Dammit Florida

[Blarg]

11 minutes ago, nate said:

But not enough to vote against the politicians that say no to every single provision.

I vote for the politician that Check marks more than one issue in my agenda. There are simply none that have reasonable stances on gun control,  it is either radicalism on both sides or nothing,  like this discussion. 

#giveupyourshotgunnate 

[Amazing Larry]

10 minutes ago, red321 said:

At some point we should have a discussion regarding the type of weapon used as well. There really is only one use for a military/assault type of rifle. You can allow people to own guns for hunting, self defense, sport, etc. without allowing them to slaughter dozens of people at a time.

Yes, a handgun is dangerous, a hunting rifle is dangerous...but they aren't designed for the mass slaughter of people. 

Hunting rifles and assault rifles are both capable of the same thing so I don't really see what your point is.

[the dude abides]

15 minutes ago, nate said:

I really don't get the hicap ban.  You can strap two 30 round mags together and still kill tens of people.  The weapon being used is the problem.

You have to reload these (or whatever the fuck the right terminology is).  

That's how the Tucson guy was stopped, and what led many to escape in Aurora.

[nate]

Just now, Lawrence said:

Hunting rifles and assault rifles are both capable of the same thing so I don't really see what your point is.

Have you ever shot both?  The difference is stark.  You cannot fire off 50 rounds with a hunting riffle at near the rate you can with an assault rifle.

@Blarg I will happily give up my shotgun if the law requires me.  I don't see to many mass murders happening with shotguns though.

[Jason]

1 minute ago, the_dude_abides said:

I was thinking anything over 5-10 rounds.

But you don't feel that 30 is excessive?

Not really. I actually prefer 10 when I'm at the range because 30 just makes it to heavy. California has the "bullet button" which requires a small pin point tip to release the magazine. This isn't a bad idea to stop somebody from quick or tacticle reloads. In an active shooter situation they would not be able to reload and would give somebody time to intervene. It's a little annoying at the range but I get why it's there.

[Amazing Larry]

Just now, nate said:

Have you ever shot both?  The difference is stark.  You cannot fire off 50 rounds with a hunting riffle at near the rate you can with an assault rifle.

@Blarg I will happily give up my shotgun if the law requires me.  I don't see to many mass murders happening with shotguns though.

Yes of course I have shot both and yes you can unless the rifle is modified so it can shoot automatically or in 3 round bursts. You can't fire off 50 rounds easily if you have to reload the magazine 5 times in order to do so.

[nate]

An AR15 with a soft trigger on single shot semi auto with a 30 round mag can empty the mag in what, 10 seconds? Maybe 15.

A hunting rifle with 5-10 round mag will take much longer and it takes longer to reload.  Not to mention they are larger and require more time to aim and fire.

[Blarg]

3 minutes ago, the_dude_abides said:

I was thinking anything over 5-10 rounds.

But you don't feel that 30 is excessive?

I'm with you,  30 is excessive for any citizen gun owner. In California there is a shotgun limit of a 10 shot magazine. But in other states you can buy the 20 shot round magazine. Bulkier than an AR but for room cleaning probably more devastating. 

 

#giveupyourshotgunnate 

[Jay]

Serious question for you gun experts:

Is it illegal to go to Arizona and buy a weapon then bring it back to California? Assuming you buy the weapon legally.

 

[Blarg]

You will have a hard time getting a honest dealer to sell you a weapon because there are model restrictions for California and he doesn't want to lose his license being off by one digit on a similar model. 

I think you may still have to fill out the California paperwork, do the waiting period before picking up the gun or have it shipped to a California licensed dealer. 

 

#giveupyourshotgunnate 

[red321]

14 minutes ago, Lawrence said:

Hunting rifles and assault rifles are both capable of the same thing so I don't really see what your point is.

Not even close.

 

[fan_since79]

We interrupt this gun control argument to bring you the following:

The Orlando gunman's wife has told federal agents she tried to talk her husband out of carrying out the attack, NBC News has learned.

Omar Mateen's current wife, Noor, told the FBI she was with him when he bought ammunition and a holster, several officials familiar with the case said. She told the FBI that she once drove him to the gay nightclub, Pulse, because he wanted to scope it out.

Mateen opened fire at Pulse early Sunday, leaving 49 dead and 53 injured.

Authorities are considering filing criminal charges against Noor for failing to tell them what she knew before the brutal attack, law enforcement officials say, but no decision has been made.

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/orlando-nightclub-massacre/omar-mateen-s-wife-tried-talk-him-out-orlando-attack-n592051

[Amazing Larry]

Enjoy jail bitch.

[the dude abides]

1 minute ago, Lawrence said:

Enjoy jail bitch.

Isn't there some kind of law that protects her (similar to the one where you don't have to testify against a spouse)?

Or have I just watched too much Law & Order?

[the dude abides]

21 minutes ago, Lawrence said:

I'm comfortable with a 10 round limit on magazines available to the public. Am I still an asshole?

Yes.

[Adam]

32 minutes ago, nate said:

But not enough to vote against the politicians that say no to every single provision.

Well don't think that's fair. Huge problem with our democracy... As Blarg said radicals on both sides on nearly all issues. You're not going to vote for Bernie because he sees a couple issues the same as you because he's an economic retard

[Spirit]

2 hours ago, ELEVEN said:

I think people should pass a test and have some form of ID before operating one of those killing machines.

Tests, like gun background checks, are clearly not enough.  We need to ban guns and cars. 

 

 

[Amazing Larry]

3 minutes ago, the_dude_abides said:

Isn't there some kind of law that protects her (similar to the one where you don't have to testify against a spouse)?

Or have I just watched too much Law & Order?

It's a little late for that considering she spilled her guts to the FBI.

[the dude abides]

1 minute ago, Lawrence said:

It's a little late for that considering she spilled her guts to the FBI.

I mean is there a law that protects her from having to notify authorities beforehand.

[fan_since79]

2 minutes ago, Geoff said:

Test, like gun background checks, are clearly not enough.  We need to ban guns and cars. 

 

 

...and dancing, and alcohol. Then this wouldn't have happened.

[nate]

3 minutes ago, the_dude_abides said:

I mean is there a law that protects her from having to notify authorities beforehand.

No, not at all.  The only thing she can be stopped from is testifying against her husband in court.

[Amazing Larry]

17 minutes ago, red321 said:

Not even close.

 

Um ok. There are hunting rifles with the same capabilities as assault rifles Red. Not sure why you disagree with this.

[arch stanton]

Banning types of weapons or ammo is just shuffling deck chairs. As soon as one is banned there will be something to take its place. Proactivity just leads to false security. Like it or not the closest we'll come to preventing it is reacting in the moment.

 

[fan_since79]

BREAKING: possible hostage situation in Amarillo, Texas. Police looking for a Somalian man. 

Here we go again?

 

[Jay]

People have to be more proactive in the sense that if they know of mentally unstable people with access to firearms, they need to say something.

Background checks can only do so much. If a person was treated for depression, does that mean they surrender their constitutional rights?

The laws need to be tougher for illegal sale and possession of firearms. Mandatory jail time for illegal sale or possession.