Why do people think a 223 or 5.56 round is especially lethal?
They are typically full metal jacket, not an expanding round.
No deer hunter would expect one to be useful in killing a deer, typically human size.
A full metal jacket is a round prescribed by the Geneva Convention that ideally injures a human so that they then require the help of another combatant.
Two people out of the fight rather than one.

"If a total ban would be blatantly unconstitutional, why are partial bans not unconsitutional?"

Good question. My best answer is that we had a ban in 1994, and as far as I know, it was not struck down by the Supreme Court.

"Or are they just not "blatantly" unconstitutional?"

That's part of the debate I'd like to see. As I have said repeatedly, I wouldn't support any ban that was unconstitutional. That would need to be a significant part of any considered legislation.

Right, because there's no difference between a wire leader, or a brick, or your bare hands, and a rifle with a large capacity magazine.

Many things are potentially lethal, but have significant value and utility in our lives - like a car. No rational person would suggest a federal ban on cars.

If you have to make ridiculous exaggerations to my point in order to make it seem like a weak argument, it seems to me that you have no argument against what I am actually saying.

Again.. Exactly! :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Texting is the #1 cause of automobile deaths in the US. It's illegal to text and drive in most states. Making it illegal to text and drive hasn’t helped the cause or reduced the death rate.

Maybe a federal ban outlawing cellphones would eliminate this…………………..

Jim, this new liberal approach that I see from you is quite refreshing! :)
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Invest more money in social programs 👍
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

"I think it gives you as a soldier, or a policeman a different perspective (see Gen. Stanley Mcccrystal) that the hobby shooter, might not have.... "

Maybe. But in my case, I can state for sure that long before I entered teh service, I questioned the need for some of these weapons to be available to anyone but the military and law enforcement.

"Does anyone on here actually not think background checks for ALL gun sales is a good thing?[/QUOTE]"

Using the same logic that many here have displayed...I could say that...

(1)No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because some people who fail the background checks will still get guns illegally. Therefore, the background checks will serve no discernable purpose.

(2) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because you can also kill someone with a hammer, and I don't want 'Big Brother' making me submit to a background check every time I go to buy a hammer.

(3) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because errors in the checks will deny some law-abiding folks of their constitutional right to own a gun.

(4) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because in states where they have background checks, gun violence rates are still higher than 0.00000%. Therefore, background checks serve no discernable purpose whatsoever.

(5) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because that will make it harder for our citizenry to protect us from the totalitarian government. Because obviously, the only reason why the 82nd Airborne hasn't confiscated my house yet, is because they think I might have a gun. There's no other reason why they haven't come in, kidnapped my kids, and sold them on Craigslist.

"

Using the same logic that many here have displayed...I could say that...

(1)No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because some people who fail the background checks will still get guns illegally. Therefore, the background checks will serve no discernable purpose.

(2) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because you can also kill someone with a hammer, and I don't want 'Big Brother' making me submit to a background check every time I go to buy a hammer.

(3) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because errors in the checks will deny some law-abiding folks of their constitutional right to own a gun.

(4) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because in states where they have background checks, gun violence rates are still higher than 0.00000%. Therefore, background checks serve no discernable purpose whatsoever.

(5) No, I don't think that background checks are a good thing because that will make it harder for our citizenry to protect us from the totalitarian government. Because obviously, the only reason why the 82nd Airborne hasn't confiscated my house yet, is because they think I might have a gun. There's no other reason why they haven't come in, kidnapped my kids, and sold them on Craigslist.[/QUOTE]

Here in ma they do background checks .
Seems to be working out swell
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Don't get how this went from banning a broad category of weapons that are not typically used in crimes to background checks.
I think they should start by using the legislation that has already been enacted. Few federal agencies submit the needed info to do background checks, few prosecutions occur for firearms violations.
More laws that are ignored helps how?
I am waiting for the law outlawing death, with the following exceptions and appropriate punishment.
Every child is in more danger of dying an early death from obesity than an "assault" rifle.

That's another argument I keep saying...because these weapons aren't the number 1 cause of death, we don't need to discuss it?

To put it another way...more kids will die from obesity than will drown. Does that mean you are equally dismissive of laws that require little kids to wear life jackets on a boat? Why have those laws! It's not the number 1 cause of death, so why the hell should we care?

Hey, I'm no blind ideologue. I believe what my the facts and my conscience suggest that I should believe, not what anyone else tells me to believe. I have always said that I feel liberals make a better point than conservatives (to a degree) on gun control and gay marriage.

Thanks though.

Funny you missed the whole point he made.....WE HAVE ENOUGH LAWS
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Violence is a learned behavior. It is not genetic.
The games kids play, where they plot online with several teammates, how to kill as many people as they need to win I believe has a negative effect on sociaty . In some cases its the only place in kide these kids win .The NRA was ridiculed for mentioning it.
My kids have always been brought around firearms and the respect needed to handle them. I didn't encourage these games. Hell, I bet alot of anti gun advocates bought their children these games got Christmas.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And maybe you could attempt to respond to what people here are actually saying, instead of putting radical jibberich words in our mouths. Did anyone here propose to ban guns entirely?

You think that a law banning high capacity magazines is comparable in scope to a law banning cell phones? Are high capacity magazines as instrumental to our collective pursuit of happiness, as cell phones are? Do you really think that?

Maybe another analogy. Since there are 10 of thousands of auto related deaths every year (give or take, very close to the same number as gun related deaths) and we don't ban cars why would we ban guns for gun related deaths? Driver license may get revoked (which does not stop someone from driving)

Also keep in mind about 1/2 of all gun related deaths are gang and drug related.

If the legislators gave equal effort and the news gave equal air time to addressing mental health, reducing drug related violence, gang violence, suicides, prosecuting and convicting those that break current gun laws, along with conversations as to how do high capacity magazines and scary guns contribute to crime (ie crime control instead of only gun control, then maybe a "reasonable" and "sensible" discussion can be had. It seems to me most of the "discussion" is rhetoric and real issues are not addressed.

As long as "gun control" is an agenda instead of focusing on crime control and the issues that lead to crime, a real conversation will not happen.

man this thread is givving me a headache

"Since there are 10 of thousands of auto related deaths every year (give or take, very close to the same number as gun related deaths) and we don't ban cars why would we ban guns for gun related deaths?"

Once again, for like the tenth time, because almost everyone in America has a legitimate need for a car. Cars allowed us to get out of the cities and into the suburbs. Just about no one (except law enforcement and military) has a need for a high-capacity magazine. There is a reason why no one is calling for a car ban, but many are calling for a ban on the most lethal weapons.

"ie crime control instead of only gun control"

Agreed 100%. But I don't think that means we necessarily ignore gun control.

You and me Both :wall:

Jim,

I am not advocating a car ban either. But, I am also against gun bans or magazine bans. I also agree that most people need a car to preserve a way of life, however, you don't need to prove a need or any legitimacy to by any car you want. No-one needs a really fast sports car or a really large truck just to drive to the office. Both of those vehicles may injure or kill people if used recklessly. And if they are, the driver should be punished to the full extent of the law. Why do I need to provide any justification to lawfully own a gun that can hold 30 rounds? Again, part of the fear is today it is 30 round magazines tomorrow it is 10, next week I can only justify a single shot firemarm. The gun control agenda is just that - an agenda - It has no basis to solve any real life issues.

Jibberich? You spew more gibberish on this site than anyone (I must admit that many times I agree with it though :))

I'm not saying a law banning high capacity magazines is comparable in scope but I am saying that cell phone texting causes more deaths than high capacity magazines.

The point I’m trying to make is that banning something or making something illegal gives people a warm and fuzzy but in reality, it hardly ever is the solution. I don’t own any high capacity weaponry, nor do I want to. I just think jumping to the “make them illegal” bandwagon is a slippery slope and really hides the true problem with our society. It’s not the guns I’m afraid of, it’s the people. We need to change the people………………….

[QUOTE=Jim in CT;978783

"if you truly believe that things like this are necessary or effective you need drop the charade and move for total ban "

That's probably the least rational thing I have seen you post here. It doesn't need to be one extreme or the other. I could just as easily say that if you disagree with me, you might as well move for elimination of every gun control law on the books.

[/QUOTE]

follow your own logic Jim..if banning certain rifles and magazine capacities might have reduced the number of deaths(provided he didn't opt for more handguns and perhaps the shotgun that was in the trunk or decided to be less thorough on his targets)...and you seem to support that notion...then.....banning all weapons similar to what he used and magazines might have prevented all of the deaths...no???...surely you aren't going to argue for one and reject the other :confused:

that was damn funny :)

Maybe I can turn the thread around a bit and still keep the "guns" theme. How many individuals here have their LTC? I am currently waiting for mine in the mail. I actually had my interview and firing range test 4 days after Newtown. Apparently since Newtown they have been inundated with applications and the city of Boston is 2 months behind due to the increased volume.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I'm in the process as well.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have been shooting since 5 or 6 years old, and I have a class A ltc.

Here are some interesting statistics the Democrats, and Mainstream Media don't want to report, just watch the video....

Choose Your Own Crime Stats - YouTube

x3

You guys just want your houses to be on the list of ones not to break into (CC permit holders)

Nope, I want one in case a big pissed off Mako jumps in my boat!