Obama calls for assault weapons ban, background checks. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245821]I'm aware, the point was he said that nothing on the list made a gun more lethal and grenade launchers were on the list :v:[/QUOTE] And those don't necessarily make a gun more lethal. Grenade launchers are useless for close ranges, inaccurate, and time-consuming to discharge. You'll kill less people trying to get the launcher set up and fired than you would just shooting the gun, the grenades were used primarily for hitting enemy combatants behind cover that the rifle couldn't penetrate during the war, not because it killed better.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245852]Lets look at the facts here, since this legislation is meant to prevent mass shootings, we'll examine those. In all the mass shootings we've had in the past years (I believe 61) not a single gunman has been taken down by a citizen with a gun.[/QUOTE] It's because they've taken place in Gun-Free zones. It's kind of hard for a citizen to have a firearm there when they're obeying the law.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39245864]So then how do smaller magazines help if nobody's gonna interrupt a shooting?[/QUOTE] It's often the police that stop the shooting, although be it after the shooter has left many dead. Every second counts in a situation like that, every extra second to reload could mean a life saved. How does allowing unlimited sized magazines help?

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245852]Lets look at the facts here, since this legislation is meant to prevent mass shootings, we'll examine those.[/QUOTE] I would like to point out that the last bout of legislation actually did nothing to prevent colombine or any mass shootings between 1994 to 2004. And the fbi has stated the AWB did absolutly nothing to overall crime rate. [url]http://www.policymic.com/articles/23290/7-reasons-why-an-assault-weapons-ban-will-fail-to-reduce-violent-crime[/url]

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245852]Lets look at the facts here, since this legislation is meant to prevent mass shootings, we'll examine those. In all the mass shootings we've had in the past years (I believe 61) not a single gunman has been taken down by a citizen with a gun. Columbine had an armed security force, as did the mall outside of Portland. Citizens stopping gun murders with their own guns are a very rare occurrence. [/QUOTE] Except in the mall shooting a few days before sandy when the shooter was confronted by a person with a handgun that he CC's, the shooter shot himself.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245852]In all the mass shootings we've had in the past years (I believe 61) not a single gunman has been taken down by a citizen with a gun.[/QUOTE] Might be because the vast majority of them happened in "gun-free zones" where nobody can carry a gun without infringing the law (oooh, the irony).

[QUOTE=Kartoffel;39245889]It's because they've taken place in Gun-Free zones. It's kind of hard for a citizen to have a firearm there when they're obeying the law.[/QUOTE] Actually no, as I said there were security forces on hand. In fact during the Gabbi Giffords shooting a citizen tried to intervene with his own legally carried gun and nearly shot the wrong person.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245899]It's often the police that stop the shooting, although be it after the shooter has left many dead. Every second counts in a situation like that, every extra second to reload could mean a life saved. [/QUOTE] The guy at Virginia Tech chained the doors shut, so even if he took forever to reload, he still had them trapped.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245899]It's often the police that stop the shooting, although be it after the shooter has left many dead. Every second counts in a situation like that, every extra second to reload could mean a life saved. How does allowing unlimited sized magazines help?[/QUOTE] Because the minute they jam, they won't be able to just pop in another mag. They have to clear the jam, which is a pain in the ass with high cap mags.

[QUOTE=Scot;39245830]Because you never hear about the time someone had a gun in their home that turned out to be utterly useless in a burglary or what have you.[/QUOTE] yeah but you live in the UK, where the victim gets arrested for shooting the intruder breaking into his home, lol

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245899]It's often the police that stop the shooting, although be it after the shooter has left many dead. Every second counts in a situation like that, every extra second to reload could mean a life saved. How does allowing unlimited sized magazines help?[/QUOTE] Contrary to what you think the reality is that the 1-2 second window it takes to reload isn't enough time for John McClane to jump over his barricade and confront the shooter in a epic shoot out fight. The 2 second window it takes 2 reload is not enough time to react.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;39245917]The guy at Virginia Tech chained the doors shut, so even if he took forever to reload, he still had them trapped.[/QUOTE] While that is true, theres really no harm in limiting magazine sizes. You shouldn't need a high capacity magazine to hunt. If you can't "defend your home" in 10 shots, I doubt you can defend it in 25-40 shots.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245852]In all the mass shootings we've had in the past years (I believe 61) not a single gunman has been taken down by a citizen with a gun. Columbine had an armed security force, as did the mall outside of Portland. Citizens stopping gun murders with their own guns are a very rare occurrence.[/QUOTE] There is a good reason that no citizen has been able to stop a mass shooting. Its because all mass shootings have occured in a gun free zone. Another fact about mass shootings: Every mass shooting since 1950 where at least 3 people were shot and died have occured in a gun free zone. The only exception is the 2011 attack on Congresswoman Giffords. Source: [url]http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund#[/url]

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245936]While that is true, theres really no harm in limiting magazine sizes. You shouldn't need a high capacity magazine to hunt. If you can't "defend your home" in 10 shots, I doubt you can defend it in 25-40 shots.[/QUOTE] "recreation" Not needing something is not a reason to ban it. We've been over this a dozen times before, don't reignite this argument please.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39245935]Contrary to what you think the reality is that the 1-2 second window it takes to reload isn't enough time for John McClane to jump over his barricade and confront the shooter in a epic shoot out fight. The 2 second window it takes 2 reload is not enough time to react.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying its enough time for someone to intervene, but it may just be enough time for someone to escape. Would you rather the shooters have high capacity magazines and just shoot forever?

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245899]It's often the police that stop the shooting, although be it after the shooter has left many dead. Every second counts in a situation like that, every extra second to reload could mean a life saved. How does allowing unlimited sized magazines help?[/QUOTE] Plenty of mass shootings with drum mags resulted in a jam. And reducing magazine size isn't going to save a substantial amount of lives considering how easy it is to circumvent.

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39245950]"recreation" Not needing something is not a reason to ban it. We've been over this a dozen times before, don't reignite this argument please.[/QUOTE] Recreational shooting isn't a reason to allow people to die, even if its just one person. [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Protocol7;39245953]Plenty of mass shootings with drum mags resulted in a jam. And reducing magazine size isn't going to save a substantial amount of lives considering how easy it is to circumvent.[/QUOTE] Theres still no harm in limiting magazine sizes, they may not have a major impact but they will have some sort of positive impact and likely save at least one life.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245916]Actually no, as I said there were security forces on hand. In fact during the Gabbi Giffords shooting a citizen tried to intervene with his own legally carried gun and nearly shot the wrong person.[/QUOTE] We're not arguing security forces here. We're arguing citizens. You stated that not a single gunman has been taken down by a citizen. I told you why. The reason that no citizen responded to the situation in most of these shootings is because the majority of them have taken place in a gun free zone.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245958]Recreational shooting isn't a reason to allow people to die, even if its just one person. [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] Theres still no harm in limiting magazine sizes, they may not have a major impact but they will have some sort of positive impact and likely save at least one life.[/QUOTE] sort of like recreational driving, like sports cars right?

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245958]Recreational shooting isn't a reason to allow people to die, even if its just one person.[/QUOTE] recreational shooting doesn't produce murders stop equating the two, you look like an ass.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245916]Actually no, as I said there were security forces on hand.[/QUOTE] "Security forces" are usually a couple of average joes with a gun and maybe a bit of training, not some ultra-operator marines with over 500 confirmed kills and experience in gorilla warfare.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245958]Recreational shooting isn't a reason to allow people to die, even if its just one person. [/QUOTE] Provide a source that proves recreational shooting kills people.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245958]Recreational shooting isn't a reason to allow people to die, even if its just one person.[/QUOTE] A better pursuit would be to work on social issues, poverty levels in urban areas, and a failing mental healthcare system. I can only recall 2 shootings where the shooter used High cap magazines, banning magazines because of 2 shootings is silly and pointless. I own several high capacity magazines and I have no intention of harming anybody. Owning a high cap mag does not make you a threat to the public.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39245945]There is a good reason that no citizen has been able to stop a mass shooting. Its because all mass shootings have occured in a gun free zone. Another fact about mass shootings: Every mass shooting since 1950 where at least 3 people were shot and died have occured in a gun free zone. The only exception is the 2011 attack on Congresswoman Giffords. Source: [url]http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/335739/facts-about-mass-shootings-john-fund#[/url][/QUOTE] There have been shootings on schools and malls with armed security forces that did nothing to stop anyone, Columbine, Fort Hood, VTech, the mall in Portland, etc.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245958]Theres still no harm in limiting magazine sizes, they may not have a major impact but they will have some sort of positive impact and likely save at least one life.[/QUOTE] I don't understand the point of limiting magazine sizes. If someone wants to go on a mass killing spree, they'll buy more magazines.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245958]Recreational shooting isn't a reason to allow people to die, even if its just one person. [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] Theres still no harm in limiting magazine sizes, they may not have a major impact but they will have some sort of positive impact and likely save at least one life.[/QUOTE] No, limiting magazine capacity to ten rounds doesn't save lives. How many lives were saved at Virginia Tech?

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245989]There have been shootings on schools and malls with armed security forces that did nothing to stop anyone, Columbine, Fort Hood, VTech, the mall in Portland, etc.[/QUOTE] Yes, but you said citizens with guns. An armed security force isn't a citizen. All of those locations, by the way, barred citizens from carrying firearms.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39245958]Theres still no harm in limiting magazine sizes, they may not have a major impact but they will have some sort of positive impact and likely save at least one life.[/QUOTE] There's no harm in limiting mag sizes, sure, but there's no extra harm in having them stay where they are.

[img]https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/37084_10151396085014238_25246448_n.jpg[/img]

[QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39245986]A better pursuit would be to work on social issues, poverty levels in urban areas, and a failing mental healthcare system. I can only recall 2 shootings where the shooter used High cap magazines, banning magazines because of 2 shootings is silly and pointless. I own several high capacity magazines and I have no intention of harming anybody. Owning a high cap mag does not make you a threat to the public.[/QUOTE] I'm not saying that all gun/highcapmag owners are menaces and I agree with you on the points of poverty and social issues but honestly, banning high cap mags would be a small inconvenience to gun owners but it could save lives, I don't see how its all that unreasonable.