• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Magazine limits

Do magazine limits reduce gun violence?

  • Yes to mass shootings, no to general gun crime

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No to mass shootings, yes to general gun crime

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Yes to both

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No to both

    Votes: 34 100.0%
  • Total voters
    34
American said:
So this thread is really about the NRA.
Click to expand...

when you scrape away the sanctimonious BS and the facade about crime control, almost all anti gun threads are a rant about the NRA helping to elect politicians who upset the sensibilities of leftwingers-be it on issues concerning abortion, gay rites or taxation. Guns and crime rarely has any real motivation for the complaints
 
Rucker61 said:
Yes

Police oppose probation sentence given to buyer of gun used to kill Kerrie Orozco | Crime & Courts | omaha.com

https://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2015/09/03/need-gun-laws-judge-gives-strawman-seller-probation/

Two straw purchasers in highly visible cases, including one that led directly to the murder of a police offier, and they got probation instead of 10 years imprisonment.
Click to expand...

Man, I don't know. The gross disparity across different jurisdictions and different judges for such wildly different sentencing outcomes from nearly identical crimes is a serious problem that has gone unchecked for a long, long time.
 
American said:
Like the War on Drugs?
Click to expand...

So we should let the black market win? BTW I am not a fan of the War on Drugs either, but probably for different reasons than you.
 
Phys251 said:
And bullets, too. I'm sure you've heard Chris Rock's bit on "bullet control"!

There is this idea that has pervaded our society that there exists a sort of arm race between the "criminals" and the "law-abiding citizens." Due to the availability of illegally-acquired guns, the gun lobby can successfully convince people with a clean criminal record that in order to level the playing field, they need the right to possess the same type of weapons.

Look at it this way: Guns don't grow on trees. They have to be manufactured, distributed, sold, and in some cases exchanged. The fact that we don't see that many fully automatics, rocket launchers, or grenades out on the street does suggest that if you don't let them get out there in the first place, they won't be widely distributed.
Click to expand...

OR it suggests that 1. There a plenty of fully automatic weapons.. but people don't use them in crime. Many states allow fully automatic weapons.

OR it suggests that such things.. though available to criminals.. like grenades, or rocket launchers. are simply not their weapons of choice.
 
Phys251 said:
So we should let the black market win? BTW I am not a fan of the War on Drugs either, but probably for different reasons than you.
Click to expand...

Is that the only alternative you see or can imagine?

How about one stops wasting money on the most expensive useless intervention, the war on drugs and attends to the problems that cause people to turn to drugs? Did you give that any thought?

Then we could address the second most expensive useless intervention, trying to control guns....

Are there people clever enough to realise that the money wasted by these two is most the "policing" budget being wasted on following idiotic ideas.
 
jaeger19 said:
OR it suggests that 1. There a plenty of fully automatic weapons.. but people don't use them in crime. Many states allow fully automatic weapons.

OR it suggests that such things.. though available to criminals.. like grenades, or rocket launchers. are simply not their weapons of choice.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I think that handguns are by far the most common weapon used in murders because (1) overall they are cheaper than long guns, and (2) they are generally easy to conceal on one's person. Do you find this to be true as well?
 
Phys251 said:
Hmm. I think that handguns are by far the most common weapon used in murders because (1) overall they are cheaper than long guns, and (2) they are generally easy to conceal on one's person. Do you find this to be true as well?
Click to expand...

Cheaper, no. A cheap pump shotgun can be found for $200. Concealable, yes, as most homicides using handguns are by people not legally allowed to own them, so concealment is a requirement.
 
I'm for Magazine limits. There are too many Tabloid magazines at the check out stand at the grocery store. :)
 
Phys251 said:
The "assault weapons" ban of 1994 criminalized, in part, the transfer and possession of guns that had a magazine of greater than ten rounds.

Do magazine limits such as these reduce gun violence in general? What about mass shootings, in particular the body count?
Click to expand...
The Columbine massacre was carried out using assault-weapon-ban compliant magazines.
 
You guys cannot all be wrong. My vote is cast.
 
Phys251 said:
And bullets, too. I'm sure you've heard Chris Rock's bit on "bullet control"!

There is this idea that has pervaded our society that there exists a sort of arm race between the "criminals" and the "law-abiding citizens." Due to the availability of illegally-acquired guns, the gun lobby can successfully convince people with a clean criminal record that in order to level the playing field, they need the right to possess the same type of weapons.

Look at it this way: Guns don't grow on trees. They have to be manufactured, distributed, sold, and in some cases exchanged. The fact that we don't see that many fully automatics, rocket launchers, or grenades out on the street does suggest that if you don't let them get out there in the first place, they won't be widely distributed.
Click to expand...

Criminal guns are not "distributed" that is completely false and you have supplied no evidence to support it.

Did it occur to you that market demand sets what is wanted and desired by the criminals. Any other claim is simply pure conjecture and has little chance of having any validity at all.
 
TurtleDude said:
the wife and I, and later our son as well-did force on force with simulations ammo and also in live fire houses with realistic targets. interesting stuff
Click to expand...

We train force on force with simuntions all the time. It is extremely good training an pretty much as close to real life as you can get without killing each other.

The Sims we use are no joke. They can break skin or leave giant bruises. Once in a course I took a round to my front teeth. Knocked two loose and had to them wired together. Also tore my lip up something fierce.
We have the support guys in our company playing OPFOR for us and those guys tend to get tore up. We have them wear protective coveralls and masks while we wear our body armor and just eye pro. But then we don't have flashbangs getting thrown at us so it evens out.
 
Phys251 said:
Man, I don't know. The gross disparity across different jurisdictions and different judges for such wildly different sentencing outcomes from nearly identical crimes is a serious problem that has gone unchecked for a long, long time.
Click to expand...

You really expect such things to be fixed when it is the discretion of the judge? As such such differences are a like crime control a minor agenda of the criminal justice system when a verty large precentage of time and resources is wasted on harassing innocent citizens and chasing guns that have committed no crime.

Before you ask for something consider what will be impacted by diversion of resources because that is exactly what will happen. There is no unlimited money supply despite politicians beliefs.
 
The only magazine limits I acknowledge is how many I can carry on my person before they're too heavy. :)
 
Goshin said:
The only magazine limits I acknowledge is how many I can carry on my person before they're too heavy. :)
Click to expand...

the bannerrhoid politicians never ever admit that if the government has the power to draw an arbitrary line at say 10 rounds, there is nothing to stop it from being drawn at four or two


I guarantee any jurisdiction that passes a limit and then crime doesn't decrease or doesn't decrease fast enough, will try to pass even lower limits
 
TurtleDude said:
the bannerrhoid politicians never ever admit that if the government has the power to draw an arbitrary line at say 10 rounds, there is nothing to stop it from being drawn at four or two


I guarantee any jurisdiction that passes a limit and then crime doesn't decrease or doesn't decrease fast enough, will try to pass even lower limits
Click to expand...




That's part of the problem, a big part.... no matter what we agree to it is never enough.


Kinda kills our motivation to compromise.
 
Goshin said:
That's part of the problem, a big part.... no matter what we agree to it is never enough.


Kinda kills our motivation to compromise.
Click to expand...

the bannnerhoid response is that the elected representatives are in the best position to determine the balance between "our rights" and the "right" of the public to be safe which of course is completely dishonest but that is the answer you will hear from them
 
Goshin said:
That's part of the problem, a big part.... no matter what we agree to it is never enough.


Kinda kills our motivation to compromise.
Click to expand...

The problem is we know the nature of the beast but never do anything to prevent their crazy laws Reliance on politicians and the courts is not a clever plan at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom