All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > High-Capacity Assault Weapons
12/28/2012 9:07 PM
I dont think there should be any limits on ammunition.

Target shooters need large amounts.

I cannot imagine a situation where a criminal has a huge advantage because he has 3000 rounds instead of 1200.

As for guns I am opposed to all limits, but could find an area of compromise. I can accept a yearly limit. How about 10.
12/28/2012 9:17 PM
Somebody earlier had a suggestion that ammo fired at shooting ranges can/should be purchased at the range.  I'll add "and only used there".  Does that seem reasonable?

Why would somebody need unlimited amounts of ammunition for home use?

Why does somebody need to purchase 10 guns a year?
12/29/2012 3:22 AM

What about rural communities that do not have gun ranges and have people that shoot on their own property?

And I know this is considered crazy by the left but the original intent of the 2nd was to prevent a tyrannical government.

Again do you REALLY think that a guy with 3500 rounds is a threat and 700 rounds isnt?

Why this line of concern if not to ensure the potential safety of a corrupt government?

12/29/2012 7:55 AM

Some people collect baseball cards.   Some people collect guns.

10 per year is pretty restrictive to a collector.   A single shot deringer made in 1867 would count.  

Do you think a 1867 single shot deringer could be used in a mass shooting?

12/29/2012 8:28 AM
"What about rural communities that do not have gun ranges and have people that shoot on their own property?"

Seems like a good business opportunity for entrepreneurs in those rural communities.

"And I know this is considered crazy by the left but the original intent of the 2nd was to prevent a tyrannical government."

Do you live your day to day life in fear of a tyrannical U.S. government?  Do you live in a cabin in Montana or Idaho?  Are you writing your manifesto?

"Again do you REALLY think that a guy with 3500 rounds is a threat and 700 rounds isnt?"

Why does anybody need 700 rounds for home/personal protection?

"Some people collect baseball cards.   Some people collect guns."

Do baseball cards kill people?
12/29/2012 9:07 AM
THAT PICTURE OF DON MOSSI SURE DID
12/29/2012 10:12 AM
Posted by antoncresten on 12/29/2012 9:07:00 AM (view original):
THAT PICTURE OF DON MOSSI SURE DID
12/29/2012 12:33 PM
Why didn't you respond to this?

"10 per year is pretty restrictive to a collector.   A single shot deringer made in 1867 would count.  

Do you think a 1867 single shot deringer could be used in a mass shooting?"
12/29/2012 12:56 PM
I don't think that would be the weapon of choice.  It probably wouldn't be very effective if the shooter's goal was maximum carnage in a short period of time.
12/29/2012 2:06 PM
tec, I've watched the discussion without comment and you've brought up some solid questions, but the "Do baseball cards kill people?" argument is assinine.  No, they don't.  Neither do guns.  Or knives.  Or cars.  The people wielding them do the killing.  A gun kills people in much the same way that a spoon makes people fat.  If you want to argue that no one needs to buy 700 rounds of ammo in a month, that's an argument worth listening to.  As is the argument that nobody needs an extended magazine or an assault rifle.  Hell, if you want to argue that Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendent (that "well-regulated militia" is discarded in favor of "the people") is wrong, that's worth discussing too. The argument that "guns kill people" is base fear-mongering and a fallacy.  You could grab your computer monitor right now and kill someone, if you were so inclined.

Personally, I'd like to know where the outrage is against a psychiatric community that tells us these lunatics can be rehabilitated.  That has helped "inform" the creation of laws that allow a convicted murderer to re-integrate into society, where he can place a 911 call to lure volunteer firefighters to their deaths.  My guess is that it's just less comfortable to say "some people can't be fixed and need to be removed from society" than it is to say "guns kill people".
12/29/2012 2:38 PM
Posted by tecwrg on 12/29/2012 12:56:00 PM (view original):
I don't think that would be the weapon of choice.  It probably wouldn't be very effective if the shooter's goal was maximum carnage in a short period of time.
So, if a gun collector wanted to have the biggest collection of single shot deringers, why should he be restricted to buying 10 per month?

Maybe it's time to address the problem rather than scream "GUNS BAD!!!!"
12/29/2012 2:51 PM
"Personally, I'd like to know where the outrage is against a psychiatric community that tells us these lunatics can be rehabilitated. That has helped "inform" the creation of laws that allow a convicted murderer to re-integrate into society, where he can place a 911 call to lure volunteer firefighters to their deaths. My guess is that it's just less comfortable to say "some people can't be fixed and need to be removed from society" than it is to say "guns kill people"."



so following that reasoning, are willing to have your taxes raised, in order to house these people in institutions? I'm not against institutionalizing people, but there is an obvious cost involved here, that the "pro-gun people,"  (i.e. tend more toward conservative, rural, anti-Federal-government) if you will, tend to usually be against any form of tax increases

and there is no chance that your taxes, already being collected, will be re-distributed for this purchase, so it boils down to a choice:


A) restrictions on gun and ammo purchasing

B) paying more taxes to have no more limits on gun access
12/29/2012 2:55 PM
Posted by examinerebb on 12/29/2012 2:06:00 PM (view original):
tec, I've watched the discussion without comment and you've brought up some solid questions, but the "Do baseball cards kill people?" argument is assinine.  No, they don't.  Neither do guns.  Or knives.  Or cars.  The people wielding them do the killing.  A gun kills people in much the same way that a spoon makes people fat.  If you want to argue that no one needs to buy 700 rounds of ammo in a month, that's an argument worth listening to.  As is the argument that nobody needs an extended magazine or an assault rifle.  Hell, if you want to argue that Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendent (that "well-regulated militia" is discarded in favor of "the people") is wrong, that's worth discussing too. The argument that "guns kill people" is base fear-mongering and a fallacy.  You could grab your computer monitor right now and kill someone, if you were so inclined.

Personally, I'd like to know where the outrage is against a psychiatric community that tells us these lunatics can be rehabilitated.  That has helped "inform" the creation of laws that allow a convicted murderer to re-integrate into society, where he can place a 911 call to lure volunteer firefighters to their deaths.  My guess is that it's just less comfortable to say "some people can't be fixed and need to be removed from society" than it is to say "guns kill people".
I've always found the guns don't kill people, people do argument asinine myself.
12/29/2012 2:59 PM
Those are two separate issues.  Restrictions on gun and ammo purchasing don't solve the problem in any way.  Is Sandy Hook prevented under that scenario?  No.  Is it less of a tragedy if 12 kids died instead of 20?  No.  The issue is that we allow people who have been identified as "troubled" and "severely anti-social" and "convicted murderers" to walk among us because we don't want to feel guilty about the alternative.  Would I pay more in taxes to keep those people off the streets?  You bet your *** I would.  Because it is the one and only way to prevent this from happening.  Quarantine guns and those same people find other weapons.  Quarantine those people and the existence of weapons makes no difference.
12/29/2012 3:09 PM
Posted by The Taint on 12/29/2012 2:55:00 PM (view original):
Posted by examinerebb on 12/29/2012 2:06:00 PM (view original):
tec, I've watched the discussion without comment and you've brought up some solid questions, but the "Do baseball cards kill people?" argument is assinine.  No, they don't.  Neither do guns.  Or knives.  Or cars.  The people wielding them do the killing.  A gun kills people in much the same way that a spoon makes people fat.  If you want to argue that no one needs to buy 700 rounds of ammo in a month, that's an argument worth listening to.  As is the argument that nobody needs an extended magazine or an assault rifle.  Hell, if you want to argue that Supreme Court's interpretation of the 2nd Amendent (that "well-regulated militia" is discarded in favor of "the people") is wrong, that's worth discussing too. The argument that "guns kill people" is base fear-mongering and a fallacy.  You could grab your computer monitor right now and kill someone, if you were so inclined.

Personally, I'd like to know where the outrage is against a psychiatric community that tells us these lunatics can be rehabilitated.  That has helped "inform" the creation of laws that allow a convicted murderer to re-integrate into society, where he can place a 911 call to lure volunteer firefighters to their deaths.  My guess is that it's just less comfortable to say "some people can't be fixed and need to be removed from society" than it is to say "guns kill people".
I've always found the guns don't kill people, people do argument asinine myself.
Then I assume you believe that knives kill people, automobiles kill people, blunt objects kill people, etc. and that all those things should be regulated in the same way that guns should.

I'm not saying guns don't make it easier for someone who is predisposed to kill someone to perform the act.  I'm saying that person is going to perform the act, regardless.  You can't get rid of every available weapon, and getting rid of some of them won't solve the problem.  It might mitigate it and make you feel better, but it won't solve it.  The problem lies with the people who are predisposed to commit the crime.
of 54
All Forums > General Discussion > Non-Sports > High-Capacity Assault Weapons

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

Popular on WhatIfSports site: Baseball Simulation | College Basketball Game | College Football Game | Online Baseball Game | Hockey Simulation | NFL Picks | College Football Picks | Sports Games

© 1999-2014 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.