Don't ban black guns. Ban pink ones.

[xj0hnx]

Fine. I will concede that I am being reactionary here, and maybe even have gone overboard. This situation doesn't happen often, and legislation probably isn't warranted.

It would be nice if people could also admit that it generally isn't a good idea for the line between guns and toys to be blurred in this manner. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.

It might be a bad idea if you have kids, but there's plenty of pink guns out there in childless homes.

 

[DominionSeraph]

No one cares about you obsession with ponies. It's fun to make fun of, and point and laugh at you, but that's about all.

Woosh.

Damn, there's just no way to dumb things down enough for you conservatards.

 

[OrByte]

According to Obama and many others, "common sense" also means banning guns with pistol grips and barrel shrouds.

Yes, we have warning labels on tons of stuff. Warning labels the vast majority of the population make fun of (WARNING: COFFEE IS HOT). Since that seems to be enough for you, I suggest a little red warning sticker on an inconspicuous part of the pink gun: WARNING: THIS IS A REAL GUN, NOT A TOY GUN. Satisfied?

common sense might mean banning the public use of materials that the unhinged seem to be drawn to. I'm just throwing that out there...

All of these cool little trinkets that make your gun look totally awesome and killer!! (literally)

I wonder what would happen if guns would be regulated back to bolt action or revolver? now all of the sudden guns aren't so cool and gangsta-riffic!

I think maybe the culture of guns and gun popularity can be a tangible problem, especially in an age where media and society has this apathy towards violence.

I'm not saying I buy into the idea. But I'm also trying to understand the logic behind banning firearms and materials that seem to have no impact other than hitting the gun industry in the pocketbook and taking a shot at the "coolness" factor of gun paraphernalia

 

[NoStateofMind]

Fine. I will concede that I am being reactionary here, and maybe even have gone overboard. This situation doesn't happen often, and legislation probably isn't warranted.

You deserve to be commended for having the strength to admit you're wrong. Not many on this forum are able to do that. Whether it means anything to you or not you've jumped ahead of many I've debated based on this simple humility. I must now concede you do strive to reason, as evidenced by this change of mind. I truly apologize if I caused you any undue harm in previous threads. Such a rarities need to be shouted from the mountain tops so others too can find honor in self respect. I'm truly impressed. Hats off :thumbsup:

It would be nice if people could also admit that it generally isn't a good idea for the line between guns and toys to be blurred in this manner. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.

It may not be a good idea but limiting freedom of expression is really whats being said here if I'm understanding you correctly. The responsibility relies on the parents and their loss is their fault and no one elses. The child just as well could have died from choking on something 'shiny'.

 

[xj0hnx]

Woosh.

Damn, there's just no way to dumb things down enough for you conservatards.

Ahhh yes, the ol' pretend your quip was just too deep, LOL. Sorry, maybe try smartening it up next time. Really though, you're not a mystery, or a deep thinker or something, just a wannabe pseudo-intellectual try hard.

 

[Pia]

Fine. I will concede that I am being reactionary here, and maybe even have gone overboard. This situation doesn't happen often, and legislation probably isn't warranted.

*applause*

It would be nice if people could also admit that it generally isn't a good idea for the line between guns and toys to be blurred in this manner. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should do something.

I agree that there is something to be concerned about, but there is no "general" blurring of guns and toys. Toys looking like guns and guns looking like toys are entirely different issues and should be treated as such.

It's irrelevant what the guns in hands of responsible owners look like; those guns will virtually never end up in hands of young kids. (Not that there is, to my knowledge, any statistical evidence linking gun color/styling to accident count.) Olympic and other competition guns often feature bright colors, and some look more like sci-fi props than a normal gun. It has been that way for ages. With irresponsible owners, the fact they have guns around at all is the problem, not the design.

I'd personally be more concerned of the phenomenon of kids having toy guns that look like real ones. The risk inherent in that seems like something even reasonably responsible parents might miss if they aren't used to thinking about this kind of stuff. I don't think I would personally buy my young kids any sort of toy guns, and I would point out the risk potential for any parent in the neighborhood who bought realistic toy guns for their young kids.

 

[Agent11]

Doesn't matter what it LOOKS LIKE. A 3 year old shouldn't have been able to get a hold of a loaded firearm.

Some one was negligent.

 

[BonzaiDuck]

Except the Gifford's shooting. Or VA Tech. Or Columbine. Or 99% of gun homicides.


Your law enforcement friends must not have seen many ballistics tests, which show .223 rounds having similar penetration/fragmentation patterns to that of handgun rounds. Your choice of ammunition is more important in a home defense situation than your choice of firearm. A 12-gauge loaded with 1 oz slugs will penetrate a lot more than one loaded with buckshot. A 9mm loaded with FMJ will go through more barriers than one with JHP.


What's your magic number, and how did you conclude that your round limit would reduce gun crime?

Statistics and statistical analysis can either illuminate or befuddle, but there is (truly) a standard for an objective application of the discipline. Looking at today's LA Times, I see that there are all sorts of shootings or murders attributable to handguns that are "reported." But -- barring the analysis I speak of -- it appears that they aren't mass murders, noting the exceptions which you cited (i.e., VA Tech).

This last year, you'll acknowledge that we've seen a string -- a "block sample" in time-series if you will -- of mass murders or attempts at mass murder involving the particular assault rifle in question.

I have few illusions that the recent Feinstein proposal will work. There are already so many M-4's and AR-15's in the hands of people that simply eliminating them from the market may pose little in "risk reduction."

Feinstein's view is tutored by a personal experience dating back to the '70s. If one sees risk materialize first-hand, the risk or uncertainty or possibility carries greater weight in the attitudes and conclusions.

I'm personally skeptical that a ban on AR-15's will significantly reduce the risk. I'm more convinced that regulation of magazines and clips may have a useful impact. Crime and shooting statistics from Australia seem to show that regulation of magazines -- limited to maybe five rounds -- puts a dent in the carnage. The same approach is effective in Europe, with limitations of three to five rounds.