Students’ gun protest turns violent in Stockton, California and leads to arrests - Sensationalist Headlines

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53164475]30 rounds is standard, not extended. Hollowpoints are largely used in handguns, and I have explained their purpose.[/QUOTE] Sorry, I was referring to the specific incident of [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords#Attempted_assassination]Gabby Giffords' attacker using a 33 round extended mag[/url] It was just an example of how banning magazine lengths should be secondary to stopping incidents from happening in the first place

[QUOTE=proboardslol;53164482]Sorry, I was referring to the specific incident of [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabrielle_Giffords#Attempted_assassination]Gabby Giffords' attacker using a 33 round extended mag[/url] It was just an example of how banning magazine lengths should be secondary to stopping incidents from happening in the first place[/QUOTE] And so the next time this happens a shooter brings one extra standard magazine along and reloads his weapon in an incredibly short period of time.

[QUOTE=Episode;53164480]I've always viewed gun laws the same way with laws when it comes to the internet. How about we let people who understand firearms make the laws on them.[/QUOTE] Depends what you mean; the people who understand the economics and social impact of guns, yes I agree, but if you mean people who know all about how a gun itself works, then I disagree. Yes, when we're looking at banning certain types of weapons, lawmakers should understand how the gun works, but when trying to reverse a trend of violence, then the people who understand guns most are probably the least likely to budge on gun control legislation, whereas the people who understand the economics behind gun control probably have an abstract understanding of guns rather than a technical one [editline]27th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53164489]And so the next time this happens a shooter brings one extra standard magazine along and reloads his weapon in an incredibly short period of time.[/QUOTE] Right, like I said, banning mag types and ammo types should be secondary to stopping these incidents themselves in the first place

Magazine and ammo bans shouldn’t take place period. They do nothing.

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53164504]Magazine and ammo bans shouldn’t take place period. They do nothing.[/QUOTE] On the flip side, there's no good reason for having a large magazine on an AR-15 if you're a hobbyist. I personally think that the options for gun owners should be limited to bare necessity for self defense and hunting rather than accessories that are fun to use

[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;53164455]Is it impossible for people from outside of the US to present an argument that doesn’t end with snide comments and jabs at one’s nationality? I’ve never understood this.[/QUOTE] Well let me explain. Your nation seen from the outside is a dystopian horror story, a foreboding thesis on the dangers of human greed, a slow-motion political civil war, and a clown show all rolled into one. I can't not use all that material in an argument, i don't have the self-control.

[QUOTE=St33m;53164524]Well let me explain. Your nation seen from the outside is a dystopian horror story, a foreboding thesis on the dangers of human greed, a slow-motion political civil war, and a clown show all rolled into one. I can't not use all that material in an argument, i don't have the self-control.[/QUOTE] If you have no self-control to make well written posts, why participate at all? Your previous post was nothing more then an attack, and fairly obvious bait. So far this conversation has been fairly simple, and I really don’t understand why posters like you have to come in and try to ruffle peoples feathers.

"I'm tired of these anti-gun folks, I wish somebody would just shoot'em already." :vs:

[QUOTE=Kiwi;53164490]Since you don't get it. Let's break this post down. Fact. This is the past, this is history. SPECULATING THE PAST. We keep looking to the past for answers when we've been staring at them for years and years and we're still going on about what if's and speculating that if the situation was slightly different, could the outcome be any worse? You can't claim that. It's the past. It's already happened. If we're gonna be looking at the past like watching paint dry you're looking in the wrong place. "idk" reads to me like you don't really know either and there's a sign of what if, or I'm un-sure. You can admit that btw. I don't know why you're brushing it off as what(which is what you're doing now and if you aren't please for the love of god before anyone proceeds to shit on you please start posting your thoughts properly).[/QUOTE] Saying that if the shooter had to stop and reload more often/had less bullets is not unreasonable speculation. The idk refers to the fact that it's just a starting point, an idea to be looked at more closely

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53164574]Saying that if the shooter had to stop and reload more often/had less bullets is not unreasonable speculation. The idk refers to the fact that it's just a starting point, an idea to be looked at more closely[/QUOTE] It is unreasonable, or at least unfounded, though, to claim that it would have saved lives. You want to criminalize thousands upon thousands of people, possibly even millions of people, for something that has zero evidence of actually having a positive effect.

[QUOTE=Kiwi;53164582]But it is an unreasonable speculation. Because that's exactly what the US government has been doing. Unreasonable speculations and continuously looking into the past. Reference it by all means, but start talking about what if's and you can't change the outcome of what's already happened.[/QUOTE] Changing the outcome of the past isn't the point... "What ifs" as you call it is how ideas are vetted, it's how people come up with changes that work. [editline]27th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;53164584]It is unreasonable, or at least unfounded, though, to claim that it would have saved lives. You want to criminalize thousands upon thousands of people, possibly even millions of people, for something that has zero evidence of actually having a positive effect.[/QUOTE] Well considering its never been tried in the US, that's not exactly fair

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53164590]Well considering its never been tried in the US, that's not exactly fair[/QUOTE] Yes it has? California, for example, has a ban on all magazines over 10 rounds. I know of no shooting where this ban even seemed to lead to a lower death count than otherwise would have occurred. The San Bernardino shooters, for example, fired over 100 rounds within 2 or 3 minutes. In this case, the shooters simply obtained "high capacity (over 10 round)" magazines illegally.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53164596]Yes it has? California, for example, has a ban on all magazines over 10 rounds. I know of no shooting where this ban even seemed to lead to a lower death count than otherwise would have occurred. The San Bernardino shooters, for example, fired over 100 rounds within 2 or 3 minutes. In this case, the shooters simply obtained "high capacity (over 10 round)" magazines illegally.[/QUOTE] Likely by simply going out of state, so if this was nation wide it would be harder

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53164618]Likely by simply going out of state, so if this was nation wide it would be harder[/QUOTE] I have a feeling you'll always have an excuse for why it isn't working.

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53164618]Likely by simply going out of state, so if this was nation wide it would be harder[/QUOTE] You realize if you make something illegal they don't just disappear.... right? There will be PMags and GI mags (all 30 rds) floating around in essentially infinite numbers, even just in California alone, to keep people in supply for centuries to come, which people will most certainly take advantage of, considering regulating mags is incredibly hard to enforce. Criminals wouldn't even have to leave their county to get a hundred.

[QUOTE=evilweazel;53164637]You realize if you make something illegal they don't just disappear....[/QUOTE] Nobody has ever claimed such a thing and I wish to Christ almighty that pro-2A posters would stop using this strawman. Everybody is well aware that the world isn't full of actual wizards who can vanish guns the second we ban them or a component of them. Stop this.

[QUOTE=SIRIUS;53164618]Likely by simply going out of state, so if this was nation wide it would be harder[/QUOTE] Or they could just un-pin the pinned magazines. Or if they stopped selling pinned magazines, they could just make 30 rounders out of 4 10 rounders and a hacksaw and some duct tape. Magazine restrictions are some of the most useless, feelgood laws, and one of the easiest to circumvent.

Waiting for the day someone proposes magazines that only allow one round. Making a guns virtually equal.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;53164642]Nobody has ever claimed such a thing and I wish to Christ almighty that pro-2A posters would stop using this strawman. Everybody is well aware that the world isn't full of actual wizards who can vanish guns the second we ban them or a component of them. Stop this.[/QUOTE] Not a strawman if it is exactly what he's wishing for my brother I don't think you or him understand how easy it will always be to come up with non-neutered mags and how little they're actually used to hurt anything besides peoples feefees Like there are ways to control gats that would actually work if you disregard the legal steps to get there Trying to regulate something as hard to keep track of and thats in such large numbers as mags is impossible

[QUOTE=evilweazel;53164658]Not a strawman if it is exactly what he's wishing for my brother I don't think you or him understand how easy it will always be to come up with non-neutered mags and how little they're actually used to hurt anything besides peoples feefees[/QUOTE] Absolutely nothing about his post implies that he is expecting magazines to all poof out of existence the second legislation is passed. So yes, it is a strawman. SIRIUS is making the entirely valid point that preventing the distribution of something legally severely dries up avenues for it to continually be fed into the illegal market. Sure there's innumerable magazines floating around right now, and they likely aren't super hard to manufacture. But the extra restriction of not being able to just buy them in a store and flog them to people who otherwise can't buy them (e.g. across state borders) will dry up the illegal market or increase the black market value of an item eventually. The illegal gun problem in the US is almost entirely the fault of the legal gun market even existing after all. Why bother making handmade guns that might not even work at best or outright hurt you at worst when you can just organise some straw purchases or steal some less than properly secured legally bought firearms? I mean Christ, black market dealers probably aren't the nicest people around and would almost certainly sell to a wannabe mass shooter. But can you imagine some total fucking outcast of a human being trying to find a seller for their up and coming school shooting supplies without managing to land themselves in a honeypot or something?

[QUOTE=sgman91;53164619]I have a feeling you'll always have an excuse for why it isn't working.[/QUOTE] I could say the exact same thing to pro-gun people who are willing to bring up every reason under the sun to explain why their country alone has such deep-rooted shooting issues... Except the fact that guns are more omnipresent there than anywhere else.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53164684]I could say the exact same thing to pro-gun people who are willing to bring up every reason under the sun to explain why their country alone has such deep-rooted shooting issues... Except the fact that guns are more omnipresent there than anywhere else.[/QUOTE] The burden of proof lies on the one making the new claim. Guns have existed, and become more plentiful, while murder rates have shrunk. Negative correlations usually aren't good indicators of causation.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53164694]The burden of proof lies on the one making the new claim. Guns have existed, and become more plentiful, while murder rates have shrunk. Negative correlations usually aren't good indicators of causation.[/QUOTE] ...And aren't indicative of a lack thereof? Your shooting rates are still through the roof when compared to any first world country. That this coincides with an obscene saturation of firearms in the country in comparison to the Western equivalents isn't correlation enough for you? That's one hell of a coincidence! You got a more consistent explanation that would explain the US having such an unique problem? Unless you do, I don't see any reason not to apply Occam's razor. But hey, it's not like Americans are going to do jack shit about it anyway, if only for the fact that many people there are refusing to consider this simple explanation like you do. So we won't ever know for sure.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53164716]...And aren't indicative of a lack thereof? Your shooting rates are still through the roof when compared to any first world country. That this coincides with an obscene saturation of firearms in the country in comparison to the Western equivalents isn't correlation enough for you? That's one hell of a coincidence! You got a more consistent explanation that would explain the US having such an unique problem? Unless you do, I don't see any reason not to apply Occam's razor. But hey, it's not like Americans are going to do jack shit about it anyway, if only for the fact that many people there are refusing to consider this simple explanation like you do. So we won't ever know for sure.[/QUOTE] I don't even understand your argument. You seem to be saying that if there are more guns, then that must, axiomatically, be the cause. There are lots of countries with more or less guns and high and lower murder rates. As a side note, Occams Razor only applies when both answers have equal explanatory power. It doesn't just mean the easiest answer is right.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53164726]I don't even understand your argument. You seem to be saying that if there are more guns, then that must, axiomatically, be the cause. There are lots of countries with more or less guns and high and lower murder rates.[/QUOTE] [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country]I don't see any country here with less firearms per capita than you guys.[/url] Also, I never said it was [I]the[/I] cause. Events can have [i]several[/i] causes. That's why correlation does not equal causation in the first place.

[QUOTE=_Axel;53164736][url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estimated_number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country]I don't see any country here with less firearms per capita than you guys.[/url] Also, I never said it was [I]the[/I] cause. Events can have [i]several[/i] causes. That's why correlation does not equal causation in the first place.[/QUOTE] Correlation doesn't equal causation, but negative correlations does hint at noncausation unless you have very strong evidence to the contrary. You're not applying your own argument fairly. There are plenty of countries with high rates of gun ownership but lower murder rates, and vice versa. Compare every country to every other country, not just to the US.

[QUOTE=sgman91;53164741]Correlation doesn't equal causation, but negative correlations does hint at noncausation unless you have very strong evidence to the contrary.[/QUOTE] No. For the exact same reason correlation doesn't mean causation, inverse correlations don't mean non causation. Events can have several causes. If the studied cause goes up while others go down, then the result goes down. It's also disingenuous to talk about murder rates when the subject matter of this thread, mass shootings, have increased in frequency in recent years. [editline]27th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=sgman91;53164741]You're not applying your own argument fairly. There are plenty of countries with high rates of gun ownership but lower murder rates, and vice versa. Compare every country to every other country, not just to the US.[/QUOTE] And? None goes to the same extremes as the US. It makes sense that a parameter that varies relatively little from country to country doesn't have a significant impact and does when it comes to doubling the amount of firearms per capita of the second most armed nation. Apples and oranges also shouldn't be compared. If you want to prove a point, then a comparison should be made with first world countries, not ones where poverty and unrest is such that it becomes a major component. On that note, could you show a correlation among first world countries that would support an alternative hypothesis? I've yet to see any.

[QUOTE=proboardslol;53164304]I think if you want to require something for gun owners, it should be: 1.) UNIVERSAL background checks 2.) UNIVERSAL mental health evaluations additionally there should be a record of every purchase and sale of a gun in the United States so that the serial number for a weapon used in a crime can be traced back to whoever sold a weapon to a criminal, to crack down on straw purchases, and to see what licensed dealers are selling without a background check and crack down on them. Lastly, ALL sales in the USA must go through this process, so no more gun show or person-to-person/under the table sales. [editline]27th February 2018[/editline] Sex education is necessary; if you don't learn sex ed then there is a higher rate of teen pregnancy in your area, since everyone has sex. Gun education is not necessary, since not everyone owns a gun or even wants to own a gun. The two things are not the same.[/QUOTE] This is a good point (as was the one about intentional vs. non-intentional shootings). Though, I do have one question about the nature of your proposal. What would these universal mental health evaluations entail? What specific conditions would bar you from owning a gun? This is an important distinction to make as "mental illness" encompasses a wide range of conditions with an even wider range of severity and individuality. I know people also have pretty big reservations with registers due to the potential for overreach and misuse, but as someone who isn't as well informed of those potential dangers I'll let someone else make that case if they feel it's pertinent.

[QUOTE=hexpunK;53164681]Absolutely nothing about his post implies that he is expecting magazines to all poof out of existence the second legislation is passed. So yes, it is a strawman. SIRIUS is making the entirely valid point that preventing the distribution of something legally severely dries up avenues for it to continually be fed into the illegal market. Sure there's innumerable magazines floating around right now, and they likely aren't super hard to manufacture. But the extra restriction of not being able to just buy them in a store and flog them to people who otherwise can't buy them (e.g. across state borders) will dry up the illegal market or increase the black market value of an item eventually. The illegal gun problem in the US is almost entirely the fault of the legal gun market even existing after all. Why bother making handmade guns that might not even work at best or outright hurt you at worst when you can just organise some straw purchases or steal some less than properly secured legally bought firearms? I mean Christ, black market dealers probably aren't the nicest people around and would almost certainly sell to a wannabe mass shooter. But can you imagine some total fucking outcast of a human being trying to find a seller for their up and coming school shooting supplies without managing to land themselves in a honeypot or something?[/QUOTE] On what timescale do you envision this working? I can't see the supply of assault clipazines drying up for actual centuries. Might beat the heat death of the universe in a drag race. And I guarantee any good ol boy sitting on 200 pmags would part with one for 20 bucks if the opportunity arises. .30 extendable magazine clips are way too common to ever be unobtainably expensive for someone who has any desire to grab one or two, even when illegal. This is all moot anyway since the great social experiment that encompasses California and similar show that magazine bans don't have any measured effect on gun crime anywho.

[QUOTE=Crimor;53163503]It's okay if smart people have guns, don't give guns to dumb people. Honestly the best of both worlds for the US is probably to work with smart gun people to work out a mandatory training and safety course system that you have to do to be let anywhere near a firearm, with maybe having to redo it every five to ten years like old people and drivers licenses.[/QUOTE] I think Israel pretty much trumps the US in terms of gun rights. Barrier of entry is high and your ability to [I]keep[/I] your guns is not taken for granted (you get tested to see if you're still a viable owner relatively often). It's not a right but a privilege, the way it ought to be.