a reply to: dfnj2015
It's funny how the pro-gun nuts skirt the issue:
1. Possible number of rounds that could be fired per minute (manual or automatic).
2. Magazine size.
3. Caliber size
4. Muzzle velocity
Every word you just posted was wrong.
"It's fiunny how" - No, it's not funny as in not something to elicit a laugh or something that is difficult to comprehend. Some people live in areas
not like the area you apparently live in. There are still vast stretches of land that are not covered in manicured grass and/or concrete. In these
vast areas, there are animals. Some animals are harmless, of course, but others are quite dangerous. BFFT earlier mentioned wild boar; quite possibly
the most dangerous animal in North America. We have them not very far from me, and I certainly would not want to meet a herd in the mountain. They
will attack, en masse, anything that appears threatening or edible. Humans are, to them, both threatening and edible. Bears are another issue...
normally shy and retiring, a black bear mother will attack and kill anything that even looks like it could someday consider harming her cub. That
includes people who don't even know the cub exists yet. Other places have brown bears and grizzlies... they're much bigger and NOT shy and retiring.
They will kill you with one swipe of a paw and eat you, just because you happen to be there when they are hungry. Mountain lions/cougars/pumas are not
given to living around people, but they do come into occasional contact with people. That's a few hundred pounds of pure muscle with a bad attitude,
razor blades on their paws, and spears for teeth. Talk about a weapon of mass destruction!
Don't forget there are still outbreaks of rabies. Try tangling with a suicidal, homicidal rabbit
whose bite can kill you via extreme pain and
torture a few days later, using only hand-to-hand combat. No thanks; I shoot the buggers as soon as I see the drool.
It's only "funny" when someone refuses to accept that their reality is the only one that actually exists. That someone, in case you haven't picked up
on it already, is you.
"pro-gun nuts" - Considering there are literally millions of guns in the hands of millions of gun owners across the USA, and the number of shootings
is in the low thousands, with mass shootings in single-to-double digits every year, you are calling a group of people "nuts" because of the actions of
a tiny fraction of a single percent of them. Out of those thousands of shootings, btw, a substantial number are in self-defense
do not rightly belong in this debate.
"skirt the issue" - The issue is that the government does not have the right to limit firearms, or any weapons, to any extent. They do, of course, but
they are doing so illegally. The Constitution is not a restriction on people, but rather a set of restrictions on government. As long as the 2nd
Amendment exists in its present form, there can be, by definition, no legal restriction on firearms/weapons at all. That includes nuclear bombs.
Now, I am personally open to amending the Constitution to specifically exclude nuclear bombs from the 2nd Amendment. No issue there. We can go ahead
and include missiles, and even fully automatic firearms. But nothing can legally be done until the 2nd amendment is amended.
So go ahead, write
your Congressmen, and let's get a Constitutional Convention going! I'm ready; it is you who are skirting an actual fix to the 'problem' you have
"1. Possible number of rounds that could be fired per minute (manual or automatic).
" - You have been informed (not that it isn't self-evident)
that a firearm will fire every time the trigger is pulled. So you are talking about regulating how fast people can move their fingers.
"2. Magazine size." - Are we also going to regulate how many magazines one may possess? How? A magazine can be exchanged in something like 2 seconds.
The only thing smaller magazine sizes will change is the number of magazines sold.
"3. Caliber size" and "4. Muzzle velocity" - You do realize the two are mutually exclusive, right? The larger the bullet, the lower the muzzle
velocity and vice-versa. That's introductory physics. So you are talking about a serious regulation that limits almost every type of firearm made. The
.25 ACP might survive these restrictions, since it is akin to throwing pebbles, but the worst firearms I have ever had the displeasure of firing were
.25s. The accuracy is terrible, so more unintentional injuries would be the result; the stopping ability is non-existent, so people trying to kill a
deer would likely need 20 shots to knock it down so they can get to it with a knife, and a typical boar or bear would not even realize it had been
hit. There is nothing sensible about an idea that removes the benefits of firearms without replacing those benefits with something else.
Yep, every word was wrong... and it hasn't even touched on the real issue: why are people going on shooting sprees? The guns aren't pulling their own
triggers, you know.
Right? You do know that?