Gun Control
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
17-10-2014, 07:23 AM
RE: Gun Control
(16-10-2014 04:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  
Quote:Of course the pro gun control people are not worried about the "selective fire" capability. They are worried about the rapid fire ability and the ability for the gun to use rapid fire with lots of bullets which improves the chances of a massacre.

Although that is pretty marginal. Changing magazines is quick.

And changing magazines is also quick with a gun with a rapid rate of fire. So banning guns with a rapid rate of fire will still mean that fewer bullets can be used to kill and maim over a given time period.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2014, 07:34 AM
RE: Gun Control
(17-10-2014 07:23 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(16-10-2014 04:57 PM)Chas Wrote:  Although that is pretty marginal. Changing magazines is quick.

And changing magazines is also quick with a gun with a rapid rate of fire. So banning guns with a rapid rate of fire will still mean that fewer bullets can be used to kill and maim over a given time period.

That is certainly true, but that would require banning most anything but single-shot firearms.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2014, 07:36 AM
RE: Gun Control
(17-10-2014 07:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  That is certainly true, but that would require banning most anything but single-shot firearms.
Where's the problem with that? Consider

[Image: 7oDSbD4.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2014, 07:38 AM
RE: Gun Control
(17-10-2014 07:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(17-10-2014 07:23 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  And changing magazines is also quick with a gun with a rapid rate of fire. So banning guns with a rapid rate of fire will still mean that fewer bullets can be used to kill and maim over a given time period.

That is certainly true, but that would require banning most anything but single-shot firearms.


And what's wrong with that?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2014, 07:39 AM
RE: Gun Control
(17-10-2014 07:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(17-10-2014 07:23 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  And changing magazines is also quick with a gun with a rapid rate of fire. So banning guns with a rapid rate of fire will still mean that fewer bullets can be used to kill and maim over a given time period.

That is certainly true, but that would require banning most anything but single-shot firearms.

Does that include bolt action rifles?

Hate the belief, love the believer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2014, 07:41 AM
RE: Gun Control
(17-10-2014 07:39 AM)Elder Cunningham Wrote:  
(17-10-2014 07:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  That is certainly true, but that would require banning most anything but single-shot firearms.

Does that include bolt action rifles?

Which? Single-shot or ban? I'm not sure what you are asking.

There are single-shot bolt-action rifles.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2014, 07:43 AM
RE: Gun Control
(17-10-2014 07:36 AM)Vosur Wrote:  
(17-10-2014 07:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  That is certainly true, but that would require banning most anything but single-shot firearms.
Where's the problem with that? Consider

There are certainly practical problems with implementing that.
However, I'm talking about information and communication, not gun control policy.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-10-2014, 07:44 AM
RE: Gun Control
(17-10-2014 07:38 AM)Mathilda Wrote:  
(17-10-2014 07:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  That is certainly true, but that would require banning most anything but single-shot firearms.


And what's wrong with that?

There are certainly practical problems with implementing that.
However, I'm talking about information and communication, not gun control policy.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2014, 09:40 AM
RE: Gun Control
(13-10-2014 12:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  Self defense is a valid reason for possessing a firearm.

[Image: laughing-puppets-o.gif]

Occasional TTA returner then leaverer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-10-2014, 09:47 AM
RE: Gun Control
(18-10-2014 09:40 AM)Logica Humano Wrote:  
(13-10-2014 12:56 PM)Chas Wrote:  Self defense is a valid reason for possessing a firearm.

[Image: laughing-puppets-o.gif]

How very enlightening. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: