another day, another shooting

[JD50]

I know you weren't, I was attempting to make a point that in discussions, one should not assume the other person knows what you're talking about. That's how you have politicians making idiotic statements that don't make any sense like 'ban all rifles'.

We'll we've been talking about it for multiple pages now so it seems silly to have to specify a revolver as a handgun every single time you say it, kinda like your last post where you assumed we all know you're talking about a revolving handgun and not a Colt revolving rifle.

Perfect, thank you for clarifying.

Yes, technically speaking removing semi-auto handguns and revolvers with speed loaders would limit the damage of mass shootings. The former moreso than the latter due to practice/training requirements.

 

[JD50]

Completely incorrect. They were discussing the fact that most handguns are semi-auto before and after he brought up speed-loading revolvers and the post you keep defending was absolutely in response to Ichinisan repeating, yet again, that most handguns were semi-auto.

soundforbjt's response tried to distinguish handguns from semi-automatics AGAIN right after it was stated that most handguns were semi-auto. He clearly wasn't getting it, hence, Ichinisan pointing out the logical flaw with "handguns take longer to reload than handguns?" After that it became clear that soundforbjt seems to think it takes long to reload a semi-auto handgun versus a semi-auto rifle. The magazine capacity limits are often the same. If anything, replacing the handgun mag would go faster. He probably thought you have to load each bullet in one at a time.

Quibble quibble quibble.

You're still doing this and ignoring the point because he's absolutely right that it takes far more time to kill lots of people with a revolver.

 

[Ichinisan]

SEMI AUTO/MAG LOADED handguns vs REVOLVERS WITHOUT SPEED LOADERS, which is faster to reload and which can do the most damage in a mass shooting situation?

OK. Ban mag-loaded handguns and speed loaders because...mass shootings? Ban semi-auto rifles and you start noticing that some guns blur the line between handgun and rifle. So you'll ban all the law-abiding civilians from owning mag-loaded semi-auto handguns (the majority of all handguns) for their personal protection. In that case, you would find that the accessible weapon of choice for a mass shooter would be a bolt/lever/pump action rifle (or an illegal semi-auto because a mass murderer isn't particularly concerned with the law).

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

We'll we've been talking about it for multiple pages now so it seems silly to have to specify a revolver as a handgun every single time you say it, kinda like your last post where you assumed we all know you're talking about a revolving handgun and not a Colt revolving rifle.

The revolver part wasn't the problem, it was the semi-auto part. There hasn't been a revolver action in anything but a handgun made in decades. When someone says 'semi auto' it's super important to specify the type of arm so we know what we're talking about.

 

[soundforbjt]

OK. Ban mag-loaded handguns and speed loaders because...mass shootings?

Exactly, that was my whole point of my original post, the most effective compromise to deter/limit mass shootings. Also semi auto rifles. Semi autos/mag loaded are the weapon of choice for mass shooters because of their characteristics.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

Exactly, that was my whole point of my original post, the most effective compromise to deter/limit mass shootings. Also semi auto rifles.

So an issue with that, is that it limits probably 50% of currently owned firearms, and I'd guess 75% of firearm models. Skew that higher for handguns specifically. That's a pretty huge infringement on a constitutional right for the hope that it limits mass shootings.

Now by ban, do you mean remove from people's hands? Or just ban sale?

 

[Ichinisan]

Still playing "gotcha", thanks for playing.

Do you understand that "semi-auto" describes most handguns and not a small subset of handguns?

 

[CZroe]

Some of you are more interested in playing a gotcha game than anything else.

...said as you continue to dance around the fact that almost all handguns are semi-auto and, thus, your proposal to ban semi-autos would ban nearly all handguns.

As soon as this was pointed out to you you started on about how semi-auto handguns were more likely to be used in mass shootings anyway while ignoring that your proposed law would have a disproportionate impact on everyone else while the mass shooters who more likely would have sported semi-auto rifles would just switch to bolt-action rifles. With comparable range, lethality, and repeatability when compared to a similar semi-auto rifle, there would be very little impact on the people you are targeting with the semi-auto ban (mass shooters).

There are FAR more concerns for your typical handgun owner than mass shooters. Dare I say, virtually no one thinks their handgun is primarily for defending against a mass shooter. Hey: you're the one who went there with the "what would someone with a semi-auto handgun do against a clock tower sniper?" rationalization as if that was the only situation you'd be disarming them in. You would be disarming them from defending against just about any of the other threats while doing very little to inconvenience the mass shooters you are targeting. Rape, physical assault, home invasion, robbery, animal control, etc, etc, etc... all to make the clock tower shooter switch from a semi-auto rifle to a bolt-action one.

That sounds like a GREAT idea!/S

 

[CZroe]

We'll we've been talking about it for multiple pages now so it seems silly to have to specify a revolver as a handgun every single time you say it, kinda like your last post where you assumed we all know you're talking about a revolving handgun and not a Colt revolving rifle.

Not when the entire conversation for all of those pages was about most handguns being non-revolver semi-autos that would be affected by his proposed ban on semi-autos.

Get your crap together.

 

[soundforbjt]

So an issue with that, is that it limits probably 50% of currently owned firearms, and I'd guess 75% of firearm models. Skew that higher for handguns specifically. That's a pretty huge infringement on a constitutional right for the hope that it limits mass shootings.

Now by ban, do you mean remove from people's hands? Or just ban sale?

How is that an infringement, do you still not have the right to bear arms or is it that you do not have the right to bear the arms you want to?

 

[soundforbjt]

...said as you continue to dance around the fact that almost all handguns are semi-auto and, thus, your proposal to ban semi-autos would ban nearly all handguns.

As soon as this was pointed out to you you started on about how semi-auto handguns were more likely to be used in mass shootings anyway while ignoring that your proposed law would have a disproportionate impact on everyone else while the mass shooters who more likely would have sported semi-auto rifles would just switch to bolt-action rifles. With comparable range, lethality, and repeatability when compared to a similar semi-auto rifle, there would be very little impact on the people you are targeting with the semi-auto ban (mass shooters).

There are FAR more concerns for your typical handgun owner than mass shooters. Dare I say, virtually no one thinks their handgun is primarily for defending against a mass shooter. Hey: you're the one who went there with the "what would someone with a semi-auto handgun do against a clock tower sniper?" rationalization as if that was the only situation you'd be disarming them in. You would be disarming them from defending against just about any of the other threats while doing very little to inconvenience the mass shooters you are targeting. Rape, physical assault, home invasion, robbery, animal control, etc, etc, etc... all to make the clock tower shooter switch from a semi-auto rifle to a bolt-action one.

That sounds like a GREAT idea!/S

Keep playing...

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

How is that an infringement, do you still not have the right to bear arms or is it that you do not have the right to bear the arms you want to?

Well, the right to bear arms logically covers all arms, not a selected subset of arms. It's not 'right to bolt action rifles' or 'right to single-shot muzzle loaders'. The intent of the 2A as written was to cover future developments in arms, it's only logical that it cover all of them, not some of them.

One can easily draw a corollary with other rights if you wish, right to free speech only covers a subset of free speech (government approved?), right to freedom of movement only applies to a subset of movement (interstate, not intrastate?), etc.

Before you start down this path as I've talked about this many times, I personally support lifting bans on all types of weaponry, but that's not an ideal most people share.

 

[Ichinisan]

OK. Ban mag-loaded handguns and speed loaders because...mass shootings?

Exactly, that was my whole point of my original post, the most effective compromise to deter/limit mass shootings. Also semi auto rifles. Semi autos/mag loaded are the weapon of choice for mass shooters because of their characteristics.

So you think that will have a huge impact on mass shootings because...you think a large percentage of mass shootings are perpetrated with handguns?

So you'll ban all the law-abiding civilians from owning mag-loaded semi-auto handguns (the majority of all handguns) for their personal protection.

Ban semi-auto rifles and you start noticing that some guns blur the line between handgun and rifle. In that case, you would find that the accessible weapon of choice for a mass shooter would be a bolt/lever/pump action rifle (or an illegal semi-auto because a mass murderer isn't particularly concerned with the law).

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

So you think that will have a huge impact on mass shootings because...you think a large percentage of mass shootings are perpetrated with handguns?

So you'll ban all the law-abiding civilians from owning mag-loaded semi-auto handguns (the majority of all handguns) for their personal protection.

Ban semi-auto rifles and you start noticing that some guns blur the line between handgun and rifle. In that case, you would find that the accessible weapon of choice for a mass shooter would be a bolt/lever/pump action rifle (or an illegal semi-auto because a mass murderer isn't particularly concerned with the law).

Or someone just develops a new action type that doesn't cover existing types which then requires another law to ban.

 

[soundforbjt]

Well, the right to bear arms logically covers all arms, not a selected subset of arms. It's not 'right to bolt action rifles' or 'right to single-shot muzzle loaders'. The intent of the 2A as written was to cover future developments in arms, it's only logical that it cover all of them, not some of them.

How do you know their intent?

 

[soundforbjt]

So you think that will have a huge impact on mass shootings because...you think a large percentage of mass shootings are perpetrated with handguns?

So you'll ban all the law-abiding civilians from owning mag-loaded semi-auto handguns (the majority of all handguns) for their personal protection.

No, they're committed almost exclusively with semi-auto/mag loaded weapons (rifles & handguns) vs the others, look it up.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

How do you know their intent?

I can only presume because they worded it the way they did. I mean, they had cannons back then, it doesn't say 'right to bear personal arms' or 'right to bear small arms'. Logically it covers everything.

 

[Ichinisan]

How do you know their intent?

Do you think they were attempting to enshrine a "right to hunt" in the constitution?

 

[soundforbjt]

I can only presume because they worded it the way they did. I mean, they had cannons back then, it doesn't say 'right to bear personal arms' or 'right to bear small arms'. Logically it covers everything.

We'll never know, if they knew about the firepower of today's weapons, they might have been more careful with their words.

 

[Ichinisan]

OK. Ban mag-loaded handguns and speed loaders because...mass shootings?

Exactly, that was my whole point of my original post, the most effective compromise to deter/limit mass shootings. Also semi auto rifles. Semi autos/mag loaded are the weapon of choice for mass shooters because of their characteristics.

So you think that will have a huge impact on mass shootings because...you think a large percentage of mass shootings are perpetrated with handguns?

So you'll ban all the law-abiding civilians from owning mag-loaded semi-auto handguns (the majority of all handguns) for their personal protection.

...

No, they're committed almost exclusively with semi-auto/mag loaded weapons (rifles & handguns) vs the others, look it up.

You would overwhelmingly restrict handguns "... because mass shootings ..." -- but most mass shootings are perpetrated with rifles. Even without semi-auto rifles, there would continue to be effective rifle options for mass shooters (bolt/pump/lever-action), so you'd effectively restrict nearly all civilian handgun owners and have very little impact on mass shooters.

 

[soundforbjt]

Do you think they were attempting to enshrine a "right to hunt" in the constitution?

There you go again, keep on playing.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

We'll never know, if they knew about the firepower of today's weapons, they might have been more careful with their words.

And if we had more experience with resisting an overwhelming aggressor, we'd probably be more careful with relinquishing our rights.

 

[soundforbjt]

You would overwhelmingly restrict handguns "... because mass shootings ..." -- but most mass shootings are perpetrated with rifles. Even without semi-auto rifles, there would continue to be effective rifle options for mass shooters (bolt/pump/lever-action), so you'd effectively restrict nearly all civilian handgun owners and have very little impact on mass shooters.

You saying you can't stop someone with a revolver? Dirty Harry would disagree

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

You saying you can't stop someone with a revolver? Dirty Harry would disagree

Ironic considering Dirty Harry was a dirty cop. Given that he was an officer, most criminals would have expected a certain level of behavior from him, which he abused in order to gain the element of surprise. If they knew he was going to kill them, they probably would have been able to create a scenario that enabled a more protracted fight; one which would be of benefit if your aggressor is using a weapon that has undue reloading requirements.

 

[soundforbjt]

Ironic considering Dirty Harry was a dirty cop. Given that he was an officer, most criminals would have expected a certain level of behavior from him, which he abused in order to gain the element of surprise. If they knew he was going to kill them, they probably would have been able to create a scenario that enabled a more protracted fight; one which would be of benefit if your aggressor is using a weapon that has undue reloading requirements.

Now you're going down the rabbit hole. It was in jest to his post, nothing more.