TTLG|Thief|Bioshock|System Shock|Deus Ex|Mobile
Page 9 of 25 FirstFirst ... 45678910111213141924 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 225 of 623

Thread: The Gun Thread About Guns And Gun Related Gunnery

  1. #201
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Location: Canuckistan GWN
    Apparently my prayer that Americans pray more has been answered, in spades.



    What could go wrong with gun crazy holy-rollers wearing bullet crowns?

    The power of Christ compels you!! Brrrrrrrrrrrrt!
    Last edited by Nicker; 28th Feb 2018 at 23:11.

  2. #202
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by LarryG View Post
    The jury is still out on that one. Ref. https://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/di...pons-ban-work/
    It's really not though. The link you just provided is pretty clear:

    Koper, Jan. 14: The grandfathering provisions in the law meant that the effects of the law would occur only very gradually over time. It seems that those effects were still unfolding when the ban was lifted, and indeed they may not have been fully realized for several more years into the future even if the ban had been extended in 2004.

    The evidence is too limited for any firm projections, but it does suggest that long term restrictions on these guns and magazines could potentially produce at least a small reduction in shootings.
    Koper, Jan. 14: So, using that as a very tentative guide, that’s high enough to suggest that eliminating or greatly reducing crimes with these magazines could produce a small reduction in shootings, likely something less than 5 percent.
    There was no measurable effect during the period the ban was in place, and only speculation that it might have produced a small reduction in violence if left in place for a longer period of time. 'Maybe if we pass this and wait twenty years, we might see some minor impact' is not a solution to our problem.

    And that's leaving aside that the report also shows how easy assault weapon bans are to circumvent, something the gun community now has two decades of experience in, as well as modern modular firearms design that makes it easy to do. See: Assault weapon ban compliant AR-15 I posted on page 4.

  3. #203
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2007
    Location: LosAngeles: Between Amusements
    Huh? What part of "The evidence is too limited for any firm projections" is unclear?

  4. #204
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    The part where you post a study saying 'yeah, it didn't do anything during the 10 years it was on the books, but we can't firmly project what it would have done if we kept it longer' as a refutation to 'it didn't do anything during the 10 years it was on the books'.

    Whether it may have had some long term effect or not, the fact is that it had no discernible effect during the decade it was in effect, which was the claim made.

    The short-term effect is the most relevant factor when we're trying to address an epidemic of mass shootings that can't wait 15 or 20 years to see what happens.
    Last edited by catbarf; 1st Mar 2018 at 09:42.

  5. #205
    While I support the idea of keeping guns away from crazy people, keep in mind that the policy will be implemented by an administration that got its platform from a talk show host best known for authoring the book "Liberalism is a Mental Disorder".

    No way this could go wrong.....

  6. #206
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2007
    Location: LosAngeles: Between Amusements
    Quote Originally Posted by catbarf View Post
    The part where you post a study saying 'yeah, it didn't do anything during the 10 years it was on the books, but we can't firmly project what it would have done if we kept it longer' as a refutation to 'it didn't do anything during the 10 years it was on the books'.

    Whether it may have had some long term effect or not, the fact is that it had no discernible effect during the decade it was in effect, which was the claim made.

    The short-term effect is the most relevant factor when we're trying to address an epidemic of mass shootings that can't wait 15 or 20 years to see what happens.
    I guess you missed this in reading the article:

    The final report concluded the ban’s success in reducing crimes committed with banned guns was “mixed.” Gun crimes involving assault weapons declined. However, that decline was “offset throughout at least the late 1990s by steady or rising use of other guns equipped with [large-capacity magazines].”

    Ultimately, the research concluded that it was “premature to make definitive assessments of the ban’s impact on gun crime,” largely because the law’s grandfathering of millions of pre-ban assault weapons and large-capacity magazines “ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually” and were “still unfolding” when the ban expired in 2004.
    What that is saying is that after studying the issues, they were unable to determine one way or another whether or not banning assault weapons worked. Let me say this another way, the studies were inconclusive. They could not conclude that the ban worked and they could not conclude that it didn't. And they could not predict how well any future ban might work because the specific details of such a hypothetical ban (such as grandfathering of existing weapons) are unknown and those unknowns could greatly impact the ban's short and long term effectiveness. In other words, the jury is still out.

  7. #207
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus



    FUCK CHEETO HITLER

  8. #208
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    He's just talk. He wouldn't dare go against the NRA.

  9. #209
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2003
    Location: Location, Location
    Is this more of that 4D chess?

  10. #210
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2000
    Location: Portreath Cornwall UK



    Time to start prying maybe?
    Last edited by Medlar; 1st Mar 2018 at 16:00.

  11. #211
    Member
    Registered: Jan 2001
    Location: the Sheeple Pen

  12. #212
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Starker View Post
    He's just talk. He wouldn't dare go against the NRA.
    Who's afraid of the big bad NRA?

    Yeah, thought so: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/wo...-a8236311.html

  13. #213
    Member
    Registered: Oct 2001
    Location: 0x0x0
    Quote Originally Posted by Renzatic View Post
    I'm not gonna say that the FBI and local police don't share some of the fault in this. Nor do I think this is a perfect excuse to write out the 2nd Amendment wholesale.

    But I'm not going to say that it's solely the fault of law enforcement to act. The FBI receives roughly 1300 phone calls a day, most of them some random upstanding citizen reporting that some person, group, or other is going to shoot/blow up/sternly lecture a large group of people. Local police are in about the same boat, generally understaffed and overworked, only able to address what they consider real threats looming in the immediate future in a timely manner. Considering all the rumors, hearsay, and other bullshit that gets thrown their way on a daily basis, it's no real surprise that law enforcement, both local and federal, let something like this pass them by on occasion.

    I think the real question that lies at the heart of everything is why is it that we've become such a massive, seathing ball of aimless, reactionary hatred over the last couple of decades.

    Sorry so late.

    Point taken but the local sheriff has acted more like a politician protecting his elected ass in response to the matter. Second...no armed BCSO officers actually entered the school during the shooting. So not only did they fail to act before hand, when bullets were still flying about they STILL did nothing. Again, I'm sorry if I don't want to give up my arms to a system that's so obviously flawed. (For the record I'm far from FL but the local cops where I live inspire as much confidence as this guy------------>


  14. #214
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2000
    Location: Portreath Cornwall UK

  15. #215
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    I don't really have a problem with raising the age on buying firearms, but I'll be surprised if putting a Constitutional right behind an age restriction holds up in court. I can't think of any other rights that aren't simply tied to the age of majority.

  16. #216
    Member
    Registered: Jun 2010
    Location: A Former Forest
    Funny how in the USA 18 year olds can enter into contracts and vote; making decisions that affect everyone, but they are not mature enough to drink alcohol, smoke pot, or use tobacco. If you are not mature enough to own and handle a gun by 21, then you should not be allowed to do anything else that requires adult level logic and emotional maturity.

    As an old fart, I say raise the age of majority to 30, with exceptions based upon carefully designed and applied tests for maturity for those 18 to 29. The 16 year old self in me says I should fuck off, but he's just a punk...

    The contradictions in US and state law are more numerous than my self inconsistencies. It has been posited that a 16 year old should be able to vote, but he/she too immature and inexperienced to drive with passengers, or at night? WTF! 1984 doubleplus ungood doublethink (something that cannot exist, because doublethink cannot be ungood, yet there you go...)

  17. #217
    Member
    Registered: Dec 2006
    Location: Washington DC
    Quote Originally Posted by bjack View Post
    Funny how in the USA 18 year olds can enter into contracts and vote; making decisions that affect everyone, but they are not mature enough to drink alcohol, smoke pot, or use tobacco. If you are not mature enough to own and handle a gun by 21, then you should not be allowed to do anything else that requires adult level logic and emotional maturity.

    As an old fart, I say raise the age of majority to 30, with exceptions based upon carefully designed and applied tests for maturity for those 18 to 29. The 16 year old self in me says I should fuck off, but he's just a punk...

    The contradictions in US and state law are more numerous than my self inconsistencies. It has been posited that a 16 year old should be able to vote, but he/she too immature and inexperienced to drive with passengers, or at night? WTF! 1984 doubleplus ungood doublethink (something that cannot exist, because doublethink cannot be ungood, yet there you go...)
    I was going to mention it in my post, then deleted it as I felt it might be veering off-topic- but yeah, we have some weird inconsistency when it comes to age of majority. I understand the rationale behind raising the drinking age to 21, and I've seen the stats that justified it, but it still baffles me that 18 is the age where you are legally considered a full-fledged citizen and adult but wait you still can't do X, Y, and Z for another three years. I think we'd be better off if we picked a single age, declared that that's when an individual becomes an adult in all respects, and were done with it.

    In this particular context, there's already a 20-year-old in Oregon suing Dick's Sporting Goods over their new policy to not sell firearms to people under 21. At first I thought it was a case that would get dismissed immediately, but then I discovered that Oregon considers age over 18 a protected class (unlike the federal government where it's age 40+). So according to Oregon law, Dick's new policy constitutes age discrimination. I'll be interested to see where it goes.

  18. #218
    I looked it up on open secrets how much the NRA spends. It's a bit over five million. A lot objectively speaking, but a rather trivial sum compared to the corporate and NGO money that gets thrown around.

    I highly doubt that anyone is "afraid of the NRA". Nobody who Criticized the NRA gets subject to a coordinated attack from rich lobby groups the way say.... A politician who criticizes Israels Giza occupation gets instantly forced to backtrack.

    The power behind the gun lobby is that its an emotional hot button issue for working class voters, no small number of whom are the types to regard a day at the range the way we regard a day playing video games.


    That's why I don't weigh in much on this. As someone who is trained to a professional standard in the operation and standard practices for firearms, the amount of statements that I perceive as pure idiocy is off the charts. Most. Isn't even worth arguing with because its rooted emotionally in people who either fetishize or demonize weapons. Arguing facts with people who have their identity tied into a certain opinion is just going to result in them rationalizing why that's irrelevant, and I lack both the platform and the persuasion skills to make people's identity shift (read Scott Adam's book to see how that works(

    I can write a bit more if people are interested. But I begin from a very different place and I argue that the entire framework of the discussion is deeply flawed and a result of imperialism.
    Last edited by Tony_Tarantula; 12th Mar 2018 at 11:39.

  19. #219
    Member
    Registered: Nov 2016
    Location: Trollinus Maximus
    Quote Originally Posted by Medlar View Post
    sad? you are either an adult or you are not, it's called age discrimination in the U.S.

  20. #220
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    I looked it up on open secrets how much the NRA spends. It's a bit over five million. A lot objectively speaking, but a rather trivial sum compared to the corporate and NGO money that gets thrown around.
    You think that's all that the NRA spends? They spend dozens of millions more outside of direct candidate contributions.

  21. #221
    Member
    Registered: Aug 2004
    The NRA does seem to have outsize influence compared to their expenditures. It took, what, one brief meeting with Trump to make him give up his gun control whim? Granted, Trump is frequently like that.

  22. #222
    Member
    Registered: May 2004
    Political influence is not just about the money that you spend. They are able to very effectively rally their supporters to influence legislators: https://www.buzzfeed.com/stevefriess...-of-gun-owners

    And of course there are many more bigger lobbying groups that spend more money, but the NRA also only has one single issue to pursue: saying no to any form of gun control.

    A relevant John Oliver segment:


  23. #223
    Member
    Registered: Feb 2000
    Location: Portreath Cornwall UK
    Good video Starker. So the USA just have to get 5 million plus dedicated citizens to nullify the NRA. Is it possible?

  24. #224
    Member
    Registered: Sep 2005
    Location: Not Kansas
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony_Tarantula View Post
    I looked it up on open secrets how much the NRA spends. It's a bit over five million. A lot objectively speaking, but a rather trivial sum compared to the corporate and NGO money that gets thrown around.
    I'm thinking they spend a helluva lot more than that. In 2015 alone the NRA paid nine senators upwards of $22 million.

    1.Mitch McConnell (R-KY): $1,262,189
    2.Roy Blunt (R-MO): $1,433,952
    3.Pat Roberts (R-KS): $1,584,153
    4.Tom Cotton (R-AR): $1,968,714
    5.David Perdue (R-GA): $1,997,512
    6.Bill Cassidy (R-LA): $2,867,074
    7.Joni Ernst (R-IA): $3,124,773
    8.Cory Gardner (R-CO): $3,939,199
    9.Thom Tillis (R-NC): $4,418,833

    (The spreadsheet in the linked article is interesting.) http://reverbpress.com/politics/nra-...tors-millions/

    And let's not forget the $30 million they 'donated' to Donald. I'd love to see 'donations' to politicians' campaigns by organizations like the NRA, etc., deemed illegal. Also, accepting corporate bribes 'donations' should be illegal, too.

  25. #225
    Moderator
    Registered: Apr 2003
    Location: Wales

Page 9 of 25 FirstFirst ... 45678910111213141924 ... 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
  •