I feel that maybe banning the transfer of semi-automatic firearms, you might reduce the amount of gun shot wounds hospitals have to deal with.
The study admits there are some holes and some problems with some of the studies, but it definitely makes for an interesting debate.
But the study goes on to claim that revolvers are used to kill more so than semi-autos, however most criminals use low end guns like hi points etc..
What someone needs a handgun that holds 17 rounds + 1 in the chamber is absurd. There is no rational reason someone needs that many rounds to fend off a home intruder.
And according to DC laws even years after DC v Heller, the courts there ruled that you cannot carry guns outside your home and you cannot posses a semi-automatic firearm or transfer them in DC
I feel that maybe banning the transfer of semi-automatic firearms, you might reduce the amount of gun shot wounds hospitals have to deal with.
The study admits there are some holes and some problems with some of the studies, but it definitely makes for an interesting debate.
But the study goes on to claim that revolvers are used to kill more so than semi-autos, however most criminals use low end guns like hi points etc..
What someone needs a handgun that holds 17 rounds + 1 in the chamber is absurd. There is no rational reason someone needs that many rounds to fend off a home intruder.
And according to DC laws even years after DC v Heller, the courts there ruled that you cannot carry guns outside your home and you cannot posses a semi-automatic firearm or transfer them in DC
DC has chosen a course of unconstitutional "rule making" that makes a mockery of the Law.
The numbers clearly prove that handguns are used more in crime/ murders.
I am not going to debate the round per magazine point. I think it is arbitrary, and leads to more "rule making beyond the purview of the Constitution".
As far as legislation, I think that it is necessary to have a constitutional Amendment that updates the scope of the 2nd amendment.
As well as a 4th amendment update.
etc.
We probably need an entirely new constitutional convention.
0
DC has chosen a course of unconstitutional "rule making" that makes a mockery of the Law.
The numbers clearly prove that handguns are used more in crime/ murders.
I am not going to debate the round per magazine point. I think it is arbitrary, and leads to more "rule making beyond the purview of the Constitution".
As far as legislation, I think that it is necessary to have a constitutional Amendment that updates the scope of the 2nd amendment.
As well as a 4th amendment update.
etc.
We probably need an entirely new constitutional convention.
What someone needs a handgun that holds 17 rounds + 1 in the chamber is absurd. There is no rational reason someone needs that many rounds to fend off a home intruder.
How would you know this, because you watch cops shows?
I could provide link to example after example of police firing up to 50 rounds at one person.
So your premise is false.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:
What someone needs a handgun that holds 17 rounds + 1 in the chamber is absurd. There is no rational reason someone needs that many rounds to fend off a home intruder.
How would you know this, because you watch cops shows?
I could provide link to example after example of police firing up to 50 rounds at one person.
DC has chosen a course of unconstitutional "rule making" that makes a mockery of the Law.
The numbers clearly prove that handguns are used more in crime/ murders.
I am not going to debate the round per magazine point. I think it is arbitrary, and leads to more "rule making beyond the purview of the Constitution".
As far as legislation, I think that it is necessary to have a constitutional Amendment that updates the scope of the 2nd amendment.
As well as a 4th amendment update.
etc.
We probably need an entirely new constitutional convention.
Well its unconstitutional in quotes possibly.
Depends on what expert you ask however the district courts in DC have ruled 2-1 that DC residents can posses a firearm just as long as it is not a semi-automatic one.
But I do agree with the idea of a 10 round clip being arbitrary.
However,,,, a 6 or 5 shot revolver is a significantly big difference to a glock or a ruger holding 15+1 or 17+1 bullets...
The point is I have always been in favor of states regulating their own gun laws but in the DC v Heller case
0
Quote Originally Posted by rick3117:
DC has chosen a course of unconstitutional "rule making" that makes a mockery of the Law.
The numbers clearly prove that handguns are used more in crime/ murders.
I am not going to debate the round per magazine point. I think it is arbitrary, and leads to more "rule making beyond the purview of the Constitution".
As far as legislation, I think that it is necessary to have a constitutional Amendment that updates the scope of the 2nd amendment.
As well as a 4th amendment update.
etc.
We probably need an entirely new constitutional convention.
Well its unconstitutional in quotes possibly.
Depends on what expert you ask however the district courts in DC have ruled 2-1 that DC residents can posses a firearm just as long as it is not a semi-automatic one.
But I do agree with the idea of a 10 round clip being arbitrary.
However,,,, a 6 or 5 shot revolver is a significantly big difference to a glock or a ruger holding 15+1 or 17+1 bullets...
The point is I have always been in favor of states regulating their own gun laws but in the DC v Heller case
The court ruled that you cannot place any unreasonable or outright bans on an entire class of firearms the way handguns were banned and long guns had to in inoperable conditions in the home.
Either way the district court in DC has spoken so...
0
The court ruled that you cannot place any unreasonable or outright bans on an entire class of firearms the way handguns were banned and long guns had to in inoperable conditions in the home.
Either way the district court in DC has spoken so...
Yeah you'd think so right, because in Gun Fight by the famous UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler, also a scholar on the 2nd amendment.
He talks about how over 70% of the handguns owned today are semi-automatic if you count revolvers as semi-automatic because they basically do the same thing, at least double action ones do but 6 shots is a whole lot different than 18 shots..
Nonetheless why would a citizen need a glock 19 that holds 15 +1 bullets.. over a 6 shot revolver is essentially what the district court ruled..
Check out his book.. Really a great read, not editorialized.
0
Yeah you'd think so right, because in Gun Fight by the famous UCLA Law Professor Adam Winkler, also a scholar on the 2nd amendment.
He talks about how over 70% of the handguns owned today are semi-automatic if you count revolvers as semi-automatic because they basically do the same thing, at least double action ones do but 6 shots is a whole lot different than 18 shots..
Nonetheless why would a citizen need a glock 19 that holds 15 +1 bullets.. over a 6 shot revolver is essentially what the district court ruled..
There is no doubt that a ban on semi autos would eviscerate the 2nd amendment.
But isn't the minutiae of number of bullets kind of beyond the point.
I could buy 10 revolvers for $2,000 and have sixty shots without reloading.
Then do you ban speed loaders? Do you ban spare cylinders for quick reload time? Do you ban target practice because it gives potential shooters more time to practice quick reloading?
Any weapon that could take a magazine would be banned right?
There goes any hunting rifle or shotgun.
0
I will check it out
There is no doubt that a ban on semi autos would eviscerate the 2nd amendment.
But isn't the minutiae of number of bullets kind of beyond the point.
I could buy 10 revolvers for $2,000 and have sixty shots without reloading.
Then do you ban speed loaders? Do you ban spare cylinders for quick reload time? Do you ban target practice because it gives potential shooters more time to practice quick reloading?
Any weapon that could take a magazine would be banned right?
I simply said, that semi-automatic handguns dont serve any purpose being the in the hands of ordinary citizens because single action and even double action revolvers and rifles are more than enough of a deterrent to fend of criminals..... as we have seen with Mrs. Herman from GA......
Buy 10 revolvers, be my guest.. in fact distribute them..
I guarantee you there is less gun crime and less gun violence...
Because every bullet counts and every bullet is so vitally important.
And I do think this discussion is also crucially important since it is illegal to posses a glock in the district..
Your hypotheticals are kind of ridiculous..
0
I never said any of that stuff.
I simply said, that semi-automatic handguns dont serve any purpose being the in the hands of ordinary citizens because single action and even double action revolvers and rifles are more than enough of a deterrent to fend of criminals..... as we have seen with Mrs. Herman from GA......
Buy 10 revolvers, be my guest.. in fact distribute them..
I guarantee you there is less gun crime and less gun violence...
Because every bullet counts and every bullet is so vitally important.
And I do think this discussion is also crucially important since it is illegal to posses a glock in the district..
So distributing revolvers willy nilly would reduce gun crime? You have a serious mind block when it comes to the fact that it is not the tool but the person who yields it.
Nearly every personally owned firearm is a semi automatic. You are attempting to bring technology back to 1865.
Sure. If you can pass a constitutional amendment have at it.
No more knee jerk gun control. People that believe in the second amendment should not accept anything short of a constitutional amendment when you have laws proposed that would eviscerate a constitutional right.
If you want to destroy the constitution at least make it honest.
0
So distributing revolvers willy nilly would reduce gun crime? You have a serious mind block when it comes to the fact that it is not the tool but the person who yields it.
Nearly every personally owned firearm is a semi automatic. You are attempting to bring technology back to 1865.
Sure. If you can pass a constitutional amendment have at it.
No more knee jerk gun control. People that believe in the second amendment should not accept anything short of a constitutional amendment when you have laws proposed that would eviscerate a constitutional right.
If you want to destroy the constitution at least make it honest.
But if you think its the person, and you're against licensing and registration and restoring gun rights to felons how does that make you sound?
I can absolutely without a doubt guarantee you that if people nowadays only had firearms from the early 1900s late 1800s there would be drastically less gun crime.
It is constitutional though, a the district level in DC so it has been ruled reasonable and more than sufficient to protect oneself from criminals..
0
But if you think its the person, and you're against licensing and registration and restoring gun rights to felons how does that make you sound?
I can absolutely without a doubt guarantee you that if people nowadays only had firearms from the early 1900s late 1800s there would be drastically less gun crime.
It is constitutional though, a the district level in DC so it has been ruled reasonable and more than sufficient to protect oneself from criminals..
Suffice it to say that I will always be wary of a government that wants to make rules that undermine the constitution.
If it is important, then there is a route to amend the constitution.
That is why the constitution was created. To protect the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority. Another reason that Pure Democracies are abhorrent and always go crazy and essentially commit suicide.
We were founded on a principle that no group (however large) can take the rights of a minority. We live in a country where this principle is tested every day, and there are large groups begging for rules that circumnavigate the constitution.
I agree that there are tons of things that make sense and are reasonable, but if they don't take place by constitutional amendment they are not only null and void, but dangerous to all of our liberties.
0
Suffice it to say that I will always be wary of a government that wants to make rules that undermine the constitution.
If it is important, then there is a route to amend the constitution.
That is why the constitution was created. To protect the rights of minorities against the tyranny of the majority. Another reason that Pure Democracies are abhorrent and always go crazy and essentially commit suicide.
We were founded on a principle that no group (however large) can take the rights of a minority. We live in a country where this principle is tested every day, and there are large groups begging for rules that circumnavigate the constitution.
I agree that there are tons of things that make sense and are reasonable, but if they don't take place by constitutional amendment they are not only null and void, but dangerous to all of our liberties.
I will not fault you stiln for being ignorant of cases like the Peter Soulis incident.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1h9PYRZKMc
Some details.
Officer shoots perp 22 times, 17 hits center mass, with a 40 cal Glock
loaded with ranger SXT's, and the perp (only slightly intoxicated )
lives until the hospital. Officer gets shot 4 times but he is saved by
vest.
Policeman shot 22 rounds and connected with 17 which allowed police officer to be shot 4 times.
Perhaps you've been watching too many old war movies where they were obviously giving oscars away for the actor that could come up with the most creative way to dive on the ground after being shot.
0
I will not fault you stiln for being ignorant of cases like the Peter Soulis incident.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1h9PYRZKMc
Some details.
Officer shoots perp 22 times, 17 hits center mass, with a 40 cal Glock
loaded with ranger SXT's, and the perp (only slightly intoxicated )
lives until the hospital. Officer gets shot 4 times but he is saved by
vest.
Policeman shot 22 rounds and connected with 17 which allowed police officer to be shot 4 times.
Perhaps you've been watching too many old war movies where they were obviously giving oscars away for the actor that could come up with the most creative way to dive on the ground after being shot.
I will not fault you stiln for being ignorant of cases like the Peter Soulis incident.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1h9PYRZKMc
Some details.
Officer shoots perp 22 times, 17 hits center mass, with a 40 cal Glock loaded with ranger SXT's, and the perp (only slightly intoxicated ) lives until the hospital. Officer gets shot 4 times but he is saved by vest.
Policeman shot 22 rounds and connected with 17 which allowed police officer to be shot 4 times.
Perhaps you've been watching too many old war movies where they were obviously giving oscars away for the actor that could come up with the most creative way to dive on the ground after being shot.
The old adage of not using the exception to prove the rule escaped your debate training, no?
0
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
I will not fault you stiln for being ignorant of cases like the Peter Soulis incident.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1h9PYRZKMc
Some details.
Officer shoots perp 22 times, 17 hits center mass, with a 40 cal Glock loaded with ranger SXT's, and the perp (only slightly intoxicated ) lives until the hospital. Officer gets shot 4 times but he is saved by vest.
Policeman shot 22 rounds and connected with 17 which allowed police officer to be shot 4 times.
Perhaps you've been watching too many old war movies where they were obviously giving oscars away for the actor that could come up with the most creative way to dive on the ground after being shot.
The old adage of not using the exception to prove the rule escaped your debate training, no?
I will not fault you stiln for being ignorant of cases like the Peter Soulis incident.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1h9PYRZKMc
Some details.
Officer shoots perp 22 times, 17 hits center mass, with a 40 cal Glock
loaded with ranger SXT's, and the perp (only slightly intoxicated )
lives until the hospital. Officer gets shot 4 times but he is saved by
vest.
Policeman shot 22 rounds and connected with 17 which allowed police officer to be shot 4 times.
Perhaps you've been watching too many old war movies where they were obviously giving oscars away for the actor that could come up with the most creative way to dive on the ground after being shot.
Oh brother, the audacity that you have to bring up an exception to the rule with that scenario really shows your incapacity and unscholarliness.
I am not shocked though..
BTW, the staple child for the NRA in a thread not too far from this one, a woman (bear in mind) used a .38 revolver to fend off a criminal with more than enough stopping power..
What are you going to tell me next that a 9mm, .38, .357, .22 all do not not have a enough stopping power, that every citizen needs to purchase a .45... Just shut up
0
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
I will not fault you stiln for being ignorant of cases like the Peter Soulis incident.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1h9PYRZKMc
Some details.
Officer shoots perp 22 times, 17 hits center mass, with a 40 cal Glock
loaded with ranger SXT's, and the perp (only slightly intoxicated )
lives until the hospital. Officer gets shot 4 times but he is saved by
vest.
Policeman shot 22 rounds and connected with 17 which allowed police officer to be shot 4 times.
Perhaps you've been watching too many old war movies where they were obviously giving oscars away for the actor that could come up with the most creative way to dive on the ground after being shot.
Oh brother, the audacity that you have to bring up an exception to the rule with that scenario really shows your incapacity and unscholarliness.
I am not shocked though..
BTW, the staple child for the NRA in a thread not too far from this one, a woman (bear in mind) used a .38 revolver to fend off a criminal with more than enough stopping power..
What are you going to tell me next that a 9mm, .38, .357, .22 all do not not have a enough stopping power, that every citizen needs to purchase a .45... Just shut up
Oh brother, the audacity that you have to bring up an exception to the rule with that scenario really shows your incapacity and unscholarliness.
I am not shocked though..
BTW, the staple child for the NRA in a thread not too far from this one, a woman (bear in mind) used a .38 revolver to fend off a criminal with more than enough stopping power..
What are you going to tell me next that a 9mm, .38, .357, .22 all do not not have a enough stopping power, that every citizen needs to purchase a .45... Just shut up
pumkin. Gather what you like. I will say that in some situations 6 rounds may not be enough. If someone wants to carry 17 rounds I will understand and so will you.
0
Quote Originally Posted by Stiln:
Oh brother, the audacity that you have to bring up an exception to the rule with that scenario really shows your incapacity and unscholarliness.
I am not shocked though..
BTW, the staple child for the NRA in a thread not too far from this one, a woman (bear in mind) used a .38 revolver to fend off a criminal with more than enough stopping power..
What are you going to tell me next that a 9mm, .38, .357, .22 all do not not have a enough stopping power, that every citizen needs to purchase a .45... Just shut up
pumkin. Gather what you like. I will say that in some situations 6 rounds may not be enough. If someone wants to carry 17 rounds I will understand and so will you.
"Every cop turned around and started unloading like super trigger happy as if their training was coming into full effect and they were being able to utilize it," said Cleerdin. "Everybody was just blasting this car to pieces. It was absolutely terrifying."
"Every cop turned around and started unloading like super trigger happy as if their training was coming into full effect and they were being able to utilize it," said Cleerdin. "Everybody was just blasting this car to pieces. It was absolutely terrifying."
Oh brother, the audacity that you have to bring up an exception to the rule with that scenario really shows your incapacity and unscholarliness.
I am not shocked though..
You know what isn't shocking?
That the County Sheffifs of Colorado (CSOC) released a position paper stating law enforcement officers carry magazines with more than 10 rounds because sometimes more than 10 is needed to neutralize a threat. For this reason, the CSOC believes law-abidding citizens should also have the right to higher capacity than 10-round magazines, noting that in high-stress situations it may take several rounds to stop an attacker.
Oh brother, the audacity that you have to bring up an exception to the rule with that scenario really shows your incapacity and unscholarliness.
I am not shocked though..
You know what isn't shocking?
That the County Sheffifs of Colorado (CSOC) released a position paper stating law enforcement officers carry magazines with more than 10 rounds because sometimes more than 10 is needed to neutralize a threat. For this reason, the CSOC believes law-abidding citizens should also have the right to higher capacity than 10-round magazines, noting that in high-stress situations it may take several rounds to stop an attacker.
pumkin. Gather what you like. I will say that in some situations 6 rounds may not be enough. If someone wants to carry 17 rounds I will understand and so will you.
A pump action shot gun and a revolver is more than enough..
Please don't enter my threads with asinine and extreme scenarios again.. You have a history of doing this, especially when you try and bring up your own personal experiences of your wildly different occupations you lie about..
0
Quote Originally Posted by bowlslit:
pumkin. Gather what you like. I will say that in some situations 6 rounds may not be enough. If someone wants to carry 17 rounds I will understand and so will you.
A pump action shot gun and a revolver is more than enough..
Please don't enter my threads with asinine and extreme scenarios again.. You have a history of doing this, especially when you try and bring up your own personal experiences of your wildly different occupations you lie about..
If you choose to make use of any information on this website including online sports betting services from any websites that may be featured on
this website, we strongly recommend that you carefully check your local laws before doing so.It is your sole responsibility to understand your local laws and observe them strictly.Covers does not provide
any advice or guidance as to the legality of online sports betting or other online gambling activities within your jurisdiction and you are responsible for complying with laws that are applicable to you in
your relevant locality.Covers disclaims all liability associated with your use of this website and use of any information contained on it.As a condition of using this website, you agree to hold the owner
of this website harmless from any claims arising from your use of any services on any third party website that may be featured by Covers.