The average criminal can get an illegal gun in less time than it takes a person to legally buy one, they know who has what already. It took me 30 minutes to buy mine legally because of the paperwork and background checks and cost me multiple hundreds. The average crook can buy a filed gun for probably about 40$ in five minutes. Oh, and my city/state didn't have a waiting period, much like most "psst, come here" shops.
Yep, no problem. If you know how to get your hands on some hard illegal drugs like crack, meth, or heroin, or you know someone who does (and I assume that most people do know at least one person who has battled a serious drug problem), then you can get a gun illegally pretty easily, too.
****, if you know the location of a halfway house in your area, you could probably figure out how to get a gun. All you have to do is figure out which guy nearby said halfway house is the local dealer and get him to move you down along the line to get the gun. You gotta do it without making yourself look like a cop or getting yourself killed, of course, but it's not like committing crimes is a risk-free venture.
The average criminal can get an illegal gun in less time than it takes a person to legally buy one, they know who has what already. It took me 30 minutes to buy mine legally because of the paperwork and background checks and cost me multiple hundreds. The average crook can buy a filed gun for probably about 40$ in five minutes. Oh, and my city/state didn't have a waiting period, much like most "psst, come here" shops.
This reminds me of "Office Space."
"Just give me the name of one drug dealer, I have good networking skills."
Which is why I specifically mentioned "bush league" there are plenty of unaffiliated competitions out there, not all of them are known. Hell, if a group of people want to compete on private property that's enough reason for me.Cite a competition where 100 round drums are used that is IPSC, USPSA, IDPA, etc recognized and I will cede this point. You won't find it btw.
And you know that time on target is only one aspect of the equation. You always anticipate the shot, recover from recoil, and recover the mark anyway. Any decent shooter can acquire the target in a reasonable time. Besides, drum mags are more likely to jam anyway.....but you knew that.Large magazines allow longer time on target. No other way to spin it, no other way to say it. You can argue semantics of mag changes all you want. The average mag change takes approximately 3-5 seconds. That is about 9-15 more rounds the shooter gets off with a large mag. Not to mention the time needed to settle back into shooting position, reacquire targets, and start pulling again. You're looking at about 20 less rounds the individual shoots due to that mag change.
What right do we have to own a 100 round drum or body armor? I'm not saying we should restrict guns. I'm saying we should restrict an accessory that has no practical application in the civilian world. Should 203 grenade launchers be legal to sell? They are an AR platform accessory. There is a fine line between "rights" and empowering someone to be dangerous. Once of the main roles of the Federal gov't is to protect the people. I don't agree with laws that protect me from myself. This isn't one of those. This is protecting people from other people who would do them harm. Again, there is no other application in the civilian world where a 100 round drum is needed.
Nope, sure doesn't. You are arguing that any "advantage" is a reason to ban something, I'm saying it's not that big of a deal and it isn't. Frankly if a gun jams it's a disadvantage over the other one, we can't ban gun jams or require that they jam every 20 rounds or so. Frankly it's as I've said, the burden of proof is extremely heavy upon those who want to restrict a right, and there are 1) Not enough drum mags out there to be a factor 2) It's not some kind of unfair advantage that makes the gun a "super weapon" and 3) Doesn't of itself endanger anyone.This......
disproves this.
You could probably find it on the L train.:lol:I couldn't get one in 5 minutes, or even 30 minutes, be it legally or illegally. My commute would be way longer. :lol:
You could still eliminate some fraud with a voter ID law, at least we could get the dead and pet voters out of the equation.Which is why this is a bad test case for gun control. If you're intent on shooting up a movie premiere, you're going to do it. You'll get a gun and you'll do it. Laws don't stop criminals.
To be honest, I really see the voter ID laws the same way. If you really want to commit voter fraud, you'll get a fake ID or 3. It's not that hard.
There was an article done around ten years ago I ran across, it basically said there are so many local, state, and federal laws that the average person commits around 2k "crimes" unwittingly per day.:lol: It's pretty damned accurate, though. Most people have no clue how easy it can be to break the law.
You could probably find it on the L train.:lol:
You could still eliminate some fraud with a voter ID law, at least we could get the dead and pet voters out of the equation.
There was an article done around ten years ago I ran across, it basically said there are so many local, state, and federal laws that the average person commits around 2k "crimes" unwittingly per day.
Vote control has more history than gun control if you look back far enough. Unlike the 2nd voting was a priveledge until the early 20th century. Now, do I disagree with it being a right? No. Do I think it's more important to prove your identity to choose leadership than it is to buy adult materials? Absolutely.They are about as effective as gun laws for preventing the crime they purport to prevent. They do far more to prevent law abiding citizens from exercising their rights than they do to prevent criminals form violating the law.
It's actually quite ironic that people who oppose gun control support vote control.
I get that, just backing you on how easy it is to commit crime, one doesn't even have to try. But even intentional commission of a crime is easy, police have so many resources and they must rely on being able to pinpoint a crime in progress or committed crime through the evidence trail. Either way they usually catch the criminal after the fact.I'm thinking about big crimes, actually. Ones that aren't broken accidentally.
What the SC has said is that the 2d Amendment confers an individual right to own a weapon, but that does not mean that there are no limits on the right. It just means that any limits that are imposed have to survive a strict scrutiny test. Just like we have a right to free speech, but there are a few exceptions where speech can be limited.
"shall not be infringed."
It is pretty clear. I can't even fathom a way of it being said more simply or more clear.
Vote control has more history than gun control if you look back far enough. Unlike the 2nd voting was a priveledge until the early 20th century.
I oppose all ineffectual laws that do more to inhibit the legal exercising of rights than they do to prevent crime. Voter ID laws are just such a thing. They purport to eliminate a nearly mythical problem with something that serves to make it harder for law abiding citizens to vote.Now, do I disagree with it being a right? No. Do I think it's more important to prove your identity to choose leadership than it is to buy adult materials? Absolutely.
Hell, I'm of the opinion that one irresponsible vote hurts more people than any gun ever did
and wish we could eliminate the uninformed votes on both sides. Not the votes I disagree with mind you but the ones that are basically less thought out than a lever pull on a slot machine.
FThen you really do not want a democracy, because when you get right down to it democracy is government of the idiots, by the idiots, for the idiots.
There's a reason why the founders built in protections against popularism in our Republic.
There's a reason why the founders built in protections against popularism in our Republic.
Yet the protections failed because the system has a major design flaw: winner-take-all elections were possible. These systems breed two-party politics, two party politics feeds off of populism and ignorance.
You can't carry a rifle around in public, and certainly not into a movie theater.Now I want to buy an M1A/M21/M25 even more.
One man with a scoped rifle would have stopped most of this tragedy.
Yet the protections failed because the system has a major design flaw: winner-take-all elections were possible. These systems breed two-party politics, two party politics feeds off of populism and ignorance.
Two party politics pushes people and issues towards compromise and the center. A rogue party cannot simply flap around in the fringe with a couple percent and actually get people into congress to spout extremist crap. The US 2 party system also prevents a wave of "do it in the street" by offering these two flavors: economic authoritarianism or social authoritarianism; in this way, someone must pick one or the other and our cart doesn't fly off its wheels.
I'd prefer a more diverse, multiparty system, but let's not ignore the why and whatfor of the US 2 party system.
It was eventually engineered to do that, yes. But the winner take all was another protectionism against popularism as was the electoral voting system.
For clarity: Colorado does not list malls and cinimas among it's 'restricted' or 'sensitive arias' such as government buildings and post secondary schools as gun-free zones. It was the cinema's own policy not to allow firearms.The theater was in a gun free zone.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?