TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 5 of 25 FirstFirst 123456789101520 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 125 of 623

Thread: The Gun Thread About Guns And Gun Related Gunnery

  1. #101
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Clearly there are limits to the kinds of weapons people can have and I would presume that certain groups are prohibited from having one (children, criminals, etc). What makes the limit on the number of guns a person can have different?

  2. #102
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    What makes the limit on the number of guns a person can have different?
    From a purely practical standpoint, I don't see the point. As heywood said it's generally not the people with a lot of guns who are careless with them, and petty criminals and mass shooters alike rarely use as many weapons as your average three-gun competitor possesses. I get what you were saying before about making guns something significant, not a commodity to be handled carelessly, but I don't think a hard cap would accomplish that anywhere near to the same degree that changing the purchase process could.

  3. #103
    Biggest obstacle to that line of argument is that numerous recent shootings have occurred where the person in question SHOULD have been either prohibited from having access to a weapon or committed according to existing procedure, yet officials failed to do what they were supposed to do.

    How do you counter the impacts of laziness, internal politics, and general bureaucratic incompetence from undermining the effect of these systems?


    I'd argue that this is starting to reach a crisis point. We are now literally having dozens of people at a time DYING because incompetent or lazy bueaucrats couldn't be assed to perform the basic requirements of their jobs.


    Some people will make knee-jerk assumptions on why this tragic event occurred for political purposes, but I would ask you all not to lose sight of the fact that these children were gathered in a convenient place of learning. Columbine, Virginia Tech, Sandy Hook and now Parkland Florida. Education is at the root of all these tragedies.

    High-powered assault rifles don’t kill children, schools do.
    Not entirely.

    There's a REASON that nutjobs go after schools: it's because the real motive is to get as much attention as possible, and they know that killing children will result in the maximum possible publicity. If they're enrolled at the school it's generally a sexually frustrated, emotionally and socially stunted male who wants revenge for suffering associated with his own social isolation....which in many cases could easily have been preventable by a strong father-figure teaching them how to manage their own emotions

    Another interesting trend is that all of the shootings perpetrated by students (that I'm aware of) occurred at PUBLIC schools. There may be something to that. The person who noticed this seemed to believe that this is due to something about public schools but my first guess would be that the biggest difference is that children at private schools are much more likely to live in a functional, two-parent home environment.








    *****

    And this one REALLY deserves a separate post, but since that's the rules, it goes here:

    Look at the 18 Grievances that were sent to KGIII in the Declaration of Independence. If you do not see the correlation with the beginning of the Constitution, you most likely have a poorly informed opinion. If you cannot see which civilizations were the basis for the use of the Latin words "militia" or "republic," I am just not interested in any opinion resulting thereof. If you don't know why those words were used, you should at least know they were used with careful deliberation. At no point were words thrown in arbitrarily to fill space. We like to apply our moral codes to people of the past, but that simply is a poor perspective to utilize. In the Roman Republic, the only people who comprised the pre-Marian Republican armies were land owning citizens, who PROVIDED THEIR OWN WEAPONS AND ARMOR. Let me repeat that: PROVIDED THEIR OWN WEAPONS AND ARMOR. The whole point was to ensure that senators wouldn't vie for power and usurp it through the exploitation of the legions. How do you keep each other in check? By using a system that does not keep a standing army, which the United States is not supposed to have, and we use the appropriation loophole to bypass.
    Last edited by Tony_Tarantula; 19th Feb 2018 at 22:37.

  4. #104
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    From a purely practical standpoint, I don't see the point.
    Reducing the number of guns? Less guns on the market would be a good thing, no? And if you had to get a license for your guns, that would also help with things like straw purchases.

  5. #105

  6. #106
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    Reducing the number of guns? Less guns on the market would be a good thing, no?
    Well, it seems like a really roundabout way to reduce the number of guns on the market, since you're only addressing the small minority of owners who keep a bunch of guns. As well, those collectors tend to amass and collect and hang on to them.

    The trend, if we assume that the polls are accurate and not a reflection of gun owners being less willing to self-identify, indicates that fewer Americans own guns but those who do own more guns, so what we're seeing is a concentration into the hands of fewer people and therefore less distribution among the populace. If you put a cap on that, then those gun owners will be forced to put something on the market every time they want to buy something new.

    Those guys tend to prize old, rare, valuable things, so ordinary guns like modern rifles and handguns are going to be the ones that wind up on the market. If they're desperate to get rid of those guns to 'free up' their collection, that will drive down prices too. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me like a hard cap on how many guns someone could own would result in a market where guns are cheaper and more widely available.

    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    And if you had to get a license for your guns, that would also help with things like straw purchases.
    Yeah, I can agree with that, although the straw purchase issue also has an element of non-enforcement that I think needs to be addressed regardless of whatever other safety measures are implemented. I'd fully support a rigorous licensing system, front-loading the background check process and being comprehensive enough to avoid people falling through the cracks like we've seen in multiple recent incidents, provided it was handled on a shall-issue basis for the reasons heywood described.

    This doesn't surprise me at all, and might partially explain why the aftermath of the most recent shooting seems more heated than usual.

  7. #107
    Moderator
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Wales
    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    . . . indicates that fewer Americans own guns but those who do own more guns, so what we're seeing is a concentration into the hands of fewer people and therefore less distribution among the populace.
    I heard on one news site the other day that 50% of guns are in the hands of 4 or 5% of the people.

  8. #108
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    The trend, if we assume that the polls are accurate and not a reflection of gun owners being less willing to self-identify, indicates that fewer Americans own guns but those who do own more guns, so what we're seeing is a concentration into the hands of fewer people and therefore less distribution among the populace. If you put a cap on that, then those gun owners will be forced to put something on the market every time they want to buy something new.

    Those guys tend to prize old, rare, valuable things, so ordinary guns like modern rifles and handguns are going to be the ones that wind up on the market. If they're desperate to get rid of those guns to 'free up' their collection, that will drive down prices too. Maybe I'm missing something, but it seems to me like a hard cap on how many guns someone could own would result in a market where guns are cheaper and more widely available.
    A hard cap was not quite what I was thinking of. More like a regulatory barrier where you have more obligations when you own more guns.

  9. #109
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    I would love to see an organization do a data mining exercise and generate histograms showing the number of shootings as a function of the number of guns used per shooter, as well as the number of shooting deaths as a function of the number of guns used per shooter. Then we could have a serious debate about whether limiting the number of guns a person can own would reduce shooting deaths. My hunch is that there are very few cases where it might have made a difference. The only one I can think of is the Las Vegas shooter, who had an armory in his hotel room. But even there, I'm not sure how many he actually used.

    One complaint I have with NRA lobbying is that it shut down most government sponsored research. They would argue that previous government research (e.g. by the CDC) was biased, but it has to be more objective than the cherry picked facts and creative definition of terms that we get from the advocacy groups now. I don't see how we can come up with effective gun control policy without data. Right now, it seems we're stuck debating measures that feel good to public opinion against what gun owners might be willing to accept, and what's missing is an assessment of whether they are effective. At least with health care and tax policy, we have the CBO to make an independent and empirical prediction of the effects.

  10. #110
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Indeed, and studies into gun violence and gun suicides in general are sorely lacking too. After all, the shootings are really only a tip of the iceberg. I can't believe that there are no measures that would reduce the frankly insane amount of gun deaths US has for a developed country.

    I think that even without the shootings it would be a good idea to reduce the number of guns, though, as they a very handy tool for murder and suicide and accidents. I mean, in most years toddlers kill more people in the US than terrorists, apparently.

  11. #111
    Still Subjective
    Registered: Dec 1999
    Location: Idiocy will never die
    I think it best to research for another 20 years. That will raise all the dead.

  12. #112
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    CA is retarded with gun laws, we still got the San Bernardino shooters. more laws are not needed, we need better enforcement of what is out there, that said funny as F seeing the trumpistas bend over and taking it in the rear


  13. #113
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    Yeah, uh, I don't think he was mocking a lack of technical knowledge as you seem to have interpreted, rather the terms of 'assault weapon' legislation.

    Basically, assault weapon laws in the US define 'assault weapons' as semi-automatic weapons able to accept detachable magazines and having a certain number (depending on which state, 0-2) of banned characteristics, derisively called 'scary features' as they have no real functional impact on the weapon but are associated with popular imagery of military weapons. These features include protruding pistol grips, barrel shrouds (enclosures which surround the barrel, to prevent the shooter from burning themselves), threaded muzzles (to accept accessories), bayonet lugs, folding or collapsing stocks, or grenade launchers (because... something, I guess).

    In practice what this means is that there is a laundry list of characteristics with have negligible impact on the performance of a weapon, but distinguish whether it's an ordinary rifle or an assault weapon.

    For example:



    These are Ruger Mini-14s with various configurations from the factory. Under the assault weapon laws currently in states like Connecticut and New York, the bottom-left and all three in the right column are assault weapons. The top three in the left column are not.

    These rifles are all functionally identical to the AR-15. Same caliber, same mechanism, same magazine capacities, same everything. In states that have enacted assault weapons laws or more specific efforts to ban AR-15s as a response to the negative publicity surrounding them, many shooters have purchased Mini-14s and other rifles which provide the same functional capability, but in a completely legal non-assault-weapon package. Others choose to purchase 'New York legal' AR-15s:



    Gone are the threaded muzzle, pistol grip, and collapsing stock. Same rifle. Same operation. Different accessories.

    The Department of Justice did a study on the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban when it expired in 2004. They concluded that the ban itself had little effect on crime, as the specific terms were easily circumvented, and the majority of firearms did not fit the 'assault weapon' category to begin with. In the years since that ban, firearms design has shifted towards modularity, making it easier to create compliant configurations, and a whole market has sprung up around toeing the line.

    So, in short: They banned features which were aesthetically associated with military weapons (ie 'black and scary') but which had little to no effect on lethality or suitability for a mass shooting and were easily bypassed. And now that it's even easier to bypass, this is the kind of legislation that they want to bring back, for... some reason. A lot of people think it's like you said, that an assault weapon is something functionally different and more lethal than an ordinary rifle, but in practice this isn't the case.
    I prefer the NEW thordsen Gen 3 stock, went featureless and now I don't have to mess with a stupid bullet button

    yes it still SUCKS and it's nothing but feel good legislation but hey, CA is full of feel good retards.

  14. #114
    Level 10,000 achieved
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Finland
    Turns out there was an armed police officer at last week's shooting. He arrived at the building where the shooter was 90 seconds after the first shot was fired, but did not intervene.

    Meanwhile, Trump wants to arm more teachers to help prevent school shootings, because he thinks that life is a fucking movie.

  15. #115
    Level 10,000 achieved
    Registered: Mar 2001
    Location: Finland
    Reading more about the proposal to arm teachers, I'm starting to think it might be effective after all. Not at preventing shootings, but at shifting blame. As some teachers start arming themselves and some don't, what will happen the next time there is a shooting where teachers were unarmed or failed to stand up to the shooter? More and more blame will be shifted away from failing mental health systems and availability of firearms, and instead be laid at the feet of the teachers who are not prepared to kill to defend their students.

  16. #116
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2001
    Location: Qantas
    I really can't believe some people are treating this like a serious idea. It's barking. Teachers need to spend all their time and attention preparing to educate our kids, not preparing for a shootout with a crazy person on a suicide mission. We don't pay them enough to take this on. And imagine the sort of people you're going to attract into the teaching profession, probably a bunch of mall-cop dorks with power fantasies.

  17. #117
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2005
    Location: Not Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by henke View Post
    Turns out there was an armed police officer at last week's shooting. He arrived at the building where the shooter was 90 seconds after the first shot was fired, but did not intervene.
    Yep, and that deputy has resigned after a video showed him cowering for FOUR OF THE SIX MINUTES IT TOOK CRUZ TO SHOOT & KILL 17 KIDS AND ADULTS. And that deputy was a trained officer! So much for Trump's idea that armed guards at every school will prevent mass shootings. (Same thing happened in the Las Vegas shooting; law enforcement hesitated.)

    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world...RKr?li=BBoPWjQ

    As far as arming our teachers is concerned, bad idea. Trump wants to put a stop to 'shooter-in-school drills' because he's concerned 'It might scare the kids'. So seeing their teachers packing guns isn't going to give the little ones cause for alarm? Omg. I read a post on FB wherein a teacher related how one of her fellow teachers set herself on fire trying to get some video equipment to work and the teacher used that as an example of how there are too many teachers who should not be trying to handle firearms. A gun owner who wrote an article written for Education Week made some very valid points:

    'How much training do swat teams, police officers, or security guards undergo before they are ready to handle these dangerous encounters? How exactly can we ready educators in a shortened time frame? People who become public defenders know what they're getting themselves into. Educators didn't (and don't) sign up for that line of work.'


    This approach would require us to be placing guns in schools now—guns that could easily be used inappropriately. Don't for a minute think that a secured gun, stored in a school, would be inaccessible. For a gun to be available for defense, it needs to be accessible. That means it would be accessible to more than just the principal or teacher. This will become an even greater concern should more states pass gun laws that allow people with valid pistol permits to also carry them in schools.

    https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2...moore.h34.html

  18. #118
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2001
    Location: Somewhere

  19. #119
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Quote Originally Posted by SubJeff View Post
    I think it best to research for another 20 years. That will raise all the dead.
    Thanks for reiterating but it has already been made clear, ITT, that Americans need to pray more.

    Let's not arm teachers. Let's certify cops to teach!

    Meanwhile Wayne LaPierre, the Executive Vice President of the NRA, declares that they will be purchasing industrial quantities of tinfoil for their members...



    Because guns specifically designed to kill people, don't kill people. And people who don't want some people to kill other people, want to kill freedom!!!

    Give me a Hurrrrr Durrrr, brother and sisters!

  20. #120
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by heywood View Post
    I really can't believe some people are treating this like a serious idea. It's barking.
    Is it any crazier than electing Trump as president? Lol. With him behind it and the NRA salivating at an excuse for moar sales with wide swaths of Congress on a short leash, I think it's got a better chance of becoming policy than anything else being pushed around.

  21. #121
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by henke View Post
    Turns out there was an armed police officer at last week's shooting. He arrived at the building where the shooter was 90 seconds after the first shot was fired, but did not intervene.

    Meanwhile, Trump wants to arm more teachers to help prevent school shootings, because he thinks that life is a fucking movie.
    goes to show YOU are responsible for YOUR safety, plenty of STUDENTS carry in Texas ON college campuses.

    that said, seriously PISSED the guy quit and is now an average citizen AND he is getting the protection HE failed to provide the students on OUR dime
    http://businessinsider.com/parkland-...m_term=desktop
    Armed police are guarding the home of the deputy who resigned over his lack of action in the Parkland school shooting
    NOW , I DON'T wish HIM OR his FAMILY ANY harm, BUT he should NOT have armed POLICE ON OUR DIME at his home at OUR expense.

  22. #122
    Moderator
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Wales
    I have it on very good authority that there are gazillions of ex-marines who are now teaching who'd be able to do the shooting without a problem. I'm disgusted that 'arming teachers' is even a thought. I picture gleeful rubbing of hands at the prospect of thousands more sales.

    I watched a bit of the CNN town hall (?) meeting. I was impressed by Rubio's demeanour and rather disgusted by Loesch's but, given her position, thought she didn't do too badly although I didn't really think she had any genuine empathy. I was also very impressed by the survivors and their demeanour, how they are conducting themselves and how they are challenging whoever tries to talk them down.

    Despite my appreciation for the issues involved, it's still beyond belief to me that anyone would ever think that the 'right' to buy an AR-15 or similar is worth what happened in this latest shooting or any other similar shooting. Didn't Scalia write an opinion about some kind of limit to what the arms in 'right to bear arms' means?

    I do find it encouraging that some companies are severing ties with the NRA. Think I might change the habit of a lifetime and get me some Symantec.

    And no doubt I'm entirely alone in feeling sorry for the poor sod who didn't do his job. It's all very well knowing what you're supposed to do and how to do it, in theory, but I believe the actuality is so different that it's too hard to know what we'd do in a similar postion. Edit. And you know, if he shot the wrong person, he'd get sued.

  23. #123
    Administrator
    Registered: Oct 2000
    Location: Athens of the North
    Quote Originally Posted by henke View Post
    Reading more about the proposal to arm teachers, I'm starting to think it might be effective after all. Not at preventing shootings, but at shifting blame. As some teachers start arming themselves and some don't, what will happen the next time there is a shooting where teachers were unarmed or failed to stand up to the shooter?
    Or what happens when a student obtains a firearm from a teacher, or (god forbid) an armed teacher themselves starts shooting? Even though I'm not against responsible use of guns this doesn't seem even remotely sensible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Dia View Post
    Yep, and that deputy has resigned after a video showed him cowering for FOUR OF THE SIX MINUTES IT TOOK CRUZ TO SHOOT & KILL 17 KIDS AND ADULTS. And that deputy was a trained officer!
    I don't blame him for that. Being armed and trained doesn't mean you're ready to confront that type of situation where your life is in danger - I wouldn't be surprised if the most "gung ho" hero of the shooting range doesn't lock up when confronted with their own mortality. You can blame the "good guy with the gun" for not stopping the "bad guy" as the NSA love to describe it but life isn't that clean.

    Quote Originally Posted by jkcerda View Post
    goes to show YOU are responsible for YOUR safety, plenty of STUDENTS carry in Texas ON college campuses. that said, seriously PISSED the guy quit and is now an average citizen AND he is getting the protection HE failed to provide the students on OUR dime NOW , I DON'T wish HIM OR his FAMILY ANY harm, BUT he should NOT have armed POLICE ON OUR DIME at his home at OUR expense.
    Your shift key is stuck. Also your logic.

  24. #124
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Al_B View Post
    1.Or what happens when a student obtains a firearm from a teacher, or (god forbid) an armed teacher themselves starts shooting? Even though I'm not against responsible use of guns this doesn't seem even remotely sensible.


    2.I don't blame him for that. Being armed and trained doesn't mean you're ready to confront that type of situation where your life is in danger - I wouldn't be surprised if the most "gung ho" hero of the shooting range doesn't lock up when confronted with their own mortality. You can blame the "good guy with the gun" for not stopping the "bad guy" as the NSA love to describe it but life isn't that clean.



    3.Your shift key is stuck. Also your logic.
    1. possible but there are teachers already armed, please note that you could NOT tell they were armed until they SHOWED they were armed
    https://www.facebook.com/kevinmartin...lU&pnref=story
    https://www.wcpo.com/news/education/...es-to-teachers
    http://local12.com/news/local/george...rmed-next-year

    2. the sheriff had a different say on him.

    3 gun free zones are not working.

  25. #125
    Administrator
    Registered: Oct 2000
    Location: Athens of the North
    1) An attacker may now assume they're armed and attack as such. Assuming that someone that is armed will be able to make the decision to take someone down is naive
    3) I don't understand how you get from complaining about someone getting protection to gun free zones not working. Care to explain?

Page 5 of 25 FirstFirst 123456789101520 ... 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
  •