I changed my stance on gun control!!!

[Astrid]

Don't you live your life on buying mostly (if not all) chinese goods?


No, there are no different versions of the Word, not even "in some sense". I don't know where you got that from but you clearly lack a basic understanding of Christianity.


My word was not "ignorant" - that was your word. You used it, I didn't. And making up is not synonymous with lying. If you need the difference explained I'll explain it, but I'm assuming (and for your sake hoping) you're smart enough to know better. But if I'm wrong then let me know and I'll explain the difference to you. Perhaps it's a language barrier for you.


I'm not sure why you're admitting to equivocation and providing me the source you are learning it from, but I am not buying into your equivocation so you may as well not

Such unseemly carrying on.

 

[Brihaha]

I do tend to respond to rudeness with rudeness of my own. Sadly he is repeating errors even after sources show how he is wrong.

I know exactly how you feel. I have been working on improving my own patience for years hahaha. I am trying to ignore the posts in which my replies seem to go unnoticed and facts are ignored. One could hyperventilate trying to refute inane arguments posited nowadays.

 

[ArmenianJohn]

Such unseemly carrying on.

Indeed

 

[Subduction Zone]

My notions of sensible gun control:
1. Register every single firearm and license it to its owner. Register transfers the same way.
2. Require safety and proficiency courses to bear.
3. Outlaw high cap magazines.
4. Outlaw rounds / gun types likely to cause certain egregious damage.

Where to draw the line on hard limits tbd. This is just the big picture. There's probably other elements I'm missing. The general idea is that the individual right, which I support, is maintained, but the no-responsibility free for all is over.

Almost all gun owners would still be able to own guns with your proposed regulations. And we already limit certain rounds. Those that do not believe this should try buying tracer rounds if they do not believe me. For some odd reason many gun owners have almost a paranoia when it comes to anything that limits their ability to get guns and ammo. Yet at the same times they tend to be those that want the strictest punishments for those that illegally own firearms.

If we go back to the Rittenhouse case, Rittenhouse did have that gun illegally. If they had not messed up so badly they could have charged him with that at the very least. His friend that got the weapon for him has been charged. If you do not know the details Rittenhouse took some of his stimulus money and used it buy his rifle. He was too young to own it so his friend bought it for him with the understanding that when he turned 18 he would turn over the rifle to him. I can support this with sources if you would like. That is what is called a "straw purchase". It was also confirmed by Rittenhouse himself and by his friend letting him use that weapon that fateful night.

 

[RDKirk]

For some odd reason many gun owners have almost a paranoia when it comes to anything that limits their ability to get guns and ammo. Yet at the same times they tend to be those that want the strictest punishments for those that illegally own firearms. .

Why is that paradoxical to you?

 

[RDKirk]

My notions of sensible gun control:
1. Register every single firearm and license it to its owner. Register transfers the same way.

Is this your way of tracking stolen firearms?

2. Require safety and proficiency courses to bear.

Have to determine what that requires. Hopefully not more than required for police forces.

3. Outlaw high cap magazines.

What do you think that will accomplish? What do you consider "high capacity" to be?

4. Outlaw rounds / gun types likely to cause certain egregious damage.

Those are already outlawed...but what do you consider "egregious damage," and exactly why do you think it makes a difference?

 

[durangodawood]

Almost all gun owners would still be able to own guns with your proposed regulations.....

For sure. It plainly a constitutional right. And I support it.

But somehow we've gotten into a mindset where that means arms need to be a de facto free for all or else "tyranny!" Its absurd.

 

[BNR32FAN]

Here is the problem--and perhaps I shouldn't say it out loud--but if all the AR-15 and other "assault rifles" in the country were banned and even successfully confiscated...it wouldn't make a dent in the gun homicide rate, or the homicide rate overall. Likely, it would not change by as much as a single death.

I agree because the motive is still present. Cars and bombs can be just effective as an assault rifle.

 

[durangodawood]

Is this your way of tracking stolen firearms?

Have to determine what that requires. Hopefully not more than required for police forces.

What do you think that will accomplish? What do you consider "high capacity" to be?

Those are already outlawed...but what do you consider "egregious damage," and exactly why do you think it makes a difference?

1. tracking theft as well as tracing gun crime.
2. I think ownership would not require more training than police get.
3. My opening bid is a limit of 6.
4. I'm swayed by the comparison of a typical ar-15 style round vs the 9mm. Lets go with 9mm type damage as the limit, with bigger stuff ok for bolt action hunting arms or similar.

Of course I'm swayable by reasonable arguments. Non of this is dogma for me and Im sure its incomplete in some way. Just a first pass.

 

[Always in His Presence]

4. Outlaw rounds / gun types likely to cause certain egregious damage.

Do you know what calibre of handgun was used for the Regan assassination attempt? And why?

 

[renniks]

There goes another irony meter. Sorry, but you simply do not understand the role of energy transfer of kinetic energy. I provided more than one source that explains how .223 rounds do far more damage to surrounding tissue caused the the velocity of the round. You keep conflating momentum and energy. They are two different things and have very different effects.

Maybe what you need is some real-life experience with the subject instead of internet theories...
Too bad we didn't have this discussion earlier, I could have provided pictures of the difference in damage between small-caliber bullets and larger-caliber bullets going through deer. It's all talk and theory until you see it for yourself.

 

[Jamdoc]

I mentioned something like that in a post. In a rural area, they are essential. You don't know if there is a wolf or something else. Plus many people use them on a daily basis to hunt. For some people it's their main source of meat.

Healthy wolves don't attack people as far as I know
but mountain lions and grizzly bears? Oh yeah.

 

[renniks]

I disagree. We already have gun control to a limited extent. One already cannot buy an assault rifle, I am not a fan of the term "assault weapon" because that is merely based upon looks. An "assault weapon" is a gun that looks like an assault rifle. Making certain rounds illegal has already been done. Why support a round that is only ideally suited to varmint hunting?

That's not all it's good for, first off. And making a round illegal makes all the guns that people already own in that caliber illegal. Why? There's no reason for it. It does nothing but make law-abiding gun owners into instant criminals. It would not stop a single shooting.

 

[durangodawood]

Do you know what calibre of handgun was used for the Regan assassination attempt? And why?

No. But my outline is principles rather than specifics. Were I to develop it further I'd definitely want to get into details.

 

[Jamdoc]

For home defense, it would be hard to beat a 12 guage with 00 buckshot. You don't need precise shot placement when you have several .38 sized balls spreading out.

If you don't mind killing your neighbor maybe.
For home defense people would actually recommend #4 buckshot in a 12guage or #3 buckshot in a 20 guage, as it'll penetrate enough to be effective without overpenetrating with enough force to kill someone through exterior walls and going into another house... in an apartment where your walls are drywall between you and another apartment? Probably no firearm you can use that doesn't risk killing your neighbor while defending yourself, though hollowpoints/soft points will help because of the expansion helping to prevent overpenetration after hitting your intended target, but if you miss? That's going through dry wall easy.

as rdkirk said too, you still have to aim a shotgun. at 10 yards even using a 14 inch barrel on a shockwave or tac-14, you'd still get only a few inches of spread. Even with bird shot it's only about 6 inches of spread at that distance.. and that's a distance like across your entire house.

 

[Always in His Presence]

No. But my outline is principles rather than specifics. Were I to develop it further I'd definitely want to get into details.

Hinkly used a .22 caliber handgun - there is nothing smaller. The reason he used it is because at the time, it was the only small caliber that could penetrate a vest.

A bullet by design caused egregious damage.

 

[rturner76]

Healthy wolves don't attack people as far as I know
but mountain lions and grizzly bears? Oh yeah.

Not to mention a rabid badger

 

[Aldebaran]

YES if I want someone dead badly enough I do not need a gun. I knew a woman that had fatal allergies to cats. Now I knew this did not particularly like her and no I was not crazy enough to do that, but my point is I could kill her by petting a cat and then the fur getting on her. That kind of murder would be tough to prove as the DA would have to show the suspect one knew of the person's allergy, knew how serious it was and then purposefully exposed the victim to whatever the allergy was You could kill someone with a lock in a sock, your bare hands, a knife any number of things.

Those with criminal intent and live in areas with strict gun control have figured this out. That's why attacks and killings are up with knives. The result? Knife control: Knives taken off supermarket shelves in New Zealand after terrorist attack

 

[Aldebaran]

So you're saying Romans 13 is wrong? Do you think a law that protects gay people from discrimination is not of God? Or do you think that God would rather that gays be discriminated against?

Is homosexuality encouraged in God's Word? If you believe so, I'd be interested in any bible verses that supposedly support it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Here is the problem--and perhaps I shouldn't say it out loud--but if all the AR-15 and other "assault rifles" in the country were banned and even successfully confiscated...it wouldn't make a dent in the gun homicide rate, or the homicide rate overall. Likely, it would not change by as much as a single death.

Do you really think so? The problem is that guns make homicide way easier. The number of mass killings at schools would drop to almost zero since the few psychopaths out there would be almost certainly incompetent to come up with some other plan. If you look at the rest of the first world we have far higher rates than any of them.