EvilMonkey

http://news.consumerreports.org/safety/201...n-the-rise.html Oh no! Time to put a waiting period on assault gas stoves and those scary carpet rips that cause falls in the home.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 5, 2013 -> 04:31 PM) Well, the suit's been filed. Eugene Volokh weighs in with some good snark: http://www.volokh.com/2013/02/05/donald-trump-v-bill-maher/ Shouldn't Mahr have to prove he is actually funny for that to be considered a joke? He is a no talent hack, at best.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Feb 5, 2013 -> 03:40 PM) You can see why they wouldn't want to establish that precedent though...the police would then be potentially liable for every failure to protect a citizen, and all their negligent actions would be called into question, etc, etc... Yes, this is snark, but if they limit our ability to protect ourselves, aren't they then obligated to do it for us?

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 5, 2013 -> 03:32 PM) Is there some kind of ongoing budget battle? This could be a PR move to get more resources/officers. They ALWAYS cut or threaten to cut teachers and first responders instead of the real waste that they all know is there. Can't cut those extra 4 office people, they are all related to big donors.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 09:39 PM) So why do gun owners talk about all these criminals they have to protect themselves from? Hell it's only a handful. When they come for you, one is too many.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 04:43 PM) Effectively this is the case right now though. Thanks to the gun show loophole, anyone who has money can buy a gun from a private seller without a background check. Anyone. It doesn't have to be legal for that person to do so. There is literally no way of enforcing the rules on who can buy a gun when this loophole sits there. There's a website version of Craigslist that effectively does just that, for crying out loud. Anyone who wants to avoid being background checked can go there and find a private seller in an organized way. Funny, I bought a gun at an auction and had to wait 3 days to get it while they did yet another background check on me, then had to have it sent to a FFL before I could pick it up, had to show 2 forms of ID as well and pay yet more fees.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 04:41 PM) Handful of bad apples? What do you call a handful? Compared to the gun owners that don't do the bad things, a handful.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 04:40 PM) The problem is that the powers that be, dont want these rules. They are afraid of what will happen when they are caught breaking them. They want to ensure that the loopholes are there for themselves and their family. Like I said, this position is in the minority. Most people want to create rules that ban behaviors they dont like. They like to use rules to control people. That is why they have the jobs they do, they like rules, they like power, they like to tell people what to do, because they think they are smarter than everyone else. I actually mostly agree with you here.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 04:35 PM) No, I am pointing out how restricting sales leads to less weapons in the hands of criminals and likewise, unlimited sales leads to more guns in the hands of criminals. If we're going to deal in the absurdity of don't write laws that criminals will not follow, only write laws that criminals will follow then I believe this shows how they will help solve the problem you mentioned. So to steal a point from an earlier post, how much do you 'restrict' the sales? Millions of people purchase and own guns with no problems, how much to you screw them to keep the guns away from a few bad apples? You already have laws keeping felons and crazy people from owning them. What MORE laws do you want in their place? You already have laws making it a crime to shoot people, use guns in commission of a crime and so on, what MORE laws do you want? Somewhere there is a point where restricting the supply of guns on the hope of keeping them away from a handful of bad people that will get them infringes on the rights of others to have them as well. I still call your attempts at restrictions to be just like a poll tax. And nobody anywhere ever said we should allow 'unlimited sales'. You just threw that in there to be absurd and over the top like usual.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 04:26 PM) right, I thought most proposals have a 10-round max, so your typical handgun magazine would be ok. Mine Glock came with a 17 round clip standard. My S & W has a 15 round standard. Most newer guns have more than 10 rounds standard.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 04:23 PM) don't need to be kidding about that, there's a lot of racial oppression in the history of gun control laws. I think there's a legitimate point there about making it a right that's only accessible to the (relatively) well-off. otoh we essentially do that with automatic weapons and I think that's an example of a good, effective gun control scheme. I meant about TEX being racist. I am aware of some of the history of gun control laws.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 04:08 PM) I'm glad you recognize there is a problem. Then let's look at supply and demand. When there is more or something than there is demand then prices are low. When there is fewer of them and still there is demand then prices go up. When prices increase then fewer and fewer people (criminals included) can obtain them. Same reason not much street crime happens with high end Glocks, too expensive for petty criminals. So are you advocating to make owning a gun more expensive to operate and own? If so, why are you so eager to price a right away from poor people? Do they not have the same rights as others? You would be willing to force people to spend hundreds or thousands to enjoy their RIGHT to bear arms, but yet have a cow when someone has to cough up $5 for a state ID to vote? I submit that your added expenses on gun ownership are just like a pol ltax, meant to keep poor people from defending themselves. You sir, are racist! (just kidding on that one)

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 03:43 PM) might want to check that oath you swore when you joined the government's armed forces and agreed to serve under the Commander-In-Chief. I think he agreed to defend the constitution of the united states from all enemies, foreign or domestic. Not follow the CIC to hell.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 03:36 PM) Just to note again...this entire topic came up because I asked if you'd had any situation where you used 10+ shots. So because I have yet to need 10 shots, I don't need 10 shots. That seems to be what you are saying there. Guess you can also predict the future.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 03:31 PM) How do you know that a law will do nothing to stop the problem if it is untried? I know meth would seriously f*** me up and I haven't tried that....

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 03:33 PM) I'm certain that you did not use your gun, did not brandish your gun and that you and your family lived unharmed. I'm reasonably certain that one guy with a handgun isn't going to take down 7+ guys, and I'm 99.9% certain that had you decided to challenge that group, things would have ended up much worse than they did. Read my above answer to Balta. it fits your gun-world view.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 03:29 PM) Of course, as usual...the thing that actually happened...surviving because you didn't pull a gun, rather than dying in a firefight...is not considered at all. Well in your world simply because I HAD the gun I should have turned all Rambo and jumped out there guns ablazin' trying to take them all out with my movie-style never-ending clip. The gun was my last resort, which I take seriously. otherwise I could have shot first, probably got 2 or 3 before they started running and firing back. guess that eeeevil gun didn't manage to take me over that day.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 03:20 PM) the easier it is to get legal guns, the easier it is to get illegal guns. So punish the people that follow the law with more laws that do nothing to stop the problem. Got it.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 03:27 PM) but you weren't in a situation where you needed it and if 7+ armed guys were trying to get into your house, having an extra 7 bullets between reloads wouldn't actually matter. Nice that you are so certain of things. Why have you not won the lottery yet? You should be an actuary since you can predict these things with such clarity.

QUOTE (Tex @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 03:24 PM) Again, the logic is flawed. Don't write laws that criminals won't follow. Only write laws that criminals will follow. Then, as Balta is pointing out, gun owners talk about how they need guns for protection, to protect us from tyranny, etc. Then say it isn't about what is needed. I rarely shoot off more than a few shots at one time anymore. It was fun to practice fast firing, the challenge was exciting. But I could easily be restricted to ten and not 17. We've seen where killers have been stopped when they have to reload. Settling on ten instead of six or two would be fine. Nobody says don't write laws. Don't write laws that won't fix the damn problem.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 03:19 PM) that time where your guns made no difference, were never used and they never knew you had them? do you really think you would have rambo'd down 7+ of them? I would have done my best to make sure none of them got anywhere near me or my family. Just because it wasn't needed at that time doesn't mean it would never be needed. Balta asked if I could imagine a situation where I would need it. I didn't have to imagine it, I was almost in it.

QUOTE (Soxbadger @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 03:08 PM) And Id venture to say that there is almost no such thing as a "law abiding citizen". I have personally never met a person who has not broken 1 law (speeding, parking meter, whatever). What you really are saying is that you have made an imaginary line in the sand for what you consider to be "criminal." I'll agree with you on this part. Everyone does it.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 03:09 PM) No, it figures into this directly. Because 99% of the mostly BS excuses for why people need guns have been as "Protection", neglecting the additional risk that having it puts the owner in completely. But if people can't envision a situation where having more than 10 shots available prior to reloading is necessary, even from the "pro gun side", then you've made the case expertly for why they're unnecessary. Considering that when the gangbangers were out front of my house looking around, there were at least 7 of them that I could see, perhaps a few more on the other side of the cards, I would think that more than 10 shots would have been nice had they made it to my house. I am a good shot but with that much excitement, I may not hit center mass on the first shot. So I was almost in one for real, not imagined.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 03:07 PM) Oh, ok, so I should go find the list of 100 people per day who get gunned down in this country and you'll be emotionally moved by each one of their stories? Gunned down by people who have guns ILLEGALLY. Not law abiding gun owners. The 99+% who legally own guns do not commit the crimes you speak of that make up most if not all your statistics.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Feb 4, 2013 -> 03:05 PM) That's not what I asked at all. I asked for you to judge whether you had ever been in a situation where you needed to fire off more than 10 rounds consecutively. I offered no opinion. Based on your reaction, I think the answer is clear. My answer is that your question doesn't matter. Strawman. My 'need' doesn't figure into this.