Freedom Convoy

[SnowBlaZR2]

If there were some actual unbiased data to support that it would work, I would support the restriction.

What does "work" mean, and are you going to be sure to consider the positive attributes of standard capacity magazines?

 

[CrazyWorld]

Hold on, are you trying to say there wasn't crime or murder when the Second Amendment was written?

Nope......never said that but you knew that. When the 2nd amendment was written....there was crime and murder but the world was so much different.......they rode horses......

You're wasted on what? Oh, been to the liberal sponsored opium den again?

Take another swig.....you're babbling.

 

[CrazyWorld]

I do agree that rules/regulations associated to guns are slower to adapt than those associated to cars, but I suspect that's because guns themselves are also slower to evolve than cars. Sure they've evolved from the old flint lock, but in the last 40 years have guns really changed a whole lot? No, but cars sure have. Cars are evolving faster so the regulations are evolving faster.
As for disagreeing about capacity limits saving lives. Currently, yes I disagree, but my heals aren't dug in on it. If there were some actual unbiased data to support that it would work, I would support the restriction. To date I haven't seen any actual data that would suggest capacity limits could save lives. So far everything I've seen has been opinion based and/or theoretical from lobbyist groups citing small sample sizes.
The problem is that to test if it would work, you'd have to implement the restriction. I don't think testing in a single city, or even a single state would give a real world result. It would almost have to be nation wide for a diverse result, but then you're implementing a restriction without any basis. Which is why there's push back. So the catch 22 is, how do you get accurate real world data without implementing restrictions that aren't supported by data? You don't, at least as far as I can figure.

Here's some data for you.....but.......I don't believe you can change your mind.

The Effect of Large-Capacity Magazine Bans on High-Fatality Mass Shootings, 1990–2017

Objectives. To evaluate the effect of large-capacity magazine (LCM) bans on the frequency and lethality of high-fatality mass shootings in the United States. Methods. We analyzed state panel data of high-fatality mass shootings from 1990 to 2017. We first assessed the relationship between LCM...

ajph.aphapublications.org

 

[CrazyWorld]

California already restricts magazine capacity. We see how well that works there. As always, those who follow the laws aren't the problem, and those that don't follow the laws, obviously don't care about any restrictions.

Being the most populated state.....just think how many more mass shooting they would have if those restrictions were not in place.......but......I bet you won't agree.

 

[CrazyWorld]

Won’t change anything because these dumb laws only affect law abiding citizens.

If a criminal wants an illegal gun or more capacity he or she will find away to acquire it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BIG yawn!

 

[CrazyWorld]

I absolutely agree, that the law abiding citizens aren't the ones we need to worry about, which is why I don't think magazine capacity limits will work. It's no different than restricting the use of Fentanyl to those with a prescriptions (limited and restricted use, just like a limit on bullets). The law abiding citizens use it like they should and aren't dying from it. However people still abuse it and deaths occur on a regular basis.
Just like guns. Restriction/Regulation isn't the problem. We need to address the root cause, not the tool.

Yea....lets just keep ignoring the problem.....pretend that guns have no issues.

 

[CrazyWorld]

In the news many times the Parkland school shooting is brought up whenever it is convenient to talk about people getting killed with guns like it is the classic blueprint for mass shootings.

Whenever magazine capacity comes up that it is the number one root cause of mass shootings, Parkland is not mentioned. Throughout the preaching that taking standard capacity magazines from law abiding citizens as the answer to solving crime the news forgets that the Parkland shooter used low capacity magazines of 10 rounds each.

Have someone read this to you.

The Effect of Large-Capacity Magazine Bans on High-Fatality Mass Shootings, 1990–2017

Objectives. To evaluate the effect of large-capacity magazine (LCM) bans on the frequency and lethality of high-fatality mass shootings in the United States. Methods. We analyzed state panel data of high-fatality mass shootings from 1990 to 2017. We first assessed the relationship between LCM...

ajph.aphapublications.org

 

[Scap]

The absolute worst POS anyone can be is an anti-gun gun owner. You think the govt won't steamroll you and take your elk rifles after they take everything else?

The whole point of the 2A is to keep the govt from becoming tyrants. Has nothing to do with crime, horses, wilderness, lack of police, or any other strawman issue that they try to insert to push the narrative.

This same argument applies to vehicle mods. I hate the half lift kits that have gotten popular and banned, but I do not support them being banned. Simply because if they can ban that lift, then a full lift is easier to ban. Then they can ban lowering and aftermarket wheels and tires. Then no more aftermarket exhaust.

It is literally a slippery slope. Don't give an inch. Ever.

 

[SnowBlaZR2]

Nope......never said that but you knew that. When the 2nd amendment was written....there was crime and murder but the world was so much different.......they rode horses......

Yep. And they owned firearms with fewer restrictions.

 

[Mountain Whiskey]

Nope......never said that but you knew that. When the 2nd amendment was written....there was crime and murder but the world was so much different.......they rode horses......

Take another swig.....you're babbling.

Hey Jerry,

Here's some data for you.....but.......I don't believe you can change your mind.

The Effect of Large-Capacity Magazine Bans on High-Fatality Mass Shootings, 1990–2017

Objectives. To evaluate the effect of large-capacity magazine (LCM) bans on the frequency and lethality of high-fatality mass shootings in the United States. Methods. We analyzed state panel data of high-fatality mass shootings from 1990 to 2017. We first assessed the relationship between LCM...

ajph.aphapublications.org

Did you know

Being the most populated state.....just think how many more mass shooting they would have if those restrictions were not in place.......but......I bet you won't agree.

That you can

BIG yawn!

Respond to

Yea....lets just keep ignoring the problem.....pretend that guns have no issues.

Multiple quotes

Have someone read this to you.

The Effect of Large-Capacity Magazine Bans on High-Fatality Mass Shootings, 1990–2017

Objectives. To evaluate the effect of large-capacity magazine (LCM) bans on the frequency and lethality of high-fatality mass shootings in the United States. Methods. We analyzed state panel data of high-fatality mass shootings from 1990 to 2017. We first assessed the relationship between LCM...

ajph.aphapublications.org

All in one post? I guess that doesn't make your count go up though does it?

You can get a nice cross stitch for your kitchen on Estay too. Figured you would like this if you didn't have it already.

 

[Shots]

Here's some data for you.....but.......I don't believe you can change your mind.

That's a pretty narrow minded opinion, suggesting you're unwillingness to analytically review data. If the data supports a change of opinion, I'm certainly open to it. I'm not dug in on my opinion preventing me from accepting new information. If the data supports it, it supports it.

The best argument the article makes is that lethality is increased by being struck by more than 1 bullet. That's solid, and a statistic that helps support limitations. However, there are two issues with the limitation.
First. A skilled shooter can drop an empty magazine and seat a full one in about a second. An average shooter can do it in about 3 seconds. That's not a lot of time since the average person runs at approximately 14 feet per second. That means someone could run the length of 1 to 3 cars during a reload. I will concede that 1 to 3 car lengths may be the difference between making it to safety and not making it. So the math does support limiting the number of rounds. However that brings me to the seconds issue with the limitation, which is the biggest issue.
As repeatedly noted throughout this discussion, limiting capacity isn't going to prevent a criminal from carrying more rounds. The issue isn't that limiting rounds won't reduce a killer's effectiveness, because the math does support it. The issue is that a killer won't care if they have more rounds than they're allowed, so it won't stop them.
What the limitation does, is prevent a law abiding citizen from carrying more than X rounds. Maybe John Q Citizen is lawfully carrying his gun, sees an incident begin and choses to engage the threat. Unfortunately he's limited to X rounds and now he's the one who's out of the fight for 1-3 seconds, while the assailant is firing away with his illegal capacity. All a capacity restriction is doing is hobbling the law abiding citizen.

Yea....lets just keep ignoring the problem.....pretend that guns have no issues.

I could say the same. It seems that you're so dead set on guns being the problem, that you're unwilling to accept that the person using it as their tool is the issue. Lay a gun on a table and no one dies, even if it's fully automatic with a 100 round capacity. It needs a person to point it and pull the trigger.

People have used other tools to kill mass amounts of people for decades:
Wall Street bombing - 38 killed (a bomb in a horse drawn buggy)
Bath School disaster - 37 killed by a bomb, then an additional 6 rescuers killed by a second bomb - total 43 killed
Oklahoma City bombing - 168 killed
World Trade Center (crash/fire/collapse) - 2,763 killed, plus others resulting from exposure during rescue/clean up
Wisconsin Christmas Parade - 5 killed via a car driven into the crowd
All of the above murderers found means other than guns to kill mass amounts of people. So are guns themselves really the problem or is it just a convenient tool? Again I point out the underlying problem. Mental health and hate crimes:
Sandy hook - 26 killed - Asperger's, Anorexic and "mentally ill". *Side note* ASD isn't a dangerous conditions on it's own (I'm on the spectrum and I'm not going on killing sprees), but it can lead to bullying and/or other social issues that may be problematic.
Virginia Tech - 32 killed - Depression and anxiety
Pulse night club - 49 killed -Sexuality targeted
Atlanta Spa - 6 killed - Race targeted
Tree of life synagogue - 11 killed - Religion targeted
I'm not saying a mental health diagnosis could predict a potential killer, or that treatment could stop them all. That's a pipe dream, we're never going to be able to predict who will snap or when. I'm simply saying that treatment of these underlying issues could potentially reduce these crimes more effectively than restrictions.
Similar to your proposed capacity limits it is unresearched and untested, so purely theoretical at this point. All though it stands to reason that anyone with stable mental health isn't going to go on a killing spree because it goes against basic human nature and/or normal social behavior. Therefore one could reasonably argue mental health for any mass murderer regardless of the tool used.

Despite my ramble, I'm also not saying that guns are completely a non-issue either. Based on the frequency of gun use in mass killings, it certainly does show that it is a convenient tool. No special skills needed like a bomb but a bit more difficult to hide the intent before you go on your killing spree. An IED can be made with seemingly innocuous materials so the killer's intent can be more easily concealed until the day of the attack. The only way to truly eliminate that convenience is to totally eliminate guns, which will never happen in the USA (nor would I want it to). Besides I think prohibition did a pretty good job of showed that outlawing something nation wide won't make it go away. It's use/distribution just changes.
Even if they magically did make guns disappear, it's abundantly clear that people will find another way to commit their crime.

 

[Mountain Whiskey]

Yea, a gallon of gasoline and a lighter did a fine job of a mass killing at a night club some years back if I recall.

 

[Shots]

Indeed it does

 

[HSKR R/T]

Being the most populated state.....just think how many more mass shooting they would have if those restrictions were not in place.......but......I bet you won't agree.

Just think how many less mass shootings there would be if there was better mental health treatment and diagnosis, and if there wasn't asany restrictions on law abiding citizens being able to carry.

 

[Mountain Whiskey]

Just think how many less mass shootings there would be if there was better mental health treatment and diagnosis, and if there wasn't asany restrictions on law abiding citizens being able to carry.

Amen! An armed society is a polite society.

 

[Scram1500]

Speaking of Kool aid, Jim Jones was able to kill 900 people without a firearm

 

[CrazyWorld]

The absolute worst POS anyone can be is an anti-gun gun owner. You think the govt won't steamroll you and take your elk rifles after they take everything else?

The whole point of the 2A is to keep the govt from becoming tyrants. Has nothing to do with crime, horses, wilderness, lack of police, or any other strawman issue that they try to insert to push the narrative.

This same argument applies to vehicle mods. I hate the half lift kits that have gotten popular and banned, but I do not support them being banned. Simply because if they can ban that lift, then a full lift is easier to ban. Then they can ban lowering and aftermarket wheels and tires. Then no more aftermarket exhaust.

It is literally a slippery slope. Don't give an inch. Ever.

Total emotional bullpoop......and very stupid.

 

[CrazyWorld]

Hey Jerry,

Did you know

That you can

Respond to

Multiple quotes

All in one post? I guess that doesn't make your count go up though does it?

You can get a nice cross stitch for your kitchen on Estay too. Figured you would like this if you didn't have it already.

View attachment 124307

Looks like you are struggling.....better try harder.

 

[CrazyWorld]

That's a pretty narrow minded opinion, suggesting you're unwillingness to analytically review data. If the data supports a change of opinion, I'm certainly open to it. I'm not dug in on my opinion preventing me from accepting new information. If the data supports it, it supports it.

The best argument the article makes is that lethality is increased by being struck by more than 1 bullet. That's solid, and a statistic that helps support limitations. However, there are two issues with the limitation.
First. A skilled shooter can drop an empty magazine and seat a full one in about a second. An average shooter can do it in about 3 seconds. That's not a lot of time since the average person runs at approximately 14 feet per second. That means someone could run the length of 1 to 3 cars during a reload. I will concede that 1 to 3 car lengths may be the difference between making it to safety and not making it. So the math does support limiting the number of rounds. However that brings me to the seconds issue with the limitation, which is the biggest issue.
As repeatedly noted throughout this discussion, limiting capacity isn't going to prevent a criminal from carrying more rounds. The issue isn't that limiting rounds won't reduce a killer's effectiveness, because the math does support it. The issue is that a killer won't care if they have more rounds than they're allowed, so it won't stop them.
What the limitation does, is prevent a law abiding citizen from carrying more than X rounds. Maybe John Q Citizen is lawfully carrying his gun, sees an incident begin and choses to engage the threat. Unfortunately he's limited to X rounds and now he's the one who's out of the fight for 1-3 seconds, while the assailant is firing away with his illegal capacity. All a capacity restriction is doing is hobbling the law abiding citizen.


I could say the same. It seems that you're so dead set on guns being the problem, that you're unwilling to accept that the person using it as their tool is the issue. Lay a gun on a table and no one dies, even if it's fully automatic with a 100 round capacity. It needs a person to point it and pull the trigger.

People have used other tools to kill mass amounts of people for decades:
Wall Street bombing - 38 killed (a bomb in a horse drawn buggy)
Bath School disaster - 37 killed by a bomb, then an additional 6 rescuers killed by a second bomb - total 43 killed
Oklahoma City bombing - 168 killed
World Trade Center (crash/fire/collapse) - 2,763 killed, plus others resulting from exposure during rescue/clean up
Wisconsin Christmas Parade - 5 killed via a car driven into the crowd
All of the above murderers found means other than guns to kill mass amounts of people. So are guns themselves really the problem or is it just a convenient tool? Again I point out the underlying problem. Mental health and hate crimes:
Sandy hook - 26 killed - Asperger's, Anorexic and "mentally ill". *Side note* ASD isn't a dangerous conditions on it's own (I'm on the spectrum and I'm not going on killing sprees), but it can lead to bullying and/or other social issues that may be problematic.
Virginia Tech - 32 killed - Depression and anxiety
Pulse night club - 49 killed -Sexuality targeted
Atlanta Spa - 6 killed - Race targeted
Tree of life synagogue - 11 killed - Religion targeted
I'm not saying a mental health diagnosis could predict a potential killer, or that treatment could stop them all. That's a pipe dream, we're never going to be able to predict who will snap or when. I'm simply saying that treatment of these underlying issues could potentially reduce these crimes more effectively than restrictions.
Similar to your proposed capacity limits it is unresearched and untested, so purely theoretical at this point. All though it stands to reason that anyone with stable mental health isn't going to go on a killing spree because it goes against basic human nature and/or normal social behavior. Therefore one could reasonably argue mental health for any mass murderer regardless of the tool used.

Despite my ramble, I'm also not saying that guns are completely a non-issue either. Based on the frequency of gun use in mass killings, it certainly does show that it is a convenient tool. No special skills needed like a bomb but a bit more difficult to hide the intent before you go on your killing spree. An IED can be made with seemingly innocuous materials so the killer's intent can be more easily concealed until the day of the attack. The only way to truly eliminate that convenience is to totally eliminate guns, which will never happen in the USA (nor would I want it to). Besides I think prohibition did a pretty good job of showed that outlawing something nation wide won't make it go away. It's use/distribution just changes.
Even if they magically did make guns disappear, it's abundantly clear that people will find another way to commit their crime.

It is amazing how some folks want to pretend we don't have a problem.......maybe we could offer a bottle of opioids with every high cap mag.....you know....incent the people.......better yet......lets do away with seat belts....they're total BS.

 

[CrazyWorld]

Just think how many less mass shootings there would be if there was better mental health treatment and diagnosis, and if there wasn't asany restrictions on law abiding citizens being able to carry.

Let me know how that all works out......maybe call your Senator or Rep.....sounds like you really thought through this.