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

[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] Well, no. Italy legalized high-cap magazines last year (we were limited to 5 or 10 rounds before that) and nothing fucking changed.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39245993]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] Or just have multiple loaded guns like James Holmes.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;39246004][t]https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/37084_10151396085014238_25246448_n.jpg[/t][/QUOTE] ps my mommy told me to write this

[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] So essentially youre saying that we should limit gun owners and let the military/ police do there job, yet two of those shootings involved both police and military personnel, i think youve just debunked youre argument.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;39246026]So essentially youre saying that we should limit gun owners and let the military/ police do there job, yet two of those shootings involved both police and military personnel, i think youve just debunked youre argument.[/QUOTE] Security forces are not the same as government police forces. Security guards are essentially just armed citizens

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39246011]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.[/QUOTE] Because me owning a PMAG isn't going to result in any effect on any mass shooting.

[QUOTE=Starpluck;39246004][img]https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/37084_10151396085014238_25246448_n.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] I feel compasion for that litte girl, but not to be a dick but she's a 3rd grader. She sees things on the news. Those same news channels also don't report stabbing rapes, ect. So of course she's going to think mass shootings are an epidemic.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39246035]Security forces are not the same as government police forces. Security guards are essentially just armed citizens[/QUOTE] Yet both are armed and the shootings happened anyways. Wow, how bout that.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;39246049]Yet both are armed and the shootings happened anyways. Wow, how bout that.[/QUOTE] There's a difference between intervention and deterrence.

Also on another point how would you possibly enforce a mag size law? I could have 200 drum mags in my crawlspace right now and deny it.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39246011]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.[/QUOTE] The number of rounds in the mag is not going to do jack shit. Just ask the Columbine shooters, who used perfectly legal 10 round mags in their weapons, 5 years into the previous AWB.

[QUOTE=Hellborg 65;39242110]What were you all using the fucking machine guns for anyway. At least you still get handguns.[/QUOTE] Stop posting when you don't live in or either understand America.

[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] Limiting magazine sizes is detrimental to competitive shooting, this was a major concern of IPSC Canada before the limit of mag sizes to 5 rounds here, and as such many competitive action shooting sports are basically dead in Canada, and entirely unfair in terms of timings. You'll never see a Canadian 3-gun world record due to our mag restrictions. Moreover, there is no proof that limiting magazines actually helps save lives, nor any proof as to what number is best to limit them to. Most of the US says 10, New York says 7, Canada says 5 in rifles, 10 in pistols, IIRC France says 3, it's totally arbitrary and has no data to back it up.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39246035]Security forces are not the same as government police forces. Security guards are essentially just armed citizens[/QUOTE] can you legally be this retarded and still own a computer

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39246035]Security forces are not the same as government police forces. Security guards are essentially just armed citizens[/QUOTE] No they aren't. Most states require a DCJS (Department of criminal justice services) certification to become an armed security guard, or even unarmed for that matter. I know that because I have certification in Virginia. Besides, there have been many rulings by the supreme court that it is not the right of the people to have police protection. There is no law that says if you call the police because you're daughter or wife is being raped, that they have to show up. Even so, the police can't be everywhere all the time, nor would I want them to be.

[QUOTE=Apache249;39246054]There's a difference between intervention and deterrence.[/QUOTE] There's also a fine line between a police officer and your average gun owner.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39246019]Or just have multiple loaded guns like James Holmes.[/QUOTE] It still makes it more difficulty for the shooter even in the slightest bit. It's worth the minor inconvenience to save lives. Hell look at the TSA, one guy hides a bomb in his shoe and now we all take our shoes off before boarding a plane, same reason why large liquid containers are banned. Yet countless mass shootings later nothing has been done as far as gun control because the NRA is in the pockets of our law makers. It's a shame really.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39246011]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.[/QUOTE] It's unreasonable because it's absolutely [b]POINTLESS[/B]. Seriously, 2 shootings that used high cap mags, one of which didn't have a single death because of it. If anything, high capacity magazines make shooters less effective. They jam like fuckin crazy, I can't fire 30 rounds through my AK with one without getting at least one jam. One of the LA shooter had to ditch his AK because it jammed because of the drum, and the Aurora shooters AR-15 jammed constantly because of the drum. Because a [b]mentally unstable[/b] person(s) harm someone is [b]not[/b] justification to start banning things. If someone wants to harm someone they'll use a gun with a high cap mags (Lanza). You take away their high cap mags they'll carry more magazines (Cho). The only way to solve these problems is to treat the problem, not the symptoms.

[QUOTE=snapshot32;39246076]There's also a fine line between a police officer and your average gun owner.[/QUOTE] If I'm not mistaken, the average gun owner is a better shot than most police officers.

[QUOTE=UziXxX;39246071]There is no law that says if you call the police because you're daughter or wife is being raped, that they have to show up.[/QUOTE] In fact the Supreme Court said the police is, in fact, not obliged to help your sorry ass.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39246077]It still makes it more difficulty for the shooter even in the slightest bit. It's worth the minor inconvenience to save lives. Hell look at the TSA, one guy hides a bomb in his shoe and now we all take our shoes off before boarding a plane, same reason why large liquid containers are banned. Yet countless mass shootings later nothing has been done as far as gun control because the NRA is in the pockets of our law makers. It's a shame really.[/QUOTE] yes its the difference between 19 people being shot in 21 seconds and 19 people being shot in 20 seconds

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39246077]It still makes it more difficulty for the shooter even in the slightest bit. It's worth the minor inconvenience to save lives. Hell look at the TSA, one guy hides a bomb in his shoe and now we all take our shoes off before boarding a plane, same reason why large liquid containers are banned. Yet countless mass shootings later nothing has been done as far as gun control because the NRA is in the pockets of our law makers. It's a shame really.[/QUOTE] Yeah and what does the TSA really do? How many people feel safer as a result of the TSA's invasive search procedures?

[QUOTE=Craig Willmore;39246062]can you legally be this retarded and still own a computer[/QUOTE] My family has a large involvement in the police force, most security guards I know of are ex-police (citizens) If we're going to have a debate please don't just throw out insults.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39246077]It still makes it more difficulty for the shooter even in the slightest bit. It's worth the minor inconvenience to save lives. Hell look at the TSA, one guy hides a bomb in his shoe and now we all take our shoes off before boarding a plane, same reason why large liquid containers are banned. Yet countless mass shootings later nothing has been done as far as gun control because the NRA is in the pockets of our law makers. It's a shame really.[/QUOTE] Invoking the TSA is a horrible argument since most people disagree with their 'vigilance'

[QUOTE=Starpluck;39246004][img]https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/37084_10151396085014238_25246448_n.jpg[/img][/QUOTE] So they've resorted to using the naïveté of children and get people to say "awww" instead of actually arguing. Your point?

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39246077]It still makes it more difficulty for the shooter even in the slightest bit. It's worth the minor inconvenience to save lives. Hell look at the TSA, one guy hides a bomb in his shoe and now we all take our shoes off before boarding a plane, same reason why large liquid containers are banned. Yet countless mass shootings later nothing has been done as far as gun control because the NRA is in the pockets of our law makers. It's a shame really.[/QUOTE] NRA hasn't done shit since Heston died, don't try and blame them. Even as much as I hate the NRA

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39246077]It still makes it more difficulty for the shooter even in the slightest bit. It's worth the minor inconvenience to save lives.[/QUOTE] The minor inconvenience that saved lives was his jam. He was fiddling with his gun and it allowed people to get out. If he reloaded with a smaller magazine, he could kill more people. Mag-bans are totally arbitrary and have no real affect on anything.

[QUOTE=Protocol7;39246094]Yeah and what does the TSA really do? How many people feel safer as a result of the TSA's invasive search procedures?[/QUOTE] Personally, I feel safer knowing that more extensive security measures are taken. It's a minor inconvenience, yes. But again, if it saves one plane from going down it's beyond worth it. [editline]16th January 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Trunk Monkay;39246110]NRA hasn't done shit since Heston died, don't try and blame them. Even as much as I hate[/QUOTE] They are still the largest gun lobby, they essentially own several legislators.

[QUOTE=johnlmonkey;39246118]Personally, I feel safer knowing that more extensive security measures are taken. It's a minor inconvenience, yes. But again, if it saves one plane from going down it's beyond worth it.[/QUOTE] I didn't know there was a terrorism epidemic in the U.S. either.

[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] Columbine's constable wasn't there, Fort Hood was in a gun-free part of the base, VTech the doors were chained shut, and the shooter in the Portland mall killed himself after seeing a CCW permit holder draw a pistol on him. The permit holder didn't shoot because there were people behind the shooter who could have been hit if he missed, but the only shot fired by the shooter after the permit holder drew on him was the one to end his own life.