Saudade (01-24-2020)
TRUMP WILL TAKE FORTY STATES...UNLESS THE SAME IDIOTS WHO BROUGHT US THE 2020 DUNCE-O-CRAT IOWA CLUSTERFUCK CONTINUE THEIR SEDITIOUS ACTIVITIES...THEN HE WILL WIN EVEN MORE ..UNLESS THE RED CHINESE AND DNC COLLUDE, USE A PANDEMIC, AND THEN THE DEMOCRATS VIOLATE ARTICLE II OF THE CONSTITUTION, TO FACILLITATE MILLIONS OF ILLEGAL, UNVETTED, MAIL IN BALLOTS IN THE DARK OF NIGHT..
De Oppresso Liber
Saudade (01-24-2020)
When a gun can hold less ammo, the shooter is forced to reload more often, thus giving more people time to escape. And if you think those few seconds don't matter, look at the Dayton shooting. Police stopped the shooter in thirty seconds, which is very commendable, but in those thirty seconds, he killed fourteen people. A few seconds to stop and reload really do matter.
You're right, the number is pretty arbitrary, but I'd rather have a low but arbitrary limit than no limit. Should a gun be able to hold six bullets or ten bullets? I don't know, but either number is better than fifty bullets.
Which is why I think we shouldn't stop at rifles. Much of the focus, when it comes to gun control, is on guns when we should also be talking more about gun accessories and the screening process.
And if that's the rationale, then you're going to have gun control advocates continue to push for smaller and smaller magazines. If 10 becomes the standard, then 5 will be next. If 5 becomes the standard, then maybe they'll push for 1 after that.
Virginia shows us that lobbyists are willing to expand the definition of assault weapons to all semiauto weapons, so magazines can easily be subjected to the same expansion of control.
This is why gun rights advocates don't typically give any ground to magazine limits. We've already seen certain states create a slippery slope situation.
USFREEDOM911 (01-24-2020)
We have higher violence in general than most of the First World. Banning guns wouldn't change that. You have to address the root causes of violence to reduce it. Mental health issues are one of those root causes.
Access to guns can't really be considered a root cause, because the vast majority of gun owners don't commit acts of violence. All you can really apply is psychological background checks to keep guns away from unstable people.
I'm guessing you meant to type "red flag laws with due process." What I'm wondering is why we need them at all. As I said, every state had procedures in place for seizing weapons before red flag laws. I don't see any reason why we need them. It just is a way that activists have tried to shortcut due process.
It's no different from how we've given the surveillance state too much power. There was no reason to pass the Patriot Act. Intelligence agencies had plenty of power before 9/11. There was no need to give them more power, but we did, because we were sold this idea that we'd be safer if we just gave government more power.
Unfortunately, this is the sort of thinking that both sides use to grab power rather than providing any actual improvements in safety.
Most European nations don't typically have all-out bans, but in a practical sense, they function almost as such. In a lot of countries, both in Europe and outside of it, you have to explain to law enforcement why you need a gun. At their discretion, you either are allowed to have a gun or not. In effect, these systems favor the elite, cronies, and those who bribe officials.
It's definitely not a good model to follow.
Isaiah 6:5
“Woe to me!” I cried. “I am ruined! For I am a man of unclean lips, and I live among a people of unclean lips, and my eyes have seen the King, the Lord Almighty.”
I'm sure it's easier for people with money to get guns in those countries, since no matter what the service is, a rich person will have the option of bribery. But there are plenty of working-class Europeans with guns too, especially in Switzerland. So this system of giving guns to people who can make a coherent argument might not be a bad one.
SEDITION: incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority.
Bookmarks