NRA

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I don't think buckman or anybody else disagrees that high capacity weapons can increase the body count compared to lower capacity handguns. There might be a disagreement that they pose a greater danger. All guns pose the danger of being used to kill. Greater numbers of killed does not increase the danger, it, as you say, increases the body count. I doubt that the parents of children killed by a handgun think to themselves that, "phew, it's a good thing the guy didn't have a high capacity weapon or he might have killed some other kids. Hey Jim, congrats, you're kid was not shot. I feel good for you." On the other hand, parents of kids who weren't shot might well be grateful. But the danger that they could have been the ones killed was there, by hand gun or rifle.

Your hypothesis is that cops chose rifles because they know that in most situations, [not just extremely rare ones] it's easier to kill bad guys with rifles instead of handguns. And that if that's true, it also holds true for bad guys. But then, as I believe buckman implied, that it would also hold true for civilians defending themselves against bad guys. Why would we allow police to defend with rifles but not allow civilians to do so? Aren't civilians killed in far greater numbers than police?

It would seem that if the number of kids killed in rare instances is enough to ban high capacity weapons, that there is an even greater need to ban hand guns which are used to kill, on an almost daily basis, many more people, including children.

You keep wanting to have a "serious conversation" on the subject, as if such conversations have not occurred. If the conversation is simply about the number killed, the acceptable number would have to be less than one. Which guns would be allowed under that number?

"I don't think buckman or anybody else disagrees that high capacity weapons can increase the body count compared to lower capacity handguns"

ThenI can only assume you aren't reading his responses.

"If the conversation is simply about the number killed, the acceptable number would have to be less than one. "

Wrong. You need to read what I'm actually saying. It isn't only about reducing deaths. It's about reducing deaths in accordance with our constitution. That's a big difference. I'm not saying that any ban that reduces deaths is good. I'm saying that if it's not trampling the constitution, let's talk about it.

Automatic machine guns are banned. That ban has been deemed constitutional. What's so crazy about extending that ban to, say, high capacity magazines?

"Greater numbers of killed does not increase the danger, it, as you say, increases the body count."

If it increases the potential body count, it certainly increases the danger to society as a whole. I'm shocked you'd miss that.

"I doubt that the parents of children killed by a handgun think to themselves that, "phew, it's a good thing the guy didn't have a high capacity weapon or he might have killed some other kids"

Why, then, are families of victims so often leading the charge to ban military-style weapons? If what you say is correct (that they don't care about any other kids), and their kid is already dead, why should they give a rat's azz. Wow. You're saying that parents who lost their kids, have zero vested interest in making sure it doesn't happen to someone else's kid. That's one of the stranger things I have seen you post. I could not disagree more.

I survived a war. Using your logic, I have no reason to be concerned about what happens when other teenagers are sent into compat? I have no reasons to call for rules to help future soldiers? That's what you think?

Seems unbelievably self-centered to me.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"If the conversation is simply about the number killed, the acceptable number would have to be less than one. "

Wrong. You need to read what I'm actually saying. It isn't only about reducing deaths. It's about reducing deaths in accordance with our constitution. That's a big difference. I'm not saying that any ban that reduces deaths is good. I'm saying that if it's not trampling the constitution, let's talk about it.

Sure, let's talk about it. But first, we have to establish which Constitution you're talking about. The original one, or the "living, breathing one" that has replaced it. I don't particularly like the new one, so I don't refer to it when I refer to the Constitution. If you prefer the "living breathing" one, then you are absolutely correct. The Federal Government, according to the "living" Constitution can, in reality, do whatever it wants. And all your logic about reducing deaths according to that Constitution can pretty much remove all "arms" from the people.

Automatic machine guns are banned. That ban has been deemed constitutional. What's so crazy about extending that ban to, say, high capacity magazines?

According to the "living breathing" Constitution, there is no problem extending the ban to all magazines and the guns that use them. The modern, progressive, jurists and politicians just don't see a "need" for any part of the second amendment since they don't see themselves or the government as a threat to the people. The British are no longer a threat, history has arrived at a time of universal understanding of human rights and social justice. Government need not be impeded from doing everything to efficiently administer society's needs including its safety. So there is no real "need" for civil ownership of guns.

"Greater numbers of killed does not increase the danger, it, as you say, increases the body count."

If it increases the potential body count, it certainly increases the danger to society as a whole. I'm shocked you'd miss that.

I didn't miss the danger inherent in guns. The danger I speak of is qualitative. The quality of one death is not diminished by that of a hundred. It holds all the personal tragedy in one soul that is contained in the collective tragedy of a hundred. The danger you speak of is quantitative. The greater the number the greater the danger. For you, apparently, numbers are more important. If so, than you seem to miss that the vast number of gun related deaths are commited with the type of gun you deem less dangerous.

"I doubt that the parents of children killed by a handgun think to themselves that, "phew, it's a good thing the guy didn't have a high capacity weapon or he might have killed some other kids"

Why, then, are families of victims so often leading the charge to ban military-style weapons? If what you say is correct (that they don't care about any other kids), and their kid is already dead, why should they give a rat's azz. Wow. You're saying that parents who lost their kids, have zero vested interest in making sure it doesn't happen to someone else's kid. That's one of the stranger things I have seen you post. I could not disagree more.

Then you disagree with your version of what I said. You do have that habit of exaggeration. But I understand where you're coming from so I don't fault you on that. I didn't say they don't care about other kids. I was referring to your version of "danger" and the personal danger perceived by those involved in mass shootings. It's not that they don't care about other kids, it's that the overwhelming fear is first for their own. The personal, single grief, if their child was lost, and the single relief if they survived. Sure, there is room for concern for others, but, unless I'm weirder than I thought, that doesn't equal, for most people, concern for their own. Do you think that parents are less concerned with the danger of a kook with a handgun roaming the halls of their children's schools than they are with a kook with a high capacity weapon. Do you think they feel safer with him carrying one type of gun than another?

I survived a war. Using your logic, I have no reason to be concerned about what happens when other teenagers are sent into compat? I have no reasons to call for rules to help future soldiers? That's what you think?

Seems unbelievably self-centered to me.

No, you don't use my logic or the Constitution that I prefer. And, I can understand how soldiers view body counts as being crucial to winning, and by winning, how lives can be "saved." And I don't mean to say even a single death is emotionally acceptable on the battlefield.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Automatic machine guns are banned. That ban has been deemed constitutional.

Actually they are not banned. Congress knew in 1934 that it had zero power to ban any arms, especially those that were of the type that constituted the ordinary military equipment.

The widely interpreted power to tax afforded a wider range of powers to restrict possession of full auto machine guns, sawed-off shotguns etc by requiring a Treasury tax stamp to be affixed to the weapon to prove a transfer tax had been paid. Hundreds of thousands of Title II arms are in private hands that run the gamut from little 9mm sub-machine guns to 20mm Vulcan MiniGuns.

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

What's so crazy about extending that ban to, say, high capacity magazines?

I've read legal arguments on both sides; I haven't read a compelling one that argues for banning.

Emotional arguments are everywhere one turns but are rarely of any value when discussing important issues especially issues of legally enforced public policy. That goes triple when the policy being advocated demands either the ignoring or purposeful violation of fundamental, constitutionally enforced rights.