07-03-2016, 12:21 AM
(07-02-2016, 10:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: We've hashed this out before and we will not agree this time either. Something designed to kill other humans is not equatable to a sports car.
Edit: to be quite frank, though, I would shed no tears if they did make sports cars illegal, or mandated governors. People are far to dangerous on the roads these days and speed plays no small part in that.
I'm honestly surprised by this as, iirc, you lean heavily libertarian. For someone of that persuasion you lean heavily, at least on these issues, to "the government knows best" line of thinking. I'm personally of the opinion that adults should be treated like adults until they prove they aren't capable of functioning like adults. As long as there are freedoms there will be those who abuse them. I'll take that over not having the freedoms in the first place any day and I think most of the framers would be in lock step with me on that one.
(07-02-2016, 10:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I could make the argument for lever actions in that situation. And yes, it is an endless debate. One I know I am a bit old fashioned on.
You are indeed.
Without getting into many specifics, as there were minors involved, there was recently a burglary of an occupied dwelling in the middle of the night here in LA. The occupant is an LEO. He confronted the suspects, again I'll only say it was much more than one, and fired on them after they made a threatening move. He used his entire normal capacity (10 rounds is not normal capacity
) magazine. Luckily, for the criminals, no one was killed but I fear that a normal civilian, without much training and range time, would likely have hit no one and may very well have been killed in response. Honestly, and speaking as one in the profession, a civilian is in more need of a normal capacity magazine than an LEO. LEO's have training, back up, body armor, so much more going for them than your typical civilian. I can reload any of my firearms without quickly and without conscious thought, I've trained on them that often. How many civilians with normal day jobs, kids and so many other responsibilities do you think can say the same? I'd venture very few. The anti-gun side likes to waive the bloody shirt and chant the mantra of "if only one life is saved". I think that slogan can easily be co-opted for gun rights proponents. I firmly believe that the right of any citizen to be able to adequately defend themselves from some POS criminal is more important than the lives lost due to the comparatively small fraction of homicides that don't involve criminal on criminal violence, especially in the area of long guns, which are used in so few homicides that the efforts to ban them border on the ********. You want to make a significant dent in gun related homicides then raise the penalty for illegal carrying of a firearm, using a firearm in the commission of an offense or any other such crime. No plea bargains (believe me some of the deals I've seen, if I could relate them to you, would make you want to vomit) for gun related offenses for defendants with a criminal record. In short, target criminals instead of the millions of responsible gun owners who will never commit a gun related crime.
