"Where a rational conversation about guns ought to start"

[metis]

Even though there are approximately 30,000 gun related deaths per year in the US, over half comprised suicides (19,392) (as per CDC reports in 2010).

In 2010, the CDC reported that 11,078 people were murdered by firearm. More people died that year by alcohol, drug and automobile related deaths, as separate categories.

If a person drinks or drugs themselves to death, that's something we don't have much control over, but we do have laws that try to keep these people off the road.

As I've mentioned over and aver again, I am not "anti-gun", but I do feel that there needs to be some limitations on who can purchase them and what kind of guns are to be allowed. In most states, you have to have quite a few hours in and pass a written and driving test to get a permit, and yet getting a gun has no where near the scrutiny that this does.

Yet, several studies have suggested that between 70%-90% of criminals were deterred from committing a crime, just through brandishment of a weapon - no injury, no death.

Where's this stat from, and I much prefer FBI or some other reliable source?

The media demonizes firearms, examining the negative statistics and media portrayals, without really looking at the firearm and injury statistics, evaluating what they comprise and comparing them to other ways that people are dying, annually.

The media does a lot both ways, as we see with a program like "Duck Dynasty" going in the other direction, for example, so it's not a one-sided street.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Interesting how you changed it.
I never once said nor even implied that banning 30 round magazines would not make them "any" less available.
I said it would would not stop criminals from getting them.

So much for honest discussion....

I wasn't talking about you.

 

[Father Heathen]

The point of that part about people from other countries also having opinions about gun control was to illustrate that not every person expressing an opinion about guns is trying to meddle with America's domestic policy. Their thoughts and opinions are relevant to the subject and perfectly applicable in their own homes and countries. As anybody who actually stopped to think about it for half a second should be able to understand. American gun nuts stop and think, though? Maybe that's asking too much. It has to be all about proud M'ericans vs. dirty feriners who hate freedom. So boring.

By what criteria do you define "gun nut", out of curiosity? And of course people "from the outside" have thoughts and opinions, and are welcomed to share them. However, being "from the outside" their perspective is limited and skewed. They see things through a tiny window of filtered, biased media, and thus their "insight" is not as valid as those who have direct, personal experience and hands-on knowledge with a subject matter. For example, my opinion regarding Canadian laws is not as valid as the opinion of someone who actually lives under them. Being informed and familiar makes all of the difference. For example, I wouldn't presume to have a better understanding of Tae Bo by seeing a a single, late night infomercial than someone who actually owns all of the tapes and performs and practices Tae Bo.

 

[Father Heathen]

So in your mind, anyone who wants any sort of gun control measure that violates the Second Amendment to the slightest degree wants to get rid of all guns?

Not "get rid of all guns", but definitely out of the hands of the average citizens. Why would would someone take issue with the amendment?

When someone has a pack of cigarettes in their pocket, they're merely carrying them for convenience in order to use them later. A proper analogy to this situation would be carrying your gun unloaded in a lockbox when you stop for dinner on your way to the firing range.

Keeping your gun unloaded in a lockbox would defeat its purpose as a self-defense tool. No, both are keep on the person, yet not taken out until appropriate to do so.

If a gun is loaded and holstered, and the person isn't on their way to or from a place where they plan to use their firearm, then the apparent intent is to have it available for use then and there. Not the same thing as having a pack of cigarettes in your pocket, is it?

by that logic, why wear a seat belt unless you plan on being in an automobile accident?

 

[Father Heathen]

This is a good example of irrational, uninformed politicians on the left attempting to legislate hysteria, which is just as bad as when irrational, uninformed politicians on the right attempt to legislate morality.

 

[Revoltingest]

I've pix of pre-ban & post-ban Glocks.
Can anyone tell which is which?
Why is one 'safer' than the other?

 

[Father Heathen]

I've pix of pre-ban & post-ban Glocks.
Can anyone tell which is which?
Why is one 'safer' than the other?

The second one is much tinier.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not "get rid of all guns", but definitely out of the hands of the average citizens. Why would would someone take issue with the amendment?

Because they support gun control measures not permitted by the Second Amendment, probably. Maybe it could be a restriction on the availability of certain weapons, but it could also be things that don't actually make any weapon illegal: increased training requirements... more stringent background checks... longer waiting periods... more requirements for storage and transport... restrictions on where guns can be carried... etc., etc.

Keeping your gun unloaded in a lockbox would defeat its purpose as a self-defense tool. No, both are keep on the person, yet not taken out until appropriate to do so.

Stick with your analogy. In the case of cigarettes, while they might be carried in the pocket of a person in a non-smoking restaurant, he's not carrying them for the purposes of using them (or potentially using them) in the restaurant itself.

by that logic, why wear a seat belt unless you plan on being in an automobile accident?

What are you talking about? My point didn't have anything to do with whether carrying a gun in public is a good idea; I was just pointing out that your analogy with cigarettes is irrational, since the intent behind carrying cigarettes is very different from the intent behind carrying a loaded, holstered gun. The fact that a person in a non-smoking establishment has a pack of cigarettes in his pocket doesn't mean that he has them in order to be ready to smoke in the establishment itself; he's merely carrying them in order to have them with him later.

 

[Uberpod]

This is a good example of irrational, uninformed politicians on the left attempting to legislate hysteria, which is just as bad as when irrational, uninformed politicians on the right attempt to legislate morality.

It's just an example of a pared back grab at straws so that legislators can feign some level of success. It does not represent what would exist if democratic legislatures produced laws according to their druthers. It is not evidence that legislation efforts should not be, just that the pro-gun force is too strong!

 

[Reverend Rick]

The second one is much tinier.

The top picture is a gen 1 Glock 17. It is preban and can carry 17+1 rounds. It also can accomodate a 10 round magazine.

The bottom one is a gen 3 glock 17 which can hold both magazines as well.

 

[Revoltingest]

The top picture is a gen 1 Glock 17. It is preban and can carry 17+1 rounds. It also can accomodate a 10 round magazine.
The bottom one is a gen 3 glock 17 which can hold both magazines as well.

Of course, you're correct. But what I find so ludicrous is that to become post-ban,
Glock added the tiny finger grooves & the dainty little hint of a thumb rest.
Don't you feel safer with these fashion friendly features?

 

[Reverend Rick]

The top picture is a gen 1 Glock 17. It is preban and can carry 17+1 rounds. It also can accomodate a 10 round magazine.

The bottom one is a gen 3 glock 17 which can hold both magazines as well.

The little Glock 9mm is the Glock 26. It normally holds 10 +1 rounds but can accomodate the 17 round magazines too.

One last tidbit, all the 9mm Glocks, (17,19,26) can also accomodate a 33 round magazine as well.

 

[Revoltingest]

The little Glock 9mm is the Glock 26. It normally holds 10 +1 rounds but can accomodate the 17 round magazines too.
One last tidbit, all the 9mm Glocks, (17,19,26) can also accomodate a 33 round magazine as well.

I am shocked....shocked, I tell you....that you left out the 18 from your list!

Were I a bucket list type, firing an 18 on full auto would be a goal.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Of course, you're correct. But what I find so ludicrous is that to become post-ban,
Glock added the tiny finger grooves & the dainty little hint of a thumb rest.
Don't you feel safer with these fashion friendly features?

The light/laser rail is a nice touch, although I never use them. You can get an internal laser and no one should have a flashlight on their weapon if they don't want to become a target.

 

[Reverend Rick]

I am shocked....shocked, I tell you....that you left out the 18 from your list!

Were I a bucket list type, firing an 18 on full auto would be a goal.

Meh.... the barrel gets hot enough with the semi autos. Also from a tactical consideration, squirting all your rounds out at once is a bad option IMHO.

If I was in need of a full auto, I would choose a long gun.

 

[Father Heathen]

Of course, you're correct. But what I find so ludicrous is that to become post-ban,
Glock added the tiny finger grooves & the dainty little hint of a thumb rest.
Don't you feel safer with these fashion friendly features?

I don't own any guns nor fire them often, but as a lefty I find those grooves to be very annoying and uncomfortable.