--10 Round Clip Maximum For Modified Assault Rifles--

I know of one teacher here in Indiana that is going for her carry license. Legally, she can carry in a school here as a school official.

 

To be fairly moderate on this, Let's look real close at it.
Well, we already know that advertizing gun free zones do not work. Libs like the words that never work.
The kid was broken. He would have found someway to carry out his plan. A homemade explosive device would have greater potential for a higher body count. Since there was no one there who could have stopped the "armed" attack, there would have been the same number of security people there to stop him from that.
This is a very violent world we live in. The threats are many. There are broken minds everywhere.
The Gun Action will only stop the purchase of 5000 rd magazines and those larger than life multi-faceted gun/grenade launchers in the future for however long the Gun Ban is in effect. These Bills tend to run on a time limitation. The last so-called gun ban expired some time back.
Those people who have evil in their hearts will not be deterred. That is a fact. It only requires a little more creativity to execute a plan without guns. But who is to say that just because 98% of legitimate gun owners adhere to some ridiculous law, the other 2% will. They probably would not anyway. Since the genie is out of the bottle, guns everwhere, the criminally insane will still find guns that suit their purpose. Even if they need to go to the black market. (Which will always exist)
So what will a gun ban actually do? It will only affect the legitimate owners, not the dysfunctional. Cast an eye to cell phones. Over 3,000 deaths can be attributed to text or calling with a cell phone while driving last year. Some states have passed measures to curtail the use of cell phone use while driving, but it is largely unenforceable due to the vast number of cell phones in the general public. But the Libs find this acceptable, until one of their own children wipes out an entire family in a car accident. Then, according to some Libs is the fault of the other guy because they should not have been on the road while their kid uses a cell phone while driving.
Social networking is another fine example. Most people use their social networking for legitimate purposes such as family and friends contact, to play games or to play one up. The downside is that it canalso be used for bullying leading to suicide, or as the FBI found out, chatter talk between terrorists planning an attack of some kind. Pedophiles cruising for their next victim. Scammers and thieves use the social network to set their victims up and plan an attack.

 

Same reason you don't NEED a Cadillac.

 

Maybe you're asking the wrong question. What will they use once guns are banned?

 

Then tackle the issue which has the absolute highest mortality rate that can be affected by yourself and your friends around you.
go after cell phones and cars. It is expected that the number of fatlities on the road from texting and calling while driving to nearly double in the next two years. Rising to almost 6,000 plus.
You probably stand a greater risk putting you and your family on the road filled with a street full of folks driving and texting/phoning than you do getting shot.

 

Death... In a shorter time span. If someone knows they'll die within the first minute of a confrontation rather than being alive for ten minutes the chances of committing that location decreases. That's why you don't see the number of shootings involve high security areas because the likely possibility of death is a short time span is far more compared to a disarmed area. It's common sense... That's why wolves go after weaker targets and generally do not go after targets that could involve their death.

So your point is that they'll commit suicide in the end? That isn't the point of my entire argument at all. If you can limit the amount of deaths of any individual without removing their rights across the USA then it's far better scenario than trying to disarm the populace that carries LEGALLY. Criminals will either go on knife rampages or go to a Black Market for weapons.

Who are we to know what goes through their mind? That doesn't matter. The security and the freedoms of the citizens of this country deserve to be accounted for and not disregarded for an agenda of disarmament! Arming the populace puts criminals on their toes because the possibility of coming across an armed individual and/or group is by far scarier compared to the same instance of a disarmed individual/group. Are you afraid of an unarmed man or a man carrying a gun? Carry a big stick and speak softly!

What is your suggestion? Keep the guns away? Ban them? Sorry that doesn't solve the problem and it limits the rights of man.

"God created man, Colonel Colt made them equal."

Making the situation equalized is by far the best option.

Using mine fields to explain my supposed absurdity goes to show the lengths of which you see my mentality. You're an irrational person when it comes to a discussion.

Because the possibility of death by accident is possible we shouldn't allow it but, we should allow premeditated murder/rape/etc? A defenseless individual is a person waiting to be exploited.

We're in the age of automatic weapons, ballistic missiles, nuclear bombs and various other forms of death... You can't make them disappear when the amount in the world probably surpassed the Human population a million times in terms of exterminating of every human.

 

Logic dictates that if the M-16 was modified to create an AR then it was the M-16 that was modified.
Hence the nomenclature "modified AR" is erroneous. A=A, AR=AR. If you wanted to call an AR a modified M-16 you'd be closer to reality. Ignorant but closer to reality.

Gotta hate logic don't ya.

 

At this point in time high capacity magazines are a RIGHT!! Now, while we are on the subject please answer these questions, WHY does Al Gore need a 21,000 sq. ft. home??? If we go by NEEDS shouldn't the home fit the number of people in it??? Say 500 sq. ft. per adult and 250 sq. ft. per child?? That's all they NEED!! And why are we selling cars and pickups that have over 500 horse power??? All we NEED at the most is 95 horses under the hood to get us where we are going. And doesn't tit stand to reason that the more horsepower a person has the faster he will go so the more people they kill when they have an accident??? And shouldn't people drive the veh. that fits their family??? A family of 5 can get around in a sub compact car, they hold 5 and that's all they NEED!!! Starts to sound silly doesn't it.

They have had speed loaders for revolvers for the last 40 to 50 years. When I was on the police reserves we used revolvers (just dated myself) and we had to draw and fire 5 rounds at a man sized target from the hip without useing the sights at 7 yards, reload (useing a speed loader if you had one which I didn't) and fire 5 more times, again from the hip without useing the sights. No problem. But here's a question for you on a pistol, did you ever stop and think that if they were held to 10 rounds to a magazine they might just bring more pistols, you know, like 5 or 6 of them??? I own more than that. I admit, I do not like semi auto pistols. No range and to big of a chance that they will jam, plus I can't hunt with them if the need ever arrived (again, gave away what for the most part I own, .357 mag and bigger). But I don't use those for home defence because they will shoot through a person, several walls, and go into the house next door. Most weapon owners know what to use when and where. Do I have more than a 10 shot clip??? YES, it carries 15 shots!! The gun came that way when I bought it. But like I said, we are NOT talking about "NEEDS" but rather "RIGHTS". BIG difference.

 

Because they were tried from 1994 to 2004. Murders from all causes are lower today than when the ban went into effect in 1994 which was 23,330 for that year. Murders in 2011 were 14,612. Is my point taken??? Oh, you want the number of murders the year the ban expired? 16,740. Where is the "BIG" jump in murders with ASSAULT WEAPONS since the time the ban expired??? The majority of killing that take place with guns only consist of one shot being fired, can you tell me why???

 

Bring them on and see what happens.

 

We already have over 2,500 gun laws nation wide, we have tried Assault weapons laws, etc. What good have they done to stop nutcases when they arise???

 

Ok, you asked me to read the first paragraph and I did.

And, no, that is not what I'm saying. I'm saying that the data that we have, not some hypothetical amount of data that we don't have but the actual real data that we do have, is not enough to draw any meaningful conclusions.

Honestly, I don't see how that is even debatable.

 

Yea. Laws do no good. Just look at how many RPG attacks happen in America everyday. Look at how many people create their own bombs. Laws don't do anything except prevent millions of Americans from being free to own them. Everytime I turn on the news we see a 12 year old in the street with an AK-47 and a school blown up with an RPG.

Maybe the right wing needs to watch the wild west movies or read books and realize what moving forward is. I'm not a party person but the right wing is acting incredibly ignorant on this topic today. "Live free".......we have, it didn't work kids.

 

you can learn to make a bomb out of common household materials on the web, try looking it up if you don't believe me. The school massacure that killed the most kids was done with a bomb in 1927, go look it up. Your spouting nonsense because you know nothing about the subject your talking about. Show me the huge jump in the murder rate when the ban on large clips came off in 2004. It has been off for 8 years and what has the murder rate done??? It has went DOWN!!! Oh, wow, that ban sure did help didn't it?? Again, you know nothing about ballistics, you wouldn't know the difference in the round an AK-47 took compared to an L1A1 nato round (oh, horrors, that's a MILITARY ROUND. Sheesh, it was a hunting round before it became a military round).

http://rense.com/general76/univ.htm




University Study Confirms
Private Firearms
Stop Crime 2.5 Million Times Each Year
By J. Neil Schulman
4-20-7



Maybe the left needs to get it's head out it's collective dark place and start living in the real world. I have been shot at 5 different times and had nothing to shot back with, it will NOT happen again. And, Woody, I was one of the top 3 best shots when I was on the police reserves, and that was shooting against city, county and state officers in our area and I was useing a department issued S&W .38 made in the 30's with the end of the barrel about shot out. Yes, Woody, guns wear out.

 

And once more, Meta, what do you not understand about a RIGHT???? Al Gore does NOT NEED a 21,00 sq. ft. house for 2 people, 500 sq. ft. per person would be adequate per adult. But it's his RIGHT to own a 21,000 sq. ft. house if he wantsa one and can afford it. A subcompact car is adequate for a family of 5 that seats 3 in the back and 2 in front and has 95 horse power. But if they want and can afford a muscle car with 500 horse or better that's their RIGHT!!! Do you understand the meaning of RIGHT now???

 

We have over 2,500 gun laws across this nation, we had a "Assult Weapons"" Ban from 1994 to 2004. So, if your beloved "Assult Weapons" ban did any good why do we have a lower murder rate today than we did when the ban came off??? Please explain. And YES, Meta, the Ban also included HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINES!!!

 

you are either mis-representing your self, or you are deliberately misdirecting.
One could hardly see that you are anti-gun by your posts in this thread. yeah, right.
maybe you should ask how many members in here have such devices. You are aware that there just insn't that many our there, and teh ones that are, are inefficient by frequent jams. If a 100rd mag were so effective, you would see a greater number of them being used by the military. But you would know that if you had served in any branch of the military. So I know you would also not protect any of your rights because you didn't feel strongly enough about protecting them, but demonstrate the willingness to just give them up..........

 

I don't have the time to research how many mass murders are committed with weapons having more than six rounds but most mass murders worldwide are committed with explosives and not firearms. Explosives are far more effective in committing mass murder than firearms.

Additionally the question isn't about the size of the magazine unless it can be demonstrated that limiting the size of the magazine would generally reduce the number of individuals being murdered. There is no evidence of this. Charles Whitman, for example, murdered 11 people at the Univesity of Texas predominately using a Remington bolt action hunting rifle although he was well armed with a .357 revolver, a 9mm semi-automatic pistol, as well as a semi-automatic M1 carbine. Timothy McVeigh murdered 168 people and used explosives and not firearms. Yes, there is the Gabrial Gifford's case where the person was overcome while reloading but that is a very rare exception.

Generally speaking limiting the magazine capacity and/or restricting the weapons based upon appearance have never been shown to be an effective means of preventing mass murders. The exceptions are so rare as to be insignificant and a mass murderer will always find a way to either purchase the weapon or magazine legally or illegally or will simply find another way of committing mass murder such as using explosive devices. The problem is with the individual that would commit mass murder and not their means for committing mass murder. A .223 caliber Bushmaster with a 30 round magazine does not present any threat to society in the hands of a person that is not inclined to commit the heinous act of mass murder.

 

That's not the point.

Here is the gun control argument applied to a recent incident.

All you gotta do is ban pushing. I mean if it would stop just one pushing death it would be worth it. If you are not for banning pushing, then you are effectively responsible for any more pushing deaths.

BTW: Do you really NEED a Cadillac?

 

I am not opposed to the idea of smaller clips but the OP fails to realize that banning them is completely useless. They are for all intents and purposes infinitely reusable since all you have to do is change out the spring once in a while which is very easy to do. If someone wants one they are going to get them no matter what. The problem isn't the guns. Something that the left keep ignoring is that all these shootings were done by mentally unstable people AND other people knew about their instability and yet nothing could be done legally. The laws need to be changed so that nut jobs like that can be locked up or at the very least kept under close supervision.

P.S. The Virginia Tech shooting which is the largest to date at 32 deaths was done with two handguns.