This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
So, to sum up: My anecdotal evidence > your anecdotal evidence
Lol, oh dear...
including an AK47 with a several large capacity magazines
Not to nitpick too much, but isn't an AK47 a fully automatic assault rifle with the ability to spray indiscriminate damage?
Post by
Gone
a legitimate reason for wanting high capacity magazines
I think this is the line where you and I disagree. I don't believe that there is any legitimate reason for having a high capacity magazine if you're not in law enforcement or the military.
Let me ask you this then. Using the example that we have been talking about, people preparing for social upheaval, do you think that their concerns are unwarranted, and thus they have no real need for high capacity magazines, or that they simply wouldn't need a high capacity magazine should their worst fears (or hopes) of nation wide disaster actually occur.
Not to nitpick too much, but isn't an AK47 a fully automatic assault rifle with the ability to spray indiscriminate damage?
They make full auto and semiauto AK47s. The full auto is the military grade rifle that has the ability to indiscriminately spray bullets, and is illegal to own without a machine gun license (and good luck getting that).
Semiauto AK47s fire one bullet every time you pull the trigger, and can be owned with a simple FID card.
Depending on the state, the definition of an assault rifle differs. In my own home state of MA, a semiautomatic AK47 is only considered an assault rifle (and thus illegal) if it has more than two "evil parts" (collapsible stock, muzzle suppressor, bayonet mount, pistol grip, etc.).
Post by
Monday
Lol, oh dear...
Squish, read the stuff in parenthesis =P
Obviously, I'm going to believe my own experience more than someone else's anecdotal evidence, just as Ryja is going to believe his own experience more than someone else's anecdotal evidence.
Using the example that we have been talking about, people preparing for social upheaval, do you think that their concerns are unwarranted, and thus they have no real need for high capacity magazines, or that they simply wouldn't need a high capacity magazine should their worst fears (or hopes) of nation wide disaster actually occur.
I think that an actual, nation-wide disaster (which can't be contained by the US gov and its allies) won't happen until long after most of these people are dead and gone.
Post by
Gone
I think that an actual, nation-wide disaster (which can't be contained by the US gov and its allies) won't happen until long after most of these people are dead and gone.
Okay, two final questions:
First, do you consider yourself enough of an expert to make that definitive judgment? We're all only human after all. What if something like what happened in Japan a few years ago happened here, only hit hit Manhattan, and basically wipes Wall Street off the map, and collapses our economy almost overnight. What if domestic radicals actually become powerful enough that some kind of revolution actually happens. What if another major terrorist attack happens, but this time they decide to go after one of the major oil pipelines that we rely on for fuel. Look at what happened in New Orleans; rich people got evaluated early, and poor people were stabbing each other of sneakers. It's not like we haven't had riots in this country, in recent memory no less, that claimed people's lives and the police were unable to put them down fast enough.
Second, do you really think that banning high capacity magazines will make any sort of profound difference in curbing violence in cases where some maniac decides he wants to go massacre a bunch of innocent people?
Post by
Monday
Second, do you really think that banning high capacity magazines will make any sort of profound difference in curbing violence in cases where some maniac decides he wants to go massacre a bunch of innocent people?
To answer this first, yes. Longer reload times, forcing them to carry extra clips and weapons, which will let them be caught easier, etc.
To answer the first part: I think that if I plan for every conceivable natural disaster that may have a slight chance of happening, I'd never leave my house. Most of those disasters have an extremely low chance of happening, which I'm just not willing to best on.
For the revolution: I doubt it. For American society, status quo is God. Why do you think it's so hard to change anything in America? If a revolution just happened to get started, I imagine the combined police/military force would put it down handily.
Again, we can go around all day long with "what if" scenarios. But, frankly, I have no interest in that. Major disasters happen and tend to get cleared up fairly quickly, without any need for a disaster prepper to fend off huge gangs of thugs with their high capacity magazines. Until such things begin to happen, I'll continue living my life under the assumption that America's truly titanic defense budget and the abilities of its disaster relief (and various non-profit organizations as well, seeing as how most are American based) will keep me safe from any sort of world-changing disaster.
You might call me naive. I'll counter with paranoia, considering none of these disasters ever happen like the preppers predict they will.
Post by
Gone
Well I guess we have to agree to disagree. I believe that, however unlikely, people should be able to prepare for these scenarios as is reasonable.
If I actually had any faith in high capacity magazine bans doing anything substantial to curb violence then maybe I would agree that this would outweigh the chances of them doing preppers any good. I just don't think that prohibition really works though. All it ever does is create a black market and makes criminals more powerful. Drugs are illegal and narcotics are still laughably easy for criminals to obtain. If somebody really wants to kill a large number of people, they're going to do it one way or another.
Post by
Monday
I believe that, however unlikely, people should be able to prepare for these scenarios as is reasonable.
I think that storing food, water, etc is completely reasonable. Gathering an arsenal is not.
If somebody really wants to kill a large number of people, they're going to do it one way or another.
Once again, though, by this logic I could argue that we can deregulate automatics, grenades, etc.
Post by
Gone
There are other considerations with regards to fully automatic weapons and military grade explosives. It's a completely different weapon, as opposed to a high capacity magazine, which is really just a slightly enhanced version of what is already legal.
Post by
Monday
To take an earlier example, then, what about the AK47? Should we deregulate the fully automatic version?
Post by
Gone
To take an earlier example, then, what about the AK47? Should we deregulate the fully automatic version?
I don't think we should deregulate anything. My problem is with blanket bans.
What about this, if we put federal regulations in place for high capacity magazines, and remove the state by state bans, responsible people would be able to obtain them no matter where they lived, and the crazies would have a more difficult time getting their hands on them than they do now, in even the most restrictive states.
The problem with solutions like this is that the pro gun crowd are almost always vehemently against giving added power to the federal government, and the anti gun crowd rarely wants to give any ground in the states with which they hold sway. Really at the end of the day I blame party polarization more than I do the radical left or right.
Post by
Monday
Really at the end of the day I blame party polarization more than I do the radical left or right.
I can agree with this.
And thanks for talking. I've been sick all day, so some of my frustration might have leaked out. Sorry about that. I don't really have anything left to debate about, since there comes a point where ideological differences will never be overcome and it's pointless to just harp on about it.
So yeah, I'll leave you to Squish =P
Post by
Gone
No problem, I apologize if I came off as a bit rude to you earlier.
Post by
Squishalot
So yeah, I'll leave you to Squish =P
I've not really had an ideological view on this one way or the other. My main goal in this thread was just to clarify what Australia's laws were on gun regulation, and just ended up questioning a couple of things. I'm not emotionally tied to the argument one way or the other.
I think that as a country, you've got much bigger issues in terms of state-by-state regulation of pretty much everything, and that no generally agreed position will be worth anything at all while you have dissenting states since those powers aren't held at the federal level.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Skreeran
I'm not worried about an invasion. I'm not worried about terrorist attacks any more than I'm worried about being hit by lightning. If people turn up at my house and want to rob me with threats of violence, and my billhook isn't scary enough, I'll let them take what they want, and put in an insurance claim.
Read this.
I don't trust home invaders with my life.
Post by
asakawa
Storms in Britain caused by gay marriage, says local politician
The scriptures make it abundantly clear that a Christian nation that abandons its faith and acts contrary to the Gospel (and in naked breach of a coronation oath*) will be beset by natural disasters such as storms, disease, pestilence and war
Sheesh! This is the kind of lunacy you don't see often in this country where religion is all about cups of tea with the Vicar after service on a Sunday rather than ignorant frothing like this. However UKIP is constantly getting embarrassed when their racist, reichwing, and now religious nut, candidates actually say things out loud instead of toeing the party line and trying to maintain a non-extremist façade. This is just the latest case.
It's at once arrogant, insulting (to his own faith) and cowardly to claim that he knows the mind of his god, that the wrath of that god is demonstrated by some slightly more drizzly and miserable weather than usual and that it's not his will that homosexual marriage be outlawed but a deity's. What a fool.
* btw, the "coronation oath" is the oath a new monarch makes in England, the pertinent part of which is:
Will you to the utmost of your power maintain the Laws of God and the true profession of the Gospel? Will you to the utmost of your power maintain in the United Kingdom the Protestant Reformed Religion established by law? Will you maintain and preserve inviolably the settlement of the Church of England, and the doctrine, worship, discipline, and government thereof, as by law established in England? And will you preserve unto the Bishops and Clergy of England, and to the Churches there committed to their charge, all such rights and privileges, as by law do or shall appertain to them or any of them?
The Queen has a complex relationship to the Parliament but she has to (in a largely ceremonial way) assent to the passing of new bills. I think that this is what Silvester is blathering on about there.
Post by
134377
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Monday
Get lots of those stories in America. They make me laugh every time.
Post by
asakawa
The weird bit for me is that I just find myself thinking that if I believed in the same general deity as this guy (specific denominations aside) I would be livid that he would paint a picture of such a limp and petty god. Whether you agree with the religious opposition to gay marriage or not, surely nobody wants to be associated with someone claiming their deity of choice is one that would make it a wee bit more windy in the UK in reaction to a political decision on social policy. If one ever needed reminding of man's muddy footprints all over the carpet of organised religion, there's a good example.
Makes me wanna spit!(##RESPBREAK##)16##DELIM##asakawa##DELIM##
Post by
Skreeran
That's a shame. I really don't like isolationism, whether it be from the USA or the UK or any other major power. Putting your fingers in your ears and ignoring the rest of the world is really bad for the fight against world suck.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.