Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Feb 9, 2013, 04:50 PM   #51
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by vastoholic View Post
I don't get the large capacity magazine argument. I will give you this, the drum magazine is way over the top for non military use. They are impractical to carry extra's for one thing. Changing out a magazine does not take that much time so I don't see what limiting the amount of ammo a magazine can carry as the person can just carry a bunch of extra magazines.
Which is why I would require magazines to be fixed as well as limited in capacity.

Though that's not likely to happen.
citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2013, 04:52 PM   #52
thekev
macrumors 603
 
thekev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Am I the only one that wants to see this pink AR-15?
__________________
world's largest manufacturer of tin foil hats, none of that aluminum foil crap.
thekev is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2013, 05:06 PM   #53
vastoholic
macrumors 68000
 
vastoholic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Tulsa, OK
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Which is why I would require magazines to be fixed as well as limited in capacity.

Though that's not likely to happen.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAid4-ONeko

Still doesn't take that long to reload. Although a bit harder if you are in some type of high intensity situation. Your hands would fumble around more.

Does this sentiment apply to pistols as well? What is the magic safe number of rounds that a gun should be able to fire before having to reload?
__________________
View my flickr sets....if you want. They're not too exciting.
vastoholic is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2013, 05:11 PM   #54
samiwas
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Atlanta, GA
Originally Posted by samiwas
I'm making a claim that I don't think people should be able to own:
- Fully automatic weapons already illegal unless you acquire the proper licensing.
- Large magazines for semi automatic weapons what's the magic number for you?
- Weapons-grade nuclear/radioactive material who can afford it?
- Chemicals which can be used in biological warfare See above. If you know how to get a hold of it, then you are not an average citizen.
- Grenades already illegal
- Missile launchers already illegal

Of course! Everything you said in red is true, as it should be. But you will find that the individual I was responding to frequently asserts that nothing should be illegal to own. Owning something should simply be a matter of "I want it, so I should have it". Whether or not they already are illegal or too expensive doesn't matter to me, as I was using them as examples. Just because something is too expensive for the average person doesn't mean that it should be exempt from ownership requirements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vastoholic View Post
I don't get the large capacity magazine argument. I will give you this, the drum magazine is way over the top for non military use. They are impractical to carry extra's for one thing. Changing out a magazine does not take that much time so I don't see what limiting the amount of ammo a magazine can carry as the person can just carry a bunch of extra magazines.
I would say 8-10 shots maximum. And it may not take long, but someone might only need that second or two to react.

Quote:
As for why we have so many:
We have guns specifically for home defense, we have guns that are collectors items, we have guns that modeled after historical firearms (civil war type black powder rifles and pistols), we have guns that we shoot trap and skeet with, we have guns that we take to the range with to have fun. We have guns that we hunt with. We have guns that we handed down from other family members. I have a commemorative pistol that was a limited run just for my unit from my last deployment. My dad keeps a majority in a large safe when not in use and even I don't know the code. I keep my one pistol in it's originally purchased box unloaded and hidden out of view from anyone (I don't have a safe yet).
Collector's items and historical other guns which may not even work don't really bother me. And you might also notice that I don't think I've said that we should ban guns or limit the number of guns people have. I wouldn't care if they did, but I don't necessarily support the idea.

I just appreciate when someone says that their guns are more toys (like for hunting, trap shooting, etc) than that they need them all for self defense and government tyranny.
__________________
A lack of planning on your part should not constitute an emergency on mine.
samiwas is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2013, 05:13 PM   #55
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by vastoholic View Post
Does this sentiment apply to pistols as well? What is the magic safe number of rounds that a gun should be able to fire before having to reload?
Yup. Pistols too.

Max bullets: six.

I'm grandfathering in the standard that helped win the West.

Good enough for them ... good enough for you.
citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2013, 05:17 PM   #56
ucfgrad93
macrumors G5
 
ucfgrad93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Colorado
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
Yup. Pistols too.

Max bullets: six.

I'm grandfathering in the standard that helped win the West.

Good enough for them ... good enough for you.
Maybe we should that same standard for Freedom of the Press. So, that means the printed word and the telegraph.

It is good enough back then, so it is good enough for you today.
ucfgrad93 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2013, 05:22 PM   #57
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by ucfgrad93 View Post
Maybe we should that same standard for Freedom of the Press. So, that means the printed word and the telegraph.

It is good enough back then, so it is good enough for you today.
You show me the 30,000+ killed each year by a free press and I might just agree with you.
citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2013, 05:23 PM   #58
7thson
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Six Rivers, CA
But it doesn't matter....that is not what this thread is about.[/QUOTE]

Back to your question. The answer seems perfectly obvious: it's her gun, she wants to sell it, she should sell it. You can inform her of your opinion, then let her make her own choice.
7thson is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2013, 05:23 PM   #59
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
You show me the 30,000+ killed each year by a free press and I might just agree with you.
Well to be fair only 1/3rd of those are related to people killing each other, and obviously you don't legislate accidents, and suicides are something we can work to prevent.
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2013, 05:26 PM   #60
ucfgrad93
macrumors G5
 
ucfgrad93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Colorado
Quote:
Originally Posted by citizenzen View Post
You show me the 30,000+ killed each year by a free press and I might just agree with you.
Sorry, but if one of our rights is restricted to the late 19th century then they all should be.
ucfgrad93 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2013, 05:32 PM   #61
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by ucfgrad93 View Post
Sorry, but if one of our rights is restricted to the late 19th century then they all should be.
That makes sense.



If you have cancer of the testicles, should they remove your heart too?
citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2013, 05:57 PM   #62
Macky-Mac
macrumors 68020
 
Macky-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by glocke12 View Post
....Were my fears ungrounded ? No...
To say your fears weren't ungrounded would mean that what you feared actually happened......so sorry but yes, your fears were unfounded......you just feel victim to a panic being spread based on fear and propaganda among the gun sub-culture

Quote:
Originally Posted by glocke12 View Post
.....Really?
what? you're seriously not aware there's a gun buying panic after every mass shooting spree that catches the media's attention ????

Quote:
Originally Posted by thekev View Post
Am I the only one that wants to see this pink AR-15?
no, I'd like to see it too
Macky-Mac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2013, 06:38 PM   #63
TPadden
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by thekev View Post
Am I the only one that wants to see this pink AR-15?





Last edited by TPadden; Feb 9, 2013 at 06:46 PM.
TPadden is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2013, 06:58 PM   #64
Macky-Mac
macrumors 68020
 
Macky-Mac's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Quote:
Originally Posted by TPadden View Post
sweet!
Macky-Mac is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 9, 2013, 07:03 PM   #65
thekev
macrumors 603
 
thekev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Thanks. That hello kitty rifle is pretty funny.
__________________
world's largest manufacturer of tin foil hats, none of that aluminum foil crap.
thekev is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2013, 02:55 AM   #66
Eraserhead
macrumors G4
 
Eraserhead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by ucfgrad93 View Post
Sorry, but if one of our rights is restricted to the late 19th century then they all should be.
So if there was a constitutional right to ride a horse on any road would you make the same argument?
Eraserhead is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2013, 05:06 AM   #67
glocke12
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky-Mac View Post
To say your fears weren't ungrounded would mean that what you feared actually happened......so sorry but yes, your fears were unfounded......you just feel victim to a panic being spread based on fear and propaganda among the gun sub-culture

No, it does not mean that, or maybe I phrased that incorrectly. Lets just say it STILL may happen at the federal level but it is going to take longer and be more difficult than I thought it was.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky-Mac View Post
what? you're seriously not aware there's a gun buying panic after every mass shooting spree that catches the media's attention ????
There has NEVER been a panic the likes of which is going on now.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by samiwas View Post

So I'm curious about this point. Most of the people who are hardcore "must have guns!" types claim the self-defense need. Unless you have a third arm, I'd say you could never use more than two guns at any given time. Why have so many others? Because I don't think it's not about self defense. It's about toys.
Self-defense is a reason I have them, but, I have them for several reasons besides self defense...different guns serve a different purpose. I have ARs that I use for dedicated match shooting, I have some I bought because of the way they are configured (different barrel lengths, rail systems, one is built as a dedicated 22 rimfire rifle, etc), and I also have some I bought because I liked the rollmark (manufacturers stamping on the side).
glocke12 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2013, 06:41 AM   #68
rdowns
macrumors Penryn
 
rdowns's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by TPadden View Post
pink ****

What a great idea. Let's make semi-automatic rifles that look like toys.
__________________
The distance in time between 1980 and now is the same amount as the distance in time between 1980 and WWII.
rdowns is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2013, 07:07 AM   #69
fat jez
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Glasgow, UK
I'm glad it's not just me thought that.
fat jez is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2013, 07:17 AM   #70
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
What a great idea. Let's make semi-automatic rifles that look like toys.
Well it looks less scary, maybe people will quit being irrationally afraid
eric/ is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2013, 07:25 AM   #71
fat jez
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Glasgow, UK
Quote:
Originally Posted by eric/ View Post
Well it looks less scary, maybe people will quit being irrationally afraid
Silly me, being irrationally afraid of something that was designed to kill
fat jez is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2013, 08:04 AM   #72
TPadden
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by rdowns View Post
What a great idea. Let's make semi-automatic rifles that look like toys.
Make up your mind ...... You want to ban the ones that look deadly.
TPadden is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2013, 08:58 AM   #73
D*I*S_Frontman
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Lombard, IL
Rarely does public discourse witness a red herring as ridiculously obvious as the machinations over so-called " assault rifles."

There are approximately 10,000 firearm deaths in the U.S. That's twice that of most developed nations in Europe, and it's certainly an awful annual tragedy. But out of that 10,000 deaths, less than 4% are the result of rifles of ANY KIND, and less than 2% from semiautomatic tactical rifles. Over 95% of gun deaths involve pistols.

In fact, almost 50% of the time, a gun homicide occurs according to a single scenario: an African American male murders another African American male with an illegally-obtained handgun. Remove that one scenario from consideration and our gun death rates are comparable to the rest of the developed world.

Dealing with issues of systemic inner city poverty and violence and better screening and treatment of mental illness would be 100x more effective to stop the carnage. But such issues are fraught with complexity and much more difficult to demagogue.

Statistically speaking, civilian-owned semiautomatic tactical rifles are a non-factor in the gun violence issue, except for the extraordinarily rare, media-hyped mass killing by a disturbed person. Crimes are almost never committed with these firearms.

Use some common sense: no one is going to commit a rape, armed robbery, or murder with an AR-15. Criminals are seldom rich and a cheap handgun can be bought on the street for less than $300, a decent new Glock for $600. AR-15s are extremely expensive, and the accessories often cost more than the basic rifle itself--in the $2500-3000 range. A handgun can be easily concealed to prevent your mark or law enforcement from suspecting you of possessing one, while an AR-15 is huge and obvious. A Glock can hold 16 rounds in a magazine, swapping out mags takes barely two seconds, and carrying a dozen mags under a coat, completely concealed, is totally doable.

Only those who have no experiential knowledge of firearms can call for assault rifle bans while maintaining tolerance for hunting rifles and handguns. The latter are used in violent crime 98% of the time, assault rifles <2% of the time.
__________________
Divine In Sight
Spiritual Art Rock
Sorrow & Promise available from CDBaby & iTunes
O Nox Ultima Work In Progress
D*I*S_Frontman is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2013, 09:16 AM   #74
citizenzen
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by D*I*S_Frontman View Post
Only those who have no experiential knowledge of firearms can call for assault rifle bans while maintaining tolerance for hunting rifles and handguns. The latter are used in violent crime 98% of the time, assault rifles <2% of the time.
Again, I don't care how black and scary, or pink and cute your weapon is. I'm looking to achieve two things that limit the guns capability: limit the magazine capacity and fix the magazine so it can't be swapped out in a second or two.

This limitation would apply to all guns, not just "assault rifles", including handguns as well. I agree with you that the attempt to just go after assault rifles is misguided. But I do think we need to take measures to make guns safer in order to reduce the number of fatalities this country is experiencing on a daily basis.
citizenzen is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Feb 10, 2013, 09:29 AM   #75
eric/
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Ohio, United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by D*I*S_Frontman View Post
Rarely does public discourse witness a red herring as ridiculously obvious as the machinations over so-called " assault rifles."

There are approximately 10,000 firearm deaths in the U.S. That's twice that of most developed nations in Europe, and it's certainly an awful annual tragedy. But out of that 10,000 deaths, less than 4% are the result of rifles of ANY KIND, and less than 2% from semiautomatic tactical rifles. Over 95% of gun deaths involve pistols.

In fact, almost 50% of the time, a gun homicide occurs according to a single scenario: an African American male murders another African American male with an illegally-obtained handgun. Remove that one scenario from consideration and our gun death rates are comparable to the rest of the developed world.

Dealing with issues of systemic inner city poverty and violence and better screening and treatment of mental illness would be 100x more effective to stop the carnage. But such issues are fraught with complexity and much more difficult to demagogue.

Statistically speaking, civilian-owned semiautomatic tactical rifles are a non-factor in the gun violence issue, except for the extraordinarily rare, media-hyped mass killing by a disturbed person. Crimes are almost never committed with these firearms.

Use some common sense: no one is going to commit a rape, armed robbery, or murder with an AR-15. Criminals are seldom rich and a cheap handgun can be bought on the street for less than $300, a decent new Glock for $600. AR-15s are extremely expensive, and the accessories often cost more than the basic rifle itself--in the $2500-3000 range. A handgun can be easily concealed to prevent your mark or law enforcement from suspecting you of possessing one, while an AR-15 is huge and obvious. A Glock can hold 16 rounds in a magazine, swapping out mags takes barely two seconds, and carrying a dozen mags under a coat, completely concealed, is totally doable.

Only those who have no experiential knowledge of firearms can call for assault rifle bans while maintaining tolerance for hunting rifles and handguns. The latter are used in violent crime 98% of the time, assault rifles <2% of the time.

Great post. It's sad that the anti-gun crowd has become so vehemently opposed to reason and factual evidence that they choose to ignore problems, and offer solutions to the problems that don't exist, while seeking to push their point of view on others, violently if necessary. It's gross, intellectually dishonest, and tyrannical.

Approximately

1/3rd of gun deaths are from homicides

The vast majority of these are caused by handguns, and gang on gang violence.

So how can we fix this?

Some would offer solutions such as "ban assault rifles" or "limit magazine capacity"

But in what way does this solve the majority of gun violence?

It doesn't. So you have to ask yourself, why the heck are we focusing on weapons, and problems that are the vast minority of issues related to gun violence in the country?
eric/ is offline   0 Reply With Quote


Reply
MacRumors Forums > Mac Community > Community Discussion > Politics, Religion, Social Issues

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:28 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC