So while one supposedly statistically insignificant use of a 30 round mag (home defense) is insufficient to keep them, another statistically insignificant use (mass shootings) seems enough to pass laws that condemn them. See what I did there?

To address a few things said earlier:

The reason 10 round mags work fine in mass shootings is because the shooters select soft targets i.e. movie theaters, religious temples, elementary schools. The victims are unarmed, unsuspecting, confused and afraid. Their basic survival instinct will be to run, hide, escape, anything but confront the shooter thus giving him all the time he wants to reload as needed. It makes no difference weather he has to reload after 10 or 30 rounds. He could walk in with a shopping cart full of loaded flint-lock pistols and shoot to his hearts content if he wanted. Meanwhile, a person defending their home doesn't have the luxury of deciding who may come attack them or what the motivation may be. They have no idea weather the robber/home invader/rapist/ect. they have to defend their family from is going to run away on sight, or if they are a 6'6, 275lb rock who is prison tatted, armed and on PCP who they will have to shoot 20 times to bring down. They just don't know. Sure, it sounds like an outrageous scenario. So do mass shootings, but they happen. A home owner with a 30 round mag for their AR is prepared for a worst case scenario. There is no hypocrisy in that, it's just common sense.

Since the point about swat teams seems to have been misunderstood or missed all together, I'll clarify it. The reason why they use 30 round mags is because they might need them. They almost never do, but they have no way to know what they're walking into. At some point there was a swat cop who was in a situation where he needed a 30 round mag and that is why the decision was made to make 30 round mags the SOP. And these criminals that trained swat officers need 30 round mags to deal with are the same guys who commit robberies, home invasions and murders. It's only logical that a home owner would want the same 30 round mag the cop has to deal with these guys.

Carry on...

1/13/2013 2:01:04 AM

Why are people so afraid of the government banning guns? The US Constitution is a living document that can be amended at anytime.

Its apparent by all these gun shootings lately that guns are a threat to the national security of this country and should be banned. The 2nd amendment should be suspended.

1/13/2013 2:58:33 AM

obvious troll is obvious

1/13/2013 3:10:48 AM

That is one of the most most ignorant things you could say.

Its apparent by all these gun shootings car accidents lately that guns cars are a threat to the national security of this country and should be banned. The 2nd amendment driving program should be suspended.

in 2009 there were 10.8 MILLION motor vehicle accidents across the US, of which resulted in 35,900 deaths.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/transportation/motor_vehicle_accidents_and_fatalities.html

in 2009 there were violent crimes, of which resulted in 9,146 deaths across the US. Notice how California, the state with the strictest gun laws, there were 1,360 firearm related deaths, nearly 15% of the national total.
http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_20.html

So I again challenge those so adamant against firearms to explain why so much energy is again focused on an issue that threatens lives less than something else that's statistically shown to be more hazardous and dangerous in society; vehicles.

Quote :

"Why are people so afraid of the government banning guns? "

The answer is freedom. Why should a I rely on government to dictate how I should defend myself, my family, and my country? Why can I not take the initiative to prepare myself so that the government can focus less on baby-sitting me and spend more time/resources on other issue that matter? Perhaps if the government spent less time and resources baby-sitting it's citizens (and illegal non-citizens), then we wouldn't be in this economic travesty called the National Debt.

[Edited on January 13, 2013 at 3:17 AM. Reason : .]

1/13/2013 3:11:25 AM

It astonishes me that given the scenario where someone is in a rowboat taking on water (sinking) in the middle of the ocean, they would focus on the pinhole leak over the golf-ball size hole. Because that's what this is. People are focusing on the smaller of two problems and depicting it to be a bowling ball size hole that it isn't.

[Edited on January 13, 2013 at 3:58 AM. Reason : .]

1/13/2013 3:57:40 AM

You act like nothing has ever been done to make cars safer and it's an either/or type thing and we can only handle one of them at a time.

Which, you know, isn't even remotely the case.

Also comparing something that's a necessity in our society (cars) to something that's a luxury (guns).

Also ignoring the ratio of gun owners to car owners.

[Edited on January 13, 2013 at 7:09 PM. Reason : .]

1/13/2013 7:00:04 PM

Quote :

"You act like nothing has ever been done to make cars safer and it's an either/or type thing and we can only handle one of them at a time."

Cars are indeed getting safer, yet still so many people die from them; a significant many more. Perhaps the issue isn't neccessarily the vehicle? We are trying to resolve/overcome the core issue by modifying the least significant variable. Generally speaking, accidents are caused by people; not cars.

And sure, we can tackle multiple issues at a time. Wouldn't it make sense to focus more on the bigger problem first; the one that has the biggest impact on society? This is called prioritization.

Quote :

"Also comparing something that's a necessity in our society (cars) to something that's a luxury (guns)."

Most vehicles in our society are LUXURIES. A firearm isn't a luxury, it's a tool. Just because someone finds pleasure in swinging a hammer in his woodworking doesn't make a hammer a luxury. However, it is also no particularly a "necessity," though anyone could argue that it's more useful to have one around that not. Firearms are a tool. Yes, some people have them entire for recreation. Like all tools, not all of them are necessities to daily life, or maybe even life in general. However they do serve a (specific) purpose and as always, it's best to use the right tool for the right job. When it comes to protecting myself and my household, a Glock will do this adequately; better than a pocket knife would.

Quote :

"Also ignoring the ratio of gun owners to car owners."

Nearly 2/3 of the US population owns cars:
US Population: 312,000,000
Personal vehicles registered in United States: 254,000,000
Estimated number of firearms owned by civilians: 270,000,000

http://hedgescompany.com/auto-mailing-lists-and-marketing
http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states


so the ratio of Car : Population versus Firearms : Population is about the same, yet there's about a 400% great chance of dying in a car wreck than being murdered by a gun.

[Edited on January 13, 2013 at 7:24 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on January 13, 2013 at 7:24 PM. Reason : sources]

1/13/2013 7:16:39 PM

Most people aren't adamant about defending their right to unleash 30 hammers without thinking twice though.

1/13/2013 7:19:44 PM

Quote :

"I'm not forced into a predicament where I need to rely on only 10 shots before I am forced to reload"

You're never going to be in that predicament. What possible scenario are you going to get into a 30 round shootout with another guy? If that day happens, and both you and that criminal shoot 60 fucking bullets between the two of you without stopping the other guy, then maybe you should just get rid of the gun and call it a night, because you fucking suck at shooting.

Quote :

"Tupac took 5 shots and lived. What's to say that 2 thugs breaking into your house each take 5 shots, and one of them continues to come after you cause they're pumped on adrenaline or other drugs? This was something that many soldiers in vietnam saw; vietcong doped up high on drugs being shot multiple times yet they continued charging their attack and successfully wounding/killing soldiers before finally dying themselves from their injuries. Don't underestimate your enemy, and definitely do not underestimate criminals. "

Suge Knight is not going to come into your home with a gang of coked-out Victor Charlies and shoot you, you fucking psychopath. What the hell is wrong with you? You live in Raleigh. Christ.

Quote :

" To make such a drastic jump that goes against the constitution and laws currently provided would be a direct attack against America's patriotism and I have no doubt people would rise up against and fight it. But if you get the people to agree to give up those rights, well, when the time comes and the government moves in the people don't have a leg to stand on."

Where the fuck have you been this past decade, Captain America? While the US government has been giving itself the authority to wiretap your phone calls, read your e-mails, monitor your phone and internet activity, and send you to war over bogus intel, you've been at the shooting range getting handy with the steel, tryin' to earn your keep. If you think you're a patriot, then you need to either shit or get off the pot.

Quote :

"cars don't carry the same "deadly" nostalgia that firearms do. A careful look at the statistics show otherwise; more property are damaged and people injuried/killed from vehicular incidents than firearm inicidents. Yet we don't scrutinize the car. "

People who drive cars also have to get licenses and permits and registration, and insurance. They also have to wear seatbelts, and are fined for speeding and driving recklessly. They're also not allowed to drive drunk, and highways have safety standards such as guardrails and other measures to restrict unnecessary fatalities, and cars have safety standards that are constantly being updated to reduce unnecessary risks. The framework that is in place to minimize vehicular fatalities makes this a particularly poor example for you to use.

Quote :

"Notice how California, the state with the strictest gun laws, there were 1,360 firearm related deaths, nearly 15% of the national total."

California also has about 15% of the countries total population, so this statistic doesn't help you much in terms of making your point. And even if it did (it doesn't, but just for arguments sake) it would be a grossly simplistic way to gauge the effect of those laws.

Quote :

"The answer is freedom. Why should a I rely on government to dictate how I should defend myself, my family, and my country? Why can I not take the initiative to prepare myself so that the government can focus less on baby-sitting me and spend more time/resources on other issue that matter? Perhaps if the government spent less time and resources baby-sitting it's citizens (and illegal non-citizens), then we wouldn't be in this economic travesty called the National Debt. "

Blah blah blah. That gun doesn't make you free. The Second Amendment would only keep you free if you had the same access to weaponry as the government itself. Go buy yourself a drone or hellfire missile, then we can have a discussion about how fucking free you are.

1/13/2013 7:20:25 PM

Quote :

"Suge Knight is not going to come into your home with a gang of coked-out Victor Charlies and shoot you, you fucking psychopath. What the hell is wrong with you? You live in Raleigh. Christ. "

And those poor kids in CT were in a school that was declared a gun free zone. Where you are doesn't matter. Laws dictating where you can/cannot carry doesn't matter. So let me swing the question back to you:

What the hell is wrong with you? Can you not see that it doesn't matter if I live in Raleigh, Dallas, Detroit, or the outer banks? Someone with the intention of hurting random innocent people can start attacking people ANYWHERE. Just because the occurance is rare doesn't mean it can't happen. CT should have never happened. But it did. If I told you that there would be a shooting there before it happened, you'd probably think I'm a fucking psychopath. BUT IT HAPPENED and now that makes it a tragedy.

[Edited on January 13, 2013 at 7:50 PM. Reason : .]

[Edited on January 13, 2013 at 7:50 PM. Reason : .]

1/13/2013 7:33:54 PM

I called you a fucking psychopath because you have the rational ability of a fucking psychopath.

1/13/2013 7:38:21 PM

There are all kinda of laws and regulations for automotive design

So thanks for supporting the AWB, Hiro

1/13/2013 7:40:24 PM

Quote :

"There are all kinda of laws and regulations for automotive design "

And look how much they help! 36,000 people still die yearly. Making a car safe doesn't stop the accident from happening; it only helps to mitigate damage control of the situation. If you want to be 100% effective in damage reduction, you avoid the accident entirely. I know! Lets make vehicle accidents illegal and people will stop getting into them! That'll save lives.

Some of you guys are just so out of touch with reality. Open your minds people! You can't deny the numbers or the logic I've presented, so instead I'm a psychopath. I have the rational ability of an open minded individual who takes in the account all possiblities. You'd rather pass judgement and feeling rather than make a logical argument.

Real talk.




[Edited on January 13, 2013 at 7:55 PM. Reason : .]

1/13/2013 7:47:36 PM

I'm open minded too.

Anything that ever happened to Tupac Shakur or done in a rice paddy in Da Nang COULD HAPPEN TO ME!

1/13/2013 7:56:15 PM

Why's it gotta be a rice pattie? It could be a sugar cane field yo

1/13/2013 7:59:04 PM

1/13/2013 8:04:22 PM

Part of the reason people think that gun registrations will enable the government to confiscate their firearms is because it has happened before, in the US, in 2005:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/08/national/nationalspecial/08cnd-storm.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Quote :

"Waters were receding across this flood-beaten city today as police officers began confiscating weapons, including legally registered firearms, from civilians ... But that order apparently does not apply to hundreds of security guards hired by businesses and some wealthy individuals to protect property. The guards, employees of private security companies like Blackwater, openly carry M-16's and other assault rifles. [B]Mr. Compass said that he was aware of the private guards, but that the police had no plans to make them give up their weapons.[/b] "

Lesson one, when disaster strikes, if you aren't rich or connected enough, you don't get to defend yourself or your property.

It took 3 years and a lawsuit for some of those owners to get their guns back:

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-10-08-nra-katrina_N.htm

[Edited on January 13, 2013 at 8:10 PM. Reason : Jyfjh]

1/13/2013 8:09:30 PM

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr5013

Quote :

"LIBRARY OF CONGRESS SUMMARY The summary below was written by the Congressional Research Service, which is a nonpartisan division of the Library of Congress. 7/25/2006--Passed House amended. Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 - Amends the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to prohibit any U.S. officer or employee or any person operating under federal authority, while acting in support of relief from a major disaster or emergency, from: (1) seizing or prohibiting possession of any firearm the possession of which is not otherwise prohibited (other than for forfeiture in compliance with federal law or as evidence in a criminal investigation); (2) requiring registration of any firearm not otherwise required; or (3) prohibiting the carrying of a firearm by any person otherwise authorized to carry a firearm. Provides that nothing under this Act shall be construed to prohibit requiring the temporary surrender of a firearm as a condition for entry into any mode of transportation used for rescue or evacuation during a major disaster or emergency. Authorizes any individual aggrieved by a violation of this Act to seek relief by bringing an action for redress for deprivation of rights and by bringing a civil action in U.S. district court for return of a confiscated firearm."

[Edited on January 13, 2013 at 8:28 PM. Reason : .]

1/13/2013 8:27:11 PM

the second amendment to the constitution didn't stop them before, what makes you think that law would make a difference?

1/13/2013 8:30:20 PM

Because it wasn't a violation, and now it's protected

1/13/2013 8:37:10 PM

^ because "shall not be infringed" really means "shall not be infringed except sometimes when we say so"?

1/13/2013 9:02:07 PM

The Supreme Court and other courts have always upheld some restrictions, so getting caught up on not infringing makes you look dumb

But no, it's because we have had new legislation and 2 important court decisions since those things. I know that the NRA is saying your guns are in danger, and this tragedy may result in some new controls, but your guns are a lot safer today than they have ever been.

1/13/2013 9:44:37 PM

so you don't think we should be concerned about the large amount of proposed legislation?

1/13/2013 9:47:30 PM

Quote :

"but your guns are a lot safer today than they have ever been. "

Sources and Citation please.

1/13/2013 9:50:27 PM

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/109/hr5013
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

[Edited on January 13, 2013 at 9:54 PM. Reason : Wrong link ]

1/13/2013 9:53:44 PM

Gun retailers are experiencing record sales right now.

I bet they're feeling REALLY oppressed.

1/13/2013 9:54:53 PM

nvm.

[Edited on January 13, 2013 at 10:02 PM. Reason : nvm]

1/13/2013 10:01:39 PM

^7 the amendment says "shall not be infringed". Taking guns away is 100% complete infringement with no argument whatsoever. It's not licensing, registration, requiring a mental health check. It is 100% "infringed". The court cases only repeated the freaking amendment and told people "Hey, you're a dumbass, look up "infringe". The definition hasn't changed so if they're willing to ignore it one time, you think they won't again just because there's now a judgement that the first law is still a law? Yeah, I'm not convinced. This is the government we're talking about. There are still jurisdictions and politicians out there doing everything in their power to change it and they don't give a damn about a SC ruling.

[Edited on January 13, 2013 at 10:03 PM. Reason : .]

1/13/2013 10:01:53 PM

Okay aaronburro

1/13/2013 10:22:00 PM

You do realize your argument is " it was a law before but now it's like a LAW law so it's all good" right?

1/13/2013 10:38:50 PM

Except for your vague insight that Supreme Court decisions are based on the constitution, none of your summary of those cases is right

[Edited on January 13, 2013 at 11:06 PM. Reason : So I'm not really sure where to start, I already posted them for you]

[Edited on January 13, 2013 at 11:06 PM. Reason : And Christ, that's not my point at all. Kind of opposite of it.]

1/13/2013 11:05:38 PM

Let me help you out with a post I already made in this thread:

the supreme court has upheld even recently that some restrictions are constitutional, so your "shall not be infringed" argument doesn't really work in the way you want it to. they do require that they be reasonable restrictions and they stayed away from ruling on the restrictions directly, but its definitely okay to infringe some and be constitutional.

so what you need to point out is that those things are "capricious and arbitrary" to be inline with Supreme Court decisions and orbiter dictum

(I know that you might not understand all that, especially fancy phrases like orbiter dictum, but there is your starting point for googling so you can put your argument inline with court decisions)

1/13/2013 11:14:34 PM

*obiter dicta

1/13/2013 11:57:56 PM

^^ now let me help you out. Confiscation isn't "some restrictions". It's complete 100% infringement. Taking law abiding citizens' firearms does not fall under restrictions. I'm not sure how much simpler this can be. It's not "you can't possess specific types of firearms". It's not "you must have a license for these firearms". It is simply 100% denying their constitutional rights. These rights have existed for a couple hundred years now and that doesn't matter a damn bit to a lot of politicians out there. HR5013 specifically states that their constituional rights were infringed. At no time was the amendment invalid. The local governments acted illegally, period. Why you don't think they'd do so again is beyond me. The fact that you can't grasp the simple concept that they denied consitutional rights already is also beyond me.

1/14/2013 12:08:59 AM

I find it very ironic that the republican party blames hollywood for recent mass shootings when their boy Clint Eastwood made his career from shooting up folks on the big screen long before these mass shootings became some frequent.

I am not trying to argue that guns are THE problem, but they are certainly part of the problem more so than movies when 20+ people are being shot and killed. Somebody/thing has got to fall on the sword. Who is it gonna be, guns or hollywood?

1/14/2013 12:13:56 AM

Quote :

"Some of you guys are just so out of touch with reality. Open your minds people! You can't deny the numbers or the logic I've presented"

Your logic is "lots of people die in car accidents; far more than die due to guns", but excludes the fact that far more people have cars than have guns.

Quote :

"CT should have never happened. But it did"

Yes. Thanks to guns!

1/14/2013 12:28:27 AM

Quote :

""CT should have never happened. But it did" Yes. Thanks to guns! "

haha this isn't really true, but it's fun to say just to piss the gun nuts off.

1/14/2013 12:42:37 AM

No guns means no shootings.

Open your minds people! You can't deny the numbers or the logic I've presented.

1/14/2013 12:46:36 AM

You're right! No Guns would equal no shootings. However, you are living in a Utopian Dream World if you think that will ever happen! There will always be guns. Gangs, mafias, and criminals will never give up theirs. Imports and manufacturing of illegal guns will always exist. Don't be so dense and impractical.

1/14/2013 1:50:06 AM

Quote :

"Who is it gonna be, guns or hollywood? "

How about the people who use the guns irresponsibly? Why are people looking for a scapegoat to the problem when the culprit is clearly the person! If a madman hijacks a wolfline bus on NCSU campus and decides to run down a bunch of people, do we blame Hollywood and Grand Theft Auto style video games for this evil person's wrongdoing? It's the person who should be held accountable and responsible.

Quote :

"They say music can alter moods and talk to you Well can it load a gun up for you , and cock it too Well if it can, then the next time you assault a dude Just tell the judge it was my fault and i'll get sued"

-Eminem



[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 2:11 AM. Reason : .]

1/14/2013 1:53:05 AM

We haven't had a bunch of bus hijackings

a better analogy would be plane hijackings. We have responded to those, we've added a bunch of probably ineffective things and one really effective thing (reinforced cockpit doors) to stop it

1/14/2013 6:11:55 AM

And the airlines didn't pitch a fit and act like it was the end of the world either! How novel!

1/14/2013 7:47:34 AM

but travelers have

1/14/2013 7:55:58 AM

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/NRA-took-hard-right-after-leadership-coup-3741640.php

Quote :

"Although today's NRA is known for its antigovernment rhetoric - Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's executive vice president, once called federal law enforcement officers "a jackbooted group of fascists" - the early NRA was weaned on government subsidies. Its first rifle range was financed by a government grant, and over the years the NRA has been singled out to purchase surplus military firearms at discounted prices. In the early 1900s, the NRA began to flex its political muscle - in favor of gun control. NRA leaders helped draft the Uniform Firearms Act, a piece of model legislation enacted by dozens of states to restrict the carrying of firearms in public. The law required anyone who wanted to carry a concealed weapon to first obtain a permit and imposed a waiting period on the sale of handguns. "

The NRA had an internal power change, at their convention conservative members organized with radios and orange hats to take power. The leadership turned off the AC to try to sweat them out, but they seized power and changed the direction of the NRA. Today it is more powerful and more involved in politics than ever before, your guns are safer than they have ever been.

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 8:20 AM. Reason : .]

1/14/2013 8:19:53 AM

Quote :

"The law required anyone who wanted to carry a concealed weapon to first obtain a permit and imposed a waiting period on the sale of handguns."

this was Jim Crow bullshit. they wanted to make sure that only white folks could carry guns.

they wanted the sheriff to have to approve you for handgun purchases. of course, the idea was that the sheriff would never approve requests from black folks. this is why we still have handgun purchase permits in NC, jim crow leftovers.

[Edited on January 14, 2013 at 8:35 AM. Reason : asdf]

1/14/2013 8:31:50 AM

google "revolt at Cincinnati"

1/14/2013 8:37:39 AM

yes, i know all about the huge change in '77

what is your point?

1/14/2013 8:54:15 AM

your guns are safer today than ever

1/14/2013 9:04:08 AM

most of mine are. a few of mine are severely threatened.

1/14/2013 9:26:28 AM

If an AWB is proposed alone, moderate Democrats will be the ones to kill it. It maybe has a chance if its attached to some larger bill they can defend, but that's it. I think what we will see is required background checks for all purchases, and I don't see a problem with that.

1/14/2013 9:37:15 AM