School Shooting in Connecticut - Multiple Fatalities

[Gun Manufacturers]

There's already an 11% federal excise tax on ammo, beyond the sales tax.

How would you regulate/prevent people from making their own ammo, while still staying within the bounds of the Constitution?

Are people allowed to make meth or counterfeit currency?

Doesn't answer my question. What would you do to prevent people from making their own ammunition, while staying within the bounds of the Constitution?

[Greed and Death]

Tungsten rounds would suck for self defense and hunting, due to them not expanding as much as lead core rounds (since tungsten is a much harder metal than lead). They would also increase over-penetration, and be more capable of penetrating body armor.

How would you prevent people from melting and pouring their own lead rounds, especially when lead is in fishing weights, car wheel weights, car batteries, etc.

Well, shit.

Not to mention in order to effective protect your home you need to practice, and this requires a large number of rounds.

For every round fired in self defense you should have at least 1,000 rounds in practice, it is the only way to be responsible, and minimize the risk of missing the attacker and hitting a neighbor.

[Choronzon]

Guns can't stop large scale massacres when they tend to occur at schools, colleges, theaters and other places where guns aren't allowed.

Luckily, not all of them happened in gun free zones. Which I've already stated.

So this comment is totally pointless.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/frum-guns-safer/index.html

About 100,000 uses of guns in self-defense per year. Some people dispute the number, claiming it's inflated as much as 30 or 40 percent. That would still mean that uses of guns in self-defense outnumber gun-induced homicides by at least threefold.

As is your link. Like all the NRA's apologists your argument seems to rest on anecdotes, fallacies, and me just taking your word for it because you said it authoritatively. No one is talking about "self defense" incidents, which include things like home invasion. We're talking about mass shootings. Massacres.

If concealed carry is the solution to all our problems, why isn't it working? Its legal in almost every state, soon to be every state. If more guns make us safer, why is their a correlation between the number of guns in a region and the number of gun deaths? If more guns made us safer, why don't places with high gun ownership have lower gun death rates?

You keep dodging these questions. If you can't answer them just say so.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Are people allowed to make meth or counterfeit currency?

You not allowed to, but that doesn't mean you can't.

Cutting insight there...well done! Now...any purpose to you stating the bleed'n obvious? :

[Greed and Death]

There's already an 11% federal excise tax on ammo, beyond the sales tax.

How would you regulate/prevent people from making their own ammo, while still staying within the bounds of the Constitution?

Are people allowed to make meth or counterfeit currency?

You need ammo to use a gun, so regulations affecting ammo would be hit by the second amendment there is however no amendment that protects the right to smoke meth, or counterfeit currency ( which is basically committing fraud).

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Are people allowed to make meth or counterfeit currency?

Doesn't answer my question. What would you do to prevent people from making their own ammunition, while staying within the bounds of the Constitution?

Yes it does. You make it illegal. Much like counterfeiting and drug manufacturing is illegal. No Constitutional issues there. You want ammo...sure...have as much ammo as you can afford to buy legally.

Its not fucking rocket science right?

[Choronzon]

Are people allowed to make meth or counterfeit currency?

You need ammo to use a gun, so regulations affecting ammo would be hit by the second amendment there is however no amendment that protects the right to smoke meth, or counterfeit currency ( which is basically committing fraud).

No one is saying you can't own ammo. We're talking about not allowing people to make their own. Being banned from making your own ammo doesn't mean you can't buy it. It doesn't interfere with your rights.

Unless you think price barriers interfere with your rights, in which case we can apply that argument to a ton of things and we'd have to ask why you hate capitalism.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Guns can't stop large scale massacres when they tend to occur at schools, colleges, theaters and other places where guns aren't allowed.

Luckily, not all of them happened in gun free zones. Which I've already stated.

So this comment is totally pointless.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/frum-guns-safer/index.html

About 100,000 uses of guns in self-defense per year. Some people dispute the number, claiming it's inflated as much as 30 or 40 percent. That would still mean that uses of guns in self-defense outnumber gun-induced homicides by at least threefold.

As is your link. Like all the NRA's apologists your argument seems to rest on anecdotes, fallacies, and me just taking your word for it because you said it authoritatively. No one is talking about "self defense" incidents, which include things like home invasion. We're talking about mass shootings. Massacres.

If concealed carry is the solution to all our problems, why isn't it working? Its legal in almost every state, soon to be every state. If more guns make us safer, why is their a correlation between the number of guns in a region and the number of gun deaths? If more guns made us safer, why don't places with high gun ownership have lower gun death rates?

You keep dodging these questions. If you can't answer them just say so.

Why are rates of violent crime decreasing all around the country?

As far as large scale massacres, what was the most recent large scale massacre in the United States(let's say more than 5 deaths) that occurred somewhere that guns were allowed?

[Daelos Tribes]

Except in some cases they did intervene, and it didn't help.

And this is the idea that Norjagen rather directly countered. In those "cherry-picked" studies, they did intervene and fewer lives were lost.

So do you have specific cases where they did intervene and it didn't help?

Right. Meaning "lol moar gunz!" doesn't work.

Concealed carry isn't preventing massacres. The "good guys" aren't preventing massacres.

...and there are multiple solutions. Perhaps the problem is more that people are refusing to take advantage of concealed carry in areas where the shootings happened.

I'll ask again.

If "Moar gunz!" worked, why doesn't it help prevent massacres in the 61 mass shooting studied? That was a completion of all mass shootings.

That's somewhat like asking "If laws worked, why is there crime?"

The answer being that no solution is going to be perfect. People will slip through the cracks.

[Rubiconic Crossings V2 rev 1f]

Are people allowed to make meth or counterfeit currency?

You need ammo to use a gun, so regulations affecting ammo would be hit by the second amendment there is however no amendment that protects the right to smoke meth, or counterfeit currency ( which is basically committing fraud).

I love it when people think they are making a valid point without having read what has gone before.

[Greed and Death]

Guns can't stop large scale massacres when they tend to occur at schools, colleges, theaters and other places where guns aren't allowed.

Luckily, not all of them happened in gun free zones. Which I've already stated.

So this comment is totally pointless.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/frum-guns-safer/index.html

About 100,000 uses of guns in self-defense per year. Some people dispute the number, claiming it's inflated as much as 30 or 40 percent. That would still mean that uses of guns in self-defense outnumber gun-induced homicides by at least threefold.

As is your link. Like all the NRA's apologists your argument seems to rest on anecdotes, fallacies, and me just taking your word for it because you said it authoritatively. No one is talking about "self defense" incidents, which include things like home invasion. We're talking about mass shootings. Massacres.

If concealed carry is the solution to all our problems, why isn't it working? Its legal in almost every state, soon to be every state. If more guns make us safer, why is their a correlation between the number of guns in a region and the number of gun deaths? If more guns made us safer, why don't places with high gun ownership have lower gun death rates?

You keep dodging these questions. If you can't answer them just say so.

Well crime peaked in the early 1990's just as concealed carry started popping up in the states and is at a low right now.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

So if your definition of work is an objective measure, there is a good argument for that.
It is not really an objective measure to say its not working because of a isolated though shocking incident now is it ?

[Grinning Dragon]

There's already an 11% federal excise tax on ammo, beyond the sales tax.

How would you regulate/prevent people from making their own ammo, while still staying within the bounds of the Constitution?

What's the point?

The aim of regulating guns more effectively isn't to prevent every single crazy person from getting guns and shooting people, but preventing some people from doing so. The harder you make it to get a thing, and the more barriers you put to getting that thing, the fewer people get it. That's all there is to the argument. It doesn't require people to ban the means that the most crazed and determined people might use.

If 100 people want a product and could snap their fingers and have it, 100 people would get it. If we make it a little harder to get a product, say, you have to wait a couple days before you can get it for paper work to fill out, fewer people will get it. If we license people to get it, and make them subject to some physical examinations, a written test, and testing out the use of the product, even fewer people will get the product. (I'm talking about cars, of course.)

The point is: the people who do these things are certainly pretty crazy, but they're functional crazy. That is, they're not so crazy that they haven't been committed to an institution or been thrown in jail for another crime. So that means these people are generally lucid enough to function. If you put in mechanisms that cause delays and make it harder for people to get guns, then you have a lower likelihood that these generally functional disturbed people will be able to get them quickly, or without normal people seeing what's happening.

What about people who do not have the means nor the capital to jump through all of these hoops in order to acquire a firearm? Isn't this an unintended consequence in piling on more laws such as this or making ammo more expensive? If anything it is those who are poor and will abide by the law that will have to do without, and why? Are poor people less worthy of being able to defend themselves with the tools that are available today?

[The Black Forrest]

You need ammo to use a gun, so regulations affecting ammo would be hit by the second amendment there is however no amendment that protects the right to smoke meth, or counterfeit currency ( which is basically committing fraud).

I love it when people think they are making a valid point without having read what has gone before.

Ok. You said "Fair enough...so then just raise the sales tax on ammunition and make it illegal to make your own."

So what is your point?

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Luckily, not all of them happened in gun free zones. Which I've already stated.

So this comment is totally pointless.


As is your link. Like all the NRA's apologists your argument seems to rest on anecdotes, fallacies, and me just taking your word for it because you said it authoritatively. No one is talking about "self defense" incidents, which include things like home invasion. We're talking about mass shootings. Massacres.

If concealed carry is the solution to all our problems, why isn't it working? Its legal in almost every state, soon to be every state. If more guns make us safer, why is their a correlation between the number of guns in a region and the number of gun deaths? If more guns made us safer, why don't places with high gun ownership have lower gun death rates?

You keep dodging these questions. If you can't answer them just say so.

Well crime peaked in the early 1990's just as concealed carry started popping up in the states and is at a low right now.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

So if your definition of work is an objective measure, there is a good argument for that.
It is not really an objective measure to say its not working because of a isolated though shocking incident now is it ?

Since those facts don't support his argument, they are probably NRA propaganda.

[The Black Forrest]

Luckily, not all of them happened in gun free zones. Which I've already stated.

So this comment is totally pointless.


As is your link. Like all the NRA's apologists your argument seems to rest on anecdotes, fallacies, and me just taking your word for it because you said it authoritatively. No one is talking about "self defense" incidents, which include things like home invasion. We're talking about mass shootings. Massacres.

If concealed carry is the solution to all our problems, why isn't it working? Its legal in almost every state, soon to be every state. If more guns make us safer, why is their a correlation between the number of guns in a region and the number of gun deaths? If more guns made us safer, why don't places with high gun ownership have lower gun death rates?

You keep dodging these questions. If you can't answer them just say so.

Well crime peaked in the early 1990's just as concealed carry started popping up in the states and is at a low right now.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

So if your definition of work is an objective measure, there is a good argument for that.
It is not really an objective measure to say its not working because of a isolated though shocking incident now is it ?

Concealed weapons is the reason for the decline?

[Frisivisia]

Luckily, not all of them happened in gun free zones. Which I've already stated.

So this comment is totally pointless.


As is your link. Like all the NRA's apologists your argument seems to rest on anecdotes, fallacies, and me just taking your word for it because you said it authoritatively. No one is talking about "self defense" incidents, which include things like home invasion. We're talking about mass shootings. Massacres.

If concealed carry is the solution to all our problems, why isn't it working? Its legal in almost every state, soon to be every state. If more guns make us safer, why is their a correlation between the number of guns in a region and the number of gun deaths? If more guns made us safer, why don't places with high gun ownership have lower gun death rates?

You keep dodging these questions. If you can't answer them just say so.

Well crime peaked in the early 1990's just as concealed carry started popping up in the states and is at a low right now.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

So if your definition of work is an objective measure, there is a good argument for that.
It is not really an objective measure to say its not working because of a isolated though shocking incident now is it ?

Because correlation is causation, amiright?

[Choronzon]

Why are rates of violent crime decreasing all around the country?

Gun ownership is also decreasing.

I'll ask again. If more guns make us safer why is there a correlation between rates of gun ownership in an area and gun deaths in that same area?

[Greed and Death]

You need ammo to use a gun, so regulations affecting ammo would be hit by the second amendment there is however no amendment that protects the right to smoke meth, or counterfeit currency ( which is basically committing fraud).

No one is saying you can't own ammo. We're talking about not allowing people to make their own. Being banned from making your own ammo doesn't mean you can't buy it. It doesn't interfere with your rights.

Unless you think price barriers interfere with your rights, in which case we can apply that argument to a ton of things and we'd have to ask why you hate capitalism.

Yes artificially created price barriers can interfere with rights, such as the banning of self manufacture ammo.
Remember the discussion over voting rights ? Cost of getting an ID to vote etc, interfered with the right to vote.

There is of course reasonable tax and regulation on ammo, but when ban the self manufacture of ammo solely with the intention of making ammo more expensive and less available then you cross a line unreasonable regulation that can not pass constitutional muster.

[Choronzon]

Since those facts don't support his argument, they are probably NRA propaganda.

Says the guy who has posted nothing but fallacies and red haring. Really, you're awfully cocky for someone who hasn't contributed anything beyond claiming to know the intent of the Second Amendment.

[Grinning Dragon]

I love it when people think they are making a valid point without having read what has gone before.

Ok. You said "Fair enough...so then just raise the sales tax on ammunition and make it illegal to make your own."

So what is your point?

No don't make reloading illegal, I do quite a bit of shooting, and reloading helps me save a ton of money, money that I can put toward buying other toys. The other thing I like about reloading my own ammo is the learning, the R&D of making a better round, and the fact that I made the ammo I am shooting.

[The UK in Exile]

Well crime peaked in the early 1990's just as concealed carry started popping up in the states and is at a low right now.

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

So if your definition of work is an objective measure, there is a good argument for that.
It is not really an objective measure to say its not working because of a isolated though shocking incident now is it ?

Since those facts don't support his argument, they are probably NRA propaganda.

he's actually asking a slightly different question.

"assuming the above is true, whats the explaination for these outliers?"

[Choronzon]

Yes artificially created price barriers can interfere with rights, such as the banning of self manufacture ammo.

I lack health insurance. I need amphetamines. The price is too high. To not let me make meth is infringing on my rights.

[Choronzon]

You know what, I concede. The gun lobby is right. If we all had guns, then there would be no crime. No murder. If every redneck and lunatic was allowed to bring their boomstick out in public then every time one of those rednecks or lunatics tried to shoot a bunch of people, some heroic Bruce Willis type figure will save us, because the world is just like movies and video games. Please ignore the facts, numbers and statistics. Ignore the fact that places with high rates of gun ownership have higher rates of gun deaths. Numbers and facts are inherantly biased against our Second Amendment rights. They hate freedom.

[Gun Manufacturers]

Doesn't answer my question. What would you do to prevent people from making their own ammunition, while staying within the bounds of the Constitution?

Yes it does. You make it illegal. Much like counterfeiting and drug manufacturing is illegal. No Constitutional issues there. You want ammo...sure...have as much ammo as you can afford to buy legally.

Its not fucking rocket science right?

WHAT WOULD YOU DO TO PREVENT PEOPLE FROM MAKING THEIR OWN AMMUNITION, WHILE STAYING WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE CONSTITUTION?

You've stated no plan to identify people making their own ammunition, or people possessing reloading equipment/materials, etc.

[Lunatic Goofballs]

Why are rates of violent crime decreasing all around the country?

Gun ownership is also decreasing.

I'll ask again. If more guns make us safer why is there a correlation between rates of gun ownership in an area and gun deaths in that same area?

It hasn't been decreasing, It's been fluctuating. It was lower as recently as 2000. What is your source showing that gun ownership rates are higher in areas with high gun crime?