warpedskydiver 0 #51 April 12, 2009 Whatever, what are you going to live forever or something? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JohnRich 4 #52 April 12, 2009 QuoteI think any adult who is not a convicted felon and who is not demonstrably mentally unstable should be allowed to own any gun they like. Would that include so-called "assault weapons", machine guns, and .50 caliber rifles? How would you have gun purchasers prove that they are "not demonstrably mentally unstable"? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #53 April 13, 2009 Quote It's a legitimate strategy for limiting the amount of damage a weapon can do. No, it is not. It's really an example of airchair math with little application to reality. Kinetic energy/sec would be meaningful if you were shooting at a wall in a video game. X hits and the barrier is gone, and you can continue. But shooting unarmed people in an office...not terribly relevant. 101 California, which was one of the drivers for this restriction, involved a shooter carrying 3 handguns. He killed 8, wounded 6 others. Restricted magazines would not have altered that. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #54 April 13, 2009 QuoteBut shooting unarmed people in an office...not terribly relevant. I beg to differ and so did the results in the study of Project SALVO. QuoteThe number one predictor of casualties was the total number of bullets fired. If the conclusion that a bigger wall of lead kills more people is valid for military operations, then it's just as valid when used as a strategy by anyone else.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #55 April 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteBut shooting unarmed people in an office...not terribly relevant. I beg to differ and so did the results in the study of Project SALVO. QuoteThe number one predictor of casualties was the total number of bullets fired. If the conclusion that a bigger wall of lead kills more people is valid for military operations, then it's just as valid when used as a strategy by anyone else. Pretty lame argument, with no application to civilian settings where the other side doesn't move or shoot back. It also says nothing about ke/sec. Your entire argument is on the notion that magazine reload times have a bearing on shot rate. You claimed a 50% reduction on a 1 sec reload, but that presumes you're firing 10 rounds per second. Far more realistic would be 2 shots per second, which would mean one lost shot in the reload, a 10% difference. Since the police don't show up for 10-60 minutes, the loss of a 1/2 second just isn't that important. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #56 April 13, 2009 QuoteI beg to differ and so did the results in the study of Project SALVO. I don't think the SALVO data applies here. It was basically concerned with military firefights, most of the, taking place at rifle range, and in this context we're talking about a criminal picking off civilians at conversational distances.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #57 April 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteI beg to differ and so did the results in the study of Project SALVO. I don't think the SALVO data applies here. It was basically concerned with military firefights, most of the, taking place at rifle range, and in this context we're talking about a criminal picking off civilians at conversational distances. Maybe that's what -some- people are talking about, but I'm fairly certain that any police officer that's ever been in a shoot out understands the number of bullets being fired actually does make a difference. It's not just about any one type of criminal. A comprehensive law takes into account as many different scenarios as possible.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #58 April 13, 2009 QuoteI'm fairly certain that any police officer that's ever been in a shoot out understands the number of bullets being fired actually does make a difference. It's not just about any one type of criminal. A comprehensive law takes into account as many different scenarios as possible. I dunno. Let's ask AggieDave--he's a cop. When a criminal gets into a shootout with police, I'm counting on the police to have so many other advantages (body armor, tactics, air support, numbers, training, etc, etc, etc) that I'm not willing to restrict the rights of the entire citizenry just to give them one more small uptick. Besides, if the cops have fully automatic weapons, then SALVO says they should be wiping the floor with the bad guy, regardless of his mag capacity.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #59 April 13, 2009 Quote Since the police don't show up for 10-60 minutes, the loss of a 1/2 second just isn't that important. You can blame people suing the police, bad hiring practices and certain idiots that happen to have gotten a badge for that. For LE to run code-3 to a call, you literally have to be an active shooter or similar. Beyond that, the cops are stuck in traffic. As a side note, cops really don't care how good of a driver you think you are when they're trying to drive to an important call. Even though their lights and siren aren't on, they might just be trying to get to someone who seriously needs their help. Simply move left and let those people get the help they've requested or need.--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #60 April 13, 2009 QuoteBesides, if the cops have fully automatic weapons, then SALVO says they should be wiping the floor with the bad guy, regardless of his mag capacity. As long as guns continue to be made that can be bump fired at rates approaching their fully automatic counter parts, then limiting magazine size is a viable tactic from cutting down the number of bullets that can be fired per minute.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #61 April 13, 2009 Seriously, though, I think the cops have so many advantages that cutting down the mag size available to every citizen is too draconian a measure. It's simply not the case that saving one potential life is worth any amount of restriction in liberty. The question is how much restriction in liberty is one saved life worth? Obviously, we're coming to different conclusions on that.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #62 April 13, 2009 QuoteQuote Since the police don't show up for 10-60 minutes, the loss of a 1/2 second just isn't that important. You can blame people suing the police, bad hiring practices and certain idiots that happen to have gotten a badge for that. For LE to run code-3 to a call, you literally have to be an active shooter or similar. Beyond that, the cops are stuck in traffic. As a side note, cops really don't care how good of a driver you think you are when they're trying to drive to an important call. Even though their lights and siren aren't on, they might just be trying to get to someone who seriously needs their help. Simply move left and let those people get the help they've requested or need. Move left? We're in America, not England, shouldn't this be move right? And I'm not blaming the police for response time - I don't want a society where an LEO is never more than 60 seconds away. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #63 April 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteBesides, if the cops have fully automatic weapons, then SALVO says they should be wiping the floor with the bad guy, regardless of his mag capacity. As long as guns continue to be made that can be bump fired at rates approaching their fully automatic counter parts, then limiting magazine size is a viable tactic from cutting down the number of bullets that can be fired per minute. OMG Bump Firing, what are you 15 years old? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #64 April 13, 2009 Quote OMG Bump Firing, what are you 15 years old? We all did that at that age "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #65 April 13, 2009 QuoteOMG Bump Firing, what are you 15 years old? Doesn't matter. It's a tactic that's shown over and over on YouTube by people ranging from idiots to experts. It's a well known way to get a LOT of lead in the air with a semi-automatic weapon. Doesn't really matter what you personally think of the tactic. It's out there and it works. Here's only one example; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_Cmy2wZDyI&NR=1 He doesn't look 15 to me and he does appear to be in complete control of the weapon. If you want to deny it works, go right ahead. Adding a 1 to 2 second magazine change every 10 rounds certainly WOULD cut down on the kinetic energy per minute being delivered from the weapon. Deny that too if you'd like, but I doubt you can do that and be honest.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #66 April 13, 2009 Well then, since we have your expert opinion on this and anything else to do with guns we need not debate this further. Putting lead in the air is what it is all about. Yeah that guy looked like a real pro, that landscape was DOA. Nice personal attack BTW and you are a moderator. If you think that guy had any clue what so ever then you do not have a clue and just admitted it. Go ban yourself. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #67 April 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteOMG Bump Firing, what are you 15 years old? Doesn't matter. It's a tactic that's shown over and over on YouTube by people ranging from idiots to experts. It's a well known way to get a LOT of lead in the air with a semi-automatic weapon. Doesn't really matter what you personally think of the tactic. It's out there and it works. Expert bump-firers? Is there a national certification agency? Highschool competitions? BumpFire murders must be rampant. Entire gradeschools laid to waste. This is too much. I'm gonna barf from laughing. Quade, go back to Huckabee (or whomever-the-fuck-it-was) Kool-Aid suicide research.... "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #68 April 13, 2009 Come on. Deny what I've just said. Go ahead and prove me wrong. I can wait for your numbers ALL freekin' night long. I got time.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #69 April 13, 2009 Quade wants to limit Kinetic Energy now, not just guns. He better be careful around trains. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
1969912 0 #70 April 13, 2009 QuoteAdding a 1 to 2 second magazine change every 10 rounds certainly WOULD cut down on the kinetic energy per minute being delivered from the weapon. Most gun owners want to maximize KE/min. You're barking up the wrong tree. Fail. "Once we got to the point where twenty/something's needed a place on the corner that changed the oil in their cars we were doomed . . ." -NickDG Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #71 April 13, 2009 QuoteQuade wants to limit Kinetic Energy now, not just guns. He better be careful around trains. Hey, did you know you have to be certified (licensed) to do that?quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #72 April 13, 2009 QuoteCome on. Deny what I've just said. Go ahead and prove me wrong. I can wait for your numbers ALL freekin' night long. I got time. By in control did you mean bullets into a target or just not dropping it? BTW where did you get your VAST knowledge of firearms and their usage? Youtube? Playing X Box? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #73 April 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuade wants to limit Kinetic Energy now, not just guns. He better be careful around trains. Hey, did you know you have to be certified (licensed) to do that? Wow you need a license to be around a train? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #74 April 13, 2009 QuoteQuoteAdding a 1 to 2 second magazine change every 10 rounds certainly WOULD cut down on the kinetic energy per minute being delivered from the weapon. Most gun owners want to maximize KE/min. You're barking up the wrong tree. Fail. Uh... exactly what point did you think you were making? While most owners want more, some people want an upper limit on it (although not stated in those terms). That's why certain weapons are banned. I kind of thought that was obvious.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
warpedskydiver 0 #75 April 13, 2009 You trying to tell me about firearms and how knowledgeable you are is like you bragging that you are a great skydiver to Rook. Stop making noise, you are really starting to show how little you know. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
