# 10 round clip controversy



## sjansen (Jan 21, 2011)

With the congress trying to pass a ban on all clips with 10 rounds or more what is your stance?

Do people only need 10 rounds to protect themselves?

If so, do think that police officers should have to do the same in their guns.

Should Obama make his Secret Service Officers use 10 round mags?

If police officers and Secret Service need more than 10 rounds, why don't people who can't afford personal protection and want to protect themselves be held to a different standard?

The ban has exceptions for both police and federal officers. Why is it necessary for LEOs to have more than 10 rounds if people who are checked with the FBI can't?

Why shouldn't  LEOs and those who have the same checks on them to carry a concealed weapon be held to the same 10 round clip standard or should all those who have the right to carry a gun for personal protection be able to carry any type clip capacity they want?


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jan 21, 2011)

Ignoring the idelogical argument here, it is at least arguable that congress has the right to do so. The right to bear arms is not infringed. They are limiting clip capacity. this does in no way change anything to the fact that you are carrying the same weapon you did before.

You may not agree, but without knowing case law and constitutional precedents, I would say they have the right to legislate (purely theoretical).

*IF* we operate on that premise for the moment, then your whole 'why shouldn't LEO and the secret service be limited' argument becomes moot. Congress can legislate, so they can also set the specific however they like, and include or exclude whomever they like, just like they do with other laws (like tax laws for example)


----------



## clfsean (Jan 21, 2011)

I remember when the original capacity issue came up. I was a bit peeved since I was carrying pistols that were made for double stacked magazines. No worries though, I had plenty.

Then I moved to pistols with single stacked magazines. The one thing I noticed is my focus on the target & shot place got much better. 

So I don't worry. More doesn't always mean better.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 21, 2011)

sjansen said:


> With the congress trying to pass a ban on all clips with 10 rounds or more what is your stance?



First, let's correct some terms.  The word is 'magazine' and not 'clip'.  A 'clip' is a very different thing.  In this sense, it is being used as an emotional buzzword, like 'spray' instead of 'fire multiple rounds'.

A box designed to hold multiple rounds is a magazine.



> Do people only need 10 rounds to protect themselves?



It's the wrong question.  "Need" is beside the point.

How fast do you "need" to have your car go?  The question implies that there is a limit, beyond which no one has a legitimate need, and that therefore it is reasonable to ban a car that goes faster than that, or a magazine which holds more rounds than that.

It also leads to a slippery slope.  Let us say that today '10 rounds' is a reasonable maximum, so we ban any magazines which hold more rounds.  Tomorrow, some idiot commits an atrocity with a 10-round magazine, and we begin again with '8-rounds' or '5-rounds' and so on.  There is never an end to 'reasonable gun control'.

It was determined a long time ago by a group called 'Handgun Control, Inc.," that a 'Divide and Conquer' strategy worked best.  Americans will not stand for an outright handgun ban.  So the strategy - the *official strategy* of the gun control advocates - is to chip away at gun rights, bit by bit, 'reasonable restriction' by 'reasonable restriction'.
*
Anyone who thinks anything else has been misled.*

However, take hope.  There will be no ban.  It's just noise.  There is no support for more gun control laws in Congress at the present time.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 21, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> Ignoring the idelogical argument here, it is at least arguable that congress has the right to do so. The right to bear arms is not infringed. They are limiting clip capacity. this does in no way change anything to the fact that you are carrying the same weapon you did before.



It is not a 'clip'.  



> You may not agree, but without knowing case law and constitutional precedents, I would say they have the right to legislate (purely theoretical).
> 
> *IF* we operate on that premise for the moment, then your whole 'why shouldn't LEO and the secret service be limited' argument becomes moot. Congress can legislate, so they can also set the specific however they like, and include or exclude whomever they like, just like they do with other laws (like tax laws for example)



I have little doubt that it would be legal for the Congress to limit magazine capacity; they did it before in the (now-expired) 'Assault weapons ban'.  I do not think there is any support for it, so I'm not too worried.  It is important for certain members of Congress to make noises and 'harrumph' for the benefit of their gun-grabbing constituents.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 21, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> First, let's correct some terms. The word is 'magazine' and not 'clip'. A 'clip' is a very different thing. In this sense, it is being used as an emotional buzzword, like 'spray' instead of 'fire multiple rounds'.
> 
> A box designed to hold multiple rounds is a magazine.


 
A peeve of mine drilled into me during the police academy.  If you were found saying "clip" to refer to your magazine it was push ups galore.  But, I think it is one of those slang things that many people use.

A clip is a metal guide that loads bullets into an INTERNAL magazine, for example, the old M-1 rifles.  Anything that is put into the gun with ammunition and is removed is a magazine.  So an AR-15, M-4 or AK-47 has a magazine and not a clip, even though popular slang calls the high capacity magzines "banana clips".


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 21, 2011)

As to the 10 round capacity issue.  I feel that it is a knee jerk reaction to the situation.  It is just a political band-aid to ease people's minds about the tragedy.  People want some assurance that this type of thing won't/can't happen again so they pass a law that makes it LOOL like something is being done even though in reality nothing has changed.

Much like the Brady Bill of the past and it's ban on "high capacity" magazines, the law did not ban or make illegal magazines holding more than 10 rounds that were made before the ban.  So people could still buy a 17/15 round magazine for their Glock, they just paid a bit more for it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 21, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> A peeve of mine drilled into me during the police academy.  If you were found saying "clip" to refer to your magazine it was push ups galore.  But, I think it is one of those slang things that many people use.
> 
> A clip is a metal guide that loads bullets into an INTERNAL magazine, for example, the old M-1 rifles.  Anything that is put into the gun with ammunition and is removed is a magazine.  So an AR-15, M-4 or AK-47 has a magazine and not a clip, even though popular slang calls the high capacity magzines "banana clips".



Words mean things.  People use the terms that give emotional support to the ideals they support.  A man doesn't fire multiple times, he *'sprays the room'*.  The words are important.

I correct my anti-gun friends every time they say it.  I have to.  If we're not going to use the correct words, we cannot have a discussion.


----------



## Grenadier (Jan 21, 2011)

"Clips" can also be flat metal disc-like objects that can hold rounds of rimless ammunition in a revolver.  For example, the Smith and Wesson 625 is a revolver that is chambered for a rimmed version of the .45 ACP.  If you tried to use .45 ACP ammunition in it as-is, then the rounds would simply not be held in place properly.  

Using a "half moon" or "full moon" clip allows you to attach rounds of standard .45 ACP rimless ammo to it, and then you put the entire assembly (moon clip + cartridges) into the cylinder of the revolver, and it allows the rounds to be firmly held in place for proper ignition.  



As for the ban, it's just plain silly.  Reducing magazine capacity for the law-abiding will do nothing to stop criminals from committing crimes.  Criminals will find ways to overcome this, either by carrying more guns, using explosives, etc.  

Furthermore, it's really nobody's stinking business as to *why* I want to carry a magazine that holds more than the magical "non-lethal" 10 round limit.  I don't commit crimes, I don't cause trouble.  Go after the criminal element, and you'll solve your problems.  

After all, you don't *need* to drive a car that has more than an 8 gallon gas tank, since you can simply re-fuel more often, can't you?  What do you need that extra fuel capacity for?  Do you plan on running from the police?  Do you plan on using your car as a large petrol bomb?  Wouldn't it be a nice thing for you to give up on fuel capacity, in order to save just one child's life?  

The silliness of the car example was intentionally done, in order to show how silly the magazine ban is.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 21, 2011)

Grenadier said:


> Furthermore, it's really nobody's stinking business as to *why* I want to carry a magazine that holds more than the magical "non-lethal" 10 round limit.  I don't commit crimes, I don't cause trouble.  Go after the criminal element, and you'll solve your problems.
> 
> After all, you don't *need* to drive a car that has more than an 8 gallon gas tank, since you can simply re-fuel more often, can't you?  What do you need that extra fuel capacity for?  Do you plan on running from the police?  Do you plan on using your car as a large petrol bomb?  Wouldn't it be a nice thing for you to give up on fuel capacity, in order to save just one child's life?
> 
> The silliness of the car example was intentionally done, in order to show how silly the magazine ban is.



I agree.  The question itself _'what do you need X for'_ is invalid.  I refuse to answer questions like that about magazine capacity or caliber size or the shape of the firearm ('assault rifle') or whatever.  I simply point out, as you did, that the question itself is meaningless.  It's designed, like most anti-gun arguments, to appeal to emotion.

I ask my anti-gun friends the same question in return.  I counted at least 15 cases of homeowners using guns to defend themselves from armed invaders since the beginning of 2011.  Which of them would they prefer to have died because they were unarmed?  Please tell me which ones and why.  They can't answer.  They can never answer.  Emotion for emotion.  Anti-gunners wring their hands and whimper about magazine capacity or caliber size and how we *'have to do something'* and I reply by asking them which citizens who defended themselves legally with a gun they would prefer to be dead, raped, or crippled.


----------



## Steve (Jan 21, 2011)

While I'm still not sure that 30 round magazines are anything we need, what changed my position on this is Grenadier's simple observation that a crazy person could simply carry two pistols.  

I think we need to better regulate weapons.  I still believe that gun owners should be required to carry liability insurance and that the entire thing should be reviewed and overhauled.  But, much like the security theater we have going on in airports, I've been convinced that this wouldn't actually make things safer.  It would only make things feel safer.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 21, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> While I'm still not sure that 30 round magazines are anything we need, what changed my position on this is Grenadier's simple observation that a crazy person could simply carry two pistols.



_"Need"_ is unfortunately a *wedge-word* (some call it a 'weasel word').  To even have the argument, one must accept the premise that a person's 'need' (as defined by others) is a valid reason for restriction - of anything.  What a person 'needs' is not generally accepted as a valid means for restricting any legal behavior or private property.  How big a house do you 'need'?  How many calories do you 'need'?



> I think we need to better regulate weapons.  I still believe that gun owners should be required to carry liability insurance and that the entire thing should be reviewed and overhauled.  But, much like the security theater we have going on in airports, I've been convinced that this wouldn't actually make things safer.  It would only make things feel safer.



With most things that are inherently dangerous, we regulate behavior, not the items themselves per se.  We have had periodic attempts to pass laws that would require cars to come equipped with DUI breath-analyzers so that people don't drive drunk.  Such attempts are usually defeated without much further debate in Congress; making life more difficult for all to stop a few (maybe) is generally seen as the wrong way to address a problem.

I think we need to work on better ways of detecting and intervening when people become mentally unstable.  In very few cases that I can recall has a person just 'snapped' for no reason and no one saw it coming (it has happened, I acknowledge).  It seems that often people are interviewed after the fact and say _"I saw it on TV and I just knew it was Joe."_

The liability insurance thing is interesting, but I think a non-starter.  There are two issues there.  The first is the mandatory purchase of a good or service in order to exercise a constitutional right; not sure that would fly.  The second is that this would essentially act as a restriction on the right of the poor to own guns to defend themselves.  The third thing I can think of is that as always, criminals are not going to buy the insurance.  Very few illegal shootings are done by previously law-abiding citizens; most are performed by people who are already criminals (and not allowed to own guns legally anyway). It's not a terrible idea, but I don't know how it would be implemented in reality.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 21, 2011)

Some good responses here; Mr. Maddocks and Grenadier summed it up rather nicely. As to the issue raised in this thread, in a free society, it is not OK legally or otherwise to legislate ownership based on what we think other people should or shouldn't have. If it were OK, then get ready fatties, I propose a food rationing bill based on the 1950s height/weight standard because obesity is an epidemic. Since it's not OK, we can all breath a sigh or relief at dinner tonight.  I summed up these arguements in greater detail in a recent thread here (titled 'more anti-gun stupidity' or something like that). I recommend checking it out; I am not going to duplicate all of that here, but the thread is a good read for those interested.

As to terminology; words people use can be quite telling. I personally don't beat people up too bad for terminology mistakes, then again I've been known to debate Sunni's in 3rd world countries on heated topics where there are language barriers, so I'm used to not getting too wrapped up in semantics. But for your personal development, you need to get on board with the correct terms when discussing these issues. Because someone who uses a term like "clip" to mean "mag" (for example) dimes themselves out as being uneducated on the topic. It tells people that you have not done a whole lot of reading or research on firearms or the gun control issue, and therefore your opinions likely undeveloped and are needed to be taken with a grain of salt. I could tell people that I am pretty well versed in theoretical physics, for example, but when mathmaticians start discussing theories and proofs, it would be quite telling if I didn't know some basic terms or the mathmatics behind the theories. So my suggestion to some of you is that you sincerely do some research and read some sources on the topic from both sides, and educate yourselves a little bit on this issue. I'm not trying to be a dick, and I am not saying "your stupid" or your opinions aren't valid. But with any topic, opinions develop as we become more educated. The unfortunate tendancy is to take a hard stance with an opinion 1st, then do research later to try to back it up. A better way, of course, is to keep an open mind and try to see both sides of the arguement and research before taking a hard stance. Plus, the topic is important because it goes beyond guns; philisophically it brings up issues as to what it means to live in a free society. Years ago, I used to be a "reasonable legislation" guy before I did more research myself; thankfully I was willing to keep an open mind and look at all evidence before taking a hard stance. More research and reading might disuade people from arguing things like, "Gun owners need to be required to have liability insurance." or "don't worry, you'll become more accurate if your required to carry less rounds, so no big deal, more isn't always better." And really, no offense to you guys, but even a totally anti-gun person who is well researched on the topic isn't going to make these arguments.

Lastly, check out this site: http://www.thearmedcitizen.com/ They track situations where armed citizens thwart crime, and they have a new incident almost daily.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jan 21, 2011)

@Bill, I was only pointing out the inconsistency in the argument of the OP, not taking a position regarding the porposal. I don't think this proposal has any effect on killings at all.

Now, regarding clip vs magazine...
The meaning of words change all the time, and words get accepted by the general population to have a certain meaning. From what I see, the word 'clip' is commonly accepted without negative connotations. You are arguing the purists point of view. You are right from a theoretical pov, but you do the same thing with other words everyday.

You may disagree of course, but people are using the word clip where you would use magazine. By the same token, you are no longer going to the 'lavatory', you are not having a 'gay' old time, and you are not putting 'gas' in your car.

You can argue that calling a magazine a clip is a sign of ignorance. And that is correct. The general population who drives the use of words is not expert.
I myself are a straight razor nut. What the general population calls 'razor' is something I call a shaving cartridge.
The goo that comes out of a can is definitely not cream or soap.
And there are many more examples I could name, of which I am sure that you yourself violate at least some of them.
Would it change anything if I got upset or annoyed because of that? Or would it only make me look a bit pedantic?

Language is a living thing.


----------



## Steve (Jan 21, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> _"Need"_ is unfortunately a *wedge-word* (some call it a 'weasel word').  To even have the argument, one must accept the premise that a person's 'need' (as defined by others) is a valid reason for restriction - of anything.  What a person 'needs' is not generally accepted as a valid means for restricting any legal behavior or private property.  How big a house do you 'need'?  How many calories do you 'need'?


I tried to be clear about the use of the term "need."  Personally, as I wonder whether anyone "needs" a 30 round cli... I mean magazine, I also wonder why anyone "needs" a lot of things.  The simple distinction I was trying to make clear is that, whether someone "needs" something or not has no bearing on whether it should be legal or not.  I don't think most people need to drive a Hummer, but I'm not in favor of making them illegal. 





> I think we need to work on better ways of detecting and intervening when people become mentally unstable.  In very few cases that I can recall has a person just 'snapped' for no reason and no one saw it coming (it has happened, I acknowledge).  It seems that often people are interviewed after the fact and say _"I saw it on TV and I just knew it was Joe."_


Didn't the guy in Arizona purchase his pistol within a very short period of time prior to the shootings?   

I agree, but I'm not sure how that can be done.  We have had waiting periods and background checks, but how effective are these?  Are we looking for the right things?  My impression (and I'd welcome correction if I'm wrong) is that the background checks are largely token and riddled with loopholes.  





> The liability insurance thing is interesting, but I think a non-starter.  There are two issues there.  The first is the mandatory purchase of a good or service in order to exercise a constitutional right; not sure that would fly.  The second is that this would essentially act as a restriction on the right of the poor to own guns to defend themselves.  The third thing I can think of is that as always, criminals are not going to buy the insurance.  Very few illegal shootings are done by previously law-abiding citizens; most are performed by people who are already criminals (and not allowed to own guns legally anyway). It's not a terrible idea, but I don't know how it would be implemented in reality.


Like cars, you don't have to own a gun.  The distinction between cars and health insurance is that you don't have to buy a car, so you're not being compelled to buy auto insurance.  Compulsory liability insurance for gun owners would be as constitutional as compulsory liability insurance for automobiles.  

Regarding insurance, I probably shouldn't have brought it up as it's a tangent.  I'll try to explain a little better what I meant.  Legally purchased weapons are involved in just about every accidental firearm injury or death.  Hunting accidents, when a kid shoots his friend on accident showing off his dad's pistol, when a kid takes his dad's gun to school and accidentally shoots a couple people (as happened just a few days ago).  These are all situations where mandatory liability insurance would be helpful to the victims' and their families.  

According to the CDC, there were 18,610 non-fatal, *unintentional *gunshot injuries in 2009.  In 2007 (the last year available for mortality statistics), there were 613 *unintentional*, firearm fatalities.

Liability insurance wouldn't keep crazy people from doing the things like what happened in Arizona.  But it would help compensate families for their loss in cases where they are injured.  The parents of the deceased child may not have life insurance for their 9 year old who was shot in AZ.  Now they're looking at funeral bills along with other legitimate expenses (as a quick example).    The people who survived are looking at physical and mental health care bills, possibly lost work and other related expenses.  

Will it ever get passed?  Of course not.  I think it's a reasonable idea, but the gun lobby is strong and while this would in no way infringe upon anyone's right to bear arms, it smacks of "gun control." 

Cruentus, you kind of came off as both unconstructive and insulting in your post.  Maybe I just don't get it, but the only thing I really got from your post is you believe that because your own opinion has evolved over time, anyone who doesn't share your opinion is uninformed.


----------



## zDom (Jan 21, 2011)

Regarding language used by the media when reporting arrests or shootings:

Now that I am better educated about firearms, I am often amused by reports of a couple hundred rounds of ammo being described as a "large cache of ammunition" and other subjective terms being used, IMO, improperly such as "large caliber" (really? a .40 cal is a LARGE caliber? I guess compared to a .22 ... but the .45 and .50 cal folk surely don't think so ...) or "high powered."


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 21, 2011)

Bruno,

I am a descriptivist as well when it comes to language, and I am more interested in content rather then semantics.

However, it would be expected that a person educated on a topic would know some basic info, and use some basic terms. I've had people tell me that they build AR's before, but returned a very confused look when I asked, "Cool... what lower do you prefer?" I wasn't trying to sharp shoot; that is a common question that someone who builds AR's (as in AR-15's) would know. I had a guy at the bar once tell me that he was a combat diver in Iraq with a special operations unit. He couldn't name what FOB he worked out of. He didn't know the difference between an ORPORD or a WARNO. He claimed to be an engineer (demo), but didn't know the difference between low yeild or high yeild det cord.

These are basic, common knowledge stuff for people who are actually educated on these topics; and they would talk about these things and use the terms like they were second nature.

People who are educated on firearms generally won't use the term 'clip' to mean 'mag.' A person in the military will know what an OPORD is, and will freely use the term. A person who builds Ar's will freely use words like "lower" and "upper" and "bolt carrier" and "star chamber." If they say "star cluster" to mean "star chamber," for example, then that is telling as to what they know or don't know about AR's. If they look at me like I have a penis between my ears when I ask what the barrel twist is on the Ar they built, then I know they don't know what they are doing.

Simple terminology can be telling. People can choose to not follow my advise and educate themselves a little on the topic, and correct their verbage if they make a small error. But then they shouldn't have any expectation to be taken seriously with these arguments.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 21, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Cruentus, you kind of came off as both unconstructive and insulting in your post. Maybe I just don't get it, but the only thing I really got from your post is you believe that because your own opinion has evolved over time, anyone who doesn't share your opinion is uninformed.


 
I'm sorry if I come accross that way. But make no mistake, I am not saying that if you don't share my opinion then you are uninformed. I am saying that if you are uninformed, then you are uninformed, and therefore you should remedy that. It is obvious that some people are uneducated on the topic, and it is very easy to tell when people don't understand or use some basic principles or terms. My suggestion is that before formulating a strong opinion, to do some more research. Someone who is uninformed should be probably be asking more questions rather then asserting strong arguements.

Someone who has done research, but shares a different opinion will be on the same level of education on the topic so that we can at least have a more productive discussion.

It seems insulting because people don't like to be told that they are uneducated on a topic. They feel that it is insulting to their intelligence. There is nothing I can do about that.


----------



## Steve (Jan 21, 2011)

Cruentus said:


> I'm sorry if I come accross that way. But make no mistake, I am not saying that if you don't share my opinion then you are uninformed. I am saying that if you are uninformed, then you are uninformed, and therefore you should remedy that. It is obvious that some people are uneducated on the topic, and it is very easy to tell when people don't understand or use some basic principles or terms. My suggestion is that before formulating a strong opinion, to do some more research. Someone who is uninformed should be probably be asking more questions rather then asserting strong arguements.
> 
> Someone who has done research, but shares a different opinion will be on the same level of education on the topic so that we can at least have a more productive discussion.
> 
> It seems insulting because people don't like to be told that they are uneducated on a topic. They feel that it is insulting to their intelligence. There is nothing I can do about that.


LOL.  Okay.  I'll study hard and maybe someday I'll have an opinion that you consider worthy.  

If I can make one suggestion, it would be to try contributing in a constructive manner to the topic at hand.  You've got three posts now in this thread.  You've related a couple of anecdotes, dropped a lot of vocabulary and told us all how smart you are (and how ignorant some of us are), but have yet to share any of your assuredly well developed and deeply knowledgeable opinions on the subject at hand.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 21, 2011)

punisher73 said:


> A peeve of mine drilled into me during the police academy.  If you were found saying "clip" to refer to your magazine it was push ups galore.  But, I think it is one of those slang things that many people use.
> 
> A clip is a metal guide that loads bullets into an INTERNAL magazine, for example, the old M-1 rifles.  Anything that is put into the gun with ammunition and is removed is a magazine.  So an AR-15, M-4 or AK-47 has a magazine and not a clip, even though popular slang calls the high capacity magzines "banana clips".


Personally, I have NO heartburn over "clip/magazine" whatsoever.  Old timers coming home from WWII were calling magazines a "clip" and no one saw fit to harass them about it.

My position is that everyone darn well knows what you mean so it's not a big deal.  One of my personal pet peeves is the non-word "irregardless."  Bugs the padiddle out of me but I don't worry about correcting folks because I know darn well what they mean.  

No offense to Bill, of course.  I didn't respond to his clip/mag correction either because, to each his own.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jan 21, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Words mean things.  People use the terms that give emotional support to the ideals they support.  A man doesn't fire multiple times, he *'sprays the room'*.  The words are important.
> 
> I correct my anti-gun friends every time they say it.  I have to.  If we're not going to use the correct words, we cannot have a discussion.


Words mean things, yes, but I cannot find any NLP type connection for the "clip" mistake.  There just doesn't seem to be any special connotation to the term "clip," either positive or negative, that is not also symmetrically associated with the term "magazine."

My best research indicates that it is a mis-term with its origin in returning WWII vets.

If you can point me to any evidence that "clip" has a particularly negative connotation over and above what may already be associated with "magazine" then I'd be willing to reconsider my position that the whole "clip/mag" thing is simply a non-starter.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jan 21, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> _"Need"_ is unfortunately a *wedge-word* (some call it a 'weasel word').  To even have the argument, one must accept the premise that a person's 'need' (as defined by others) is a valid reason for restriction - of anything.  What a person 'needs' is not generally accepted as a valid means for restricting any legal behavior or private property.  How big a house do you 'need'?  How many calories do you 'need'?


The long-standing tradition in the U.S. rights arena has always been on the other side of the coin.  It is not the requirement of the person to show why he "needs" something, it is the requirement of those favoring the restriction to show an overwhelming justification for the restriction.  In the U.S., you are innocent until proven guilty, not the other way around.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 21, 2011)

The WWII guys did use "clips" in their M1's. 

I get what Cruentus is getting at. Some people with "opinions" on guns and how this works and that works and how this is unnecessary and how people "don't need those" actually know bubkis about guns and their terminology proves it. 

BTW Cru: I never served at a Forward Operating Base, back in my day they just called them "Camps". I do know the difference between OPORD's and WARNO's...do they still issue FRAGO's too? I would love to get my hands on a Noveske lower one of these days and maybe a BCM or DD upper, but right now I just play with a 1:9 Bushmaster. I did recently drop a BCM bolt into it because the Bushy didnt use a MPI'ed or shot peened bolt and wasnt using a black extractor insert. That..my "new" EoTech 512 (used, but new to me  ) and an H buffer should provide me with a pretty nice M4gery.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 21, 2011)

CLIP







MAGAZINE






Any Questions?

​


----------



## crushing (Jan 21, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> While I'm still not sure that 30 round magazines are anything we need, what changed my position on this is Grenadier's simple observation that a crazy person could simply carry two pistols.
> 
> I think we need to better regulate weapons. *I still believe that gun owners should be required to carry liability insurance* and that the entire thing should be reviewed and overhauled. But, much like the security theater we have going on in airports, I've been convinced that this wouldn't actually make things safer. It would only make things feel safer.


 
This is getting in to an area of disenfranchisement, and similar to the poll tax, would violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 21, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Regarding insurance, I probably shouldn't have brought it up as it's a tangent.  I'll try to explain a little better what I meant.  Legally purchased weapons are involved in just about every accidental firearm injury or death.  Hunting accidents, when a kid shoots his friend on accident showing off his dad's pistol, when a kid takes his dad's gun to school and accidentally shoots a couple people (as happened just a few days ago).  These are all situations where mandatory liability insurance would be helpful to the victims' and their families.
> 
> According to the CDC, there were 18,610 non-fatal, *unintentional *gunshot injuries in 2009.  In 2007 (the last year available for mortality statistics), there were 613 *unintentional*, firearm fatalities.


Though no one has exact numbers it is estimated there are somewhere around 325,000,000 privately held guns in the U.S. (not including military & LEO) and somewhere between 52,000,000 and 70,000,000 private gun owners in the U.S.

So, by those statistics, approximately 0.00000057% of guns in the U.S. were involved in non-fatal unintentional gunshot injuries by with approximately (at most) 0.00000357% of firearms owners potentially being potentially culpable.

These numbers are so far below being statistically significant that it boggles the mind.  These numbers don't even rise to the level of being statistically insignificant.  I'm not even going to bother running the percentages on those 613 deaths.

I can't think of anything that has been proven as "safe" from accidental death or injury.  Pools kill more.  Cars kill more.  Heck, probably cheeseburgers kill more!

Given these numbers, quite frankly, the only thing accomplished by requiring liability insurance for firearms owners would be creating another massive bureaucracy and enshrining in law yet one more way that citizens are forced to give their money to insurance companies.  Honestly, less than one one-millionth of a percent of risk is simply not justifiable of restrictions like this.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Steve (Jan 21, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> The WWII guys did use "clips" in their M1's.
> 
> I get what Cruentus is getting at. Some people with "opinions" on guns and how this works and that works and how this is unnecessary and how people "don't need those" actually know bubkis about guns and their terminology proves it.


I guess this begs the question, do you have to be an expert on guns to have a legitimate opinion on gun regulation?  More specifically, should you have to know the difference between high yield and low yield det cord to be able to discuss gun control in an online forum?  (as an aside, that one I actually do know the answer to, although it's been over 20 years since I was an ammo troop and what I've forgotten is likely obsolete).

I wonder, how many of you who have been so vocal in "obamacare" threads are experts on healthcare?  How many of you are experts on Social Security?   Tax law?  You guys are being pretty hypocritical, particularly in the context of an online forum.  

This sudden elitism that's cropped up really has me shaking my head.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 21, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It's the wrong question. "Need" is beside the point.
> 
> How fast do you "need" to have your car go? The question implies that there is a limit, beyond which no one has a legitimate need, and that therefore it is reasonable to ban a car that goes faster than that, or a magazine which holds more rounds than that.


 
I'm seriously going against my better judgement by entering this thread, but here goes...

Firstly, I'm not an advocate of gun control.  I am, however, an advocate of reasonable and responsible use and ownership, and I'm on the fence regarding the issue of limiting ammunition capacity in a clip, magazine, or whatever else you choose to call it.  I agree with KLawson that I do not believe there is any negative connotation that goes with the term "clip".  It may be a misuse of the term, but I do not see that as something to get hung up over in discussion.  Everyone understands that we are talking about the ammunition capacity of a firearm before the need to reload.   

Anyway, more to my point.  Bill, your argument above is unconvincing, even for someone like myself who is not an automatic advocate of gun control.  There is a simple reason for this, and this is what the gun control advocates will come to over and over, so you might want to take a second look at it.

The reason it doesn't hold water is because of the intended use of the two different items.  A car isn't built with the intent of being a weapon, being used to deliberately kill someone.  A car can be misused, and its misuse can be dangerous and even deadly to the user and those around him/her.  No argument there.  Driving too fast on the roadways is a misuse, and can be deadly. But that deadly possiblity is not what the car is designed for.  It is purely a result of misuse or carelessness or accident.  Furthermore, we do have laws limiting speed on our roadways.  You aren't supposed to break the speedlimit, even if your car has the ability to do so.  We accept those speed laws as a reasonable necessity in attempts to keep our roadways safe for all users.  Even tho your car can go faster than the speed limit, you are expected to never exceed that limit.  Doing so puts you at odds with the law and carries legal and potentially criminal consequences.  But we accept that for the greater good and safety of the population.

A gun is a different thing altogether, because it's design and intent in use is ultimately to kill.  Sure, it can be used for sporting purposes, target shooting and competitions where nobody and nothing is killed.  But the ultimate reason for the gun is for killing, and that's what makes the car analogy fall apart.  The question becomes, with an item that is designed and meant for killing as its primary purpose, is it reasonable to legislate limits on the killing capacity?  Is a legislated limitation to clip/magazine capacity analogous to speed limit laws?  We recognize the potential danger that certain items hold, and we make reasonable limits to reduce the destructive potential when things go wrong. 

I'll be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 21, 2011)

lklawson said:


> Though no one has exact numbers it is estimated there are somewhere around 325,000,000 privately held guns in the U.S. (not including military & LEO) and somewhere between 52,000,000 and 70,000,000 private gun owners in the U.S.
> 
> So, by those statistics, approximately 0.00000057% of guns in the U.S. were involved in non-fatal unintentional gunshot injuries by with approximately (at most) 0.00000357% of firearms owners potentially being potentially culpable.
> 
> ...


 
I would wager that car ownership far outstrips gun ownership, and people use their cars far more often than guns.  If you look at the number of times that cars are actually used in one year in the US, and tally the number of car accidents, I bet you'd also find it statistically insignficant.  I don't have numbers to point to, but I'd be comfortable making the wager.

Yet we allow and accept and embrace legislated limits on how we drive our cars, including speed limits...


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 21, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> I guess this begs the question, do you have to be an expert on guns to have a legitimate opinion on gun regulation? More specifically, should you have to know the difference between high yield and low yield det cord to be able to discuss gun control in an online forum? (as an aside, that one I actually do know the answer to, although it's been over 20 years since I was an ammo troop and what I've forgotten is likely obsolete).
> 
> I wonder, how many of you who have been so vocal in "obamacare" threads are experts on healthcare? How many of you are experts on Social Security? Tax law? You guys are being pretty hypocritical, particularly in the context of an online forum.
> 
> This sudden elitism that's cropped up really has me shaking my head.


 
Because this is a piece of equipment...a device..an object. Having some knowledge of what they do and how they work is kind of necessary if you are going to outlaw a feature of it. Our "firearms expert" politicians put together an "Assault Weapons" ban a few years ago and what did they declare "evil/illegal"?? A bayonet lug!!?? Really? and a pistol grip and an "EEEEEEVVVVILLLL" flash hider?

Really?

The Health Care debate is about if the gvt has the right to force me to buy it, and if our nations founding document allows the gvt to take control of a large sector of our economy. It's not about "medicine". Nobody is arguing what medical proceedure is necessary or not.

You are confusing issues here.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 21, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> I'm seriously going against my better judgement by entering this thread, but here goes...


You will thus flogged with 1,000 wet noodles!



> A gun is a different thing altogether, because it's design and intent in use is ultimately to kill.  Sure, it can be used for sporting purposes, target shooting and competitions where nobody and nothing is killed.  But the ultimate reason for the gun is for killing, and that's what makes the car analogy fall apart.  The question becomes, with an item that is designed and meant for killing as its primary purpose, is it reasonable to legislate limits on the killing capacity?  Is a legislated limitation to clip/magazine capacity analogous to speed limit laws?  We recognize the potential danger that certain items hold, and we make reasonable limits to reduce the destructive potential when things go wrong.
> 
> I'll be interested in hearing your thoughts on this.


Based on the aforementioned statistics concerning the actual percentage of time "things go wrong," I'd have to say that there doesn't seem to be much of a need for any additional regulation.  We could probably even "afford" to remove significant amounts of regulation before the percentage of time "things go wrong" even begins to approach statistical significance.

Naturally, lots of other folks hold different opinions.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 21, 2011)

lklawson said:


> You will thus flogged with 1,000 wet noodles!


 
aye, hence my trepidation



> Based on the aforementioned statistics concerning the actual percentage of time "things go wrong," I'd have to say that there doesn't seem to be much of a need for any additional regulation. We could probably even "afford" to remove significant amounts of regulation before the percentage of time "things go wrong" even begins to approach statistical significance.
> 
> Naturally, lots of other folks hold different opinions.
> 
> ...


 
You may be right about this, tho I'm in no position to know for sure.

But this doesn't change the fact that there is this fundamental difference between a car and a gun.  The gun is specifically meant to kill, the car is not.  We do regulate how we drive, because we recognize the potential dangers in driving.  Is it so unreasonable to regulate how we shoot, and likewise recognize the potential dangers?


----------



## Steve (Jan 21, 2011)

lklawson said:


> Though no one has exact numbers it is estimated there are somewhere around 325,000,000 privately held guns in the U.S. (not including military & LEO) and somewhere between 52,000,000 and 70,000,000 private gun owners in the U.S.
> 
> So, by those statistics, approximately 0.00000057% of guns in the U.S. were involved in non-fatal unintentional gunshot injuries by with approximately (at most) 0.00000357% of firearms owners potentially being potentially culpable.
> 
> ...


Kirk,  I appreciate the post.  

The percentage you come up with is interesting, but I'd be more interested in the number of gun owners vs the number of guns.  How many households own guns?   Am I wrong to presume that most gun owners own more than one gun?  My brother has around 15.  Google seems to put the percent of household with firearms at about 34%.  Is that about right or are these figures off?

For what it's worth, while not specific to pools, there were 3443 drownings in 2007 and 6206 "near drowning" injuries reported in 2009.   Considering the number of people who swim in rivers, lakes, pools and at beaches, that the number of incidents totals under 10,000 while gun related incidents is close to double that is pretty interesting to me.   Motor vehicle related injury is obviously much higher, considering the amount of time we spend in or around them every day.  

No way to really know about cheeseburgers.

Just to be clear, I also limited the numbers to unintentional fatalities and injuries to try and get a real sense of the number of accidents.  If you bump it up to "all cases" the number of injuries quadruples to ~67k and the number of fatalities goes up to just over 31k.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 21, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> I would wager that car ownership far outstrips gun ownership, and people use their cars far more often than guns.  If you look at the number of times that cars are actually used in one year in the US, and tally the number of car accidents, I bet you'd also find it statistically insignficant.  I don't have numbers to point to, but I'd be comfortable making the wager.
> 
> Yet we allow and accept and embrace legislated limits on how we drive our cars, including speed limits...


Sure.  I'd like to see those stat though.  I'm willing to bet there there are two or more orders of magnitude difference.

But again, others have differing opinions.  <shrug>

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 21, 2011)

lklawson said:


> Sure. I'd like to see those stat though. I'm willing to bet there there are two or more orders of magnitude difference.
> 
> But again, others have differing opinions. <shrug>
> 
> ...


 

could be, tho in which direction those orders of magnitude go I would hesitate to guess.

either way, we still embrace the regulation and restrictions on driving.  Is it reasonable to expect no regulation of gun capacity?


----------



## Steve (Jan 21, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Because this is a piece of equipment...a device..an object. Having some knowledge of what they do and how they work is kind of necessary if you are going to outlaw a feature of it. Our "firearms expert" politicians put together an "Assault Weapons" ban a few years ago and what did they declare "evil/illegal"?? A bayonet lug!!?? Really? and a pistol grip and an "EEEEEEVVVVILLLL" flash hider?
> 
> Really?
> 
> ...


Am I?  The constitutionality of that part of the health care reform act is just one small facet of the healthcare reform debate.  Are you an expert on constitutional law?  While there are a few people on these boards who I'd wager could make a strong case for it, I don't think that the rest of us (according to the emerging high standards of this thread) are competent to have an opinion on the subject.

Add the other complexities of the topic and we might as well close down shop.

What's even more funny about this is that I agree with you guys on most of the issues regarding gun control.  But whatever.  It's all good.  It's an exclusive club.  I get that now.

Edit:  Just want to clarify that there is a big difference between "having some knowledge" of something and being an expert on it.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 21, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Kirk,  I appreciate the post.
> 
> The percentage you come up with is interesting, but I'd be more interested in the number of gun owners vs the number of guns.  How many households own guns?   Am I wrong to presume that most gun owners own more than one gun?  My brother has around 15.  Google seems to put the percent of household with firearms at about 34%.  Is that about right or are these figures off?


Somewhere over 52,000,000 "households" have one or more firearms based on the last figures I could find.  

Of those "households" a rough guess is between 1/3 and 1/5 contain more than one owner (for instance, my "household" has two occupants who own).

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Grenadier (Jan 21, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> either way, we still embrace the regulation and restrictions on driving. Is it reasonable to expect no regulation of gun capacity?


 
Suppose that there are a few drunken drivers who drive with 0.20+ BAC levels, and cause major accidents on a highway whose speed limit is 70 MPH.  Let's say that the drunken drivers were driving about 70 MPH at the time.  The knee-jerk reaction crowd is going to assert that the 70 MPH speed limit caused this trouble, and that the speed limit should be lowered to make everyone safe.  

Should we automatically lower the speed limit to 45 MPH in order to prevent the above individuals from committing such actions?  

The result would be awfully disappointing to the people who would want such limits in place, since it does absolutely nothing to address the real problem (namely the drunken driver), and only interferes with law-abiding people who were safely driving 70 MPH on the highway.  

The natural response from the knee-jerk reaction crowd would be "so, let me get this straight, you want all speed limits repealed?  You want there to be unlimited speeding everywhere in this country?"

My answer to them would be this: such a tangent is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  I merely pointed out the failures of such proposed reduction in speed laws.  It's up to you to tell me how you are going to get the reckless drunken drivers to obey the posted speed limits.  For that matter, it's up to you to tell me how such speed limits are going to prevent drunken drivers from driving in their intoxicated state in the first place...

Instead of doing that, why not go after the drunken drivers, put them in jail, take away their driver's licenses, etc?  Wouldn't that be more productive than punishing the law-abiding?  I can guarantee you that my method of dealing with drunken drivers is going to be far more effective at curbing drunken-driving accidents on the highway, than any number of speed limit implementations.  



The same holds true for weaponry.  Law abiding people aren't going to use their weapons, or whatever accessories are used with such weapons (such as flash suppressors that prevent the marksman from being blinded by muzzle flash, an adjustable shoulder stock that allows people to adjust their rifle position in an optimal manner for their bodies, etc., or any of the other "evil" features that were part of the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban).  

Limiting magazine capacity for law-abiding people does absolutely nothing to stop criminals from committing crimes, since you're attacking the wrong crowd.  

Even if you did ban law-abiding people from owning 11+ round magazines, there are millions of 11+ round magazines still out there.  How are you going to get the criminals to stop using them and turn them in?  How are you going to prevent them from buying more from illegal arms dealers?  

Even if you were able to magically make criminals turn in their 11+ round magazines, what about the ability to carry multiple weapons, like Robert Deniro's character in Taxi Cab Driver?  


Again, if the anti-gun crowd can show me a way how such legislation would make criminals obey the laws, then I'd give their assertions much more weight.  Until then, maybe they should start turning their attention to criminals, instead of the law-abiding?  

The arguments of such individuals sometimes reminds me of a former Ohio Senator, Howard Metzenbaum:



			
				Senator Howard Metzenbaum said:
			
		

> *No, were not looking at how to control criminals* were talking about banning the AK-47 and semi-automatic guns.


 
Dave Kopel also wrote a very in-depth article, pointing out the fallacies of the above arguments:

http://www.davekopel.com/2A/Mags/Banning-Assault-Rifles-Won't-Work.htm


----------



## Steve (Jan 21, 2011)

lklawson said:


> Somewhere over 52,000,000 "households" have one or more firearms based on the last figures I could find.
> 
> Of those "households" a rough guess is between 1/3 and 1/5 contain more than one owner (for instance, my "household" has two occupants who own).
> 
> ...


Would you agree then that this makes the percentages a bit more realistic?  I don't know.  It seems pretty in line to me.  While automobiles are responsible for many more injuries, our exposure to them is also pervasive.  Stats for autos include pedestrians, pedal cyclists and anything else related to being a motor vehicle, which I'm not sure are relevant.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 21, 2011)

Grenadier said:


> Suppose that there are a few drunken drivers who drive with 0.20+ BAC levels, and cause major accidents on a highway whose speed limit is 70 MPH. Let's say that the drunken drivers were driving about 70 MPH at the time. The knee-jerk reaction crowd is going to assert that the 70 MPH speed limit caused this trouble, and that the speed limit should be lowered to make everyone safe.


 
no, this is not the knee-jerk reaction, because it happens all the time and I certainly don't hear anyone clamoring to lower the speed limits, at least not based on that.



> My answer to them would be this: such a tangent is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. I merely pointed out the failures of such proposed reduction in speed laws. It's up to you to tell me how you are going to get the reckless drunken drivers to obey the posted speed limits. For that matter, it's up to you to tell me how such speed limits are going to prevent drunken drivers from driving in their intoxicated state in the first place...
> 
> Instead of doing that, why not go after the drunken drivers, put them in jail, take away their driver's licenses, etc? Wouldn't that be more productive than punishing the law-abiding? I can guarantee you that my method of dealing with drunken drivers is going to be far more effective at curbing drunken-driving accidents on the highway, than any number of speed limit implementations.
> 
> ...


 
as to the rest of this, my response and inclusion of the driving issue is purely in response to the fact that Bill brought up the driving issue in the first place, back in Post #4 in this thread. If you feel it's an irrelevant tangent and not a relevant argument for me to use, then neither is it a relevant argument for him to use as an advocate for no regulation on magazine capacity.

I actually understand the arguments on both sides of this.  As I've said, I'm not an automatic advocate of gun control, tho I favor reasonable and responsible ownership, which MAY include some regulations.  I'm on the fence on this issue because I do understand both sides of the argument, and I feel both sides have merit, and both sides put forth some nonsense as well.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 21, 2011)

SteveBJJ,

Why thank you for the personal attacks. You've illustrated the reason why I don't usually do forums anymore. I just don't have the time to deflect all the BS ad hominum and ad nauseum tactics that prevail in these discussions. Archangel explained my point well, and your butt still got hurt. I am sure that the rest of my post will fall on deaf ears, but here it goes anyway...

It isn't about elitism, it's simply about having an informed opinion. I never said that everyone had to be an expert on firearms, but I do hope that people will have an informed opinion before they seriously weigh in. I don't care what terminology people use (so long as we understand each other) but if you are way off in some of your terminology, it points to the idea that you might be uninformed on the issue. And since you obviously missed the point - of course you don't need to know the parts of an AR or about det cord to weigh in on a gun control argument; I was obviously using those as examples of people who said they were an expert on a subject when their use and lack of understanding of simple verbage told otherwise.

All I am suggesting is that people research topics a little bit before they weigh in with a solid assertion. I am also saying that if you're off on your terms a little, just correct it and you'll be better off. It is too bad that the idea of learning about a topic before weighing in offends your sensabilities.

But don't worry; this is my last post on this thread.

FlyingCrane: You bring up an interesting point about the use for guns vs. cars or pools or other things. However, we need not confuse the issue of "ownership" and "behavior."

The prudent thing to do is legislate things when ownership or behaviors infringe on others rights. Speed limit laws, for example, is not a law against ownership, it is a law against a behavior, because arguably high speeds infringe on the safety of other drivers on the road. The law doesn't say that your car must have a governor so that it can't exceed 55 mph.

A high cap mag, for example, isn't going to hurt anyone. However, if I shoot in my backyard without proper distancing or backstop towards my neighbors house, that could hurt someone. We have laws regulating behaviors in regards to shooting; criteria for backstops and distancing for target practice, for example. There are many laws regulating what constitutes self-defense as well. If I shoot my weapon down the street, I will have to face the legal consequences of that behavior even if no one is hurt. That has nothing to do with how many rounds my mag holds.

It absolutely is OK and nessicary to have some regulation on behaviors in regards to shooting to keep people safe. Regulating the equipment, however, is a different story. I discussed this in greater detail in the other thread titled "more anti-gun stupidity" recently, but basically ownership of firearms that shoot bullets by itself is not infringing on anyone elses rights, regardless of the mag capacity, or if it is full auto, or if they are hollow points, or whatever.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 21, 2011)

Cruentus said:


> FlyingCrane: You bring up an interesting point about the use for guns vs. cars or pools or other things. However, we need not confuse the issue of "ownership" and "behavior."
> 
> The prudent thing to do is legislate things when ownership or behaviors infringe on others rights. Speed limit laws, for example, is not a law against ownership, it is a law against a behavior, because arguably high speeds infringe on the safety of other drivers on the road. The law doesn't say that your car must have a governor so that it can't exceed 55 mph.
> 
> ...


 
My intention in entering this discussion at all was to point out where the advocates of tighter gun control will poke holes in the arguments presented, and Bill's car analogy was the one that stuck out in my mind.

As to your comments above, I think where the gun control advocates will argue against this is in the very nature of firearms, that they are meant for killing, and that places them in a special category deserving of special regulation.  As such, the car analogy that Bill raised is a moot point.

I actually understand the merits of your points above.  I also understand the merits of the gun control advocates.  I don't think either argument is nonsense, nor is either clear of fault.  Hence my own position on the fence.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 21, 2011)

**Sorry... off topic but I gave Grenadier, Archangel, and Bill Maddox pos reps recently for these discussions but forgot to sign it... whoopsie; I always want people to know its me so I'm accountable, pos or neg.**


----------



## Steve (Jan 21, 2011)

Cruentus said:


> SteveBJJ,
> 
> Why thank you for the personal attacks. You've illustrated the reason why I don't usually do forums anymore. I just don't have the time to deflect all the BS ad hominum and ad nauseum tactics that prevail in these discussions. Archangel explained my point well, and your butt still got hurt. I am sure that the rest of my post will fall on deaf ears, but here it goes anyway...


I'm sorry you feel picked on.  I don't think I've attacked you personally and have instead addressed your posts, but if you feel that way, I apologize.  

As long as we're pulling out that card, if you say that the sky is blue, and I post without any qualification or support in response, "When someone says the sky is blue, they're clearly ignorant," that's an ad hominem.  It's not attacking the idea, it's attacking the person.  In subsequent posts, you've continued to avoid any kind of actual response and instead focus on your expertise (an appeal to authority, which is another issue), and stories about guys you met in a bar.  Your entire contribution amounts to, "You should be informed.  I am informed."  

Look, I don't care whether you think that liability insurance for gun owners is a good idea or not.  Lklawson thinks it's a bad idea and said so.  In contrast to your own posts, he actually responded to the idea.  While I wouldn't go so far as to say I'm butt hurt, I will admit that I respect and appreciate his approach, and it offers a convenient contrast to your own posts.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 21, 2011)

*Argument:*
Guns are MADE for killing!!!
*Reply:*
"OK. So your point is?"

People have been killing each other for all of creation. Even now, during probably the most "civilized" period of man, killing one another is so common and ordinary that you can't read a book or watch a movie without killing as part of the plot. I think whats more important than fretting about something that will never be eliminated is worrying about who has the power. Throughout most of history the strong got to dictate to the weak. With the advent of the personal firearm, the potential for the first real equality of force for the "common man" was achieved. As the saying goes "God made man and God made woman, but Samuel Colt made them equal." Our forefathers knew that back when they wrote the 2nd.

The tyrants and the "nanny politicians" have never been able to accept this. Argue "its for the common good" all they want, they want control back. The bullies, the criminals and the usurpers can't extort, steal, control and intimidate at will if their victims have the ability to fight back with equal force.

Guns are the only effective way honest people can protect themselves from otherwise stronger predators, of either the animal or the "human animal" variety.

Criminals are bad. So: a) Rehabilitate the criminal (to a provable standard) b) kill the criminal so he's no longer a problem, or c) lock-up the criminal until he dies.

Unfortunately we seem to be opting for (d) and just let someone we know is bad loose into society. Which we are seeing recently in all these cops being killed by paroled felons and multiple conviction criminals that keep getting put back on our streets.

Guns aren't the problem. Criminals are the problem. Solve the right problem.


----------



## Steve (Jan 21, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> *Argument:*
> Guns are MADE for killing!!!
> *Reply:*
> "OK. So your point is?"
> ...


Good post.  A big part of the problem contributing to (d) is that we have many laws on the books that are pointless, clogging up the system so that those who are truly dangerous slip through the cracks.  I know I sound like a broken record, but MJ is a perfect example, clogging up the courts and jails with hippies and college students.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 21, 2011)

Not to be flip... but the idea that weed smokers are the reason that 3 time life conviction felons get put back on the streets is laughable. It's not about who they are putting IN its about who they are letting OUT.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 21, 2011)

I was going to reply to the various questions asked me, but Archangel really did a good job of stating what I would have.

When we compare firearms to anything else, there is almost always an automatic objection lodged - that being that X is not _'designed to kill'_ and firearms are.

First, that's not exactly a true statement.  Firearms are designed to kill, yes, but that's not all they're designed for.  And many things not designed to kill are in fact used for that.  So there are no black and white lines to be drawn; comparisons are valid despite the _'intent'_ of the item in question.

Second, one must consider context.  _'Designed to kill'_ sounds awful.  But that means a lot of things.  It means it puts meat on the table, by killing game.  It means it protects people against human and dangerous animals that can threaten their lives or safety.  It means it puts the means of conducting enforcing laws in the hands of police and the means of conducting war in the hands of the military.  There are also numerous sporting non-lethal uses for firearms, ranging from target shooting to historical collecting.

When I say something is _'designed to kill'_, I do not necessarily see that as a bad thing.  But when it is said by a person who has an anti-gun point of view, what I believe they see in their mind's eye is _'designed to murder'._  And that is a very different thing.

Yes, guns are designed to kill.  However, that fact alone does not link _'need'_ to _'restriction'_ in my opinion.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 21, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> I would wager that car ownership far outstrips gun ownership, and people use their cars far more often than guns. If you look at the number of times that cars are actually used in one year in the US, and tally the number of car accidents, I bet you'd also find it statistically insignficant. I don't have numbers to point to, but I'd be comfortable making the wager.
> 
> Yet we allow and accept and embrace legislated limits on how we drive our cars, including speed limits...


 
Just as we have limits on where one may carry their gun.....you cannot possess and use either while intoxicated......not sure the point you're trying to make.

Also, we accept speed limits.....but NOT speed limiters, i.e. legislative restrictions on the speed a car is capable of going. We expect individuals to self-limit their speed, despite the fact that almost all cars are capable of going faster than that.

As for the insurance argument, it's fundamentally silly.......the reason we have automobile insurance is that automobile ACCIDENTS account for billions of dollars of cost in damage and injury every year.  Quite frankly the level of death, injury and property damage created by automobiles so vastly dwarfs anything caused by firearms as to make the argument of mandatory automobile insurance legitimate.

As it is, however, you are only required to maintain automobile insurance for vehicles you DRIVE ON PUBLIC ROADS!  You can buy any car, keep it in your house, and drive it on your property, without insurance.

If we apply the automobile analogy, that means, what that we're going to require those with CCW's to have insurance on their guns?  Give me statistically support for ANY damage done by CCW holders that would remotely require that.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 21, 2011)

And "killing"...while never a good thing is many times the "right thing". Its right that an innocent homeowner killed a murderous intruder instead of the other way around.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 21, 2011)

I also find it interesting that the LEO's here (current and former) are standing together on this point. Especially how it's when we get killed that the gun grabbers make their moves. And it's us the paranoid gun owners fear as the evil arm of gvt.

Paradoxical eh??


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 21, 2011)

The banning hi-capacity magazine argument is fundamentally silly.  There is nothing 'magically safer' about 10 round magazines.

The only reason it's being brought up is that when a tragic, high profile, but statistically anomolous incident like Tucson occur, the natural emotional response is to start dissecting it and fabricating laws about every microscopic detail in some emotionally driven attempt to rhetroactively prevent THAT incident.

In this incident he happened to use a 30 round magazine (actually, 33?), and so some emotionally driven folks have fixated on that detail as some kind of aggravating circumstance to be targeted for legislation.

The irony of banning 30 round magazines for concealable handguns is that as anyone who has ever seen a 30 round magazine in a handgun, is that it becomes completely unconcealable!  If you hated CCW's you'd pass a law REQUIRING them to have 30 round magazines in order to be carried!

Yet another example of what happens when you allow emotionally hijacked people to legislate.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 21, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> I also find it interesting that the LEO's here (current and former) are standing together on this point. Especially how it's when we get killed that the gun grabbers make their moves. And it's us the paranoid gun owners fear as the evil arm of gvt.
> 
> Paradoxical eh??


 
Most line officers in this country are very pro-2nd Amendment, as you well know.

Yes, there are quite a few carpet cop administrators who are anti-gun, but then, that's how elitists are.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 21, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> I also find it interesting that the LEO's here (current and former) are standing together on this point. Especially how it's when we get killed that the gun grabbers make their moves. And it's us the paranoid gun owners fear as the evil arm of gvt.
> 
> Paradoxical eh??



I hesitated to bring this up, given that two law enforcement officers were killed yesterday in Miami:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/01/21/two_miami_police_officers_killed_in_shootout/

I do not wish to use the tragic deaths of these two brave officers as an example, but the circumstances themselves are exemplary of the argument being advanced here.

The suspect in this case was also shot dead by police.  He had a very extensive criminal record, including murder, and he was wanted on another homicide charge, which police were attempting to arrest him for.  One could use this as an argument for why gun control is needed; one could also argue that the suspect, a felon, was armed even though the law did not allow him to be armed.  So no law restricting *my* gun ownership is going to stop *him* and people like him from being armed.  If one wanted to argue that if guns were outlawed, the criminal would not have access to them, I would point out that among his various criminal convictions were those for dealing drugs such as cocaine; a drug that is currently prohibited in all but a very few medical cases; yet he somehow got his hands on it and sold it.  Prohibiting guns could be expected to work about as well as prohibiting drugs does.

There is nothing good about what happened in Miami.  It's a tragedy for everyone but the suspect, whom I am actually glad is dead.  But there is no cogent argument for gun control found in the situation.  This is the core of the issue; banning or restricting will only restrict those who obey the law; and those people are not the problem.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 21, 2011)

sgtmac_46 said:


> The banning hi-capacity magazine argument is fundamentally silly.  There is nothing 'magically safer' about 10 round magazines.



If we banned 30-round magazines, and someone committed an atrocity with a 25-round magazine, does anyone think that the gun-control advocates would say _"Oh, well, at least 25 rounds is reasonable, unlike 30, so I have no issues with this."_  NO!  They would foment against 25-round magazines.  And 15.  And 10.

The problem with *'reasonable'* regulations is that there is *never an end to it*.  And if pressed, most gun-control advocates will agree.  Ask them to tell you EXACTLY how many rounds is OK in a magazine and how many is not.  They won't.   They can't.  Because they know as well as you do that the NEXT time, they'll be in favor of banning magazines that hold X number of rounds, with X being the number used in that latest crime.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 21, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If we banned 30-round magazines, and someone committed an atrocity with a 25-round magazine, does anyone think that the gun-control advocates would say _"Oh, well, at least 25 rounds is reasonable, unlike 30, so I have no issues with this."_ NO! They would foment against 25-round magazines. And 15. And 10.
> 
> The problem with *'reasonable'* regulations is that there is *never an end to it*. And if pressed, most gun-control advocates will agree. Ask them to tell you EXACTLY how many rounds is OK in a magazine and how many is not. They won't. They can't. Because they know as well as you do that the NEXT time, they'll be in favor of banning magazines that hold X number of rounds, with X being the number used in that latest crime.


 
That's absolutely right........the 'Nobody needs 30 round magazines' argument is about incrementalism..........make a 'reasonable sounding' argument about something most folks don't really even want, ban that, and work your way down.........

Which is clear in this instance, because they are arguing against 30 round magazines, but wanting to skip arguing and 15 and 17 round magazines.........they want to frame the argument as simply 30 round versus 10 round magazines.......I guess they figure nobody will notice they're wanting to eliminate 15 and 17 as well.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 21, 2011)

I would also like to point out that high-capacity magazines were banned for a number of years under the so-called 'Assault Weapons Ban'.  However, this law expired in 2004 under President Bush.  Many gun-control advocates predicted blood in the streets.

For example:



> Southeast Missourian - Sep 14, 2004
> BY BETSY TAYLOR . AP . ST. LOUIS  City officials called the expiration of a  10year _federal assault weapons ban_ a *blow to public safety* Monday...
> 
> New York Daily News - Mar 4, 2004
> ...



Did blood run in the streets?  That was 2004, 7 years ago.  Have there been a plethora of robberies and murders and rapes that occurred because suddenly people could buy 30-round magazines again?

There has been an extremely heinous incident.  In 7 years.  And no one is arguing that the murderer would have chosen to simply carry a protest sign instead of killing people if he could only have gotten a 10-round magazine for his pistol.  He might not have killed as many; or as others have mentioned, he might have carried more than one gun or been faster or more successful on the reload.

But no one has pointed me to a situation that would not have happened - at all - if the ban had been continued.

So reinstating the ban now will do what, exactly?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 21, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I would also like to point out that high-capacity magazines were banned for a number of years under the so-called 'Assault Weapons Ban'. However, this law expired in 2004 under President Bush. Many gun-control advocates predicted blood in the streets.
> 
> For example:
> 
> ...


 

Those who wish to abolish private arms realized a long time ago they could not do it wholesale......so they must do it piecemeal.....

Cheap handguns 'Saturday night specials'
Easy to shoot guns designed only to kill lots of people 'GLOCKS'
Any rifle with a scope 'Sniper weapons'
Any semi-automatic rifle with detachable magazine 'Assault rifles'

They have an argument against each one........and they will exploit any tragedy they can by fixating on the particular combination of weapons used in that tragedy.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 21, 2011)

sgtmac_46 said:


> That's absolutely right........the 'Nobody needs 30 round magazines' argument is about incrementalism..........make a 'reasonable sounding' argument about something most folks don't really even want, ban that, and work your way down.........
> 
> Which is clear in this instance, because they are arguing against 30 round magazines, but wanting to skip arguing and 15 and 17 round magazines.........they want to frame the argument as simply 30 round versus 10 round magazines.......I guess they figure nobody will notice they're wanting to eliminate 15 and 17 as well.



That's why I said that the term 'clip' was being intentionally misused for effect.  *"A 30-round clip"* has a very ominous sound to it.  The kind of thing that no typical gun owner with a squirrel rifle or a pheasant shotgun or even a deer rifle in the closet would have any use for.  And many gun owners are persuaded in ways such as these.  It's subtle, but it's there.  You have to be on guard for it.  Why 'clip' instead of 'magazine'?  Because 'clip' has another meaning.  It means 'fast'.  Fast, in this instance, is being labeled as a bad thing.

It is the same reason - precisely the same reason - that anti-gun people call certain kinds of bullets *'cop-killer bullets'*.  Sounds awful, doesn't it?  Who on earth would be in favor of or want to own a _'cop-killer'_ bullet?  Good Lord, ban them immediately!

Smart people seize the language and make it serve their interests.  It doesn't matter what the argument is, the smartest proponents of it always seize the language.  It is the emotional impact and appeal of the words that convince huge swaths of people who are not thinking critically, but with their hearts.  There is NEVER a statement issued by a federal politician that in which the words used are not chosen with care and designed to foster emotional appeal to their argument.  No one is anti-life.  People are pro-choice and pro-life.  What, no anti-life or anti-choice?  Nope, both sides are FOR something, not against.  It's because no one identifies with the 'anti' side of things.  For emotional impact, we don't talk about aborting a fetus, we talk abort an unborn infant.  

Words, it's all words.  You have to make sure you don't let them argue on their own terms; if you do, you've already given them half the argument.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 21, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I was going to reply to the various questions asked me, but Archangel really did a good job of stating what I would have.
> 
> When we compare firearms to anything else, there is almost always an automatic objection lodged - that being that X is not _'designed to kill'_ and firearms are.
> 
> ...


 
aye, I don't dispute these points.

As I've stated before in this thread, I'm pointing out where gun control advocates will argue weaknesses in your position.  take it as you will.  I personally don't think they are exactly wrong, just as I don't believe your position is exactly wrong either.  But neither do I see either position as completly right.  Both sides actually have reasonable points in the argument, and I think that for any meaningful dialogue to take place, both sides need to acknowledge this of the other side.

Obviously it's a polarizing issue and often any "discussion" ends up with both sides calling each other crazy wingnuts and dismissing each other out of hand, instead of really considering what is being said.  I see this happen on both sides of the argument, and it doesn't accomplish much.  Nobody is willing to even look to see if there might be some legitimacy in the viewpoint of the other side, because by virtue of the fact that he's on the other side means he's not worth listening to.  And so the arguments continue forever.  Actually, this thread has so far remained fairly respectful and that's a good thing.  I do notice however, that no serious gun control advocates have jumped in so most people here are preaching to the choir.

I don't really have a dog in the race.  I'm not advocating either way.  I just thought I'd throw in a different perspective, and you can take some education from that, or not, it really makes no difference to me.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 21, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> I don't really have a dog in the race.  I'm not advocating either way.  I just thought I'd throw in a different perspective, and you can take some education from that, or not, it really makes no difference to me.



I agree with you.  There really isn't much purpose to the discussion, because overall, it isn't one.  In order to have a meaningful discussion, there has to be a basis point on which all can agree.

With gun control, the basic issue revolves around the individual right to own guns.  Although the Supreme Court has recently ruled that the 2nd Amendment does indeed prohibit the federal government from infringing upon the *individual* right to own guns, and has thus invalidated some restrictive gun laws as unconstitutional, the gun control side does not acknowledge that there is any such right.

Without that basis, we're not going to have a meaningful discussion with each other - meaning gun enthusiasts and gun control advocates.

Fortunately, it's all just sound and fury at the moment.  I predict nothing will come of it.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 21, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> That's why I said that the term 'clip' was being intentionally misused for effect. *"A 30-round clip"* has a very ominous sound to it. The kind of thing that no typical gun owner with a squirrel rifle or a pheasant shotgun or even a deer rifle in the closet would have any use for. And many gun owners are persuaded in ways such as these. It's subtle, but it's there. You have to be on guard for it. Why 'clip' instead of 'magazine'? Because 'clip' has another meaning. It means 'fast'. Fast, in this instance, is being labeled as a bad thing.
> 
> It is the same reason - precisely the same reason - that anti-gun people call certain kinds of bullets *'cop-killer bullets'*. Sounds awful, doesn't it? Who on earth would be in favor of or want to own a _'cop-killer'_ bullet? Good Lord, ban them immediately!
> 
> ...


 
I honestly disagree about the clip vs. magazine issue.  If it's truly an error in definition, that's one thing.  But to state that "clip" is somehow more ominous than magazine, I don't buy it at all.  Most lay persons understand the terms to be interchangeable, there is no sinister implication of one term over the other.

As to your points on language, I agree with you that it is often used to push emotional buttons.  Shortly after the Arizona tragedy, I was watching Rachel Maddow on MSNBC.  I'm a fan of Rachel and I appreciate her point of view.  But on this particular night she had someone on...can't remember his name... ex-governor of...New Hampshire?... ran for president in 2004... anyway they were talking about the gun issue, and they were tallking about "cop killer dum dum bullets".  I recognized immediately that they were mixing up terms that didn't make sense, and it carried a sinister overtone that someone without a reasonable firearms education would not recognize the difference.  I felt the way they were discussing it was inaccurate and wrong.  Even tho I often tend to agree with Rachel's point of view she was wrong in this case.  I can see it in people on my own political side of the fence.

This is something that both sides of the political spectrum do a lot, and it's misleading and dishonest if they actually know better.  If they themselves are mislead and poorly educated about it, well they need to educate themselves better before they talk about it.  But I see it on both sides and it's stupid and ugly.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 21, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> I honestly disagree about the clip vs. magazine issue. If it's truly an error in definition, that's one thing. But to state that "clip" is somehow more ominous than magazine, I don't buy it at all. Most lay persons understand the terms to be interchangeable, there is no sinister implication of one term over the other.
> 
> As to your points on language, I agree with you that it is often used to push emotional buttons. Shortly after the Arizona tragedy, I was watching Rachel Maddow on MSNBC. I'm a fan of Rachel and I appreciate her point of view. But on this particular night she had someone on...can't remember his name... ex-governor of...New Hampshire?... ran for president in 2004... anyway they were talking about the gun issue, and they were tallking about "cop killer dum dum bullets". I recognized immediately that they were mixing up terms that didn't make sense, and it carried a sinister overtone that someone without a reasonable firearms education would not recognize the difference. I felt the way they were discussing it was inaccurate and wrong. Even tho I often tend to agree with Rachel's point of view she was wrong in this case. I can see it in people on my own political side of the fence.
> 
> This is something that both sides of the political spectrum do a lot, and it's misleading and dishonest if they actually know better. If they themselves are mislead and poorly educated about it, well they need to educate themselves better before they talk about it. But I see it on both sides and it's stupid and ugly.


 
I can forgive ignorant, mistaken and wrong..........some of it, however, is calculated and intentionally dishonest.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 21, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> I honestly disagree about the clip vs. magazine issue.  If it's truly an error in definition, that's one thing.  But to state that "clip" is somehow more ominous than magazine, I don't buy it at all.  Most lay persons understand the terms to be interchangeable, there is no sinister implication of one term over the other.



The media and the politicians continue to use the word 'clip', even though they have now been informed (if they didn't know already) that the correct word is 'magazine'.  They do not correct their statements.  This is not an accident.  There are no accidents.



> As to your points on language, I agree with you that it is often used to push emotional buttons.  Shortly after the Arizona tragedy, I was watching Rachel Maddow on MSNBC.  I'm a fan of Rachel and I appreciate her point of view.  But on this particular night she had someone on...can't remember his name... ex-governor of...New Hampshire?... ran for president in 2004... anyway they were talking about the gun issue, and they were tallking about "cop killer dum dum bullets".  I recognized immediately that they were mixing up terms that didn't make sense, and it carried a sinister overtone that someone without a reasonable firearms education would not recognize the difference.  I felt the way they were discussing it was inaccurate and wrong.  Even tho I often tend to agree with Rachel's point of view she was wrong in this case.  I can see it in people on my own political side of the fence.
> 
> This is something that both sides of the political spectrum do a lot, and it's misleading and dishonest if they actually know better.  If they themselves are mislead and poorly educated about it, well they need to educate themselves better before they talk about it.  But I see it on both sides and it's stupid and ugly.



It's valid debate.  The problem is, you have to catch them at it and refuse to argue using the terms they've laden with emotional crap to use against you.  And most people are just not critical thinkers. Which is why this stuff works.

No words used by media or politicians are accidental after the first use.  It doesn't matter if it seems like a minor quibble or not; the use is always intentional, especially when it is incorrect and has been publicly corrected by those objecting to the term.

I will agree with you that it isn't being used on purpose to drive the argument when a major news organization gives a retraction and begins using the term 'magazine' instead.  Please let me know when that happens and I'll do my own retracting.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 21, 2011)

sgtmac_46 said:


> I can forgive ignorant, mistaken and wrong..........some of it, however, is calculated and intentionally dishonest.


 

yep, on both sides.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 21, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> The media and the politicians continue to use the word 'clip', even though they have now been informed (if they didn't know already) that the correct word is 'magazine'. They do not correct their statements. This is not an accident. There are no accidents.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 

That's exactly right.......those who wish to ban guns want to frame the debate so that the conditions of the debate are set by them.........I refuse to accept their basic premise at all because it's a dishonest one!


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 21, 2011)

I appreciate the clarification that this thread has given regarding the definition of clip and magazine.  That was actually something that I was not personally clear on.

Prior to now, I will say that the term "magazine" actually conjured up more sinister images in my own mind.  Somehow my lack of understanding the definition made me think that a magazine represented a higher capacity clip.  Like a clip was perhaps a smaller capacity item, but once it reached a certain larger size it was termed a "magazine", or perhaps a magazine was an item termed with larger and more destructive military weapons.  

that shows my own ignorance of the issue, but if you want to insist that "clip" is being used to imply something more sinister, I say that to me it was the other way around.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 21, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> I appreciate the clarification that this thread has given regarding the definition of clip and magazine.  That was actually something that I was not personally clear on.
> 
> Prior to now, I will say that the term "magazine" actually conjured up more sinister images in my own mind.  Somehow my lack of understanding the definition made me think that a magazine represented a higher capacity clip.  Like a clip was perhaps a smaller capacity item, but once it reached a certain larger size it was termed a "magazine", or perhaps a magazine was an item termed with larger and more destructive military weapons.
> 
> that shows my own ignorance of the issue, but if you want to insist that "clip" is being used to imply something more sinister, I say that to me it was the other way around.



I do not doubt your statements at all.  I merely state that the media and politicians use words very intentionally.  When misused and corrected, yet they refuse to change the word used, it is unequivocally intentional that they are using that word and no other.  Mistakes happen - people correct them if they are really mistakes.  I see no correction; do you?  I am sure they are aware by now of the distinction.  So why no correction?


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 21, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I do not doubt your statements at all. I merely state that the media and politicians use words very intentionally. When misused and corrected, yet they refuse to change the word used, it is unequivocally intentional that they are using that word and no other. Mistakes happen - people correct them if they are really mistakes. I see no correction; do you? I am sure they are aware by now of the distinction. So why no correction?


 
What is it that you believe they accomplish, by using the term "clip"?  I honestly cannot think of any advantage.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 21, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Would you agree then that this makes the percentages a bit more realistic?  I don't know.  It seems pretty in line to me.  While automobiles are responsible for many more injuries, our exposure to them is also pervasive.  Stats for autos include pedestrians, pedal cyclists and anything else related to being a motor vehicle, which I'm not sure are relevant.


OK, let's put it like this then, "More than 52 Million gun owners didn't kill anyone yesterday."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jan 21, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Good post.  A big part of the problem contributing to (d) is that we have many laws on the books that are pointless, clogging up the system so that those who are truly dangerous slip through the cracks.  I know I sound like a broken record, but MJ is a perfect example, clogging up the courts and jails with hippies and college students.


I agree.  But then again, I'm pretty much a Libertarian.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jan 21, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Not to be flip... but the idea that weed smokers are the reason that 3 time life conviction felons get put back on the streets is laughable. It's not about who they are putting IN its about who they are letting OUT.


We have a massive number of non-violent "offenders" in prison related directly to the utter failure known as The War on Drugs.  I'd rather see the limited prison spots go to a violent offender than to a stoner who got mandatory sentencing for "blazing up."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jan 21, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> Obviously it's a polarizing issue and often any "discussion" ends up with both sides calling each other crazy wingnuts and dismissing each other out of hand, instead of really considering what is being said.  I see this happen on both sides of the argument, and it doesn't accomplish much.  Nobody is willing to even look to see if there might be some legitimacy in the viewpoint of the other side, because by virtue of the fact that he's on the other side means he's not worth listening to.  And so the arguments continue forever.  Actually, this thread has so far remained fairly respectful and that's a good thing.  I do notice however, that no serious gun control advocates have jumped in so most people here are preaching to the choir.


I've watched and participated in this debate for decades.  The problem that I've seen is that the banners are never, ever interested in "meaningful debate."  They want to ban and are utterly convinced of their "rightness."  

The times that I've seen the "pro" side attempt to "be reasonable" it is always, without fail, turned and used against them and the "ban" side refuses simultaneously to admit any virtue to their opposition.  What ends up happening is the "pro" side looks like they've given up a point and the "ban" side crows loudly, "see!  when they are reasonable they actually agree with us!!!"

Predictably, the "pro" side has learned the hard way that they cannot be seen to give any ground.

To be honest, I've seen this exact dynamic played out in any number of highly charged political debates.  Same song, different words.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 21, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> What is it that you believe they accomplish, by using the term "clip"?  I honestly cannot think of any advantage.



I have already stated why *I* believe they are using the term 'clip' instead of 'magazine'.  And of course you can think of an advantage, I said what it was previously.  You mean to say you cannot *agree* that it's an advantage.  And that's fine.

However, my statement about the intentional use of the term is correct, no matter the reason.  The people using it intentionally incorrectly have a reason, or they would not do it.  This is pure logic.  The term is wrong, they know it is wrong, they refuse to use the correct term.  The reason?  That's guesswork.  The fact that they do it for a reason is indeed a fact; indisputable.


----------



## Flying Crane (Jan 21, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I have already stated why *I* believe they are using the term 'clip' instead of 'magazine'.  And of course you can think of an advantage, I said what it was previously.  You mean to say you cannot *agree* that it's an advantage.  And that's fine.
> 
> However, my statement about the intentional use of the term is correct, no matter the reason.  The people using it intentionally incorrectly have a reason, or they would not do it.  This is pure logic.  The term is wrong, they know it is wrong, they refuse to use the correct term.  The reason?  That's guesswork.  The fact that they do it for a reason is indeed a fact; indisputable.



OK, you feel Clip has a more sinister message, I disagree with that, but no problem.

Here's a thought:  maybe there's a perception that the general public is more familiar with the term clip.  Start talking about "magazines" and the dumbasses start saying things like, "what? magazines?  Ya mean like _Hustler_!!??  What's THAT got to do with bullets?"

maybe it's just term-recognition on a larger scale.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 21, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> However, my statement about the intentional use of the term is correct, no matter the reason.  The people using it intentionally incorrectly have a reason, or they would not do it.  This is pure logic.  The term is wrong, they know it is wrong, they refuse to use the correct term.  The reason?  That's guesswork.  The fact that they do it for a reason is indeed a fact; indisputable.


I can't quite agree.  There is every chance that they continue misusing the term "clip" because they simply reject your claim that it is a misuse based on the plain and simple fact that using the term "clip" to mean "detachable ammunition store & feeder" is commonly understood by pretty much everyone.

In other words, the evidence of their direct personal experience contradicts your single claim and thus they feel you are "wrong" and your claims can be rejected.

This alone makes it dangerous to beat this particular horse.  If they can easily dismiss your argument about something as concrete as a term because what you are saying contradicts common understanding they may wonder what else you are saying should be dismissed.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 21, 2011)

lklawson said:


> We have a massive number of non-violent "offenders" in prison related directly to the utter failure known as The War on Drugs.  I'd rather see the limited prison spots go to a violent offender than to a stoner who got mandatory sentencing for "blazing up."
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk



Sure..then Parole THEM. How these parole boards can see fit to let a violent felon out while keeping a weed grower in is beyond me.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 21, 2011)

http://blog.robballen.com/2009/09/08/p3717-because-im-nothing-if-not-helpful.post



http://tgace.wordpress.com/2009/09/06/weapons-for-reporters-get-it-right-for-once/



http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/01/11/media-gun-experts/



> There have been multiple claims that the handgun used was banned during the laughably labeled &#8220;assault weapons ban&#8221; that was the law of the land from 1994 until it expired in 2004.
> 
> This is entirely and unquestionably false.
> 
> ...


----------



## KenpoTex (Jan 22, 2011)

Grrrrr...never mind...


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 22, 2011)

lklawson said:


> We have a massive number of non-violent "offenders" in prison related directly to the utter failure known as The War on Drugs. I'd rather see the limited prison spots go to a violent offender than to a stoner who got mandatory sentencing for "blazing up."
> 
> Peace favor your sword,
> Kirk


 
I am in complete agreement as it pertains to the 'War on Drugs'.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 22, 2011)

Flying Crane said:


> OK, you feel Clip has a more sinister message, I disagree with that, but no problem.
> 
> Here's a thought: maybe there's a perception that the general public is more familiar with the term clip. Start talking about "magazines" and the dumbasses start saying things like, "what? magazines? Ya mean like _Hustler_!!?? What's THAT got to do with bullets?"
> 
> maybe it's just term-recognition on a larger scale.


 
Well, i don't know that 'clip' is sinister.........but it's sure inaccurate as hell, and paints anyone who uses the term as unknowledgeable about the subject matter to follow.

If the argument starts off with someone displaying a lack of understanding of even the basic nomenclature, how much of an intelligent conversation can follow?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 22, 2011)

lklawson said:


> I can't quite agree. There is every chance that they continue misusing the term "clip" because they simply reject your claim that it is a misuse based on the plain and simple fact that using the term "clip" to mean "detachable ammunition store & feeder" is commonly understood by pretty much everyone.
> 
> In other words, the evidence of their direct personal experience contradicts your single claim and thus they feel you are "wrong" and your claims can be rejected.
> 
> ...


 
That's why I try not to make much of it beyond simply correcting the term, and moving along.

But someone using the term 'clip' demonstrates that their knowledge of firearms is pretty much limited to what they saw on TV, movies and the occassional hip-hop album......and that, in and of itself, is telling as to what direction the conversation is going to go.


----------



## Steve (Jan 22, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Not to be flip... but the idea that weed smokers are the reason that 3 time life conviction felons get put back on the streets is laughable. It's not about who they are putting IN its about who they are letting OUT.


 LOL.  Not THE reason.  Someday I'll learn that you guys don't appreciate examples.   

Do you agree that we have unnecessary, unenforcable laws that are applied arbitrarily and clog up our legal system?  That's certainly my opinion.  Less is more, IMO.  





> OK, let's put it like this then, "More than 52 Million gun owners didn't kill anyone yesterday."


And more than 265 million car owners did the same.  

This was a lawfully owned gun: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/19/california.high.school.shooting/

Injuries are about 30 times more likely than deaths, and statistically, an unintentional gun related injury occurs about 50 times each day while there are two unintentional deaths.  Currently, the families of the victims would need to sue for damages and hope that they could get some compensation for medical bills, lost wages and loss of life, hoping the owner of the gun had some means to pay.  If the lawful owner of the weapon carried insurance, that wouldn't be necessary.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 22, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> LOL. Not THE reason. Someday I'll learn that you guys don't appreciate examples.
> 
> Do you agree that we have unnecessary, unenforcable laws that are applied arbitrarily and clog up our legal system? That's certainly my opinion. Less is more, IMO. And more than 265 million car owners did the same.
> 
> ...


 
That gun was not lawfully owned by that 17 year old kid.


As for those statistics, they are bogus......the vast majority of deaths involving firearms in the US involve criminals involved in some criminal activity, usually perpetrated by other criminals. The vast majority of injuries are, likewise, criminals involved in some level of criminal activity.

The statistics many folks try to foist, such as the 'thousands of children accidentally killed by firearms' are, likewise, bogus statistics provided by such groups as Brady and HCI........they derive those statistics by including every gang member blow the age of 19 that gets shot, by the police, by another gang member, etc, as a 'child' to give the illusion that is how many kids find mommy or daddies gun and shoot themselves or some other child.....it's a lie.

The real statistics of those types of 'accidents' account for approximately 100 child accidental deaths a year........each one tragic, as any child death is, but when taken in context, and compared to the number of children of the same age group killed in backyard swimming pools a year, which is approximately 1500, it really shows folks have a misplaced sense of concern.


----------



## Steve (Jan 22, 2011)

sgtmac_46 said:


> That gun was not lawfully owned by that 17 year old kid.


It was lawfully owned by his dad.  Right?  





> As for those statistics, they are bogus......the vast majority of deaths involving firearms in the US involve criminals involved in some criminal activity, usually perpetrated by other criminals. The vast majority of injuries are, likewise, criminals involved in some level of criminal activity.


That's true.  As I said earlier, according to the CDC, there are about 18k unintentional injuries and only about 600 deaths per year.  The number of injuries triples and the number of deaths jumps to 30,000 if you include ALL firearm related incidents.  I'm not trying to mislead anyone.  





> The statistics many folks try to foist, such as the 'thousands of children accidentally killed by firearms' are, likewise, bogus statistics provided by such groups as Brady and HCI........they derive those statistics by including every gang member blow the age of 19 that gets shot, by the police, by another gang member, etc, as a 'child' to give the illusion that is how many kids find mommy or daddies gun and shoot themselves or some other child.....it's a lie.


Dude.  Seriously.  I'm getting the numbers from the CDC.  I'm specifically only using the number of unintentional injuries and deaths, although I'm sure that some of the intentional incidents used lawfully owned weapons as well.  





> The real statistics of those types of 'accidents' account for approximately 100 child accidental deaths a year........each one tragic, as any child death is, but when taken in context, and compared to the number of children of the same age group killed in backyard swimming pools a year, which is approximately 1500, it really shows folks have a misplaced sense of concern.


Once again, just so it's very clear.  I got the statistics from the CDC.  I'm using the most real statistics I know to use.  If you have statistics that are "more real", post a link.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 22, 2011)

Ahhh the CDC. The "bible" of gun grabbers everywhere. What did Twain say about statistics? 


http://www.tincher.to/deaths.htm



> Note that the CDC child gun death figures are typically half of the figures that the gun control lobby publishes. The difference is in the definition of a child. The gun control lobby counts young adults that are 18 or 19 years old as children, but they do not count 20 year olds as children. You can choose from one of two possible reasons, depending on your level of cynicism: 1. The standard CDC age groups used to go from 0-19, 20-39, etc and the gun control lobby couldn't figure out how to select a custom age group. 2. Counting 18 and 19 year olds as children doubles the number of so-called child gun deaths, and more child gun deaths means more support for gun control.
> 
> In 1999 there were 1776 gun deaths in the 0 through 17 age group and 3385 gun deaths in the 0 through 19 age group. By subtraction we find that there were a whopping 1609 gun deaths in just the 18 through 19 age group. Historically the 18 through 24 age group is the highest crime-committing group. At age 18 part-time drug dealers leave school and become full-time drug dealers. Despite the propaganda from the gun control lobby, criminals in general and drug dealers in particular are the group of so-called children most likely to be shot by their fellow criminals. You can verify this by reading the local gun death news stories in any city newspaper. School shootings are so rare that every one gets national television coverage, but drug dealers are shot so often that they are barely mentioned in their local newspaper.
> 
> Older people's gun deaths are most likely to be suicides. Suicides typically make up 56.5% of all gun deaths according to the Bureau Of Justice Statistics. In fact, drugs and suicides account for more than 2 out of every 3 gun deaths in the USA.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 22, 2011)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113094,00.html



> The 5,732 also includes deaths that result from gang activity in which the guns are usually illegal. These deaths would not have been prevented by gun control any more than gang members&#8217; drug use is prevented by drug laws.
> 
> The honest question for anti-gun advocates is, how many children&#8217;s deaths were "caused" by a lack of gun control?
> 
> ...


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 22, 2011)

Then theres the old saw of "a gun in the home increases the chances of being killed by that gun".

Well...yeah. Doesn't car ownership increase the chances of death by car accident? A pool by drowning? A knife by stabbing? It's circular reasoning. Of course a gun in the home increases the odds of being injured/killed by that gun. A fireplace increases the odds of death by fire too. So what?

Oh and more on the CDC:

Does Politics Influence the CDC?
Examples Suggest Partisanship May Sometimes Affect Health Policy



> "I think CDC is designed and structured to be a public health agency that really focuses on science as the basis for its policy and decision making," he said. "Unfortunately, particularly over the last six years, we've seen more and more intrusion of politics on some of their scientific decision making."
> 
> Dr. James Mason, who ran the CDC from 1983 to 1989, acknowledges that politics has always been a force to be reckoned with at the agency but that "should come as no surprise."
> 
> ...



The CDC was recently pressured to insert two pro-abstinence speakers at a national sexually-transmitted-disease-prevention conference in Florida. It also removed panelists who would have discussed links between abstinence-only programs and rising STD rates. Im betting some people around here would decry that as "conservative" politicians interfering with public health policy. Yet at the same time Id wager that they accept their gun statistics as being clean of any political influence.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> It was lawfully owned by his dad. Right?


 It was a crime to be possessed by the son, right? [/quote] He didn't own the gun, he stole the gun........so if THAT is your definition of 'legally' possessed or owned, EVERY gun is 'legally owned'......by someone somewhere, if not by the person who currently is possessing it. 



stevebjj said:


> That's true. As I said earlier, according to the CDC, there are about 18k unintentional injuries and only about 600 deaths per year. The number of injuries triples and the number of deaths jumps to 30,000 if you include ALL firearm related incidents.


 Sure, if you include suicides, which I personally think are an individual choice, folks shot and killed by law abiding citizens and police in justified shootings, and criminals shooting criminals, which account for the majority of homicides involving firearms.



stevebjj said:


> I'm not trying to mislead anyone. Dude. Seriously. I'm getting the numbers from the CDC. I'm specifically only using the number of unintentional injuries and deaths, although I'm sure that some of the intentional incidents used lawfully owned weapons as well. Once again, just so it's very clear. I got the statistics from the CDC. I'm using the most real statistics I know to use. If you have statistics that are "more real", post a link.


 
I'm not saying you are trying to mislead anyone.......some very much are, however. The nebulous definition of 'child' used is intentionally misleading at it's source.......an 18 year old gang banger shot by the police should not be called a 'child', for example.




At the end of the day, most folks that 'accidentally' get injured with a firearm are the folks in possession of it.......there should be no insurance on injuring yourself.

Most of the rest of the folks who are injured, are injured on purpose, and there is no insurance against that.

The analogy about cars is designed solely to suggest folks should have insurance for guns, which solely is a tool to make firearm ownership more and more expensive, and less and less attractive for the average american, in essence, a backdoor gun ban. Moreover, what are we insuring against? Murder? Won't be covered. Accidentally shooting ourself? Shouldn't be covered.

So we're left with insurance against a few hundred incidents a year? Sure, it's an insurance company wetdream, and a gungrabber fantasy, but as for any practical purpose beyond that, there is none!


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jan 23, 2011)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Well, i don't know that 'clip' is sinister.........but it's sure inaccurate as hell, and paints anyone who uses the term as unknowledgeable about the subject matter to follow.
> 
> If the argument starts off with someone displaying a lack of understanding of even the basic nomenclature, how much of an intelligent conversation can follow?



I don't disagree with you, but arguing about clip vs magazine is besides the matter. I used the word clip because I know it's commonly used. While that does color me as someone who is not a subject matter expert, it in no way invalidates my opinion on gun control OR magazine capacity. Personally I don't think it will make one bit of difference in gun crime but that is beside the point.

Lack of understanding would be for example that I don't understand how a handgun operates. for example, I could fail to understand the difference between revolver and pistol, single action vs double action, semi vs full auto, and various other things. Those would be things that indeed indicate that I am starting off the discussion on the wrong premises. Calling a magazine a clip does no such thing, since I am referring to 'a device of some sorts' that allows a given number of bullets to be loaded into a gun.


----------



## Steve (Jan 23, 2011)

sgtmac_46 said:


> > It was a crime to be possessed by the son, right?
> 
> 
> He didn't own the gun, he stole the gun........so if THAT is your definition of 'legally' possessed or owned, EVERY gun is 'legally owned'......by someone somewhere, if not by the person who currently is possessing it.


Honestly, I had read that he was given the gun as a gift.  I would say my definition of legally owned and yours are probably very similar.  





> Sure, if you include suicides, which I personally think are an individual choice, folks shot and killed by law abiding citizens and police in justified shootings, and criminals shooting criminals, which account for the majority of homicides involving firearms.


No.  Not suicides.  Not children.  You guys are frustrating because you're not reading.  You're knee jerk reacting.  Unintentional (meaning accidental) deaths AND injuries.  While this wouldn't include the AZ shooting, it would include Cheney shooting a hunting partner in the face.  It wouldn't include a suicide, but it would include a kid being shot by his friend while showing off his dad's gun.  If there is a way to be more specific, I don't know it.





> I'm not saying you are trying to mislead anyone.......some very much are, however. The nebulous definition of 'child' used is intentionally misleading at it's source.......an 18 year old gang banger shot by the police should not be called a 'child', for example.


It's difficult to avoid misleading someone who is determined to be misled.  The only people talking specifically about children right now are you and archangel.  The stats I put out have nothing to do with anyone's definition of children.


> At the end of the day, most folks that 'accidentally' get injured with a firearm are the folks in possession of it.......there should be no insurance on injuring yourself.


I haven't seen anything to show whether this is true or not.  Some?  Undoubtedly.  Most?  I don't think you know that.  





> Most of the rest of the folks who are injured, are injured on purpose, and there is no insurance against that.


Over 29,000 of the ~30,000 deaths each year by firearm are intentional according to the CDC.  And about 2/3rds of the injuries.  But that leaves over 600 deaths and over 18,000 injuries.  So, yeah.  Almost every fatality and most deaths are on purpose.  I've never said otherwise.  

I'm talking about the average of 2 deaths per day and 30 or so injuries that are unintentional.  





> The analogy about cars is designed solely to suggest folks should have insurance for guns, which solely is a tool to make firearm ownership more and more expensive, and less and less attractive for the average american, in essence, a backdoor gun ban. Moreover, what are we insuring against? Murder? Won't be covered. Accidentally shooting ourself? Shouldn't be covered.


I've never heard anyone else suggest liability insurance for firearms, so on one hand I can't at all guess about what their motivation is, but implying that it's part of a grand scheme is cheap.  I can assure you that I have no gun control designs.  My brother collects them.  I thoroughly enjoy joining him at the range.





> So we're left with insurance against a few hundred incidents a year? Sure, it's an insurance company wetdream, and a gungrabber fantasy, but as for any practical purpose beyond that, there is none!


LOL.  Once again, you're making stuff up.  I'd welcome some evidence.  Seriously.  This is an idea I've had and it seems like a good idea to me.  I'd change my mind, though, if you guys had any kind of compelling arguments that it's a bad idea.  So far, though, you guys seem to be stuck on conspiracy theories which are irrelevant and making things up.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 23, 2011)

The "child definition" is but one example of how statistics can be "tweaked" for political purposes. Seeing that little game with what a "child" is. Leaves me wondering what they consider an "accident" to be.


----------



## Steve (Jan 23, 2011)

What are the real numbers, then?  Post them. And a link to the source too, please.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 23, 2011)

> Incidence Rate: approx 1 in 9,420 or 0.01%
> Read more at http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/f/firearm_injury/stats.htm?ktrack=kcplink



We are seriously discussing yet another law for something that effects .01% of the population??


----------



## Steve (Jan 23, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> We are seriously discussing yet another law for something that effects .01% of the population??


That's actually higher than the stats I'd posted.  And yeah.  According to this site, 79 per day.  That seems pretty high to me.  Again, unitentional.

It's not an apples/apples comparison, although looking at the numbers it appears that they got their numbers from the CDC as well.  It looks like it's just counting fatalities, and not limiting fatalities to accidental death.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jan 23, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> That's actually higher than the stats I'd posted.  And yeah.  According to this site, 79 per day.  That seems pretty high to me.  Again, unitentional.
> .



The same could be argued for the speed limits. But ultimately, there is always going to be less killings, the further the speed limit decreases. That doesn't mean it should be done. No matter what you do, there is always going to be a risk of injury or death. A meteorite can kill you outdoors, but you are not wearing a kevlar helmet for going to the grocery store.

In this specific case, going from 17 to 10 bullet magazines is unlikely to have any effect at all. I mean, even if a person is going to go on a ashooting rampage with 10 bullet magazines in his handgun, he'll just pack more of them.

How long does it take to reload a pistol? 5 second? Probably less. Even less than less if the shooter doesn't empty his magazine, and replaced reloads with 1 bullet still in the chamber.
So the point of the 10 bullet law is... ?


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 23, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> The same could be argued for the speed limits. But ultimately, there is always going to be less killings, the further the speed limit decreases.



Exactly. So if we want to eliminate speed related deaths lets just set a nationwide speed limit of 10 MPH.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jan 23, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Exactly. So if we want to eliminate speed related deaths lets just set a nationwide speed limit of 10 MPH.



Actually a kid nearby got killed under a car driving through the city center. She was in church but felt sick, or had tooth ache or something like that. So she left church to go to her grandmothers house which was right in front of the church across the street. She darted from between 2 parked cars in a low light area, right underneath a car which was not even doing 20 mph. Noone's fault really. Or at least, none who could do anything about it except the kid, and kids do as kids do. The only way to prevent people from being run over is to make all cars stand still.

With the gun control debate it is similar (imo). I agree that some limitations are required to keep the country form turning into a wild west where stray bullets and ricochets kill people on a daily basis. Imo (again) full automatic assault rifles like miniguns have no place in a crowded city, because the risk to other people is too big. And if people can legally own them, then bad guys wil also own them and the violence problem is bad enough already that adding miniguns is not going to do much good in a place which suffers from gang warfare. Sure, you could argue that allowing citizens to arm themselves would work as a deterrent, but once the bullets start flying, there will be a massacre of inocent bystanders.

That is what I call the low hanging fruit of gun control. Reasonable restrictions with measurable impact.

But things like the 10 bullet magazine limitation will have zero positive impact, even IF bad people would abide by that limitation (which they won't). The only people who would be impacted are the well meaning people who do abide by the law.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> That's actually higher than the stats I'd posted. And yeah. According to this site, 79 per day. That seems pretty high to me. Again, unitentional.
> 
> It's not an apples/apples comparison, although looking at the numbers it appears that they got their numbers from the CDC as well. It looks like it's just counting fatalities, and not limiting fatalities to accidental death.


 
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/levittpoolsvsguns.php


The reality is that the 'gun' risk in America is overplayed for political reasons, and that vastly more mundane risks are what threaten Americans every day.........yet we fixate on guns because when those deaths do occur, they are sensational.

But what it reveals about those who fixate on them, is that those people utilize poor risk assessment.........for example, a parents terrified response to learn that the neighbor, who's child their child plays with, has a gun in the house.......despite the fact that their own swimming pool is 100 times more likely to kill their child or the neighbors child than a gun in the home.  Poor risk assessment.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> That's actually higher than the stats I'd posted. And yeah. According to this site, 79 per day. That seems pretty high to me. Again, unitentional.
> 
> It's not an apples/apples comparison, although looking at the numbers it appears that they got their numbers from the CDC as well. It looks like it's just counting fatalities, and not limiting fatalities to accidental death.


 
As I said, nearly all but a handful of gun related unintentional injuries are self-inflicted.........that's a self-correcting problem.

What we see in the US is a media driven perception of gun violence not supported by reality........with more guns in circulation than ever, and more diverse gun ownership than in the history of the country, with a growing number of women beginning to purchase and carry guns for self-defense........the homicide rate has been on a decline for 30 years.

America does not have a gun problem.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> With the gun control debate it is similar (imo). I agree that some limitations are required to keep the country form turning into a wild west where stray bullets and ricochets kill people on a daily basis. Imo (again) full automatic assault rifles like miniguns have no place in a crowded city, because the risk to other people is too big. And if people can legally own them, then bad guys wil also own them and the violence problem is bad enough already that adding miniguns is not going to do much good in a place which suffers from gang warfare.


 
Well, first of all, miniguns aren't 'assault rifles'.........they aren't rifles at all.

Second of all, even so called 'assault rifles' are used in less than 1% of homicides......and that's the actually accessible ones like SKS's and AK-47's and their variants, which aren't real assault rifles either, as they are semi-automatic.

3rd, even if you legalized mini-guns, you wouldn't have any homicides with them, because they cost in excess of $60,000.00 plus apiece........and, you may not be aware of this, you can purchase them.........but the price alone makes them unlikely to ever get in the hands of some deranged nit-wit. http://www.autoweapons.com/photos05/mar/minigun.html


----------



## Steve (Jan 23, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> The same could be argued for the speed limits. But ultimately, there is always going to be less killings, the further the speed limit decreases. That doesn't mean it should be done. No matter what you do, there is always going to be a risk of injury or death. A meteorite can kill you outdoors, but you are not wearing a kevlar helmet for going to the grocery store.


I'm not arguing that guns be banned or even that clips (or magazines) be limited to 10 or whatever rounds.  It's funny you bring up cars.  Drivers are required by law to carry liability insurance.  That's exactly what led me to wonder if it would be a good idea for gun owners to do the same.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> I'm not arguing that guns be banned or even that clips (or magazines) be limited to 10 or whatever rounds. It's funny you bring up cars. Drivers are required by law to carry liability insurance. That's exactly what led me to wonder if it would be a good idea for gun owners to do the same.


 
It's not.......and car owners are not required to have liability insurance, anyway......they are required to do so when driving on public roads.......you can buy as many cars as you want, and never buy insurance, if you want to park them in the garage.

So, now we've limited the analogy to valid CCW carriers........not even hunters, except those who hunt on public lands, which most don't.

So now we have to look at the actual numbers of CCW carriers inflicting harm on others.........which, I suspect, is statistically non-existent.

So where is the justification?


----------



## Steve (Jan 23, 2011)

sgtmac_46 said:


> http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/levittpoolsvsguns.php
> 
> 
> The reality is that the 'gun' risk in America is overplayed for political reasons, and that vastly more mundane risks are what threaten Americans every day.........yet we fixate on guns because when those deaths do occur, they are sensational.
> ...


Personally, I think that it's interesting that every source you quote uses only deaths, completely ignoring injuries related to guns.  Once again.  There were a total of about 80 gun related deaths per day in 2007.  Of those, about 78 of them were intentional.  

But, there were also around 60,000 gun related injuries last year, a third of which were unintentional.

If you look at the stats for drownings, there are more deaths, but fewer than half the number of incidents overall.  And that's not limited to pools.  That's ALL drowning/near-drowning incidents.   Statistically, you're actually about twice as likely to be shot on accident than to drown or be in a near drowning situation.

From my perspective, it sounds like you guys don't like the idea, but have no real reason for it.  Creuntus didn't back his statements up, and so far, you guys are putting up stats that just don't make sense.  Once again, if it's a bad idea, I'm okay with that, but I'd like to see some numbers to support your claim.  Either some stats from a credible source that dispute the CDC stats, or even some support for your allegations.

For example, you allege that "nearly all but a handful of gun related unintentional injuries are self-inflicted."  Prove it.  I looked and couldn't find anything to support or discount your statement.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Personally, I think that it's interesting that every source you quote uses only deaths, completely ignoring injuries related to guns. Once again. There were a total of about 80 gun related deaths per day in 2007. Of those, about 78 of them were intentional.
> 
> But, there were also around 60,000 gun related injuries last year, a third of which were unintentional.


 Okay, so there are 20,000 UNINTENTIONAL gun related injuries a year? 

The number of injuries from automobiles in 2.9 MILLION! http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html





stevebjj said:


> If you look at the stats for drownings, there are more deaths, but fewer than half the number of incidents overall. And that's not limited to pools. That's ALL drowning/near-drowning incidents. Statistically, you're actually about twice as likely to be shot on accident than to drown or be in a near drowning situation.


 
You can't remotely support that........you want to compare drowning DEATHS to gun injuries so you can come up with different numbers........sorry, that doesn't fly. 







But, if you'd like to compare apples to apples........... 



> "Last year, an estimated 56,000 persons required hospital emergency room treatment for injuries associated with swimming pools, swimming pool slides, and diving boards." http://www.cpsc.gov/CPSCPUB/PREREL/prhtml76/76029.html


 


> "In 2007, there were 3,443 fatal unintentional drownings in the United States, averaging ten deaths per day. An additional 496 people died, from drowning and other causes, in boating-related incidents" http://www.cdc.gov/HomeandRecreationalSafety/Water-Safety/waterinjuries-factsheet.html


 


stevebjj said:


> From my perspective, it sounds like you guys don't like the idea, but have no real reason for it. Creuntus didn't back his statements up, and so far, you guys are putting up stats that just don't make sense. Once again, if it's a bad idea, I'm okay with that, but I'd like to see some numbers to support your claim. Either some stats from a credible source that dispute the CDC stats, or even some support for your allegations.


 No reason for what? To dispute the fact that your numbers don't support a gun problem in America?

How about this.......the homicide rate in the US is double the rate for Europe.......want to guess why? One reason, SOLELY..........inner-city violence rates.

For the rest of the country, the homicide rates are nearly identical to Europe, despite hundreds of millions of guns........there IS no gun threat. There is irrational fear, but no actual threat. 



stevebjj said:


> For example, you allege that "nearly all but a handful of gun related unintentional injuries are self-inflicted." Prove it. I looked and couldn't find anything to support or discount your statement.


 Let me know if you find something that supports or disputes it, and we'll discuss it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2011)

Lets simplify this discussion........i've already demonstrated that death and injury rates for gun related incidents in the US are on par with our love of swimming........and both are far below the death and injury rates involved with our love of the automobile......

So let me ask you this.......what do you think the problem really is? And what do you think the solution is? In clear, concise terms.


----------



## Steve (Jan 23, 2011)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Okay, so there are 20,000 UNINTENTIONAL gun related injuries a year?


Yes.  According to the CDC.  Not including fatalities.  





> The number of injuries from automobiles in 2.9 MILLION! http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/stats.html


Ah.  Drownings wasn't working out, so you go with something else.  Our exposure to cars is pervasive.  Every single person in the USA, from baby to adult, is exposed to motor vehicles multiple times.  Walking, driving, riding our bikes, we are in or around cars and trucks. There are over 250  million registered passenger vehicles in America representing just about every household.  We see them literally everywhere, and even if you don't own one, you are almost guaranteed to be in or on one during the course of your day.  Also, remember that bikes and public transportation are often included in the stats. 

In contrast, according to lklawson, there are about 52 million households with guns, and the vast majority of US citizens go weeks, months or even years without seeing a firearm drawn.  

If you consider context and the degree of exposure, I'd argue that it's at least comparable.  Either way, it's interpretation.  You're definitely entitled to yours.





> You can't remotely support that........you want to compare drowning DEATHS to gun injuries so you can come up with different numbers........sorry, that doesn't fly.


Nope.  You guys brought up drowning.  The link wasn't even to statistics.  Rather, it was an op/ed piece on pools verses guns.  I'm simply pointing out that if you compare drownings and near drownings to gun fatalities and injuries, you're actually twice as likely to get shot as to be involved in a drowning or near drowning incident.  I'm trying to go out of my way, in other words, to put the statistics you bring up into something approximating equivalent context.  


> But, if you'd like to compare apples to apples...........


Thanks for that.  But come on.  Your report from the CPSC was from 1976.  As a result of reports like that one most homes can't get homeowners insurance unless the pool has been built safely.  New homes with pools have specific materials involved, no longer have diving boards, no longer have "deep" ends, and conform to a laundry list of specifications designed to significantly reduce the number of drownings and near drownings.  And they've worked. 

But whether they worked or not, this actually supports my point considering that a person's pool IS insured under their homeowners policy.





> No reason for what? To dispute the fact that your numbers don't support a gun problem in America?


Gun problem?  Don't overstate my case here.  I'm not suggesting that we have a gun problem.  I'm just suggesting that, if a lawful gun owner carried liability insurance, if someone is injured they wouldn't have to sue to try and receive compensation to pay for the expenses related to, you know, getting shot.





> How about this.......the homicide rate in the US is double the rate for Europe.......want to guess why? One reason, SOLELY..........inner-city violence rates.


Very interesting, but I'm not sure what that has to do with the subject.





> For the rest of the country, the homicide rates are nearly identical to Europe, despite hundreds of millions of guns........there IS no gun threat. There is irrational fear, but no actual threat.
> 
> Let me know if you find something that supports or disputes it, and we'll discuss it.


And it may just come down to this.  You have a strongly held opinion.  To be honest, I don't.  I have an idea... a thought that occurred to me a few years ago.  I've seen actual statistical information that supports it, and you have yet to show me anything that leads me to believe otherwise.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 23, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> I'm just suggesting that, if a lawful gun owner carried liability insurance, if someone is injured they wouldn't have to sue to try and receive compensation to pay for the expenses related to, you know, getting shot.



Right. There would be tons MORE lawsuits because there would be deeper pockets (insurance companies) to dip into. Why do you think auto accident attorneys breed like locusts?


----------



## Steve (Jan 23, 2011)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Lets simplify this discussion........i've already demonstrated that death and injury rates for gun related incidents in the US are on par with our love of swimming........and both are far below the death and injury rates involved with our love of the automobile......
> 
> So let me ask you this.......what do you think the problem really is? And what do you think the solution is? In clear, concise terms.


Post 15.  Post 33 was a response to Kirk.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> In contrast, according to lklawson, there are about 52 million households with guns, and the vast majority of US citizens go weeks, months or even years without seeing a firearm drawn.
> 
> If you consider context and the degree of exposure, I'd argue that it's at least comparable. Either way, it's interpretation. You're definitely entitled to yours.Nope. You guys brought up drowning. The link wasn't even to statistics. Rather, it was an op/ed piece on pools verses guns. I'm simply pointing out that if you compare drownings and near drownings to gun fatalities and injuries, you're actually twice as likely to get shot as to be involved in a drowning or near drowning incident. I'm trying to go out of my way, in other words, to put the statistics you bring up into something approximating equivalent context.


 
I said 'drownings'? Really?



sgtmac_46 said:


> http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/levittpoolsvsguns.php
> 
> 
> The reality is that the 'gun' risk in America is overplayed for political reasons, and that vastly more mundane risks are what threaten Americans every day.........yet we fixate on guns because when those deaths do occur, they are sensational.
> ...


 
Also, that statistic was specifically about the idiotic assertion that is often made about handguns in the homes killing children......the FACTS are that a swimming pool is 100 times more likely to kill a child than a gun.

You inserted the word 'drowning' and then restricted it to that.....then attempt to reprimand me for not sticking to YOUR interpretation of what I said.....we call that a 'strawman'.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 23, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Post 15. Post 33 was a response to Kirk.


 
Pointing to other posts is not an answer, it's a dodge.

Simple questions..........do you have an answer? 

It's not that hard, or shouldn't be.

And in response to your notion of mandatory gun insurance being analogous to car insurance, the difference is that car accidents aren't measured in thousands, but in the millions.

And as the vast majority of injuries and deaths resulting from firearms are intentional, financially punishing the vast majority of citizens who lawfully possess them without incident is not really about mitigating financial losses, as those who use them illegally won't purchase it.......but about attempting to punish lawful gun owners and make gun ownership less and less attractive to the average American........In fact it is designed to financially punish the MOST responsible gun owners........in other words, it's a thinly veiled gun control ploy and canard.


----------



## Steve (Jan 23, 2011)

sgtmac_46 said:


> I said 'drownings'? Really?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 The point was that your statistic was from 1976.  I apologize if I unintentionally restricted the statistic to drownings.  I used drownings/near drownings because those were the stats I could find.  Unlike you, I guess I didn't go far enough in the wayback machine.

Posting the post numbers wasn't intended to be a dodge.  It was intended to get you to the post where I specifically answered your question.  I can give you a direct link if you want.





> And as the vast majority of injuries and deaths resulting from firearms are intentional, financially punishing the vast majority of citizens who lawfully possess them without incident is not really about mitigating financial losses, as those who use them illegally won't purchase it.......but about attempting to punish lawful gun owners and make gun ownership less and less attractive to the average American........In fact it is designed to financially punish the MOST responsible gun owners........in other words, it's a thinly veiled gun control ploy and canard.


as I said before, if you don't see it as a problem, that's your legitimate opinion and there's likely nothing I could do to sway you.  I've never been at fault in an auto accident.  Am I being unfairly punished financially?  I don't believe so.

And, if you read post 15, I actually acknowledge that, while it would in no way restrict gun ownership, pro gun advocates would allege it.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 24, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Posting the post numbers wasn't intended to be a dodge. It was intended to get you to the post where I specifically answered your question. I can give you a direct link if you want.as I said before, if you don't see it as a problem, that's your legitimate opinion and there's likely nothing I could do to sway you. I've never been at fault in an auto accident. Am I being unfairly punished financially? I don't believe so.
> 
> And, if you read post 15, I actually acknowledge that, while it would in no way restrict gun ownership, pro gun advocates would allege it.


 
Sure it would restrict it.........a restriction isn't a ban, it's a limitation, and it would be a financial limitation purposely designed to make it far more difficult to own a firearm. That's a restriction.


And there is a vast difference between automobile insurance, and what you propose, which is designed to be intentionally punitive.............when you drive a vehicle on the roadways, you can apply the safety rules of the road, the odds of having some sort of collision at sometime in the near future are still high because of a variety of variables arising from operating a vehicle on the roadway.

One can apply the rules of firearms safety and reduce the lifetime odds of a negligent discharge of a firearm to almost nill..........meaning that the folks having negligent discharges are the folks who would not have insurance, and those that would have insurance aren't going to have negligent discharges.

Moreover, you would argue, 'what about if someone steals your gun?' What if someone steals your car? You're not require to have insurance against theft, and having your car parked on your property and stolen doesn't make you responsible if you don't have insurance.

Hence, we're back to only wanting to insure CCW carriers, if we're applying the car analogy.........and there is no financial justification for that.





But it's never going to happen anyway.........because unlike the more successful ruses utilized by the gun-grabbing lobby, this one can't be divided up to only attack and marginalize part of the gun-grabbing public..........and anything targeted against all gun-owners is doomed to legislative failure.

Of course even the strategy of divide and marginalize went a bridge too far on the recent shooting.........as the Gun-Grabbers attempt to spin the Glock as some sort of 'Assault Handgun' different from every other semi-automatic handgun, and 'uniquely deadly'!


----------



## Steve (Jan 24, 2011)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Sure it would restrict it.........a restriction isn't a ban, it's a limitation, and it would be a financial limitation purposely designed to make it far more difficult to own a firearm. That's a restriction.
> 
> And there is a vast difference between automobile insurance, and what you propose, which is designed to be intentionally punitive.............when you drive a vehicle on the roadways, you can apply the safety rules of the road, the odds of having some sort of collision at sometime in the near future are still high because of a variety of variables arising from operating a vehicle on the roadway.


This actually made me laugh out loud.  Once again, this is an idea I've never seen anywhere else.  Is it a bad idea?  Maybe.  I put it out for discussion.  But it's laughable (literally) that you're telling me what my motives are.  Intentionally punitive?  Really?  I know I can't convince you otherwise, but I can tell you that my motives aren't punitive.   

I guess you can call it a limitation, but I don't see it as any more or less of a limitation than the onus of purchasing liability insurance for your car.  Millions of people who own cars seem to manage without too much of a hassle.  

And you can't tell me that accidents with guns never happen.  People who are applying every safety rule still sometimes get shot (or shot at) while hunting.  Accidents, by definition, are not on purpose.  Unforeseen.  


> One can apply the rules of firearms safety and reduce the lifetime odds of a negligent discharge of a firearm to almost nill..........meaning that the folks having negligent discharges are the folks who would not have insurance, and those that would have insurance aren't going to have negligent discharges.


Were that the case, we wouldn't see over 18k injuries per year.  If you drive defensively and follow all of the rules of the road, your chance of being involved at fault in an accident are also reduced to almost nil.  

You've alleged several times that 'almost all' unintentional, firearm injuries are self inflicted, but haven't backed that up.  If that's true, you're probably right and there wouldn't be a real need.   But so far, I get the impression that this is just a commonly held belief among the gun advocate crowd that's never been statistically supported.  As I said before, I looked for something on this and couldn't find anything.





> Moreover, you would argue, 'what about if someone steals your gun?' What if someone steals your car? You're not require to have insurance against theft, and having your car parked on your property and stolen doesn't make you responsible if you don't have insurance.


Now you're ascribing arguments to me that I've never made.  Where did I mention theft?  





> Hence, we're back to only wanting to insure CCW carriers, if we're applying the car analogy.........and there is no financial justification for that.


If this is the case, back it up with something that makes sense. 

So far, the opposition amounts to: it's not fair.  It would cost me money.  Pools were exceedingly dangerous in 1976.  It smacks of gun control (to you).   


> But it's never going to happen anyway.........because unlike the more successful ruses utilized by the gun-grabbing lobby, this one can't be divided up to only attack and marginalize part of the gun-grabbing public..........and anything targeted against all gun-owners is doomed to legislative failure.
> 
> Of course even the strategy of divide and marginalize went a bridge too far on the recent shooting.........as the Gun-Grabbers attempt to spin the Glock as some sort of 'Assault Handgun' different from every other semi-automatic handgun, and 'uniquely deadly'!


I'm not sure what you're getting at here.  It sounds now like you're lumping me into some kind of anti-gun conspiracy.  Is that where we're headed now?


----------



## Grenadier (Jan 24, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> With the gun control debate it is similar (imo). I agree that some limitations are required to keep the country form turning into a wild west where stray bullets and ricochets kill people on a daily basis. Imo (again) full automatic assault rifles like miniguns have no place in a crowded city, because the risk to other people is too big. And if people can legally own them


 
Many people lawfully own fully automatic assault rifles.  For that matter, many people in crowded cities lawfully own fully automatic weapons in accordance to NFA34 / GCA68 / GCA86.  

Again, there has been only one documented case of a lawful owner having used his full auto weapon in the commission of a crime.  He happened to be a rogue police officer who could have easily used any number of his duty weapons.  

In addition to this, there are quite a few individuals who lawfully own miniguns.  None of them have used them in crimes.  

Given those statistics, I certainly trust lawful owners of fully automatic weapons.  



> , then bad guys wil also own them and the violence problem is bad enough already that adding miniguns is not going to do much good in a place which suffers from gang warfare.


 
The bad guys already get theirs illegally, much how they get most of their "standard" one-shot per trigger pull firearms.  They buy them from illegal arms dealers, they steal them, etc.  They're also able to get fully automatic weapons illegally, since they don't obey the laws.  

The Hollywood shootout from the last decade is a prime example of how the bad guys will get whatever munitions they want.  



> But things like the 10 bullet magazine limitation will have zero positive impact, even IF bad people would abide by that limitation (which they won't). The only people who would be impacted are the well meaning people who do abide by the law.


 
Agreed, whole-heartedly.  

In the end, it's better to deal with the cause of the problem, rather than to cover-up the symptoms.


----------



## Grenadier (Jan 24, 2011)

On the insurance issue, requiring law-abiding folks who wish to own / carry firearms to buy it is a restriction that leaves too many things open for abuse. Once such restrictions are in place, it becomes much easier for a partisan politician to screw over the law-abiding folks.

For example, if you take a look at the City of New York, they crafted a bizarre, twisted network of laws that made it all but impossible for ordinary law-abiding citizens to own firearms (currently being whittled away by the DC v. Heller and MacDonald v Chicago rulings). 

The crafters of such legislation assured the populace that such restrictions weren't going to affect the law-abiding, but in the end, look at how things were badly twisted. These days, the authorities there don't issue permits, even though courts have repeatedly ordered them to issue them. 



As for accidents, you're trying to impose a law that only affects a minute amount of the population. If we look at the National Safety Council's 1998 statistics on deaths:

*Heart disease* *737,563*
*Cancer* *538,455 *
*Stroke (cerebrovascular disease)* *157,991 *
*Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease* *102,899 *
*Doctor's negligence* *93,329 *
*Motor-vehicle* *43,363 *
*Firearms (Total) 35,673*

and out of that Firearms total...

*Suicides 18,503*
*Homicides 15,551*

and of course...

*Accidents 1,125 *


1,125 accidental deaths is a paltry amount, when you look at basically screwing over the entire law-abiding populace. If you want to play numbers with other accidents...

*Falls 13,986*
*Poison 8,461 *
*Drowning 4,350 *
*Fires, burns 3,761 *

and, of course... 

*Firearms 1,125 *

For those who claim to be neutral on the gun-grabbing argument, you'd see that 1,125 is a lot smaller than any of the above, yet why aren't you calling for buying liability insurance for insecticides, cleaning agents, and other toxins? You'd certainly have over 6 times the impact... 

Or, why not making a swimming license and insurance? You'd save over 3 times as many in that case. 



In the end, you'd give me the same answer I gave you, proving my point, that such mandates would have no real effect on the law-abiding populace, nor would it discourage criminal behavior. 

Remember, we don't force people to eat healthier, to exercise more, to get regular checkups with their doctor, take EKG measurements, etc. If you're not going to force hundreds of millions of people to take such measures, even if it would help close to a million people (from the heart disease and pulmonary obstruction categories) to do so, why would you propose something that would have only affected 1,125 people?


----------



## Steve (Jan 24, 2011)

Grenadier said:


> On the insurance issue, requiring law-abiding folks who wish to own / carry firearms to buy it is a restriction that leaves too many things open for abuse. Once such restrictions are in place, it becomes much easier for a partisan politician to screw over the law-abiding folks.
> 
> For example, if you take a look at the City of New York, they crafted a bizarre, twisted network of laws that made it all but impossible for ordinary law-abiding citizens to own firearms (currently being whittled away by the DC v. Heller and MacDonald v Chicago rulings).
> 
> ...


Grenadier, with respect, I've gone out of my way to be clear about the number of accidental deaths vs the number of accidental injuries.  In other words, including only deaths is misleading.  Depending on where you get your numbers there are 2 to 4 accidental fatalities each day.  In contrast, there are 18 to 20,000 gun related injuries that are accidental.  

I've also addressed that swimming pools DO carry insurance.  Public pools are insured by whomever owns them, and private pools are insured under the homeowner's policy.  Also, there are a total of 20,000 or so accidental firearm incidents each year (death and/or injury).   In contrast, there were about 11,000 drowning/near drowning incidents total, including beaches, lakes, rivers, as well as public and private pools.  So, when you open the discussion up to include non-fatal incidents, firearms are actually involved in quite a few more.

Once again, the point I originally brought up (and frankly regret as it took a terrible tangent to the OP), was that it would give people who are the victims a venue for compensation that would be independent of the gun owner's ability to pay and avoid unnecessary litigation.  I've said repeatedly that it wouldn't address crime.   But in the case in AZ, the gun was lawfully owned, which is what brought this idea back to mind in the first place.  

And I'll say again, I've tried to be up front that this is just an idea that I've had.  I don't have an agenda that involves punishing or limiting a person's ability to own a gun.  I'm also not married to the idea.  I put it out for discussion.  I'm defending it as I can.  But really, I'm interested to see if there are any substantial, reasonable arguments against it. 

Scope seems to be as close as I've seen, but I think we just disagree (which is okay.)  If you think that 1000 or so deaths and 18 to 20,000 injuries is small potatoes, that's a legitimate position.  I disagree and I think that's about as far as it goes.


----------



## Hudson69 (Jan 24, 2011)

10 rounds, 20 rounds, a 100 rounds.  The point is you could take every gun away from every person in America and within a week they would show back up again.  If someone is off their rocker and wants to hurt people and either cannot or will not use a gun then how many other ways are out there, commonly available, that can be used to cause mass pain and panic?

And the 10 rnd mag thing; how many serious shooters out there cannot carry multiple mags and swap out new/fresh ones in under a second....?


----------



## Hudson69 (Jan 24, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Grenadier, with respect, I've gone out of my way to be clear about the number of accidental deaths vs the number of accidental injuries.  In other words, including only deaths is misleading.  Depending on where you get your numbers there are 2 to 4 accidental fatalities each day.  In contrast, there are 18 to 20,000 gun related injuries that are accidental.
> 
> I've also addressed that swimming pools DO carry insurance.  Public pools are insured by whomever owns them, and private pools are insured under the homeowner's policy.  Also, there are a total of 20,000 or so accidental firearm incidents each year (death and/or injury).   In contrast, there were about 11,000 drowning/near drowning incidents total, including beaches, lakes, rivers, as well as public and private pools.  So, when you open the discussion up to include non-fatal incidents, firearms are actually involved in quite a few more.
> 
> ...



I am no good at percentages.  If there are 385 million people in the US (legally, according to census) then what percentage is 20K people?  That is what I want to know.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 27, 2011)

I have been deliberately avoiding this thread on the basis that I've pretty much stated my case and you can accept it or not.  No use arguing or making enemies. 

That and I've been sitting my daughter who had strep.  

But I just gotta jump in here.



stevebjj said:


> I guess you can call it a limitation, but I don't see it as any more or less of a limitation than the onus of purchasing liability insurance for your car.  Millions of people who own cars seem to manage without too much of a hassle.


I'm afraid this isn't the case.  Insurance is a significant factor in cost of ownership for most folks and is always a major line-item in household budgets.  I defy you to find a household budget worksheet that does not include "auto insurance."

Especially in today's economy more and more households are being stretched to meet auto insurance requirements to such a point that there are significant numbers of advertisements targeting people specifically on lowest possible price.  There's also a large number of tickets and impounds quarterly based on failure to hold insurance.  The people being so ticketed aren't failing to acquire insurance because they simply don't want to, it's because it is, frankly, too expensive for their limited budgets.

There is another issue at work, and that is the fact that firearms ownership is a SCOTUS ruled Right whereas auto ownership is not.  The Right of Free Travel is, but not the mechanism thereof.  The reason that SCOTUS ruled that firearms ownership is a Right is because of a case contesting D.C.'s restrictions.  SCOTUS ruled that their restrictions effectively barred ownership.

Now, I understand that you believe you have a good argument for requiring insurance.  OK, that's fine, but it is indisputable that requiring insurance would effectively bar ownership from a significant number of low-income individuals.  SCOTUS has ruled decisively that the exercise of a basic Right may not be restricted based on income.  The same reason that it is ruled unconstitutional to enact a Poll Tax.

All arguments of whether or not a case can be made for requiring firearms ownership liability insurance based on statistical "probable threat" aside (and I've already stated that I reject those and why), it is simply not going to happen because it sets a financial restriction on the exercise of a Right.

And, to be fair, this is not the first time I've heard the idea of required liability insurance (or Bonding) floated.  In fact, I've looked into it myself.  MANY CCW & owners have voluntarily looked into it simply because if one is forced to use a firearm in self defense, there is a decent chance that the one may be forced additionally to defend oneself from Criminal proceedings and/or (more often, I believe) Civil proceedings.  As you can imagine, these can be extremely expensive to the individual.  It's not uncommon for folks who are required to engage in these defenses to spend their life-savings, sell everything they own, loose their homes, and become destitute.  So, yeah, I've looked into various forms of insurance.  The cheapest I've found yet has been about $50/month.  Which isn't bad but is still $600 a year.  Every year.  Probably increasing in rates with inflation.

Would you be willing to spend $600 a year to exercise your Right to vote?

Well, anyway, I'm going to drop back out of this conversation.  I'm not seeing it go anyplace good and I want to stay friends.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 27, 2011)

Mandatory Gun Owner Insurance serves the same punitive purpose that one would find if a politician decided he didn't like martial artists, or a specific group of martial artists, and began attempting to regulate what was necessary to teach that martial art to the point it would be financially prohibitive to do so...........such as mandating that anyone teaching martial arts, even in their garage or basement, having to maintain a certain level of insurance, be 'licensed' by a state board, and pay for business licensing, even if he doesn't charge his students.

Such actions could technically be called a 'ban', but the actual practical results would be the same.


----------



## Steve (Jan 27, 2011)

I believe that most of the "low cost" insurance companies exist to prey on irresponsible drivers with accidents and citations on their records.  At some point, if your guns were involved in multiple claims against the insurance, I would guess that it might become onerous to keep up the insurance.  Ultimately, it's about priorities.  I hear people talk about how they can't afford martial arts tuition, but they manage to pay for the data plan on their droids and get the NFL Sunday Ticket on DirectTV.   

But, lklawson, it's food for thought.  I see your point.  Certainly any additional expense in a budget could be considered a burden.  

I've pretty much let this go, as well.   I've said my piece, and happen to be at home with a sick daughter, too.   Pneumonia in my case, although I think we've finally found an  antibiotic that's working.   

Hope your daughter gets well soon!


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jan 27, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Yes. According to the CDC. Not including fatalities. Ah. Drownings wasn't working out, so you go with something else. Our exposure to cars is pervasive. Every single person in the USA, from baby to adult, is exposed to motor vehicles multiple times. Walking, driving, riding our bikes, we are in or around cars and trucks. There are over 250 million registered passenger vehicles in America representing just about every household. We see them literally everywhere, and even if you don't own one, you are almost guaranteed to be in or on one during the course of your day. Also, remember that bikes and public transportation are often included in the stats.
> 
> In contrast, according to lklawson, there are about 52 million households with guns, and the vast majority of US citizens go weeks, months or even years without seeing a firearm drawn.
> 
> ...


 
wait a minute your looking at that wrong.. I would be surprised if any American goes a day without being in the range of a firearm. You do not have to see a firearm to be killed by it. You dont have to even be in line of sight. A firearm can shoot through walls, through cars, and through other objects. The fact is 317 million Americans are exposed to multiple firearms every single day without knowing it and the reason is because the vast majority of fireaarms owners are responsible, regardless of whether they have a single shot firearm, or one equiped with a 100 round Cclip. I just got into this conversation and am working back to front, but your comment about peopel not seeing a firearm is not the same as them not being in the effective range of a firearm


----------



## lklawson (Jan 27, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> ...and happen to be at home with a sick daughter, too.   Pneumonia in my case, although I think we've finally found an  antibiotic that's working.


I'm sorry to hear that.  I'll pray for her quick and full recovery.



> Hope your daughter gets well soon!


Thanks.  'Mox seems to have knocked it out.  She's allowed, now, to return to Daycare and to Pre-School.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jan 27, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> This actually made me laugh out loud. Once again, this is an idea I've never seen anywhere else. Is it a bad idea? Maybe. I put it out for discussion. But it's laughable (literally) that you're telling me what my motives are. Intentionally punitive? Really? I know I can't convince you otherwise, but I can tell you that my motives aren't punitive.
> 
> I guess you can call it a limitation, but I don't see it as any more or less of a limitation than the onus of purchasing liability insurance for your car. Millions of people who own cars seem to manage without too much of a hassle.
> 
> ...


 
I believe you are way off in this discussion.
forcing people to get an insurance for firearms amounts to nothing but a punative action.
There is no other item that a person can purchase that requires an ongoing fee, when that item does not require public services to operate.
Cars require public roads to operate, and I understand the great cost associated with vehicles and the damage they can cause and the need to make sure that people operating those vehicles can cover the costs associated with bad choices, unfortunte incidents, and purposeful violations.
To force an insurance on firearms, would also require an insurance on knives, clublike objects, fists, feet, and any other object that has an can be used as a weapon, and accidentally cause harm. and before you try to argue it, there have been incidents where a person accidently punched another person and caused massive damage, and accidentally tripped another person and caused massive damage.
I am not lumping you into an antigun conspiracy, but it seems obvious you have a personal opinion that firearms are huge accidents waiting to happen and that simply is not the case, there are more firearms then cars by millions in the united states, and cars cause millions more in injuries, and billions more in monetary damage then firearms. Firearms rarely do much in monetary damage, and then its rarely accidental. If I accidentally drop a quarter off a10th story building and it hits someone in the eye and blinds them for life It should not set precident for everyone to buy insurance for their quarters, it should set precidence to sue me for being an idiot with my quarter in the first place, and if I have nothing to take to pay for the person then what?
maybe we should force everyone to have a blanket insurance to cover any wierd incident that they might cause to another human being or human beings property for the sake of making sure that everyone can pay for their own stupidty or neglect... and if they can not afford the stupidity and neglect insurance, to go along with their mandatory obamacare insurance then maybe we need to start locking them up in a place to keep them and the rest of our society safe? Is that what your saying?
or do you just want firearms insured because you dont think they are safe?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 28, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> I believe that most of the "low cost" insurance companies exist to prey on irresponsible drivers with accidents and citations on their records.  At some point, if your guns were involved in multiple claims against the insurance, I would guess that it might become onerous to keep up the insurance.  Ultimately, it's about priorities.  I hear people talk about how they can't afford martial arts tuition, but they manage to pay for the data plan on their droids and get the NFL Sunday Ticket on DirectTV.
> 
> But, lklawson, it's food for thought.  I see your point.  Certainly any additional expense in a budget could be considered a burden.
> 
> ...


 Insurance companies exist to prey on ALL drivers........which is why they find new reason to justify rate increases not remotely directly related to actual operation of a motor vehicle, such as credit ratings.

The bottom line is that the notion of requiring mandatory gun insurance is a gun control scam, pure and simple.....perhaps not by you, but by those who originally conceived of the idea and passed it off as 'reasonable'....not even a particularly clever scam on their part as it's motive is obvious.......it's a purely financially punitive action by those who don't like private firearms ownership, and wish to regulate it at ever opportunity.........more than just financially, as 'mandatory' firearms insurance would require law enforcement to have some mechanism of verification, and would create entire new criminal offenses, whole clothe, out of previously lawful actions.



Hope your daughter is well by the time of this response.


----------

