“Well it's the only argument for limitations on mags, period. Good job paying attention when you watch MSNBC. Arguments against? -a criminal can weld an extended clip in his garage in 10 mins -or carry multiple guns -defense against tyranny (I always find it strange that libs don't take this one seriously when every terrible dictator from Hitler to Stalin to Mao to Castro started by outlawing tools self defense) -10 rounds is not enough for a person to defend themselves from a gang of attackers, and those rounds can go fast in a high pressure situation -most importantly, when you're trying to restrict a Constitutional right, the burden is on you to prove that the restriction will have any positive effect. Haven't heard any yet.”
“The only law related to guns that has proven time and again to reduce violent crime is to allow citizens the right to concealed carry. However, if you delve into the data of gun crimes in this country, you'll find that the vast majority of those crimes occur in small pockets in urban areas. Therefore, the most effective way to solve this probem in the long run is to take a micro look at each problem area and improve educaton, increase police presence, etc. The sweeping reforms on the table in congress may sound nice (unless you're a thinking person), but no real improvement in gun crime or violent crime can be made with a one-size-fits-all federal mandate.”
“Even judicial activists view the first ten amendments as permanent, sacred rights. You don't hear questions like "Should free speech or religious freedom be legal?" You're in your own corner of Leftyville, my friend. ”
“J.W.Booth ghosted Lincoln with a single shot derringer. But you boys think limiting clips to 10 rounds would make a difference. Libs are just as clueless as they've always been.”
Ron Battista II on Feb 5, 2013 at 19:26:04
“Those critical seconds where a gunman has to reload and charge his weapon might be enough for someone to stop a small massacre from turning into a big one. I don't pretend to know what the government is thinking, but that would be my only argument for limitations on mags.”
darrtown on Feb 5, 2013 at 19:17:32
“So, I take it you are in favor of mass carnage as opposed to one at a time?”
buckrogere on Feb 5, 2013 at 19:15:37
“If it won't make a difference - why do you oppose it?”
“Thank you for your brevity - what you lack in facts, wit, intelligence and truth - you more than make up for in brevity - the NRA is lucky to have you as their champion - since the less said about the NRA - the better.”
“I did ask for a "solid argument." And with a slogan like "Elitist Liberal," combined with your argument that your single view should speak for all taxpayers, you were asking to be knocked down a peg.”
“1- I'm sorry for trying to make a legitimate response to that, allowing you to point out the .01% times it doesn't work. What I should've said is- If you're worried about a teacher using a gun on students, why would it matter if they were allowed to bring the gun to school or not?
3- If they freeze up, we are no worse off. If they don't, we are much better off.”
“Well, if you actually make that accusation in public, don't expect to be taken seriously. Your pals at HP aren't a great representation of society at large.”
rhdlosangeles on Jan 16, 2013 at 20:48:54
“Madam -- I would have no problem stating that fact - do you know what a fact is - stating that fact in public. The NRA is not an advocate for safe and responsible gun use - they are only an advocate for gun sales - that is all they have ever been.
And Madam - the NRA says they have 4 million members - and that number - like everything else they say - is questionable - Obama - who introduced the measures they are frothing at the mouth over - got 65, 899, 625 votes - perhaps it is you my good woman who should peddle your lazy lies about the NRA in public.
“Like I said, I've been down this road a million times recently, so if you can't follow up on data that's your problem. All I'm gonna say is that if my argument is flawed because of correlation instead of causation, yours is doubly wrong for the exact same reason. Except I actually explained why homicide rates are higher in US, and your only specific argument was to rant about my phrase that NZ "remained free." Which it is compared to most of Europe and Australia.
But given that there are anywhere from 100K to 1 million defensive gun uses per yr in this country, and combined w/ our relatively low violent crime rate, it should be pretty clear that there's a direct relationship between the ability to defend oneself and violent crime.
And given the demographic similarities between NZ & Australia & the fact the had similar violent crime rates in 1996, but Australia's has shot up by 42% (including a steep rise in 1996-1997) while NZ's has remained about the same, I'd say that's about as good a controlled study as you'll get in real life.”
Michael Gibb on Jan 16, 2013 at 21:53:05
“By the way, you still haven't responded to the simple fact that the United States has the third highest intentional homicide rate of the OECD, surpassed only by Mexico and Estonia, but has the highest rate of gun ownership in the World.
If, as you argue less gun legislation, or more guns leads to a lower rates of crime, then why does the United States have one of the highest homicide rates?
The evidence suggests a lack of the causative effect you are proposing.”
Michael Gibb on Jan 16, 2013 at 21:28:44
“But the problem with your argument is that you don't rely in long-term trends in crime rates. All you rely on is the statistical change in the years when the gun laws were enacted.
You argument is also completely dishonest by comparing the US violent crime rate to the CHANGE in violent crime rate of Australia. You should be comparing the actual crime rates, which clearly show the US has a higher rate of violent crime than Australia. If the legislation does cause an increase as you suggest, that increase should continue over the long term at the same or similar rates.
But the statistics don't prove that. The data provided by the Australian Institute of Criminology says that assaults increased from 623 per 100,000 in 1996 to 840 in 2007, that it occurred without any sharp increase, and that it in fact decreased from 2002-2004. Homicides increased from 1.9 per 100,000 in 1996 to 2.0 in 1999, even accounting for the Port Arthur Massacre, but by 2007 dropped to 1.3 per 100,000. If the gun law reform caused an increase then why has the homicide rate decreased?
By the way, if you're going to argue that the legislation caused the increase in violent crime then you need to rule out all other possible causes. Which you clearly don't do. All you rely on is a correlation between an increase in the year the legislation was passed.”
“What the hell is that matter with you? Why would you suggest keeping it in a holster? Are you that dull, or was that just the simplest way to talk down the idea? Come back with a real argument that addresses the security measures I've suggested.”
“They don't have to do it if they're not interested. And there are plenty of other taxpayers who have an opinion too. I see you're a self-proclaimed elitist hippy, but that doesn't give you the right to speak for others. Regardless, your concern is silly, as no teacher who was going to use the gun against their students would need permission to bring a gun to school. You libs never seem to nail down that concept.”
BeasleysMom on Jan 16, 2013 at 20:36:23
“Elitist hippy? You libs? You people are so full of hate.You are always unable to conduct a conversation without ug ly talk. And, you have the nerve to say Obama is dividing America.”