TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 135

Thread: The Gun Thread About Guns And Gun Related Gunnery

  1. #26
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Quote Originally Posted by xStevieNx View Post
    I don't know how guns are viewed in your country, but millions of people use guns everyday in America, for hunting, for sport, or for self-defense, in a completely harmless and peaceful way. Unfortunately, the few people who decide to use guns for violence are the ones that everyone likes to focus on.
    More importantly, "responsible gun owners" seem reluctant (if not hostile) to any reasonable attempt to limit who can buy guns, where and with what capacity to kill. Somehow their non-existent "right" to own any gun they want is more important than their responsibility to participate in a meaningful dialogue about public safety.

    How about they come to the table instead of flipping it on its side, crouching behind it and screeching, "From my cold dead hands"!

    And please stop insulting us with your false equivalences. Guns are not knives, booze or cars. We can tell the difference.

    CHEESE KILLS!!!!

  2. #27
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    America isn't the only 1st world country that allows its citizens to have guns. Finland, Austria, Iceland, Germany, France, I believe they average roughly one gun per every three people. Hardly rare.
    Don't forget Canada, Switzerland, New Zealand, and the Czech Republic, all of which have dramatically lower violent crime (and gun crime) rates than the US.

    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    The most obvious conclusion you could draw from that is we don't have a gun problem exactly, so much as a culture problem. We tend to look at our guns as status symbols and toys, rather than the weapons they are. It makes us a lot more cavalier about them overall.
    That's an interesting interpretation. I'd take it more as reflective of the role firearms play in petty crime. We don't just reserve firearms for hunting or sport; we place a heavy emphasis on self-defense, and that means lots of handguns in manufacture and circulation. Throw in a sales system compromised by both unscrupulous sellers and toothless enforcement of straw purchase laws, and the result is a lot of violent, borderline-third-world cities overflowing with handguns. Keep in mind that handguns make up 97% of our firearm homicides, it's not military-style 'range toys' that represent the bulk of our crime problem.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    More importantly, "responsible gun owners" seem reluctant (if not hostile) to any reasonable attempt to limit who can buy guns, where and with what capacity to kill. Somehow their non-existent "right" to own any gun they want is more important than their responsibility to participate in a meaningful dialogue about public safety.

    How about they come to the table instead of flipping it on its side, crouching behind it and screeching, "From my cold dead hands"!
    Purely anecdotal, but I find responsible gun owners are more willing to come to the table when they aren't being put on the defensive by essentially being called irrational and irresponsible right off the bat. These discussions have a tendency to be one-sided, rather than actual dialogue.

  3. #28
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    Purely anecdotal, but I find responsible gun owners are more willing to come to the table when they aren't being put on the defensive by essentially being called irrational and irresponsible right off the bat. These discussions have a tendency to be one-sided, rather than actual dialogue.
    As a responsible gun owner I immediately recognized the stereotype Nicker referred to as being the majority of gun owners. Let's not kid ourselves, most are up in arms at the mention of any restriction of any kind no matter how sensible. They think the slightest most reasonable restriction is a slippery slope to Hitler type confiscation of guns. Of course those aren't exactly the responsible ones but they ARE the majority in my estimation.

  4. #29
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Yeah I probably should have qualified my comments with many or a majority of.

    Not all gun owners are kard karrying KKK members and not all gun control advocates are closet commies creating a back door for a Russian invasion (that would be Trump...).

    That said, organisations representing gun owners seem consistently and vehemently opposed to almost any kind of restrictions either on who can own guns, the mental state of potential owners, how many guns they need and of what sort. Who really needs a 50cal sniper rifle besides the military?

    They certainly would not agree to allow their guns to be controlled by a "A well regulated militia"...

  5. #30
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    Let's not kid ourselves, most are up in arms at the mention of any restriction of any kind no matter how sensible.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    That said, organisations representing gun owners seem consistently and vehemently opposed to almost any kind of restrictions either on who can own guns, the mental state of potential owners, how many guns they need and of what sort. Who really needs a 50cal sniper rifle besides the military?
    Well, in my experience, there are two aspects to this.

    The first comes from the history of gun control measures in the US, which is to say the tendency for 'compromise' measures to be essentially incremental restriction that is never reversed. When gun control advocates say they want a dialogue or compromise, what it's virtually always calling for is acquiescence. A lot of gun owners have reached the point of saying enough is enough and refuse to give any ground, no matter how small, when they won't get anything in return and see it as another step towards something like an Australian-style mass ban. I don't think that's actually what most gun control advocates are looking for, but when you've got people like Cuomo and Feinstein getting on television and making those implications, it fuels that perception.

    The second comes from what 'reasonable' or 'sensible' restrictions look like- and I find that those terms are often used, like I said, to basically frame gun owners in a negative light right off the bat. Instead of 'let's have a conversation to figure out which restrictions are reasonable and which aren't', it's framed as 'here are some proposals we have predetermined to be reasonable, if you're a reasonable person you'll accept them'. Take that .50 cal sniper rifle. Who really needs one? Nobody, but to my knowledge they've never been used in a criminal capacity, so a ban wouldn't be addressing our gun crime problem in any way. Reasonability is often characterized by how little a proposal will affect law-abiding citizens, when it really ought to be about whether or not a proposal will accomplish its intended goal and justify its impact on law-abiding citizens. Many of the popular talking points (eg assault weapons bans, magazine capacity limits) fall short in that regard.

    There are plenty of things the federal government could be doing to tackle gun crime that wouldn't step on the toes of gun owners, which I would consider reasonable measures, but neither side seems interested. Republicans don't want to spend tax money on gun violence deaths that overwhelmingly occur outside their constituency, and Democrats seem to consider guns, rather than gun crime, as their primary target.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicker View Post
    They certainly would not agree to allow their guns to be controlled by a "A well regulated militia"...
    I really don't like appealing to the 2nd Amendment, since the Constitution was meant to be changed, but in the context of when it was written a 'well-regulated militia' doesn't mean what people seem to think it means. The Militia Acts defined the militia as all able-bodied white men, not a government-sponsored organization, and formed the basis for what would later become selective service. Linguistically, the expression 'well-regulated' didn't have its modern meaning of government control, but rather meant 'in proper functioning order' (a common example from the era is a 'well-regulated clock'). The intent of the 2nd Amendment was that, lacking a standing army, the newly formed United States could call upon its citizenry to defend it, armed to the teeth with the military weapons of the day.

    Things have rather changed in the last two centuries, and the back-and-forth of what the 2nd Amendment really means just seems to me like a pointless distraction from addressing contemporary issues.

  6. #31
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    So according to you all reasonableness comes from the gun owners? Magazine capacity does cause a pause to reload even when two clips are taped. I'm sure there are those in Vegas who would have loved a few second pause while they ran for their lives. I don't care what some ass in a video did with his clips after much practice and cutting out all the times he failed or dropped them. In a real situation that pause can save lives and it's not like it is unprecedented. Dove hunters have long been forced to plug their guns to limit rounds fired at one go. If we do that for birds then why not humans?

    Gun crime is caused with guns. Affect one and you affect the other. After every nut shoots some place up republicans say to blame it on mental illness and then VOTE TO DEFUND mental illness treatment. You don't think there is a disconnect there? Mentally ill folks can go to a gun show and pick up any gun they want that day. We can't end that because that might step on toes though right?

    Nah. Not as all on the democrats as you would make out, catbarf. The number of guns and gun deaths are growing. So increase the number of guns to solve it right? We can't possibly do anything else under the current climate can we? We can't even get bump stocks outlawed though a great majority agree they serve no reasonable purpose. Yee haw murica because that is what we have become. It's not like when I was a kid and most guns were hunting guns or snake killing side arms.

    We need those assault weapons because they just look so darn cool right? Okay. Limiting them or eliminating them would do little. We have become a nation of grown little boys who would rather be able to play with guns than keep folks alive. It's only a few it would save anyway right? They would just make catapults if you banned guns. Handguns are indeed what deal the vast majority of death. So some restrictions on them? Oh no. MORE of them! A gun in the hands of every trigger happy Chuck Norris wannabe. That will make us safe. Funny I don't feel safe seeing Bubba dip drool packing in the grocery but what choice do we have at this point?

    What exactly do you consider a sensible gun legislation? You haven't stated it.

  7. #32
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    So according to you all reasonableness comes from the gun owners?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    After every nut shoots some place up republicans say to blame it on mental illness and then VOTE TO DEFUND mental illness treatment. You don't think there is a disconnect there?
    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    Nah. Not as all on the democrats as you would make out, catbarf.
    Slow your roll mate. I didn't say any of those things.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    Magazine capacity does cause a pause to reload even when two clips are taped. I'm sure there are those in Vegas who would have loved a few second pause while they ran for their lives. I don't care what some ass in a video did with his clips after much practice and cutting out all the times he failed or dropped them. In a real situation that pause can save lives and it's not like it is unprecedented. Dove hunters have long been forced to plug their guns to limit rounds fired at one go. If we do that for birds then why not humans?
    Birds have a much easier time escaping the lethal range of a shotgun than unarmed people in a mass shooting have of escaping a rifle-wielding assailant. I'm basing this on the professional opinions of law enforcement and military personnel I've worked with and my own experience in a former job (involving security response/active shooter training), but if you'd like to see a video of a sheriff's office doing scenario-based testing of their own (gaffs and all) I'd be happy to share. Limited magazine capacity didn't diminish the lethality of Virginia Tech, nor Columbine, nor San Bernardino. Maybe it would have had an impact on the Vegas shooting- but magazine capacity limits are also extraordinarily difficult to enforce, easy to loophole (see: Canada), actively circumvented by the considerable ingenuity of the American gun industry, and of much more consequence to law-abiding citizens. It fails the 'reasonableness' test in having minimal impact at best, while expending considerable political capital and negatively impacting law-abiding people.

    If magazine capacity bills didn't always exclude law enforcement, you'd see much more concerted and vocal opposition to them, as they have a lot more impact on anyone carrying to defend themselves than anyone looking to shoot a bunch of unarmed and cornered targets.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    What exactly do you consider a sensible gun legislation? You haven't stated it.
    Off the top of my head:
    -The overwhelmingly most common source of firearms used in crime is straw purchase. Currently the DoJ lacks the resources to prosecute straw purchase, making it an easy way for gangs to acquire guns, and the people who illegally buy firearms for felons suffer no punishment. Earmark additional funding to straw purchase law enforcement, and assign straw purchasers liability for crimes committed with the weapons they purchase.
    -The second most common source of firearms is law-breaking FFL holders (sellers), but the ATF only has the resources to investigate each FFL on average once every 27 years. Earmark additional funding to FFL auditing.
    -Revise HIPAA's interaction with the NICS to ensure that mental health records are being ingested into the background check system.
    -Increase liability on stolen firearms, especially if they were not adequately secured when stolen. Too many unsecured guns wind up on the street through theft.
    -Allow background checks for non-FFLs, then mandate background checks on all sales. Senator Coburn had a pretty good proposal a few years ago, based on the Swiss model.
    -Subject handgun sales to ATF investigation similar to that on Form 1 applications, to provide a little more scrutiny on their sale and transfer.

    Only the last one steps on gun owners' toes, but if you threw them a bone like removing suppressors from the NFA it'd be an easy sell.

    And while we're at it:
    -Address suicide, the #1 social cause of gun deaths, and gang violence, the #2 cause, in some meaningful capacity.
    -Republicans specifically: Stop paying lip service to mental health while actively gutting mental healthcare support, stop condemning gang violence while simultaneously undermining social programs, it's all complete bullshit and it's only making things worse.

    Gun crime is overwhelmingly a social problem, or rather a collection of social problems united by a common means of expression, and needs to be treated as such. Arguing over whether you really need an AR-15 is partisan shitflinging that isn't getting us anywhere.
    Last edited by catbarf; 21st Jan 2018 at 01:33.

  8. #33
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Calling bullshit on the capacity thing. I don't give a damn what any law enforcement or military biased organization says it is just a fact that having to change clips costs time and in that time some can get away. Or fire back if you want. As far as getting around enforcement goes that is like saying there should be no law against bank robbery because those who are going to do so will anyway. Considerable political capital? Nah. Minimal impact? Lives. Lives are not minimal impact. If you fire a gun you know this to be true. How anyone can deny that is insane to me.

    The negatively impacting law abiding citizens is the most ludicrous. How many folks do you think will attack you? It's just one lone nut every damn time. My seven in my 45 auto is all I need guaranteed. I won't need a fifty round clip. How many times does an army attack exactly? Give me one time. So that one is bullshit. Anyone who needs more is just spraying bullets and is a danger to bystanders. A lot more impact on anyone carrying to defend themselves? Absolute bullshit. Obvious bullshit even. It will affect the lone shooter way the hell more. Think. Don't repeat the NRA bullshit. Think. It's the lone nut trying to kill the most that it will affect. He has multiple targets. YOU do not. It's just the one. Seven or even six is enough.

    I'll address the rest later if I give enough of a shit. This was just the most glaring.

  9. #34
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Mental health is such a bullshit scapegoat. The kid with OCD is not going to flip out and start murdering people all of a sudden and neither is the guy with an anxiety disorder. The vast majority of people with mental health issues are not any more violent than the next "sane" guy. In fact, they are far, far more likely to be the victims of violence rather than the perpetrators.

    Just in case: this wasn't directed at anyone particular.

  10. #35
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    Calling bullshit on the capacity thing. I don't give a damn what any law enforcement or military biased organization says it is just a fact that having to change clips costs time and in that time some can get away. Or fire back if you want. As far as getting around enforcement goes that is like saying there should be no law against bank robbery because those who are going to do so will anyway. Considerable political capital? Nah. Minimal impact? Lives. Lives are not minimal impact. If you fire a gun you know this to be true. How anyone can deny that is insane to me.
    Like I said, real-world experience- I did active shooter response training (using simunitions) for federal law enforcement officers, and we experimented with a variety of conditions. Even in simulations, with participants knowing that the attacker was limited to ten-round magazines and not facing the consequence of dying if they screw up, it was impossible to recognize that a shooter was reloading and either make a run for it or attack the shooter before he was able to reload. The idea that a shooter reloading allows people to get away makes sense logically but isn't borne out in reality, where the overwhelming majority of mass shootings occur in situations where victims are trapped in enclosed spaces and play out before law enforcement can respond. Nobody used the shooter's need to reload to escape at Virginia Tech (where the shooter only had 10-round magazines), and nobody was firing back. I completely agree that magazine capacity makes a huge difference when people are shooting back at you, but in mass shootings that's virtually never the case.

    The Department of Justice wrote a report on the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and concluded that its restrictions on magazines were entirely ineffective, but the AWB is often cited as a contributing factor to Democrats losing control of Congress in the late-90s. In Canada, gun owners following the letter of the law have gotten around the five-round limit on rifles by using pistol magazines, limited to ten, and then using pistol magazines intended for high-caliber rounds to hold high numbers of rifle rounds. In the US, there are a bewildering variety of products providing workarounds and exploiting loopholes for markets with capacity limits. Those are the legal options; illegally drilling out the blocking rivets on a pinned magazine takes literally thirty seconds on a cheap drill press and was done extensively by even street criminals during the Assault Weapons Ban.

    I am not saying any law which cannot be enforced 100% of the time shouldn't exist. But this is one that can't be enforced any time it matters, and even if successfully enforced makes minimal impact at best, and even then only on the tiny minority of gun deaths that are due to mass shootings, while creating enormous opposition every time it comes up. It does not provide societal benefit proportional to its political cost, and there are other ways to address much more significant contributing factors to gun deaths that could provide considerably better ROI. Frankly, I think magazine capacity limits are the perfect example of white America not really giving a shit about the gun violence problem in any way that doesn't personally threaten them, content to let kids in Chicago kill each other with handguns while we quibble over just how marginally we can reduce the effectiveness of a mass shooter. The shocking number of overall deaths is little more than a talking point for legislation that does next to nothing to curb it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    The negatively impacting law abiding citizens is the most ludicrous. How many folks do you think will attack you? It's just one lone nut every damn time. My seven in my 45 auto is all I need guaranteed. I won't need a fifty round clip. How many times does an army attack exactly? Give me one time. So that one is bullshit. Anyone who needs more is just spraying bullets and is a danger to bystanders. A lot more impact on anyone carrying to defend themselves? Absolute bullshit. Obvious bullshit even. It will affect the lone shooter way the hell more. Think. Don't repeat the NRA bullshit. Think. It's the lone nut trying to kill the most that it will affect. He has multiple targets. YOU do not. It's just the one. Seven or even six is enough.
    Just curious, do you believe that cops should be limited to the same capacity limits? Not to accuse you specifically, but the 'nobody needs a hi-cap' argument always comes across as a little disingenuous when police are given explicit exceptions, like a private citizen isn't going to 'fight an army' but a beat cop is.

    Anyways, I can give you plenty of examples of people, especially on drugs, continuing to fight with 10+ gunshot wounds, or stats on the atrocious accuracy rates of even trained professionals in a high-stress situation (let alone a homeowner groggily stumbling out of bed, in the dark, to the sound of glass breaking at 2AM), but you seem to have made up your mind that seven shots is good enough for a typical criminal encounter. That used to be the conventional wisdom, but professionals have gradually learned through experience that it's not true, and nowadays you'll be hard-pressed to find any police department that still issues six-shot revolvers, or any self-defense instructor who recommends their use.
    Last edited by catbarf; 21st Jan 2018 at 10:45.

  11. #36
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    When you hear about people like Daniel Shaver, you do wonder whether the police needs all that equipment, especially with things like "you're fucked" engraved into it.

    That's the problem with a society where anyone could be armed -- the police will assume everyone is ready to open fire at a moment's notice.

  12. #37
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    That's the problem with a society where anyone could be armed -- the police will assume everyone is ready to open fire at a moment's notice.
    Firearm ownership isn't a justification for bad policing, when there are plenty of countries that have widespread ownership of firearms but not the completely dysfunctional relationship between police and the public that we do. Even within our country, America has always been armed, but our relationship to the police hasn't always been this way.

    I'll be the first to say that police don't need anti-materiel rifles or armored personnel carriers, but that problem has little to do with public gun ownership.

  13. #38
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Sure if somebody is behind cover you can't tell when they are changing clips but in most cases the mass shooters are out in the open roaming around picking targets. I'm not going to convince you. There will always be the but it doesn't help enough thing. Do people go tharn? I hate to use a Watership Down word but it fits. That scared to immobility thing is what you are saying keeps folks from rushing in or firing at that point right? Sure. Maybe even for most but not all. Limiting capacity would not save everybody but it might save some so why not? Who is it going to hurt? Bubba dip drool can't look as cool on his youtube video?

    And no I don't mean limiting anything for law enforcement. They SHOULD have better armament than the general public. They DO face situations that require it. Sure they would have to enforce another law and confiscate the work arounds which should ALSO be against the law but we have to do something. Hell, when I got my Colt it was back in the days before the NRA was against every safety precaution and mine has the feature that your hand must be around the grip for it to fire. Now we have the ability to make all guns person specific but the NRA won't allow it. We have the ability to make bullets more traceable. We have the ability to do a lot of things rednecks get up in arms about because it might infringe on their right to fight a government takeover or some other loony shit. Obama might yet invade Texas you know.

    Seven shots is enough for the general public. Not all of us spray and hope. No idiot on PCP will be able to get back up after a 45 round to the chest unless he has a vest. And for that matter make those illegal to the general public too. Only law enforcement and others in regular danger need them. Will there be abuses? Of course. Enforce those too. Particularly when it involves gun sellers. Making those who have guns in their own homes "secure" guns in a safe makes no sense though. What intruder gives you time to get your key? Make guns less kid friendly. The spring in my slide is so stiff it's hard for me to pull and I never keep one in the chamber. One can still be in it in a second. There are plenty of things that can be done but won't because no snowflake is going to tell Bubba what to do. Nope. He leaves that to the NRA.

  14. #39
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2003
    Location: Cambridgeshire UK
    I have to disagree with your dismissal of mental problems as a cause. A person who loses it momentarily is far more likely to kill someone if he has easy access to a gun. Someone who is seriously disturbed can kill a lot of people with one gun, and many more if he has access to several weapons, particularly assault rifles or sub-machine guns.

    Two attacks in the UK by mentally disturbed persons :

    The Dunblane massacre; the attacker was armed with four legally-held handguns two 9mm Browning HP pistols and two Smith & Wesson M19 .357 Magnum revolvers. A total of 32 people sustained gunshot wounds over a 34-minute period, 17 of whom were fatally wounded.

    The Wolverhampton machete attack, no guns involved. The attacker was armed with a large machete. Three children and four adults were injured.

    The Dunblane case was the main reason for the current restrictions on guns in the UK.

    Most of the arguments in this thread seem to accept that easy access to guns is a good thing, and are concerned with the best way to cope with it. Unfortunately you are in a no-win situation.

  15. #40
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    Firearm ownership isn't a justification for bad policing, when there are plenty of countries that have widespread ownership of firearms but not the completely dysfunctional relationship between police and the public that we do.
    In a lot of those countries, people don't usually carry their guns with them. They use them for hunting or home defence or sport. Most people walk around unarmed in Europe, for example. Unless they are a security guard or something like that.


    Quote Originally Posted by ffox View Post
    I have to disagree with your dismissal of mental problems as a cause.
    I'm not saying that people with mental problems are harmless, necessarily. There are certainly people who have violent psychotic episodes, but those are the exception, not the rule. Statistically, people with a mental illness are less likely to go on a shooting spree, not more.

  16. #41
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    Sure if somebody is behind cover you can't tell when they are changing clips but in most cases the mass shooters are out in the open roaming around picking targets. I'm not going to convince you. There will always be the but it doesn't help enough thing. Do people go tharn? I hate to use a Watership Down word but it fits. That scared to immobility thing is what you are saying keeps folks from rushing in or firing at that point right? Sure. Maybe even for most but not all. Limiting capacity would not save everybody but it might save some so why not? Who is it going to hurt? Bubba dip drool can't look as cool on his youtube video?

    And no I don't mean limiting anything for law enforcement. They SHOULD have better armament than the general public. They DO face situations that require it. Sure they would have to enforce another law and confiscate the work arounds which should ALSO be against the law but we have to do something. Hell, when I got my Colt it was back in the days before the NRA was against every safety precaution and mine has the feature that your hand must be around the grip for it to fire. Now we have the ability to make all guns person specific but the NRA won't allow it. We have the ability to make bullets more traceable. We have the ability to do a lot of things rednecks get up in arms about because it might infringe on their right to fight a government takeover or some other loony shit. Obama might yet invade Texas you know.

    Seven shots is enough for the general public. Not all of us spray and hope. No idiot on PCP will be able to get back up after a 45 round to the chest unless he has a vest. And for that matter make those illegal to the general public too. Only law enforcement and others in regular danger need them. Will there be abuses? Of course. Enforce those too. Particularly when it involves gun sellers. Making those who have guns in their own homes "secure" guns in a safe makes no sense though. What intruder gives you time to get your key? Make guns less kid friendly. The spring in my slide is so stiff it's hard for me to pull and I never keep one in the chamber. One can still be in it in a second. There are plenty of things that can be done but won't because no snowflake is going to tell Bubba what to do. Nope. He leaves that to the NRA.
    Fourteen hits of .45, six center mass, target not incapacitated. No PCP involved. The idea that all you need is one shot of .45 to the chest is thoroughly debunked myth. The idea that all you need is to just aim well (in an incredibly stressful life or death situation) is debunked myth. These lessons have been learned in blood, and frankly all you're offering is persistent and pernicious disproved hypothesis. Same goes for thought experiments regarding mass shootings- I counted shots and tried to rush a shooter while he reloaded. He was a graphic designer with minimal firearm experience. It took a month for my ribs to heal. We've tested this. I don't know what else to tell you.

    Anyways, the fact that people recognize the need for proper weaponry for law enforcement, but then don't apply the same reasoning to civilians, is what really gets my goat. A single shooter in a traffic stop isn't any more or less threatening than a single shooter in a home invasion. If a beat cop, not a SWAT officer, needs a 17rd magazine for his Glock, that is fundamentally incompatible with the claim that nobody needs more than ten rounds for self-defense. When the argument is so inconsistent it comes across as deceptive and insincere rather than merely misguided.

    As far as safes, with biometric safes being so readily available, safely securing a weapon while still retaining ease of access has never been easier. It's not the risk of kids getting access that is so worrisome (although that is a very real issue) as criminals arming themselves through theft when the family isn't home. The number of weapons stolen from cars is shockingly irresponsible.

    And yeah, fuck the NRA's partisan fearmongering.
    Last edited by catbarf; 21st Jan 2018 at 13:31.

  17. #42
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    In a lot of those countries, people don't usually carry their guns with them. They use them for hunting or home defence or sport. Most people walk around unarmed in Europe, for example. Unless they are a security guard or something like that.
    But even within the US, there are huge differences regionally. I've been places in Texas and New Hampshire where you can have a respectful interaction with police with a handgun strapped to your hip, and places in Massachusetts and NYC where you're treated as a potential shooter right off the bat.

    I agree that widespread ownership of handguns leads to more suspicious policing- that much is inevitable. It's brushing off incidents like the one you linked as the inevitable result of people being armed that I think is unreasonable, like there's no room for police to be respectful and rational even with the risk that a suspect might be armed. We can agree that the ridiculous game of Twister those cops imposed was completely unjustified, right?

  18. #43
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    True, US is a big place. And there are more dangerous places in Europe too. Like the Balkans, for example.

  19. #44
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    Fourteen hits of .45, six center mass, target not incapacitated. No PCP involved. The idea that all you need is one shot of .45 to the chest is thoroughly debunked myth. The idea that all you need is to just aim well (in an incredibly stressful life or death situation) is debunked myth. These lessons have been learned in blood, and frankly all you're offering is persistent and pernicious disproved hypothesis. Same goes for thought experiments regarding mass shootings- I counted shots and tried to rush a shooter while he reloaded. He was a graphic designer with minimal firearm experience. It took a month for my ribs to heal. We've tested this. I don't know what else to tell you.
    Hey thanks for proving my point. If the shooter had a higher capacity clip then he would not have had to go back to the car and may have killed the officer. I never said the officer should be limited. Most get taken down with a few well placed shots and YOU KNOW THIS. The instance you cited is exceedingly rare. Can it happen that a person lives without getting hit direct in the heart? Sure. Most won't. You know that. Citing the exception just proves the rule. And as for your rushing a clip reloader well sure it won't always work because distance makes a difference doesn't it? Ten feet yeah. Thirty feet no. Common sense still applies. How about when he stops to reload and you put a bullet in his forehead. Reckon he will bruise your ribs then?

    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    Anyways, the fact that people recognize the need for proper weaponry for law enforcement, but then don't apply the same reasoning to civilians, is what really gets my goat. A single shooter in a traffic stop isn't any more or less threatening than a single shooter in a home invasion. If a beat cop, not a SWAT officer, needs a 17rd magazine for his Glock, that is fundamentally incompatible with the claim that nobody needs more than ten rounds for self-defense. When the argument is so inconsistent it comes across as deceptive and insincere rather than merely misguided.
    I guess I'll just have to get your goat then. I prefer the officer to have a greater advantage than the average Joe. The average Joe is so far far removed from ever being in a Schwartzenager style gun battle either inside his home or out that the odds of him ever needing large capacity clips is just ridiculous. Why in the world shouldn't the officer have the advantage? HE is much more likely to need it. But sure if you want to dig around and find a Schwartzenager style gun battle that happened this one time atop the Nakatomi tower then go for it. It just does not happen often. Not anywhere near as often as police need the general public to be less well equipped than they are. Also not anywhere near as often as we have mass shootings these days.

  20. #45
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    Hey thanks for proving my point. If the shooter had a higher capacity clip then he would not have had to go back to the car and may have killed the officer. I never said the officer should be limited. Most get taken down with a few well placed shots and YOU KNOW THIS. The instance you cited is exceedingly rare. Can it happen that a person lives without getting hit direct in the heart? Sure. Most won't. You know that. Citing the exception just proves the rule.
    Now you're moving the goalposts from 'No idiot on PCP will be able to get back up after a 45 round to the chest' to 'most get taken down by a few well-placed shots'. I'd be happy to post more links about how incredibly common it is for people to survive multiple torso shots. I can find you plenty. Any competent instructor will tell you that stopping power is a myth, that the only thing that will immediately incapacitate a threat is destruction of the central nervous system, and that the only way to reliably do that in a high-stress situation is to both practice shot placement and carry as much ammunition as the profile of your weapon will allow. And yes, people often live even after getting hit directly in the heart- at least long enough to potentially kill you too.

    Again, you're using thought experiments to argue against decades of collective wisdom drawn from hard-won institutional experience, including a non-negligible number of police officers and federal agents killed due to inadequate equipment. Not at Waco or North Hollywood, but traffic stops and warrant executions where a six-round revolver or seven-round 1911 proved insufficient against even just one guy, self-defense situations directly comparable to those faced by ordinary citizens.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    And as for your rushing a clip reloader well sure it won't always work because distance makes a difference doesn't it? Ten feet yeah. Thirty feet no. Common sense still applies. How about when he stops to reload and you put a bullet in his forehead. Reckon he will bruise your ribs then?
    Rest assured that the former military personnel I trained with had the wisdom to try rushing the shooter from a short distance. The problem is in (a) recognizing when the shooter is out of ammunition, which is virtually impossible when you can't see them and are stressed and deafened, (b) getting out of the cover you've taken quickly, and (c) completing both of these and closing the distance before he finishes reloading. The same applies to escaping from a dead-end situation. It overwhelmingly doesn't work, despite plenty of tries and a non-life-or-death context where fear was not a factor.

    For the response teams who were armed, it makes a difference, like I said before. But you're talking about raising the survival rate for civilian targets in mass shootings. Magazine capacity limits don't do that. And we haven't even mentioned the tendency of mass shooters to use multiple weapons.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tocky View Post
    I guess I'll just have to get your goat then. I prefer the officer to have a greater advantage than the average Joe. The average Joe is so far far removed from ever being in a Schwartzenager style gun battle either inside his home or out that the odds of him ever needing large capacity clips is just ridiculous. Why in the world shouldn't the officer have the advantage? HE is much more likely to need it. But sure if you want to dig around and find a Schwartzenager style gun battle that happened this one time atop the Nakatomi tower then go for it. It just does not happen often. Not anywhere near as often as police need the general public to be less well equipped than they are. Also not anywhere near as often as we have mass shootings these days.
    How often are beat cops getting in Schwarzenegger-style gun battles, again? If the only reason you'd ever need a high-capacity magazine is to engage in a mass shootout or fight an army, things regular police officers aren't trained or expected to do anyways, you haven't justified why regular cops would ever need or benefit from them.

    If the justification for capacity limits were simply 'this will make civilians less able to defend themselves, but we think it's a worthwhile tradeoff for the public good' then at least it would be rational and consistent and we could discuss it. But instead, it's dressed up in a false premise to imply that there's no room for debate.
    Last edited by catbarf; 21st Jan 2018 at 23:48.

  21. #46
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2002
    Location: In the flesh.
    LOL. There isn't any room for debate with you for sure. Thought experiment and false premise indeed. You didn't actually listen to a thing I said. So sure, arm every yee haw Billy Bob with limitless capacity firearms and cry havoc then. LOL. I'm done.

  22. #47
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2003
    Location: Cambridgeshire UK
    This thread is becoming ridiculous. It's turned into a discussion on how best to kill people with firearms!

    Quote Originally Posted by xStevieNx View Post
    ~13,000 people die a year from firearm related deaths. 1.3 MILLION people die a year in car accidents, but almost everyone drives a car daily, because it is their right to drive a car just as it is to own a gun.
    According to Wikipedia, in the USA only ~10% more people die in car accidents than those killed by guns (about 34,000 per year).

    Your 1.3 MILLION is the worldwide figure. Where does ~13,000 come from? False statistics do not help your case.

    Here are some more stats with verifiable links:

    CBS News reports that Americans are 10 times more likely to be killed by guns than people in other developed countries.

    Quote Originally Posted by xStevieNx View Post
    And as for the gun deaths, well America is the largest first world country that allows you to have a gun so naturally it would have the most gun deaths.
    Here are the figures per 100,000 population from Progreso Weekly:

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	GunMurders.JPG 
Views:	3 
Size:	40.3 KB 
ID:	2452

  23. #48
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2003
    Location: Location, Location
    PigLick, why did you delete your post from last night? You were speaking the truth.

  24. #49
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by ffox View Post
    Your 1.3 MILLION is the worldwide figure. Where does ~13,000 come from? False statistics do not help your case.
    I missed that before- it looks like he's comparing the worldwide traffic fatality rate to the US non-justifiable homicide rate, which excludes the greater number of suicide deaths. IIRC the auto fatality rate recently dropped below the firearm death rate, due to improvements in vehicle safety.

  25. #50
    Member
    Registered: Apr 2002
    Location: Landahn
    Did xStevieNx post those misleading stats deliberately or cause she didn't know any better, is the question. For lack of anything to the contrary I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt.

    Still, it does illustrate something that I just don't get in this matter:
    There hardly ever seem to be any self-proclaimed responsible gun owners putting forward actual policy suggestions on how to tackle this problem (catbarf is a refreshing exception). Instead, it's always all about false equivalences and "It's not me, it's all the other guys!"

    ffox's chart says it all; the fact that there's a problem is undeniable. To me, in a situation like this, the responsible thing would be to man up and work towards changing this culture. But all we get is bitching and moaning.

Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •