOTE]
correction: you don't care enough to do anything besides write angry letters
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39225280]we also set a precident that alcohol should be illegal but look how that went[/QUOTE]
And then we restricted it
See what I'm getting at?
[QUOTE=ButtsexV3;39225280]we also set a precident that alcohol should be illegal but look how that went[/QUOTE]
And no one was impeached. Keep up.
[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39225287]`snip-[/QUOTE]
wow dude he's probably referring to the poor social atmosphere and health standards many people face
why are you beating the piss out of him
[QUOTE=Aman VII;39225241]And wow holy shit that is terrible for anyone owning a gun in new york[/QUOTE]
But hey now anybody committing a mass shooting will need to spend a fraction of a second reloading at every 30% reduced reloading interval.
Gun crime solved, everybody go home!
bush wasn't impeached after he dragged the US to iraq on false pretentions, you all really believe that obama will be impeached for doing something similiar to what clinton did with his assault weapon ban on 1999?
[QUOTE=mugofdoom;39225286]Your point being?
75 round drum magazines were used in the Hollywood Shootout and no one was killed besides the shooters.
They had a whole truck full of them, even.
Also, both shootings I referenced were more deadly, despite the limitations of the shooter's armaments.[/QUOTE]
it's almost as if individual examples don't mean anything and instead we should legislate based on ideals instead?
I have not heard a good reason why an object whose DESIGN AND FUNCTION is to increase the lethality of a deadly weapon should be legal when the only counterargument is "i like to feel like a badass on the range"
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
