Slickdeals.net

Slickdeals.net (http://slickdeals.net/forums/index.php)
-   The Podium (http://slickdeals.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=18)
-   -   Gun Incident Mega Thread - Post All Gun Incidents Here (http://slickdeals.net/f/5815914-gun-incident-mega-thread-post-all-gun-incidents-here)

Krazen1211 01-23-2013 11:49 AM

Gun Incident Mega Thread - Post All Gun Incidents Here
 
http://www.bradenton.com/2013/01/...after.html

Manatee County sheriff's deputies continue to investigate an incident in which a man fatally shot an alleged robbery suspect Sunday night at his Bradenton home.

Two men were sitting in the carport of a residence in the 4200 block of 24th Street West about 10:20 p.m. when three suspects, dressed in black and wearing masks, approached on foot. James Brady, 26, allegedly pointed a handgun at one of the victims, ordering him to the ground, according to the sheriff's office.

That's when the victim, who has a conceal-carry license, pulled out a handgun, according to Dave Bristow, sheriff's office spokesman. Gunfire exchanged between the two men



Score one more for the good guys.

124nic8 01-23-2013 11:57 AM

Score one more pro-gun thread.

Why does every "successful" use of a gun for defense deserve a new thread?

Dumpsterdiver 01-23-2013 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Krazen1211 (Post 57062136)
http://www.bradenton.com/2013/01/...after.html

Manatee County sheriff's deputies continue to investigate an incident in which a man fatally shot an alleged robbery suspect Sunday night at his Bradenton home.

Two men were sitting in the carport of a residence in the 4200 block of 24th Street West about 10:20 p.m. when three suspects, dressed in black and wearing masks, approached on foot. James Brady, 26, allegedly pointed a handgun at one of the victims, ordering him to the ground, according to the sheriff's office.

That's when the victim, who has a conceal-carry license, pulled out a handgun, according to Dave Bristow, sheriff's office spokesman. Gunfire exchanged between the two men



Score one more for the good guys.

He missed the other 2 or ran out of bullets?

Doctor_Wu 01-23-2013 11:59 AM

Moving to gun issue mega threads in 3... 2... 1...

Dr. J 01-23-2013 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57062390)
Score one more pro-gun thread.

Why does every "successful" use of a gun for defense deserve a new thread?


For some reason, gun violence stories, which were otherwise looked over, are now daily news, which gives the appearance that they are common place, when stories that support the notion of CCW being beneficial (or just plain gun ownership) are irrelevant.

Some 90,000 commercial flights occur each day (the exact number is debatable and is based on current best statistics, but it's "large") however when a single accident happens (e.g. crash), there's an uproar for "more safety" and "increased regulation" and aerophobics cringe at the mere thought of a bird.

the whole point is perspective.

124nic8 01-23-2013 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. J (Post 57062700)
For some reason, gun violence stories, which were otherwise looked over, are now daily news, which gives the appearance that they are common place, when stories that support the notion of CCW being beneficial (or just plain gun ownership) are irrelevant.

Are you claiming that mass shooting murders are just as common as self-defense with a gun and therefore the latter is just as newsworthy?

Perhaps that would apply in this case if the defense was against a mass shooting murder.... :rolleyes:

Dr. J 01-23-2013 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57062776)
Are you claiming that mass shooting murders are just as common as self-defense with a gun and therefore the latter is just as newsworthy?


I'm stating the obvious - mass shooting deaths are relatively tiny compared with the number of lives "saved" or otherwise violent crime avoided because of the prevalence of guns in our society, just like airplane crashes/accidents are remote incidents regardless of how often they show up in the news.

Krazen1211 01-23-2013 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. J (Post 57062836)
I'm stating the obvious - mass shooting deaths are relatively tiny compared with the number of lives "saved" or otherwise violent crime avoided because of the prevalence of guns in our society, just like airplane crashes/accidents are remote incidents regardless of how often they show up in the news.


Of course, when a good guy with a gun is present a potential mass shooting tends to not be an actual mass shooting.


http://www.lvrj.com/news/19257519.html

Three men were fatally shot early Sunday, and two other people were injured, at a bar filled with about 300 people, and the shootings might have stemmed from a long-standing feud between several families, police said.

Winnemucca Police Chief Bob Davidson said a man entered Players Bar and Grill and fatally shot two members of a rival family before he was shot and killed by a patron.

The patron was in possession of a valid concealed-weapons permit issued by the Washoe County sheriff's office, Davidson said.

124nic8 01-23-2013 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. J (Post 57062836)
I'm stating the obvious - mass shooting deaths are relatively tiny compared with the number of lives "saved" or otherwise violent crime avoided because of the prevalence of guns in our society, just like airplane crashes/accidents are remote incidents regardless of how often they show up in the news.

You've chosen a poor analogy, as there were 16 mass shooting murders [thenation.com] in this country last year and no commercial air crashes. [wikipedia.org]

But to your point, an airliner crash getting splashy news country does not justify creating a thread here for every successful airline flight.

Dumpsterdiver 01-23-2013 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57064254)
You've chosen a poor analogy, as there were 16 mass shooting murders [thenation.com] in this country last year and no commercial air crashes. [wikipedia.org]

But to your point, an airliner crash getting splashy news country does not justify creating a thread here for every successful airline flight.

Do posters here propose banning airflight after every crash?

Nikzilla90 01-23-2013 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 57064404)
Do posters here propose banning airflight after every crash?

No, but the FAA adds increasing safety measures for every preventable crash. So it's just coincidence there were 0 domestic airline crashes, pure coincidence.

mmathis 01-23-2013 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nikzilla90 (Post 57064550)
No, but the FAA adds increasing safety measures for every preventable crash. So it's just coincidence there were 0 domestic airline crashes, pure coincidence.

Actually, they don't necessarily. The NTSB makes safety recommendations based on the findings from investigations of every crash. The FAA then decides which, if any, of those recommendations to implement - or they decide to implement other rules the NTSB hadn't recommended. There is a whole procedure outlined for that as well, including public comment periods.

Many of the safety recommendations are additional training / education, in one form or another.

Dumpsterdiver 01-23-2013 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nikzilla90 (Post 57064550)
No, but the FAA adds increasing safety measures for every preventable crash. So it's just coincidence there were 0 domestic airline crashes, pure coincidence.

Actually, no. They do examine every crash in a logical and methodical manner however.

LivninSC 01-23-2013 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctor_Wu (Post 57062450)
Moving to gun issue mega threads in 3... 2... 1...

In reading this, as nothing actually was moved, I recall the sequence in The Empire Strikes Back where the Millenium Falcon is about to jump to hyperspace and when Han pulls the stick the ship makes a sound like a broken washer...

Haha, it's even on YouTube!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-rkFaIPyL4

124nic8 01-23-2013 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 57064404)
Do posters here propose banning airflight after every crash?

After you show the 16 threads posted here last year proposing banning guns, I'll answer your question.

Since there weren't any commercial crashes in this country last year, it will be difficult....

politicaljunkie 01-23-2013 02:55 PM

Awesome. Another gun thread. Are you guys trying to make me shoot myself?

WindySummer 01-23-2013 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57062390)
Why does every "successful" use of a gun for defense deserve a new thread?

Because of the 12,000 Americans killed in gun homicides last year; the MSM fails to report that law abiding gun owners save the lives of more than 50,000 Americans annually.

124nic8 01-23-2013 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WindySummer (Post 57068440)
Because of the 12,000 Americans killed in gun homicides last year; the MSM fails to report that law abiding gun owners save the lives of more than 50,000 Americans annually.

Is that why you don't have a link?

charles052 01-23-2013 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicaljunkie (Post 57068110)
Awesome. Another gun thread. Are you guys trying to make me shoot myself?

Do you even own a gun that you can shoot yourself with?

darkfrog 01-23-2013 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57064254)
You've chosen a poor analogy, as there were 16 mass shooting murders [thenation.com] in this country last year and no commercial air crashes. [wikipedia.org]

But to your point, an airliner crash getting splashy news country does not justify creating a thread here for every successful airline flight.

a few of those 16 shootings were not mass killings. However, the fact is you have demonstrated that we could be under attack by a crazed gunman anytime, anywhere, in addition to being targeted for a crime, so a CCW is justifiable, not paranoid as many of you keep claiming.

paperboy05 01-23-2013 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57068870)
a few of those 16 shootings were not mass killings.

By the FBI's definition only 7 were mass killings, 9 were not mass killings.

Dumpsterdiver 01-23-2013 03:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charles052 (Post 57068812)
Do you even own a gun that you can shoot yourself with?

I know of a few loaners,...

JimOfTroy 01-23-2013 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57068870)
a few of those 16 shootings were not mass killings. However, the fact is you have demonstrated that we could be under attack by a crazed gunman anytime, anywhere, in addition to being targeted for a crime, so a CCW is justifiable, not paranoid as many of you keep claiming.

Thank you for pointing this out.

bonkman 01-23-2013 07:04 PM

:deadhorse:

politicaljunkie 01-23-2013 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charles052 (Post 57068812)
Do you even own a gun that you can shoot yourself with?

Do you think you know my views on guns? If so, please do tell.

124nic8 01-23-2013 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57068870)
a few of those 16 shootings were not mass killings. However, the fact is you have demonstrated that we could be under attack by a crazed gunman anytime, anywhere, in addition to being targeted for a crime, so a CCW is justifiable, not paranoid as many of you keep claiming.

Really, (less than) 16 mass killings demonstrates "we could be under attack by a crazed gunman anytime, anywhere"?

I never said anything about the odds of that. I was talking about justification for a separate thread.

By your logic, you should carry a grounded lightning rod, cause you could be struck by lightning "any time, any where."

SigX 01-23-2013 08:04 PM

wheres all the people tha claim once a criminal pulls a gun on you that you are dead meat? guess this does not fit the agenda...

darkfrog 01-23-2013 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57074908)
Really, (less than) 16 mass killings demonstrates "we could be under attack by a crazed gunman anytime, anywhere"?

but it happens enough that you think we need widespread additional gun control measures.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways, either the risk of being in danger of assault with a gun is super low making people that want to protect themselves a paranoid OR the risk is high enough to warrant enacting legislation that may not only be expensive and potentially trample constitutional rights, but is clearly necessary when compared to other hazards people might face.
Quote:

I never said anything about the odds of that. I was talking about justification for a separate thread.

By your logic, you should carry a grounded lightning rod, cause you could be struck by lightning "any time, any where."
No, I think the government should provide multiple lightning rod shelters all around the country so that if I'm in an area where lightning is threatening, I can have the government protect me because if we can save only one life.... amirite?

charles052 01-23-2013 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by politicaljunkie (Post 57074070)
Do you think you know my views on guns? If so, please do tell.

I don't believe you own one.

Dumpsterdiver 01-23-2013 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57075660)
but it happens enough that you think we need widespread additional gun control measures.

Sorry, you can't have it both ways, either the risk of being in danger of assault with a gun is super low making people that want to protect themselves a paranoid OR the risk is high enough to warrant enacting legislation that may not only be expensive and potentially trample constitutional rights, but is clearly necessary when compared to other hazards people might face.

Glad someone else noticed that too.

124nic8 01-23-2013 10:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57075660)
but it happens enough that you think we need widespread additional gun control measures.

Obviously the current measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill are inadequate.

Quote:

Sorry, you can't have it both ways, either the risk of being in danger of assault with a gun is super low making people that want to protect themselves a paranoid OR the risk is high enough to warrant enacting legislation that may not only be expensive and potentially trample constitutional rights, but is clearly necessary when compared to other hazards people might face.
Not owning a gun, I don't give a rat's ass about your right to play with your toys. I care about the additional risk to which it exposes me when irresponsible gun owners allow their toys to fall into the wrong hands.

Quote:

No, I think the government should provide multiple lightning rod shelters all around the country so that if I'm in an area where lightning is threatening, I can have the government protect me because if we can save only one life.... amirite?
Disingenuous responses seldom are....

politicaljunkie 01-24-2013 07:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by charles052 (Post 57075984)
I don't believe you own one.

No, i do not, but have been thinking about it for quite some time. Unfortunately, things are a little to nuts right now to bother--i don't want to pay a premium. That said, i have shot some very cool guns--my favorite being an HK-91 (that was when i was younger).

darkfrog 01-24-2013 07:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57079716)
Obviously the current measures to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally ill are inadequate.

If you want to propose some measures that will actually be effective, I'm all ears. However, most of the new laws that people seem to want won't work iMO. If you want to live in a free society, criminals will always find a way to access weapons. If you prefer to live under martial law, I bet we can curtail them even more but I think you will find a lot of opposition to that.

Quote:

Not owning a gun, I don't give a rat's ass about your right to play with your toys. I care about the additional risk to which it exposes me when irresponsible gun owners allow their toys to fall into the wrong hands.
I was the one that advised gun-rights people in these threads to stop using the term hoplophobe as non-productive attacks against people that want gun control because there is legitimate concern by everyone to keep guns out of the hands of bad people.
It would be much more productive if you stopped using pejoratives like 'playing with toys' when discussing these weapons and their owners.

On one hand you act like the risk you are exposed to is quite small when you call people that try to prepare for such a situation as paranoid. On the other hand, you seem to think the risk is quite significant as to warrant passing of even more and more legislation, and don't likewise ask for legislation on other things that will harm or kill people, even at a higher rate than guns.
Quote:

Disingenuous responses seldom are....
you are the expert when it comes to making disingenuous, fallacious responses, so I guess you would know.

thikthird 01-24-2013 10:00 AM

in this thread gun advocates are celebrating a man's death.

darkfrog 01-24-2013 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57089968)
in this thread gun advocates are celebrating a man's death.

And you celebrated the Newtown shootings because you believed it would help promote your anti-gun agenda.


See, we both can dishonestly portray the opposition's position, but neither is helpful in creating a productive, rational debate and actual reasonable solutions.

thikthird 01-24-2013 10:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57090402)
And you celebrated the Newtown shootings because you believed it will help with your anti-gun agenda.


See, we both can dishonestly portray the opposition's position, but neither is helpful in creating a productive, rational debate and actual reasonable solutions.

how am i being dishonest though? you're using this as validation, essentially "see guns can kill bad guys". you want to keep guns legal because they can kill. i want them taken away because they can kill. don't attack my position because i expose your rationale for what it is, and don't try and cover your tracks when the pro-gun side of the debate has so reasonable solutions.

darkfrog 01-24-2013 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57090530)
how am i being dishonest though? you're using this as validation, essentially "see guns can kill bad guys". you want to keep guns legal because they can kill. i want them taken away because they can kill. don't attack my position because i expose your rationale for what it is, and don't try and cover your tracks when the pro-gun side of the debate has so reasonable solutions.

So then my characterization of your position isn't dishonest, right?

Yes, it is validation for a position. That's an honest portrayal. Using an event such as this as validation that guns can protect people by stopping bad guys is not "celebrating a man's death" and I think you know this. If you really don't then by all means leave this forum and let the adults continue to have our debate.

nobama 01-24-2013 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57089968)
in this thread gun advocates are celebrating a man's death.

If the person who died while in the process of committing a criminal act while armed with a weapon, including causing another person to be in fear for his life because of that criminal act had been somewhere else and not committing crime, he would be alive today. He made his choice, and he reaped the consequences.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime....

thikthird 01-24-2013 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57090738)
So then my characterization of your position isn't dishonest, right?

Yes, it is validation for a position. That's an honest portrayal. Using an event such as this as validation that guns can protect people by stopping bad guys is not "celebrating a man's death" and I think you know this. If you really don't then by all means leave this forum and let the adults continue to have our debate.

"protect" huh? a man was shot to death. funny how the killer is being labeled a victim.

Favrerox 01-24-2013 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57090838)
"protect" huh? a man was shot to death. funny how the killer is being labeled a victim.

He was a "victim" when this happened:
Quote:

Two men were sitting in the carport of a residence in the 4200 block of 24th Street West about 10:20 p.m. when three suspects, dressed in black and wearing masks, approached on foot. James Brady, 26, allegedly pointed a handgun at one of the victims, ordering him to the ground, according to the sheriff's office.
Then, he responded within his rights (for the moment) to protect his life (and his friend's) by wielding his own firearm.

The crime was perpetrated on him by James Brady. His death was a result of the choices he made. Crazy huh?! Someone having to actually accept the consequences of his/her actions?! This is real life. The sooner people stop blaming someone else for their actions and results than ensue; the better off we will all be.

I can't believe how many times I've typed that exact sentiment on SD.

MISHNAH 01-24-2013 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57089968)
in this thread gun advocates are celebrating a man's death.

You have obviously never has a gun put in your face.

I have, and I really wouldn't shed a tear for the scum who equated my life for a Chevy Impala. Fortunately, neither of us was shot that day.

He may not have been as lucky the next time he tried that though, wouldnt hurt my feelings though.

thikthird 01-24-2013 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Favrerox (Post 57091160)
He was a "victim" when this happened:


Then, he responded within his rights (for the moment) to protect his life (and his friend's) by wielding his own firearm.

The crime was perpetrated on him by James Brady. His death was a result of the choices he made. Crazy huh?! Someone having to actually accept the consequences of his/her actions?! This is real life. The sooner people stop blaming someone else for their actions and results than ensue; the better off we will all be.

I can't believe how many times I've typed that exact sentiment on SD.

it's interesting to note you think it's a right to kill people.

thikthird 01-24-2013 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MISHNAH (Post 57091992)
You have obviously never has a gun put in your face.

I have, and I really wouldn't shed a tear for the scum who equated my life for a Chevy Impala. Fortunately, neither of us was shot that day.

He may not have been as lucky the next time he tried that though, wouldnt hurt my feelings though.

i've actually been shot, twice (strays to my leg), and have been threatened, with a gun inches from my face. that's irrelevant, and has no bearing on the conversation, so i don't know why you brought it up.


so you'd kill someone over a chevy impala? and not feel any remorse over that?

Favrerox 01-24-2013 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57093472)
it's interesting to note you think it's a right to kill people.

Stop with the "summation" of my responses. You never get it right because you can't see through your own filters.

You may be a pacifist, but you benefit from others that are not. I do not see you parading around with your bull-horn protesting whenever law-enforcement uses force (possibly including firearms) to protect you. (Directly or indirectly)

Would it be great if the world we lived in was free of violent conflict? Sure. Guess what though, it isn't.

thikthird 01-24-2013 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Favrerox (Post 57093862)
Stop with the "summation" of my responses. You never get it right because you can't see through your own filters.

You may be a pacifist, but you benefit from others that are not. I do not see you parading around with your bull-horn protesting whenever law-enforcement uses force (possibly including firearms) to protect you. (Directly or indirectly)

Would it be great if the world we lived in was free of violent conflict? Sure. Guess what though, it isn't.

i'm not a pacifist. i've explicitly said that before. i just don't think killing in self defense is justified. if i am being held at gunpoint, while holding a gun to my assailers head, and one of us pulls the trigger, then one of us dies. i fail to see the difference if it is me or him.

and i do protest the idea of cops using lethal force to protect me (directly or indirectly).

it would be. in the meantime though, lets work to lessen the amount of violent conflict, and work to ensure the conflict that remains is less often fatal.

Favrerox 01-24-2013 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57094052)
i'm not a pacifist. i've explicitly said that before. i just don't think killing in self defense is justified. if i am being held at gunpoint, while holding a gun to my assailers head, and one of us pulls the trigger, then one of us dies. i fail to see the difference if it is me or him.

I thought you posted at one time that you would never take another human life, no matter the circumstances.


Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57094052)
and i do protest the idea of cops using lethal force to protect me (directly or indirectly).

Firearms are not always used by law enforcement for LETHAL ends.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57094052)
it would be. in the meantime though, lets work to lessen the amount of violent conflict, and work to ensure the conflict that remains is less often fatal.

Quote:

LUKE 12:30-31 Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.
The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.

Yeah this worldview is rarely accepted by anyone.

darkfrog 01-24-2013 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57093472)
it's interesting to note you think it's a right to kill people.

Whether you disagree, it is a right to use lethal force against someone in certain situations. It isn't about killing someone but stopping the threat and if that happens to result in the assailant dying, then that's called justifiable homicide. You might not like that but it is the law of the land. Saying that anyone is giddy or celebrating when someone justifiably kills another human is very offensive. I also think the mods would agree that it is trolling. So please stop making these ridiculous accusations.

thikthird 01-24-2013 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Favrerox (Post 57094368)
I thought you posted at one time that you would never take another human life, no matter the circumstances.




Firearms are not always used by law enforcement for LETHAL ends.





Yeah this worldview is rarely accepted by anyone.

no. in fact, i've advocated for the taking of certain lives in certain circumstances. i didn't say they were being used solely lethally. i protest them being used lethally.

Quote:

Originally Posted by santiagoanders (Post 57094730)
You can't see the difference between yourself and your attacker? What kind of drugs are you taking?

if i shoot and kill someone, then i am the attacker. i am the killer. i wish i could detach myself from that reality, and be numb to the fact i just ended a life, but i can't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57095510)
Whether you disagree, it is a right to use lethal force against someone in certain situations. It isn't about killing someone but stopping the threat and if that happens to result in the assailant dying, then that's called justifiable homicide. You might not like that but it is the law of the land. Saying that anyone is giddy or celebrating when someone justifiably kills another human is very offensive. I also think the mods would agree that it is trolling. So please stop making these ridiculous accusations.

what's a right though? just because arbitrary laws define something one way or another doesn't change the fact someone wound up dead. i don't consider self defense justification to end a life, and those who celebrate a life ended in a way i don't see as justifiable is offensive to me. in fact, i'd say the very purpose of this thread was to offend those who are advocating for less gun violence.

MISHNAH 01-24-2013 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57093610)
i've actually been shot, twice (strays to my leg), and have been threatened, with a gun inches from my face. that's irrelevant, and has no bearing on the conversation, so i don't know why you brought it up.


so you'd kill someone over a chevy impala? and not feel any remorse over that?

Noooo, if somebody was attempting to harm and/or kill me for a Chevy Impala, and in the process of defending myself he lost his life, I would be sad indeed, but he should have realized there are CONSEQUENCES to his actions.

So the people that shot randomly and hurt you, you would buy them a beer and hang out with them??

thikthird 01-24-2013 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MISHNAH (Post 57098180)
Noooo, if somebody was attempting to harm and/or kill me for a Chevy Impala, and in the process of defending myself he lost his life, I would be sad indeed, but he should have realized there are CONSEQUENCES to his actions.

So the people that shot randomly and hurt you, you would buy them a beer and hang out with them??

of course there are consequences to actions. look up the laws in your state for the consequences that could potentially befall someone who steals a chevy impala at gun point.

surely there is some middle ground between going out for beers and me shooting someone dead?

MISHNAH 01-24-2013 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57098394)

surely there is some middle ground between going out for beers and me shooting someone dead?

And what is the middle ground if you ARE shot dead??

thikthird 01-24-2013 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MISHNAH (Post 57098498)
And what is the middle ground if you ARE shot dead??

if i am shot dead then i won't be foing out for beers with him then either.

charles052 01-24-2013 02:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57094052)
i'm not a pacifist. i've explicitly said that before. i just don't think killing in self defense is justified. if i am being held at gunpoint, while holding a gun to my assailers head, and one of us pulls the trigger, then one of us dies. i fail to see the difference if it is me or him.

and i do protest the idea of cops using lethal force to protect me (directly or indirectly).

it would be. in the meantime though, lets work to lessen the amount of violent conflict, and work to ensure the conflict that remains is less often fatal.

I'd pull the trigger in half a heartbeat. My family loves me dearly, and I owe it to them to the keep us safe.

MISHNAH 01-24-2013 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57098574)
if i am shot dead then i won't be foing out for beers with him then either.

And you would be perfectly fine and in agreement to lose your life for a $12k car or just standing on the street minding your own business?

darkfrog 01-24-2013 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57096860)
what's a right though?

rights are the fundamental normative rules about what is allowed of people or owed to people, according to some legal system, social convention, or ethical theory
Quote:

just because arbitrary laws define something one way or another doesn't change the fact someone wound up dead.
The right to defend oneself against a violent aggressor is hardly an arbitrary law. Yes, someone ended up dead. That's the risk one takes when one decides to violate social customs by attacking or using unlawful force against another individual.
Quote:

i don't consider self defense justification to end a life,
As I said, you disagree with the majority of most people throughout history. To be clear however, the justification is to defend oneself, not to end the other person's life. If the other person dies as a result of using lawful defense, then that is a tragedy but the goal of self-defense is to stop the threat, not to kill. If I can stop a violent aggressor without using potentially lethal force, I would. If potentially lethal force happens to be the only or option available to me at that time, that is what will be used. Not all gun shots are fatal and some 'less-than-lethal' options end up being fatal. If you don't agree that individuals have the right to defend themselves, I don't really know what to tell you except I would hate to live in your imagined society where aggressors have the upper-hand because no one is legally allowed to use force against them because it might end up being lethal.
Quote:

and those who celebrate a life ended in a way i don't see as justifiable is offensive to me. in fact, i'd say the very purpose of this thread was to offend those who are advocating for less gun violence.
I gave you a chance. I am MAing this post. NO ONE is celebrating. Stop trolling.

Dumpsterdiver 01-24-2013 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57098818)
To be clear however, the justification is to defend oneself, not to end the other person's life.

"Could have just wounded him" comments in 3.. 2.. 1..

MISHNAH 01-24-2013 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MISHNAH (Post 57098760)
And you would be perfectly fine and in agreement to lose your life for a $12k car or just standing on the street minding your own business?

Come on thikthird, I'd like to hear your opinion on this, buddy.

Dumpsterdiver 01-25-2013 12:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57098818)
NO ONE is celebrating.

What about those that he would have robbed and possibly killed after this robbery attempt?

CHeston 01-25-2013 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57062390)
Score one more pro-gun thread.

Why does every "successful" use of a gun for defense deserve a new thread?

Because the liar gun grabbing lefty media never cover these stories but cover every bad incident with a gun.

The liars gun grabbers also who have zero factual evidence but every time a gun argument comes up, especially regarding conceal carry laws, they claim that we are going to have a bunch of itchy trigger finger gun nuts running around like Yosemite Sam shooting everyone every time any little incident happens. And yet every single last time we have turned a state into a shall issue conceal carry state this doesn't happen, crime goes down and more people live in safety from criminals.

Deusxmachina 01-26-2013 01:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57062390)
Why does every "successful" use of a gun for defense deserve a new thread?

I am under the impression by the media and by people who hate the Bill of Rights that such self-defense gun uses are a rarity. So each and every one is newsworthy and deserving of its own thread.

RHCCapri 01-26-2013 10:49 PM

Sweetwater teen dies in accidental shooting
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57062390)
Score one more pro-gun thread.

Why does every "successful" use of a gun for defense deserve a new thread?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deusxmachina (Post 57140444)
I am under the impression by the media and by people who hate the Bill of Rights that such self-defense gun uses are a rarity. So each and every one is newsworthy and deserving of its own thread.

In that case every tragic shooting that takes an innocent life demands its own thread.

I tried but the Mod deleted it. So much for giving equal time to each side of the debate.

http://www.local8now.com/news/hea...90281.html

http://media.graytvinc.com/images/teen23.JPG

gunnerusa 01-27-2013 06:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deusxmachina (Post 57140444)
I am under the impression by the media and by people who hate the Bill of Rights that such self-defense gun uses are a rarity. So each and every one is newsworthy and deserving of its own thread.

This is a much more common scenario for the use of "home defense:" weapons. They're very lucky that the perp was just whacked out of his mind and had no murderous intention. Given the fact that he had the tactical advantage (ie surprise), he could easily have wrestled the gun from the woman and blown her head off, then finished off her loving husband. I guess shooting at a real live intruder isn't as easy as shooting at one of those NRA paper targets with a menacing shadow outline on it, huh?

No amount of firearms training can overcome the fact that the intruder always has the supreme tactical advantage of surprise. This is why there are just three primary uses for "home defense" firearms:

1. Family member uses "home defense" firearm to murder other family member
2. Family member uses "home defense" firearm to commit suicide
3. Intruder surprises sleeping family and uses "home defense" firearm to murder them

Quote:

The victims told the Lee County Sheriff’s Office they were inside around 6:50 p.m. when they heard noises on the roof.

They went outside and saw a naked man, later identified as Bruni, on the roof, according to a Lee County Sheriff’s Office report.

They said the man then jumped off the roof and onto one of the victims, knocking him down.

The man then ran into their home and pulled a 72-inch television off a living room wall, breaking it.

The victim told investigators he yelled for his wife to get a gun as Bruni continued to thrash around the house, knocking over a wet/dry vacuum and spilling its contents on the floor.

The wife fired three shots from a .38 caliber revolver at Bruni but missed and hit a wall.

Bruni then fell to the ground and began masturbating in the living room before he ran into the victims’ son’s bedroom and began rubbing his face with clothing, according to the report.

The male victim retrieved his shotgun from the master bedroom, but never fired at Bruni.
http://www.news-press.com/article...ck_check=1

Dr. J 01-27-2013 07:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RHCCapri (Post 57158864)
In that case every tragic shooting that takes an innocent life demands its own thread.

I tried but the Mod deleted it. So much for giving equal time to each side of the debate.

http://www.local8now.com/news/hea...90281.html

http://media.graytvinc.com/images/teen23.JPG


Am I the only one that sees a giant green "gun show" ad below the kid's photo? I know - it's the clever ad trackers that do this.....

Unanswered question - how did he get the gun?

This is akin to accidental poisoning, which is much more prevalent however.

onscreen 01-27-2013 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnerusa (Post 57162458)
This is a much more common scenario...

:lmao::lol::lol::lol::lol::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao::lmao:
Sure, if it makes you happy.

RHCCapri 01-27-2013 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. J (Post 57163144)
Am I the only one that sees a giant green "gun show" ad below the kid's photo? I know - it's the clever ad trackers that do this.....

Unanswered question - how did he get the gun?

This is akin to accidental poisoning, which is much more prevalent however.

I don't see the "gun show" ad, must be you.

Access to the gun never seems to be a question in those "11 year old Montana girl kills two illegal aliens home invaders with her shotgun" stories that keep going around. My son has several teenage friends who are allowed to keep their own long guns unsecured in their bedrooms, because that is the "gun culture" we live in.

Latest addition to the story http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2013...killed-in/

Deusxmachina 01-27-2013 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RHCCapri (Post 57158864)
In that case every tragic shooting that takes an innocent life demands its own thread.

No, because everyone already knows guns are used to kill people. So that's not news. What is news is a gun being used to save lives, since apparently according to the media such a thing rarely happens.

I don't even know why law enforcement carries guns since according to the media guns aren't good for protecting good people from bad people except in very rare instances.
Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnerusa (Post 57162458)
No amount of firearms training can overcome the fact that the intruder always has the supreme tactical advantage of surprise.

And that's why "high-capacity" mags are far more important to law-abiding people than they are to criminal people. If someone breaks into your home at 2 a.m. wanting to kill your spouse and kids, you're going to grab what you can. You're not going to have time to put on your tactical vest with tactical pocket placement and extra mags like the bad guy already did an hour ago.

High-capacity mags save lives.

gunnerusa 01-27-2013 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deusxmachina (Post 57170412)
If someone breaks into your home at 2 a.m. wanting to kill your spouse and kids

If someone breaks in at 2 am with the intention of killing you, you're dead before you have a chance to even wake up. That's what's called....wait for it....tactical advantage.

onscreen 01-27-2013 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnerusa (Post 57170976)
If someone breaks in at 2 am with the intention of killing you, you're dead before you have a chance to even wake up. That's what's called....wait for it....tactical advantage.

Documentation? I mean since you have on occasion been wrong I think some source would be useful.

Dr. J 01-27-2013 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RHCCapri (Post 57169998)
I don't see the "gun show" ad, must be you.

Access to the gun never seems to be a question in those "11 year old Montana girl kills two illegal aliens home invaders with her shotgun" stories that keep going around. My son has several teenage friends who are allowed to keep their own long guns unsecured in their bedrooms, because that is the "gun culture" we live in.

Latest addition to the story http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2013...killed-in/


I meant when I go to the link...


Anyway, we do have an issue in this country with gun education - something schools do not teach. The NRA does spend quite a bit of money in education efforts, but for "little ones", it's a group thing (e.g. a school would have to sponsor it, Eddie Eagle [nra.org]). Kids should not fear guns but should respect them.

Dr. J 01-27-2013 04:00 PM

7 dead, 6 wounded in Chicago weekend violence [usatoday.com]

CHICAGO (AP) — Chicago authorities say seven people were killed and six wounded in gun violence in one day

-----------------

That gun control is working out great.....

onscreen 01-27-2013 04:00 PM

RHCCapri does appreciate gun education and I think that is very respectable. Many who are anti-gun or calling for AWB/magazine limits are very clueless about the arms in question. I don't think RHCCapri is in that boat based on things she said a while ago.

RHCCapri 01-27-2013 04:33 PM

I am just looking for a balance between the right to keep & bear and public safety. A balance between access to your weapons in the home and the need to secure them against misuse.

In my opinion keeping a gun unlocked on a gun rack or in a glass gun case with ammo boxes on top is not responsible.

As I stated before, my Father-in-law, a Vietnam war vet who I trust to teach my kids gun safety, had four guns including an "assault rifle" stolen from his house last summer when he took the kids to the races in Tacoma. That is why I say "lock them up".

I will share another story he told us about growing up in a small town in the 1960's. He, his brother and a friend where home alone from school one afternoon and were looking at his fathers shotgun which was kept in the corner of the master bedroom. Now these were kids that had gone hunting since they were five, not city kids, and were taught gun safety. My Father-in-law was just handed the gun by his brother as their friend walked infront of the barrel. As he attempted to get a better grip on the large shotgun is finger accidentally hit the trigger and it went off. Luckily their friend was no longer directly infront of the weapon and the shot went straight out a window, breaking the glass, but not damaging the wall or frame! After recovering their wits, they went out side and threw some of the glass back in the window along with a large rock. Their mother never knew until he told the story a few Christmases ago. That is why I say "lock them up".

Dr. J 01-27-2013 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RHCCapri (Post 57172148)
I am just looking for a balance between the right to keep & bear and public safety. A balance between access to your weapons in the home and the need to secure them against misuse.

In my opinion keeping a gun unlocked on a gun rack or in a glass gun case with ammo boxes on top is not responsible.

As I stated before, my Father-in-law, a Vietnam war vet who I trust to teach my kids gun safety, had four guns including an "assault rifle" stolen from his house last summer when he took the kids to the races in Tacoma. That is why I say "lock them up".

I will share another story he told us about growing up in a small town in the 1960's. He, his brother and a friend where home alone from school one afternoon and were looking at his fathers shotgun which was kept in the corner of the master bedroom. Now these were kids that had gone hunting since they were five, not city kids, and were taught gun safety. My Father-in-law was just handed the gun by his brother as their friend walked infront of the barrel. As he attempted to get a better grip on the large shotgun is finger accidentally hit the trigger and it went off. Luckily their friend was no longer directly infront of the weapon and the shot went straight out a window, breaking the glass, but not damaging the wall or frame! After recovering their wits, they went out side and threw some of the glass back in the window along with a large rock. Their mother never knew until he told the story a few Christmases ago. That is why I say "lock them up".


I agree however I don't see accidental shootings as substantiation for bans - it's like banning dishwashing detergent because some kid ate it and died.

RHCCapri 01-27-2013 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. J (Post 57172302)
I agree however I don't see accidental shootings as substantiation for bans - it's like banning dishwashing detergent because some kid ate it and died.

I am not talking about bans, but keeping your guns locked and on "Amber" Status (no round chambered).

If your toddler came over to play with my toddler, wouldn't you expect that I would have those dishwashing detergent packets that look like candy secured behind a child-locked cabinet?

If my teenager and his friends came over to play with your teenager, I would you expect that you would have your guns locked up, because as we all know most teenagers are curious/stupid/impulsive/angsty and "stuff" happens.

Deusxmachina 01-27-2013 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RHCCapri (Post 57172148)
I
I will share another story he told us about growing up in a small town in the 1960's. He, his brother and a friend where home alone from school one afternoon and were looking at his fathers shotgun which was kept in the corner of the master bedroom. Now these were kids that had gone hunting since they were five, not city kids, and were taught gun safety. My Father-in-law was just handed the gun by his brother as their friend walked infront of the barrel. As he attempted to get a better grip on the large shotgun is finger accidentally hit the trigger and it went off. Luckily their friend was no longer directly infront of the weapon and the shot went straight out a window,

"Now these were kids that... were taught gun safety."

That sounds debatable.

The government COULD do something useful and work with people like the NRA to educate kids about guns and how to responsibly use them, etc, but the radical and unreasonable left wants no part of actually doing something useful.
Quote:

Originally Posted by RHCCapri (Post 57173392)
I am not talking about bans, but keeping your guns locked and on "Amber" Status (no round chambered).

If your toddler came over to play with my toddler, wouldn't you expect that I would have those dishwashing detergent packets that look like candy secured behind a child-locked cabinet?

Do you want to make a law that requires locking up dishwashing detergent? Maybe put some kind of cap lock on it too that requires a key.

Elmer 01-27-2013 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57094052)
i'm not a pacifist. i've explicitly said that before. i just don't think killing in self defense is justified. if i am being held at gunpoint, while holding a gun to my assailers head, and one of us pulls the trigger, then one of us dies. i fail to see the difference if it is me or him..

I wouldn't agree with that, but then again, I don't really know you.
Quote:

Originally Posted by gunnerusa (Post 57170976)
If someone breaks in at 2 am with the intention of killing you, you're dead before you have a chance to even wake up. That's what's called....wait for it....tactical advantage.

Your defeatist attitude doesn't agree with actual outcomes. People have successfully defended themselves from such attacks many times, usually without anyone being injured or killed. Home invaders don't usually display a lot of courage, and usually retreat when offered violence back.


This video is a good example of my point
[youtube.com]..

You are correct that an attacker usually has the advantage over the defender, unless the defender is expecting an immediate attack. But many of us have plans and systems in place to help mitigate that advantage. Being properly armed is a vital part of that plan.

StarNova 01-27-2013 06:28 PM

From yesterday, Jan. 26th. Mother defends herself and her child from 3 home invaders.

"Investigators are looking for three burglary suspects who forced themselves into a Magnolia home where there was a mother and her 6 year-old child inside. The Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office says around 9:30 last night, they were called out to a home on the 18700 block of Mink Lake Drive in Magnolia. Investigators say three male suspects went into the home where they found a 33-year-old female with a pistol in her hand and her 6-year-old child alone inside. Investigators say the mother fired the pistol at the burglars and thought she hit one of them, but they all escaped."

http://www.kbtx.com/home/headline...82781.html

RHCCapri 01-27-2013 06:48 PM

Common sense says that you should keep poisonous substances locked up or unaccessible to small children. Local story [katu.com] However, a bullet can be far more devastating than a detergent packet.

Unfortunately, people are stupid and kids get hurt. When so many kids get killed that it surpasses the public's tolerance threshold, the government is called into action and new laws are demanded. We are in that phase right now which I hope is "reasonable debate" where a balance between "Obama is coming for all our guns!" and "Every home can have a loaded AK-47/AR-15 in the corner of their living room" can be found.

RHCCapri 01-27-2013 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StarNova (Post 57174320)
From yesterday, Jan. 26th. Mother defends herself and her child from 3 home invaders.

"Investigators are looking for three burglary suspects who forced themselves into a Magnolia home where there was a mother and her 6 year-old child inside. The Montgomery County Sheriff’s Office says around 9:30 last night, they were called out to a home on the 18700 block of Mink Lake Drive in Magnolia. Investigators say three male suspects went into the home where they found a 33-year-old female with a pistol in her hand and her 6-year-old child alone inside. Investigators say the mother fired the pistol at the burglars and thought she hit one of them, but they all escaped."

http://www.kbtx.com/home/headline...82781.html

I could not find if more than one shot was fired or the ammo capacity of the pistol used. It sounds like one shot was enough to make three men flee from a woman and her child. This story reenforces my earlier points, one that burglars want to get in and out without getting caught; and two that you don't need a 30 round clip for home defense. I would also argue that hitting the panic button on a home alarm system could have the same effect.

Dr. J 01-27-2013 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RHCCapri (Post 57173392)
I am not talking about bans, but keeping your guns locked and on "Amber" Status (no round chambered).

If your toddler came over to play with my toddler, wouldn't you expect that I would have those dishwashing detergent packets that look like candy secured behind a child-locked cabinet?

If my teenager and his friends came over to play with your teenager, I would you expect that you would have your guns locked up, because as we all know most teenagers are curious/stupid/impulsive/angsty and "stuff" happens.


hey.... wake up.... I agree with you.

I am saying personally that's what I do, but I don't know how some sort of mandate would work (e.g. legislative recourse). Responsible people act responsibly, irresponsibles don't.

onscreen 01-27-2013 07:32 PM

RHCCapri,

I'm not sold on the idea of mandated storage requirements. I do think a level of common sense is needed. Someone who lives alone is perhaps far less negligent (if even at all) for having a loaded gun say in a handy drawer vs someone who has kids over all the time. Certainly as a parent you know that things you need to do to make your house save for a toddler aren't needed for someone with no kids.

Anyway, let me explain my issue with taking away things like the AK/ARs of the world. It's a mater of a clear line or definition. I think the 10 round magazine limit is stupid but it's at least easy to define and test. It's not perfect as the tube magazine that holds say 10 rounds of .22LR holds 15 rounds of .22 short but that's not a hard exception to handle.

What makes an assault weapon is not so clear and I think this is a very bad thing. The TEC-9 pistol is not a rifle or AR based but I will use it as an example. Certainly a TEC-9 pistol with a 10 round magazine is no more dangerous than the M9 Beretta the military issues to troops when equipped with the same 10 round magazine. In this case the Beretta is clearly on the "pistol for home defense" list. Why shouldn't the TEC-9 be on the same list? In this case I'm not trying to claim an AR is a hunting gun or anything like that. I'm saying that we have two functionally equivalent guns but one is considered bad while the other is OK.

This does apply to rifles as well. How is an AR with a 10 round magazine worse than a traditional looking rifle with the same magazine? Somewhat ironically the M1 Garand never seems to make it to these lists. The Garand is FAR more powerful than an AR-15. If we accept a 10 round limit then the Garand is only 2 shots down but it reloads faster.

Where do we draw the line between legitimate gun and AW (assuming we agree that AR-15 and AR-47 files are AWs). I noticed that Feinstein's bill make the KelTek SU-16 an AW. However, if you look at the ban features list it has none. It has a rifle grip locked to the stock. It has no bayonet lugs and honestly I'm not sure if any military ever considered using it. It basically doesn't fit the definition yet it's on the no go list. The AW definitions are simply way to arbitrary and the like.

Some people talk about how powerful these guns are. Well are they worse than some of the powerful yet common hand guns? (.40 .45, 357 mag, 375 sig)? At short range I don't think those will do any less damage. Any modern semi-auto pistol will fire just as fast as a semi-auto rifle assuming the same magazine limit.

So why are we OK with rather gray definitions? What happens if someone simply amends the definitions later rather than actually writes a new bill? NJ already says a Marlin 60 .22 rifle is an AW.

I don't think you have been harping on the AW ban but I figured I would ask you since I do think you are far more level headed than some I have argued with. So just assuming an effective ban on magazine size, why should we single out some guns as not for sale?

DJPlayer 01-27-2013 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RHCCapri (Post 57158864)
In that case every tragic shooting that takes an innocent life demands its own thread.

I tried but the Mod deleted it. So much for giving equal time to each side of the debate.

http://www.local8now.com/news/hea...90281.html

http://media.graytvinc.com/images/teen23.JPG

he's 15 high school student and he accidentally shoots himself to the point where he dies? The picture looks a little dated for a high school student IMO.

Quote:

"As best we can tell, there was nobody else there in the room, so he did shoot himself," Kyle said. "Apparently, based on everything we can find out, we have no sign that he was depressed or anything of that nature, so it looks like an accidental shooting."
so because they're unaware of any depression.. it's an accidental shooting rather than a suicide? I'm curious whether they'd say the same about a 21yr old or a 60 yr old? I mean we all know that teenagers are the most stable and well thought out individuals that never make extremely poor hasty decisions right?

DJPlayer 01-27-2013 07:53 PM

Quote:

'Complete panic' as 233 killed in Brazil nightclub fire

Many apparently died from smoke inhalation. Others were trampled in the rush for the exits, one security guard told Band News. The Kiss nightclub is popular with young people in Santa Maria, which is home to a number of universities and colleges, including the Federal University of Santa Maria. At least 80 of those killed Sunday were students at that school, it said.
Ban crowds? Ban running? Ban fire?

StarNova 01-27-2013 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RHCCapri (Post 57175018)
I could not find if more than one shot was fired or the ammo capacity of the pistol used. It sounds like one shot was enough to make three men flee from a woman and her child. This story reenforces my earlier points, one that burglars want to get in and out without getting caught; and two that you don't need a 30 round clip for home defense. I would also argue that hitting the panic button on a home alarm system could have the same effect.

If you lived in that area of Texas, no one would probably run from an alarm sounding. It's too common. Police sirens, yes. Burglar alarm, toss up. Three men against a woman and her 6 year old. All they would have to do is grab the woman and the kid and make them turn off the alarm.

And she only had a pistol and thinks she hit one. A great equalizer.

RHCCapri 01-27-2013 09:21 PM

I seem to be carring on four conversations at once again so bear with me
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. J (Post 57175242)
hey.... wake up.... I agree with you.

I am saying personally that's what I do, but I don't know how some sort of mandate would work (e.g. legislative recourse). Responsible people act responsibly, irresponsibles don't.

Wake up? I am getting ready for sleep. Dr J are you saying that you do or do not keep your guns locked up with rounds not chambered?

Quote:

Originally Posted by onscreen (Post 57175616)
RHCCapri,
I'm not sold on the idea of mandated storage requirements...

Anyway, let me explain my issue with taking away things like the AK/ARs of the world...

...I don't think you have been harping on the AW ban but I figured I would ask you since I do think you are far more level headed than some I have argued with. So just assuming an effective ban on magazine size, why should we single out some guns as not for sale?

Yes deadly weapons should have a safe storage requirement law. I don't think the law could be enforced without violating privacy until after an incident where a fine would be assessed against the irresponsible gun owner. Much like speed limits save lives, but all speeders are not caught.

I will have to research the weapons you listed before I can get back to you about AWB definitions. I thought TEC-9 was a rap singer.

In general, to the non-gun owning public, if it looks like a military rifle and shoots military ammo, than it is an assault weapon. A more specific test would be: Does it fire high velocity / high power ammunition? Can it carry more than ten rounds in a magazine that can quickly be swapped? Can it be home modified to automatic fire with a bump stick or slidefire stock?

The most recent bill bans 157 weapons by name as well as slidefire stocks, but also specifically exempts over 2200 weapons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJPlayer (Post 57175656)
he's 15 high school student and he accidentally shoots himself to the point where he dies? The picture looks a little dated for a high school student IMO.

so because they're unaware of any depression.. it's an accidental shooting rather than a suicide? I'm curious whether they'd say the same about a 21yr old or a 60 yr old? I mean we all know that teenagers are the most stable and well thought out individuals that never make extremely poor hasty decisions right?

Kind of heartless DJPlayer. My point for posting was why did a 15 year old have access to a loaded weapon?

Quote:

Originally Posted by StarNova (Post 57176710)
If you lived in that area of Texas, no one would probably run from an alarm sounding. It's too common. Police sirens, yes. Burglar alarm, toss up. Three men against a woman and her 6 year old. All they would have to do is grab the woman and the kid and make them turn off the alarm.

And she only had a pistol and thinks she hit one. A great equalizer.

Sorry, I meant a monitored alarm. Glass breakage sensor goes off and/or panic button is hit, loud alarm goes off, blue light flashes on top of the house and the alarm company calls to say police are on the way unless a predetermined safe word is used to cancel the alarm.

I don't want to take the pistol away from that mom, I just want to make sure that her six year old does not accidentally shoot someone with it. Nightstand safe with a biometric or combo lock at the minimum.

124nic8 01-27-2013 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJPlayer (Post 57176022)
Ban crowds? Ban running? Ban fire?

Ban indoor fireworks, cause news reports say people in the club said that's what started the fire.

onscreen 01-27-2013 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RHCCapri (Post 57177776)
I will have to research the weapons you listed before I can get back to you about AWB definitions. I thought TEC-9 was a rap singer.

In general, to the non-gun owning public, if it looks like a military rifle and shoots military ammo, than it is an assault weapon. A more specific test would be: Does it fire high velocity / high power ammunition? Can it carry more than ten rounds in a magazine that can quickly be swapped? Can it be home modified to automatic fire with a bump stick or slidefire stock?

The most recent bill bans 157 weapons by name as well as slidefire stocks, but also specifically exempts over 2200 weapons.

:LOL: TEC-9 probably is the name of a rapper :D

I also agree that to many people the cosmetics are effectively the only thing that makes one gun an assault weapon while another isn't. A while back some posted a picture of two Ruger 10/22s. The 10/22 is one of the most popular .22 rifles in the world. While the guts of the two rifles were the same the picture illustrated one of the things that makes the 10/22 popular. The traditional wood stock had been removed and replaced with something that looked very much like a modern military stock. However all the functional parts that store, load, fire and eject the bullets are the same. The ballistics of the gun were unchanged. It was an example of how something can look different but be the same under the skin... kind of like the Civic driven by my nice old lady neighbor and the one driven by that teen down the other street. No mater how many fart cans and stickers he sticks on that car, it's still just a Civic.

Anyway, if a rapper is using the TEC-9 name I suspect this is where he got it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TEC-9
I get the scary looking part but again if it only has a 10 round magazine it can't fire any harder or faster than a traditional looking gun like the M9 used by the military. Since there is no difference in lethality, rate of fire etc I can't see why we would think one is OK while the other isn't. Of course in this case we are talking about 2 9mm pistols so these are relatively low powered guns.

The high velocity/high power ammo question would be problematic. While we think of the .223 round fired by the M16 as high powered for a while it was just considered intermediate powered. Consider a few numbers taken from Wikipeida and other sites. The velocity of a .223 round is around 3300 feet/sec. The energy is about 1300 ft-lb. How does that compare to other guns? Well a couple of common hand guns are:
9mm --- 383 ft-lb --- 1200 ft/s
.40 --- 450-500 ft-lb --- 1200ft/s
.357 mag --- 580-710 ft-lb ---- 1200-1700 ft/s (note the faster speeds are likely when fired from a rifle)
.44mag --- 750-1200 ft-lb --- 1300-1600 ft/s
So we can see the M16 round is much faster than any of the pistol rounds but energy wise it's not much higher than a .44 magnum.

But how does it compare to common rifle rounds?
.17 HMR --- 245 ft·lbf ---- 2,550 ft/s : Not much power but almost as fast. This is a round that is typically setup to fire in guns designed around the .22LR shell.
The 30-06 is a common hunting round. It was originally developed as a military round in 1906 and was the common round in WW2. The current 308 used by the military is basically a modern version of the same round.
30-06 ---- 2,820 ft·lbf ----2,910 ft/s , faster speeds are possible.
Note that the 30-06 is twice as powerful as the .223 used in the AR-15.

For the most part the military won't use a bullet more powerful than the .308 except for the .50 which for the most part is not something a person can fire on the go. There are a number of big game hunting rounds that are more powerful than the .308. Basically there is a legitimate reason to have something every bit as powerful as the AR-15 rounds. High power is such a nebulous term that you can't really say X is as powerful as you are allowed without ruling out common hunting rounds which are almost all more powerful than a .223.

The 10 round argument is problematic since just about any gun designed to work with a replaceable magazine can accept more than 10 rounds. For example, I wouldn't be surprised if Glock doesn't make a 30 round magazine for their pistols yet someone else does. Ruger only makes a 10 round magazine for their 10/22 rifle. Aftermarket companies offer 20, 25, even 50 round magazines (not always of good quality) for the guns. Basically if you allow for a replaceable magazine it will be possible for someone to make a magazine that takes more than 10 rounds even if the manufacture doesn't. I don't think we can say, no detachable magazines and even if you did, there are ways to quickly reload fixed magazines. However, I will grant you that 10, even though I disagree with it, is a definitive and easy to measure number.

I can see why people think a bump fire system should count as a machine gun. However, it would be a bad test of a law to say can a gun be converted for bump fire. Given that a belt loop is all you need to bump fire just about any gun I just don't see this as practical. There may be a good way to craft a law that kills of things like the slide fire. However, the fact that someone made a bump firing system that works with a particular gun should not make that gun an assault weapon. If that was the case Ruger might make a slide fire system for all the competing guns.

So again while I get what you are going for I don't think any of those definitions are the clear, black and white answer this really needs.

"The most recent bill bans 157 weapons by name as well as slidefire stocks, but also specifically exempts over 2200 weapons."
The list of exempted weapons was disingenuous on Feinstein's part. First, if the law says "we can't have X" that would mean everything else we can have. Saying we can have Y is grand standing. Also, many of those guns had NOTHING to do with the law. For example a number of the guns on the "OK" list were bolt action rifles. Why mention bolt action rifles? Another was a Henry lever action .22. It's a .22 meant to feel like an old cowboy lever rifle. Why would that be on the OK list? A few of the rifles on the list were ones that might have been questionable. The M1 Carbine was allowed (though not the exact same WW2 gun when equipped with a folding stock: though it would have failed the features test). The M1 Garand was allowed (it should be since it passes the features test). The KelTek SU-16 was out (but it passes the features test). A Marlin 60 tube feed .22 and the Savage bolt action .22 were both OK (tube feed, bolt action thus neither should have been a concern).

Basically it's questionable why she felt the legal need or want to include a list of "good" rifles when many of the good rifles clearly would not be "assault weapons" by the provided definitions.

Sorry for the long post.

DJPlayer 01-28-2013 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57178136)
Ban indoor fireworks, cause news reports say people in the club said that's what started the fire.

you are correct it was faulty (pyrotechnics) at least to my understanding...

outdoor fireworks have also caused fires deaths.. If there were no crowd people would've most likely evacuated safely. People die all the time from house fires, many time caused by cigarette ashes etc.. I've actually posted several stories now about people being trampled to death in Europe.

Bottom line is people are dying in droves for numerous ridiculous reasons. If were were all forced to wear helmets we'd be safer.. I could make a compelling argument that by forcing everyone to wear protective headgear while awake would save thousands of lives per year. But does anyone want the government mandating that upon them? Doubtful..

StarNova 01-28-2013 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RHCCapri (Post 57177776)


Sorry, I meant a monitored alarm. Glass breakage sensor goes off and/or panic button is hit, loud alarm goes off, blue light flashes on top of the house and the alarm company calls to say police are on the way unless a predetermined safe word is used to cancel the alarm.

I don't want to take the pistol away from that mom, I just want to make sure that her six year old does not accidentally shoot someone with it. Nightstand safe with a biometric or combo lock at the minimum.

That's fair. It is an issue - how do you have quick access to your weapon to fight off attackers and keep the weapon away from those who shouldn't have it. Right now, biometric locks have a lot of problems. Even cops don't use them because they don't work all the time. I know several people who use a combo lock or keep the bullets in a separate location. Again, you need time to load the weapon or unlock it. These men were probably inside the house in less than a minute, if that.

Elmer 01-28-2013 09:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RHCCapri (Post 57177776)
Sorry, I meant a monitored alarm. Glass breakage sensor goes off and/or panic button is hit, loud alarm goes off, blue light flashes on top of the house and the alarm company calls to say police are on the way unless a predetermined safe word is used to cancel the alarm.

You do know that the response time to a home burglar alarm can vary greatly, depending on where you live and how busy the police are at the time, right? That 30 minutes or more isn't uncommon? And that's after the alarm company minimally trained and paid employee has attempted to call the homeowner, then actually calls the police, gets through, and passes on the address to them.

Home burglar alarms are overwhelmingly (99%+) accidental or equipment malfunctions. They are not a high priority for busy law enforcement agencies.

Danman114 01-28-2013 09:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RHCCapri (Post 57177776)
Yes deadly weapons should have a safe storage requirement law. I don't think the law could be enforced without violating privacy until after an incident where a fine would be assessed against the irresponsible gun owner. Much like speed limits save lives, but all speeders are not caught.

I'm no gun owner, but I can't help but think of the unintended consequences that would ruin something like this. If you were the type of person who kept a gun unlocked for self-defense purposes in (let's say) a glass case or in a closet/drawer, and it got stolen (or used in an accident) what are the chances you report that?

AlfredoGarcia 01-28-2013 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 124nic8 (Post 57062776)
Are you claiming that mass shooting murders are just as common as self-defense with a gun and therefore the latter is just as newsworthy?

Perhaps that would apply in this case if the defense was against a mass shooting murder.... :rolleyes:

No, studies have shown guns are used anywhere from 2.5-8 times more frequently to save lives then to take them. Moreover, NRA posts the "Armed Citizen" segment [nraila.org] that collects a fractions of these types of stories that do not make the national media. They are more frequent by far than mass shootings.

adams135 01-28-2013 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RHCCapri (Post 57174722)
..... When so many kids get killed that it surpasses the public's tolerance threshold, the government is called into action and new laws are demanded. ...

Really? I must have missed the laws requiring a qualified lifeguard at private homes when the backyard swimming pool is open.

Rebound 01-28-2013 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WindySummer (Post 57068440)
Because of the 12,000 Americans killed in gun homicides last year; the MSM fails to report that law abiding gun owners save the lives of more than 50,000 Americans annually.

I'm sure you made that up and can't actually document that, so how about if you document a single case where someone defended their home with an AK-47 or an AR-15, AND the situation was such that a standard pistol would not have worked?

Surely if 50,000 lives were saved, there must be ONE CASE where the AK-47 or AR-15 was an absolute necessity, right?

Dumpsterdiver 01-28-2013 11:02 AM

Post 77#

Mother defends children against 3 intruders with a pistol. She only hit 1.

An AR or AK would have been MUCH more effective.

paperboy05 01-28-2013 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57187900)
I'm sure you made that up and can't actually document that, so how about if you document a single case where someone defended their home with an AK-47 or an AR-15, AND the situation was such that a standard pistol would not have worked?

Can we perform the same exercise on the mass shootings that have occured?

Deusxmachina 01-28-2013 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57187900)
Surely if 50,000 lives were saved, there must be ONE CASE where the AK-47 or AR-15 was an absolute necessity, right?

Why does law enforcement have AR-15s for protection and for home raids and things when their pistols work just fine?

Why is DHS wanting AR-15s for "Personal Defense Weapons" when pistols work just fine?

Why do you need a Prius when a car not subsidized by taxpayers works just fine?

A single-shot shotgun or a five-shot .22 revolver or whatever may get the job done, but that doesn't mean they're good at it.
Quote:

Originally Posted by paperboy05 (Post 57189462)
Can we perform the same exercise on the mass shootings that have occured?

:biggrin2:

onscreen 01-28-2013 05:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57187900)
Surely if 50,000 lives were saved, there must be ONE CASE where the AK-47 or AR-15 was an absolute necessity, right?

Can you show a case where a murder wouldn't have occurred if the bad guy just had his choice of gun other than an AR-15 or AK-47?

Previously you asked for a case where an AR-15 or similar was used for self defense. That I'm sure was quickly shown. Now you want a case where such a rifle can be shown to have saved a life when a pistol (or some OK "ok" gun) wouldn't have done the job.

Sorry that doesn't fly. Too many what ifs. Certainly there might be a case where someone would have lived if instead of shooting the bad guy with an AR-15 they had used a full power rifle like the M1A1. Certainly some people have suggested the AR-15 isn't powerful enough in combat.

So let me ask you a question. For get about what the gun LOOKS like. Assuming we agreed that 10 rounds was a good limit (I don't) then why would you care if the person had an AR-15 with a 10 round limit vs a .45 ACP or .357 Sig with a 10 round limit? Why are you concerned about the fact the person has an AR-15 vs an M1 Garand? What makes the AR-15 so fearsome and so in need of banishment assuming you were to get a 10 round magazine limit?

Rebound 01-28-2013 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onscreen (Post 57198060)
Can you show a case where a murder wouldn't have occurred if the bad guy just had his choice of gun other than an AR-15 or AK-47?

Previously you asked for a case where an AR-15 or similar was used for self defense. That I'm sure was quickly shown. Now you want a case where such a rifle can be shown to have saved a life when a pistol (or some OK "ok" gun) wouldn't have done the job.

Sorry that doesn't fly. Too many what ifs. Certainly there might be a case where someone would have lived if instead of shooting the bad guy with an AR-15 they had used a full power rifle like the M1A1. Certainly some people have suggested the AR-15 isn't powerful enough in combat.

So let me ask you a question. For get about what the gun LOOKS like. Assuming we agreed that 10 rounds was a good limit (I don't) then why would you care if the person had an AR-15 with a 10 round limit vs a .45 ACP or .357 Sig with a 10 round limit? Why are you concerned about the fact the person has an AR-15 vs an M1 Garand? What makes the AR-15 so fearsome and so in need of banishment assuming you were to get a 10 round magazine limit?

Sure, I can do that. I'll begin with the example of the 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting. In that horrific crime, a man shot a total of 70 people, killing 12. His main weapon was an AR-15 rifle.

There are two reasons why the AR-15 was particularly lethal: First, it had a 100-round magazine. Second, that weapon is designed to be fired from the hip, with a rate of fire of up to 60 rounds a minute. Very luckily, its magazine jammed after 30 rounds, and he had to switch weapons. Had that not occurred, according to one senior FBI agent at the scene [express.co.uk], “If his firing mechanism had not seized, he could have wiped out the entire audience in a few minutes. It could have been an almost unimaginably devastating scenario. This weapon has only one purpose – to kill as many people as quickly as possible.”

Compared to the M1 Garand, the specifically different feature is that the Garand is a shoulder-fired weapon. It is definitely more difficult to fire that weapon from the hip and/or in a standing position in a close-quarter situation, such as in a movie theater. Second, of course, the Garand typically holds an 8-round clip, not a 50- or 100-round magazine.

Moving to your last question, of course this is one of shades of gray. The Supreme Court has ruled that an American has a Constitutional right to keep a pistol in the home; there is little point in arguing that. There is no question that someone can attack many people with a pistol; the Aurora killer probably hit more people with his pistol than with his AR-15, because the AR-15 jammed. The shooter who shot Gabby Giffords used a pistol. So of course all guns are lethal, but assault weapons have several features which make them more lethal when used offensively against a large number of unarmed people: High ammunition capacity, high rate of sustained fire (a rifle can cool better than a pistol), rapid reloading, and the ability to shoot from the hip (which a pistol can also do). If an armed assailant invaded my home, I would prefer a pistol to a rifle, because the pistol is better suited to the confined quarters of my home. The experts I've heard from agree with this. There is no need for the greater range of a rifle in home defense; if the assailant has left your home, it is illegal to shoot him.

The AR-15 and similar weapons serve no useful civilian purpose that is not better served by a different weapon. They are not ideal hunting weapons and they are not ideal home defense weapons. What they are ideal for is killing lots of humans at once, and for that reason, they should be banned.

DJPlayer 01-28-2013 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57199762)
Sure, I can do that. I'll begin with the example of the 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting. In that horrific crime, a man shot a total of 70 people, killing 12. His main weapon was an AR-15 rifle.

There are two reasons why the AR-15 was particularly lethal: First, it had a 100-round magazine. Second, that weapon is designed to be fired from the hip, with a rate of fire of up to 60 rounds a minute. Very luckily, its magazine jammed after 30 rounds, and he had to switch weapons. Had that not occurred, according to one senior FBI agent at the scene [express.co.uk], “If his firing mechanism had not seized, he could have wiped out the entire audience in a few minutes. It could have been an almost unimaginably devastating scenario. This weapon has only one purpose – to kill as many people as quickly as possible.”

I'd like to give you a slightly alternate scenario... And we've head the quote. The only people to stop bad guys with guns, is good guys with guns. You'd think a person as prepared to kill as the Aura shooter would do his research right? I mean you even go into the fact that he was prepared to swap weapons just in case of a jam. (Also handguns are capable of firing almost a dozen rounds a minute.. but nobody can. It's the "capability"). Anyways.. the shooter pics the doesn't pick the theater closest to his home.. not even the second closest. He doesn't choice the one with the largest crowd. He does choose the only within that twenty minutes with a "no guns allowed" sign posted outside though..

How successful would that shooter have been with even a couple armed individuals citizens in the audience? We can't answer that.. but would there be a greater chance he'd have killed less. I'd say so.

In the Conn. shooting.. the killer went to a school. Another gun free zone.

one more step back.. The Binghamton shootings took place on Friday, April 3, 2009, at the American Civic Association immigration center in Binghamton, New York, United States. Another gun free area.

Virginia Tech Shooting.. yet another gun free zones.

to quote an article from the USA Today:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opi...l/1770345/

Quote:

Gun-free zones provide false sense of security

There are a lot of problems with this approach, but one of the most significant is this one: It doesn't work. One of the interesting characteristics of mass shootings is that they generally occur in places where firearms are banned: malls, schools, etc. That was the finding of a famous 1999 study by John Lott of the University of Maryland and William Landes of the University of Chicago, and it appears to have been borne out by experience since then as well.

In a way, this is no surprise. If there's someone present with a gun when a mass shooting begins, the shooter is likely to be shot himself. And, in fact, many mass shootings — from the high school shooting by Luke Woodham in Pearl, Miss., to the New Life Church shooting in Colorado Springs, Colo., where an armed volunteer shot the attacker — have been terminated when someone retrieved a gun from a car or elsewhere and confronted the shooter.
So if we truly are trying to minimize "mass murders", we should prohibit establishments from having gun free zone signs. Out of all the places one could go on a murder spree.. so often they choose the few places that are "gun free".

onscreen 01-28-2013 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57199762)
Sure, I can do that. I'll begin with the example of the 2012 Aurora movie theater shooting. In that horrific crime, a man shot a total of 70 people, killing 12. His main weapon was an AR-15 rifle.

Congrats. You fail #1 You also didn't even bother to read my question since I said assume the same size magazine.
Let's explore why.

Quote:

There are two reasons why the AR-15 was particularly lethal: First, it had a 100-round magazine.
Given the speed with which a lower capacity magazine can be reloaded this is not the "killer" advantage you make it out to be. How can you PROVE that he couldn't have done just as much harm with several magazines and a .40 cal pistol or with a shot gun with a box magazine. Odds are the shot gun would have done more harm and rumor has it that the shooter actually hit more people with the shotgun vs the rifle. Basically you haven't PROVEN anything. You are only assuming.

Quote:

Second, that weapon is designed to be fired from the hip, with a rate of fire of up to 60 rounds a minute.
And a lack of knowledge comes through again. If the guy is shooting from the hip he might as well be shooting with a pair of pistols, he will be just as inaccurate. Shooting from the hip is a great way to hit nothing. The only reason to do it is to keep the heads of others down while infantry approaches. So which is it, is he using an accurate killing machine or shooting from the hip spraying and praying. If he's spraying and praying then pistols would have been just as effective. Again, your "proof" that the crime was more deadly is a joke.

Quote:

Very luckily, its magazine jammed after 30 rounds, and he had to switch weapons. Had that not occurred, according to one senior FBI agent at the scene [express.co.uk], “If his firing mechanism had not seized, he could have wiped out the entire audience in a few minutes. It could have been an almost unimaginably devastating scenario. This weapon has only one purpose – to kill as many people as quickly as possible.”
Ummmm sure. He could have with great hyperbole killed millions. So now that you have proven you are not well versed on the subject let's talk about machine gun tactics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t...sults_main
The video shows something you seem to have failed to grasp. You need to aim between shots. If you don't you don't hit things even if you have lots of bullets. If the guy was going to take the time to aim then his rate of fire is slower and the magazine capacity limit becomes less an issue.

Quote:

Compared to the M1 Garand, the specifically different feature is that the Garand is a shoulder-fired weapon. It is definitely more difficult to fire that weapon from the hip and/or in a standing position in a close-quarter situation, such as in a movie theater.
How do you know, have you ever fired one or even touched one? Ergonomically the rifle style grip is superior for shooting from the hip. A more vertical pistol grip is supperior for shooting from the shoulder. But heck, let's not let ergonomics get in the way of a good scare story!

Quote:

Second, of course, the Garand typically holds an 8-round clip, not a 50- or 100-round magazine.
And with practice it can be reloaded faster than any AR-15. The rate of sustained, aimed fire for the Garand is almost as fast as the AR-15 in part thanks to faster reloading time and because aiming is the part of the process that really slows a shooter down.

Quote:

Moving to your last question, of course this is one of shades of gray.
Yet you decide to treat it as black and white.
Quote:

The Supreme Court has ruled that an American has a Constitutional right to keep a pistol in the home; there is little point in arguing that. There is no question that someone can attack many people with a pistol; the Aurora killer probably hit more people with his pistol than with his AR-15, because the AR-15 jammed. The shooter who shot Gabby Giffords used a pistol. So of course all guns are lethal,
Well at least you got something right.
Quote:

but assault weapons have several features which make them more lethal when used offensively against a large number of unarmed people:
And then quickly failed.
Quote:

High ammunition capacity,
You actually ignored something I said earlier. I said assume the same ammo capacity. The reason why I said that is 30 round magazines are available for things like Glock pistols. I've even seen 100 round Glock drum mags. Basically the sustained rate of fire argument FAILS since a semi-auto pistol with the same size magazine will return the same rate of fire.

Quote:

high rate of sustained fire (a rifle can cool better than a pistol),
Really, is that really an argument you are going to make? How often does that EVER come into play. Perhaps the ONLY case where that ever would have come into play is the North Hollywood shootout where the perps used full auto weapons (illegally modified). Sorry, that is what, one crime in how many decades and in that case the only deaths were the bad guys. What a failed argument.

Quote:

rapid reloading,
How does an AR-15 reload faster than a pistol? What are you doing reading the Brady notes?

Quote:

and the ability to shoot from the hip (which a pistol can also do).
And a rifle can do and a shotgun can do and basically any gun you want to miss with can do. Great plan.
Quote:

If an armed assailant invaded my home, I would prefer a pistol to a rifle, because the pistol is better suited to the confined quarters of my home.
What you want doesn't mater. Given the other ideas and views you have posted I wouldn't trust your ideas. With that said, I know people who's wives prefer an AR-15 because, unlike a high powered pistol, they feel they have better control of the rifle when NOT shooting from the hip.
Quote:

The experts I've heard from agree with this. There is no need for the greater range of a rifle in home defense; if the assailant has left your home, it is illegal to shoot him.
Actually a number of experts, including links that you have previously been given disagree. The ease of handling and the way an AR-15 bullet is actually (depending on ammo) less likely to over penetrate is nice. You are correct the range part isn't needed but if you are looking for range I would suggest a .308.

Quote:

The AR-15 and similar weapons serve no useful civilian purpose that is not better served by a different weapon. They are not ideal hunting weapons and they are not ideal home defense weapons. What they are ideal for is killing lots of humans at once, and for that reason, they should be banned.
Basically you regergitated the same stuff you have said before. And as before you failed. So let me ask again, why, if we assume a 10 round magazine limit is the AR-15 not OK and the pistol is? IF we assume the 10 round limit why is the Garand OK but the AR-15 isn't. I would argue the Garand is a lesser weapon for home defense at least.

securety10 01-28-2013 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57199762)
The AR-15 and similar weapons serve no useful civilian purpose that is not better served by a different weapon. They are not ideal hunting weapons and they are not ideal home defense weapons. What they are ideal for is killing lots of humans at once, and for that reason, they should be banned.

How did you get to be the authority on what is an ideal hunting weapon? I take it you've a great amount of hunting experience across multiple platforms?

In certain scenarios the AR-15 makes an excellent hunting rifle. Is it the be all end all? Of course not. But in certain scenarios it is the gun I choose and I'm not the only one in the group that has the opinion. There are many things I'd never hunt with it, but that is the same case with most guns.

I also like the fact you point out only 30 rounds were fired from the AR yet 70 people were shot. So even if he went 30 for 30 or even got a few with one shot, more people sustained injuries from a firearm other than the AR, yet it was the primary weapon...

Why'd he quit shooting with the other weapon? Did he run out of ammo our just decide he was done?

Elmer 01-28-2013 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57199762)
There are two reasons why the AR-15 was particularly lethal: First, it had a 100-round magazine. Second, that weapon is designed to be fired from the hip,

I've known you a long time rebound...... we've argued, and sometimes agreed on many subjects....In a funny internet way, I care about you....you've PM'ed me and said we should get together some time.....

I wish........you knew how mind numbingly silly you sound.....

onscreen 01-28-2013 08:53 PM

One thing that makes the AR-15 a very good weapon is it's versatility. Even if you don't think it's the best hunting rifle, it is competent. Even if you don't think it's the best home defense gun, it's good. Even if you don't think it's the best target/sport shooting gun it does that job well. Net result you can have one gun that is versatile enough to do all these different jobs and thus create instant and natural familiarity with the gun. That makes for one heck of a good argument to pick an AR vs say a bolt action rifle AND a pistol and perhaps another gun.

Deusxmachina 01-28-2013 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57199762)
There are two reasons why the AR-15 was particularly lethal: First, it had a 100-round magazine. Second, that weapon is designed to be fired from the hip

lol wut.

Seriously, have you ever even shot a gun before, Rebound? For a guy who wants to ban guns, the things you say... hold on, let me quote Elmer...
Quote:

Originally Posted by Elmer (Post 57201560)
I wish........you knew how mind numbingly silly you sound.....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57199762)
The AR-15 and similar weapons serve no useful civilian purpose that is not better served by a different weapon. They are not ideal hunting weapons and they are not ideal home defense weapons. What they are ideal for is killing lots of humans at once, and for that reason, they should be banned.

The main purpose of the Second Amendment is about killing lots of humans at once if need be.

No matter how many times you say it, no matter how many times you want to pretend otherwise, the Second Amendment doesn't say anything about being about duck hunting. Or home defense, for that matter.

It does say "Shall Not Be Infringed."

Deusxmachina 01-28-2013 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJPlayer (Post 57200398)
So if we truly are trying to minimize "mass murders", we should prohibit establishments from having gun free zone signs. Out of all the places one could go on a murder spree.. so often they choose the few places that are "gun free".

Gun-grabbers don't care about trying to minimize mass murders. They don't care about little kids. They only care about banning guns.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57187900)
Surely if 50,000 lives were saved, there must be ONE CASE where the AK-47 or AR-15 was an absolute necessity, right?

Ask all the law enforcement that have shot criminals with handguns and the guy kept coming if they would have preferred to have shot the guy with an AK.

Speaking of which, it was just yesterday I happened upon online documentation (with pictures) of a guy police shot 16 times and he kept coming. So they shot him 17 times. The pics pointed out all the wounds and which handgun caliber caused which hole. If they had used an AK, I highly doubt it would have required 17 shots.

Damn, 17 shots to put down one person... that's more than a typical 15-round "high-capacity" mag even holds.... Hell, if there were two perps like that, even the mighty 30-round "high-capacity" AR-15 mag wouldn't be enough. With a 7-round mag, the victim defending themselves would have had to reload TWICE.

High-capacity mags save lives.

DJPlayer 01-29-2013 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deusxmachina (Post 57203192)
Gun-grabbers don't care about trying to minimize mass murders. They don't care about little kids. They only care about banning guns.

I understand that.. and the statistics support it. But nobody will ever seem to admit it. If you're going to push an agenda at least be honest about it. Don't try to disguise it with issues while pulling people heart strings...

Danman114 01-29-2013 10:26 AM

Cary Grove Drill To Include Shooting Blanks In Hallways [cbslocal.com]
A school shooting drill planned for tomorrow in the far northwestern suburbs has many parents upset.

According to a letter from Cary-Grove High School principal Jay Sargeant, there will be a code red drill at the school on Wednesday.

It will include somebody shooting blanks from a gun in the hallway “in an effort to provide our teachers and students some familiarity with the sound of gunfire.”
:vomit:

This is why I think we should focus on disarming the government, rather than it's citizens. They think this is a good idea.

RHCCapri 01-29-2013 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onscreen (Post 57178820)
Sorry for the long post.

Thanks for the informative post. I read it over twice and did some research.
Quote:

Originally Posted by onscreen
I also agree that to many people the cosmetics are effectively the only thing that makes one gun an assault weapon while another isn't...

I did some research and watched a video about swapping out stocks to make a hunting rifle look like an assault weapon. Of course when the video instructor stated that this AK-47 was not an "assault rifle" like the illegal AK-47 right next to it, I call BS since the video to the right was AK-47 bump-fire [youtube.com]

So I now get why gun experts get annoyed at non-military weapons being called "assault rifles". Still to non-gun owners and the media, "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck..."

Quote:

Originally Posted by onscreen
...Since there is no difference in lethality, rate of fire etc I can't see why we would think one is OK while the other isn't. Of course in this case we are talking about 2 9mm pistols so these are relatively low powered guns.

The high velocity/high power ammo question would be problematic...

The 10 round argument is problematic since just about any gun designed to work with a replaceable magazine can accept more than 10 rounds...

I my mind, what makes an assault weapon is the combination of high powered round that can pierce Kevlar soft body armour, high rate of fire capable for the average untrained person, a large easily swappable magazine and features that make the weapon easy to use for crowd killing (folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet, etc).

Quote:

Originally Posted by onscreen
I can see why people think a bump fire system should count as a machine gun...

Question: Is a pistol grip required for a slide fire or bump fire system?

Quote:

Originally Posted by onscreen
So again while I get what you are going for I don't think any of those definitions are the clear, black and white answer this really needs.

Whatever Congress will come up with will be sure to anger everyone. At least we will have a year of debate over those definitions and not four hours before a vote like in New York State!

Quote:

Originally Posted by onscreen
"The most recent bill bans 157 weapons by name as well as slidefire stocks, but also specifically exempts over 2200 weapons."
The list of exempted weapons was disingenuous on Feinstein's part.

I agree, pure political grandstanding by Feinstein. But that is what politicians do, play to their base. It is the same reasons why all of these Sheriffs are making noise about not enforcing any new gun laws, never mind that its the ATFs job to do that and not theirs, the Sheriffs are grandstanding to get re-elected.


Quote:

Originally Posted by StarNova (Post 57184040)
That's fair. It is an issue - how do you have quick access to your weapon to fight off attackers and keep the weapon away from those who shouldn't have it. Right now, biometric locks have a lot of problems. Even cops don't use them because they don't work all the time. I know several people who use a combo lock or keep the bullets in a separate location. Again, you need time to load the weapon or unlock it. These men were probably inside the house in less than a minute, if that.

By "unloaded" I mean not having a round or shell in the chamber of your goto home defense weapon. Magazine in or rounds in the tube, but you would need to rack the slide to load the weapon. Having stated that, I realize that revolvers would have to be the exception.

Question: Are pump action and/or semi-auto shotguns "drop safe"?
All I found on this was that the Remmington 870 is not "drop safe" which is why police carry them unloaded in the car and rack the side before use.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 57185074)
I'm no gun owner, but I can't help but think of the unintended consequences that would ruin something like this. If you were the type of person who kept a gun unlocked for self-defense purposes in (let's say) a glass case or in a closet/drawer, and it got stolen (or used in an accident) what are the chances you report that?

Yes, if you hope to get your guns recovered or wounds treated. That is why I likened the fine to that of a speeding ticket.

Quote:

Originally Posted by adams135 (Post 57187632)
Really? I must have missed the laws requiring a qualified lifeguard at private homes when the backyard swimming pool is open.

There are laws requiring private backyard swimming pools to be secured by fencing and a locked gate.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 57188166)
Post 77#

Mother defends children against 3 intruders with a pistol. She only hit 1.

An AR or AK would have been MUCH more effective.

Dumpsterdiver that story proves my point. She only needed ONE shot to send three men running. One shot from a pistol was effective. If she had an AR/AK, yes she could have three dead men in her house plus a hell of a mess.

In the Original Post where the bad guy was shot five times, then got up a minute later and stumbled to his car it can be argued that one shot would have been enough to persuade him to leave.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deusxmachina (Post 57193142)
Why does law enforcement have AR-15s for protection and for home raids and things when their pistols work just fine?
Why is DHS wanting AR-15s for "Personal Defense Weapons" when pistols work just fine?
Why do you need a Prius when a car not subsidized by taxpayers works just fine?
A single-shot shotgun or a five-shot .22 revolver or whatever may get the job done, but that doesn't mean they're good at it. :biggrin2:

The reason law enforcement has AR-15s is because civilians are allowed to lawfully purchase AK/AR weapons with ease, and those weapons have found their way into criminal hands.

What is a DHS?

In the story above ONE shot did get the job done.

When gun enthusiasts say "If only the homeowner had an AR-15" after every burglary story like those above, non-gun owners ask "What would have happened if that crazy person had an AR-15 instead of a pistol or rifle when they shot up that school/mall/theater/diner/political rally?"

Dumpsterdiver 01-29-2013 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RHCCapri (Post 57220808)
Dumpsterdiver that story proves my point. She only needed ONE shot to send three men running. One shot from a pistol was effective. If she had an AR/AK, yes she could have three dead men in her house plus a hell of a mess.

I'm glad you're ok with 3 men being able to run to the next house to rob, possibly rape or kill your neighbor. I am not.

Dr. J 01-29-2013 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 57213308)
Cary Grove Drill To Include Shooting Blanks In Hallways [cbslocal.com]
A school shooting drill planned for tomorrow in the far northwestern suburbs has many parents upset.

According to a letter from Cary-Grove High School principal Jay Sargeant, there will be a code red drill at the school on Wednesday.

It will include somebody shooting blanks from a gun in the hallway “in an effort to provide our teachers and students some familiarity with the sound of gunfire.”
:vomit:

This is why I think we should focus on disarming the government, rather than it's citizens. They think this is a good idea.


Not sure how I feel on this one - I am all for education - even if you never intend to own a firearm, it's good to be familiar with them - how they work, terminology, what they can and CAN'T do - and part of that should be live fire (e.g. at a range). Pistols are farking loud - much louder than you'd think, even a small 22LR.

onscreen 01-29-2013 02:59 PM

RHCCapri,

Thanks for the long list of questions. Please give me a little bit to get back to the list. I don't have enough time to answer all of them now.

Danman114 01-29-2013 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. J (Post 57221030)
Not sure how I feel on this one - I am all for education - even if you never intend to own a firearm, it's good to be familiar with them - how they work, terminology, what they can and CAN'T do - and part of that should be live fire (e.g. at a range). Pistols are farking loud - much louder than you'd think, even a small 22LR.

I don't think I'd have that much of a problem if they took small groups of kids (say, 12 year olds or so) to a gun range. It's a valuable life skill.

That's not what the article was about. They are going to have the school go into lock-down mode and have a cop in the hallway firing blanks "in an effort to provide our teachers and students some familiarity with the sound of gunfire."

The cop is essentially going to simulate a massacre while teachers and students huddle in a room, shades drawn, and door locked.

My wife has some kids with various mild forms of autism, and regular lock downs send them (on occasion) into panic attacks.

RHCCapri 01-29-2013 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 57220854)
I'm glad you're ok with 3 men being able to run to the next house to rob, possibly rape or kill your neighbor. I am not.

Does every crime have to end with the death of the criminal?

Again I am faced with the conservative Sanctity of Live vs Shoot 'till they are Dead paradox.

I doubt these three will be breaking into anymore homes after one was wounded.

Elmer 01-29-2013 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deusxmachina (Post 57202948)
No matter how many times you say it, no matter how many times you want to pretend otherwise, the Second Amendment doesn't say anything about being about duck hunting. Or home defense, for that matter.

It does say "Shall Not Be Infringed."

But not infringed for "sportsmen", right?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RHCCapri (Post 57220808)
I my mind, what makes an assault weapon is the combination of high powered round that can pierce Kevlar soft body armour,

You mean every hunting rifle round made, correct?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RHCCapri (Post 57220808)
, high rate of fire capable for the average untrained person.

You mean like the North Hollywood bank robbers who supposedly did train, and used both semi automatic and fully automatic weapons to fire hundreds of rounds, yet killed no one?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RHCCapri (Post 57220808)
and features that make the weapon easy to use for crowd killing (folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet, etc).

Can you tell me when the last person in a crowd, or out of a crowd for that matter, was killed with a bayonet attached to a firearm?

Quote:

Originally Posted by RHCCapri (Post 57220808)
The reason law enforcement has AR-15s is because civilians are allowed to lawfully purchase AK/AR weapons with ease, and those weapons have found their way into criminal hands.

That must be why German, French, Mexican, Swedish, British, etc., police, all use "assault weapons", and have at least as long as police in the US have.....

Rebound 01-29-2013 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 57203710)
WWwhhhaaaaaatttttt??!!!! :lmao:

If you Google "Fire AR-15 from the hip" you'll find lots and lots of hits, and YouTube videos, and so forth.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...uth/rambo2.jpg
Of course, it's also designed so that it can be fired prone and in other positions as well.

Elmer 01-29-2013 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RHCCapri (Post 57221564)
Does every crime have to end with the death of the criminal?

Nope. The overwhelming majority don't.

But citizens should have the tools they need to make sure it doesn't end with their death either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RHCCapri (Post 57221564)
Again I am faced with the conservative Sanctity of Live vs Shoot 'till they are Dead paradox.

That's actually shoot til they stop. But given the mechanics of the terminal effects of bullets, that can have the same outcome.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RHCCapri (Post 57221564)
I doubt these three will be breaking into anymore homes after one was wounded.

That would disagree with the amount of criminals that have been shot before. Non-fatal gunshot wounds don't seem to end all their lives of crime. Some just make better preparations, or choose less dangerous targets.

Elmer 01-29-2013 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57222762)
If you Google "Fire AR-15 from the hip" you'll find lots and lots of hits, and YouTube videos, and so forth.

Of course, it's also designed so that it can be fired prone and in other positions as well.


Here's a video of a Prius being chased by the police.
[youtube.com] The Prius apparently got away.

Clearly the Prius was "designed" to outrun the police.

:facepalm:

Anybody who wants to fire any gun from the hip, (and likely hit nothing), can do so.

If a crazy person wants to shoot at people, I pray they fire from the hip.

Instead of just googling to try and justify your constant barrage of ridiculous, irrational, and incorrect statements about guns, why don't you take the time to try and learn something about them?

Elmer 01-29-2013 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57222762)
If you Google "Fire AR-15 from the hip" you'll find lots and lots of hits, and YouTube videos, and so forth.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...uth/rambo2.jpg
Of course, it's also designed so that it can be fired prone and in other positions as well.

You realize that your photo is of Stallone firing an M60 machine gun, correct?

And that military training would preclude doing that, because it's ineffective?

No...didn't think so....

Rebound 01-29-2013 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elmer (Post 57222996)
You realize that your photo is of Stallone firing an M60 machine gun, correct?

And that military training would preclude doing that, because it's ineffective?

No...didn't think so....

You know, Elmer, it's ok that you trash talk to me all the time, but if you're going to trash Rambo, then you're trashing America, and I can't sit here and let you and the Viet Cong disrespect the American flag like that.

onscreen 01-29-2013 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RHCCapri (Post 57220808)
Thanks for the informative post. I read it over twice and did some research.


I did some research and watched a video about swapping out stocks to make a hunting rifle look like an assault weapon. Of course when the video instructor stated that this AK-47 was not an "assault rifle" like the illegal AK-47 right next to it, I call BS since the video to the right was AK-47 bump-fire [youtube.com]

Remember that bump firing is not illegal and just about any semi-auto gun can be bump fired.
Pistol bump fire: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL2oKEu_MFo

Quote:

So I now get why gun experts get annoyed at non-military weapons being called "assault rifles". Still to non-gun owners and the media, "if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck..."
I agree with that problem. However, racing stripes on my Civic don't make it fast. That doesn't make it correct when the media claims the car is a race car just because I'm speeding.

Quote:

I my mind, what makes an assault weapon is the combination of high powered round that can pierce Kevlar soft body armour, high rate of fire capable for the average untrained person, a large easily swappable magazine and features that make the weapon easy to use for crowd killing (folding stock, pistol grip, bayonet, etc).
This is again a flawed definition because it would include guns we probably don't consider AWs and include guns we would say aren't. This completely reminds me of sports car forums when people ask what is a sports car. Someone will say it only has two seats. Well that rules out most Porsche 911s and the McLaren F1. Of course it also means luminaries such as the Geo Metro convertible would qualify.

So using your criteria I see problems. I know you put them together but I will start with each criteria considered on its own. You have, in effect, proposed the penetration of a "Kevlar soft body" vest as the line between low and high power. Well vests come in a range of protection levels. Basically any vest should stop things less than a 9mm Lugar (the common 9mm round). However, the low level body armor would have trouble with more powerful pistol rounds like the 357 Sig and certainly things like the .44 Mag. Conversely, just about any rifle round other than .22LR will go through a soft vest. Common hunting rounds will have no trouble with a all but the hardest vests.

The high rate of rife is basically common to any semi-auto gun. James Bond's Walther PPK, a .380 ACP (less powerful than the common 9mm) fires just as fast as an AR-15. The bump fire pistol video basically illustrates the point. If you can pull the trigger that fast it will fire that fast. At the same time the number of bullets available to fire is a function of the magazine attached to the gun. So long as the magazine can be changed the number of bullets that could be loaded "into" Bond's compact PPK is the same as what could be loaded into an AR-15. Yes, 20+ round magazines are common for AR-15 and probably don't exist for PPKs but the only thing that stops that is market demand, not manufacturing ability.

"Untrained" is hard to define. It take almost no training to safety fire almost any gun. That doesn't mean they are great shots or anything, just that they can safety and competently shoot the gun.

Swappable magazine is easy to define. Large is subjective and certainly what is large and available is really hard to say. For example, 30 round AR magazines are common (nearly the standard). 30 round Glock magazines are available for some Glock pistols but are not standard. However they are available. As soon as the magazine can be changed the number of bullets is limited only by the imagination of the aftermarket. Eugene Stoner, the designer of the AR-15 likely never designed a magazine that accepted over 30 rounds for the gun. The military would have no interest in something like the 100 round drum jam-o-matics. However, Stoner couldn't stop others from creating such magazines.

Here is a Glock with a drum mag. I'm sure Glock had nothing to do with this thing. Really, it's such an impractical magazine that I wouldn't fear someone with one of these in public. Someone with the same number of rounds in several 17 round magazines would be far harder to spot. http://www.google.com/imgres?imgu...A&dur=3581

The list of features you mentioned don't make the gun easier to use in a "spray and prey" situation. Folding stocks came about for parachute troops (easier to pack on the planes). Pistol grips are simply ergonomically better for aimed fire. The traditional rifle stock is a historical throwback that reflected how trees grew, not what made for a good rifle handle. Ironically the rifle grip is better for hip firing. Wrap your fingers around a pen. Hold the pen 3" in front of your face as if you were holding a pistol grip. Now rotate your wrist forward until that pen is 45* or less from horizontal. Which hold puts less strain on your wrist? No hold your pen near your hip. Which is more natural, the more horizontal grasp with the pen at your side or rotating the pen so it's nearly vertical. That's not your wrist's natural angle.

Basically, shooting from the hip is easier with a rifle grip that allows you to grasp the gun from above and doesn't have any mechanism extending over the grasp area. Shooting from the eye level is easier when the grasp is more vertical since that is how our hands naturally align with the face.

Bayonet lugs of course are cosmetic in this case.

So I can see how you might spot these items and think, AW or not but the fact is some have nothing to do with the issue (grasp style), others are irrelevant (bayonet lugs), unprecise (high power) or can apply to just about any gun (possible use with high capacity magazines).

Quote:

Question: Is a pistol grip required for a slide fire or bump fire system?
No If you notice in my earlier linked video the guy never grabbed the pistol grip while bump firing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBQrtzSdVDo
There are some bump fire stocks which are designed to make bump firing easier. Those are primarily designed for the AR-15 simply because it's a very popular design.

Do note that part of why the AR-15 is so popular is because it's very modular. People really like that since it lets them turn the basic platform into what ever they want. It also means that you have a huge selection of parts for your gun. This is the same reason why people are more likely to modify a Chevy V8 vs a Ferrari V8. The Chevy V8 can be 100% made from parts that never passed through GM's hands thanks to the large aftermarket.

Quote:

Whatever Congress will come up with will be sure to anger everyone. At least we will have a year of debate over those definitions and not four hours before a vote like in New York State!
No doubt there! I really hate what NY did for two reasons. First I think it was almost entirely a crappy set of laws. Only the laws protecting permit holder's info from the likes of that news paper were positive in my view. Beyond that though I totally agree that claiming this was an emergency was an abuse of power. That alone should be sufficient to challenge the passage of this law. It reeks of back room dealing.


Quote:

I agree, pure political grandstanding by Feinstein. But that is what politicians do, play to their base. It is the same reasons why all of these Sheriffs are making noise about not enforcing any new gun laws, never mind that its the ATFs job to do that and not theirs, the Sheriffs are grandstanding to get re-elected.
True that.

Quote:

Question: Are pump action and/or semi-auto shotguns "drop safe"?
All I found on this was that the Remmington 870 is not "drop safe" which is why police carry them unloaded in the car and rack the side before use.
I can't speak to any particular gun but in general any type of gun can and should be made drop safe. I think the idea of not keeping one in the chamber is more about adding an extra level of protection against accidental discharge. A shotgun isn't the "go to" gun thus I would agree it should not be kept, loaded and ready to fire.

onscreen 01-29-2013 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57223160)
You know, Elmer, it's ok that you trash talk to me all the time, but if you're going to trash Rambo, then you're trashing America, and I can't sit here and let you and the Viet Cong disrespect the American flag like that.

Speaking of trash talking have you apologized to adams135 for taking this
Quote:

Like the people who say a 7 round magizine is all anyone would ever need. If 2 or 3 people break into your home there is a damn good chance 7 rounds may not be enough
And turning it into this:
Quote:

Then surely you can give us an example of a home robbery in which 3 armed people broke in and couldn't be stopped by the pistol-armed homeowner.

Dr. J 01-29-2013 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57222762)
If you Google "Fire AR-15 from the hip" you'll find lots and lots of hits, and YouTube videos, and so forth.
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v1...uth/rambo2.jpg
Of course, it's also designed so that it can be fired prone and in other positions as well.


this is EXACTLY what I mean when I talk about disinformation. Cue TV anchor talking about "assault weapons" used in a shooting and in the background plays stock footage of some Rambo-style gun firing in auto. Most people will just make the connection and assume that Rambo-style weapons are readily available and indeed a *problem*, when indeed it's misinformation and misdirection at its best. I don't think that it's always intentional - but at the very least ignorant.

Rebound 01-29-2013 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onscreen (Post 57223428)
Speaking of trash talking have you apologized to adams135 for taking this

And turning it into this:

And yet, he could not come up with an example of a case where a pistol couldn't stop an home invasion robbery. Mostly because people who are hit with bullets usually stop whatever they're doing, even if they aren't dead from their wounds.

Rebound 01-29-2013 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. J (Post 57223476)
this is EXACTLY what I mean when I talk about disinformation. Cue TV anchor talking about "assault weapons" used in a shooting and in the background plays stock footage of some Rambo-style gun firing in auto. Most people will just make the connection and assume that Rambo-style weapons are readily available and indeed a *problem*, when indeed it's misinformation and misdirection at its best. I don't think that it's always intentional - but at the very least ignorant.

Of course it's from a movie, however, if your read what I said, you'll see that you can indeed Google for "fire AR15 from hip" or "bump fire AR15" and you'll get a lot of responses and YouTube videos and so forth.

onscreen 01-29-2013 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57224232)
And yet, he could not come up with an example of a case where a pistol couldn't stop an home invasion robbery. Mostly because people who are hit with bullets usually stop whatever they're doing, even if they aren't dead from their wounds.

Does that justify lying about his statement?

Rebound 01-29-2013 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onscreen (Post 57224328)
Does that justify lying about his statement?

I did not lie. He said that 7 rounds in a pistol may not be enough, so I asked him for example where that was so.

onscreen 01-29-2013 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57224322)
Of course it's from a movie, however, if your read what I said, you'll see that you can indeed Google for "fire AR15 from hip" or "bump fire AR15" and you'll get a lot of responses and YouTube videos and so forth.

Are you claiming bump firing and firing from the hip are the same thing?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57224366)
I did not lie. He said that 7 rounds in a pistol may not be enough, so I asked him for example where that was so.

That isn't what you asked. Read it again.

Rebound 01-29-2013 05:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onscreen (Post 57224388)
Are you claiming bump firing and firing from the hip are the same thing?

Did I claim that you can Google for either one?

I think that "bump firing" is a spectacular example of what's wrong with assault rifles. With that accessory and a large-capacity clip, the line between semi- and fully-automatic assault rifle becomes even more blurred -- so much so, in fact, that I wouldn't be surprised if the ATF bans the bump-fire stocks. I think the only reason they approved them for now is that they were unaware of the bump-firing feature which they enable.

I think you have this idea that since some sort of technical distinction can be created in language, that nothing more is necessary. And so you're able to create language and a thought in your head that a single-shot musket is technically no different at all from an AR-15 equipped with several 30-round magazines and this bump-firing stock. But just because you think they're no different, doesn't mean it is so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by onscreen (Post 57224388)
That isn't what you asked. Read it again.

I ask (yet again), where is the example of the homeowner with the 7-round pistol who could not stop the home invasion?

Dumpsterdiver 01-29-2013 05:14 PM

Wow. :lmao::lmao:

And wowwer.
"I wouldn't be surprised if the ATF bans the bump-fire stocks. I think the only reason they approved them for now is that they were unaware of the bump-firing feature which they enable."

Ron White is correct. You can't fix it.

Elmer 01-29-2013 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57223160)
You know, Elmer, it's ok that you trash talk to me all the time, but if you're going to trash Rambo, then you're trashing America, and I can't sit here and let you and the Viet Cong disrespect the American flag like that.

Rebound! You're back!!!!

:hug:

While you were gone, somebody hacked into your account and was saying the most ridiculous things....

Dumpsterdiver 01-29-2013 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RHCCapri (Post 57221564)
Does every crime have to end with the death of the criminal?

Again I am faced with the conservative Sanctity of Live vs Shoot 'till they are Dead paradox.

I doubt these three will be breaking into anymore homes after one was wounded.

Why are you fixated on death?

Elmer 01-29-2013 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57224232)
Mostly because people who are hit with bullets usually stop whatever they're doing, even if they aren't dead from their wounds.

And sometimes they don't.

Rebound 01-29-2013 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elmer (Post 57224976)
And sometimes they don't.

Yeah, sometimes, bullets just won't stop people.

http://www.humanevents.com/wp-conten...es-620x412.jpg

onscreen 01-29-2013 05:45 PM

Rebound Rebound Rebound... your bouncing all over my screen :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57224504)
Did I claim that you can Google for either one?

I think that "bump firing" is a spectacular example of what's wrong with assault rifles. With that accessory and a large-capacity clip, the line between semi- and fully-automatic assault rifle becomes even more blurred -- so much so, in fact, that I wouldn't be surprised if the ATF bans the bump-fire stocks. I think the only reason they approved them for now is that they were unaware of the bump-firing feature which they enable.

In this you would be wrong. I already attached a video showing a pistol being bump fired. I also attached a video of some, British I think, soldiers showing why spraying out ammo is often not that effective.
Also, how can you make the basics of bump firing illegal? It's nothing more than a clever way to pull the trigger quickly. Are you going to outlaw belt loops?
As for your idea that the ATF was unaware of the purpose of these sliding stocks, you couldn't be further from the truth. The first manufacture of such a stock (that I'm aware of) was the Atkin's Accelerator. Atkin's was no fool. If the ATF decided the thing was an illegal machine gun he would be in deep poop. So to avoid that very issue he contacted the ATF and asked for a legal opinion on the device. The ATF said yes and allowed it to go up for sale. Later they changed their minds and all the stocks had to be surrendered else the owner would be in possession of an illegal machine gun. (Bet you didn't know that).

The Slide Fire guys saw what happened and changed their design so in theory it's now legal. It at least got around the technical issues cited previously. The SF guys also submitted information for the ATF to review prior to putting the device on sale. The ATF said yes. That doesn't mean they won't change their mind as they did with the Atkin's device. However it does mean that they, contrary to what you claim, are 100% aware of what this thing is and what it does.

Quote:

I think you have this idea that since some sort of technical distinction can be created in language, that nothing more is necessary. And so you're able to create language and a thought in your head that a single-shot musket is technically no different at all from an AR-15 equipped with several 30-round magazines and this bump-firing stock. But just because you think they're no different, doesn't mean it is so.
I think you are making stuff up. Please show where I said an AR-15 is the same as a single shot musket. That's even more off base than how you misquoted adams135.

Quote:

I ask (yet again), where is the example of the homeowner with the 7-round pistol who could not stop the home invasion?
Speaking of misquoting....
That isn't what you said. He said sometimes you would need more than 7 rounds. You said, "Then surely you can give us an example of a home robbery in which 3 armed people broke in and couldn't be stopped by the pistol-armed homeowner. "
Notice you have changed the thrust of your post. Previously he said 7 bullets isn't enough. You implied and later all but stated he was claiming he needed a more powerful gun, with no reference to the number of bullets. Now you are claiming you were talking about a 7-round pistol all along... but even that is not an honest description of what he said. He didn't specify pistol or otherwise. You added that yourself.

DJPlayer 01-29-2013 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57224366)
I did not lie. He said that 7 rounds in a pistol may not be enough, so I asked him for example where that was so.

I don't think I've ever even seen a 7 round clip.. You have no clue what a pain that would be at a range.. I'm curious would would happen to virtually every hand gun clip out there that comes standard with 9 or so and you can extend to 11 (maybe more).

Plus oh the difficulty to make that sucker hold more.. take the block out of the bottom that stops it from filling beyond point x.

onscreen 01-29-2013 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57225022)
Yeah, sometimes, bullets just won't stop people.

http://www.humanevents.com/wp-conten...es-620x412.jpg

I didn't realize you had a picture of the guy who didn't stop after that Georgia woman shot him 5 times. I guess he's kind of like Willem Dafoe.

Rebound 01-29-2013 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onscreen (Post 57225518)
I didn't realize you had a picture of the guy who didn't stop after that Georgia woman shot him 5 times. I guess he's kind of like Willem Dafoe.

He didn't die after 5 shots, but he was no longer able to rob her home.

onscreen 01-29-2013 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57226656)
He didn't die after 5 shots, but he was no longer able to rob her home.

He was able to get up and drive away. Had he had a gun instead of a blunt object he also likely still had the ability to shoot her. Do you think he would have avoided shooting her had he brought a gun?

You forgot to mention my other post. You know, the one where I explained how the ATF, contrary to what you claim, was fully aware of the slide fire stock and where I showed how what you originally claimed someone said wasn't the same as what they said etc.

Elmer 01-29-2013 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57225022)
Yeah, sometimes, bullets just won't stop people.

-snip- typical deflection

It happens a lot more that you, knowing nothing about guns, shooting, bullets, etc., would think. While a lot of people fall down and give up when shot, some choose not to.

I personally know several men, both military and law enforcement, who were shot and continued to fight.

adams135 01-29-2013 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elmer (Post 57227248)
It happens a lot more that you, knowing nothing about guns, shooting, bullets, etc., would think. While a lot of people fall down and give up when shot, some choose not to.

I personally know several men, both military and law enforcement, who were shot and continued to fight.

As a state cop once told me in my father's gunshop .. when yiu get a 250 Male coming at you hopped up on drugs .. even a large bore pistol won't stop him unless you hit him in the right place.

Rebound 01-29-2013 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJPlayer (Post 57225512)
I don't think I've ever even seen a 7 round clip.. You have no clue what a pain that would be at a range.. I'm curious would would happen to virtually every hand gun clip out there that comes standard with 9 or so and you can extend to 11 (maybe more).

Plus oh the difficulty to make that sucker hold more.. take the block out of the bottom that stops it from filling beyond point x.

I think you should take that point up with Adams. I didn't bring up the number of rounds.

onscreen 01-29-2013 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57227994)
I think you should take that point up with Adams. I didn't bring up the number of rounds.

Yes you did. You brought it up after I corrected you several times.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57224504)
I ask (yet again), where is the example of the homeowner with the 7-round pistol who could not stop the home invasion?

No, initially you tried to change the subject and demanded that he reply to your perversion of his statements
Quote:

Then surely you can give us an example of a home robbery in which 3 armed people broke in and couldn't be stopped by the pistol-armed homeowner.
Later you got back to the number of rounds but you were disputing his claim that 7 isn't always enough.

Man, I'm going to need a chart just to keep track of what you are and aren't saying and what you say you are saying!

onscreen 01-29-2013 08:11 PM

In a different conversation but I think in this thread there was a discussion about rate of fire. At around 10:30 into this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhN_R-3cWdQ an army instructor talks about teh rate of rife of the Garand, M14 and M16. The rates of fire are 30, 40 and 60 rounds/minute respectively. The M14 is fired only semi-auto while the M-16 holds that rate of fire using automatic fire in bursts. Basically this is what the military says is the maximum aimed rate of fire these weapons can sustain. Faster than that and you are wasting ammo. Note a few things. The semi-auto M14 has 20 round magazines compared to the 8 round clips of the M1. You get only 10 rounds extra in a minute. With the M14 you would load once in a minute. With the Garand you would load 3 times. Note that 2 extra reloads resulted in 30 vs 40 aimed shots. The AR-15 shoots no faster than the M14. This idea that you can get 100 bullets in a minute out of the gun is a bad joke. Yes, you can but not with any aim and even in a relatively tight room you need some level of aim. Basically when considering sustained rate of fire a large capacity magazine (20 vs 8) didn't do as much as one might think.

Dumpsterdiver 01-29-2013 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onscreen (Post 57226808)
You forgot to mention my other post. You know, the one where I explained how the ATF, contrary to what you claim, was fully aware of the slide fire stock and where I showed how what you originally claimed someone said wasn't the same as what they said etc.

I'm still laughing over that one. Hey, I know, the AR was designed to be fired from the hip too!

onscreen 01-29-2013 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57229082)
Adams brought up the number 7. I didn't. You then demanded that I answer his exact question. Thinking that it might shut you up, I answered his question about a seven round weapon, and now you're asking me why I brought up the number 7, and you're calling me a liar, clicking the ModAlert button had no effect, (obviously), so I'm all done with your trolling.

Yet another distortion. Adam did bring up the number, he didn't say anything about gun type. You then turned his statements questioning the 7 round limit into a claim implying he said that pistols didn't have the stopping power needed for home defense. That might have been a mistake but when I pointed it out you didn't go back and reply to what he really wrote. Later you specifically said 'he wrote' and then said something he didn't write. How is that not a dishonest assessment of what he said? Sorry, that is a lie hence the reason why I called it as such. Telling me you answered his exact question (see post 127). It's not at all clear where you answered his question about 7 being enough anywhere after post 127.

Sorry, you were insistent on getting an answer out of Adam. I demanded no less of you.

onscreen 01-29-2013 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dumpsterdiver (Post 57229380)
I'm still laughing over that one. Hey, I know, the AR was designed to be fired from the hip too!

Don't expect a reply either.

Really, the sad thing is I'm totally OK with people disagreeing. What I don't like is people who are posting in this thread but don't want to actually talk. Some of the anti-gun people (and some of the pro-gun people) simply want to try to trip the other person up. Oddly enough an easy way to do this is with the ALMOST but not quite real argument. This is either the constantly changing direction of debate or topic of debate. One person makes a claim. The other tries to debunk it but the first person rapid fires of a totally different claim and never returns back to the first. It's almost like throwing 16 basketballs at Jordan all at once then saying he can't catch because he dropped 14 balls.

I've seen how many of the Podium discussion go. There is lots of this side or that side of the isle is stupid. Your politician is desperate, dishonest, etc. While I'm interested in several of the topics on the forum I have decided this is the ONLY subject in which I will engage anyone. I'm also happy to engage anyone here on this subject and explain why things that seem simple often aren't or aren't as effective as people think. I'm happy to explain why pro-gun people are often against certain rules/regulations/laws etc.

What I find destructive to discussion are attacks of hyperbole and misinformation. When, rather than actually thinking and discussion, we get a barrage of bad information and repeating of the same incorrect and unsupported claims (for example, for the Nth time, pistol grips do not make it easier to fire from the hip). This does nothing to move the understanding forward nor find common ground. Instead it makes it easier to dismiss the other side as a bunch of ____ who don't care about (children/constitution/bunnies) etc.

darkfrog 01-29-2013 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57229082)
Adams brought up the number 7. I didn't. You then demanded that I answer his exact question. Thinking that it might shut you up, I answered his question about a seven round weapon, and now you're asking me why I brought up the number 7, and you're calling me a liar, clicking the ModAlert button had no effect, (obviously), so I'm all done with your trolling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57229764)
You admit it. Adams brought up the number seven. So stop trolling. Instead, read the post you wrote above, and admit that you're a hypocrite.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doctor Wu
We will no longer be referring to other people's arguments or ideas as 'ignorant', 'dumb', 'stupid', 'trolling', etc.

And I think we are all done with your personal attacks and distorting other people's posts. If you think onscreen is trolling, then MA him and then STFU.

Rebound 01-29-2013 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57229956)
And I think we are all done with your personal attacks and distorting other people's posts. If you think onscreen is trolling, then MA him and then STFU.

I did MA him, but to no effect. But that's hardly a surprise. After all, we have a Podium rule that only one thread per topic is allowed, unless, obviously, that topic is guns. And I received three warning points for pointing that out. And when I started two pro-gun control threads, they were both deleted.

So this is not an unbiased area of free public discussion, it's a biased area of free pro-gun discussion.

So I'll see you guys in a week, because I'm sure that I'm getting banned for at least that long for simply pointing out the truth.

darkfrog 01-29-2013 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57230032)
I did MA him, but to no effect. But that's hardly a surprise. After all, we have a Podium rule that only one thread per topic is allowed, unless, obviously, that topic is guns. And I received three warning points for pointing that out. And when I started two pro-gun control threads, they were both deleted.

So this is not an unbiased area of free public discussion, it's a biased area of free pro-gun discussion.

So I'll see you guys in a week, because I'm sure that I'm getting banned for at least that long for simply pointing out the truth.

What was the MA for? You claimed earlier it was because he called you a liar, not because of trolling. What was the mod's response? Surely they gave your MA due consideration, but considering that you did in fact post some untruths, I'm sure the mods aren't going to warn him for telling it like it is.

Elmer 01-29-2013 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by adams135 (Post 57227722)
As a state cop once told me in my father's gunshop .. when yiu get a 250 Male coming at you hopped up on drugs .. even a large bore pistol won't stop him unless you hit him in the right place.

And as I'm sure you know, rifles and shotguns don't always stop someone either, even if they're not under the influence of anything.

Rebound 01-29-2013 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by darkfrog (Post 57230952)
What was the MA for? You claimed earlier it was because he called you a liar, not because of trolling. What was the mod's response? Surely they gave your MA due consideration, but considering that you did in fact post some untruths, I'm sure the mods aren't going to warn him for telling it like it is.

Several people here asked me a barrage of questions. All I did was try to answer them. I got one of the questions wrong, so I answered it again.

How about if we go with who's REALLY right in this thread -- ME! Because a majority of Americans agree with ME. A majority of Americans want gun control, and a majority want to outlaw assault weapons. Just because I'm out-numbered in this thread, it doesn't make you guys right. Just because the Podium allows ten or more pro-gun threads, and deletes pro-gun control threads, it doesn't mean you're right. A semi-automatic assault weapon is effectively the same as a select-fire assault weapon, since in actual use, fully auto is rarely used anyway. These weapons serve no useful purpose in civilian society and they should be banned, as they are in virtually every other country in the world.

darkfrog 01-30-2013 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57232190)
Several people here asked me a barrage of questions. All I did was try to answer them. I got one of the questions wrong, so I answered it again.

How about if we go with who's REALLY right in this thread -- ME! Because a majority of Americans agree with ME. A majority of Americans want gun control, and a majority want to outlaw assault weapons. Just because I'm out-numbered in this thread, it doesn't make you guys right. Just because the Podium allows ten or more pro-gun threads, and deletes pro-gun control threads, it doesn't mean you're right. A semi-automatic assault weapon is effectively the same as a select-fire assault weapon, since in actual use, fully auto is rarely used anyway. These weapons serve no useful purpose in civilian society and they should be banned, as they are in virtually every other country in the world.

So appeal to popularity and constant claims that are factually incorrect mean you are 'right?'

Get over yourself. Many of the majority of Americans that agree with you are just as misinformed as you seem to be. Continuing to call out 'assault weapons' does not obviate the fact that this is a made-up term by the anti-gun politicians and media. Assault rifles are clearly defined. Assault weapon is a catch-all term to label anything someone thinks should be removed from society without clear rational reasons. Semi-automatic firearm technology is over 100 years old. These are not new weapons and they are not full-automatics in spite of this obvious tactic to blur the lines between the two - effectively the same is a lie. They are specifically different in not having a switch for full-auto mode. If they are similar in other respects, so what? Your claim they have no use in civilian society has not only been debunked, it doesn't really matter if YOU think they don't have a use. Many of us have found sufficient use, making them the most popular guns ever sold. Do you really think people go out and buy things that aren't useful?

Yes, other countries have banned many types of guns yet if you take an honest look, the violent crimes and gun crimes were not affected by these bans and certain crimes like home invasions rose significantly. When a violent felon doesn't have to worry about being shot by a home owner, it's not surprising they have become more brazen. Please don't insult my intelligence by claiming that once THESE guns are banned, all of the other ones I own will be safe. I guarantee that at the next politically opportune time, we will hear more of the same, this time it will be handguns, because after all, they are used in more crime by a large margin than any 'assault weapon.' For many people, it won't be enough until only the police and military have access to guns. If you don't think our country can fall to tyranny, just wait until citizens are prohibited from owning firearms.

onscreen 01-30-2013 06:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57232190)
Several people here asked me a barrage of questions. All I did was try to answer them. I got one of the questions wrong, so I answered it again.

How about if we go with who's REALLY right in this thread -- ME! Because a majority of Americans agree with ME. A majority of Americans want gun control, and a majority want to outlaw assault weapons. Just because I'm out-numbered in this thread, it doesn't make you guys right. Just because the Podium allows ten or more pro-gun threads, and deletes pro-gun control threads, it doesn't mean you're right. A semi-automatic assault weapon is effectively the same as a select-fire assault weapon, since in actual use, fully auto is rarely used anyway. These weapons serve no useful purpose in civilian society and they should be banned, as they are in virtually every other country in the world.

For a long time the majority of Americans didn't think women or non-whites should be allowed to vote. I guess you were OK with that too? So now your argument comes down to "me".

A majority of Americans want gun control. We have gun control.

A majority want to outlaw "AW"s but a majority, you included, can't fully define what an AW is and can't explain why they are more dangerous than other guns or how banning them is a going to reduce crime. There is a reason why we don't just follow popular clamor or majority rules. When the majority is misinformed or guided by emotion rather than logic it's better to not follow their wishes when involve taking away civil rights of others. How is a 9mm TEC-9 pistol with a 10 round magazine more dangerous than a 9mm Beretta with a 10 round magazine? If nothing else the Beretta is easier to hide thus more likely to be illegally carried in public. Yet, your logic is the TEC-9 should be illegal and the Beretta is OK.

The majority of Americans would probably be happy to take away free speech from groups they consider wrong or hateful. Are they right in this case?

Rebound 01-30-2013 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onscreen (Post 57234766)
A majority want to outlaw "AW"s but a majority, you included, can't fully define what an AW is and can't explain why they are more dangerous than other guns or how banning them is a going to reduce crime.

We can define assault weapon just fine, thank you very much. We are perfectly well satisfied with our definition, we just don't want the watered-down NRA version.

EDIT: I forgot, I'm not talking to you anymore. So never mind.

msummers80 01-30-2013 08:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricecake (Post 57235858)
In this situation, no amount of standard regulation would likely have fixed the situation since the agressor/homeowner is practically a caricature of the NRA's ideal member, but it does point out something about the mentality of many very-pro-gun people I know. After watching so much pro-gun, largely right-wing 'news', they have been so instilled with fear and propaganda that they can't accurately gauge threats anymore and consider using their guns to be a first-response.

What an interesting bunch of theories. You have some proof of the level of people brainwashing driven fear, I suppose. Some study that shows the inability of those who are pro civil rights to accurately gauge threats.
I'll assume by caricature of NRA's ideal members you mean the caricature that those who don't believe in personal liberty attempt to foist on them, which being a caricature is silly and mostly fiction.
Quote:

Originally Posted by ricecake (Post 57235858)
Even in the area I just moved from (low crime, suburban, older population), my co-workers would regularly discuss 'scenarios' for how they would handle a suspicious person on (or sometimes just near) their property. And they weren't shy about immediately introducing a gun to the situation, or still using it even if a criminal was already scared off and fleeing.

What a charming anecdote. By "introducing a gun into a situation" and "using it" I assume you mean you knew people who were only talking about such things. Otherwise your description of of a low crime area doesn't make sense. That is, one doesn't constantly do those things in low crime areas.

onscreen 01-30-2013 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57235668)
We can define assault weapon just fine, thank you very much. We are perfectly well satisfied with our definition, we just don't want the watered-down NRA version.

EDIT: I forgot, I'm not talking to you anymore. So never mind.

Of course, someone who is convinced he is right regardless of any evidence to the contrary is certain his definition of assault weapon is correct. Of course, when I ask what is your definition I get a was of subjective terms like "designed for battle" (applies to revolutionary war muskets) and has pistol grips (so do Olympic target rifles). Your definition, or at least what little bits of definition you have thrown out aren't logically robust. When someone is designing a new gun how does your definition help them decide if their new gun will be legal or will be declared an "Assault Weapon"?

onscreen 01-30-2013 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ricecake (Post 57235858)
Since this is supposed to be the 'All Gun Incidents' thread, this seems worth noting. It is an unfortunate counter-example to the anecdotal home invasion incidents cited by others in this (and many other) threads.
Quote :
Georgia man shoots and kills young Latino who accidentally pulled into his driveway, police say [nbclatino.com]

Rodrigo Diaz, 22, was driving around with his girlfriend and two friends when he pulled into a driveway, thinking they had arrived at another friend’s house, his brother says. But instead he pulled into the driveway of Phillip Sailors, 69, who thought his home was being robbed, his lawyer says. Sailors then shot Diaz, according to the police report, citing what Sailors told officers at the scene. Diaz later died while in the intensive care unit.
“Basically, what happened is they were looking for one of my brother’s girlfriend’s friends,” says his brother David E. Diaz-Valencia, 23. “The guy came outside and my brother’s girlfriend said he was screaming, ‘Get off my property!’ and he shot into the air. My brother was backing out fast because he was scared and he rolled down the window to say he was sorry and he was not doing anything wrong. Then the guy shot him in his head.”
When officers arrived, Angie Rebolledo, Diaz’s girlfriend, had blood on her jeans, both arms and both hands as she was attempting to get a response from him and screamed frantically that her boyfriend had been shot, according to police.
Sailors’ lawyer says his client is a Vietnam veteran with no prior criminal history and thought he and his wife were about to be victims of a home invasion. “You have to understand this is a 69-year-old man who is a military veteran who has been honorably discharged,” Michael Puglise says. “He dedicated his life to community service, specifically the Christian Lay Ministry in Latin America.”
In this situation, no amount of standard regulation would likely have fixed the situation since the agressor/homeowner is practically a caricature of the NRA's ideal member, but it does point out something about the mentality of many very-pro-gun people I know. After watching so much pro-gun, largely right-wing 'news', they have been so instilled with fear and propaganda that they can't accurately gauge threats anymore and consider using their guns to be a first-response.

Even in the area I just moved from (low crime, suburban, older population), my co-workers would regularly discuss 'scenarios' for how they would handle a suspicious person on (or sometimes just near) their property. And they weren't shy about immediately introducing a gun to the situation, or still using it even if a criminal was already scared off and fleeing.

Sorry, that isn't a good example of what anyone wants. The NRA certainly wouldn't support this sort of thing and I don't think what the man did was legal in Georgia. Your claim that the shooter was an "ideal member" of the NRA is based on what? The NRA does not advocate shooting first and asking questions later and I don't think GA law does either. Certainly the cops who arrested him would agree with me. Odds are good the home owner is going to face serious trouble for this since the people were not breaking or entering at the time of the shooting and were in fact retreating if the story is to be believed. To claim it says something about the mentality of "many" pro-gun people is a claim that demands support.

ShengD 01-30-2013 08:46 AM

I accidentally posted that last one while logged into my spouses account. I'll repost it here and respond:


Since this is supposed to be the 'All Gun Incidents' thread, this seems worth noting. It is an unfortunate counter-example to the anecdotal home invasion incidents cited by others in this (and many other) threads.
Quote:

Georgia man shoots and kills young Latino who accidentally pulled into his driveway, police say [nbclatino.com]


Rodrigo Diaz, 22, was driving around with his girlfriend and two friends when he pulled into a driveway, thinking they had arrived at another friend’s house, his brother says. But instead he pulled into the driveway of Phillip Sailors, 69, who thought his home was being robbed, his lawyer says. Sailors then shot Diaz, according to the police report, citing what Sailors told officers at the scene. Diaz later died while in the intensive care unit.
“Basically, what happened is they were looking for one of my brother’s girlfriend’s friends,” says his brother David E. Diaz-Valencia, 23. “The guy came outside and my brother’s girlfriend said he was screaming, ‘Get off my property!’ and he shot into the air. My brother was backing out fast because he was scared and he rolled down the window to say he was sorry and he was not doing anything wrong. Then the guy shot him in his head.”
When officers arrived, Angie Rebolledo, Diaz’s girlfriend, had blood on her jeans, both arms and both hands as she was attempting to get a response from him and screamed frantically that her boyfriend had been shot, according to police.
Sailors’ lawyer says his client is a Vietnam veteran with no prior criminal history and thought he and his wife were about to be victims of a home invasion. “You have to understand this is a 69-year-old man who is a military veteran who has been honorably discharged,” Michael Puglise says. “He dedicated his life to community service, specifically the Christian Lay Ministry in Latin America.”
In this situation, no amount of standard regulation would likely have fixed the situation since the agressor/homeowner is practically a caricature of the NRA's ideal member, but it does point out something about the mentality of many very-pro-gun people I know. After watching so much pro-gun, largely right-wing 'news', they have been so instilled with fear and propaganda that they can't accurately gauge threats anymore and consider using their guns to be a first-response.


Even in the area I just moved from (low crime, suburban, older population), my co-workers would regularly discuss 'scenarios' for how they would handle a suspicious person on (or sometimes just near) their property. And they weren't shy about immediately introducing a gun to the situation, or still using it even if a criminal was already scared off and fleeing.



Reply from msummers80:
Quote:

Originally Posted by msummers80 (Post 57236672)
What an interesting bunch of theories. You have some proof of the level of people brainwashing driven fear, I suppose. Some study that shows the inability of those who are pro civil rights to accurately gauge threats.

Now that you mention it, it is more 'fear-inspired' than fear-driven. The people I'm talking about (and I am talking about people that I know in real life and worked with for many years) aren't really fearful for their own safety. As I said, we lived in a very suburban, safe area - mostly a retiree area in Florida. But they do love listening to O'reilly, Limbaugh, Beck, and the like. And they dwell on anecdotal stories from far away as long as it supports the current right-wing narrative. There is also a real racial undertones to their politics in general (but I'd rather not bring up that whole separate issue here).
Quote:

Originally Posted by msummers80 (Post 57236672)
I'll assume by caricature of NRA's ideal members you mean the caricature that those who don't believe in personal liberty attempt to foist on them, which being a caricature is silly and mostly fiction.

Funny you should take it that way. I actually meant it was the role model the NRA uses for responsible gun owners. The aggressor in this case was an honorably-discharged veteran, a homeowner with no previous criminal background, who was a bit older and thus might need a gun to defend themselves from a younger attacker.
Quote:

Originally Posted by msummers80 (Post 57236672)
What a charming anecdote. By "introducing a gun into a situation" and "using it" I assume you mean you knew people who were only talking about such things. Otherwise your description of of a low crime area doesn't make sense. That is, one doesn't constantly do those things in low crime areas.

Yes I mean 'talking about it'. I can't presume to understand their mindset (since obviously I don't share it), but even though the scenarios weren't particularly relevant to our situation, they really did seem to 'enjoy' talking about it. I don't mean to make these guys seem particularly weird or agressive or anything (although it may come across that way). For the most part, they are 45-65 year-old professionals (engineers and plant operators) who are generally reasonable, have families, and are active in the community. But many were old-Floridians (those that lived here more than 30 years which is kind of rare), and are very concerned about the demographic shift going on in south Florida even though it is hundreds of miles away and has no significant impact on our area. Again, I can't really explain the mindset - this is just my personal observation.

msummers80 01-30-2013 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShengD (Post 57237544)
Now that you mention it, it is more 'fear-inspired' than fear-driven. The people I'm talking about (and I am talking about people that I know in real life and worked with for many years) aren't really fearful for their own safety. As I said, we lived in a very suburban, safe area - mostly a retiree area in Florida. But they do love listening to O'reilly, Limbaugh, Beck, and the like. And they dwell on anecdotal stories from far away as long as it supports the current right-wing narrative. There is also a real racial undertones to their politics in general (but I'd rather not bring up that whole separate issue here).

Ask for something substantial, get more anecdotes about anecdotes...

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShengD (Post 57237544)
Funny you should take it that way. I actually meant it was the role model the NRA uses for responsible gun owners. The aggressor in this case was an honorably-discharged veteran, a homeowner with no previous criminal background, who was a bit older and thus might need a gun to defend themselves from a younger attacker.

Yeah, except you zeroed in on arguably paranoid, irrational, racist undertones in the story. The way you have laid it out now seems like a reasonable argument for someone that doesn't know a lot about the NRA and their numerous programs with the young and middle aged persons. As onscreen was hinting at, a big part of the NRAs mission is firearms safety. Bringing them into this incident at all doesn't make sense to me.

ShengD 01-30-2013 09:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by msummers80 (Post 57238070)
Ask for something substantial, get more anecdotes about anecdotes...

You aren't exactly clear about what 'substantial' information you're asking about. I didn't say anyone was 'brainwashed'. But there are plenty of studies showing a correlation between conservative media viewership with overestimation of crime data, xenophobia, and group-think. As far as the anecdotes go, I was pretty clear that I was talking about of 'people I know' and worked with - not a random sampling of people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by msummers80 (Post 57238070)
Yeah, except you zeroed in on arguably paranoid, irrational, racist undertones in the story. The way you have laid it out now seems like a reasonable argument for someone that doesn't know a lot about the NRA and their numerous programs with the young and middle aged persons. As onscreen was hinting at, a big part of the NRAs mission is firearms safety. Bringing them into this incident at all doesn't make sense to me.

I deliberately clipped out and included that entire last paragraph just to give the background information about the homeowner - which shows him in a more sympathetic light. In case you missed it, here it is again:
Quote:

Sailors’ lawyer says his client is a Vietnam veteran with no prior criminal history and thought he and his wife were about to be victims of a home invasion. “You have to understand this is a 69-year-old man who is a military veteran who has been honorably discharged,” Michael Puglise says. “He dedicated his life to community service, specifically the Christian Lay Ministry in Latin America.”

And to whatever extent the NRA uses 'gun safety' as a cover, it is far overshadowed by their focus on ensuring even the most reasonable controls (like uniform background checks among other things) are resisted with the full force of their organization. I believe their overall effect is a net gun-unsafety.

Elmer 01-30-2013 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShengD (Post 57238894)
And to whatever extent the NRA uses 'gun safety' as a cover, it is far overshadowed by their focus on ensuring even the most reasonable controls (like uniform background checks among other things) are resisted with the full force of their organization. I believe their overall effect is a net gun-unsafety.

And that's the biggest problem trying to debate folks like you.

You're so irrational in your "beliefs", that any attempt to dissuade you from such nonsense is futile.

onscreen 01-30-2013 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShengD (Post 57238894)
You aren't exactly clear about what 'substantial' information you're asking about. I didn't say anyone was 'brainwashed'. But there are plenty of studies showing a correlation between conservative media viewership with overestimation of crime data, xenophobia, and group-think. As far as the anecdotes go, I was pretty clear that I was talking about of 'people I know' and worked with - not a random sampling of people.

Correlation and causality aren't the same thing. There are plenty of studies that show all sorts of nasty things but holding that up as evidence that some idea is bad is flawed. It's been shown that the damage caused by a fire and the number of fire trucks that respond to a fire are positively correlated. Would you suggest we reduce the number of fire trucks to reduce damage caused by fire?

Quote:

I deliberately clipped out and included that entire last paragraph just to give the background information about the homeowner - which shows him in a more sympathetic light. In case you missed it, here it is again:
So what you are now trying to do is show that he was a good person thus good people can't be trusted with guns. I'm sure a number of people who have guns can't be trusted with them. So what do you want to do about it? I think public discussion about the correct way to handle these things without the "gun owners are bad" overtones would be a good idea. I think as a society we have decided that sex ed including discussion of birth control, STDs etc is a better method than preaching that anything other than abstinence is a sin. Perhaps we need to have a similar approach to guns. Let's teach more people about how they work and why they are the way they are. Let's teach kids in school how to shoot and how to safely handle guns. Let's also talk about the laws and rules for using guns. The laws are often complex and I suspect many people don't know what they can and can't do. Let's have that conversation without the "you are a sinner for having sex/owning a gun" type overtones.

Quote:

And to whatever extent the NRA uses 'gun safety' as a cover, it is far overshadowed by their focus on ensuring even the most reasonable controls (like uniform background checks among other things) are resisted with the full force of their organization. I believe their overall effect is a net gun-unsafety.
No it doesn't. The NRA is sticking up for gun rights because people who should be questioning the laws and studies that are coming out, ie the media, often aren't. As a few examples, the NRA was against using public money to fund gun violence research because it was clear the money was going to fund poorly constructed studies who's conclusions were forgone by the authors from the outset. I do have an understanding of how science gets funded in the public sector. The problem with peer review is when your peers are a select group with the same bias you are going to be inclined to send funds their way vs other ways. I see this in which areas of medical research get funding. I have no doubt it happens in the social sciences.

The resistance to universal background checks is also not simple fear mongering or a desire to be obstructionist. It has two critical issues which haven't been clearly addressed. First, you have the potential for the records of such a system to be abused. This has happened before and there is no reason to assume it won't happen again. Second, will the system really be effective? The effectiveness in other locations seems to be mixed. The cost seems high and the potential for screw ups is large. Shouldn't we really address these questions before just assuming that such a new rule will work?

Many people don't understand why the NRA resists many laws. Heck, I've had to hunt down the reason more often than once. What I've found is that I've yet to find an example where the NRA didn't have at least a valid concern. That doesn't mean I've searched every case nor does it mean I will always agree with their views however, it does mean that I haven't seen them act in the knee jerk, obstructionist fashion that some claim they do.

If you want to understand the views of the other side, I would suggest ditching the assumptions and actually trying to ask why people feel the way they do. You may not change your mind but at least you can respect that the other side isn't irrational.

Rebound 01-30-2013 10:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elmer (Post 57239136)
And that's the biggest problem trying to debate folks like you.

You're so irrational in your "beliefs", that any attempt to dissuade you from such nonsense is futile.

You have to live in a Third World country in order to live in a nation with a firearm death rate comparable to the United States. We have a lot of firearm deaths because we have too many guns.

By the way, an 8 year-old was shot in Oakland yesterday. And a fifteen year-old who sang at the inauguration was shot and killed in a playground yesterday.

onscreen 01-30-2013 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57240908)
You have to live in a Third World country in order to live in a nation with a firearm death rate comparable to the United States. We have a lot of firearm deaths because we have too many guns.

By the way, an 8 year-old was shot in Oakland yesterday. And a fifteen year-old who sang at the inauguration was shot and killed in a playground yesterday.

But that is such a simplistic way to look at a bigger problem. The bigger issue is the murder rate of the US. The high murder rate is largely a product of isolated subsections of the US. If you normalize for those area vs other countries the US isn't as bad in overall murder rate. Yes, we will almost always have a higher gun murder rate but that is an illogical talking point. Why do we care about the tool when the key point is MURDER.

While it's tragic that a 15 year old was shot in Oakland it was also tragic that Suzanna Hupp lost her parents because people who feared licensed gun owners set up a legal mine field that had her leave her gun in her car the day it could have saved the lives of her parents and perhaps 20 other people. Thanks to ill conceived laws advocated by people such as yourself she watched her father get shot with no ability to stop it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71YpogEUCDI

Finally, you are again, when lacking a strong rational argument going for the appeal to emotion. Appeal to emotion is a dangerous thing and has been used in history to push for all sorts of laws and social changes which were later deeply regretted.

I'm still interested in knowing how you would define an Assault Weapon.

msummers80 01-30-2013 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShengD (Post 57238894)
You aren't exactly clear about what 'substantial' information you're asking about. I didn't say anyone was 'brainwashed'. But there are plenty of studies showing a correlation between conservative media viewership with overestimation of crime data, xenophobia, and group-think. As far as the anecdotes go, I was pretty clear that I was talking about of 'people I know' and worked with - not a random sampling of people.

Ah, more assertions. But someone else has already addressed that. Hopefully you understood the points made. And you didn't have to say brainwashing: you are doing a fair job describing it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShengD (Post 57238894)
I deliberately clipped out and included that entire last paragraph just to give the background information about the homeowner - which shows him in a more sympathetic light. In case you missed it, here it is again:

I didn't miss it. I just don't use sympathies and feelings to persuade my arguments, and try to ignore points that others make based on such things. Good people do bad things, bad people do good things, bad things and good things can be done intentionally, accidentally, and when one looses touch with his mental faculties. All we need to focus on now is what was done and the state of mind of the person for proper punishment to be applied.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShengD (Post 57238894)
And to whatever extent the NRA uses 'gun safety' as a cover, it is far overshadowed by their focus on ensuring even the most reasonable controls (like uniform background checks among other things) are resisted with the full force of their organization. I believe their overall effect is a net gun-unsafety.

Civil liberties are not negotiable. Next you are going to tell me about reasonable controls on the press, speech, peaceful assembly, and searching persons just to make sure one doesn't possess items we have bad feelings about.

Additionally, if you knew anything about the NRA you'd know what a silly statement that is. Now I know why you brought them up and it seems silly to me: you have all sorts of notions about that organization born out of your ignorance of it. You'd be happy to know they backed some of the egregious laws against civil liberties (you'd probably call them "reasonable" controls). The only reasonable control for firearms is being able to hit what you intend to hit, and not hitting everything else.

Xygonn 01-30-2013 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57240908)
You have to live in a Third World country in order to live in a nation with a firearm death rate comparable to the United States. We have a lot of firearm deaths because we have too many guns.

By the way, an 8 year-old was shot in Oakland yesterday. And a fifteen year-old who sang at the inauguration was shot and killed in a playground yesterday.

Mexico is not a Third World country. They have strict gun laws. About 17% of our country shares a strong cultural bond with Mexico.

In Oakland, in Chicago...

Interesting. What do you think is the best solution to the very high geographically clustered murder rates (in large cities) that dominate the average murder rate in the US? How do we help prevent gang related violence?

Dumpsterdiver 01-30-2013 11:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xygonn (Post 57241482)
Interesting. What do you think is the best solution to the very high geographically clustered murder rates (in large cities) that dominate the average murder rate in the US? How do we help prevent gang related violence?

Make sure they only have weapons designed to be fired from the hip.

msummers80 01-30-2013 11:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57240908)
We have a lot of firearm deaths because we have too many guns.

Are you more upset that there are murders, or that some are done with firearms?

PartyInTheUSA 01-30-2013 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57240908)
You have to live in a Third World country in order to live in a nation with a firearm death rate comparable to the United States. We have a lot of firearm deaths because we have too many guns.

By the way, an 8 year-old was shot in Oakland yesterday. And a fifteen year-old who sang at the inauguration was shot and killed in a playground yesterday.

You don't need to live in a third world country, just liberal havens like Chicago, Oakland, Detroit, Flint, Philadelphia, etc.

If we factored out these bastions of liberalism our gun violence rates would way lower than they are. Or maybe the real issue is that the United States has too much of something else...

PartyInTheUSA 01-30-2013 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xygonn (Post 57241482)
Mexico is not a Third World country. They have strict gun laws. About 17% of our country shares a strong cultural bond with Mexico.

In Oakland, in Chicago...

Interesting. What do you think is the best solution to the very high geographically clustered murder rates (in large cities) that dominate the average murder rate in the US? How do we help prevent gang related violence?

The best solution if you ask Mayor Bloomberg is to illegally search anyone who looks Black or Hispanic. It seems to have worked so far, as New York's crime rate has gone down.

New York is actually rolling out "terahertz scanners" that would scan a person from a distance for illegal weapons without their consent.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/...echnology/


Might as well just throw the constitution out in New York since it doesn't seem to apply there.

securety10 01-30-2013 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57240908)
You have to live in a Third World country in order to live in a nation with a firearm death rate comparable to the United States. We have a lot of firearm deaths because we have too many guns.

You have to live in a Third World country in order to live in a nation with a distribution of drug death rate comparable to the United States. We have a lot of drug related deaths because we have too many users.

Ban drugs! :bulb:

Deusxmachina 01-30-2013 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RHCCapri (Post 57220808)
There are laws requiring private backyard swimming pools to be secured by fencing and a locked gate.

Fortunately, my guns are already secured by four walls and a locked front door. So they're even more secured than is required to secure an assault pool.
Quote:

Originally Posted by RHCCapri (Post 57220808)
When gun enthusiasts say "If only the homeowner had an AR-15" after every burglary story like those above, non-gun owners ask "What would have happened if that crazy person had an AR-15 instead of a pistol or rifle when they shot up that school/mall/theater/diner/political rally?"

They don't ask that. If they did, they'd have to admit that someone doesn't need an AR-15 to kill little kids in an enclosed space. And they'd have to bring up the fact that half the people at Columbine were killed with firearms that held only 10 or 5 shots. And they'd have to bring up the fact of what guns the Virginia Tech killer used when he killed MORE people than were killed in an enclosed space in Newtown.

But gun-grabbers don't admit that. Because they don't like facts, don't like the truth, and don't want to admit that most if not all of their arguments have no basis in reality.

Deusxmachina 01-30-2013 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danman114 (Post 57221536)
The cop is essentially going to simulate a massacre while teachers and students huddle in a room, shades drawn, and door locked.

I'm hoping some the teachers, as they are huddled in the corner feeling completely defenseless, that maybe they'll think, "Hmm, if I had a gun in this scenario, I'd have a chance of protecting these kids. Maybe these 'gun-free zones' are indeed a bunch of crap like smart people who care about kids say they are."
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57222762)
If you Google "Fire AR-15 from the hip" you'll find lots and lots of hits, and YouTube videos, and so forth.
Of course, it's also designed so that it can be fired prone and in other positions as well.

Dude. Just stop.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Elmer (Post 57222916)
Instead of just googling to try and justify your constant barrage of ridiculous, irrational, and incorrect statements about guns, why don't you take the time to try and learn something about them?

That's a good question, Elmer. You'd think an otherwise apparently smart person would want to argue from a point of facts and truth.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57232190)
Just because I'm out-numbered in this thread, it doesn't make you guys right.

Being right makes us right.

You could argue anti-gun points from factual points, but you don't seem to want to do that for some reason. Bonus would be more people would take your calls for gun bans or whatever more seriously.

When someone who wants to ban guns says things equivalent to, "It's the shoulder thing that goes up," ...yeah..

onscreen 01-30-2013 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deusxmachina (Post 57247400)
Fortunately, my guns are already secured by four walls and a locked front door. So they're even more secured than is required to secure an assault pool.

They don't ask that. If they did, they'd have to admit that someone doesn't need an AR-15 to kill little kids in an enclosed space. And they'd have to bring up the fact that half the people at Columbine were killed with firearms that held only 10 or 5 shots. And they'd have to bring up the fact of what guns the Virginia Tech killer used when he killed MORE people than were killed in an enclosed space in Newtown.

But gun-grabbers don't admit that. Because they don't like facts, don't like the truth, and don't want to admit that most if not all of their arguments have no basis in reality.

There is a reasonable chance that if the perps had AR-15s that people would have noticed that they were armed and called the cops before they committed any other crimes. One of the reasons, perhaps the prime reason why semi-auto rifles aren't used in crimes that much would be their size. It's rather hard to hide an AK-47 on your person even if you do have a folding stock. Of course AR-15s are also less likely to be a crime gun because they aren't cheap.

Rebound 01-30-2013 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PartyInTheUSA (Post 57242628)
You don't need to live in a third world country, just liberal havens like Chicago, Oakland, Detroit, Flint, Philadelphia, etc.

If we factored out these bastions of liberalism our gun violence rates would way lower than they are. Or maybe the real issue is that the United States has too much of something else...

Well, you have a good point, except that... it isn't true, at least, not on a state-by-state basis.

Of course population is higher in big cities, and they have all have pockets of high crime, no matter what the state is. But what if we look at the rates [statemaster.com], or firearms deaths per 100,000?

District of Columbia is first: 31.2 per 100,000. No surprise; DC is 100% city.
Alaska: 20
Louisiana: 19.5
Wyoming: 19.5
Arizona: 18
Nevada: 17.3
Mississippi: 17.3
New Mexico: 16.6
Arkansas: 16.3
Alabama: 16.2
Tennessee: 15.4
(You get the idea...)
California is #30, with 9.8
Illinois is #31, with 9.7 per 100,000
New York is #46, with 5.1 per 100,000

So as you can see, gun deaths are generally higher in Red States than Blue States; more specifically, gun deaths are higher in states with less restrictive gun ownership laws. Click the link to review the details for yourself.

For the record, I don't hate guns. I think they're cool. But their easy availability is causing a social problem.

Deusxmachina 01-30-2013 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShengD (Post 57237544)
In this situation, no amount of standard regulation would likely have fixed the situation

Correct. Just like most if not all of the new proposed laws wouldn't have stopped Newtown. For some reason, gun-grabbers don't want to talk about that yet they hold up Newtown as the poster for why there should be more laws.

It's either dishonesty, ignorance, or both.
Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57240908)
By the way, an 8 year-old was shot in Oakland yesterday. And a fifteen year-old who sang at the inauguration was shot and killed in a playground yesterday.

For some reason, there seems to be at least one death a day in a country with 10x the population of Canada.

100 million gun owners didn't shoot anyone today.

Rebound 01-30-2013 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deusxmachina (Post 57247666)
You could argue anti-gun points from factual points, but you don't seem to want to do that for some reason. Bonus would be more people would take your calls for gun bans or whatever more seriously.

Gabby Giffords was very pro-gun and proud of her Glock 9, until she got shot in the head with one.

Xygonn 01-30-2013 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57248626)
Well, you have a good point, except that... it isn't true, at least, not on a state-by-state basis.

Of course population is higher in big cities, and they have all have pockets of high crime, no matter what the state is. But what if we look at the rates [statemaster.com], or firearms deaths per 100,000?

District of Columbia is first: 31.2 per 100,000. No surprise; DC is 100% city.
Alaska: 20
Louisiana: 19.5
Wyoming: 19.5
Arizona
Nevada
Mississippi
New Mexico
Arkansas
Alabama
Tennessee
(You get the idea...)
California is #30, with 9.8
Illinois is #31, with 9.7 per 100,000
New York is #46, with 5.1 per 100,000

So as you can see, gun deaths are generally higher in Red States than Blue States. Click the link to review the details for yourself.

Keep counting suicides...

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

See for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_....282004.29


Top Gun Homicide Rates
Louisiana (presumably dominated by New Orleans @ 11x the US average)

Maryland (presumably DC inclusive @ 3x the US average plus Baltimore @ 6x the US average)
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/...ton/crime/
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/...ore/crime/
Mississippi (presumably dominated by Jackson @ 6x the US average)
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/...son/crime/
California (presumably dominated by LA just a bit above US average, but very high population and Oakland @ 5x US average)
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/...and/crime/
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/...les/crime/
Nevada (presumably dominated by Las Vegas)
South Carolina (apparently statewide)
Illinois (presumably dominated by Chicago @ 3x the US Average)
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/...ago/crime/
Michigan (presumably dominated by Detroit @ 10x the US average)
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/...oit/crime/

And there you have it.

Deusxmachina 01-30-2013 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57249006)
Gabby Giffords was very pro-gun and proud of her Glock 9, until she got shot in the head with one.

I don't know what Gabby Gifford has to do with your apparent purposeful intent to disregard things like facts when it comes to firearms.

Elmer 01-30-2013 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xygonn (Post 57249140)
Keep counting suicides...

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

See for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_....282004.29


Top Gun Homicide Rates
Louisiana (presumably dominated by New Orleans)
Maryland (presumably DC inclusive)
Mississippi (presumably dominated by Jackson)
California (presumably dominated by LA)
Nevada (presumably dominated by Las Vegas)
South Carolina (presumably dominated by Charleston and Columbia)
Illinois (presumably dominated by Chicago)
Michigan (presumably dominated by Detroit)

And there you have it.

As always, Rebound and other anti-gun enthusiasts can only resort to deflections, disinformation, and outright lies to make their "point".

The 10 states with the lowest gun homicide rate per 100,000 population:

40. Delaware
41. Idaho
42. Utah
43. Iowa
44. South Dakota
45. Maine
46. North Dakota
47. Wyoming
48. Hawaii
49. Vermont
50. New Hampshire


Please Rebound, tell us it's because they're all strict gun control states......

thikthird 01-30-2013 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elmer (Post 57249510)
As always, Rebound and other anti-gun enthusiasts can only resort to deflections, disinformation, and outright lies to make their "point".

The 10 states with the lowest gun homicide rate per 100,000 population:

40. Delaware
41. Idaho
42. Utah
43. Iowa
44. South Dakota
45. Maine
46. North Dakota
47. Wyoming
48. Hawaii
49. Vermont
50. New Hampshire


Please Rebound, tell us it's because they're all strict gun control states......

it's because no one lives there. no one around for 10 miles to shoot, no one is going to get shot.

onscreen 01-30-2013 04:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57248626)
Well, you have a good point, except that... it isn't true, at least, not on a state-by-state basis.

Of course population is higher in big cities, and they have all have pockets of high crime, no matter what the state is. But what if we look at the rates [statemaster.com], or firearms deaths per 100,000?

District of Columbia is first: 31.2 per 100,000. No surprise; DC is 100% city.
Alaska: 20
Louisiana: 19.5
Wyoming: 19.5
Arizona: 18
Nevada: 17.3
Mississippi: 17.3
New Mexico: 16.6
Arkansas: 16.3
Alabama: 16.2
Tennessee: 15.4
(You get the idea...)
California is #30, with 9.8
Illinois is #31, with 9.7 per 100,000
New York is #46, with 5.1 per 100,000

So as you can see, gun deaths are generally higher in Red States than Blue States; more specifically, gun deaths are higher in states with less restrictive gun ownership laws. Click the link to review the details for yourself.

For the record, I don't hate guns. I think they're cool. But their easy availability is causing a social problem.

You can't get the 'firearms' part out of your head can you. Show us the murder rates. Make sure suicide isn't included. For example Alaska has the highest gun death rate of any state. You would hold that up as proof that more guns equals more deaths. Except that Alaska is actually #35 on the homicide by gun rate according to your same source. Now how does that work out? Illinois is #6 and California is #8. So why is Alaska so high on your data?
http://www.worldlifeexpectancy.com/usa/suicide
Oh, because Alaska has a high suicide rate. It seems rather misleading to show us Gun Death data and claim that proves more guns equal more crimes when you didn't factor out suicide. When it comes to suicide having a gun doesn't make someone more likely to commit suicide, only more likely to finish the job.

Gun Homicide Rates (not gun death rate)
Rank States Amount
# 1 Delaware: 80 %
# 2 Louisiana: 77.5 %
# 3 Vermont: 76.9 %
# 4 Arizona: 76 %
# 5 Arkansas: 75.2 %
# 6 Illinois: 74.2 %
# 7 New Hampshire: 72.7 %
# 8 California: 72.6 %
# 9 Pennsylvania: 72.5 %
= 10 Georgia: 72 %
= 10 Wisconsin: 72 %
# 12 Michigan: 69.4 %
= 13 Missouri: 69.3 %
= 13 Virginia: 69.3 %
# 15 West Virginia: 68.4 %
= 16 North Carolina: 68.3 %
= 16 South Carolina: 68.3 %
# 18 Maryland: 67.6 %
# 19 Tennessee: 66.7 %
# 20 Alabama: 65.2 %
# 21 Kentucky: 64.7 %
# 22 Indiana: 64.2 %
# 23 Mississippi: 63.6 %
# 24 Rhode Island: 63.4 %
# 25 Colorado: 63.2 %
# 26 Nevada: 61.7 %
# 27 Texas: 61.3 %
# 28 New Jersey: 61 %
# 29 Ohio: 60.7 %
# 30 Oregon: 60.6 %
# 31 Connecticut: 60.5 %
# 32 New York: 59.3 %
# 33 Nebraska: 57.1 %
# 34 Iowa: 56.5 %
= 35 Alaska: 52.9 %
= 35 New Mexico: 52.9 %
# 37 Minnesota: 52.7 %
# 38 Oklahoma: 52.1 %
# 39 Utah: 50.9 %
= 40 Montana: 50 %
= 40 Idaho: 50 %
# 42 Washington: 47.8 %
# 43 Massachusetts: 47.4 %
# 44 Hawaii: 43.5 %
# 45 Maine: 42.9 %
= 46 Wyoming: 40 %
= 46 North Dakota: 40 %
# 48 Kansas: 39.4 %
# 49 South Dakota: 33.3 %

Is it dishonest to claim one thing then present data for a different thing?

Xygonn 01-30-2013 04:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57250100)
it's because no one lives there. no one around for 10 miles to shoot, no one is going to get shot.

It's true the rural populations are less likely to shoot each other on a per capita basis. The reasons are manifold.

thikthird 01-30-2013 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xygonn (Post 57250254)
It's true the rural populations are less likely to shoot each other on a per capita basis. The reasons are manifold.

rural areas maybe, and a lot of that has to do with lack of density. but small town homicide rates have been increasing while large city crime rates have been dropping.

onscreen 01-30-2013 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57250394)
rural areas maybe, and a lot of that has to do with lack of density. but small town homicide rates have been increasing while large city crime rates have been dropping.

I'm not saying you are wrong but given your attitude in the gun threads please provide proof to any claim you make. This one included.

Xygonn 01-30-2013 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57250394)
rural areas maybe, and a lot of that has to do with lack of density. but small town homicide rates have been increasing while large city crime rates have been dropping.

Link?

All crime rates have been dropping. A total of about 50% for murder rate since the peak in the early 90s.

Example Chicago:
Murders per year
1991: 927[9]
1992: 943[9]
1993: 855[9]
1994: 931[9]
1995: 828[9]
1996: 796[9]
1997: 761[9]
1998: 704[9]
1999: 643[9]
2000: 633[9]
2001: 667[9]
2002: 656[9]
2003: 601[9]
2004: 453[9]
2005: 451[9]
2006: 471[9]
2007: 448[9]
2008: 513[9]
2009: 459[9]
2010: 436[9]
2011: 435[9]
2012: 506[10]

The population shrank a bit from 2,783,911 in 1990 to 2,695,598 in 2010

34 per 100,000 in 1990
18 per 100,000 in 2012.

Percent decrease = 47%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demo...of_Chicago

For the US the rate was
7.6 in 1991
3.9 in 2011
Percent decrease = 49%

http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

So it looks like it has been a global (or rather national) decrease, at least for this case. I welcome you to prove your case.

Rebound 01-30-2013 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xygonn (Post 57249140)
Keep counting suicides...

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/ucr

See for yourself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_....282004.29


Top Gun Homicide Rates
Louisiana (presumably dominated by New Orleans @ 11x the US average)

Maryland (presumably DC inclusive @ 3x the US average plus Baltimore @ 6x the US average)
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/...ton/crime/
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/...ore/crime/
Mississippi (presumably dominated by Jackson @ 6x the US average)
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/...son/crime/
California (presumably dominated by LA just a bit above US average, but very high population and Oakland @ 5x US average)
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/...and/crime/
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/...les/crime/
Nevada (presumably dominated by Las Vegas)
South Carolina (apparently statewide)
Illinois (presumably dominated by Chicago @ 3x the US Average)
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/...ago/crime/
Michigan (presumably dominated by Detroit @ 10x the US average)
http://www.neighborhoodscout.com/...oit/crime/

And there you have it.

You use the word "presumably" quite a lot.

onscreen 01-30-2013 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57250750)
You use the word "presumably" quite a lot.

I didn't use the word Presumably. And I will directly ask why you implied more guns equals more murders then used data that included suicides. This is another example where you changed the details to avoid an answer that doesn't work for you.

PartyInTheUSA said, "gun violence rates". What did you quote?
"firearms deaths per 100,000"

So you changed from replying to HIS claims and made your own claims. You made it LOOK like you were replying to his claim and implied more guns equals more gun crime but you included data that doesn't say that. Perhaps you were smart enough to make sure you didn't say "gun crime" this time. You did say gun deaths but like a slick politician you tried to change the subject.

High suicide rates aren't a good thing but a high suicide rate doesn't endanger me. High crime and murder rates are far more likely to endanger me, gun or otherwise. Perhaps we should look at those now that we debunked your gun death misinformation.

Elmer 01-30-2013 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onscreen (Post 57250986)
High suicide rates aren't a good thing but a high suicide rate doesn't endanger me.

And of course, high suicide rates aren't linked to firearms availability either.

Elmer 01-30-2013 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thikthird (Post 57250100)
it's because no one lives there. no one around for 10 miles to shoot, no one is going to get shot.

Many of those states have decent size cities.

But you're right, larger cities usually have higher homicide rates. Regardless of their gun control laws.

Rebound 01-30-2013 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onscreen (Post 57250562)
I'm not saying you are wrong but given your attitude in the gun threads please provide proof to any claim you make. This one included.

Why does he have to provide proof and you and Xygonn don't?

Oh, that's right, it's because if someone says something you agree with, they don't have to prove it's true.

The problem with gun statistics overall is that the NRA has blocked virtually all government funding for these studies. That's why funding CDC studies are a priority for the President. Apparently, the NRA is afraid of statistical facts. Not sure why, but a good guess is that they know perfectly well that increasing gun ownership rate leads to increase in gun homicide, injury, suicide and accident rates. But I can't prove it because the NRA blocked funding for the research. Truth, it seems, is a problem for them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by onscreen (Post 57250986)
I didn't use the word Presumably.

And I wasn't responding to your post, I was responding to the one that used the word "presumably" seven times.

Rebound 01-30-2013 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onscreen (Post 57250986)
I didn't use the word Presumably. And I will directly ask why you implied more guns equals more murders then used data that included suicides. This is another example where you changed the details to avoid an answer that doesn't work for you.

What I said was More Guns = More Gun Deaths. The correlation appears to be there. I didn't break down the deaths by type because, frankly, dead is dead.

Nonetheless, every day I log into Google News, another person has been shot. Several times per day. And I look at the stats on other countries comparable to the US, such as England, France, Germany, Canada, Japan (huh, the same as the "nations with single-payer healthcare list"), and I don't see nearly the same gun death rates.

onscreen 01-30-2013 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57252022)
Why does he have to provide proof and you and Xygonn don't?

Oh, that's right, it's because if someone says something you agree with, they don't have to prove it's true.

The problem with gun statistics overall is that the NRA has blocked virtually all government funding for these studies. That's why funding CDC studies are a priority for the President. Apparently, the NRA is afraid of statistical facts. Not sure why, but a good guess is that they know perfectly well that increasing gun ownership rate leads to increase in gun homicide, injury, suicide and accident rates. But I can't prove it because the NRA blocked funding for the research. Truth, it seems, is a problem for them.

Where did I make a claim that wasn't backed. Offer the post and I will back it. Can you show that I have a history of making claims that prove to be false or misleading? You made a claim about guns and gun deaths with the implication that your gun death data was gun crime data. After all you were replying to someone talking about gun homicides. If you are replying to someone talking about gun homicides why would you use data that includes suicides?

As for the NRA, well they can handle their own stats. Any claims they make are their own. I'm not a member and never have been. I only find they are more reliable than some of the groups and posters that oppose them.


Quote:

And I wasn't responding to your post, I was responding to the one that used the word "presumably" seven times.
I know. I was reply to you because you seem to be discounting his reply which got to the heart of what was wrong with your post (see my comments above).

onscreen 01-30-2013 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rebound (Post 57252152)
What I said was More Guns = More Gun Deaths. The correlation appears to be there. I didn't break down the deaths by type because, frankly, dead is dead.

Did I say otherwise? What you did was misleading. The subject being discussed was gun homicides. Most people when talking about gun issues are worried about gun related crime and murders. The implication being without guns those rates would fall. The rate of suicide attempts generally doesn't fall when guns are taken away. The only way guns play into suicides is they are typically an effective means to the end. The availability of guns doesn't increase the rate of suicide attempts.

Regardless, when someone was talking about gun homicide rates you countered his post with gun death rates even though your own link also offered gun HOMICDE rates which would have been more relevant and wouldn't have come off as a conversational 'slight of hand'. Given your recent history of such twists it would probably be best if you didn't continue the practice.

Quote:

Nonetheless, every day I log into Google News, another person has been shot. Several times per day. And I look at the stats on other countries comparable to the US, such as England, France, Germany, Canada, Japan (huh, the same as the "nations with single-payer healthcare list"), and I don't see nearly the same gun death rates.
Yes, we have crime issues in the US. That the crime happens with a gun isn't the core problem. That it happens is. It's especially troublesome in places like Oakland, Chicago, DC, Detroit, Baltimore etc. Cities that have urban problems that extend beyond gun issues. But you want to only talk about the gun part of the problem. Why find the core problems when we can blame the tool. A lousy carpenter blames his tools. I dumb customer blames the carpenters tools.

PartyInTheUSA 01-30-2013 06:35 PM

And of course the irony of discussing all of these gun homicide rates is that banning so called assault weapons or limiting magazine sizes would do nothing whatsoever to reduce gun violence. All of Barry's so called common sense measures wouldn't reduce urban crime or prevent a mass shooting.

Start stopping and frisking every single "suspicious looking" black or Hispanic person like they do in New York City and you'll start to see a meaningful reduction in gun crime. Screw the constitution, if we can save just one life, isn't it worth doing something...

WindySummer 01-30-2013 06:44 PM

Non-stop bellyaching by GUN-Right absolutists. Nothing is absolute! 90% of the guns in Mexico are from the USA. Forty percent of gun sales REQUIRE no background checks. Law-abiding gun owners should have no problem with comprehensive background checks.

BS Slippery slope paranoia.

onscreen 01-30-2013 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WindySummer (Post 57252698)
Non-stop bellyaching by GUN-Right absolutists. Nothing is absolute! 90% of the guns in Mexico are from the USA. Forty percent of gun sales REQUIRE no background checks. Law-abiding gun owners should have no problem with comprehensive background checks.

BS Slippery slope paranoia.

I recall something about that 90% stat but it's escaping me right now. Do you have a link to where that number came from?

I do recall reading about that 40% number. I think it was posted on this forum. IIRC the actual number was based on a very limited survey and was 36% +/- something like 6%. So rather than assuming the number was on the low side people took a statistically questionable 36% and added most of the margin of error to get 40%. Funny how that worked.

Now what was it that I recall about the 90% of Mexico guns...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o...ed-Mexico/
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20...rcent-myth
Oh, that was it.
Quote:

According to the GAO report, some 30,000 firearms were seized from criminals by Mexican authorities in 2008. Of these 30,000 firearms, information pertaining to 7,200 of them (24 percent) was submitted to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) for tracing. Of these 7,200 guns, only about 4,000 could be traced by the ATF, and of these 4,000, some 3,480 (87 percent) were shown to have come from the United States.

This means that the 87 percent figure relates to the number of weapons submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF that could be successfully traced and not from the total number of weapons seized by Mexican authorities or even from the total number of weapons submitted to the ATF for tracing. In fact, the 3,480 guns positively traced to the United States equals less than 12 percent of the total arms seized in Mexico in 2008 and less than 48 percent of all those submitted by the Mexican government to the ATF for tracing. This means that almost 90 percent of the guns seized in Mexico in 2008 were not traced back to the United States.

WindySummer 01-30-2013 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by onscreen (Post 57252896)
I recall something about that 90% stat but it's escaping me right now. Do you have a link to where that number came from?

I do recall reading about that 40% number. I think it was posted on this forum. IIRC the actual number was based on a very limited survey and was 36% +/- something like 6%. So rather than assuming the number was on the low side people took a statistically questionable 36% and added most of the margin of error to get 40%. Funny how that worked.

Now what was it that I recall about the 90% of Mexico guns...
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o...ed-Mexico/
http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20...rcent-myth
Oh, that was it.

The lies never end, eh? I feel bad the world is against law-abiding gun owners. If only TRUE FACTS would be revealed.

onscreen 01-30-2013 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WindySummer (Post 57253074)
The lies never end, eh? I feel bad the world is against law-abiding gun owners. If only TRUE FACTS would be revealed.

I know exactly how you feel! Think about how much better these discussions would be :)


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:42 AM.