PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum - Gun Banning perspective...

PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/)

- Off-Topic Discussion (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/off-topic-discussion/)

- - Gun Banning perspective... (http://www.peachparts.com/shopforum/off-topic-discussion/332341-gun-banning-perspective.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel (Post 3072279)

Both sides seem hell bent of getting ALL of the concessions from the other side, rather than each side yielding to some degree.

This is why nothing of any substance is going to happen. Even though a majority of Americans are willing to entertain some sort of restrictions on guns and or magazine capacities, the extremely vocal fringe on both sides, but particularly on the pro-gun side, won't budge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by cmbdiesel (Post 3072279)

Each victim was shot multiple times.

Well, the more fringe players on the gun rights side claim that gun free school zones are worse than nothing....:rolleyes:
And your argument is getting back to one of the root issues.
Anti-gun people do not want to have their rights and freedoms compromised in order for gun people to keep the status quo.
Both sides seem hell bent of getting ALL of the concessions from the other side, rather than each side yielding to some degree.

Which is why I offered the solutions of safer storage, better screening for new owners, and better security measures at high risk places. How is that taking away anyones rights?
Wouldn't it be better to take it step by step than do nothing at all? Wouldn't it be more aceptable to both sides to make changes gradually rather than sweeping legislation all at once?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benz Dr. (Post 3072293)

I'm on board with all those suggestions.

Unfortunately, because those are reasonable ideas, they will never make it to mainstream dialogue or acceptance, and likely both sides will consider you an evil puppet....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benz Dr. (Post 3072293)

I agree with most of it to the extent that I have My Guns locked up and most of them disembled.
I did that to try to prevent theft and so the Thief would not have an easy time selling the Guns if they manage to get them.

In this particular case that triggered this thread the Mother evidently allowed He Son access to the Guns.
If She had a Safe for Her Guns it was left unlocked or He had a way to get in. Note: I have not read any details on that.

I agree with School Security issues need fixing but what you are going to find out is that no one is going to want to pay for it.
Also you simply cannot secure everywhere.

But, if they were to pass a law saying that you had to have a Safe for your Guns how would that be enforced? Who is to say your Safe is actually locked or who has the combination or Key for it?

Would you want the Police of some other agency to come to your House and to do an inspection?
Would you want to lose part or all of a Days work waiting for someone to come inspect you.
Then there is the Cost of the Safe and if not a DIY you need to pay for installation.
All the above is in reality a deterrent to Gun Ownership.

A lot of good honest People just do not want any Police or Government inspectors in their House period.

I can't comment on an anser to "better screening for new owners" with out knowing what you mean by better screening.
I know that there is a 2 week waiting I think it is every Time you by a Hand Gunhere in CA and that during that time they are supposed to be checking something; I don't know what they check on.

If you are not a Veteren and have your DD214 to show that you were in the Service you have to take a Sefty Course. They assume you were trainded in Gun Safety if you were in the Military.

When you sell one of your own Hand Guns you have to go through a Gun Dealer and the Dealer holds the Gun for the waiting period while the backround check is done.

That is as much as I can remember.

Oddly what has not been commented on is that We all are supposed to have the right to be innocent till We are proven Guilty of something.

But, apparently anti gun ownership Folks don't share that view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benz Dr. (Post 3072293)

You offer?? You're not even a player in this. Not to offend, but you have nothing to offer because these aren't YOUR rights to dictate how they are exercised...

Those that want their rights lefts alone are being labelled as the "fringe" in this thread. That is by design. To control the discussion the anti gun crowd has to toss around labels while they claim to be the mouth piece of the center.

It an act of desperation due to the fact they know gun control is not the solution. But it has been conveniently attached to a hot topic and they are running with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diesel911 (Post 3072195)

I wrote the stuff in the other paragraphs first destracting Me from the obvious. In the case of the recent Murders we don't know who the Guy planned to shoot or even if He had a plan. But, if someone had mannaged to get away duing a Magazine Change it appears that He simply would have shot someone else that came along because there was no one there to stop Him from doing that.

It actually has already been done.
Back in the Civil War Quantrill’s Guerilla Riders besides the Revolvers on their Belt carried a bunch of other Revolvers in Holsters on their Saddle.

I find it difficult to imagine how Children could have gotten away even if a Magazine would have needed to have been changed. A lot of School Rooms only have one Door in and out.

I have not read that a 30 round Magazine was used in this recent Crime but I could have missed that.

Semiautomatic Pistols are extremely fast to change magazines on. When one Magazine is empty the Slide on the Gun is automatically held back. Typically you press a Button and the Empty Magazine falls out, at the same time you are doing that you are have hold of the full Magazine and already have it on the way to the Gun.
You slide it in and depress the Slide Release and a new Cartridge goes into the chamber and the Gun is now loaded.
And, you don't even need to see the Mgazine or Gun to to do that meaning a Person is watching the Target.

In CA they only allow 10 Shots pere Magazine. So in the case of the the recent Murders if He had on ly one gun that would have been 2 Magazine changes.

Changing a Rifle Magazine is slightly slower because the Rifle and Magazine are more cumbersom.

Not an expert but I been in the Army I have some experience with a real Assult Rifle and Automatic Piston.
My Father bought Me My First Rifle when I was about 9 years old and I have done a lot of reading/studying of civilian and Military Firearms as well as Historical stuff.

In the end I can't think of any way this sort of Murder could have been totally prevented because it was evidently planned.
I have mentioned better School Security as a deterent but someone could climb over or cut through most Fences that Schools have and enter the School that way.

Having armed Security Guards might have helped, but there is a risk that one of the Guards might fip out and become a Murder (the same with armed Teachers).
Also if someone knows there is Security Guard they would be the first ones shot.

Of all the things that run through My mind on the best deterrent I can think of is increased School Security that prevents anyone from bringing any Weapons or other illegal stuff into the School.

The real question is how much firepower we want to be legal. Freedom vs public safety. Sure in the past multiple six guns were used, so what, in the more distant past multiple muzzle loading pistols were carried. Interesting facts that prove nothing.......

Although it may be a minor point, if a gunman has to stop and reload every ten rounds it gives people a chance to rush him while he is doing it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplinville (Post 3071025)

There are those in this country, perhaps even some on this board, that think a complete ban of all firearms is the way to go after the shootings last week. Even though I don't think it will happen in my lifetime, the country is headed down that road with each new piece of legislation and regulation concerning firearms...give an inch, take a mile.

Anyway, we know from government numbers, that there were 9,484 firearm related homicides in 2008. Source

According to that mentality, banning guns would have saved roughly 9,500 innocent lives in one year.

What if I were to tell you that I know how to save 13,846 lives from violent deaths?? What if there was something else we could ban from society's use that could actually save roughly 47,000 lives each year?? Would you be willing to ban that item in hopes of saving these lives??

Click here to see what I think would help society more than banning firearms...

It's certainly something I could completely do without, and never miss it.

Unless there is a change in trends, it will eventually happen. Hitler made it happen to pave the way for taking full control of HIS people. The current regime, unchecked, will do the same thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplinville (Post 3072347)

You offer?? You're not even a player in this. Not to offend, but you have nothing to offer because these aren't YOUR rights to dictate how they are exercised...

Yeah! Butt out! This thread is for real Americans! You know, patriots who don't mind mopping up a child's brains off of a schoolroom floor once in a while if it means that we can preserve the right to run out to the sporting goods store for a semiauto rifle...for home defense...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road (Post 3072386)

Unless there is a change in trends, it will eventually happen. Hitler made it happen to pave the way for taking full control of HIS people. The current regime, unchecked, will do the same thing.

Another well-reasoned perspective...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benz Fan (Post 3072396)

:rolleyes:

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth (Post 3072381)

Although it may be a minor point, if a gunman has to stop and reload every ten rounds it gives people a chance to rush him while he is doing it.

Oh sure, Tom! This year it'll be a 10-round limit. Next year, a nine-round limit! Soon we'll be limited to six-round revolvers. It's a slippery slope designed to weaken the ability of true Americans to go into the woods and shoot-up old console TV's with large-magazined semiauto rifles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jplinville (Post 3072403)

:rolleyes:

That's all you have?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Benz Fan (Post 3072398)

Another well-reasoned perspective...

I'm very pleased that you are capable of realizing that!:)