Borderline Bar & Grill Shooting

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2018, 05:41 PM)bfine32 Wrote: They always do not; I've already explained that they can cause malfunctions because of the added weight working against the cambering cycle. 

This is like saying a nitrous oxide system won't make your car go faster because sometimes they blow the engine

The fact that they might not work sometimes does not change the fact that they are specifically designed to reduce reload time which means it is easier to kill more people faster.

And if they did not work people would not buy them.

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2018, 05:59 PM)fredtoast Wrote: This is like saying a nitrous oxide system won't make your car go faster because sometimes they blow the engine

The fact that they might not work sometimes does not change the fact that they are specifically designed to reduce reload time which means it is easier to kill more people faster.

And if they did not work people would not buy them.

There's a reason extended mags are not standard issue to the military. Do you want to guess why. Do you think it's because they don't want to kill more people quicker?

As I said: Ban them.

[fredtoast]

(11-09-2018, 06:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There's a reason extended mags are not standard issue to the military. Do you want to guess why. Do you think it's because they don't want to kill more people quicker?

Because you can't easily holster and carry a sidearm with and extended magazine.

[*bfine32*]

(11-09-2018, 06:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because you can't easily holster and carry a sidearm with and extended magazine.

You got it wrong. It's because the weapon is more reliable when using the magazine designed for its factory specs. I can holster a weapon with an extended magazine just fine with a chest or hip holster and if for some reason I could not a company would be more than happy to make one and sell it to the Army.

[Dill]

(11-09-2018, 05:53 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually Dino hit on what is relevant in this case (IMO) and it is mental health; especially, when tied to actions in combat serving our country.

That is a much more relevant discussion that how many rounds a magazine should hold in this case. 

Both can be relevant at once.  

[GMDino]

(11-09-2018, 06:41 PM)Dill Wrote: Both can be relevant at once.  

Problem is we (this country/this board) never talk about guns and gun control except after the latest shooting.

If we could breath between them maybe we could have a more cool-headed discussion.

[Benton]

(11-09-2018, 08:09 PM)GMDino Wrote: Problem is we (this country/this board) never talk about guns and gun control except after the latest shooting.

If we could breath between them maybe we could have a more cool-headed discussion.

The problem is the attitude that they're all going to be fixed by _____________.

There's no one solution. Mental health, bullying, altrighters, snowflakes (I don't know of any snowflake mass murderers, but what the hay), religous zealots. 

The "tired old arguments" are reflective of the diversity if the problem. Which isn't that there's mental illness or too many guns or people filled with hate... The problem is all of the above, and the solutions need to be both diverse and rooted in common sense.

Instead, we get people digging in over partisan ideals instead of discussing the problem.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-09-2018, 02:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Presser still attaches the right to bear arms to the condition of militia membership. It wasn't until Heller that the individual right to bear arms, independent of an organized militia, was recognized as a right. That case was just a decade ago, this year.

True, but you omit a fairly relevent part of the decision;

It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States

So, yes, you are technically correct, it was a condition of militia membership.  However, all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the militia, hence all citizens capable of bearing arms are constitutionally entitled to do so per this decision.

Quote:I don't think anyone needs one, but it doesn't mean I think they should be barred from owning one. Hardly an extremist view when the data would support my position based on the number of shots fired in the vast majority of civilian defensive situations or the number of rounds required for hunting.

Fair enough, everyone is entitled to an opinion.  I'm of the opinion that it's better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.

Quote:It can make Fox look like CNN.

I'll give it a look and give you my honest opinion.

[Dill]

(11-09-2018, 10:30 PM)Benton Wrote: The problem is the attitude that they're all going to be fixed by _____________.

There's no one solution. Mental health, bullying, altrighters, snowflakes (I don't know of any snowflake mass murderers, but what the hay), religous zealots. 

The "tired old arguments" are reflective of the diversity if the problem. Which isn't that there's mental illness or too many guns or people filled with hate... The problem is all of the above, and the solutions need to be both diverse and rooted in common sense.

Instead, we get people digging in over partisan ideals instead of discussing the problem.

What happens when we, or politicians, discuss the problem?  Because the solutions--however impartially considered--would inconvenience a certain lobby, that lobby would do its best to inject "partisan ideals" into the conversation or legislative process or whatever. And it would claim the solutions are "partisan" and, from their perspective, that would in fact be the case.