3 ms·

If 10 round magazines were in any way 'unsafe' - then we wouldn't use them. To characterise the extremely marginal degree of 'safety concern' when using a weap

by jariel 6y ago

If 10 round magazines were in any way 'unsafe' - then we wouldn't use them. To characterise the extremely marginal degree of 'safety concern' when using a weapon which is 1000x more likely to cause harm through the means that it was designed for (i.e. shooting, getting shot) is a little ridiculous, especially in the context of the objective of the legislation. While individual laws may be pointless by themselves, the fact is the US is basically an unruly, unlawful dangerous place with levels of violent crime completely abnormal for any civilised country. Even if you account for a number of 'danger areas / ghettos ' with anomalies amounts of crime, it's still bad. The wide and easy availability of guns ostensibly destined for the hands of otherwise lawful gun owners is a big factor in what makes all this extreme violence possible. So if we want to have 30 round magazines and all those other things widely and easily available, open carry etc. (i.e the US is nothing resembling 'Switzerland') ... then we have to 'pay the price' and live with the consequences: about 10 times more likely to get shot and killed then if we lived in a civilised country without guns widely available, and without gun culture. The civilised places which have managed to live without widespread gun ownership have demonstrated that it's almost entirely a better option. Nobody is clamouring for guns in these places or contemplating that they need to follow America's example in this regard. In fact - just the opposite. Basically, America is looked upon as a complete failure when it comes to these things. What could work well? 'Well regulated Militias'. That might just work fine - rifles in the Armoury, keys held by the Sergeant at Arms. Not much but hunting rifles at home, locked up safely. Funny that ... 'Well regulated Militia' ...

Alupis 6y ago
They are unsafe because they routinely cause weapon malfunctions. Trying to clear two rounds stacked into each other is dangerous and can cause a negligent discharge. Certain types of cartridges are even more susceptible to problems stemming from feed malfunctions, such as "Setback" in .40 S&W, which can turn your handgun into a hand grenade with no warning. Basically, your argument seems to be, guns can be dangerous if used improperly, therefore a magazine that was modified to meet some arbitrary requirement and causes routine malfunctions isn't a problem? That's absurd. When you examine violent gun related crime - it is simply not law abiding citizens causing the problems. It simply is not. It's gang shootings, and murders that dominate gun violence. Two things that will not stop if you magically removed all guns. You must be realistic, otherwise you're arguing from a disingenuous position. California - and particularly Los Angeles - has some of the most strict gun policy in the country! Yet... are responsible for most of the gun violence in the nation. How do you explain that away? Is it a bunch of law abiding citizens committing all that violence? No it is not. > The wide and easy availability of guns ostensibly destined for the hands of otherwise lawful gun owners is a big factor in what makes all this extreme violence possible Really? One of the most commonly seized gang shooting-related firearms in California is the TEC-9, a gun that's been illegal to purchase since the 80's. No "otherwise lawful gun owner" has one - so how is your assertion possibly true? What about all the so-called "Ghost Guns" that gang bangers are supposedly manufacturing in their homes? Is that because "otherwise lawful gun owners" own legal guns? You cannot even legally buy the serialized component of the firearm to manufacture into a complete firearm without doing so through an actual FFL (these are commonly called "80% kits" or sometimes are just the bare lower receiver of a AR-15 rifle - they are serialized and tracked by ATF and DOJ). > Not much but hunting rifles at home, locked up safely. You mean to say, not an AR-15 pattern rifle, or an AK-47 pattern rifle? What about a Mini-14 or Mini-30? You've probably never heard of them or seen one in person, and would probably be fine with them I would assume. They don't look like "military" rifles, right? Even though they fire the exact same cartridges as the two "scary military" rifles and can hold 5, 10, 20, 30+ rounds in their magazines too? In any event, it seems abundantly clear you do not have much experience with these firearms and their magazines - which makes your rejection of my original comment highly suspicious, and likely completely baseless.
- tialaramex 6y ago
  > It's gang shootings, and murders that dominate gun violence. Two things that will not stop if you magically removed all guns. Even though it's obviously nonsense, I have no doubt Alupis sincerely believes that if there aren't guns people will use guns anyway, somehow. Sure the facts might disagree but Alupis has no time for facts. Sure logic might disagree but Alupis has no time for logic. Alupis knows a truth and so nothing else matters, and this truth must be fiercely defended because, to their disappointment somehow facts and logic keep contradicting it. Stupid facts and logic, why aren't they subservient to Alupis' truth? Mostly I can't help you on gun control, people like Alupis aren't your main obstacle there although they don't help. But I do have a more general piece of advice. You shouldn't hire these people in any technical role that's going to involve debugging of any sort. Because they so easily believe in a truth which they have settled upon independent of the facts, they are useless in these roles and they don't know it. A defiant belief in truths that are belied by the facts might be an admirable trait in like, a preacher, or maybe marketing. But in debugging it's a massive impediment.
- jariel 6y ago
  A) Your comments about smaller mags are false; try and find some evidence to back your claims - there is none. Smaller mags are not 'unsafe'. B) You're missing the point about 'availability of weapons'. We don't need to speculate as to 'what might be' - we know exactly what 'would be' because here are dozens of other civilised countries as a basis of comparison. There is a perfect correlation between 'less guns widely available' and 'less gun crime'. It's blatantly obvious to anyone who's been outside the US for more than a few months. (And FYI - guns are not widely available in Switzerland as they are in the US). USA - tons of guns, tons of gun crime. Canada - less guns, less gun crime. Most of Europe (including CH) - very few guns, very little gun crime. Japan - almost zero guns, almost zero gun crime. If it's difficult to grasp the obvious, consider 'market forces' and 'supply and demand': when guns are 'banned' and they exist nowhere legally in a nation, they are actually quite hard to get hands on. A 'thug' in the US can easily get his hands on a weapon. In Canada, it's that much harder. In Europe, it's a huge pain. In Japan, it's almost impossible. And guess what? Why would they need them? As there are fewer guns, and the punishment for having them goes way up, the level of violence is de-escelated. In the UK they have a 'knife problem' - which is bad - but it's much better than having a 'gun problem'. Have you ever been to the UK? Most cops don't carry guns. How is this possible? Come on now - add up the points ... It's possible because there are almost no guns in the country, and the level of violence is low enough that they don't need to carry for the most part. Once again: the ignorance of 'gun lovers' who literally can't see the data in front of them, or who are completely incapable of grasping a situation that is 'beyond their borders'. It's a uniquely American thing, and it's really odd. ---> When there are considerably fewer guns in a civilised society, there is considerably less gun violence. Full Stop. C) As for my 'experience' with weapons - 4 years, Army. Yes, I've played with some nice toys, in the field, where they belong. But that's completely irrelevant.
bifrost 6y ago
> If 10 round magazines were in any way 'unsafe' - then we wouldn't use them. California has attempted to use "safety" as a reason to ban certain guns, yet strangely LEOs are allowed to buy/use/sell them. We use unsafe things all the time but having a larger capacity magazine makes the wielder much safer in a situation where they need to use their firearm. > What could work well? 'Well regulated Militias' This is a common misunderstanding of the law. "Well Regulated" back then meant "Well supplied" and also the militia is "the people". There's also zero evidence that larger magazines makes anyone unsafer. If that was the case, the millions of magazines that filed into California during part of this case would've caused a massive upswing in crime, it didn't.
- jariel 6y ago
  "There's also zero evidence that larger magazines makes anyone unsafer. " I didn't say there was. But there is absolute evidence that 'not having guns widespread' will keep people safer. Not only is it blatantly obvious, the evidence is there in every civilised nation. Go ahead and get a passport, and visit another civilised country. Then ask around 'why there is so much less gun violence' and also why 'people don't feel the need to buy guns'. Or even as a UK cop why he doesn't even carry a gun, which is unthinkable in the US. The US has zero credibility on the issue - aside from some legitimate issues around the second amendment - the 'safety' arguments are asinine. Considerably fewer guns in civilised countries leads to less gun violence literally by supply and demand and simple probabilities of people being able to access them.
  - bifrost 6y ago
    > But there is absolute evidence that 'not having guns widespread' will keep people safer. There is no such evidence. Your canard about other countries is completely silly, their crime rates are totally different based on their cultures.
    - formerly_proven 6y ago
      This doesn't strike me as a strong argument. While it is true that cultural similarities between Central Europe and the US are mostly superficial, while the underlying cultures and values are quite different, I don't see why that provides a solid reason to dismiss GP's point. For example, I don't even know how I would get a gun here in Germany, much less a gun that is useful in committing a bunch of murders (and immediately getting arrested, since all guns you can buy are registered as far as I know). So clearly it would be quite difficult for me to shoot a bunch of people up. Of course, I could use use other weapons to hurt or kill people, e.g. a stick or a kitchen knife. And that's what people usually use, so there is clearly some displacement going on (no/few guns available -> use other weapons to commit crimes). However, not all crimes can be easily committed with any weapon. School shootings don't work with a knife (though you would probably still injure or kill a few people), you need a gun (or a bomb) to effectively kill many people quickly. The consequence is that school shootings are incredibly rare.

by jariel 6y ago

Alupis 6y ago

They are unsafe because they routinely cause weapon malfunctions. Trying to clear two rounds stacked into each other is dangerous and can cause a negligent discharge. Certain types of cartridges are even more susceptible to problems stemming from feed malfunctions, such as "Setback" in .40 S&W, which can turn your handgun into a hand grenade with no warning. Basically, your argument seems to be, guns can be dangerous if used improperly, therefore a magazine that was modified to meet some arbitrary requirement and causes routine malfunctions isn't a problem? That's absurd. When you examine violent gun related crime - it is simply not law abiding citizens causing the problems. It simply is not. It's gang shootings, and murders that dominate gun violence. Two things that will not stop if you magically removed all guns. You must be realistic, otherwise you're arguing from a disingenuous position. California - and particularly Los Angeles - has some of the most strict gun policy in the country! Yet... are responsible for most of the gun violence in the nation. How do you explain that away? Is it a bunch of law abiding citizens committing all that violence? No it is not. > The wide and easy availability of guns ostensibly destined for the hands of otherwise lawful gun owners is a big factor in what makes all this extreme violence possible Really? One of the most commonly seized gang shooting-related firearms in California is the TEC-9, a gun that's been illegal to purchase since the 80's. No "otherwise lawful gun owner" has one - so how is your assertion possibly true? What about all the so-called "Ghost Guns" that gang bangers are supposedly manufacturing in their homes? Is that because "otherwise lawful gun owners" own legal guns? You cannot even legally buy the serialized component of the firearm to manufacture into a complete firearm without doing so through an actual FFL (these are commonly called "80% kits" or sometimes are just the bare lower receiver of a AR-15 rifle - they are serialized and tracked by ATF and DOJ). > Not much but hunting rifles at home, locked up safely. You mean to say, not an AR-15 pattern rifle, or an AK-47 pattern rifle? What about a Mini-14 or Mini-30? You've probably never heard of them or seen one in person, and would probably be fine with them I would assume. They don't look like "military" rifles, right? Even though they fire the exact same cartridges as the two "scary military" rifles and can hold 5, 10, 20, 30+ rounds in their magazines too? In any event, it seems abundantly clear you do not have much experience with these firearms and their magazines - which makes your rejection of my original comment highly suspicious, and likely completely baseless.

tialaramex 6y ago
> It's gang shootings, and murders that dominate gun violence. Two things that will not stop if you magically removed all guns. Even though it's obviously nonsense, I have no doubt Alupis sincerely believes that if there aren't guns people will use guns anyway, somehow. Sure the facts might disagree but Alupis has no time for facts. Sure logic might disagree but Alupis has no time for logic. Alupis knows a truth and so nothing else matters, and this truth must be fiercely defended because, to their disappointment somehow facts and logic keep contradicting it. Stupid facts and logic, why aren't they subservient to Alupis' truth? Mostly I can't help you on gun control, people like Alupis aren't your main obstacle there although they don't help. But I do have a more general piece of advice. You shouldn't hire these people in any technical role that's going to involve debugging of any sort. Because they so easily believe in a truth which they have settled upon independent of the facts, they are useless in these roles and they don't know it. A defiant belief in truths that are belied by the facts might be an admirable trait in like, a preacher, or maybe marketing. But in debugging it's a massive impediment.
jariel 6y ago
A) Your comments about smaller mags are false; try and find some evidence to back your claims - there is none. Smaller mags are not 'unsafe'. B) You're missing the point about 'availability of weapons'. We don't need to speculate as to 'what might be' - we know exactly what 'would be' because here are dozens of other civilised countries as a basis of comparison. There is a perfect correlation between 'less guns widely available' and 'less gun crime'. It's blatantly obvious to anyone who's been outside the US for more than a few months. (And FYI - guns are not widely available in Switzerland as they are in the US). USA - tons of guns, tons of gun crime. Canada - less guns, less gun crime. Most of Europe (including CH) - very few guns, very little gun crime. Japan - almost zero guns, almost zero gun crime. If it's difficult to grasp the obvious, consider 'market forces' and 'supply and demand': when guns are 'banned' and they exist nowhere legally in a nation, they are actually quite hard to get hands on. A 'thug' in the US can easily get his hands on a weapon. In Canada, it's that much harder. In Europe, it's a huge pain. In Japan, it's almost impossible. And guess what? Why would they need them? As there are fewer guns, and the punishment for having them goes way up, the level of violence is de-escelated. In the UK they have a 'knife problem' - which is bad - but it's much better than having a 'gun problem'. Have you ever been to the UK? Most cops don't carry guns. How is this possible? Come on now - add up the points ... It's possible because there are almost no guns in the country, and the level of violence is low enough that they don't need to carry for the most part. Once again: the ignorance of 'gun lovers' who literally can't see the data in front of them, or who are completely incapable of grasping a situation that is 'beyond their borders'. It's a uniquely American thing, and it's really odd. ---> When there are considerably fewer guns in a civilised society, there is considerably less gun violence. Full Stop. C) As for my 'experience' with weapons - 4 years, Army. Yes, I've played with some nice toys, in the field, where they belong. But that's completely irrelevant.

bifrost 6y ago

> If 10 round magazines were in any way 'unsafe' - then we wouldn't use them. California has attempted to use "safety" as a reason to ban certain guns, yet strangely LEOs are allowed to buy/use/sell them. We use unsafe things all the time but having a larger capacity magazine makes the wielder much safer in a situation where they need to use their firearm. > What could work well? 'Well regulated Militias' This is a common misunderstanding of the law. "Well Regulated" back then meant "Well supplied" and also the militia is "the people". There's also zero evidence that larger magazines makes anyone unsafer. If that was the case, the millions of magazines that filed into California during part of this case would've caused a massive upswing in crime, it didn't.

jariel 6y ago
"There's also zero evidence that larger magazines makes anyone unsafer. " I didn't say there was. But there is absolute evidence that 'not having guns widespread' will keep people safer. Not only is it blatantly obvious, the evidence is there in every civilised nation. Go ahead and get a passport, and visit another civilised country. Then ask around 'why there is so much less gun violence' and also why 'people don't feel the need to buy guns'. Or even as a UK cop why he doesn't even carry a gun, which is unthinkable in the US. The US has zero credibility on the issue - aside from some legitimate issues around the second amendment - the 'safety' arguments are asinine. Considerably fewer guns in civilised countries leads to less gun violence literally by supply and demand and simple probabilities of people being able to access them.
- bifrost 6y ago
  > But there is absolute evidence that 'not having guns widespread' will keep people safer. There is no such evidence. Your canard about other countries is completely silly, their crime rates are totally different based on their cultures.
  - formerly_proven 6y ago
    This doesn't strike me as a strong argument. While it is true that cultural similarities between Central Europe and the US are mostly superficial, while the underlying cultures and values are quite different, I don't see why that provides a solid reason to dismiss GP's point. For example, I don't even know how I would get a gun here in Germany, much less a gun that is useful in committing a bunch of murders (and immediately getting arrested, since all guns you can buy are registered as far as I know). So clearly it would be quite difficult for me to shoot a bunch of people up. Of course, I could use use other weapons to hurt or kill people, e.g. a stick or a kitchen knife. And that's what people usually use, so there is clearly some displacement going on (no/few guns available -> use other weapons to commit crimes). However, not all crimes can be easily committed with any weapon. School shootings don't work with a knife (though you would probably still injure or kill a few people), you need a gun (or a bomb) to effectively kill many people quickly. The consequence is that school shootings are incredibly rare.