When are Democrats going to return to reality regarding firearm rights?

[schneiderguy]

http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolaler...l-to-report-big-buyers-of-ammo-to-police.html

Summary: New bill introduced in CA requires businesses to report anyone who buys more than 1000 rounds of ammo to the police.

1000 rounds is two $15 boxes of .22lr. Between me and a friend we can go through that in about 2 hours at a range that doesn't even allow rapid fire.

If this is what "compromise" and "reasonable restrictions" are, I want nothing to do with them. I don't know why Democrats claim that the big bad NRA is being unreasonable, when it's the NRA that has compromised many times over the past 30 years and the Democrats just keep wanting more idiotic restrictions that do nothing but hurt law abiding gun owners.

 

[Jaskalas]

If it is legal to restrict ammo, then it is legal to restrict / ban ALL ammo. There is no distinction to be made.

 

[Lithium381]

Where is the proof that any of these laws work? The sample size and control groups are there .. . . .

 

[bfdd]

If it is legal to restrict ammo, then it is legal to restrict / ban ALL ammo. There is no distinction to be made.

yup, boo on Californian idiots leaders. I love my State and my people, but our Government is fucking retarded.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Knee jerk reactionary bullshit from CA left wing politicians who push legislation that won't even make a dent when it comes to preventing spree killing acts of violence. What else is new here.

 

[Smoblikat]

Saying guns kill people is like saying forks cause obesity.

 

[First]

If it is legal to restrict ammo, then it is legal to restrict / ban ALL ammo. There is no distinction to be made.

lol.

 

[Lemon law]

The real question is when are gun nuts and the NRA return to reality. 70 years ago the NRA was leading the fight to have sensable guns laws, no sawed off shot guns, no fully automatic weapons, as the NRA stood four square againt criminals having full access to guns.

Then we can talk about the second amendment and what it means? As courts previouly ruled the 2'nd amendment meant states could have State militias and national guard units co-equal to any national US army to protect the rights of various States in the Union. And did not extend to US States regulating gun nuts within a given State.

But SCOTUS is now nuts and making irrational conclusion, such as money is free speech
and all kinss of stupity.

 

[berzerker60]

Saying guns kill people is like saying forks cause obesity.

This is a dumb argument. Forks don't make eating many many many times more efficient and possible to accomplish in short order before police can react. No one in modern memory has gone on a killing spree with a knife that killed dozens of people in a short period, but that's happened plenty of times with guns. Basically the question worth considering is whether the theoretical ability to fight against a nebulous future government, plus 'self-defense' arguments, plus things like hunting, are worth the additional murders made possibly by guns compared to the amount that would happen without guns. There are reasonable arguments on both sides, but it's stupid and dishonest to act like guns don't make a huge difference in the scale and frequency.

 

[Lithium381]

This is a dumb argument. Forks don't make eating many many many times more efficient and possible to accomplish in short order before police can react. No one in modern memory has gone on a killing spree with a knife that killed dozens of people in a short period, but that's happened plenty of times with guns. Basically the question worth considering is whether the theoretical ability to fight against a nebulous future government, plus 'self-defense' arguments, plus things like hunting, are worth the additional murders made possibly by guns compared to the amount that would happen without guns. There are reasonable arguments on both sides, but it's stupid and dishonest to act like guns don't make a huge difference in the scale and frequency.

I agree some gun regulation is necessary. However, if you look at what the politicians like to bring up: "ASSAULT WEAPONS" "MILITARY STYLE ASSAULT RIFLE" "HIGH POWERED SNIPER RIFLE" . . . lets look at the numbers. The guns they try and ban most often are used very rarely in crimes. Most deaths are caused by handguns. Lets look at the numbers again. Most are caused by people who do NOT legally carry it nor own it. They're either stolen or bought on the blackmarket. Often, they're revolvers, which is typically 6 rounds. Doesn't sound like the ZOMG HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES that are attacked often. Then if you read some of the laws about magazine capacity and those have exceptions for rimfire ammunition. Go ahead and take a guess which caliber is used in most deaths. If you guessed .22lr you're on the right track.

I'm not saying there isn't merit in SOME gun regulation but at least be honest about it and try not to sensationalize the wrong thing. Lets talk about what might actually work instead of knee-jerk reactions. .

That and criminals don't follow laws ;-) Since it's already illegal to kill someone . .. that should be a no-brainer

 

[Screech]

This is a dumb argument. Forks don't make eating many many many times more efficient and possible to accomplish in short order before police can react. No one in modern memory has gone on a killing spree with a knife that killed dozens of people in a short period, but that's happened plenty of times with guns. Basically the question worth considering is whether the theoretical ability to fight against a nebulous future government, plus 'self-defense' arguments, plus things like hunting, are worth the additional murders made possibly by guns compared to the amount that would happen without guns. There are reasonable arguments on both sides, but it's stupid and dishonest to act like guns don't make a huge difference in the scale and frequency.

We could also discuss how much better the american healthcare system would be if nobody in america was overweight and everybody was in shape......but it would be similarly pointless. You can't outlaw fat people (easily) and you can't make guns disappear (easily) (no matter how hard you try).

That said, there are reasonable laws IMHO that should be followed regarding background checks and so forth, as well as laws for someone who is determined to be mentally, uh, off the deep end to not have guns.....that might be a different discussion though.

edit: I think this second part (keeping the guns out of the hands of crazies) is something we need to be spending more time on, actually.

 

[nehalem256]

This is a dumb argument. Forks don't make eating many many many times more efficient and possible to accomplish in short order before police can react. No one in modern memory has gone on a killing spree with a knife that killed dozens of people in a short period, but that's happened plenty of times with guns. Basically the question worth considering is whether the theoretical ability to fight against a nebulous future government, plus 'self-defense' arguments, plus things like hunting, are worth the additional murders made possibly by guns compared to the amount that would happen without guns. There are reasonable arguments on both sides, but it's stupid and dishonest to act like guns don't make a huge difference in the scale and frequency.

Maybe not dozens, although I think "dozens" is an exaggeration even for gun killings, but from the last week

http://news.yahoo.com/chinese-teen-kills-eight-knife-attack-reports-102629246.html

A teenager has been arrested after killing nine people and wounding four others in a knife attack in northeast China, state media reported Thursday

And of course guns vs. knives will be skewed, because if a gun is available obviously you will choose it over a knife.

 

[Jhhnn]

If it is legal to restrict ammo, then it is legal to restrict / ban ALL ammo. There is no distinction to be made.

I'm not seeing any restrictions on buying ammo in the article... Perhaps you could point them out...

 

[Jaskalas]

I'm not seeing any restrictions on buying ammo in the article... Perhaps you could point them out...

Of course not, and are you saying you wouldn't want that?

No... first step is all we do is report you.

 

[bfdd]

This is a dumb argument. Forks don't make eating many many many times more efficient and possible to accomplish in short order before police can react. No one in modern memory has gone on a killing spree with a knife that killed dozens of people in a short period, but that's happened plenty of times with guns. Basically the question worth considering is whether the theoretical ability to fight against a nebulous future government, plus 'self-defense' arguments, plus things like hunting, are worth the additional murders made possibly by guns compared to the amount that would happen without guns. There are reasonable arguments on both sides, but it's stupid and dishonest to act like guns don't make a huge difference in the scale and frequency.

300m+ of us, one going on a rampage is statistical error

 

[xj0hnx]

No one in modern memory has gone on a killing spree with a knife that killed dozens of people in a short period, but that's happened plenty of times with guns.

Dozens? No, quite a few? yes ...

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2261573

In reality, few of these mass shootings have had even a dozen people killed, much less "dozens"

Basically the question worth considering is whether the theoretical ability to fight against a nebulous future government, plus 'self-defense' arguments, plus things like hunting, are worth the additional murders made possibly by guns compared to the amount that would happen without guns. There are reasonable arguments on both sides, but it's stupid and dishonest to act like guns don't make a huge difference in the scale and frequency.

Talk about a dumb argument. You need the face the reality that A) more gun laws are not going to stop people from killing each other, B) Criminals are not going to follow gun laws, no matter how many you make, C) The guns are already here, so no amount of gun laws is going to make them disappear, except banning, and door-to-door confiscation, and that is not EVER going to happen in this country.

There's been 23 mass shootings since 1996, only 12 of them have been in the US, the others have been in such gun control bastions as, Britain, Australia, Belgium and Germany.

http://news.yahoo.com/timeline-mass-shooting-incidents-last-20-years-003607548.html

 

[SlowSpyder]

No one in modern memory has gone on a killing spree with a knife that killed dozens of people in a short period, but that's happened plenty of times with guns.

Some religious nuts with box cutters (knives) caused quite a bit of damage and killed a few people almost 11 years ago.

 

[micrometers]

I find it amusing how so many "free thinkers" just end up same-ish sounding drones. They repeat NRA mantras like some weird creepy cult.

 

[glenn1]

1000 rounds is two $15 boxes of .22lr. Between me and a friend we can go through that in about 2 hours at a range that doesn't even allow rapid fire.

Are you planning to pay someone to load that ammo for you? Just the thought of inserting 1000 rounds of .22LR into magazines makes my hands cramp up. I just shot 150 through my Ruger SR22 the other day and was sick of loading by the end, I can't imagine doing thee times that much.

 

[xj0hnx]

I find it amusing how so many "free thinkers" just end up same-ish sounding drones. They repeat NRA mantras like some weird creepy cult.

Which is ironic coming from you since you repeat that same lie in every gun thread. Why don't you try educating yourself on firearms before injecting more of your ignorance in every thread about guns.

 

[micrometers]

Okay, honestly, as a gun control advocate, I don't think this is the best idea. It would basically amount to a lot of noise that gets thrown at police and annoying paperwork for gun dealers.

Instead, my preferred approach would be some sort of central database run by the NSA that would have algorithms analyzing purchase patterns to see if something popped up.

 

[xj0hnx]

Okay, honestly, as a gun control advocate, I don't think this is the best idea. It would basically amount to a lot of noise that gets thrown at police and annoying paperwork for gun dealers.

Instead, my preferred approach would be some sort of central database run by the NSA that would have algorithms analyzing purchase patterns to see if something popped up.

Oh my lord you are dumb. Why would the NSA monitor ammo sales? Ever heard of the BATFE? Not to mention the fact that the guy that is going to go on a killing spree isn't going to be the guy that is stockpiling ammo for the zombie apocalypse.

 

[micrometers]

OTOH, anything that irritates and wastes the energy of gun owners and gun sellers is a net positive in my book.

 

[xj0hnx]

OTOH, anything that irritates and wastes the energy of gun owners and gun sellers is a net positive in my book.

The net positive is that in America we can own, and carry guns, and it makes your skin crawl because there is nothing you can do about it.

 

[Lithium381]

Okay, honestly, as a gun control advocate, I don't think this is the best idea. It would basically amount to a lot of noise that gets thrown at police and annoying paperwork for gun dealers.

Instead, my preferred approach would be some sort of central database run by the NSA that would have algorithms analyzing purchase patterns to see if something popped up.

I would actually be VERY interested in seeing what such an algorithm came up with. Then again, the information coming out can only be as good as the data going in . . .