Gun Control, Facts Vs Liberals

[LordRahl2]

The argument overall is based on personal biases from all sides.

Fact is there is no one coming for guns any time soon. Another fact is there would be more conflict from differing branches in local, county and state governments before any military action would be called upon.

The everyone has opinions argument is alright if we are discussing coke or pepsi. It falls apart when there is an argument based in a flight of fancy.

 

I will agree that nobody is coming for all the guns. That is an absolutely true fact.

 

Now, if some group magically organized itself and exceed law enforcement's resources then they would ask for support. This is a well founded fact. If said mystical entity absolutely required the RA then it would deploy.

 

edit: stupid mobile devices.

Edited October 26, 2016 by LordRahl2

[Kemal Ergenekon]

Rebellions have almost always won

 

[LordRahl2]

As the he types away furiously, the keyboard warrior is certain he has made his mark. He takes solace in the assumption that the nanny state government will come to his rescue. "It is time for those crazy gun toting Conservatives to learn their lesson", he says. "This will show them and everyone will be safe from their intolerance once and for all!"

 

I did not say that all 200 million gun owners would rise up in a sudden glorious revolution. I merely pointed out that 200 million is pretty damn large number compared to 1.4 million. If only 5 percent of the gun owners decided to resist, that would still be 10 times the amount of American soldiers. You can spout your opinion all you want, but don't tell me what I would do if they threatened to strip me of my constitutional rights. I alone know what I would do in that situation and it is not your place to assume anything. I'm also pretty sure if I was shooting at them, some of them would be dead as well. Like I said, they can't afford massive casualties and running into any significant amount of resistance from the American people will be enough to stop them. It is only when the people have lost the will to fight that they have lost. To refuse to fight for one's freedoms only shows that one is a coward who cannot even fight for what he holds dear. You don't speak for all Americans, so stop trying to. Just remember that you will be the one who submitted willingly to tyranny, because you preferred a peaceful life of slavery to that of fighting for your family and countrymen. I really hope I'm mistaken and you are not an American, because it makes me sick to know that people like you can sit safely behind your screens and advocate stripping away the freedoms of your own fellow citizens.

 

Top kek. Nice assumption about who I am kid. It may amuse MENSA if they bother to visit this forum.

 

Interesting that you think 10 million is ten times the amount of 1.4 million. But math asside, I notice that you include only active duty US army.  You seem to have forgotten about the USMC, USAF, and the gd coast gaurd.  Not to mention the CIA, FBI, NSA, and the bloody parks service.  The number of Federal agents you are excluding for no good reason is massive.  This is mainly irrelevant since you also excluded every single member of local and state law enforcement. Oh, and the National Guard and Reserves - you ignore them too.

 

I didn't "tell you what to do".  I told you what you would do and what would happen if you didn't.  If you want to get tazed and do the funky chicken because you think you are a bad ass then be my guess.  It is an unnerving experience.  But, please save some poor officer the trouble of filling out the extra paperwork for having to shoot you.  I am sure it is a pain in his ass (If you were shooting at him the overwhelming evidence suggests you would be dead and he would be uninjured - I am sure you have been to sniper school though.  Your level of badassery is hard to quantify.)

 

Don't talk to me about "fighting for my freedoms" boy.

 

I am happy to say that I do not speak for all Americans nor would I ever pretend to.  I simply speak from a knowledge of the real world and not some hollywood opinion that millions of disconnected people will simultaneously rise up into an organized entity that can withstand the US government.  Protip for ya kid: that is pure and unadulterated fantasy.  Do you know what it takes to organize an insurgency?  Would you be capable of even sketching out even the simplest C2 structure?  Highly doubtful.

 

I am not going to argue the constitutionality of the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment because I don't give a damn.  Nobody is coming to take all muh guns.  I know this because I am not a dithering idiot.

 

You are free to live on in delusion land but do not try to publicly foist your opinion on thinking adults.  Do not assign me patriotism (or lack therof) or any other motivation that I do not hold.  I know what I am talking about in this case and often grow tired of silly conversations proffered from positions of ignorance such as yours.

Edited October 26, 2016 by LordRahl2

[Frederick]

If you read the sentence you will see that I wasn't saying rebellions almost always won but that when they won, it was because of their will to fight. Nice try though.

[Frederick]

Top kek. Nice assumption about who I am kid. It may amuse MENSA if they bother to visit this forum.

 

Interesting that you think 10 million is ten times the amount of 1.4 million. But math asside, I notice that you include only active duty US army. You seem to have forgotten about the USMC, USAF, and the gd coast gaurd. Not to mention the CIA, FBI, NSA, and the bloody parks service. The number of Federal agents you are excluding for no good reason is massive. This is mainly irrelevant since you also excluded every single member of local and state law enforcement. Oh, and the National Guard and Reserves - you ignore them too.

 

I didn't "tell you what to do". I told you what you would do and what would happen if you didn't. If you want to get tazed and do the funky chicken because you think you are a bad ass then be my guess. It is an unnerving experience. But, please save some poor officer the trouble of filling out the extra paperwork for having to shoot you. I am sure it is a pain in his ass (If you were shooting at him the overwhelming evidence suggests you would be dead and he would be uninjured - I am sure you have been to sniper school though. Your level of badassery is hard to quantify.)

 

Don't talk to me about "fighting for my freedoms" boy.

 

I am happy to say that I do not speak for all Americans nor would I ever pretend to. I simply speak from a knowledge of the real world and not some hollywood opinion that millions of disconnected people will simultaneously rise up into an organized entity that can withstand the US government. Protip for ya kid: that is pure and unadulterated fantasy. Do you know what it takes to organize an insurgency? Would you be capable of even sketching out even the simplest C2 structure? Highly doubtful.

 

I am not going to argue the constitutionality of the current interpretation of the 2nd Amendment because I don't give a damn. Nobody is coming to take all muh guns. I know this because I am not a dithering idiot.

 

You are free to live on in delusion land but do not try to publicly foist your opinion on thinking adults. Do not assign me patriotism (or lack therof) or any other motivation that I do not hold. I know what I am talking about in this case and often grow tired of silly conversations proffered from positions of ignorance such as yours.

You are still ignoring that many of the military and police force will not be willing to enforce such a law due to the fact that the majority are conservatives who believe in upholding the constitution. Also a majority of those who are ex military will be the ones fighting for their constitutional rights so they won't be the untrained fellas whom are blathering on about.

 

You say there won't be a nationwide organized insurgency but that's exactly the point if you actually had basic reading comprehension. The resistance will almost certainly be localized and state's will each have an unorganized and organized militia. This very fact affirms my argument that they will not be able to deal with armed insurrections throughout the country; across various states. If you also took the time to study history, you would know that any time the government were to take tyrannical action against the populace, it would be slowly with more and more gun control laws. They will keep banning each little thing and implementing more restrictions until the point where it's too late. Obviously they won't ban all guns outright... You are the one living in a fantasy land kiddo, so wake the !@#$ up.

Edited October 26, 2016 by Octavius

[LordRahl2]

You are still ignoring that many of the military and police force will not be willing to enforce such a law due to the fact that the majority are conservatives who believe in upholding the constitution. Also a majority of those who are ex military will be the ones fighting for their constitutional rights so they won't be the untrained fellas whom are blathering on about.

 

I am ignoring nothing.  Read more carefully.  That argument is garbage.  Get over it.

 

You say their won't be a nationwide organized insurgency but that's exactly the point if you actually had basic reading comprehension. The resistance will almost certainly be localized and state's will each have an unorganized and organized militia. This very fact affirms my argument that they will not be able to deal with armed insurrections throughout the country; across various states.

 

I am saying "their" won't be an organized insurgency.  Very good.  Now we can move on

 

In Hollywood purple unicorn land state's will each have an unorganized and organized militia.  Back in the real world that is not happening.

"This very fact affirms..."  Sigh.  What fact son?

 

If you also took the time to study history, you would know that any time the government were to take tyrannical action against the populace, it would be slowly with more and more gun control laws.

 

 

So to disprove this I have to find one single time that this did not happen?  I can provide countless examples where governments took "tyrannical action against the populace" and did not do so "slowly with more and more gun control laws".  Maybe that is because one of my degrees is in history but even a casual armature historian could do so.  Who knows.

 

 

Obviously they won't ban all guns outright... You are the one living in a fantasy land kiddo, so wake the !@#$ up.

 

Go ahead and refute this then.  Explain your proof of a vast conspiracy to take all your guns.  While you do provide us insight into these organized state militias ready to spring into action to defend your guns.  Lastly, you should find this easy, explain to me why in unicorn land there are no mermaids. 

[WISD0MTREE]

Go ahead and refute this then. Explain your proof of a vast conspiracy to take all your guns.

 

While you do provide us insight into these organized state militias ready to spring into action to defend your guns.

 

Lastly, you should find this easy, explain to me why in unicorn land there are no mermaids. 

It’s not like they’re trying to repeal the 2nd Amendment directly. We’re much more concerned with insidious, hidden attacks on those rights. Like, for example, 2013 Operation Chokepoint, run by the Department of Justice under Obama. This operation, disclosed in this Wall Street Journal story, essentially bypassed due process. The government was pressuring the financial industry to cut off companies' access to banking services without first having shown that the targeted companies were violating the law. As reported by the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, "it's a thinly veiled ideological attack on industries the Obama administration doesn't like, such as gun sellers and coal producers."

Further, thwarted by Congress in instituting new gun control measures in 2013, Obama moved on to address gun matters through executive order, 23 original  ones in all. Depending on who you ask, none of these executive orders are serious threats to the 2nd Amendment, and there may even be some, like ones prompting easier access to mental health treatment, which pro-gunners can get behind. But there are others, like the executive order encouraging doctors to ask their patients about their firearm ownership, which many find extremely problematic.

The Obama administration has announced more executive actions beyond the original 23 executive orders noted above. One very controversial one prevents the re-importation of military firearms back into the U.S. Since 2005, the government has authorized 250,000 of such firearms. The ban on re-importation negatively affects hobbyists, collectors, and anyone wishing to own these particular types of firearms. In particular, there is concern in some quarters that this executive order might put the 110+ year-old Civilian Marksman Program at risk.

This executive order seems petty and arbitrary, because it is highly doubtful that this restriction will do anything to help prevent violence. How many robberies have you heard about that are committed with an old WWII-vintage M1 Garand? As well, there is nothing different about these firearms compared to other types of non-military rifles that are perfectly legal to buy and use.

More executive orders: In January of 2016, the Obama administration released yet another set of executive orders (actually not true EO’s, actually executive actions, which carry no legislative power), which, among other things, attempts to expand upon when one is required to acquire a Federal Firearms License in order to buy and sell guns. While more FFLs would increase the number of licensees and background checks, there are serious unintended consequences for those that are captured by the new definition, for existing licensees and for the ATF. Even lawyers within the Obama Administration acknowledge that setting an arbitrary numerical threshold would open the door to a legal challenge. Further, the definition for what constitutes a dealer versus a private seller is ambiguous and imprecise; see the ATF’s “guidance†document itself for evidence of this: https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download(PDF). There are no definite regulations in this document that a person can definitively use to determine whether or not they need to apply for an FFL. The document has many ambiguous passages of this sort (for one example):

Federal law does not establish a “bright-line†rule for when a federal firearms license is required. As a result, there is no specific threshold number or frequency of sales, quantity of firearms, or amount of profit or time invested that triggers the licensure requirement. Instead, determining whether you are “engaged in the business†of dealing in firearms requires looking at the specific facts and circumstances of your activities. As a general rule, you will need a license if you repetitively buy and sell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit. In contrast, if you only make occasional sales of firearms from your personal collection, you do not need to be licensed. In either case, all of your firearms transactions are relevant, regardless of their location; it does not matter if sales are conducted out of your home, at gun shows, flea markets, through the internet, or by other means.

So there is no specific amount of profit that determines if you are a dealer, but you are considered a dealer if you are trying to make a profit? In any case, this document itself on the second page admits it has no legislative power:

The guidance set forth herein has no regulatory effect and is not intended to create or confer any rights, privileges, or benefits in any matter, case, or proceeding, see United States v. Caceres, 440 U.S. 741 (1979).

Further, the ATF does not have the manpower to do much enforcing of these new requirements; see

http://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/gun-show-obama-executive-action/.

So, to sum all the paragraphs above, while the Obama administration will not be taking away our guns anytime soon, through its executive orders, actions, and statements, it sure looks like it wants to. 

 

Sources: 

http://www.nssfblog.com/gun-control-groups-push-for-redefining-reality/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-weighs-expanding-background-checks-through-executive-authority/2015/10/08/6bd45e56-6b63-11e5-9bfe-e59f5e244f92_story.html

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/08/29/216839511/president-to-issue-new-executive-orders-on-guns

 

---

They will fight (and win) the same way women rebelled for voting rights (and won). 

http://www.historytoday.com/fern-riddell/weaker-sex-violence-and-suffragette-movement

 

---

Because aliens have AL-13Ns. 

[LordRahl2]

while the Obama administration will not be taking away our guns anytime soon, through its executive orders, actions, and statements, it sure looks like it wants to.

 

Almost!

Actually, it sure looks like he wants to limit very specific and seemly reasonable gun laws. What is in his heart is hard to divine. But his actions are very very moderate.

[WISD0MTREE]

Almost!

Actually, it sure looks like he wants to limit very specific and seemly reasonable gun laws. What is in his heart is hard to divine. But his actions are very very moderate.

Moderate compared to who? Feinstein? Did you even read anything I wrote? 

[LordRahl2]

Moderate compared to who? Feinstein? Did you even read anything I wrote? 

 

I did.  I just adjusted your perception of those orders or executive actions as you correctly address.  None were significant.  And relative to the most common refrain of "take all muh guns" it is super moderate.

 

I know you want military weapons imported.  I feel for hobbits and the civilian marksmanship program but not too many feels.  How many crimes are committed with an M1?  What % mass shootings involve the AK family?  I donno.  More than 1 less than 100?

The rest of your paragraph is about FFLs.  Meh.  No big deal - tell your legislator to fix it with a reasonable bill.

[Frederick]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

[LordRahl2]

http://www.realclearscience.com/2011/04/25/039frog_in_boiling_water039_is_a_myth_240818.html

[Ogaden]

Open carry of RPGs for self defense.

 

Every household should have its own anti tank and anti air missiles too.

 

Freedom!

[Shiho Nishizumi]

I know you want military weapons imported.  I feel for hobbits and the civilian marksmanship program but not too many feels.  How many crimes are committed with an M1?  What % mass shootings involve the AK family?  I donno.  More than 1 less than 100?

 

Just clarifying, but the absolute majority of the AK's in the U.S. are assembled from foreign parts kits with locally produced receivers, barrels (sometimes) and other parts. As such, a ban on the imports of military-pattern semi autos does not have any meaningful impact on the availability of AK's in the United States. It is also worth mentioning that they were already banned by name in the original Assault Weapons Ban (those manufactured by chinese companies, at least. IIRC, the ban on chinese AK's hasn't been lifted yet), plus the ban on Russian-manufactured AK-pattern rifles that went into effect in 2014.

 

So long story short, you'd need to ban the imports of parts kits if you want the availability of AK's in the U.S. to diminish.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Shiho Nishizumi

[LordRahl2]

Just clarifying, but the absolute majority of the AK's in the U.S. are assembled from foreign parts kits with locally produced receivers, barrels (sometimes) and other parts. As such, a ban on the imports of military-pattern semi autos does not have any meaningful impact on the availability of AK's in the United States. Also worth mentioning that there were already banned by name in the original Assault Weapons Ban (those manufactured by chinese companies, at least. IIRC, the ban on chinese AK's hasn't been lifted yet), plus the ban on Russian-manufactured AK-pattern rifles that went into effect in 2014.

 

So long story short, you'd need to ban the imports of parts kits if you want the availability of AK's in the U.S. to diminish.

 

emmmmm okay.  That does not seem to impact the fact that Obama has not tried to take all muh guns.  The opposite I guess?

[Shiho Nishizumi]

emmmmm okay.  That does not seem to impact the fact that Obama has not tried to take all muh guns.  The opposite I guess?

 

I was merely addressing a particular point of the argument, as it seemed that you were implying that the ban imports on mil-spec semi autos was justified as it'd limit the availability of AK-patten rifles, which was untrue given my previous argument.

 

As for the whole idea that the Obama Administration is here to confiscate all guns, that's just nonsense. It's simply infeasible, given the huge firearms industry/market that the United States possesses. Banning the imports of foreign semi automatic models is not an effective way to prevent further massacres either (given that the availability of AR-15's hasn't changed in most states). These legislations are (unsurprisingly) mostly serving the interest of U.S. manufacturers (by wiping out the competition), rather than of the people who genuinely want gun control to exist, since all they do is limit the options in models, rather than restrict those who can buy such firearms to begin with.

 

I myself am a gun enthusiast (I mostly collect them), but I do agree that there needs to be some measures to limit the amount of guns that legally fall in the hands those who are not prepared to own such a device. Mandatory classes, permits, etc etc. All of those measures would be much more effective at gun control,rather than merely banning guns left and right because of their scary military looks. By actually legislating correctly, it'd be possible to reach a decent middle ground between gun enthusiasts and gun control people, with responsible operators being able to practice their hobby without having their options in hardware be limited, and hopefully thinning out those who are, simply put, too moronic to be able to make use of firearms in a safe manner.

 

I think that the issue gun enthusiasts have with gun legislations are that these are proposed by people who are ignorant in the subject, and that are, quite honestly, fearmongering (not meant to be a disservice towards those who advocate for fair gun control, and merely use those events as a constant reminder that there's something wrong with the current system) such proposal right after a massacre. Furthermore, I guess that the second concern they have, is that the opposing party will just keep pressing on the issue (regardless of how many legislations are passed in regards of tightening gun control), until you reach the point that guns are effectively banned, which would have been the opposite's party original interest. However, to think that everyone who advocates for gun control is a gun-hating liberal that wants to confiscate all guns is plain wrong. I myself do not know what the percentages are of those who want guns to be effectively banned, and those who simply desire them not to fall into the hands of wrongdoers.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Shiho Nishizumi

[LordRahl2]

A limitation does not have to be effective to be a limitation. My point is that trying to limit military grade weaponry is not an unreasonable thing.

[WISD0MTREE]

I did.  I just adjusted your perception of those orders or executive actions as you correctly address.  None were significant.  And relative to the most common refrain of "take all muh guns" it is super moderate.

 

I know you want military weapons imported. 

 

The rest of your paragraph is about FFLs.  Meh.  No big deal - tell your legislator to fix it with a reasonable bill.

I'll admit that Obama is fairly moderate. However, going back to your point that I originally quoted, some politicians do want to take them all. 

"If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them-Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in-I would have done it." Senator Dianne Feinstein 1995

“Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal.†U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno, December 1993

Laws, federal, state, and local, are proposed to take guns away from citizens all the time. Most recently in 2015, we have H.R. 4269, titled “Assault Weapons Ban of 2015†(https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/4269/text) sponsored by David Sicilline of Rhode Island and co-sponsored by 123 other representatives (all of them were Democrats). This bill seeks “To regulate assault weapons, to ensure that the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited, and for other purposes.†the number of firearms it bans is large, and in fact in this bill all semi-automatic rifles of certain characteristics are banned en masse; the bill actually includes a lengthy list of the specific makes and models of firearms that AREN’T banned. Yes, it’s easier to list the guns that aren’t banned than to list the ones that are, under this bill. 

 

Not exactly. I'm more worried that they will ban my M1A because it is based off of a military gun. Even if it was grandfathered, it still isn't safe in today's politics. CA Prop 63 states that any magazines which can hold over 10 rounds are banned, including magazines which were previously exempted due to being owned before 2000. 

https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_63,_Background_Checks_for_Ammunition_Purchases_and_Large-Capacity_Ammunition_Magazine_Ban_(2016)

 

And what makes you think that won't be opposed by "common sense" groups? I'd be willing to say that politicians/the media will spin it as a way to "enable mass murderers and criminals" as opposed to fixing a vague law that requires people to fill out 18 pages of paperwork and allow the ATF to search your property at any time. 

Actually, while I was typing this, I think Shiho Nishizumi sums up what I was going to say fairly well. 

I think that the issue gun enthusiasts have with gun legislations are both that they both are proposed by people who are ignorant in the subject, and that are, quite honestly, fearmongering (not meant to be a disservice towards those who advocate for fair gun control, and merely use those events as a constant reminder that there's something wrong with the current system) such proposal right after a massacre. 

 

---

 

Open carry of RPGs for self defense.

Good luck getting the ATF to sign off on that. 

[Shiho Nishizumi]

A limitation does not have to be effective to be a limitation. My point is that trying to limit military grade weaponry is not an unreasonable thing.

 

I would like to know which features found in military firearms, selective fire aside, make the weapon so much more effective at manslaughter that it would justify it's removal for models meant to be sold in the civilian market, or otherwise outright banned from imports. The only one that I can think of that offers a substantial enough advantage in ergonomics (which is still beneficial for target shooting, I should say) is a pistol grip that is separate from the buttstock. A bayonet lug is of dubious value.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Shiho Nishizumi

[LordRahl2]

I do like that you have specified that an object designed for the slaughter of men is the key criteria. That we should evaluate an object based on the efficacy with which it slaughters men makes sense.

So, generally speaking, I consider military grade personal firearms those that accept and cycle ammunition designed for killing people at a high volume. Not necessarily fully automatic, since many professional soldiers eschew fully auto (accuracy in combat is usually more important than volume of fire), however, fully auto weapons fired against area targets (crowds of women and children for example) can have extra efficiency at killing people. The 30 round clip on my M4 allows me to put a decent amount of lead downrange at a relatively high accuracy. Far higher in fact than required for killing bambi (I would not use my M4 for that - I have a gun that is far more effective at killing bambi). I also have trouble imagining a home defense use of an AK-47 or my M4. I think I would prefer my Sig in my house.

Like a bayonet lug the need for high capacity magazines, particularly those designed around a military purpose aka killing people, is dubious at best.

 

Edit: spelling - sorry I wrote this sitting at red lights.

Edited October 29, 2016 by LordRahl2

[Shiho Nishizumi]

Interesting. While I'm against a full-on ban on detachable magazines, I am not truly opposed to restricting the availability of ones which can accomodate a sizable amount, to be honest.

[Kemal Ergenekon]

I think everyone should have their own nukes. It would give We The Peepl the power to overthrow our despotic democrat overlords by nuclear extinction.

[WISD0MTREE]

 

fully auto weapons fired against area targets can have extra efficiency at killing people. 

 

clip

 

Far higher in fact than required for killing bambi (I would not use my M4 for that - I have a gun that is far more effective at killong bambi).

 

I also have trouble immagining a home defense use of an AK-47 or my M4. I think I would prefer my Sig in my house.

 

Like a bayonet lug the need for high capacity magazines, particuarly those designed around a military purpose aka killing peoplw, is dubious at best.

Like all of those people who died in the North Hollywood shootout? 

 

*sigh* Here we go again. 

You don't need a 30 diesel gallon gas tank bladder on your car. 

 

While I would prefer my Springfield XD in my house, the Department of Homeland Security disagrees with you. The Department has a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm because it’s “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.†(Source)

 

Ask Canadian gun owners. In Canada, semi-auto rifles are limited to 5 rounds and handguns to 10 rounds. They also need to present a firearms license to purchase ammo. This hasn’t stopped local biker gangs from getting prohibited (armor-piercing) ammo and firearms (Mac-10's, etc.). The theory behind the law was that crooks would have to reload sooner and more often thus giving cops a chance to take them out. The problem is, crooks don't use the legal mags, never have. They either get full capacity magazines illegally, drill out the rivet from legal mags (thus making them full mags), or make their own.

[Shiho Nishizumi]

Downcapping a mag by merely drilling in a rivet does sound like a really poor attempt at restricting it's capacity. It'd make more sense to just cut it off, replace the main spring with a shorter one, and weld a new floorplate at the bottom of the now-cut magazine.

Edited October 28, 2016 by Shiho Nishizumi

[LordRahl2]

Like all of those people who died in the North Hollywood shootout? 

 

Do you assume that I do not open your links?  Maybe you want to explain your point more.  The perps died in that bank robbery/confrontation with police.  Is your point that in a running gun battle where the perps were fleeing that they only managed to injure 20 people with their high capacity weapons?

 

 

 

*sigh* Here we go again. 

You don't need a 30 diesel gallon gas tank bladder on your car. 

 

Your point? is lost on me.

 

 

While I would prefer my Springfield XD in my house, the Department of Homeland Security disagrees with you. The Department has a requirement for a 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearm because it’s “suitable for personal defense use in close quarters and/or when maximum concealment is required.†(Source)

 

Your link is broken.  But I am glad you are willing to listen to the government when it issues you instructions.  Anyway, the Department of Defense told me that 5.56x45mm NATO, select-fire firearms were suitable enough for CQM/CQC.  I am unimpressed by that argument.  Give me a Benelli any day of the week...that being said the rapid transition required from CQC to marksman shooting in actual combat generally makes an M4 or equivalent superior.  Note that we are now talking about how to efficiently kill people in combat.  Not how to participate in sports nor killing Bambi for food.  A good CQC weapon allows me to enter a house and kill the people inside.  Defense of your house against the extremely rare armed and persistent home intruder makes your Springfield XD beyond sufficient.

 

Ask Canadian gun owners. In Canada, semi-auto rifles are limited to 5 rounds and handguns to 10 rounds. They also need to present a firearms license to purchase ammo. This hasn’t stopped local biker gangs from getting prohibited (armor-piercing) ammo and firearms (Mac-10's, etc.). The theory behind the law was that crooks would have to reload sooner and more often thus giving cops a chance to take them out. The problem is, crooks don't use the legal mags, never have. They either get full capacity magazines illegally, drill out the rivet from legal mags (thus making them full mags), or make their own.

 

Here your logic truly falls apart.  That criminals do criminal(illegal) things is not a surprise.  Allowing those things to be legal does not increase the incidence of criminals doing these things.  If anything it can only, and probably does, decrease the prevalence of such things.

 

Some people like to use x for recreation.  X is or should be illegal.  Yet criminals still, or would, purchase x for sale or make it themselves.  This does not lead us to a logical conclusion that x should be legal.

 

x could be: meth, nukes, modified ammo, child pornography, high capacity mags, etc