How close are we to a replay of the 1994 Crime Bill?
14 Dec 2012, 7:08 pm
Dox47 wrote:
ScrewyWabbit wrote:
We've just this very day seen firearms used to massacre little children. Its not hysteria, its reality. Yes, of course gun advocates would prefer not to have this debate, or at least put it off until there are no fresh memories of dead children to contend with, but this is the reality of what has happened, the reality of what will likely continue to happen unless we do something to prevent it from recurring in the future, and the reality of what every sane normal person should want to try and prevent.
If not having gun control laws is such a great idea, that is what should stand up in the face of the "hysteria" that we may be going through right now. If we can't all get together and do the right thing when we're all reeling from the frest impact of a tragedy that is a direct result of our lack of tough gun restrictions, then when will we? When we aren't thinking about the victims of gun violence and gun advocates can make us forget what harm guns can really cause?
Plus, when we have half the gun nuts proclaiming "Obama will take our guns!" and the other half proclaiming they need their guns to resist some inevitable government takeover or power grab, I'd say very few gun advocates have any basis for accusing anyone else of engaging in hysteria.
And speaking of underhanded tricks, your statement "Why do you think they need tragedies to sell gun control anyway?" is exactly that. Its exactly this type of tragedy that we need gun control to prevent, and yet every time there's a tragedy, the right wing tries to convince us that reacting to the tragedy is not allowed or hysteria. Bollocks. We shouldn't need tragedies to "sell" gun control because we ought to have gun control to prevent the tragedies to begin with. But as long as we don't have real gun control, we need to pause every time there's an unnecessary tragedy and remind ourselves that the price of not having gun control is the unnecessary deaths of our husbands, wives, sons and daughters. Its not a debate to have in the quiet times between these tragedies when the tragedies themselves are far off in our minds and only abstract instead of real and in our face. We need to have these debates in the face of these tragedies that we could be preventing, so that we are fully and vividly aware of what we're doing every time we decide someone's 2nd amendment rights are more important than the life of a child.
If not having gun control laws is such a great idea, that is what should stand up in the face of the "hysteria" that we may be going through right now. If we can't all get together and do the right thing when we're all reeling from the frest impact of a tragedy that is a direct result of our lack of tough gun restrictions, then when will we? When we aren't thinking about the victims of gun violence and gun advocates can make us forget what harm guns can really cause?
Plus, when we have half the gun nuts proclaiming "Obama will take our guns!" and the other half proclaiming they need their guns to resist some inevitable government takeover or power grab, I'd say very few gun advocates have any basis for accusing anyone else of engaging in hysteria.
And speaking of underhanded tricks, your statement "Why do you think they need tragedies to sell gun control anyway?" is exactly that. Its exactly this type of tragedy that we need gun control to prevent, and yet every time there's a tragedy, the right wing tries to convince us that reacting to the tragedy is not allowed or hysteria. Bollocks. We shouldn't need tragedies to "sell" gun control because we ought to have gun control to prevent the tragedies to begin with. But as long as we don't have real gun control, we need to pause every time there's an unnecessary tragedy and remind ourselves that the price of not having gun control is the unnecessary deaths of our husbands, wives, sons and daughters. Its not a debate to have in the quiet times between these tragedies when the tragedies themselves are far off in our minds and only abstract instead of real and in our face. We need to have these debates in the face of these tragedies that we could be preventing, so that we are fully and vividly aware of what we're doing every time we decide someone's 2nd amendment rights are more important than the life of a child.
I'm going to quote the OP from my long running thread on this subject, to save time.
Dox47 wrote:
In the US, I currently enjoy fairly broad rights in owning and using firearms. There are people who think this is wrong or a bad idea for any number of reasons, and would like to curtail my rights in various ways in furtherance of their own beliefs. This situation is analogous to a court case in that the party wishing to impose sanctions, the "prosecution" if you will, has the onus to establish their case that the proposed restrictions would actually work, and thus the erosion of my rights is justified.
So, for those of you who favor gun control, the challenge is to present examples of successful gun control programs in action, showing why these measures are necessary and demonstrating that the purpose is really to save lives or prevent violence, not just some vague unease around or dislike of firearms. If you just don't like guns, this isn't for you.
Now, the caveats. The US is awash in guns and has a wide range of socio-economic issues unrelated to guns that affect crime and violence, so in order for a valid comparison to be made, the policy in question has to have been:
So, Japan, for example, which never had many guns nor much violent crime, would not count.
I'll briefly mention a few commonly proposed gun control schemes and some of my personal objections:
Registration: Only good at catching someone after a crime has been committed, and only in certain narrow circumstances. Has been expensive and ineffective where it has been implemented, e.g. Canada's long gun registration. Also, it has proven effective as a confiscation list for governments passing retroactive restrictions, such as England. Licensing creates similar problems.
Ballistic "fingerprinting": Expensive and ineffective; fails to account for the fact that metal parts erode with use and the "fingerprint" of the gun changes over time. Easily defeated with rudimentary tools as well.
Assault weapons bans: Restricts a class of weapon not commonly used in crime; primary distinction of "assault weapons" are cosmetic features.
Magazine capacity restrictions: Like "assault weapons", not commonly used in crime, a statistically insignificant number of high profile shootings notwithstanding.
Restrictions on concealed carry: Licensed carriers are much more law abiding than baseline citizens; record number of US citizens now carry while crime is at a 30 year low.
Restrictions on the number of guns one can own: US gun sales are at record highs while violent crime is at record lows.
Closing "gun show loophole": There is no such thing, the term was invented by the anti-gun lobby to describe informal sales at garage sales and such. An insignificant number of criminally employed guns come from gun shows.
Confiscation: Would lead to a larger bloodbath than what it was trying to prevent.
I'll add others as they occur to me.
Have at it!
So, for those of you who favor gun control, the challenge is to present examples of successful gun control programs in action, showing why these measures are necessary and demonstrating that the purpose is really to save lives or prevent violence, not just some vague unease around or dislike of firearms. If you just don't like guns, this isn't for you.
Now, the caveats. The US is awash in guns and has a wide range of socio-economic issues unrelated to guns that affect crime and violence, so in order for a valid comparison to be made, the policy in question has to have been:
- Imposed on a country where gun ownership was previously common.
- Imposed on a country where violence was an actual problem, preferably comparable to the US.
- Be shown to have acted independently of other socio-economic variables
- Shown to have reduced total violence, not just "gun violence" by significant levels
So, Japan, for example, which never had many guns nor much violent crime, would not count.
I'll briefly mention a few commonly proposed gun control schemes and some of my personal objections:
Registration: Only good at catching someone after a crime has been committed, and only in certain narrow circumstances. Has been expensive and ineffective where it has been implemented, e.g. Canada's long gun registration. Also, it has proven effective as a confiscation list for governments passing retroactive restrictions, such as England. Licensing creates similar problems.
Ballistic "fingerprinting": Expensive and ineffective; fails to account for the fact that metal parts erode with use and the "fingerprint" of the gun changes over time. Easily defeated with rudimentary tools as well.
Assault weapons bans: Restricts a class of weapon not commonly used in crime; primary distinction of "assault weapons" are cosmetic features.
Magazine capacity restrictions: Like "assault weapons", not commonly used in crime, a statistically insignificant number of high profile shootings notwithstanding.
Restrictions on concealed carry: Licensed carriers are much more law abiding than baseline citizens; record number of US citizens now carry while crime is at a 30 year low.
Restrictions on the number of guns one can own: US gun sales are at record highs while violent crime is at record lows.
Closing "gun show loophole": There is no such thing, the term was invented by the anti-gun lobby to describe informal sales at garage sales and such. An insignificant number of criminally employed guns come from gun shows.
Confiscation: Would lead to a larger bloodbath than what it was trying to prevent.
I'll add others as they occur to me.
Have at it!
If you like, I'll also dig up the exact number of people in the US who've died in mass shootings in the last 30 years and demonstrate what an insignificant number it is, compare shootings to other more likely tragic events and their relative chances of happening to a given person, and otherwise rip up any further emotional appeals. That thread went 25 pages without anyone coming close to meeting the challenge, so think carefully, as I do believe I may have heard it all on this topic.
The problem with the OP's argument that you're proxying is that they are attempting to shift the "burden of proof", if you will, to the anti-gun advocates, predicated on the idea that the anti-gun advocates seek to take away rights that gun owners already have. While I applaud my opponents for seeking to shift the context of the debate into their favor, their attempt none-the-less does not pass muster. The fallacy of what they're saying is that they ignores a key question: do gun owners really have the "right", under the constitution, and specifically the 2nd amendment, to own all of the various types of weapons that they are currently allowed to own, or is what has actually happened is that the 2nd amendment never bestowed upon them these "rights", but instead they have been benefiting from an overly broad or lax interpretation of the 2nd amendment while it has never really provided them with these "rights" to begin with? One does not need to satisfy a burden of proof to take away someone's rights, at least not in the context of statistical or other evidence about gun violence, when the rights in question are not rights that they were ever really entitled to to begin with. One cannot take away rights from someone that they never had to begin with. Therefore, the burden of proof is really on the gun advocates to establish that they really do have the right to own all the various classes of weapons that they would like to, or that they are entitled not to have their guns registered, monitored, sales reasonably restricted, be subject to a background check, or even a mental health check before purchasing a firearm, etc.
The 2nd amendment, as gun advocates like to remind us, states in part "...the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." First, what is not stated is that the right to bear arms includes all arms, even classes of arms that the authors of the 2nd amendment could never have imagined. In those days, flintlock muskets and primitive revolvers were the state of the art. No one had contemplated semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons. Clearly, the right to bear certain types of arms would be guaranteed, at least only considering that one fragment of the 2nd amendment. But that takes us to the second point, that they conveniently forget the part of the text that immediately preceeds what I already quoted: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." This implies that the right to bear arms does not extend to all citizens, or to all persons, but only to those who are part of a well-regulated militia - in modern terms, the National Guard.
By the way, when you say you'll "dig up the exact number of people in the US who've died in mass shootings in the last 30 years and demonstrate what an insignificant number it is" - the statistic I'm more interested in is what percentage of those victims, or their family members or friends, feel that anything about it is even remotely insignificant. Show me that the percentage of those people who think that is statistically insignificant, and I'll agree you're on to something. Until then, though, I respectfully suggest you are trivializing what these people have suffered through, something that should never be trivialized, in order to try and bolster your argument. I guess we're meant to think that its ok if some people die needlessly from gun violence, just so long as its not too many people? Really?
14 Dec 2012, 7:17 pm
ScrewyWabbit wrote:
The problem with the OP's argument that you're proxying is that they are attempting to shift the "burden of proof", if you will, to the anti-gun advocates, predicated on the idea that the anti-gun advocates seek to take away rights that gun owners already have. While I applaud my opponents for seeking to shift the context of the debate into their favor, their attempt none-the-less does not pass muster. The fallacy of what they're saying is that they ignores a key question: do gun owners really have the "right", under the constitution, and specifically the 2nd amendment, to own all of the various types of weapons that they are currently allowed to own, or is what has actually happened is that the 2nd amendment never bestowed upon them these "rights", but instead they have been benefiting from an overly broad or lax interpretation of the 2nd amendment while it has never really provided them with these "rights" to begin with? One does not need to satisfy a burden of proof to take away someone's rights, at least not in the context of statistical or other evidence about gun violence, when the rights in question are not rights that they were ever really entitled to to begin with. One cannot take away rights from someone that they never had to begin with. Therefore, the burden of proof is really on the gun advocates to establish that they really do have the right to own all the various classes of weapons that they would like to, or that they are entitled not to have their guns registered, monitored, sales reasonably restricted, be subject to a background check, or even a mental health check before purchasing a firearm, etc.
The 2nd amendment, as gun advocates like to remind us, states in part "...the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." First, what is not stated is that the right to bear arms includes all arms, even classes of arms that the authors of the 2nd amendment could never have imagined. In those days, flintlock muskets and primitive revolvers were the state of the art. No one had contemplated semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons. Clearly, the right to bear certain types of arms would be guaranteed, at least only considering that one fragment of the 2nd amendment. But that takes us to the second point, that they conveniently forget the part of the text that immediately preceeds what I already quoted: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." This implies that the right to bear arms does not extend to all citizens, or to all persons, but only to those who are part of a well-regulated militia - in modern terms, the National Guard.
The 2nd amendment, as gun advocates like to remind us, states in part "...the right to bear arms shall not be infringed." First, what is not stated is that the right to bear arms includes all arms, even classes of arms that the authors of the 2nd amendment could never have imagined. In those days, flintlock muskets and primitive revolvers were the state of the art. No one had contemplated semi-automatic or fully automatic weapons. Clearly, the right to bear certain types of arms would be guaranteed, at least only considering that one fragment of the 2nd amendment. But that takes us to the second point, that they conveniently forget the part of the text that immediately preceeds what I already quoted: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." This implies that the right to bear arms does not extend to all citizens, or to all persons, but only to those who are part of a well-regulated militia - in modern terms, the National Guard.
Nice dodge, but I'm not here to debate the second amendment; that's what SCOTUS is for, your side lost, deal with it. Now, care to try again?
Try addressing the actual situation at hand this time, the one we live in and not an imaginary one where the 2A was interpreted differently and we didn't have the guns and the culture.
Also, that's my OP, original to me.
_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson
14 Dec 2012, 9:01 pm
abacacus wrote:
China has very, VERY strict gun control... so their nut used a knife.
Gun control will not solve the problem. I'm not opposed to reasonable gun control, but saying it'll actually solve any major issues... yeah, no.
Gun control will not solve the problem. I'm not opposed to reasonable gun control, but saying it'll actually solve any major issues... yeah, no.
And what is "reasonable gun control" and what has it proven to do for us in the past?
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
15 Dec 2012, 1:23 am
01001011 wrote:
abacacus wrote:
China has very, VERY strict gun control... so their nut used a knife.
That already proves the value of the law. Namely to make the job of the (would be) mass murder more difficult.
Quote:
That already proves the value of the law.
In this case it was at a school which was most likely a "gun free" zone. Being a gun free zone by law this massacre apparently didn't really happen since bringing the tool of destruction on campus was unlawful making it impossible to carry out the massacre.
Quote:
Namely to make the job of the (would be) mass murder more difficult.
There are enough guns in circulation now that banning them would do nothing but drive up the price of the existing ones. You cannot de-invent things.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
15 Dec 2012, 9:36 am
Raptor wrote:
01001011 wrote:
abacacus wrote:
China has very, VERY strict gun control... so their nut used a knife.
That already proves the value of the law. Namely to make the job of the (would be) mass murder more difficult.
Quote:
That already proves the value of the law.
In this case it was at a school which was most likely a "gun free" zone. Being a gun free zone by law this massacre apparently didn't really happen since bringing the tool of destruction on campus was unlawful making it impossible to carry out the massacre.
I was talking about the law in China, where it does serve to restrict the choice of a would be mass killer.
The main problem with gun free zone was addressed in my other thread - that anyone can easily carry a gun just outside the gate of the school.
A more important part of gun control should be restricting people carrying guns in the public.
Quote:
There are enough guns in circulation now that banning them would do nothing but drive up the price of the existing ones. You cannot de-invent things.
I agree there is no way to end the US gun problem immediately. However in view of the 1986 ban, a total ban may not be as dramatic as you think.
15 Dec 2012, 11:16 am
01001011 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
01001011 wrote:
abacacus wrote:
China has very, VERY strict gun control... so their nut used a knife.
That already proves the value of the law. Namely to make the job of the (would be) mass murder more difficult.
Quote:
That already proves the value of the law.
In this case it was at a school which was most likely a "gun free" zone. Being a gun free zone by law this massacre apparently didn't really happen since bringing the tool of destruction on campus was unlawful making it impossible to carry out the massacre.
01001011 wrote:
I was talking about the law in China, where it does serve to restrict the choice of a would be mass killer.
China is China and we are not in it.
The main problem with gun free zone was addressed in my other thread - that anyone can easily carry a gun just outside the gate of the school.
That's my point. It is only a designated zone and is only effective in barring law abiding citizens from being armed, not the ones they would be arming themselves against. Of course, some otherwise law abiding citizens carry in gun free zones because it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.
01001011 wrote:
A more important part of gun control should be restricting people carrying guns in the public.
It is restricted. In just about every state it is illegal to carry without a CCW permit and on top of that most states require that the firearm be completely concealed.
Raptor wrote:
There are enough guns in circulation now that banning them would do nothing but drive up the price of the existing ones. You cannot de-invent things.
01001011 wrote:
I agree there is no way to end the US gun problem immediately.
Um, guns are not and can not be the problem as they do not act on their own.
01001011 wrote:
However in view of the 1986 ban, a total ban may not be as dramatic as you think.
I have no idea what you meant by that but, yes, I am familiar with the 1986 FOPA.
_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson
15 Dec 2012, 8:03 pm
Raptor wrote:
01001011 wrote:
abacacus wrote:
China has very, VERY strict gun control... so their nut used a knife.
That already proves the value of the law. Namely to make the job of the (would be) mass murder more difficult.
Quote:
That already proves the value of the law.
In this case it was at a school which was most likely a "gun free" zone. Being a gun free zone by law this massacre apparently didn't really happen since bringing the tool of destruction on campus was unlawful making it impossible to carry out the massacre.
Quote:
Namely to make the job of the (would be) mass murder more difficult.
There are enough guns in circulation now that banning them would do nothing but drive up the price of the existing ones. You cannot de-invent things.
Prisoners have made .32 acp submachineguns in metal shop. Prisoners have even gotten pipes and blocked off one side and made matchlocks firing match head powder with AA batteries for projectiles. Supposedly one of those guns was capable of firing through a battery through a prison door. A gun is not complex, all it consists of is pressure behind a projectile to launch it. Whether or not they're a "good" invention or not, the cat's out of the bag.
I believe guns are, in essence, a "good" invention. Guns equalize. Before guns, only physically strong people would win a fight. With a gun, a weaker person can defeat a stronger person trying to oppress them. IE, women are genetically weaker than men, without a firearm, a woman most of the time must rely on a man to protect her, as even if she reaches her maximum genetic potential for strength, she'll still be weaker than a man with maxed out genetic potential (you see this looking at strength records from women, in say, weightlifting, and even in figure skating, where it's only the males pulling off quad jumps, despite males being like single digit population in the sport.) But with a gun, she can overpower a more powerful male. If the male has the same gun, it's an equal fight still. Women due to their usually over-emotional sensibilities like the idea of banning guns, but they'd be the ones most affected by it, as they basically lose their equality in this way.
So compared to swords and whatnot, they do take very little training or physical strength to master, this is why guns got banned in feudal Japan. Guns would have put the warrior class Samurai out of business. Peasant armies with matchlocks were able to defeat highly skilled samurai. Japan being such a small place, when whatever ruling parties got into power, they immediately banned guns (and swords) so peasants couldn't get them, so the samurai could stay in power. And of course, these noble samurai could slice off a peasant's head on a whim. Of course, this lead to Japan's undoing, as they had (the now American mentality, haha) that the world outside of Japan didn't exist, and so without their own firearms, couldn't stand up to people with them (America and Commodore Perry.)
The world is ugly, and it will remain so. Thus the necessity for evils like firearms. A time will come when swords will be beat to plowshares, but it's not here yet, nor will be here for a while. Before that time comes, anyone who makes you do it will be beating you into being a plowshare, too.
16 Dec 2012, 12:03 am
I thought I should point something out.
This is an assault rifle:
[img][800:320]http://www.bushmaster.com/img/firearms/90474_LE_14_A3Auto.jpg[/img]
This is NOT an assault rifle:
[img][800:320]http://www.bushmaster.com/img/firearms/90280_XM-15_HBBL.jpg[/img]
The difference? The most regulated piece of metal in the United states:
That tiny piece of metal is the difference between firing 80 rounds per minute and 800.
_________________
Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men?
16 Dec 2012, 2:11 am
I don't even know how much civilian access to full auto would make much of a difference in death rates. Most people aren't trained to use full auto, and in military contexts it's basically only useful for suppressive fire. So even if some guy got ahold of a full auto AR and did a shooting with it, I'd probably venture the casualty rate would be less, even in the army the M16 got replaced with 3 round burst for the reason it just wasted ammo in untrained/unprepared hands with full auto.
16 Dec 2012, 2:47 am
1000Knives wrote:
Prisoners have made .32 acp submachineguns in metal shop. Prisoners have even gotten pipes and blocked off one side and made matchlocks firing match head powder with AA batteries for projectiles. Supposedly one of those guns was capable of firing through a battery through a prison door. A gun is not complex, all it consists of is pressure behind a projectile to launch it. Whether or not they're a "good" invention or not, the cat's out of the bag.
I believe guns are, in essence, a "good" invention. Guns equalize. Before guns, only physically strong people would win a fight. With a gun, a weaker person can defeat a stronger person trying to oppress them. IE, women are genetically weaker than men, without a firearm, a woman most of the time must rely on a man to protect her, as even if she reaches her maximum genetic potential for strength, she'll still be weaker than a man with maxed out genetic potential (you see this looking at strength records from women, in say, weightlifting, and even in figure skating, where it's only the males pulling off quad jumps, despite males being like single digit population in the sport.) But with a gun, she can overpower a more powerful male. If the male has the same gun, it's an equal fight still. Women due to their usually over-emotional sensibilities like the idea of banning guns, but they'd be the ones most affected by it, as they basically lose their equality in this way.
So compared to swords and whatnot, they do take very little training or physical strength to master, this is why guns got banned in feudal Japan. Guns would have put the warrior class Samurai out of business. Peasant armies with matchlocks were able to defeat highly skilled samurai. Japan being such a small place, when whatever ruling parties got into power, they immediately banned guns (and swords) so peasants couldn't get them, so the samurai could stay in power. And of course, these noble samurai could slice off a peasant's head on a whim. Of course, this lead to Japan's undoing, as they had (the now American mentality, haha) that the world outside of Japan didn't exist, and so without their own firearms, couldn't stand up to people with them (America and Commodore Perry.)
The world is ugly, and it will remain so. Thus the necessity for evils like firearms. A time will come when swords will be beat to plowshares, but it's not here yet, nor will be here for a while. Before that time comes, anyone who makes you do it will be beating you into being a plowshare, too.
I believe guns are, in essence, a "good" invention. Guns equalize. Before guns, only physically strong people would win a fight. With a gun, a weaker person can defeat a stronger person trying to oppress them. IE, women are genetically weaker than men, without a firearm, a woman most of the time must rely on a man to protect her, as even if she reaches her maximum genetic potential for strength, she'll still be weaker than a man with maxed out genetic potential (you see this looking at strength records from women, in say, weightlifting, and even in figure skating, where it's only the males pulling off quad jumps, despite males being like single digit population in the sport.) But with a gun, she can overpower a more powerful male. If the male has the same gun, it's an equal fight still. Women due to their usually over-emotional sensibilities like the idea of banning guns, but they'd be the ones most affected by it, as they basically lose their equality in this way.
So compared to swords and whatnot, they do take very little training or physical strength to master, this is why guns got banned in feudal Japan. Guns would have put the warrior class Samurai out of business. Peasant armies with matchlocks were able to defeat highly skilled samurai. Japan being such a small place, when whatever ruling parties got into power, they immediately banned guns (and swords) so peasants couldn't get them, so the samurai could stay in power. And of course, these noble samurai could slice off a peasant's head on a whim. Of course, this lead to Japan's undoing, as they had (the now American mentality, haha) that the world outside of Japan didn't exist, and so without their own firearms, couldn't stand up to people with them (America and Commodore Perry.)
The world is ugly, and it will remain so. Thus the necessity for evils like firearms. A time will come when swords will be beat to plowshares, but it's not here yet, nor will be here for a while. Before that time comes, anyone who makes you do it will be beating you into being a plowshare, too.
Damn, I think I've touched on all this stuff at one time or another, but great job putting it all together.
_________________
“The totally convinced and the totally stupid have too much in common for the resemblance to be accidental.”
-- Robert Anton Wilson
John_Browning
Veteran
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range
16 Dec 2012, 3:38 am
1000Knives wrote:
I don't even know how much civilian access to full auto would make much of a difference in death rates. Most people aren't trained to use full auto, and in military contexts it's basically only useful for suppressive fire. So even if some guy got ahold of a full auto AR and did a shooting with it, I'd probably venture the casualty rate would be less, even in the army the M16 got replaced with 3 round burst for the reason it just wasted ammo in untrained/unprepared hands with full auto.
Exactly!
With full auto, the worst that would happen is you'd have a lopsided number of wounded compared to dead, but more likely a lopsided number of shots fired to people hit at all due to so many poorly controlled or unaimed shots. I brought this up several months ago that the rate of fire of all the most common automatic rifles would empty their magazine in under 6 seconds at most.
_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown
"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud
16 Dec 2012, 3:53 am
John_Browning wrote:
1000Knives wrote:
I don't even know how much civilian access to full auto would make much of a difference in death rates. Most people aren't trained to use full auto, and in military contexts it's basically only useful for suppressive fire. So even if some guy got ahold of a full auto AR and did a shooting with it, I'd probably venture the casualty rate would be less, even in the army the M16 got replaced with 3 round burst for the reason it just wasted ammo in untrained/unprepared hands with full auto.
Exactly!
With full auto, the worst that would happen is you'd have a lopsided number of wounded compared to dead, but more likely a lopsided number of shots fired to people hit at all due to so many poorly controlled or unaimed shots. I brought this up several months ago that the rate of fire of all the most common automatic rifles would empty their magazine in under 6 seconds at most.
I guess North Hollywood Shootout would be the "worst case" scenario for full auto weapons/ARs, and in the end only the shooters died from it. Then again, the objective wasn't murder there, but robbery, so maybe not a fair comparison.
John_Browning
Veteran
Joined: 22 Mar 2009
Age: 42
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,456
Location: The shooting range
16 Dec 2012, 4:33 am
1000Knives wrote:
John_Browning wrote:
1000Knives wrote:
I don't even know how much civilian access to full auto would make much of a difference in death rates. Most people aren't trained to use full auto, and in military contexts it's basically only useful for suppressive fire. So even if some guy got ahold of a full auto AR and did a shooting with it, I'd probably venture the casualty rate would be less, even in the army the M16 got replaced with 3 round burst for the reason it just wasted ammo in untrained/unprepared hands with full auto.
Exactly!
With full auto, the worst that would happen is you'd have a lopsided number of wounded compared to dead, but more likely a lopsided number of shots fired to people hit at all due to so many poorly controlled or unaimed shots. I brought this up several months ago that the rate of fire of all the most common automatic rifles would empty their magazine in under 6 seconds at most.
I guess North Hollywood Shootout would be the "worst case" scenario for full auto weapons/ARs, and in the end only the shooters died from it. Then again, the objective wasn't murder there, but robbery, so maybe not a fair comparison.
It was quick thinking that saved the LAPD, and their willingness to swallow their pride and borrow rifles (including '94 AWB-compliant AR-15s) to stop the gunmen. They tried to kill a bunch of people that got in their way, but they didn't get a clean shot, and their Chinese-made armor piercing ammo punched a really small, clean (<.311") hole through the victims as well.
_________________
"Gun control is like trying to reduce drunk driving by making it tougher for sober people to own cars."
- Unknown
"A fear of weapons is a sign of ret*d sexual and emotional maturity."
-Sigmund Freud
18 Dec 2012, 9:53 am
1000Knives wrote:
I believe guns are, in essence, a "good" invention. Guns equalize. Before guns, only physically strong people would win a fight. With a gun, a weaker person can defeat a stronger person trying to oppress them.
...
If the male has the same gun, it's an equal fight still.
...
If the male has the same gun, it's an equal fight still.
Nothing but a romantic fantasy. To begin with the weaker person can try to run away, there is no reason to fight. Second, there is no 'fair gun fight' in real life. With guns, the attacker have much greater advantage by holding the initiative. Even with everything equal, some people have quicker reflex and better hand eyes coordination - no different from a strong person fighting a weak one.
Quote:
So compared to swords and whatnot, they do take very little training or physical strength to master, this is why guns got banned in feudal Japan. Guns would have put the warrior class Samurai out of business. Peasant armies with matchlocks were able to defeat highly skilled samurai.
Wrong. Large numbers of peasants with crude cold weapons can still overwhelm a highly skilled samurai. It is not uncommon for east Asian culture that time to reject ANYTHING western.
Quote:
Japan being such a small place,
Not as small as you think.
Quote:
The world is ugly, and it will remain so. Thus the necessity for evils like firearms.
The same can be said for high and poison gas. Do you think they should not be banned?
18 Dec 2012, 10:11 am
Raptor wrote:
That's my point. It is only a designated zone and is only effective in barring law abiding citizens from being armed,
It is restricted. In just about every state it is illegal to carry without a CCW permit and on top of that most states require that the firearm be completely concealed.
Quote:
The problem is with your idea of a gun free zone. You are think of it as a token. An effective 'gun free zone' must be enforced by agents searching for (illegal) carry.
The same debunked rhetoric again. What is the chance of being caught compared with being saved by carrying a gun? Would you bring a gun to the plane to protect yourself in case of hijacking?
Quote:
it's better to be judged by 12 than carried by six.
The same debunked rhetoric again. What is the chance of being caught compared with being saved by carrying a gun? Would you bring a gun to the plane to protect yourself in case of hijacking?
It is restricted. In just about every state it is illegal to carry without a CCW permit and on top of that most states require that the firearm be completely concealed.
You call that restricted...
In most states people within legal age and no criminal or mental illness record can reasonably expect a permit by just filling a form. No need to provide any evidence or explanation.
With such token system, how can you tell any random people carrying a gun legal or not?
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| Nazi sentenced to 18 years for transphobic hate crime |
03 Feb 2024, 7:41 pm |
| Have u regretted telling a close family member about ur AS? |
04 Apr 2024, 11:20 am |
| Close friend learning to unmask hurts my feelings? |
21 Mar 2024, 4:34 pm |
| Cheer Up! | Real Time with Bill Maher |
16 Mar 2024, 1:11 pm |
