Arm the teachers...seriously?

None of which changes the fact that an individual known to be mentally deranged, is being cited by yourself as if they were a source of wisdom and knowledge. That does not suggest credibility on the part of yourself.

 

The capacity to "slip through" ballistic protective gear when fired from a handgun. That, is the lie. They do not penetrate any more than any other handgun bullet. The bullet shape is that of a full metal jacketed round, creates no "great damage" other than a hole. You have no idea what you are talking about.

 

:Looks like the number is acceptable to you. Not to rational human beings, though.

As I said, don't be lazy.... read! There is no "policy". They are proposals. If you have any questions, make them in the appropriate thread.

 

"Deranged"... What an idiotic accusation. I, myself, believe that Reagan was one of the worst presidents in my lifetime. And he may have been in the early stages of Alzheimer by the end of his presidency (maybe). But he was most definitely not "deranged"

In any case, your statement is even more ridiculous because he was the President anyway. So if he wanted to make up a word, he had the authority to do so.

You are beginning to appear as one of those from whom it would be a waste of time to expect a rational argument.

 

Oh I read it, you just don't like the response and confronting the logic of it.

 

I've certainly never learned anything from any of your posts.

The police are not required to protect you, although you maintain their job is to protect you when it is not.

I'm not the one with the failure in logic.

 

What's the definition of "cop killer bullet" today?

 

Well of course not. Authority implies control, and I don't seek to control other people.

That's the job of those subscribing to progressive ideology.

 

Makes absolutely no difference on anything I have written from where they are fired.

 

Here ya go

http://www.politicalforum.com/index...hers-seriously.526909/page-56#post-1068973297

 

Yeah.....right. Well, like I said, you do your thing and i'll do mine and we'll both be happy.

 

If you happen to go up a couple of messages in this conversation to find out where this "authority" issue came up, and then re-read this response, you will see for yourself why you shouldn't write to this forum when you have already started your early Saturday partying... Caution: Don't attempt this unless you have given yourself a chance to sleep it off.

 

Well you'll just have to get used to being forced to think on Saturday morning.

 

So your definition still lacks a definition.

 

Perhaps you ought to avoid topics you admittedly don’t know a ******n thing about.

 

That was the whole distinction that the Teflon coating allowed handguns to penetrate ballistic protective gear...

 

Why would I do that. I enjoy mopping the floor with your ass on topics I know nothing about as much as I do on things I do know a lot about. In the end, I always seem to have just enough knowledge to do that.

 

Thanks. But it makes no difference to me. The only distinction I care about is the one I mentioned

 

Factually incorrect. No statement as to the number of deaths being acceptable was ever made on the part of myself. Only that the incidents being cited by yourself are exceedingly few, bordering on insignificant in terms of overall numbers. All of the mass shootings in united states history, would not even amount to one percent of the total number of firearm uses, especially legal uses, that are experienced every single year in the united states. The math and statistics simply do not support the position being presented by yourself.

No matter what, there will always be instances where someone decides that they are going to break the law, and kill other people. There is nothing that can be done about that development occurring. No matter what legal barriers are proposed and presented in a desperate effort to try and make murder somehow "more difficult" to carry out, it does not change anything.

As the matter was presented by yourself in this particular thread of discussion, this has now become the appropriate thread for their discussion as an extension. Therefore questions regarding such will be presented to yourself here in response to your own actions.

 

None of which changes that Ronald Reagan was known to be mentally ill at the time, and thus not a credible source of information. His statements carry no more validity, than the delusional ramblings of the average paranoid schizophrenic who believes they are possessed by demonic entities, receiving instructions and orders from extraterrestrials, or being spied on by the government through their dental implants.

When a rational argument cannot be presented, it is very difficult to present a rational argument in return. Let us take the proposal supported by yourself to prohibit the private ownership of any detachable box magazine capable of holding eleven rounds of ammunition. Pray tell, what was the exact science and methodology used in determining that no private individual anywhere, possessed a legitimate need or use for a magazine capable of holding eleven or more rounds of ammunition? How was it determined that ten rounds was the acceptable amount of ammunition?

Can such actually be answered by yourself? The same question has been presented numerous times, and not a single person who has supported such, and not one of them, not even Dianne Feinstein, has been able to explain the methodology of how this number was reached, and deemed appropriate. They support it, and yet they cannot explain it. What is rational about such?

 

Don’t hurt yourself patting yourself on the back. The barely-decipherable verbal diarrhea you try to pass off as an argument is a source of constant amusement.

 

The only way I have to understand what you believe is through what you say. When I mentioned a series of mass shootings, your description of them was, "Exceedingly rare" . If you don't want that to imply that you think that the number is not remarkable, you're going to need to clarify on the spot.

Well, there you go again. Why would you even compare the number of mass shootings to these "overall numbers" you mention, if you didn't think the numbers are acceptable?

You seem to believe that this comparison you make is relevant. It's like saying that the number of people killed killed in airplane accidents is so small, compared to the number of people who have ever flown, so we shouldn't make airlines or airplane manufacturers implement new safety measures or take any new steps to avoid them..

Your statement can only be interpreted as meaning that there is a certain number of mass shootings that, if not exceeded, we should not take any actions to reduce.

There will still be guns available for legal use if what I propose were to be implemented. But you are including those in your numbers.

Oh man! I'm tired of debunking this argument again and again. I fail to understand why people don't see the absurdity on their own.

Compare your above statement to:

-There will always be instnces where someone decides to break the law and steal
-There will always be instances where someone decides to break the law and drive over the speed limit
-There will always be instances where someone decides to break the rules and dive into the pool.

Therefore, we should not make any laws, regulations or rules that make it more difficult steal, drive over the speed limit or dive into the pool. Despite the fact that there are some that we could enact and would make it more difficult.​

I'll ask you what I have asked every single person who has made this ridiculous argument:

Can you name any law, regulation or rule in any area whatsoever, that has stopped every single occurrence of the action desbribe in it? Any area... any law.... any regulation... even a rule will do.

I'll tell you right now: you will not answer this question. I have asked it hundreds of times. At least a dozen on this forum alone. Nobody has answered. They have all either focused in some peripheral detail of my answer, thereby incurring in a Strawman fallacy, or simply skipped it altogether And yet, they still hold that anything like "... there will always be instances where someone decides that they are going to break the law, and kill other people" is a sensible or even a real argument against gun control that is even worth expressing.

It was not presented by me here. I presented it on the other thread. Here, I simply answered a poster's question. I will remit you to the appropriate thread regarding any question that is answered there.

 

You still don't get it? Or are you just faking that you don't get it? I'll explain it one last time.

I'm not talking about "information". Reagan was never a credible source of "information" even before he was ill. I'm talking about the expression "cop-killer bullets". The media used it, the public used it and, more importantly, the President of the United States used it. Therefore the expression exists. So even if you were to argue some sort of conspiracy between the public and the media (the go-to argument for the right these days when they have no real arguments), the fact that the President of the United States at the time used it to describe something makes it a real thing. Doesn't matter if his statements carry "validity". It only matters that they carry the power of the office of the Presidency of the United States.

Nobody has argued that it should be any other particular number. So 10 is as good as any. But if somebody came out saying that the number should be 12, or 15, I for one would listen to their arguments.

I'm not sure if this is where the number came from, but there might be an anecdotal reason. Here it is: In the Tucson shooting, the shooter used a 33-round magazine. He was stopped only after he shot all rounds and paused to swap magazines. when he was in the process, one of those present jumped him and disarmed him. The investigation determined where each one of the bullets ended. The first bullet he shot was directed at Congresswoman Giffords. The 12th bullet killed a 9 year old girl who was in the public. So it is possible that if he had needed to change magazines sooner, this little girl's life would have been spared.

Not sure if that is part of the reason. But clearly, 33 rounds are too many. As were the 50 round magazines used in Sandy Hook. Where changing cartridges gave 6 children the time to run out and save their lives.

Smaller cartridges give more innocent people targeted in a mass shooting the opportunity to either disarm the shooter or run away. So let's hear your (or anybody's) reasoning as to why it should be more than 10.

 

Mass shootings are rare incidents, and are overblown in terms of the threat that they pose to the public. This is especially so when there are efforts to lower the qualifications needed to classify an incident as a mass shooting.

To demonstrate the utter fallacy of the notion being presented. Mass shootings grab headlines and draw in ratings for news outlets, but overall they are one of the least common instances that result in death. At best they amount to one percent of the overall firearm-related homicide rate in the united states for any given year. The greatest number of firearm-related homicides are single-party incidents, where there is only one perpetrator, and one victim. Focusing on mass shootings does no measurable good, as the vast number of firearm-related homicides will continue unabated.

The above statement is factually incorrect on the part of yourself. All that is being stated, is that the obsessive, bordering on fetishistic fixation on mass shootings, does no measurable good when the topic deals with firearm-related homicides as a whole.

The fact that there would still be some firearms left available for legal ownership, for some legal uses, does not mean the matter would ever pass constitutional muster. Heller and the resulting rulings of McDonald and Caetano changed everything. Certain firearms cannot be prohibited from ownership simply because they are often chosen by criminals, and those who cannot legally possess them. This is the legal landscape in the united states both now, and from now on, until the united state supreme court ever decides to overturn the precedent set by Heller, which it is not going to do.

Then there is going to be disappointment experienced on the part of yourself, as an answer is indeed going to be presented to the question.

While it is true that legislative restrictions are absent any mechanism or ability to do anything beyond codify what behavior qualifies as a crime, and establish guidelines for punishment of such offenses, it does not change the fact that what is being proposed is utterly useless. There are already regulations and restrictions codifying and defining every possible instance in which the use of a firearm, for the purpose of committing harm to another, is classified as a criminal offense. There is not one single, possible use of a firearm that harms another, that has not already been codified into law, that would otherwise allow for exploitation of some loophole in desperate need of closing.

What is being proposed by yourself is the desperate attempt to try and remove as many firearms from private circulation as possible, in the desperate and foolish hope that doing so will have the direct effect of physically removing firearms from the possession of those who would illegally use them for the express purpose of victimizing others for no legitimate reason. Such is not what would be experienced however. Those who should not have firearms already possess them, they possess them in sufficient numbers, and there is no way of removing them from the equation. The only firearms that would be removed, would be from those that are not inclined to commit harm in the first place.

Beyond which, it has been proven countless times, that firearm-related restrictions are simply not enforced against those that actively violate them. Firearm traffickers have been given probation when they have knowingly supplied registered firearms to prohibited individuals, who went on to murder law enforcement officers. Convicted felons and other prohibited individuals have not been prosecuted for illegal possession of a firearm, because such charges are routinely dropped before they ever go to trial. That is how things work in the united states. More firearm-related restrictions serve no purpose, when the ones you already have are being ignored by not only the public, but those tasked with enforcing them.

Such is too bad. If there is no desire on the part of yourself to discuss a particular topic in a particular discussion, then do not introduce the topic.

 

None of which changes the fact that hyperbolic terms that are catchy because of how easy they are to say and remember, do not possess a legal validity.

Meaning that rationality is not present on the part of yourself, otherwise the matter would be questioned rather than supported blindly.

The argument can easily be made that there should be no legal limit for magazine capacity, as there is no way of telling just how much ammunition a private individual will need for defending themselves from harm, as there is no one-size-fits-all definition of a defensive situation, that can be analyzed and clarified in a manner that would suggest standardization. There is no standard number of assailants, no standard response that will be given when they are confronted by an armed victim, nothing that would allow for some elected officials to say that they know better than anyone what is appropriate for limiting the public to.

Pure emotional rhetoric and hypothetical speculation, devoid of any legitimacy in the discussion.

Not sure if that is part of the reason. But clearly, 33 rounds are too many. As were the 50 round magazines used in Sandy Hook. Where changing cartridges gave 6 children the time to run out and save their lives.[/QUOTE]

The Pulse nightclub shooting perpetrated by Omar Mateen demonstrates the fallacy of this argument. The rifle he was using in the commission of the shooting suffered a jam that he was incapable of fixing himself. He utilized his phone to access a youtube video showing how to clear the jam, which involved partial disassembly of the rifle, thus rendering it useless for further killings. Yet not a single person who was present did anything during this time, despite knowing that the rifle was out of commission. They did not flee, they did not retaliate, they did not try and mount a defense. They simply continued to hide and cower, and wait for the slaughter to continue once the jam was cleared, and the rifle was assembled once again. They were presented with every opportunity to respond, and they simply stood around like livestock, waiting for their turn and time to come.

The cartridge is the bullet, not the magazine. Therefore a smaller cartridge does nothing.

The reason for why there should be no maximum legal limit on magazine capacity, is that no matter what amount is selected, it will always be an arbitrary and capriciously selected amount. Heller specifically forbade an arbitrary and capricious approach pertaining to firearms and their legal use. No individual, no matter how well educate they may be, is capable of saying for certain what is appropriate for the entire nation, or even an entire state, with no exceptions. This is especially so when the ones who present the argument are those who are protected by private security, who will possess magazines with capacities that exceed the legal limit set for members of the public.