After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

Vermont just upped the age to purchase a gun and banned high capacity magazines.

More -> GOP Vermont governor signs significant gun restrictions into law

Not everything has to be federal, but I would prefer across the board implementation of similar constraints.

 

That isn't what the evidence shows and that's why Zimmerman was found not guilty.

They may do it to some, but the majority will go on with their lives and never push the limits.

 

The location of the shooting indicates that Zimmerman did stop his pursuit when the dispatcher advised him that it was a bad idea.

Had Zimmerman continued his pursuit during the time between when the dispatcher advised against it and the time when the shooting took place, the shooting would have taken place in a much different location.

Zimmerman thought it looked like Trayvon was casing houses for future burglaries. Zimmerman was following Trayvon merely so he could point him out to the police when they arrived.

 

Their new law considers a 15 round handgun magazine to not be high capacity.

Plus they allow people to keep their existing high capacity magazines. And since there is no date or manufacturing number stamped on magazines, anyone can go buy new high capacity magazines in New Hampshire and then just lie and say they've owned them for 30 years.

The age requirements are only for people who have never taken a Vermont hunter safety course. Anyone who passes a Vermont hunter safety course is allowed to buy a gun regardless of age.

 

I've yet to hear a shooter say ''I was wrong, I shouldn't have shot him.'' They always have excuses as to why they took someone's life. Granted, Zimmerman was being assaulted by Martin, and by that point, he felt that it was in self defense. Even cops will say ''I thought he had a gun.'' As if merely thinking that someone MIGHT hurt you, is reason enough to kill him/her. But, I have yet to hear a shooter say anything different, when he takes someone's life. It's ALWAYS in self defense, even when it wasn't.

The point about Zimmerman is that he shouldn't have been following him to begin with. Martin was wrong to attack Zimmerman, but Zimmerman created what happened, imo.

 

Zimmerman's neighborhood had been experiencing a substantial escalation of property crimes, so they organized a neighborhood watch. Unfortunately, only a few residents took it seriously and participated. Your conclusion that Zimmerman created what happened can just as easily be applied to Martin. After all, he would not have been there at all if he hadn't been thrown out of school.

Consider this though, with Martin bashing Zimmerman's head into a sidewalk, what do you suppose would have happened if Zimmerman just gave up and let it happen? It's simple really, Zimmerman would be unconscious, brain damaged or dead, and Martin would be the owner of a new gun.

But hey, at least Zimmerman would have been the "good guy" about the whole thing. Right?

Consider how you will react when a guy jumps on you saying "Ima keel you".

 

I think they should further regulate. What do you think?

 

Absolutely not.

 

This would make them a criminal... So much for the "good guy with a gun" persona you promote around here.

 

This inability to compromise is going to completely screw gun advocates one day. If you're (general you, not you specifically) not willing to even remotely consider stricter regulation in any sense then your point of view wont be considered when stricter regulation is passed..and it will be passed one day. Give it a few more elections, a few more bullshit cycles of thoughts and prayers

 

Well, it's a pretty obvious loophole if you ask me. But it's a step in the right direction despite this discrepancy. Hopefully enforcement of the new law will consider what Toggle_Almendro has brought to light.

 

I hear you, but I see Zimmerman as the cause of what happened. The catalyst. He provoked a fight, knew he had a gun, and killed someone. Martin was wrong, as well. But, Martin didn't set out to harm anyone that night, from what we can tell. He acted perhaps in self defense, after all...he can't exactly testify, and we are merely taking the word of Zimmerman.

Again though, I don't mean to turn this into a chat about that case, but I only point it out to show how brave someone can be, when he/she has a gun. Zimmerman would never have followed Martin if he had no gun. There are many stories in the news about people who use their legal guns to threaten loved ones, neighbors, etc. Not necessarily that they are deranged psychopaths, but that they are similar to Zimmerman - they own a gun, and feel invincible. This isn't to say to ban guns, because there are responsible gun owners out there. But, there are many who act a little too brazen simply because they are carrying a gun.

 

It depends on the regulations. Anything that prevents people from having classic seven round magazines for a Colt .45 handgun would run afoul of the Second Amendment. We have to have a minimum degree of firepower for self defense.

If magazine restrictions were not so draconian that they impeded self defense, I'd stay neutral. I'm not a fan of such restrictions, but I can understand the reason for them so I wouldn't oppose them.

I don't know. I can see the NRA maybe being forced to give ground on background checks and red flag legislation.

I know a lot of people who will vote against anyone who tries to ban large magazines, and will keep voting against them over and over until they are finally forced out of office. I'm the only person I know who is willing to be neutral on that question. The fight over large magazines is probably one that the NRA will win on the federal level and in rural western/southern states.

 

Why make a law that have zero evidence of working in the first place?

 

I'm for this law because I think it will work. I don't believe any of us can predict the future. Our best guess is that if you make something illegal, at least most of the people will abide. Those that don't will be in trouble with the police.

 

Storch

Oh my dear Mr Sorchy you cut me to the quick, my I do believe I may faint. LOL

Interesting so in the scenario you would let your child die, do you have kids, a wife or partner? Many gun lobbyists here have claimed that one of the reasons why they have guns is to shoot police officers (and others they would see as enemies) if they feel they want to (especially in defence of their guns) - are you one of those?

Because it would be strange don’t you think if someone would refuse to commit a crime to save their own child’s life but would be willing to commit murder to protect their guns?

 

Oh my dear Mr. Storchy?? I used to engage in that kind of childish communication when my brain was saturated with alcohol. Just an observation.

No, I wouldn't let my kid die. Your scenario in which you need $10,000 means that you're going to have to rob a bank; that is, assuming you can't drive your kid to a public hospital, sell a kidney, or work out a payment plan. You're doing your best to show that, no matter who owns a gun, they can be driven to crime or murder, and so you offer up an extreme scenario in which a kid will die unless the parent can get their hands on ten grand. That's why I asked if you know of any such incidents occurring . I'll assume you couldn't find any.

Which gun lobbyists here have claimed that one reason they have a gun is to shoot police officers if they feel that they want to?

Anyway, back to my last point in this thread:

Someone had recently said that they want to ban "all semiautomatic center-fire rifles that accept detachable magazines that have two or more of these features: a folding stock, a grenade/flare launcher, or a flash suppressor."

I'm curious as to how many grenade attacks originating from a semiautomatic rifle they are aware of. I also asked if a folding stock makes it easier to conceal a rifle when trying to sneak it in somewhere to do a mass shooting, and how many mass shootings they are aware of in which the shooter folded the stock in order to conceal it before shooting. I also asked how a flash suppressor helped a mass shooter? I mean, who do you think they're trying to hide their intentions from at that point?

They also said that they would ban all semiautomatic rifles that accept detachable magazines, but then they mentioned that the law does ban magazines that can hold more than ten rounds. So they want to ban semiautomatic rifles that accept detachable magazines, but not 10-round magazines.

Given that semiautomatic rifles have been used in 3 of the hundreds of school shootings since 1984, and 18 of the most deadly mass shootings to date (12 of which involved shotguns and pistols along with the semiautomatic rifles), why are they focused on the least used weapon?

I welcome your answers to these points.

 

I'll chime in on this. I made the argument that I would defend myself and my property from anyone who entered on to it illegally. Illegal trespassing, or attempted illegal entry into my home or to try and take my land by force. I also said that if I felt law enforcement or my government were tyrannical in nature that I'd take up arms against them. So that was responded with "OK so you'd commit murder on someone walking onto your property etc". So yeah I guess I'm the murderous gun lobbyist they need to use in their ludicrous examples or what we supposedly said.

So Storch as usual, just consider the source of who you argue with. Kind of like the above example of a sick kid they try and use. LOL. There may be other murderous gun lobbyist here besides me, simply because we don't agree with them. But I will take credit for the one I was involved in. It made me laugh. Calling ME a murderer against cops. They are so clueless I start to feel sort of sorry for them a little. They actually live in a world all their own. Whats that called? Delusional I think. ObamaCare to the rescue.

 

I understand. You would do what you feel you need to do. Balbus's wording: ". . . to shoot police officers if they feel they want to" was a deliberate attempt to change a need to a want, as if you relish the idea of doing so.

 

Yeah we know.