Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
Why does the fact that he is a vet lend more weight to what he thinks? I think people try to throw around "Someone in the military said this, so we must follow what they say" idea school of thought to much and dot really try to hear. I mean this a to no offense to the men in the military, but to often to i hear that school of thought. If someone else said "My right is more important the your dead" they would be flogged in the street.

Just how people think. If you've never seen people who think this way before, you need to get out more. They definitely exist.

Not disrespecting vets, just saying that there are people who think that way.

I will admit that if a vet is saying something, it may lend more credence to what he's saying.

Say, a combat vet explaining multiple times that yes, it usually takes more than 1 bullet to kill someone, and that yes, it's really hard to aim when your adrenaline is pumping and that yes, a 7 round mag limit is an unreasonable handicap when odds are the person they are defending themselves against isn't encumbered by that ban.

Now if a vet walked up to me and starts telling me that GW Finecast was an excellent material, that'd be different. I don't care if you have 10 Medals of Honor, you're wrong

EDITs: because my phone screwed up and posted too early

Sorry we have a different thought process and experience more in life.

 Jihadin wrote:
Sorry we have a different thought process and experience more in life.

Im not saying vets dont go through a gak ton, more then i will, but to put their views on a pedestal when, in a democracy, all views are supposed too be considered equal to me is stupid.

 Ratbarf wrote:
Molsons is beer compared the water you call alcoholic bevrages. 3.2%, what is this I don't even..... might as well be drinking non alcoholic at that point, considering my favourite Canadian beer is 9.0%.

3.2% beer? Do they even sell that anymore?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Sorry we have a different thought process and experience more in life.

Im not saying vets dont go through a gak ton, more then i will, but to put their views on a pedestal when, in a democracy, all views are supposed too be considered equal to me is stupid.

I don't see how anyone is putting him on a pedestal. I'm sure plenty of other people were given the chance to speak at that meeting too. They weren't all clapping at the end just because he was a veteran.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Spoken like a man who's never been in a gun fight, trained for a gun fight or knows much about terminal ballistics. What if you have multiple assailants? What if they're shooting from cover?

Hang on, what? Are we actually talking about gun control policy in the context of hypothetical gun battles with multiple home intruders, and shoot outs from cover with single or multiple intruders?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
As for referencing "combat experience", I believe the numbers that came out of Iraq was 250,000 bullets fired per dead insurgent.

Yeah, in a situation in which both sides are armed with assault rifles and use of suppressing fire in common. Which is not the situation in home invasions. And what I just typed is not a something that should ever have to be typed in a world full of educated, rational men, but, well, this is a very strange thread.

I mean, thing is, I think the 7 round limit is a pointless bit of do nothing bad legislation at best, but the arguments being put forward in this thread to attack that legislation are trending towards being really, really nutty.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
We ration the taxpayer funded healthcare, don't really live in igloos, but a few of us die in them every once in a while. Molsons is beer compared the water you call alcoholic bevrages. 3.2%, what is this I don't even..... might as well be drinking non alcoholic at that point, considering my favourite Canadian beer is 9.0%.

I always wondered how Americans could drink a 24+ at a time without getting horribly gak faced, then I found out you drink really weak beer.

Join me for an Arrogant Bastard Ale Rat?

Horrible, horrible stuff, that Arrogant Bastard Ale..... almost as bad as Dead Guy Ale.

 sebster wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Spoken like a man who's never been in a gun fight, trained for a gun fight or knows much about terminal ballistics. What if you have multiple assailants? What if they're shooting from cover?

Hang on, what? Are we actually talking about gun control policy in the context of hypothetical gun battles with multiple home intruders, and shoot outs from cover with single or multiple intruders?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 djones520 wrote:
As for referencing "combat experience", I believe the numbers that came out of Iraq was 250,000 bullets fired per dead insurgent.

Yeah, in a situation in which both sides are armed with assault rifles and use of suppressing fire in common. Which is not the situation in home invasions. And what I just typed is not a something that should ever have to be typed in a world full of educated, rational men, but, well, this is a very strange thread.

In the case of a home invasion, I only want one side to be armed with an assault rifle - the homeowner. While you're right that most home invasions don't involve assault rifle-wielding criminals, some do, and legislation like this takes that option out of the law-abiding citizen's hands, while criminals will continue to do home invasions armed with whatever they can get, up to and including assault rifles.

I'm totally fine with one side being massively outgunned in a home invasion, as long as the side that is outgunned is that of the criminal.

 djones520 wrote:
As for referencing "combat experience", I believe the numbers that came out of Iraq was 250,000 bullets fired per dead insurgent.

That counts every bullet shipped to the country, those used for training, training the locals, "recreation" in combat, and ones still there.

 d-usa wrote:

7 is a random arbitrary number, no different than 5 or 9, and I don't know that there was any real science behind picking that number. I usually pocket carry, and those kind of guns have small mags by design, so it wouldn't affect me.

If you banned anything with a capacity larger than 5 rounds, you just destroyed the entire six-shooter market... basically every single revolver in existence carries a minimum of six rounds (that I know of)




I'm with AngryMarine, limiting how much we can defend ourselves from the RAI 2nd Amendment is incredibly wrong. But, to me, it is just as wrong as prohibition, NSA collection practices regarding US citizens, and violating EO 12223. You should get the idea. I'm of the libertarian mind that the Fed government should have very little power... I mean, aside from FBI handling cases that cross state boundaries, the IRS collecting the money that makes our government and it's necessary agencies run (and we all know there are some that are redundant and others that are asinine and pointless) but that's all beside the point.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

7 is a random arbitrary number, no different than 5 or 9, and I don't know that there was any real science behind picking that number. I usually pocket carry, and those kind of guns have small mags by design, so it wouldn't affect me.

If you banned anything with a capacity larger than 5 rounds, you just destroyed the entire six-shooter market... basically every single revolver in existence carries a minimum of six rounds (that I know of)




I'm with AngryMarine, limiting how much we can defend ourselves from the RAI 2nd Amendment is incredibly wrong. But, to me, it is just as wrong as prohibition, NSA collection practices regarding US citizens, and violating EO 12223. You should get the idea. I'm of the libertarian mind that the Fed government should have very little power... I mean, aside from FBI handling cases that cross state boundaries, the IRS collecting the money that makes our government and it's necessary agencies run (and we all know there are some that are redundant and others that are asinine and pointless) but that's all beside the point.

I hope that the rest of my post made it obvious that I don't support the magazine limit.

 sebster wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Spoken like a man who's never been in a gun fight, trained for a gun fight or knows much about terminal ballistics. What if you have multiple assailants? What if they're shooting from cover?

Hang on, what? Are we actually talking about gun control policy in the context of hypothetical gun battles with multiple home intruders, and shoot outs from cover with single or multiple intruders?

.

Again someone asked what you might need more then a couple rounds for. There's plenty of answers. Multiple aggressors are a common self defense situation to train for whether they have guns or not (and does count as a lethal force situation), is the concept of two dudes working together to mug you or kick your door in to steal your gak really that mind blowing? We're not talking Hollywood Die Hard style shootouts with dozens of armed terrorists (well Kan is but he's in his own little world again) we're talking one to two bad guys, more in extreme situations. Just ask this homeowner in Sacramento. http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2012/12/22/police-say-1-dead-3-wounded-in-sac-home-invasion/

Good thing he had more then seven rounds.


Also if you're not using cover that's your own death wish. I heartily welcome the bad guys to make like lemmings and expose themselves to gunfire.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Seaward wrote:
We've been over this countless times. I know saying that isn't going to stop anyone from wanting to do it again, but just thought I'd throw it out there.

General self-defense philosophy from instructors, people with combat experience, people with self-defense experience, etc. is that you'd rather have more than you need than less, and that one or two hits rarely does the job.

General self-defense philosophy from people in favor of "sensible" restrictions who've never shot a pistol at a moving target in their lives is that anyone who needs more than two rounds is incompetent.

General self-defense philosophy from instructors or self-defense experience is that simply having a gun is usually enough deterrence in most home invasion/self-defense scenarios.

People with "combat experience" need not necessarily apply to discuss this, as the likelihood is that you are not going to be in the middle of a John McClane situation where you need to carry a veritable cornucopia of ammunition or need to have tactical/combat training.

I'll just leave these here.

 Wyrmalla wrote:
...Because the average American regularly gets into drawn out gunfights with multiple assailants? Run !

Because apparently Americans masturbate to Diehard these days, apparently.

 Fafnir wrote:

 Wyrmalla wrote:
...Because the average American regularly gets into drawn out gunfights with multiple assailants? Run !

Because apparently Americans masturbate to Diehard these days, apparently.

Apparently it's a more honest hobby than rationing healthcare and drinking Molson, apparently.

 Hordini wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
Molsons is beer compared the water you call alcoholic bevrages. 3.2%, what is this I don't even..... might as well be drinking non alcoholic at that point, considering my favourite Canadian beer is 9.0%.

3.2% beer? Do they even sell that anymore?

Ever been to Utah?

@Lordhat, That last video you posted, is pretty much exactly the reason why I suggest all my "anti-gun" friends (who are extremely few) read the book "Seven Myths of Gun Control".. It's quite the excellent, and fairly short read.

Why would you keep friends around who are anti-gun? Besides comedic relief I suppose.

 Hordini wrote:
In the case of a home invasion, I only want one side to be armed with an assault rifle - the homeowner. While you're right that most home invasions don't involve assault rifle-wielding criminals, some do, and legislation like this takes that option out of the law-abiding citizen's hands, while criminals will continue to do home invasions armed with whatever they can get, up to and including assault rifles.

I'm totally fine with one side being massively outgunned in a home invasion, as long as the side that is outgunned is that of the criminal.

I'm totally fine with having guns not used in home invasions. Criminals in this country don't use assault rifles, perhaps that is something to think about.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Ratbarf wrote:
Molsons is beer compared the water you call alcoholic bevrages. 3.2%, what is this I don't even..... might as well be drinking non alcoholic at that point, considering my favourite Canadian beer is 9.0%.

3.2% beer? Do they even sell that anymore?

Ever been to Utah?

No. I take it I should keep it that way?


I kid, I'm sure I would visit Utah given the chance. But they still sell that there? I know they used to allow people to buy 3.2% beer at 18 here (which is not Utah), but it hasn't been that way for a long time. Before I was born, I'm pretty sure.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bullockist wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
In the case of a home invasion, I only want one side to be armed with an assault rifle - the homeowner. While you're right that most home invasions don't involve assault rifle-wielding criminals, some do, and legislation like this takes that option out of the law-abiding citizen's hands, while criminals will continue to do home invasions armed with whatever they can get, up to and including assault rifles.

I'm totally fine with one side being massively outgunned in a home invasion, as long as the side that is outgunned is that of the criminal.

I'm totally fine with having guns not used in home invasions. Criminals in this country don't use assault rifles, perhaps that is something to think about.

That's great for your country, but it doesn't take an assault rifle to do a home invasion. My point is, I want the home-owner to be better armed than the criminal.

Are you fine with the woman not having a gun in that last video that Lordhat posted?

And the circle of life of the 2nd amendment right thread is complete.

We go from honest debate to personal attacks split straight down country nationality from both sides. Please guys this gets us nowhere, stop it now, or we'll have ANOTHER thread locked over stupid arguing.

What I'm wanting to know is where is the case being brought up that this is unconstitutional? This is something that I could easily see someone taking New York to court over, and would probably go all the way up to the Supreme Court. The law is clearly against the 2nd amendment and doesn't even do anything to curb gun violence in any meaningful way. The gun control crowd should be more furious about this law than gun owners, because the law doesn't do gak to stop a mass shooting (you know, the whole reason it exists in the first place)

Also, why should I have to pass a background check to buy ammunition? Its an unnecessary hurdle for legal gun owners, and any gangbanger who knows he won't pass will just get a straw man to buy it for him. Its a law clearly passed to be a burden on gun owners to discourage and slow them down in attempting to buy ammo, much like mag bans and "assault weapon" bans are designed to kill off gun ownership over time. They know they can't ban them all at once, so they're easing it in. Next thing you know it'll be 5 round mag bans, then no semi auto rifles, then single shot only, each with a more ridiculous justification than the last.

When I was growing up in Illinois you had to have a gun owner permit/license to carry when you were hunting, buying a gun, buying ammo or whatever. I never really had a problem with it and neither did any of my friends or friends of my grandfather that I went hunting and shooting with.

Seriously its not that big of a deal.

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Its a law clearly passed to be a burden on gun owners to discourage and slow them down in attempting to buy ammo, much like mag bans and "assault weapon" bans are designed to kill off gun ownership over time. They know they can't ban them all at once, so they're easing it in. Next thing you know it'll be 5 round mag bans, then no semi auto rifles, then single shot only, each with a more ridiculous justification than the last.

My obligatory, "Same tactics as the anti-abortion crowd," post.

 Seaward wrote:

 MrMoustaffa wrote:
Its a law clearly passed to be a burden on gun owners to discourage and slow them down in attempting to buy ammo, much like mag bans and "assault weapon" bans are designed to kill off gun ownership over time. They know they can't ban them all at once, so they're easing it in. Next thing you know it'll be 5 round mag bans, then no semi auto rifles, then single shot only, each with a more ridiculous justification than the last.

My obligatory, "Same tactics as the anti-abortion crowd," post.

Exactly.

This tactic gets used a lot and I hate seeing it every time. Its a very underhanded approach

I honestly don't see the problem behind having a license to allow you to buy weapons/ammo.

You might have to wait a week or two for all the paperwork to go through, but considering that buying a gun should be more than just an impulse buy, I don't see it as being a huge issue.

We have the technology around to make this a painless process. If we can get it to work for automotive systems around the world, I'm pretty sure America can get it to work for their guns. What's one extra card in your wallet going to do?

 Fafnir wrote:
I honestly don't see the problem behind having a license to allow you to buy weapons/ammo.

You might have to wait a week or two for all the paperwork to go through, but considering that buying a gun should be more than just an impulse buy, I don't see it as being a huge issue.

We have the technology around to make this a painless process. If we can get it to work for automotive systems around the world, I'm pretty sure America can get it to work for their guns. What's one extra card in your wallet going to do?

You already have to pass a background check every time you buy a gun from a dealer. Why do you need to get a license too? To show that you can pass two background checks?

 Hordini wrote:
In the case of a home invasion, I only want one side to be armed with an assault rifle - the homeowner. While you're right that most home invasions don't involve assault rifle-wielding criminals, some do, and legislation like this takes that option out of the law-abiding citizen's hands, while criminals will continue to do home invasions armed with whatever they can get, up to and including assault rifles.

I'm totally fine with one side being massively outgunned in a home invasion, as long as the side that is outgunned is that of the criminal.

Yeah sure, if there was a real issue of gun battles inside people's homes, then I'd totally agree that we should make sure that the homeowner has a bigger gun, and maybe some grenades as well.

But that's solving a problem that only exists in crazy people's heads. People who've engaged in two sided, on-going gun battles with home invaders are about as common as people who've walked on the moon.

 sebster wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
In the case of a home invasion, I only want one side to be armed with an assault rifle - the homeowner. While you're right that most home invasions don't involve assault rifle-wielding criminals, some do, and legislation like this takes that option out of the law-abiding citizen's hands, while criminals will continue to do home invasions armed with whatever they can get, up to and including assault rifles.

I'm totally fine with one side being massively outgunned in a home invasion, as long as the side that is outgunned is that of the criminal.

Yeah sure, if there was a real issue of gun battles inside people's homes, then I'd totally agree that we should make sure that the homeowner has a bigger gun, and maybe some grenades as well.

But that's solving a problem that only exists in crazy people's heads. People who've engaged in two sided, on-going gun battles with home invaders are about as common as people who've walked on the moon.

Grenades? Who's trying to solve a problem that only exists in crazy people's heads again?

I'm not talking about two-sided, running gun battles. I'm talking about a home owner being able to outgun one or more criminals. If a homeowner has an AR-15 and criminal breaks into the house with a knife or a pistol, I do not have a problem with the criminal being under-armed. If a homeowner has an AR-15 and a criminal breaks into the house completely unarmed, I don't have a problem with the discrepancy of firepower in that situation either. Of the two, I consider the second situation to be absolutely preferable.

I wish the woman who got beat and thrown down the stairs in Lordhat's video had had an AR-15 and the knowledge to employ it effectively, and it has nothing to do with being able to engage her unarmed attacker in a running gun battle.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
Again someone asked what you might need more then a couple rounds for. There's plenty of answers. Multiple aggressors are a common self defense situation to train for whether they have guns or not (and does count as a lethal force situation), is the concept of two dudes working together to mug you or kick your door in to steal your gak really that mind blowing?

Note that I'm not in favour of the seven round max. I'm just commenting on some people's thoughts on why such a thing might be needed.

We're not talking Hollywood Die Hard style shootouts with dozens of armed terrorists (well Kan is but he's in his own little world again) we're talking one to two bad guys, more in extreme situations.

You were talking about gunfights with multiple opponents, with each firing from cover.
"What if you have multiple assailants? What if they're shooting from cover?"

Also if you're not using cover that's your own death wish. I heartily welcome the bad guys to make like lemmings and expose themselves to gunfire.

You're missing the point. It isn't strange to suggest that, once a gunfight between two parties breaks out, both sides might seek to use cover to protect themselves during that gunfight. It is strange, crazy even, to suggest that such situations occur between homeowners and home invaders regularly enough that it should be mentioned.

I mean, it's like asking a person why he's added steel reinforcing beams to the roof of his house, and he starts talking about how it'll stop plane debris crashing through the roof. Well yeah, it probably would, but why would anyone put that problem on the top of their list of priorities. Similarly, why in the hell would anyone put their ability to outshoot multiple armed bandits looking to engage in a gun battle in the top 2,000 problems they need to solve?

Typically, if someone's going to break into your house, the mere presence of a weapon is enough to scare someone off. Very few people want to even take the risk of getting shot, be it with a high-powered rifle or a pistol. Especially if they're already intruding on someone else's property.

 Fafnir wrote:
Typically, if someone's going to break into your house, the mere presence of a weapon is enough to scare someone off. Very few people want to even take the risk of getting shot, be it with a high-powered rifle or a pistol. Especially if they're already intruding on someone else's property.

Exactly. So if you decide you're going to have a gun for defense anyway, why not pick one that can do well in a variety of situations, both relatively mundane as well as extreme?

 Hordini wrote:
Grenades? Who's trying to solve a problem that only exists in crazy people's heads again?

Read my comment again, please. Note the 'if'. Think about it. Then think about the logic structure 'if, then'. I'll wait.

I'm not talking about two-sided, running gun battles. I'm talking about a home owner being able to outgun one or more criminals. If a homeowner has an AR-15 and criminal breaks into the house with a knife or a pistol, I do not have a problem with the criminal being under-armed. If a homeowner has an AR-15 and a criminal breaks into the house completely unarmed, I don't have a problem with the discrepancy of firepower in that situation either. Of the two, I consider the second situation to be absolutely preferable.

Who is talking about there being a problem with the homeowner being more heavily armed? Where does that nonsense come from? No-one has a problem with giving the advantage to the homeowner.

The issue is only with the idea that the homeowner needs an advantage in the event of a shoot out between the two sides. That's some crazy nonsense. It is, as I already posted, akin to reinforcing the roof of your house to make it better capable of resisting aircraft debris in case some ever lands on your house. The reinforcing may work, but the problem is astronomically unlikely that there is at least 2,000 greater threats that should be given priority.