• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

POS Chuck Schumer sneaks gun legislation into Cybersecurity bill

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,529
0
0
gun violence = violence committed by people using guns - is that really too difficult for you to grasp?
 

classy

Lifer
Oct 12, 1999
15,219
1
81
Keeping law-abiding citizens away from guns is not going to stop the bad guys from getting them.

This is complete fallacy. The worst argument made. The truth is most gun deaths and injuries in this country do not come from the "corner" criminals. I agree that for those type of criminals, laws will have no effect. But, most of the killings are committed by people who are quote unquote law abiding citizens. The latest mass shootings have been committed by people who had not even gotten a traffic ticket. So while the local drug dealer I am concerned about, its my law-abiding citizen who lives next door that more than likely be the person to shoot me.
 

XJustMeX21

Golden Member
Nov 26, 2005
1,606
0
76
As a gun owner I have no problem with this. There is no reason to have a 100 round magazine to go "hunting".
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
gun violence = violence committed by people using guns - is that really too difficult for you to grasp?
Right, that's the media buzzword used to reinforce the weakminded's assumption that guns are the cause of the problems and not the people that commit the crimes.

XJustMeX21 said:
As a gun owner I have no problem with this. There is no reason to have a 100 round magazine to go "hunting".
That's your opinion, but guns are not just for hunting.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
This is complete fallacy. The worst argument made. The truth is most gun deaths and injuries in this country do not come from the "corner" criminals. I agree that for those type of criminals, laws will have no effect. But, most of the killings are committed by people who are quote unquote law abiding citizens. The latest mass shootings have been committed by people who had not even gotten a traffic ticket. So while the local drug dealer I am concerned about, its my law-abiding citizen who lives next door that more than likely be the person to shoot me.
Complete, and utter bullshit.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
This is complete fallacy. The worst argument made. The truth is most gun deaths and injuries in this country do not come from the "corner" criminals. I agree that for those type of criminals, laws will have no effect. But, most of the killings are committed by people who are quote unquote law abiding citizens. The latest mass shootings have been committed by people who had not even gotten a traffic ticket. So while the local drug dealer I am concerned about, its my law-abiding citizen who lives next door that more than likely be the person to shoot me.
100% total, and outright lie.
 

jman19

Lifer
Nov 3, 2000
11,181
609
126
This is complete fallacy. The worst argument made. The truth is most gun deaths and injuries in this country do not come from the "corner" criminals. I agree that for those type of criminals, laws will have no effect. But, most of the killings are committed by people who are quote unquote law abiding citizens. The latest mass shootings have been committed by people who had not even gotten a traffic ticket. So while the local drug dealer I am concerned about, its my law-abiding citizen who lives next door that more than likely be the person to shoot me.
I'm curious... do you have facts to back this up? I'm genuinely interested in knowing the truth here.
 

conehead433

Diamond Member
Dec 4, 2002
5,251
311
126
I'm all in favor of the right to have guns. Even though I'm not necessarily in favor of these huge magazines being legal I am somewhat apprehensive about making them illegal. Then only the criminals, military and law enforcement would possess them. And the way things are going in this country you don't really know who you might end up having to defend yourself against. I'd rather see everyone armed. Then when some nut job opens fire in a crowd he gets plugged with a 100 bullets or so. No need for the justice system to figure out what to do with them afterwards. Holmes will probably be on death row for 15 years at an expense to taxpayers of a million dollars a year. I don't give a shit if he's nuts, he doesn't deserve our system of justice.
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,529
0
0
in all seriousness - what would be the real harm in banning sales of 100 round magazines?

Politically they get to say they did something.

Real world implication for gun owners? I'm not seeing it, and don't give me any of the slippery slope BS.
 
May 16, 2000
13,526
0
0
in all seriousness - what would be the real harm in banning sales of 100 round magazines?

Politically they get to say they did something.

Real world implication for gun owners? I'm not seeing it, and don't give me any of the slippery slope BS.
It's mostly underlying principle and slippery slope. Unlike you, I consider those very real considerations however, and not bs.

They're not a problem (only tiny random outliers), the government shouldn't be doing it, it sets a bad precedent, it can't possibly have any positive impact. That's why it shouldn't be done.
 
Sep 7, 2009
12,960
3
0
This is complete fallacy. The worst argument made. The truth is most gun deaths and injuries in this country do not come from the "corner" criminals. I agree that for those type of criminals, laws will have no effect. But, most of the killings are committed by people who are quote unquote law abiding citizens. The latest mass shootings have been committed by people who had not even gotten a traffic ticket. So while the local drug dealer I am concerned about, its my law-abiding citizen who lives next door that more than likely be the person to shoot me.

This post is 100% wrong.
 

PJABBER

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2001
4,822
0
0
So while the local drug dealer I am concerned about, its my law-abiding citizen who lives next door that more than likely be the person to shoot me.
Perhaps you, too, might consider the following article - Raging Against Self Defense: A Psychiatrist Examines The Anti-Gun Mentality By Sarah Thompson, M.D.

Perhaps a relevant extract from the above reference?

Projection

About a year ago I received an e-mail from a member of a local Jewish organization. The author, who chose to remain anonymous, insisted that people have no right to carry firearms because he didn’t want to be murdered if one of his neighbors had a "bad day". (I don’t know that this person is a "he", but I’m assuming so for the sake of simplicity.) I responded by asking him why he thought his neighbors wanted to murder him, and, of course, got no response. The truth is that he’s statistically more likely to be murdered by a neighbor who doesn’t legally carry a firearm(1) and more likely to be shot accidentally by a law enforcement officer.(2)

How does my correspondent "know" that his neighbors would murder him if they had guns? He doesn’t. What he was really saying was that if he had a gun, he might murder his neighbors if he had a bad day, or if they took his parking space, or played their stereos too loud.

This is an example of what mental health professionals call projection – unconsciously projecting one’s own unacceptable feelings onto other people, so that one doesn’t have to own them.(3) In some cases, the intolerable feelings are projected not onto a person, but onto an inanimate object, such as a gun,(4) so that the projector believes the gun itself will murder him.

Projection is a defense mechanism. Defense mechanisms are unconscious psychological mechanisms that protect us from feelings that we cannot consciously accept.(5) They operate without our awareness, so that we don’t have to deal consciously with "forbidden" feelings and impulses. Thus, if you asked my e–mail correspondent if he really wanted to murder his neighbors, he would vehemently deny it, and insist that other people want to kill him.

Projection is a particularly insidious defense mechanism, because it not only prevents a person from dealing with his own feelings, it also creates a world where he perceives everyone else as directing his own hostile feelings back at him.(6)
From the same article -

(This discussion of psychological mechanisms applies to the average person who is uninformed, or misinformed, about firearms and self–defense. It does not apply to the anti–gun ideologue. Fanatics like Charles Schumer know the facts about firearms, and advocate victim disarmament consciously and willfully in order to gain political power. This psychological analysis does not apply to them.)
How apropos!
 

brandonb

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 2006
3,731
2
0
I have a 100 round clip for my AR-15. I can't say I ever spent the time filling the damn thing up. Too tedius.

Do I hunt with it? Nope! I bought it to shoot people, honestly. If there was ever a day I needed to. Take a look at Syria and other places in revolt. I'd rather be the guy with a gun with a 100 round clip, and 2000 rounds of ammo back home, and I'm prepared... And it will stay that way until this place becomes Syria.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
72,598
23,709
136
Hmmm, seems a few anti-gunners were making the comment that gun people are always worried about new gun laws? Hmmmm, I wonder why?
You think a senator putting an amendment up for a vote that almost certainly won't go anywhere is a reason to be always worried about new gun laws? If a legislator putting up a amendment is cause for such alarm you have a pretty huge list of things you should be freaking out about.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,414
616
126
" it will do nothing but inconvenience law-abiding shooters." Cry me a river.

Agree with you that it's a knee-jerk reaction - but at least it's a reaction.

How many people have to die every day at the hands of a gun before we at least try to do something?

Note that I'm not at all calling for a repeal of the 2nd amendment - but the NRA reaction of "no problem, nothing to see here"....how long are you ok with that answer?
you are a sad sad little man.
 

OutHouse

Lifer
Jun 5, 2000
36,414
616
126
I have a 100 round MAGAZINE for my AR-15. I can't say I ever spent the time filling the damn thing up. Too tedius.

Do I hunt with it? Nope! I bought it to shoot people, honestly. If there was ever a day I needed to. Take a look at Syria and other places in revolt. I'd rather be the guy with a gun with a 100 round MAGAZINE , and 2000 rounds of ammo back home, and I'm prepared... And it will stay that way until this place becomes Syria.
MAGAZINE MAGAZINE MAGAZINE!!!!!!!!

calling it a "clip" makes you look stupid.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
You think a senator putting an amendment up for a vote that almost certainly won't go anywhere is a reason to be always worried about new gun laws? If a legislator putting up a amendment is cause for such alarm you have a pretty huge list of things you should be freaking out about.
...yes. Attaching gun control into unrelated laws is bullshit.
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
as expected - more of 'access to guns isn't the problem'

nothing to see here, keep heads buried in the sand...
lack of education is the problem. failure on the part of our failure of a centralized educational institute.
 

brandonb

Diamond Member
Oct 17, 2006
3,731
2
0
MAGAZINE MAGAZINE MAGAZINE!!!!!!!!

calling it a "clip" makes you look stupid.
Yes yes...

Round, Bullet, Cartridge, Shell, "Cap"

The thing that holds all the above.

A magazine is a thing with Kate Middleton, Justin Bieber, and Angelina Jolie on the cover. Sort of like book but with pictures and 95% advertisments.

/kidding.
 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,529
0
0
I have a 100 round clip for my AR-15. I can't say I ever spent the time filling the damn thing up. Too tedius.

Do I hunt with it? Nope! I bought it to shoot people, honestly. If there was ever a day I needed to. Take a look at Syria and other places in revolt. I'd rather be the guy with a gun with a 100 round clip, and 2000 rounds of ammo back home, and I'm prepared... And it will stay that way until this place becomes Syria.

good luck with that

So the one defense of being able to buy a 100 round "magazine" is to be able to shoot people in the event that the US ever becomes like Syria.....

the other defense was that it would do nothing

not really the strongest defense, but oh well


let me also add that this is another one of those rare instances where I agree with Xjohn on something - putting this on an un-related piece of legislation is bullshit - in fact attaching anything to a piece of legislation is a ridiculous way of doing things and should be stopped altogether.

In the end, though - pro and anti-gun folks - all Schumer is going for here is PR with his constituents - "after that shooting in CO I was the first blah blah blah to try and prevent it...blah blah blah", it's not like any of this was going to get passed anyway.
 
Last edited:

Gunslinger08

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
13,234
2
81
Magazine size limits seem pretty stupid to me. Reloading a magazine takes almost no time and the only case where it might make a difference is in a mass shooting, which are incredibly rare in gun crimes. Most shootings don't involve anything over 2 or 3 shots.

Realistically, those 100 round drums are useless. They are generally pretty poor quality and jam very frequently. The Colorado shooter's drum jammed. He probably would have shot more people with ten 10 round mags. Nobody is going to jump out and tackle him in the 1-2 seconds it takes to reload - they probably don't even have time to realize he's stopped shooting. However, just because a product is crap and nobody really needs one (100 round drum), doesn't mean it should be illegal to manufacture or possess.

I don't agree with the logic that someone needs to show a valid need to own a certain firearm or accessory. "Nobody hunts with an AR-15" isn't a good reason that someone shouldn't be allowed to own one. The constitutional reason (security of a free state) is good enough.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY