Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Take the issue of a limit on high capacity magazines.
The report clearly says, to quote:
There is reason to believe that reducing the availability of large capacity magazines could have an effect on the total number of homicides.
In five cities studied closely found no change in the criminal use of large capacity magazines during the ten year ban.
However, a Washington Post analysis for Virginia continued the analysis where the research team left off. The data indicate that the percentage of crime guns using large capacity magazines declined from 18% in 1999 (when magazine imports were highest) to its lowest level in 2004 (10% of crime guns had large capacity magazines). The percentage doubled between 2004, when the ban expired, and 2010.
great! so ban all firearms in cities greater than 1 million. leave the rest of the country alone. see how many people get robbed and murdered in those cities compared to cities that have little or no gun control.
that works just great for washington dc, dont you think?
great! so ban all firearms in cities greater than 1 million. leave the rest of the country alone. see how many people get robbed and murdered in those cities compared to cities that have little or no gun control.
that works just great for washington dc, dont you think?
You use a lot of straw man arguments. You state something that no one is actually arguing, and then you argue against it.
Take the issue of a limit on high capacity magazines.
The report clearly says, to quote:
"There is reason to believe that reducing the availability of large capacity magazines could have an effect on the total number of homicides.
In five cities studied closely found no change in the criminal use of large capacity magazines during the ten year ban.
However, a Washington Post analysis for Virginia continued the analysis where the research team left off. The data indicate that the percentage of crime guns using large capacity magazines declined from 18% in 1999 (when magazine imports were highest) to its lowest level in 2004 (10% of crime guns had large capacity magazines). The percentage doubled between 2004, when the ban expired, and 2010. "
That was after a BAN of large capacity magazine guns, not confiscation.
Even when it comes to reducing high-capacity magazine weapons, the report talks about a buy-back program, not confiscation.
If it's not mandatory, it's useless. If it is mandatory, it's confiscation.
Quote:
However, a Washington Post analysis for Virginia continued the analysis where the research team left off. The data indicate that the percentage of crime guns using large capacity magazines declined from 18% in 1999 (when magazine imports were highest) to its lowest level in 2004 (10% of crime guns had large capacity magazines). The percentage doubled between 2004, when the ban expired, and 2010.
Could this possibly have anything to do with the fact that more guns happened to have large capacity magazines?
As if those crimes would not have been committed without large capacity magazines? Lot of sense that makes.
Quote:
In order to have an impact, large capacity magazine regulation needs to sharply curtail their availability
to include restrictions on importation, manufacture, sale, and possession. An exemption for previously
owned magazines would nearly eliminate any impact. The program would need to be coupled with an
extensive buyback of existing large capacity magazines. With an exemption the impact of the restrictions
would only be felt when the magazines degrade or when they no longer are compatible with guns in
circulation. This would take decades to realize.
More like forever. Someone who really wants a high capacity magazine can dig up a gun that will take it, guns don't stop working after a decade or two.
Even when it comes to reducing high-capacity magazine weapons, the report talks about a buy-back program, not confiscation.
Here it says that for magazine restrictions to work you have to take them out of circulation (confiscation).
"In order to have an impact, large capacity magazine regulation needs to sharply curtail their availability to include restrictions on importation, manufacture, sale, and possession. An exemption for previously owned magazines would nearly eliminate any impact. The program would need to be coupled with an extensive buyback of existing large capacity magazines. With an exemption the impact of the restrictions would only be felt when the magazines degrade or when they no longer are compatible with guns in circulation. This would take decades to realize."
So an 8 point drop gets you all excited, that is definatly worth restricting someone's civil rights.
Reducing your right to own a high-capacity firing weapon does not restrict your civil rights. Why would anyone need a gun like that? And don't say to stave off droves of highly armed invaders of your home. I saw Biden state on the news that the White House tried to find even ONE instance in the U.S. of a home being invaded by multiple intruders with high-capacity weapons. They could not find even one.
Here it says that for magazine restrictions to work you have to take them out of circulation (confiscation).
"In order to have an impact, large capacity magazine regulation needs to sharply curtail their availability to include restrictions on importation, manufacture, sale, and possession. An exemption for previously owned magazines would nearly eliminate any impact. The program would need to be coupled with an extensive buyback of existing large capacity magazines. With an exemption the impact of the restrictions would only be felt when the magazines degrade or when they no longer are compatible with guns in circulation. This would take decades to realize."
How can you say that when it clearly says in the quote you yourself just posted that the issue of previously owned magazine issue would be addressed with an extensive buyback of existing large capacity magazines. And then it proceeds to say that for those magazines not obtained in a buyback, with an exemption for existing large capacity magazines that they would have to rely on the magazines degrading or waiting the decades until they are no longer compatible with guns in circulation.
NOWHERE IS IT SAYING, 'WELL THEN WE'VE GOT TO CONFISCATE THOSE MAGAZINES FROM PRIVATE CITIZENS."
YOU are inferring that, in a paranoid manner, but that is not what the Justice Department is saying.
I'm not arguing about this point any further. I swear, arguing with gun nuts is like arguing with a bunch of 5-year-olds.
Reducing your right to own a high-capacity firing weapon does not restrict your civil rights. Why would anyone need a gun like that? And don't say to stave off droves of highly armed invaders of your home. I saw Biden state on the news that the White House tried to find even ONE instance in the U.S. of a home being invaded by multiple intruders with high-capacity weapons. They could not find even one.
So much fail.
Do you want to restrict how long a newspaper can be?
I just spent 45 seconds on google and found this article where 3 criminals committed a home invasion. Thankfully the homeowners was armed and killed 1 of the criminals. I guess he didn't need more than 10 rounds.
Police say around 3:30 a.m. Saturday, armed suspects burst into a home on Haven Court, trying to rob those inside. Instead, one of the homeowners would grab a gun, and after an exchange of gunfire, the homeowner and two suspects would be wounded, while another suspect was shot dead.
And here is a horrible video where two people were executed by 3 home invaders (which one had a gun with a high capacity magazine). This took me 2 minutes to find. Biden is lying to you!!!
How can you say that when it clearly says in the quote you yourself just posted that the issue of previously owned magazine issue would be addressed with an extensive buyback of existing large capacity magazines. And then it proceeds to say that for those magazines not obtained in a buyback, with an exemption for existing large capacity magazines that they would have to rely on the magazines degrading or waiting the decades until they are no longer compatible with guns in circulation.
NOWHERE IS IT SAYING, 'WELL THEN WE'VE GOT TO CONFISCATE THOSE MAGAZINES FROM PRIVATE CITIZENS."
YOU are inferring that, in a paranoid manner, but that is not what the Justice Department is saying.
I'm not arguing about this point any further. I swear, arguing with gun nuts is like arguing with a bunch of 5-year-olds.
How would you get the the magazines? Ask people to give them to you? And when they don't, bribe them? And when they still don't?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
