Colorado Gun Demand Jumps 41%

[VonMessa]

If you would have looked at some of my posts a little more closely, you might have noticed that my proposed solution for enforcement did not propose confiscating every standard-capacity mag that people already own. Rather, future sales and production would be halted, and any business who had them still in stock would forfeit them but be refunded. This would remove the easy access that mass murderers have and use to secure such deadly accessories. Those who currently own them would be allowed to keep them legally.

Just out of curiosity, who is providing this refund?

[Maverick]

I don't buy the "if there's a will, there's a way" argument when it comes to the mentally insane that commit these crimes. I'd be very interested to find out who James Holmes could call, besides any gun store currently, to acquire such a magazine.  I don't think many people would have access to an M16 with a 30 round magazine, much less 100-rounds in the first place. The biggest thing though was the man was insane; he wasn't in the mob or a drug cartel where illegal weapons are abound.  The same with Jared Lee Loughner and Colin Ferguson, and many more. These people aren't hardened criminals with easy access to any illegal weapon or accessory they may want, like the perpetrators in the gang-related shootings in Chicago.

If your assumption that a ban or prohibition on a product / substance / object precludes it's availability for use by anyone who desired said object were true then prohibition would have ended the use of alcohol in the US in the early 1900's. There would be no issues regarding the use of marijuana, heroin, meth, cocain, coke, PCP, amphetimines, LSD or other substances that are already banned in the US for use by "civilians". The true situation is that prohibition, bans and other laws meant to curb the possession or use of a "thing" has a sorry and predictable outcome. In other words history, as you obviously choose to ignore, has already shown the futility of that line of illogical thinking.

[Shuffler]

What is the number one assault weapon in the USA?  Couldn't be a golf club?

I don't know... I'll ask Tiger. 

[Shuffler]

Just out of curiosity, who is providing this refund?

 

[jimson]

I don't buy the "if there's a will, there's a way" argument when it comes to the mentally insane that commit these crimes.

What do you think then? That if they can't go buy a high capacity gun at the store they won't start looking for black market sources? That they won't get in their car and start running people over? That they won't start burning occupied buildings down?

"Well, since I can't buy a big gun that holds lots of bullets, I think I'll just go volunteer at the animal shelter."

[TonyJoey]

What do you think then? That if they can't go buy a high capacity gun at the store they won't start looking for black market sources? That they won't get in their car and start running people over? That they won't start burning occupied buildings down?

"Well, since I can't buy a big gun that holds lots of bullets, I think I'll just go volunteer at the animal shelter."

By that logic, why are guns banned on airplanes? Since terrorists will inevitably think of other ways to wreak havoc, what's the point in not letting everyone bring guns on planes? 

[Jayhawk]

By that logic, why are guns banned on airplanes? Since terrorists will inevitably think of other ways to wreak havoc, what's the point in not letting everyone bring guns on planes? 

Some people may believe that guns on a plane are not that big of a deal...   

[MarineUS]

Would a bag full of revolvers be as effective as an M-16 with a 100-round capacity magazine?  

I'd say more effecting. You may get off more shots in one go round as an M16 with a 100 round mag (who in the hell uses a 100 round mag for one anyway?) because the revolver has a higher chance to KILL more people due to the lethality of the round.


As far as this topic goes...

[Mickthestick]

By that logic, why are guns banned on airplanes? Since terrorists will inevitably think of other ways to wreak havoc, what's the point in not letting everyone bring guns on planes?  

The difference is that in one scenario (universal ban) you're taking them away entirely, depriving law-abiding people of the opportunity to enjoy them in situations where they are appropriate to possess and use, such as hunting, self-defense, collecting, and in the other scenario (onboard an airplane), you're limiting people's access to them in an environment where they have absolutely no safe and practical utility whatsoever.

I'd say more effecting. You may get off more shots in one go round as an M16 with a 100 round mag (who in the hell uses a 100 round mag for one anyway?) because the revolver has a higher chance to KILL more people due to the lethality of the round.

5.56 Nato rounds aren't as lethal as revolver rounds? You'll have to specify the caliber of the revolver, because last time I checked, unless you're running around with a .44 or 500 Smith and Wesson, the muzzle energy and range of a .223 is in a totally different class than any handgun. That's before you even consider the fact that an AR is far easier to aim and shoot effectively for an average shooter than a heavy revolver.

[Shuffler]

5.56 Nato rounds aren't as lethal as revolver rounds? You'll have to specify the caliber of the revolver, because last time I checked, unless you're running around with a .44 or 500 Smith and Wesson, the muzzle energy and range of a .223 is in a totally different class than any handgun. That's before you even consider the fact that an AR is far easier to aim and shoot effectively for an average shooter than a heavy revolver.

.223 makes nice round holes in 1/4" carbon steel plate at 150 yards. As far as aiming..... might be hampered in a crowded room of anxious folks.

[Mickthestick]

.223 makes nice round holes in 1/4" carbon steel plate at 150 yards. As far as aiming..... might be hampered in a crowded room of anxious folks.

You'll get the 30 rounds off faster with an AR's single action than you will with a bag of revolvers. As far as being hampered by a crowded room, there's always this option:

http://www.rockriverarms.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=category.display&category_id=441&CFID=236492927&CFTOKEN=91034999&jsessionid=f03090d04d041046406b

[MiloMorai]

.223 makes nice round holes in 1/4" carbon steel plate at 150 yards. As far as aiming..... might be hampered in a crowded room of anxious folks.

The .223" make a nice entrance hole but make for a nasty exit wound in flesh.

[TonyJoey]

The difference is that in one scenario (universal ban) you're taking them away entirely, depriving law-abiding people of the opportunity to enjoy them in situations where they are appropriate to possess and use, such as hunting, self-defense, collecting, and in the other scenario (onboard an airplane), you're limiting people's access to them in an environment where they have absolutely no safe and practical utility whatsoever.

Never have I, nor will I, propose and support a measure to ban all assault rifles. I'm proposing a limit to 15 round magazines, which would not affect hunting, self-defense, or collecting.

Marine- Please read some of my arguments before posting a meme and immediately discounting them.

Von Messa-The government would pick up the tab, after making much needed spending cuts in a number of other areas (Let's try not to open that can of worms too far so that the thread may live). Either that, or there could be a 1 year period during which businesses could still sell off their current inventories. After that the refund system would go into effect, but this time the tab would be much smaller.   

[TonyJoey]

If your assumption that a ban or prohibition on a product / substance / object precludes it's availability for use by anyone who desired said object were true then prohibition would have ended the use of alcohol in the US in the early 1900's. There would be no issues regarding the use of marijuana, heroin, meth, cocain, coke, PCP, amphetimines, LSD or other substances that are already banned in the US for use by "civilians". The true situation is that prohibition, bans and other laws meant to curb the possession or use of a "thing" has a sorry and predictable outcome. In other words history, as you obviously choose to ignore, has already shown the futility of that line of illogical thinking.

I'm not ignoring history at all. Not once have I implied that a ban of standard-capacity magazines would eradicate them. Rather, I have countless times said that such a ban would remove the point of access that mass murders use to acquire such deadly accessories. The psychopaths that commit such atrosities are not in gangs or the mob. They are mentally insane people who use the tools available to them to commit mass murder. If such a ban were in place, who would James Holmes call to acquire a 100-round magazine for his M-16? He's not a member of a drug cartel or the Crips or a Neo-Nazi organization; to all non-psychologists, he was a college kid.

[VonMessa]

Never have I, nor will I, propose and support a measure to ban all assault rifles. I'm proposing a limit to 15 round magazines, which would not affect hunting, self-defense, or collecting.

Marine- Please read some of my arguments before posting a meme and immediately discounting them.

Von Messa-The government would pick up the tab, after making much needed spending cuts in a number of other areas (Let's try not to open that can of worms too far so that the thread may live). Either that, or there could be a 1 year period during which businesses could still sell off their current inventories. After that the refund system would go into effect, but this time the tab would be much smaller.    

In order to sustain my status as a living creature, I would not hold my breath for that to come to fruition...