GeorgiaDon 379
Recommended Posts
havoc996 0
QuoteEvery single one of my weapons is used to throw lead downrange at paper targets and used milk jugs filled with water. None of my weapons have ever been using in the course of a crime or killed anyone...I'd like to keep it that way.
They Must be defective. Apparently all of mine are defective too.
However mine have been used to defend myself and my country.
Trail mix? Oh, you mean M&M's with obstacles.
champu 1
QuoteThe rationale for banning 'assault" rifles (I believe this means any rifle with more than 10 bullets in what used to be called a clip, but now has to be called a magazine) is the increased opportunity for mass murder in a small amount of time for a single weapon. It's not the total number of people killed, it's the number that can be killed without reloading. Whether that's valid is debatable, but it's BS to debate a different point.
I can just as easily say that we should eliminate hearts because heart attacks are a huge cause of death, but that's also BS.
Wendy P.
The 1994 ban went after a lot more than simply high-capacity magazines. It contained a lot of specifics that went after form rather than function. Many people are advocating reinstating a ban on assault weapons as a result of the recent mass shootings, and gun rights advocates are assuming that means BOHICA with the ill-informed list of stuff from 1994. Some of the tangents in this thread have gone off talking about these features.
That was my point in post #19, unless gun control advocates (or those that are simply "control-curious") say, "Look, we're sorry about the 1994 thing, we banned a bunch of features that have fuck-all to do with guns being used in crimes, and if some new law comes about it won't look like that last one," then you're going to induce vomiting if you try to talk about an "assault weapons" ban.
That said... 10 rounds...
As people have mentioned, changing magazines doesn't take very long. Even if you made the number something like 5 (and you eventually eroded away magazines larger than 5) you could just carry a sidearm and if someone tried to come at you or threw something at you while you were reloading and knocked the magazine out of your hand, you could just draw your sidearm and fall back a bit.
In California, and I'm paraphrasing here, you can have detachable magazines but detaching it has to involve using a tool. The idea is that you can still use the weapons at the range and in competitions but in a firefight situation using a tool is supposed to slow you down. Problem with that is, if you can use a tool to get the magazine off, you are about 3 seconds worth of modification away from having a, now technically illegal, firearm that doesn't need a tool. But at that point you're off on your shooting spree so who cares how illegal your gun is?
So from here the bans get more Draconian... no detachable magazines... limiting capacity of fixed magazine firearms... now you're touching most firearms out there past present and future... and then maybe you can keep mass shootings down to ten or so victims per incident...
...but they're still going to happen.
rehmwa 2
milk container shot my brother in 'Nam. I want payback.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
billvon 3,070
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
>So it can not be said that logicly a gun ban would have prevented Sandy Hook
Yes, it can, since the shooter stole guns from the source readily available to him (his mother) and she purchased them legally. No legal gun purchase = no legal guns for Mom = no guns for him to steal.
Now, you can postulate that he MIGHT have done something else. That's speculation. What is certain is that he could not have stolen the guns his mother legally acquired.
And that's not the discussion we should be having anyway. I think it's pointless to argue "banning guns would change nothing" because it's not true and trivially easy to argue against. The discussion "is it worth it?" IS a good discussion to have, because that way both sides acknowledge that it's not a black and white issue.
>There is no middle ground
I guess that's the difference between you and I.
Yes, it can, since the shooter stole guns from the source readily available to him (his mother) and she purchased them legally. No legal gun purchase = no legal guns for Mom = no guns for him to steal.
Now, you can postulate that he MIGHT have done something else. That's speculation. What is certain is that he could not have stolen the guns his mother legally acquired.
And that's not the discussion we should be having anyway. I think it's pointless to argue "banning guns would change nothing" because it's not true and trivially easy to argue against. The discussion "is it worth it?" IS a good discussion to have, because that way both sides acknowledge that it's not a black and white issue.
>There is no middle ground
I guess that's the difference between you and I.
rushmc 23
>There is no middle ground
I guess that's the difference between you and I.
I guess that's the difference between you and I.
I see your point and it can be argued both ways
But now I have to ask
Where is middle ground in you opinion?
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
champu 1
QuoteThe only thing assinine about the question is that it reveals how assinine the arguments you and rushmc have been posting are. If guns are just designed to propel pieces of lead at high velocity, and have nothing (by design) to do with killing anyone/anything, then it's also fair (indeed, an exact comparison) to say that SAMs are only designed to launch things into the air. Maybe people could use them to shoot at birds, or clouds, or some such innocuous targets. If fearing the capacity of high capacity guns to cause injury or death to large numbers of people is illogical, then why isn't fearing the ability of SAMs to bring down planes loaded with people also illogical? Is there a single logical argument that you guys have used to argue that guns have nothing to do with murder rates, that does not also argue that there is no rational reason to ban SAMs? Especially considering that no-one has ever been murdered with a SAM.
The fact is, your own pro-gun arguments are based on your emotions as much as the anti-gun arguments are. You (and many others) obviously like your guns, think they are fun/cool/useful, and don't want anything to impede that. Fine. But making up BS stories about guns just being designed to throw lead downrange is assinine. If that is true, then SAMs are just expensive firecrackers.
Don
While I agree, I think, with the point you are trying to make (see post #23) the comparison to a SAM is not an exact one as you claim, even in the context of their argument.
We've discussed, and I think established, previously that whether the firearm uses 10 round magazines or 30 round magazines has little bearing on how capable the firearm is of killing a large number of people. So to suggest that magazines with more than 10 rounds suddenly make any firearm more purpose-built to kill a lot of people is irrational.
A SAM fires a guided projectile. This does make it suddenly more purpose built to take down aircraft over some other things that are legal/attainable such as very large model rockets.
rehmwa 2
Quote>Now, you can postulate that he MIGHT have done something else. That's speculation. What is certain is that he could not have stolen the guns his mother legally acquired.
And that's not the discussion we should be having anyway.
I don't think it's reasonable to just blithely throw out that aspect of the discussion at all. It very key in terms of a position that holds the individual responsible for how they act - no matter how they accomplish it.
That 'speculation' is a very real set of scenarios and not just blink speculation.
Other than that, I agree that the real argument is trading off the 'worth' of the perceived benefit to the imagined losses. However, that particular speculation is part of how we quantify the 'gains' that you want to weigh against the losses.
Hell - All of these arguments boil down to the subjective value of the perceived gains and losses. All of them.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
cvfd1399 0
We will never know if that's true. He tried to obtain one legally, then stole hers, if he was he'll bent on doing it, which he obviously was, he could have done one of the following.
Stole from someone else
Bought it from another state
Bought it off the street
Paid someone to buy it for him.
I think the guns should have been secured by his mom, but I also think he would have obtained weapons another way.
A ban would not have done a damn thing about this or future shootings for a determined person plain and simple. There have been to many guns in this nation for too long, and a criminal will always have one for sale at the right price.
Stole from someone else
Bought it from another state
Bought it off the street
Paid someone to buy it for him.
I think the guns should have been secured by his mom, but I also think he would have obtained weapons another way.
A ban would not have done a damn thing about this or future shootings for a determined person plain and simple. There have been to many guns in this nation for too long, and a criminal will always have one for sale at the right price.
turtlespeed 226
QuoteBut people don't use cars to go on driving rampages where they kill dozens.
Ah, but they do use buses evidently, and to be fair only 9 died it wasn't dozens.
But here are some stats from 2009
Or is the CDC Biased as well?
Fire Arm Suicide - 18735
Fire Arm Homicide - 11493
Maybe we should ban mental illness and suicide.
Vehicular Homicide - About 300/yr
Now this is one we ABSOLUTELY MUST BAN!
More people - actually at about 2 to 1 died from Alcohol.
Alcohol MUST BE BANNED NOW!
And Swimming - Swimming has to be banned too!
3517 dead by drowning!
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun
rehmwa 2
QuoteAll of these arguments boil down to the subjective value of the perceived gains and losses. All of them.
and it's tough to debate when the starting points for one group:
Group 1 -
---Loss - ability to protect yourself and your loved ones: right to private property ownership: respect of the law abiding individual and assumption that a good citizen will do what's right without law: government one step closer to total dictatorship
---Gains - nearly nothing, some people feel better but are really in worse shape
vs Group 2 -
---Gains - significant reduction in crime and murder and violence. perhaps a happier and more cooperative society where people take care of each other and walk around unafraid of others. More vegetarians is a bonus too
---Loss - some rednecks I don't even like won't get to shoot ammo into the sky at his wedding
In the end, it seems both teams only do take the absolute view - total bliss gained at the cost of inconsequential tripe. It's the essence of political debate. It's quite funny.
...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants
GeorgiaDon 379
I agree with what you say, and certainly agree that the 10 vs 30 round argument is a red herring unlikely to achieve anything useful. My quibbling was only with the idea that guns are the same as hammers, and that even discussing the role access to high capacity firearms might play in mass shootings is nothing but emotional and irrational fear-mongering.
You make a good point about SAMs, but of course that was the reason behind me choosing SAMs as an example. If one simply wanted to poke holes in paper targets and milk cartons, one could do that with a slingshot, just as one could shoot stuff into the sky with a model rocket. Although one can kill someone with a hammer if one is really determined to, there is a reason soldiers are armed with guns and not hammers. Anyone who really believes that there is no difference between guns and hammers should be perfectly comfortable sending troops into combat armed with hammers. I doubt even Marc would care to propose that the military should do that.
Don
You make a good point about SAMs, but of course that was the reason behind me choosing SAMs as an example. If one simply wanted to poke holes in paper targets and milk cartons, one could do that with a slingshot, just as one could shoot stuff into the sky with a model rocket. Although one can kill someone with a hammer if one is really determined to, there is a reason soldiers are armed with guns and not hammers. Anyone who really believes that there is no difference between guns and hammers should be perfectly comfortable sending troops into combat armed with hammers. I doubt even Marc would care to propose that the military should do that.
Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
TDFbound 0
QuoteThe rationale for banning 'assault" rifles (I believe this means any rifle with more than 10 bullets in what used to be called a clip, but now has to be called a magazine) is the increased opportunity for mass murder in a small amount of time for a single weapon. It's not the total number of people killed, it's the number that can be killed without reloading. Whether that's valid is debatable, but it's BS to debate a different point.
I can just as easily say that we should eliminate hearts because heart attacks are a huge cause of death, but that's also BS.
Wendy P.
I would completely agree with you if magazine capacity were the only issue being debated, but other firearm features besides magazine capacity are being demonized and written into a ban proposal- adjustable stocks (so me, my wife, and my child can all use the same rifle), pistol grips (because that makes the gun more deadly?), flash hiders (nobody likes to be temporarily blinded by the muzzle flash of their own firearm), and many other characteristics that have nothing at all to do with the actual function of a firearm. The purpose of this ban legislation is to remove firearms from the public and get those that remain to be registered with the .gov.
rushmc 23
QuoteQuoteThe rationale for banning 'assault" rifles (I believe this means any rifle with more than 10 bullets in what used to be called a clip, but now has to be called a magazine) is the increased opportunity for mass murder in a small amount of time for a single weapon. It's not the total number of people killed, it's the number that can be killed without reloading. Whether that's valid is debatable, but it's BS to debate a different point.
I can just as easily say that we should eliminate hearts because heart attacks are a huge cause of death, but that's also BS.
Wendy P.
I would completely agree with you if magazine capacity were the only issue being debated, but other firearm features besides magazine capacity are being demonized and written into a ban proposal- adjustable stocks (so me, my wife, and my child can all use the same rifle), pistol grips (because that makes the gun more deadly?), flash hiders (nobody likes to be temporarily blinded by the muzzle flash of their own firearm), and many other characteristics that have nothing at all to do with the actual function of a firearm. The purpose of this ban legislation is to remove firearms from the public and get those that remain to be registered with the .gov.
+1
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln
billvon 3,070
>We will never know if that's true. He tried to obtain one legally, then stole hers, if he
>was he'll bent on doing it, which he obviously was, he could have done one of the
>following.
>Stole from someone else
>Bought it from another state
>Bought it off the street
>Paid someone to buy it for him.
Yes, he could have. An aircraft could have crashed on the school and killed even more kids. An armed guard could have shot him before he killed even the first kid. Hurricane Sandy could have arrived much later, caused the school to be evacuated, and deprived him of his targets. It could have arrived earlier without warning and killed everyone in the school.
None of those things happened, though. What happened is that he stole guns from his mother and used those legally-purchased then illegally-stolen guns to kill a whole lot of kids. To claim "well, it's just as likely that they all might have died anyway" is speculation.
>was he'll bent on doing it, which he obviously was, he could have done one of the
>following.
>Stole from someone else
>Bought it from another state
>Bought it off the street
>Paid someone to buy it for him.
Yes, he could have. An aircraft could have crashed on the school and killed even more kids. An armed guard could have shot him before he killed even the first kid. Hurricane Sandy could have arrived much later, caused the school to be evacuated, and deprived him of his targets. It could have arrived earlier without warning and killed everyone in the school.
None of those things happened, though. What happened is that he stole guns from his mother and used those legally-purchased then illegally-stolen guns to kill a whole lot of kids. To claim "well, it's just as likely that they all might have died anyway" is speculation.
cvfd1399 0
That's my point you saying that it WOULD have stopped him is just the same shitty reasoning and just as strong and weak as mine. Both are equally plausible but we will never know so we can't use absolutes like you were.
billvon 3,070
>That's my point you saying that it WOULD have stopped him is just the same shitty
>reasoning and just as strong and weak as mine.
Nope. Removing an essential element from a chain of events stops that chain of events with extremely high certainty. Speculating on "well, he could have driven into NY, found an arms dealer, purchased all those weapons and done exactly the same thing" is all well and good, but gets well into the WAG arena.
If you have rigger packs you a reserve mal, and you have end up having a main mal, there's a good chance you will die under the resulting double mal. It would be absurd to say "well, having a better packed reserve wouldn't likely change that outcome because you could still have been killed by a dust devil."
This is basic common sense. And again, completely misses the point. Banning guns would have stopped THIS EVENT from happening. It is not a good solution overall.
>reasoning and just as strong and weak as mine.
Nope. Removing an essential element from a chain of events stops that chain of events with extremely high certainty. Speculating on "well, he could have driven into NY, found an arms dealer, purchased all those weapons and done exactly the same thing" is all well and good, but gets well into the WAG arena.
If you have rigger packs you a reserve mal, and you have end up having a main mal, there's a good chance you will die under the resulting double mal. It would be absurd to say "well, having a better packed reserve wouldn't likely change that outcome because you could still have been killed by a dust devil."
This is basic common sense. And again, completely misses the point. Banning guns would have stopped THIS EVENT from happening. It is not a good solution overall.
cvfd1399 0
If we are to go by what you believe is soooooo certain. That first link in the chain was him trying to buy the gun in a store. So why didnt he stop there, but you say he would have if his moms guns were locked up? You can't say with any proof that he would have just like I can't say with any proof that he would have kept going other than the fact he tried two avenues to kill dozens of innocent kids why would he have stopped at 2 attempts to get a weapon when almost half a dozen more options existed. He obviously had the will and money to buy a thousand plus dollar rifle he had the means also
billvon 3,070
> You can't say with any proof that he would have
Literally correct. Just like I can't say with any proof that a fatality due to a double mal could have been averted by having a reserve that functioned correctly. He could still have been killed by a dust devil.
But most skydivers understand that you can prevent such fatalities by having a working reserve.
Literally correct. Just like I can't say with any proof that a fatality due to a double mal could have been averted by having a reserve that functioned correctly. He could still have been killed by a dust devil.
But most skydivers understand that you can prevent such fatalities by having a working reserve.
cvfd1399 0
Wonder if the libs think this is an assault rifle/gun
http://youtu.be/SOsQ9eDO3TE
Or this
http://youtu.be/s3fgduPdH_Y
It's just a gun libs it's the shooter that makes it assault anything.
Also both of those weapons were patented in the 1800's
http://youtu.be/SOsQ9eDO3TE
Or this
http://youtu.be/s3fgduPdH_Y
It's just a gun libs it's the shooter that makes it assault anything.
Also both of those weapons were patented in the 1800's
Note I am not arguing in favor of gun bans here. I have no wish to deprive you of your enjoyment of perforating paper targets or milk containers. I personally also enjoy studying the effect of high velocity collisions between lead projectiles and watermelons; that can be quite spectacular. Plus, the targets get smaller and so more challenging to hit as you progress. One of the pleasures of having 18 acres to play on.
I only take issue with the argument that people are being irrational or illogical pussies to fear the damage that can be done by a firearm in the wrong hands.
Don
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites