Really Biden?

[MuddyPaws1]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

I'm glad you brought up shotguns because It will help illustrate a point.

You can own a shotgun, but if you want to own a shotgun with a barrel length less than 18" you'll have to jump through a lot more hoops than the average citizen wants to deal with.

A fraction of an inch of barrel length can be the difference between a legal and an illegal shotgun.

Cutting the barrel off a shotgun doesn't make it's rate of fire any different. It does make it easier to conceal it on your person though.

Likewise your "super scary black gun" can be restricted in ways that allows you to own a super scary black gun while at the same time enhancing public safety. Restricting magazine size and fixing the magazine are just two ways to accomplish that.

Limiting magazine size will do nothing to enhance public safety. Identifying and treating people with mental issues, stricter background checks, public education, and gun owners securing their weapons so others can not access them will.

It's really far less about how super scary your weapon looks, and more about what it's capable of doing.

No, no it's not. Under the AWB, the gun on the top was legal, the one on the bottom was not. The capability of the two weapons is exactly the same. One just looks scary.



The last AWB banned a whole bunch of weapons based on how they looked and had nothing to do with how deadly they were. If your rifle had a pistol grip, a bayonet mount or a flash suppressor it was banned. Why? Does that make them more deadly? If your shotgun had a pistol grip and could hold more than 5 rounds it was an assault weapon and was banned.

Did any of these help public safety? No. The Department of Justice even stated that there was no evidence that the AWB reduced crime.

[IBradMac]

I saw a Mac-10 on tv last night. Makes me want to get a class 3.

[citizenzen]

Let's agree on something first ...

Originally Posted by MuddyPaws1

No, no it's not. Under the AWB, the gun on the top was legal, the one on the bottom was not. The capability of the two weapons is exactly the same. One just looks scary.

How a gun looks should not matter. The only thing that should be considered is how it performs. Hopefully the public and our politicians are learning how to discern this difference and are capable of focusing on the more important aspect of firearms.

Originally Posted by MuddyPaws1

The last AWB banned a whole bunch of weapons based on how they looked and had nothing to do with how deadly they were.

• • •

Did any of these help public safety? No. The Department of Justice even stated that there was no evidence that the AWB reduced crime.

If you're going to allude to DOJ evidence, then you should provide it.

Source please.

Okay. Now on to the disagreement ...

Originally Posted by MuddyPaws1

Limiting magazine size will do nothing to enhance public safety.

I probably shouldn't focus unduly over your choosing the word "nothing" but there have been a number of people killed by shooters using high-capacity magazines. Removing the capability to spray dozens of bullets in a few seconds surely would have some impact on public safety. Perhaps you should have added the word "significant" after "nothing". That would have lent some degree of reason to that argument.

Originally Posted by MuddyPaws1

Identifying and treating people with mental issues, stricter background checks, public education, and gun owners securing their weapons so others can not access them will.

I would love to hear how you think we can identify mental illness and categorize people in a way that would prevent some from getting guns.

What invasions of privacy are you willing to tolerate? What civil liberties are you willing to sacrifice with these plans?

You can't tolerate a magazine that holds only 10 bullets, but you welcome psychological tests, government databases that hold your mental profile and life experience and further government intrusion into your background?

That seems odd to me.

[MuddyPaws1]

Originally Posted by citizenzen

If you're going to allude to DOJ evidence, then you should provide it.

Source please.

Source has already been posted. Search it up. No time to respond to the rest.

[citizenzen]

Originally Posted by MuddyPaws1

Source has already been posted. Search it up. No time to respond to the rest.

Really Muddy?

If you can't source your evidence, then I'll disregard it.

[lannister80]

Originally Posted by MuddyPaws1

So you want to take my shotgun too? It has the same capability. With buck shot, in close range, it would be arguably more effective than the super scary black gun.

Um, yes, in that case I do. I could care less about what looks scary and/or black.

[MuddyPaws1]

Originally Posted by IBradMac

I saw a Mac-10 on tv last night. Makes me want to get a class 3.

On that auction show? I saw that too. That was pretty cool but dang, with the cost of ammo I would go broke. .45 acp rounds as fast as that thing went through them. I think it would be fun a few times but then I think fo rme at least the love affair would wear off pretty fast. There are no competitions around here for that kind of weapon and I wouldn't have much else use for it except pulling it out once in a while to show it off when the guys are over shooting.

But if someone wants one, that's fine with me.