School Shooting in Knoxville

[McDad]

No clip limit.
Magazines are a different story

Boys life, Southern Living, Family Handyman, Popular Science, ESPN, Men's Health.

Too many or under the limit?

 

[LouderVol]

How many people die from an accidental discharge of a hammer? Yes, far too silly to sustain intelligent debate. My God

Accidental discharge? By pulling the trigger?

Funny that an accidental discharge by a cop leads to cop reform. But by a civilian and take away everyone's rights.

 

[0nelilreb]

Were you using examples of things being advocated for here, or did you bring those into the discussion?

These are real things talked about on here and nationally. Oh were you just wanting us all to stick to the “ they are not going to take your guns “ theme ? I suppose the “right to have and bear arms “ and “Shall not be infringed upon “ just means more to some than it does others . We can do the semantics game all day but it boils down to not trusting politicians to not “ infringe upon “ rights I already have or supposed supporters that think only gun confiscation qualifies as infringement.

 

[BeecherVol]

Notice the word MORE.

The question is not the level.

 

[Rickyvol77]

You’re putting words in my mouth based on your own fears, are you not?

lol NO ONE is scared, because there will never be the type of gun control you anti-gun nuts want...ever..

If you knew how many in military and law enforcement laugh out loud at liberal gun control discussions...

 

[hog88]

Right, both of which are hobbies.

So?

 

[Rickyvol77]

A limit on the number of purchases in a given time frame.
A limit on the type of gun, type of clip, so on and so forth.

"type of clip"? LMAO you clearly are very knowledgeable on the issue

 

[VolStrom]

"type of clip"? LMAO you clearly are very knowledgeable on the issue

As long as Biden bans the high capacity clips I think everyone will be in agreement.

 

[luthervol]

"type of clip"? LMAO you clearly are very knowledgeable on the issue

A clip is a device that is used to store multiple rounds of ammunition together as a unit for insertion into the magazine or cylinder of a firearm. This speeds up the process by loading the firearm with several rounds at once, rather than one at a time.

 

[0nelilreb]

lol NO ONE is scared, because there will never be the type of gun control you anti-gun nuts want...ever..

If you knew how many in military and law enforcement laugh out loud at liberal gun control discussions...

My little cousin is a gun smith that makes custom platforms , they would lose their minds if they knew the personal collects of some of the local cops . We also live in a very liberal and very military city / neighborhood and EVERYBODY has a firearm collection regardless of party affiliation.

PSA.. accept me

 

[jp1]

A clip is a device that is used to store multiple rounds of ammunition together as a unit for insertion into the magazine or cylinder of a firearm. This speeds up the process by loading the firearm with several rounds at once, rather than one at a time.

So the AR platform would be unlimited since it doesn't use a clip?

 

[luthervol]

So the AR platform would be unlimited since it doesn't use a clip?

lol.....nope.
That would come under the x rounds in y seconds restrictions.

 

[Rickyvol77]

A clip is a device that is used to store multiple rounds of ammunition together as a unit for insertion into the magazine or cylinder of a firearm. This speeds up the process by loading the firearm with several rounds at once, rather than one at a time.

I am sure when you go buy your M-1 Garand you can show off your "clip", but you are using the term incorrectly

 

[RockyTop85]

Ruh roh. Now you're attributing reactionary behavior to me which doesn't exist. My experience is when that is the tactic, it describes the person describing more than the person being described.

You can pull the parachute now if you want. You don't have to continue to flail about in the hopes of landing a "punch".

PS. The conversation and posts are still available in the thread if you want to get a handle on what you're supposed to be answering if you want.

I read your post that ended in the *totally not reactionary* excessive use of question marks. It’s still not apparent to me how “daddy’s can of beer” is relevant to what I said.

Also, I’m not trying to punch you? The opposite seems to be the case given your choice of metaphors. But hey, a little projection never killed anybody. At least that’s what I read in this thread... or was it projectile? No matter...

I don’t want to interrupt your victory lap, so I’ll just explain why it’s a bad analogy and stop asking you to explain how one beer in the fridge makes it a good analogy.

Luther is saying he believes bulk gun sales contribute to... however he defined the social harm, because he believes there is a statistical correlation between guns purchased in such a sale and guns that find their way to a criminal user. He has shown some amount of work for this belief.

Based on his posts, he weighs the correlation, plus the prevalence and significance of the social harm, and determines that it outweighs the purchaser’s interest in buying multiple firearms at once. Plus, potentially, other factors that I may have overlooked. The end result is that the limitation is rational and reasonable, to him.

All of those factors are weighted differently with alcohol. Alcohol is a consumable with fairly long shelf life that only presents an increased risk of social harm only after a certain level of consumption (a level that varies across all users and even over time for an individual user). So initially, this is an apples to watermelons comparison.

But, if you have to make it work, the nature of alcohol arguably goes to the consumer’s justification for buying in bulk.

Meanwhile, prevalence of the social harm has not been established and there’s not even been attempt that I’ve seen. There’s been no data given that even creates a connection between the bulk sale of alcohol (or even a definition of what that is, that I’ve seen) and any of the potential social issues.

So, basically, the only way in which the two are the same is that the gravity of the harm they can cause is bad. Luther offered one scenario in which they would be more similar and somebody (maybe you?) objected for some reason.

So all I see happening is that the point of departure between Luther’s viewpoint and Hogs is being reinforced.

 

[Rickyvol77]

lol.....nope.
That would come under the x rounds in y seconds restrictions.

And several semi automatic firearms including pistols can be fired in a X rounds vs Y seconds "restriction"...another useless made up scenario

 

[VolStrom]

Here Luther, edumucate yourself.

 

[jp1]

lol.....nope.
That would come under the x rounds in y seconds restrictions.

So whats your restriction there? And if I want to own a gun that shoots faster than your x rounds in y seconds then what?

 

[clarksvol00]

Is there a rule that says you need to include me in other conversations because we’re besties?

I'll have to consult the manual.

 

[McDad]

I read your post that ended in the *totally not reactionary* excessive use of question marks. It’s still not apparent to me how “daddy’s can of beer” is relevant to what I said.

Also, I’m not trying to punch you? The opposite seems to be the case given your choice of metaphors. But hey, a little projection never killed anybody. At least that’s what I read in this thread... or was it projectile? No matter...

I don’t want to interrupt your victory lap, so I’ll just explain why it’s a bad analogy and stop asking you to explain how one beer in the fridge makes it a good analogy.

Luther is saying he believes bulk gun sales contribute to... however he defined the social harm, because he believes there is a statistical correlation between guns purchased in such a sale and guns that find their way to a criminal user. He has shown some amount of work for this belief.

Based on his posts, he weighs the correlation, plus the prevalence and significance of the social harm, and determines that it outweighs the purchaser’s interest in buying multiple firearms at once. Plus, potentially, other factors that I may have overlooked. The end result is that the limitation is rational and reasonable, to him.

All of those factors are weighted differently with alcohol. Alcohol is a consumable with fairly long shelf life that only presents an increased risk of social harm only after a certain level of consumption (a level that varies across all users and even over time for an individual user). So initially, this is an apples to watermelons comparison.

But, if you have to make it work, the nature of alcohol arguably goes to the consumer’s justification for buying in bulk.

Meanwhile, prevalence of the social harm has not been established and there’s not even been attempt that I’ve seen. There’s been no data given that even creates a connection between the bulk sale of alcohol (or even a definition of what that is, that I’ve seen) and any of the potential social issues.

So, basically, the only way in which the two are the same is that the gravity of the harm they can cause is bad. Luther offered one scenario in which they would be more similar and somebody (maybe you?) objected for some reason.

So all I see happening is that the point of departure between Luther’s viewpoint and Hogs is being reinforced.

I gave you a like for the effort.

You missed the boat on a size able chunks, though.

And, thanks for the victory lap. I am married and never get those at home so it's nice for a change.

 

[82_VOL_83]

It's not the same at all. Restrictions are not the same as banning.

What is a ban other than a restriction? All bans are restrictions.

 

[RockyTop85]

I gave you a like for the effort.

You missed the boat on a size able chunks, though.

And, thanks for the victory lap. I am married and never get those at home so it's nice for a change.

No response is your best response here, rabble rabble.

 

[82_VOL_83]

lol.....nope.
That would come under the x rounds in y seconds restrictions.

So there goes all the semi-autos......ban hammer.

 

[LouderVol]

That’s what I’m saying, I haven’t seen (maybe I missed it) anyone here advocate for removing 2A rights, but I’ve seen a lot of people claiming of 2A rights being revoked. Sincere and honest discussion, debate, and analysis isn’t involved in anyone giving up any rights... but there is a group that takes a stance that it does and refuses to engage. It’s just pearl clutching.

When the right has "shall not be infringed upon" in it, any limitation is denying them that right. Just like requiring an ID for voting denies people their rights.

Luther keeps on about compromises but never offers any concessions.

You offer studies by people with clear biases that present one sided truths, and then reject any feedback on the studies.

Rocky is just here for the food fight.

Where is the honest discussion coming from?

Where is anyone actually starting from zero, and building. Both sides like to jump to the ends, or hem and haw a out society to avoid discussion.

 

[LouderVol]

It's not the same at all. Restrictions are not the same as banning.

Now do voting IDs.

 

[McDad]

No response is your best response here, rabble rabble.

Let me get through some of my errands and I'll play with you some more.