Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9173 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,575 Year: 4,832/9,624 Month: 180/427 Week: 93/85 Day: 0/10 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Aurora Colorado Violence
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3179 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 181 of 236 (668874)
07-25-2012 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by New Cat's Eye
07-25-2012 12:33 PM


Re: Gun control question
It does not restrict the capacity of the magazine that a rifle or pistol can take. The magazine restiction on pistols is about where the pistol can take the magazine, i.e. it has to go in the grip. And that's what I'm calling stupid. Making a pistol that takes a mag somewhere outside of the grip doesn't really make that gun more dangerous so its stupid to legislate against that.
I just posted where it states restrictions on magazine capacity in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 immediately after discussing the restrictions on assault weapons. You have just selectively cherry picked from the bill without reading it in its entirety. The bill DOES mention restrictions in magazine capacity. Here it is in its entirety with the restrictions on magazine capacity highlighted:
SEC. 110102. RESTRICTION ON MANUFACTURE, TRANSFER, AND POSSESSION OF CERTAIN SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS.
(a) RESTRICTION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`(v)(1) It shall be unlawful for a person to manufacture, transfer, or possess a semiautomatic assault weapon.
`(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any semiautomatic assault weapon otherwise lawfully possessed under Federal law on the date of the enactment of this subsection.
`(3) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
`(A) any of the firearms, or replicas or duplicates of the firearms, specified in Appendix A to this section, as such firearms were manufactured on October 1, 1993;
`(B) any firearm that--
`(i) is manually operated by bolt, pump, lever, or slide action;
`(ii) has been rendered permanently inoperable; or
`(iii) is an antique firearm;
`(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or
`(D) any semiautomatic shotgun that cannot hold more than 5 rounds of ammunition in a fixed or detachable magazine.
The fact that a firearm is not listed in Appendix A shall not be construed to mean that paragraph (1) applies to such firearm. No firearm exempted by this subsection may be deleted from Appendix A so long as this subsection is in effect.
`(4) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to--
`(A) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);
`(B) the transfer to a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical protection system and security organization required by Federal law, or possession by an employee or contractor of such licensee on-site for such purposes or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials;
`(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving a firearm, of a semiautomatic assault weapon transferred to the individual by the agency upon such retirement; or
`(D) the manufacture, transfer, or possession of a semiautomatic assault weapon by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Secretary.'.
(b) DEFINITION OF SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPON- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(30) The term `semiautomatic assault weapon' means--
`(A) any of the firearms, or copies or duplicates of the firearms in any caliber, known as--
`(i) Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
`(ii) Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
`(iii) Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
`(iv) Colt AR-15;
`(v) Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
`(vi) SWD M-10, M-11, M-11/9, and M-12;
`(vii) Steyr AUG;
`(viii) INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9 and TEC-22; and
`(ix) revolving cylinder shotguns, such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12;
`(B) a semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a bayonet mount;
`(iv) a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
`(v) a grenade launcher;
`(C) a semiautomatic pistol that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least 2 of--
`(i) an ammunition magazine that attaches to the pistol outside of the pistol grip;
`(ii) a threaded barrel capable of accepting a barrel extender, flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer;
`(iii) a shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel and that permits the shooter to hold the firearm with the nontrigger hand without being burned;
`(iv) a manufactured weight of 50 ounces or more when the pistol is unloaded; and
`(v) a semiautomatic version of an automatic firearm; and
`(D) a semiautomatic shotgun that has at least 2 of--
`(i) a folding or telescoping stock;
`(ii) a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon;
`(iii) a fixed magazine capacity in excess of 5 rounds; and
`(iv) an ability to accept a detachable magazine.'.
(c) PENALTIES-
(1) VIOLATION OF SECTION 922(v)- Section 924(a)(1)(B) of such title is amended by striking `or (q) of section 922' and inserting `(r), or (v) of section 922'.
(2) USE OR POSSESSION DURING CRIME OF VIOLENCE OR DRUG TRAFFICKING CRIME- Section 924(c)(1) of such title is amended in the first sentence by inserting `, or semiautomatic assault weapon,' after `short-barreled shotgun,'.
(d) IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS FOR SEMIAUTOMATIC ASSAULT WEAPONS- Section 923(i) of such title is amended by adding at the end the following: `The serial number of any semiautomatic assault weapon manufactured after the date of the enactment of this sentence shall clearly show the date on which the weapon was manufactured.'.
SEC. 110103. BAN OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.
(a) PROHIBITION- Section 922 of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 110102(a), is amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
`(w)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for a person to transfer or possess a large capacity ammunition feeding device.
`(2) Paragraph (1) shall not apply to the possession or transfer of any large capacity ammunition feeding device otherwise lawfully possessed on or before the date of the enactment of this subsection.
`(3) This subsection shall not apply to--
`(A) the manufacture for, transfer to, or possession by the United States or a department or agency of the United States or a State or a department, agency, or political subdivision of a State, or a transfer to or possession by a law enforcement officer employed by such an entity for purposes of law enforcement (whether on or off duty);
`(B) the transfer to a licensee under title I of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 for purposes of establishing and maintaining an on-site physical protection system and security organization required by Federal law, or possession by an employee or contractor of such licensee on-site for such purposes or off-site for purposes of licensee-authorized training or transportation of nuclear materials;
`(C) the possession, by an individual who is retired from service with a law enforcement agency and is not otherwise prohibited from receiving ammunition, of a large capacity ammunition feeding device transferred to the individual by the agency upon such retirement; or
`(D) the manufacture, transfer, or possession of any large capacity ammunition feeding device by a licensed manufacturer or licensed importer for the purposes of testing or experimentation authorized by the Secretary.'.
`(4) If a person charged with violating paragraph (1) asserts that paragraph (1) does not apply to such person because of paragraph (2) or (3), the Government shall have the burden of proof to show that such paragraph (1) applies to such person. The lack of a serial number as described in section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, shall be a presumption that the large capacity ammunition feeding device is not subject to the prohibition of possession in paragraph (1).'.
(b) DEFINITION OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICE- Section 921(a) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 110102(b), is amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
`(31) The term `large capacity ammunition feeding device'--
`(A) means a magazine, belt, drum, feed strip, or similar device manufactured after the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 that has a capacity of, or that can be readily restored or converted to accept, more than 10 rounds of ammunition; but
`(B) does not include an attached tubular device designed to accept, and capable of operating only with, .22 caliber rimfire ammunition.'.
(c) PENALTY- Section 924(a)(1)(B) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 110102(c)(1), is amended by striking `or (v)' and inserting `(v), or (w)'.
(d) IDENTIFICATION MARKINGS FOR LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES- Section 923(i) of title 18, United States Code, as amended by section 110102(d) of this Act, is amended by adding at the end the following: `A large capacity ammunition feeding device manufactured after the date of the enactment of this sentence shall be identified by a serial number that clearly shows that the device was manufactured or imported after the effective date of this subsection, and such other identification as the Secretary may by regulation prescribe.'
The size of the magazines for these weapons are undeniably addressed in this legislation. You just choose to ignore it and make a strawman argument hoping others have not actually read and understood the bill.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-25-2012 12:33 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-25-2012 2:09 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 236 (668882)
07-25-2012 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by DevilsAdvocate
07-25-2012 1:09 PM


Re: Gun control question
I just posted where it states restrictions on magazine capacity in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 immediately after discussing the restrictions on assault weapons. You have just selectively cherry picked from the bill without reading it in its entirety. The bill DOES mention restrictions in magazine capacity. Here it is in its entirety with the restrictions on magazine capacity highlighted:
*sigh* You're not getting it...
I'm calling the AWB stupid because of the way it defines "assault weapon" as I explained in Message 49:
quote:
Calling a gun an "assault weapon" based on aesthetics like the grip, stock, and magazine is completely retarded.
Upon request, I reiterate my point in Message 133:
quote:
People who know nothing about guns wrote the Assault Weapos Ban. Its based on aesthetics like the grip, stock, and magazine and that's stupid.
To which you reply:
So restricting magazine capacity and ammo/gun stockpiling is stupid.
and then I go:
quote:
It doesn't restrict magazine capacity, its restricts pistols from having magizines that attach outside of the grip.
To which you get into the parts of the bill that don't have anything to do with defining what an "assault weapon" is, that is, what guns are called "assault weapons"... which is what I was talking about.... which is what makes it stupid.
To address the parts you highlighted:
`(C) any semiautomatic rifle that cannot accept a detachable magazine that holds more than 5 rounds of ammunition; or
This is a qualification for an exempltion from classification as an assault weapon. It does not define an assault weapon by magazine size.
If your "assault weapon" cannot hold a mag that holds more than 5 rounds, then it doesn't actually count as an "assault weapon". That doesn't mean that a gun that does hold more than 5 rounds is an "assault weapon".
SEC. 110103. BAN OF LARGE CAPACITY AMMUNITION FEEDING DEVICES.
This bans specific types of magazines but doesn't have anything to do with the defining of an "assault weapon".
Do you get it now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-25-2012 1:09 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-25-2012 5:16 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 183 of 236 (668884)
07-25-2012 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 179 by New Cat's Eye
07-25-2012 12:33 PM


Re: Gun control question
Because they're cops and they want people to not have guns more than they care about looking foolish for supporting a stupidly written law.
Do you have any support for this claim? I found this though it does not appear to have been officially peer reviewed.
About 50% agreed with the claim:
quote:
Outlawing civilian gun ownership will result in more crime.
Only about 13% agreed with
quote:
Outlawing civilian gun ownership will result in a more civilized society
94% said they kept civillian firearms at home and a similar number that they would teach their children firearm safety.
Only 15% answered in the affirmative to:
quote:
Do you fear the possession of guns by the civilian?
as many as 29% of LEOs asked believed that if the private ownership of guns were outlawed,
quote:
citizens would be justified in revolting against the government
47% said they'd refuse an order from their superior to
quote:
participate in dynamic entry, house to house searches to seize {firearms}
if firearms were made illegal.
It seems to be a somewhat informal survey, carried out by what appears to be a competent person, made as a result of no other similar surveys having been conducted.
quote:
The general feeling was that the media took the easy way out by asking these kinds of questions only of the big police organizations such as the national union leadership of the Fraternal Order of Police or the National Association of Chiefs of Police

This message is a reply to:
 Message 179 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-25-2012 12:33 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-25-2012 2:37 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 184 of 236 (668888)
07-25-2012 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Modulous
07-25-2012 2:15 PM


Re: Gun control question
Because they're cops and they want people to not have guns more than they care about looking foolish for supporting a stupidly written law.
Do you have any support for this claim?
No, none at all. It was totally off the cuff and completely biased by my hatred for cops and the anecdotes I've heard from individual ones.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Modulous, posted 07-25-2012 2:15 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-25-2012 5:39 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Briterican
Member (Idle past 4026 days)
Posts: 340
Joined: 05-29-2008


Message 185 of 236 (668893)
07-25-2012 3:14 PM
Reply to: Message 160 by Huntard
07-24-2012 3:49 PM


Re: Gun control question
Huntard writes:
Well, actually, Switzerland is ranked quite high when it comes to private gun ownership, having about 420.000 assault rifles (converted to semi-automatic), 320.000 other semi-automatics and several hunderd thousand semi-automatic "carbines" in circulation. The estimates of total guns owned by private people is estimated between 1.2 and 3 million. Considering there are about 8 million people there, that is a lot of guns.
Yet strangely, they don't kill each other in mass shootings over there. Why Americans do kill each other in such a fashion, I have no idea.
Thanks for that Huntard, I was not aware.
I joined the thread to express my opinion, and to try to get my head around how people so vehemently defend hi-tech death in civilians' hands, but have subsequently been called ill-informed and inchoate by a couple of outspoken supporters of violence (not you, I thank you for your correction to my misunderstanding of Switzerland's status). I didn't realise an opinion had to be based on complete knowledge of all the facts involved. I haven't read the assault weapons bill, I don't know all the statistics, I am not familiar with the fire rate of this or that weapon-of-moderate-destruction, but I don't need to be familiar with all that to know that people have lost their minds on this topic.
Edited by Briterican, : (making sure Huntard knew I wasn't being pissy with him... I appreciate the information on Switzerland he provided)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 160 by Huntard, posted 07-24-2012 3:49 PM Huntard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-25-2012 3:37 PM Briterican has not replied
 Message 187 by crashfrog, posted 07-25-2012 3:52 PM Briterican has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 186 of 236 (668897)
07-25-2012 3:37 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Briterican
07-25-2012 3:14 PM


Re: Gun control question
outspoken supporters of violence
Oh fuck that bullshit lie.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Briterican, posted 07-25-2012 3:14 PM Briterican has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1544 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 187 of 236 (668899)
07-25-2012 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Briterican
07-25-2012 3:14 PM


Re: Gun control question
I joined the thread to express my opinion, and to try to get my head around how people so vehemently defend hi-tech death in civilians' hands, but have subsequently been called ill-informed and inchoate by a couple of outspoken supporters of violence
Come on, buddy. You know none of us support gun violence to any extent whatsoever. Murder (whether by gun or otherwise) is completely illegal and we fully and ardently support such laws. And we've shown incredible restraint in dealing with your poorly-reasoned and vague arguments, when we could have, in the worst tradition of gun defense, referred to you as a goose-stepping, Constitution-shredding, proto-Nazi weenie and reminded you that among the first acts of Hitler's domination of Germany was that he disarmed the populace. I think we deserve more reciprocal consideration than to be accused of condoning murder.
I don't need to be familiar with all that to know that people have lost their minds on this topic.
You don't need to be fully informed to voice an opinion on any topic, of course, but if you decide to hold forth on a topic while admitting you lack a comprehensive understanding of the issue, you can hardly complain when people call your opinion "ill-informed."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Briterican, posted 07-25-2012 3:14 PM Briterican has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-25-2012 4:58 PM crashfrog has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3028 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 188 of 236 (668903)
07-25-2012 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by fearandloathing
07-24-2012 2:56 PM


Re: Gun control question
Ok...Once all the handguns are gone the people will be getting killed with rifles and shotguns
Getting rid of handguns would be a great first step though. Getting rid of all guns with the exception of hunting rifles and shotguns (that then need to be registered) seems like the way to go for me.
There is no reason to have an armed public, at all. I don't think cops should be armed either, with the exception of special task forces (Swat, DEA, detectives, etc.)
then we get rid of them and use knives??? Where does it end?
It's very easy to fight off a knife attack, and very few end in death.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by fearandloathing, posted 07-24-2012 2:56 PM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by fearandloathing, posted 07-25-2012 4:48 PM onifre has replied
 Message 194 by crashfrog, posted 07-25-2012 5:17 PM onifre has replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4223 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 189 of 236 (668904)
07-25-2012 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by onifre
07-25-2012 4:39 PM


Re: Gun control question
Getting rid of handguns would be a great first step though
How do we realistically do that?
Controlling ammunition seems to be a better long term solution to me.

A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
― Edward R. Murrow
"You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them" - Ray Bradbury

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by onifre, posted 07-25-2012 4:39 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by onifre, posted 07-25-2012 4:55 PM fearandloathing has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3028 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 190 of 236 (668907)
07-25-2012 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by fearandloathing
07-25-2012 4:48 PM


Re: Gun control question
How do we realistically do that?
The government can do anything it wants. There are I'm sure many ways to carry that out. First make the manufacturing of hand guns and assault (whatever the fuck) weapons illegal, and go from there.
Controlling ammunition seems to be a better long term solution to me.
From what I understand, it's not hard at all to make your own ammo.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by fearandloathing, posted 07-25-2012 4:48 PM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by fearandloathing, posted 07-25-2012 5:10 PM onifre has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3179 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(2)
Message 191 of 236 (668908)
07-25-2012 4:58 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by crashfrog
07-25-2012 3:52 PM


Re: Gun control question
Come on, buddy. You know none of us support gun violence to any extent whatsoever. Murder (whether by gun or otherwise) is completely illegal and we fully and ardently support such laws. And we've shown incredible restraint in dealing with your poorly-reasoned and vague arguments, when we could have, in the worst tradition of gun defense, referred to you as a goose-stepping, Constitution-shredding, proto-Nazi weenie and reminded you that among the first acts of Hitler's domination of Germany was that he disarmed the populace. I think we deserve more reciprocal consideration than to be accused of condoning murder.
No, we would not want those nasty nazi-democrats from taking all our weapons away do we.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by crashfrog, posted 07-25-2012 3:52 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by crashfrog, posted 07-25-2012 5:20 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 4223 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 192 of 236 (668910)
07-25-2012 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by onifre
07-25-2012 4:55 PM


Re: Gun control question
First make the manufacturing of hand guns and assault (whatever the fuck) weapons illegal, and go from there.
I don't disagree with you on many points, but you know as well as I do that what you are suggesting is un-realistic BS. Look at all the loopholes and grandfathered weapons and magazines that were excluded from the ban on assault weapons.
Short of door to door searches how do we get rid of handguns?
From what I understand, it's not hard at all to make your own ammo.
Controlling reloading wouldn't be that hard, powder, primers and bullets could be controlled same as any other ammo..
If you think it is easy to make your own black powder or gun. cotton...ect... then I urge you to try.

A nation of sheep will beget a government of wolves.
― Edward R. Murrow
"You don't have to burn books to destroy a culture. Just get people to stop reading them" - Ray Bradbury

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by onifre, posted 07-25-2012 4:55 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by onifre, posted 07-25-2012 5:19 PM fearandloathing has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3179 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 193 of 236 (668912)
07-25-2012 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by New Cat's Eye
07-25-2012 2:09 PM


Re: Gun control question
To which you get into the parts of the bill that don't have anything to do with defining what an "assault weapon" is, that is, what guns are called "assault weapons"... which is what I was talking about.... which is what makes it stupid.
Stop being ignorantly obtuse. The bill specifically limits magazine size.
This is a qualification for an exempltion from classification as an assault weapon. It does not define an assault weapon by magazine size.
Why because no type of gun is solely defined by magazine size, since guns can use any variety of magazine types and sizes. The writers and ratifiers of this laws knew this, which is why they put this qualifier in concerning a fixed magazine capacity of 5 rounds or more as well as the verbage concerning high capacity magazines in the very next section of the bill. Either way the bill addresses and restricts magazine size making your argument mute. Magazine capacity was restricted by this bill. Do you have a better way of wording this bill I would like to hear it. Or would you just allow anyone to carry around any weapon of their choosing (uzis, M-16, etc) and 100+ round magazines to shoot up the next group of unsuspecting citizens.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by New Cat's Eye, posted 07-25-2012 2:09 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1544 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 194 of 236 (668913)
07-25-2012 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by onifre
07-25-2012 4:39 PM


Re: Gun control question
Getting rid of handguns would be a great first step though.
I don't see how you get to that while the Second Amendment exists.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by onifre, posted 07-25-2012 4:39 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by onifre, posted 07-25-2012 5:23 PM crashfrog has replied

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 3028 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 195 of 236 (668914)
07-25-2012 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by fearandloathing
07-25-2012 5:10 PM


Re: Gun control question
Short of door to door searches how do we get rid of handguns?
Well again, there needs to be a first step. It's not an over night thing; it will take years.
Off the top of my head, I'd say first make the sale and manufacturing illegal, then make owning and carrying a handgun illegal. Then begin a "turn in your gun to avoid a fine/arrest" program at all police stations. Then, after a resonable amount of time, anyone caught with one is punished (start with a fine and the gun is taken away, all the way to jail time for not following the law.)
Or something like that. It can be done.
Controlling reloading wouldn't be that hard, powder, primers and bullets could be controlled same as any other ammo..
If you think it is easy to make your own black powder or gun. cotton...ect... then I urge you to try.
I'm only talking about handguns and assault rifles. Not a black powder hunting gun. But sure, the bullets of those weapons would be illegal too.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by fearandloathing, posted 07-25-2012 5:10 PM fearandloathing has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 200 by fearandloathing, posted 07-25-2012 5:45 PM onifre has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024