Sometimes 10 rounds isn't enough.

[Lily Sawyer]

You're also making it harder for people who need guns to obtain and maintain. Which is also why the US will never repeal the Second Amendment.

Who needs guns, as in "who needs to use them in their day-to-day lives?" People who live in any area that's darker than orange:

...and I still don't buy that the private citizens *need* guns in those areas. When crime is actively thwarted via citizen vigilance, law enforcement, and any areas of dispute (property, turf, rights), crime rates drop. When illegal drugs are removed and drug rings arrested, crime rates drop. When social issues are addressed and solved, crime rates drop. It's time for community organization and grassroots efforts to take back neighborhoods so that no one *needs* a gun, no one lives in fear in their own home, and kids don't die in their elementary schools.

[Sepia and Dust]

Feh. The legend wasn't included on the .gif. Anyway, dark green is very rural, red is metropolitan.

[Lily Sawyer]

I figured the red areas are urban. If (and that's only *if*) concerned parties in urban areas finally got off the can and organized their butts into preventing gang turfwars, drug trade, and burglaries, there wouldn't be an issue with *needing* a gun in those areas. But it takes the majority of communities from the grass up to motivate and stop it themselves. I believe that most people are good and that they can solve this on their own without a Congress full of fighting f*ckheads leveraging new laws on them.

So Americans have got to get with the program and stop b*tching about having gun rights taken away and how scary liberal Democrats are. If Gunners don't want more gun restrictions and feel the way you do, but don't have answers regarding background checks or mental health access for people who need it, then they need to take matters into their own hands and rid cities themselves of the problems that cause a need for guns in the first place. Go ask for deputizing from the local police force! Volunteer to patrol neighborhoods - ARMED, no less! - with blessings from law enforcement! Set examples to kids by enrolling in gun safety classes! I am sooooooooooooooooooo not standing in your way - I'm all for that!

But as far as I can tell, there are an awful lot of lazy-ass conservative Gunners out there who won't step up to the plate.
And that's why I started this whole Draconian negotiation, because it at least gets a conversation started where brainstorming occurs.

[Sepia and Dust]

...and I still don't buy that the private citizens *need* guns in those areas. When crime is actively thwarted via citizen vigilance, law enforcement, and any areas of dispute (property, turf, rights), crime rates drop. When illegal drugs are removed and drug rings arrested, crime rates drop. When social issues are addressed and solved, crime rates drop. It's time for community organization and grassroots efforts to take back neighborhoods so that no one *needs* a gun, no one lives in fear in their own home, and kids don't die in their elementary schools.

I'm talking about people who need to shoot gophers, bears, deer, hogs, bobcats, coyote, lynx, weasels, rabbits, feral dogs, mountain lions, alligators, and snakes. Farmers need to protect their crops, ranchers need to protect their livestock, and country folk need to protect their families, property, and pets against predation. It's the twenty-first century, yeah, but nature is still red in tooth and claw.

As for law enforcement out in those vast expanses of darker-than-orange, armed citizen vigilance is often the only way to be safe from violence--the cops simply can't get there in time to protect you.

[Sundrop]

Proposed felony crimes...and these exclude the obvious individuals, like law enforcement types:

-carrying a firearm into a public establishment where alcohol is served
-brandishing a firearm in public establishments or on public property (and properly registered weapons are not excused)
-holding gun owner responsible for accidental child deaths by firearm, even if it is a child who fires the weapon (to be called felony negligence)
-failure to provide mandatory gun operation and safety class completion certificate while continuing to own a firearm

You've got to start somewhere. They're Draconian to some and perfectly reasonable to others.

I can go for all but the the last one, Lily.

While I fully agree that proper licensing and safety training should be mandatory, I don't feel that failure to maintain such certificate should be a felony.
For instance, if a person happens to fail part of the test required to obtain CCL certificate, I feel they should be given an opprotunity to improve their knowledge and/or skills in order to obtain said certificate. I also feel that passing a gun safety class should be required before a person is allowed to purchase a new gun.
Maybe incorporate fines and extra schooling for laspes in maintaining up to date licenses.....
And what about folks who own only antique types of guns?

[GrieferKiller]

Choose? Opting?

The guy was on the floor begging the woman to stop shooting him. The only reason she emptied the revolver is because her husband was on the phone with her, repeatedly telling her to "shoot him again".

One shot would have sufficed. Dude wanted to get the hell out of there.

The woman did all she could to get away from the intruder first, retreating all the way into a crawl space. He followed one of her kids upstairs, with a crowbar in his hands. And then she did what she had to do. The primary concern of any mother in her place is to protect her children, and herself. She's not morally or legally obligated to spare the piece of trash that broke into her house. I would have drilled him the second he crossed the threshold.Y
You don't know that one shot would have permanently demotivated him, and you'd be stupid to put the lives of your family at risk, hoping for a change of heart from some creep that broke into your house. There have been reported cases where guys have been riddled with 9mm rounds, and kept fighting. If I'm going to go to the trouble and expense of purchasing an expensive weapon, and training to use it, and cleaning it, and making sure it's 100% functional at all times, I want it to be packed with all the bullets it can hold. I don't want to fail to stop an intruder because I didn't have enough rounds.
Especially if it's a smaller caliber like 9mm. I'm not knocking 9mm. It's the most popular pistol cartridge in the world, because it's relatively cheaper. Large enough to be effective, but small enough to pack a lot of rounds into a magazine without making the grip of the pistol too large for small and medium hands to grasp. It recoils softer than larger calibers like the .40 S&W, .45 ACP, and 10mm, which makes it easier to place follow up shots accurately and quickly. But, it's been found to sometimes fail to penetrate deeply enough when using hollow points (according to FBI research on ballistic gelatin), because they expand too quickly, and the lower mass of the bullet doesn't have enough intertia to get in deep enough to drill through vital organs and major blood vessels.
The only way to instantly incapacitate an attacker with a handgun, is to hit the central nervous system. A head shot is a much smaller target than the torso, and the spinal cord is about the width of a pencil. These are challenging targets at 10 feet or farther, even when you're shooting at paper or steel targets that don't move or shoot back. Which is why most shooters train to aim for center mass. The most reliable mechanism by which a handgun bullet incapacitates an assailant shot in the torso (or extremeties), is rapid blood loss. The loss of roughly 20% of a person's total blood volume causes loss of consciousness. There are other effects that are somewhat controversial, like hydrostatic shock, and the psychological power of being shot, etc. But, if you drill enough holes in an attacker, you can rely on him bleeding out rapidly, even if you don't hit his heart or a lung and take the wind out of him.

[GrieferKiller]

I'd like to ask you and the wonderful *ahem* Senator Lindsay Graham this question: What do you intend to say to the grieving parents of murdered children #11, 12, 13, 14, 15, etc. when you wouldn't agree to pass a bill limiting the rounds in a magazine to 10 rounds? What exactly will your words be?

What will YOU say to the families of law-abiding citizens who were unable to stop an assault on their loved ones and themselves, because some ill conceived law was passed that robbed them of the extra rounds that might have saved their lives?
Besides a number of mass shootings that received massive media attention, there is no data to show that magazines containing more than 10 rounds are a critical factor in the 30,000 deaths attributed to firearms yearly in the US.
The Virgina Tech shooter was armed with a Glock 19, that comes standard with 15 round magazines, and a .22LR pistol with 10 round magazines, and he killed 32 people. When speculating on the role violent video games may have played in the Sandy Hook shooting, the investigators said Adam Lanza was swapping out his 30 round magazines frequently, the way one often reloads in a combat video game, rather than shooting until each magazine was empty. So, apparently he had plenty of opportunity to change magazines. If he would have shot each victim once with a well placed shot to center mass, or a head shot (easier to do with a rifle), rather than shooting each of them 3 to 11 times, I doubt the death toll would have been any less, if he had a bunch of 10 round magazines.

[GrieferKiller]

I'm sure you would agree that cops not only have the time, they're required to find it, and, it's paid for.
They don't keep their jobs if they ain't proficient in the use of their firearms, supposed to highly skilled in the art of shootin' bad guys azzzes off in fact, but police have proven time and time and time and time again and again and again, that they often, waayyyyy too often, can't hit the side of a f'n barn...want me to find you the statistic regarding how many bullets per kill it takes in war, with very highly trained, extremely motivated, professionally equipt and prepared in each & every way, soldiers?
Just another freakin' tool for the N.itwit R.ifle A.ss'ociation, oh, and I really think you should seek some help, and by the sound of it, perhaps some kleenex.

Your post is such a jumbled incoherent mess, I'm not sure whether you're arguing with me or against me We're talking about whether or not private citizens should have magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, not the police, or soldiers.

[GrieferKiller]

I think I'd rather that someone just get murdered in a home invasion than have them spraying bullets all through the neighborhood. One dead is better than... well, how many bullets are in that thing, anyway?

I'm not advocating that people "spray and pray" with their eyes closed. One should be as careful as possible to avoid shooting innocent bystanders.

[Sepia and Dust]

So Americans have got to get with the program and stop b*tching about having gun rights taken away and how scary liberal Democrats are.

You've fully entered the territory of the absurd with that comment.

If Gunners don't want more gun restrictions and feel the way you do, but don't have answers regarding background checks or mental health access for people who need it, then they need to take matters into their own hands and rid cities themselves of the problems that cause a need for guns in the first place.

Go ask for deputizing from the local police force! Volunteer to patrol neighborhoods - ARMED, no less! - with blessings from law enforcement! Set examples to kids by enrolling in gun safety classes! I am sooooooooooooooooooo not standing in your way - I'm all for that!

More absurdity.

But as far as I can tell, there are an awful lot of lazy-ass conservative Gunners out there who won't step up to the plate.
And that's why I started this whole Draconian negotiation, because it at least gets a conversation started where brainstorming occurs.

For future reference, the above is not a conversation. It is a rant. One that is completely detached from anything resembling reality.