Connecticut lawmakers reach deal on 'most comprehensive' gun limits in US - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Megafan;40127631]In what sense is this easy or even just as easy as purchasing one at a legal store? Are you really going to argue that it's just as easy for the average person (or average criminal) to do that? [QUOTE] It seems pretty damned easy, assuming you speak Spanish and live near the border. As easy as going to your friendly local gunstore? No, but that would be hard to do if firearms were outlawed.

[QUOTE=Megafan;40127623]Do you understand the difference between the phrases 'it decreases' and 'it disappears completely'? The idea that [I]precisely as many people would die[/I] whether there are guns freely available to the civilian market or not is just unfounded.[/QUOTE] No I have no understanding of basic English grammar, those two phrases mean exactly the same thing to me, obviously. The fact that you chose to focus on that tells a lot. [QUOTE=Megafan;40127631] Do firearms flow like air now? How much are you willing to simplify a market to suit your argument?[/QUOTE] They do. The market [I]is[/I] as simple as that. I've experienced it. That's how gun transactions happen all the time currently.

[QUOTE=Milkyway M16;40127618]Also since we're in a thread about magazine size limits, go ahead and tell me exactly how useful it would be to the police/government to know how many 30 round magazines someone has. Tell me [I]exactly[/I] what that would accomplish.[/QUOTE] The only thing I can see it doing is giving the police/government a sense of control, knowing they can easily just confiscate said magazines. Likely? No. Possible? Most definitely.

Gun debate thread detected - deploying sources: Second amendment is not to be abridged - and means complete access to "force of arms" [quote] The purpose of this Article is only to define those shares of liberty the Framers intended to retain and those given up in the context of the Second Amendment. [b]By way of preview, this Article will contend that the original intent of the Second Amendment was to protect each individual's right to keep and bear arms, and to guarantee that individuals acting collectively could throw off the yokes of any oppressive government which might arise. Thus, the right envisioned was not only the right to be armed, but to be armed at a level equal to the government.[/b] *lots of snip* English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. [b]Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.[/b] These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed [b]the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists.[/b] The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. [b]Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia.[/b] As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other (pg.1039) governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says. [/quote] Source: [url=http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf]1994 Valparaiso Univ. Law Review. Originally published as 28 VAL. L. REV. 1007-1039 (1994)[/url] Bans on weapons are unconstitutional see D.C. v Heller [url]http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=07-290[/url] Weapons are very often used to scare those who break and enter away - without firing at them: [url]http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9591354[/url] Firearms DO account for a large portion of homicide in the U.S. (~67% in 2008): [url]http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/offenses/expanded_information/data/shrtable_09.html[/url] So - are you scared a bans? Don't be. Are guns a problem in the U.S? Absolutely. Registration - Eh, can't find numbers. I doubt it would do much except waste money. If you want to spend the money find evidence to support it then I'll be all for it if it helps. What have we learned: The bill restricts magazines and enforces universal background checks for ALL sales. People are freaking out on both sides - please stop.

[QUOTE=bord2tears;40127819] Registration - Eh, can't find numbers. I doubt it would do much except waste money. If you want to spend the money find evidence to support it then I'll be all for it if it helps. [/QUOTE] Just look at Canada's firearms registration history. They just abolished their long gun registry because they finally realized how stupidly pointless that shit is. Only about ~4% of rifles used in homicides in Canada were registered during the time the very expensive and very over budget long gun registry was around. Gun registries do. not. work.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;40127845]Just look at Canada's firearms registration history. They just abolished their long gun registry because they finally realized how stupidly pointless that shit is. Only about ~4% of rifles used in homicides in Canada were registered during the time the very expensive and very over budget long gun registry was around. Gun registries do. not. work.[/QUOTE] Actually, I don't think the registry was ever used to help solve a crime, nor did they actually keep stats on the registration status of guns used in crimes, so while we know the registry itself never solved a crime, we don't know the registration status of the firearms, but I will say 4% is a high estimate.

[QUOTE=draugur;40126285]Guy is a moron, stores his mags loaded. His springs are fucked.[/QUOTE] [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_%28device%29]please read how springs work[/url] the only way for a spring to lose its strength is being pushed passed its design limits or metal fatigue from constant loading + unloading.

[QUOTE=Sir_takeslot;40126169]This would be a nightmare to accomplish.[/QUOTE] What the hell would that bring anyway? It's not like you can't do a shootout with a 7-bullet magazine handgun.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;40126818]I was wondering about that. You can't just pack a magazine full and throw it in a safe forever, won't the springs wear out and cuase feeding problems? Of course it's possible he just put 2 or 3 rounds in each magazine for the photo op.[/QUOTE] My understanding with many magazines is that it isn't the spring that is the problem, but the feed lips. Over time the constant pressure can cause them to bend very slightly, which can ultimately result in a misfeed. Polymer mags, like the magpul magazines seen in that safe, are generally immune to such things as their polymer casing doesn't bend at all. What I do find odd is that he would store them all without the magazine caps. Magpul provides a cap for each magazine in the event that you wish to store them loaded (or even unloaded really. It keeps dust and stuff out.).

A cap would be an impedance if he needed to use the magazine in a hurry.

[QUOTE=DaCommie1;40128134]A cap would be an impedance if he needed to use the magazine in a hurry.[/QUOTE] So would locking it in a safe. :P

And now watch as private sales skyrocket, road trips to nearby states to pick up high capacity magazines begin, and this new legislation does next to nothing to curtail gun violence. But hey, we're being progressive.

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;40126919]do you remember the part where the 3/5 clause is in the consitution[/QUOTE] The 3/5 clause only applied to slaves, and was made redundant by the 13th Amendment; It has fuck all to do with anything beyond that.

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;40128471]Details. I fail to see how banning weaponry based upon cosmetic features suddenly makes us safer. Hell i know i'd rather be shot by an ar15 than a 12 gauge with slugs any day. Also the argument "at least we're trying" is fucking retarded, and it needs to stop. You arent trying anything, you're resorting to the simplest thig you can do, instead of focusing on the issues, then using the hype of the legislature to take attention from the fact that you did nothing but fuck over the average joe. But its ok, everyone will celebrate because "at least you tried" Law makers are litterally pissing away their one chance to do something right, by passing restrictions that im willing to bet are going to be deemed unconstitutional, then we're back at square one, with nothing done, but hey, it made everyone feel good for those 2ish years that it would be active, and thats all that counts right?[/QUOTE] Until there's a Columbine 2.0 during the ban. Because some people seem to forget that Columbine happened right in the goddamn middle of the 1994 AWB, and they were using illegal weapons with backpacks full of legal 10 round magazines and homemade explosives. Yup. Illegal weapons are [I]soo[/I] hard to get. Where there is a will, there is a way.

[QUOTE=felix the cat;40131388]Until there's a Columbine 2.0 during the ban. Because some people seem to forget that Columbine happened right in the goddamn middle of the 1994 AWB, and they were using illegal weapons with backpacks full of legal 10 round magazines and homemade explosives. Yup. Illegal weapons are [I]soo[/I] hard to get. Where there is a will, there is a way.[/QUOTE] And the sad part is the next time there will inevitably be another mass shooting, the same people pushing for this legislation will be asking for more. If you want a dollar, don't ask one person for a dollar - ask 4 people for 25 cents, or ask 2 people for 50 cents. In the end, some persistence means you got your dollar. It's the same concept now.

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;40126783] maybe if you're speed shooting at a range and you've trained extensively lmao[/QUOTE] The only type of weapons that would take more than a few seconds to reload would be a bolt-action rifle (even bolt-actions can be reloaded very quickly if you have pre-loaded stripper clips), belt-fed automatic weapon (hardly anyone owns these outside of the military), break-action/pump action shotguns, and some lever-action guns. On a magazine fed rifle or pistol ("assault weapons"), you press a button to eject the mag, pop in a new one, and pull a piece of the gun back if the ejected magazine was empty. <10 seconds. Adding "lmao" to the end of a sentence doesn't improve your argument

drunk people cause car accidents, let's ban any drinks that are more than 15% alc/vol people who already own 80 proof distilled spirits can still keep them though, they just have to register each bottle with the government

[QUOTE=BLOODGA$M;40133237]drunk people cause car accidents, let's ban any drinks that are more than 15% alc/vol people who already own 80 proof distilled spirits can still keep them though, they just have to register each bottle with the government[/QUOTE] Why do people NEED to drink? Alcohol only causes problems I think we should ban it/ridiculously regulate it

[QUOTE=Siminov;40126106] Stepping on the graves of children to pass your legislation. [/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;40126199] Gotta love exploiting the mass murder of children to pass legislation they could only dream about this time last year.[/QUOTE] Can we please stop using this ridiculous right-wing rhetoric every time government officials feel like responding to national tragedies? It's disgusting. If you don't like the laws then criticize the laws.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;40135460]Can we please stop using this ridiculous right-wing rhetoric every time government officials feel like responding to national tragedies? It's disgusting. If you don't like the laws then criticize the laws.[/QUOTE] But it isn't that far fetched or out there. They are using a tragedy to further push their own agendas this is pretty clear not sure how you can deny that. Makes it even worse cause their agenda is a terrible nonsensical one.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;40135460]Can we please stop using this ridiculous right-wing rhetoric every time government officials feel like responding to national tragedies? It's disgusting. If you don't like the laws then criticize the laws.[/QUOTE] Because it is is a knee jerk reaction, they aren't thinking rationally.

[QUOTE=Aman VII;40135552]But it isn't that far fetched or out there. They are using a tragedy to further push their own agendas this is pretty clear not sure how you can deny that. Makes it even worse cause their agenda is a terrible nonsensical one.[/QUOTE] Please don't let your obsession with firearms cloud your perspective. The only reason you are defending such disgusting rhetoric is because this time it's being used by your side. Look at those liberals, dancing on the graves of dead kids to push their agenda to take away your guns. I think legislating magazine sizes and gun registries are pretty arbitrary but I'm not about to stoop to such low emotional pandering. [QUOTE=Siminov;40135555]Because it is is a knee jerk reaction, they aren't thinking rationally.[/QUOTE] No, the types of people who quote Fox News every time a new gun-control law is enacted are the ones not thinking rationally.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;40135603]Please don't let your obsession with firearms cloud your perspective. The only reason you are defending such disgusting rhetoric is because this time it's being used by your side. Look at those liberals, dancing on the graves of dead kids to push their agenda to take away your guns. I think legislating magazine sizes and gun registries are pretty arbitrary but I'm not about to stoop to such low emotional pandering. No, the types of people who quote Fox News every time a new gun-control law is enacted are the ones not thinking rationally.[/QUOTE] But it IS a knee jerk reaction, I didn't quote fox news on that either. This is comparable to someone getting killed by a laptop battery and therefore the government banning and confiscating all laptop computers. It's stupidity at it's finest.

This sounds pretty fair to me honestly? Of course the mental health issues still need some major work as well, but this seems like a good [I]piece[/I] of the solution.

[QUOTE=Siminov;40135637]But it IS a knee jerk reaction, I didn't quote fox news on that either. This is comparable to someone getting killed by a laptop battery and therefore the government banning and confiscating all laptop computers. It's stupidity at it's finest.[/QUOTE] How is it a knee jerk reaction? The shootings were months ago. And you are quoting Fox News, or any other right media establishment when you use that emotional garbage about disrespecting the graves of children or whatever. And no it isn't comparable to that at all, work on your analogies and come back to me. [QUOTE=Rhenae;40135648]This sounds pretty fair to me honestly? Of course the mental health issues still need some major work as well, but this seems like a good [I]piece[/I] of the solution.[/QUOTE] Universal background checks and better mental healthcare are two positions that the majority of Americans, gun owners, and NRA members support. Unfortunately, Facepunch is a bad place to go for reasonable or moderated gun debates that use logic.

[QUOTE=Raidyr;40135755]How is it a knee jerk reaction? The shootings were months ago. And you are quoting Fox News, or any other right media establishment when you use that emotional garbage about disrespecting the graves of children or whatever. And no it isn't comparable to that at all, work on your analogies and come back to me. [/QUOTE] I don't see how that analogy is wrong at all, it is the exact same thing. Please, enlighten me, come up with your analogy that you think is correct.

[QUOTE=BrickInHead;40126713]as a resident of connecticut: good god forbid we try to take [I]ANY STEPS[/I] in the direction of reducing gun violence that actually legislate guns themselves, no we have to go in roundabout ways to try and reduce them before even applying the bandaid i swear to god fp gun nuts consensus regarding gun violence is that instead of the EMTs adding a tourniquet to stop the bleeding for a couple of minutes while the surgeons get ready back at the hospital they might as well fuck off and start masturbating violently while the poor sod bleeds out no one thinks this is the be all end all to crime reduction, it's part of something called "comprehensive policy reform" [editline]1st April 2013[/editline] nope actually the political will in connecticut even among gun owners is that we want this pretty overwhelmingly only the nra fuckheads disagree and their membership in connecticut is pathetic[/QUOTE] I can understand why people in here would say magazine registration wouldn't be helpful, but if that's the case they should just ban large magazines outright. Preferably with a compulsory buyback or just straight up confiscation. (rather than legal/unregistered like gun nuts itt would say) [editline]2nd April 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=felix the cat;40131388]Until there's a Columbine 2.0 during the ban. Because some people seem to forget that Columbine happened right in the goddamn middle of the 1994 AWB, and they were using illegal weapons with backpacks full of legal 10 round magazines and homemade explosives. Yup. Illegal weapons are [I]soo[/I] hard to get. Where there is a will, there is a way.[/QUOTE] it's a problem of enforcement.

[QUOTE=Siminov;40135820]I don't see how that analogy is wrong at all, it is the exact same thing. Please, enlighten me, come up with your analogy that you think is correct.[/QUOTE] How about we don't simplify the issue and just stick the facts: A horrible tragedy involving guns occurred in a state who decided months later to enact gun control measures in the hopes that it doesn't happen again. I dunno if that stuff will work, and I already said that some of it (magazine size, registrations) are arbitrary measures that will inconvenience gun owners and not do much to stop/lower crimes, but that seems about right to me. My problem isn't people criticizing Connecticut lawmakers for the laws they make, it's the idea that any attempt at gun control legislation after a tragedy occurs is somehow disrespecting the people who died in said tragedy. Are there any other laws where this ridiculous emotional trump card is used, or is it only when it comes to guns?

[QUOTE=Rhenae;40135648]This sounds pretty fair to me honestly? Of course the mental health issues still need some major work as well, but this seems like a good [I]piece[/I] of the solution.[/QUOTE] tbh most gun related crime isn't committed by what you would call mentally unstable people. sure the school shootings generally are, but that's a small percentage of total gun crime. That's why some people argue against banning assault weapons, in which case we should ban handguns instead (or both preferably).

[QUOTE=ilikecorn;40135922]The problem people have with it, is that a large mag doesnt make a weapon more deadly, for example, an ar15 loaded with 30 rounds of hollow point vs a steyr m95 5 shot bolt action rifle. The bolt action fires 8x56r rounds, that leave quarter sized entry wounds, and 4-5inch exit wounds, where as the ar leaves a tiny entry wound, and maybe a quarter sized exit wound, the bolt action is far more deadly, considering that if someone had like 4 preloaded stripper clips, you wouldnt have many wounded, just a lot of corpses. With an ar at least they stand a chance.[/QUOTE] in general, the fewer number of shots that can be fired results in less damage. yeah, certain bullets might punch a watermelon sized hole through your chest, but if you only have five shots you're not going to just spray and hit 15 people in 5 seconds. e: imo, it wouldn't be a bad idea to ban bolt action rifles too, but clearly there's barely enough support to ban semi-automatic weapons.