|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
I don't know what kind of authority a police chief has over anyone else in saying that extended clips have no incidence anyway. How the hell do you calculate that? I think the position that more bullets fired = more potential victims is a reasonable one. To say that it has no incidence, given that the data for such events is very limited, IMO is simply disingenuous. If you're not convinced that the ability to shoot faster can lead to more people dying, say you're not convinced.
I don't have the answer, nor do you, nor does police chief number 375830. But I think that my "position" is a lot easier to defend as it simply makes more sense.
|
On February 06 2013 10:25 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 10:11 micronesia wrote:On February 06 2013 10:07 farvacola wrote:On February 06 2013 10:01 micronesia wrote:On February 06 2013 09:57 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:51 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 09:47 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:44 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 09:25 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:18 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
It would have no immediate effect on anything, I believe, much as no other gun legislation in a saturated market would have an immediate effect, particularly where criminal uses were concerned.
However, it would make straw purchases harder, reducing supply to criminals. It would reduce accidents (which anti-gun people usually laud as an associated goal) through training. Mandatory registration of handguns would absolutely require universal background checks on handgun sales.
It would, over some time, reduce handgun related deaths, turn itself around to a revenue stream for the state, and it would pave the way for universal background checks on all sales.
Explain how it would be useless, compared to, say, banning shit that doesn't get used in many crimes, or limiting magazine size (guess what, I can still carry more magazines). Supply to criminals is bottomless, I'm not convinced that adding tests would reduce accidents*, background checks are limited in utility. As for magazine sizes, carrying more magazines still slows down your overall rate of fire. I don't know that your idea is any worse than clumsy bans but I know we're talking about a ****load of public funds and little to no results. How much do you think it would cost to nationalize that entire administrative process - what about the exam every 3 years? That's a lot of money. *: Everyone passes driving tests, and the second they're done, they start driving like crap again. It's easy to fake being decent with a gun. Adam Lanza, the psycho who shot up Sandyhook Elementary, reloaded frequently. Sure he had big magazines, but the police found most of them over half full. He didn't really take advantage of them at all. It doesn't take all that long at all to reload. Hold both arms outstretched. Move one down to your belt, then back up to the other as fast as you can. That's how long reloading takes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_shooting That's nice anecdotal evidence but I'm pretty sure that what this one guy did isn't necessarily representative of The World. He could just as well have used all his ammunition, and gotten more shot out. The fact that one person can reload quickly doesn't change the fact that maybe the extra one second helps little Sally run around a fucking corner and live an extra 75 happy years. Its not that "one person can reload quickly" its that practically everyone can. Did you try my little experiment? If you did, it didn't take long did it? Sure, people who practice can do it quicker, but its not like someone with no practice takes forever. And when your Gunman-On-Premesis procedure is "lock the door and hide in a corner" it doesn't really make a difference if he has 5 shots or 500 per magazine. That's complete bullshit and you know it, unless you're fooling yourself to feel better or something. If you can get more bullets out quicker without having to tinker around with your weapon, you can kill more people. Simple as that. Even if "almost everyone" can reload quickly, absolutely everyone can shoot fast when they don't have to reload as often, and when they don't have to look for the next clip which's corner got stuck in the bag, or that you can drop because you're clumsy being nervous or whatever. It's absolutely mind blowing to see this ridiculous argument, frankly. It's insane how much people will lie to themselves. But I imagine you'd do just as well with a bolt action rifle as you would crouched in front of a cafeteria full of people with a HMG. It's ridiculous to say that we shouldn't ban things that will barely affect the severity of crimes? Obviously something much more lethal can be worth banning, but something slightly more lethal isn't an open and shut case, even when we consider that victims could be schoolchildren. If I understand him correctly, I think he's indicting the notion that everyone and their grandmother can load and unload a firearm rather than speaking to the precise societal danger inherent in extended clip prevalence. Though, to be frank, I think when it comes to weighing the utility and ease extended clips provide law abiding citizens against the potential to make at least one more mass shooting more difficult to perform, I'm going to go with the latter every time. I've heard quite a few police chiefs and commissioners asked about this issue recently, and most of them (I say most because this may not be a representative sample, but none were opposed from what I saw) said larger clips doesn't make a big difference. These are not random forum goers; these were police leaders speaking to the nation. There's nothing wrong with considering limitations on magazine size and the like, but I just don't like how people here often pre-judge the issue, usually despite any significant knowledge on the subject. Yeah I think we agree more than not, though I'm not convinced that police chiefs or commissioners are in a position to make national policy decisions. They certainly are more likely to have a better understanding of the specifics of crime as a general phenomena, but when it comes to preventing fringe occurrences, the sort that no police chief wants to have to say just happened and are likely to flabbergast anyone involved on a local level, I think a different sort of criteria might be appropriate when judging the propriety of something like an extended clip ban. I'm not entirely certain of my position, so bear with me, but let's say we consider the Colorado shootings. Holmes used a Glock 22 with a reportedly shoddy aftermarket extended clip that carried 40 rounds (a similar magazine would jam on Holmes' AR15, so I guess we have to be glad he was cheap). Let's say that, through effective legislation and either an outright ban or a big hoop to jump through, extended clips become far less common, and in this fantasy land a similar shooter is tackled to the ground as he fumbles for a clip that only holds 12 bullets. Would that be worth it? I'm inclined to think so.
I'm inclined to think that if someone in the audience had a concealed gun that held 12+ bullets they would be more likely to stop Holmes then trying to tackle him while he's reloading.
|
On February 06 2013 10:25 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 10:11 micronesia wrote:On February 06 2013 10:07 farvacola wrote:On February 06 2013 10:01 micronesia wrote:On February 06 2013 09:57 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:51 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 09:47 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:44 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 09:25 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:18 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
It would have no immediate effect on anything, I believe, much as no other gun legislation in a saturated market would have an immediate effect, particularly where criminal uses were concerned.
However, it would make straw purchases harder, reducing supply to criminals. It would reduce accidents (which anti-gun people usually laud as an associated goal) through training. Mandatory registration of handguns would absolutely require universal background checks on handgun sales.
It would, over some time, reduce handgun related deaths, turn itself around to a revenue stream for the state, and it would pave the way for universal background checks on all sales.
Explain how it would be useless, compared to, say, banning shit that doesn't get used in many crimes, or limiting magazine size (guess what, I can still carry more magazines). Supply to criminals is bottomless, I'm not convinced that adding tests would reduce accidents*, background checks are limited in utility. As for magazine sizes, carrying more magazines still slows down your overall rate of fire. I don't know that your idea is any worse than clumsy bans but I know we're talking about a ****load of public funds and little to no results. How much do you think it would cost to nationalize that entire administrative process - what about the exam every 3 years? That's a lot of money. *: Everyone passes driving tests, and the second they're done, they start driving like crap again. It's easy to fake being decent with a gun. Adam Lanza, the psycho who shot up Sandyhook Elementary, reloaded frequently. Sure he had big magazines, but the police found most of them over half full. He didn't really take advantage of them at all. It doesn't take all that long at all to reload. Hold both arms outstretched. Move one down to your belt, then back up to the other as fast as you can. That's how long reloading takes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_shooting That's nice anecdotal evidence but I'm pretty sure that what this one guy did isn't necessarily representative of The World. He could just as well have used all his ammunition, and gotten more shot out. The fact that one person can reload quickly doesn't change the fact that maybe the extra one second helps little Sally run around a fucking corner and live an extra 75 happy years. Its not that "one person can reload quickly" its that practically everyone can. Did you try my little experiment? If you did, it didn't take long did it? Sure, people who practice can do it quicker, but its not like someone with no practice takes forever. And when your Gunman-On-Premesis procedure is "lock the door and hide in a corner" it doesn't really make a difference if he has 5 shots or 500 per magazine. That's complete bullshit and you know it, unless you're fooling yourself to feel better or something. If you can get more bullets out quicker without having to tinker around with your weapon, you can kill more people. Simple as that. Even if "almost everyone" can reload quickly, absolutely everyone can shoot fast when they don't have to reload as often, and when they don't have to look for the next clip which's corner got stuck in the bag, or that you can drop because you're clumsy being nervous or whatever. It's absolutely mind blowing to see this ridiculous argument, frankly. It's insane how much people will lie to themselves. But I imagine you'd do just as well with a bolt action rifle as you would crouched in front of a cafeteria full of people with a HMG. It's ridiculous to say that we shouldn't ban things that will barely affect the severity of crimes? Obviously something much more lethal can be worth banning, but something slightly more lethal isn't an open and shut case, even when we consider that victims could be schoolchildren. If I understand him correctly, I think he's indicting the notion that everyone and their grandmother can load and unload a firearm rather than speaking to the precise societal danger inherent in extended clip prevalence. Though, to be frank, I think when it comes to weighing the utility and ease extended clips provide law abiding citizens against the potential to make at least one more mass shooting more difficult to perform, I'm going to go with the latter every time. I've heard quite a few police chiefs and commissioners asked about this issue recently, and most of them (I say most because this may not be a representative sample, but none were opposed from what I saw) said larger clips doesn't make a big difference. These are not random forum goers; these were police leaders speaking to the nation. There's nothing wrong with considering limitations on magazine size and the like, but I just don't like how people here often pre-judge the issue, usually despite any significant knowledge on the subject. Yeah I think we agree more than not, though I'm not convinced that police chiefs or commissioners are in a position to make national policy decisions. They certainly are more likely to have a better understanding of the specifics of crime as a general phenomena, but when it comes to preventing fringe occurrences, the sort that no police chief wants to have to say just happened and are likely to flabbergast anyone involved on a local level, I think a different sort of criteria might be appropriate when judging the propriety of something like an extended clip ban. I'm not entirely certain of my position, so bear with me, but let's say we consider the Colorado shootings. Holmes used a Glock 22 with a reportedly shoddy aftermarket extended clip that carried 40 rounds (a similar magazine would jam on Holmes' AR15, so I guess we have to be glad he was cheap). Let's say that, through effective legislation and either an outright ban or a big hoop to jump through, extended clips become far less common, and in this fantasy land a similar shooter is tackled to the ground as he fumbles for a clip that only holds 12 bullets. Would that be worth it? I'm inclined to think so.
You can't assume he'd be stopped simply because he's reloading. As I said, reloading isn't difficult. It might be a little more difficult in such a stressful situation, but I'm not convinced a shooter would become a complete butterfingers.
Second, so what if he has to reload, there have been plenty of massacres with no gun at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osaka_massacre
8 dead, 15 injured, no gun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre
7 dead, 10 injured, no gun.
If people can do this much damage without a gun at all, why would making them fire a little slower make any difference at all?
On February 06 2013 10:34 Djzapz wrote:
I don't know what kind of authority a police chief has over anyone else in saying that extended clips have no incidence anyway. How the hell do you calculate that? I think the position that more bullets fired = more potential victims is a reasonable one. To say that it has no incidence, given that the data for such events is very limited, IMO is simply disingenuous. If you're not convinced that the ability to shoot faster can lead to more people dying, say you're not convinced.
I don't have the answer, nor do you, nor does police chief number 375830. But I think that my "position" is a lot easier to defend as it simply makes more sense.
Except the faster you fire, the less you aim, and the more you miss. You can't both fire very fast AND aim carefully, they are mutually exclusive.
|
United States24666 Posts
On February 06 2013 10:34 Djzapz wrote:
I don't know what kind of authority a police chief has over anyone else in saying that extended clips have no incidence anyway. How the hell do you calculate that? I think the position that more bullets fired = more potential victims is a reasonable one. To say that it has no incidence, given that the data for such events is very limited, IMO is simply disingenuous. If you're not convinced that the ability to shoot faster can lead to more people dying, say you're not convinced.
I don't have the answer, nor do you, nor does police chief number 375830. But I think that my "position" is a lot easier to defend as it simply makes more sense.
You seriously weight your opinion on such a matter more than a 'police chief'? I'm certainly not going to say that police chiefs are infallible, but you are not giving them enough credit, and you are giving your 'sense' too much credit. Law enforcement is one of the main group of specialists referred to by politicians when drafting gun legislation, and with good reason.
|
On February 06 2013 10:39 Rhino85 wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 10:25 farvacola wrote:On February 06 2013 10:11 micronesia wrote:On February 06 2013 10:07 farvacola wrote:On February 06 2013 10:01 micronesia wrote:On February 06 2013 09:57 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:51 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 09:47 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:44 Millitron wrote:On February 06 2013 09:25 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
Supply to criminals is bottomless, I'm not convinced that adding tests would reduce accidents*, background checks are limited in utility.
As for magazine sizes, carrying more magazines still slows down your overall rate of fire. I don't know that your idea is any worse than clumsy bans but I know we're talking about a ****load of public funds and little to no results. How much do you think it would cost to nationalize that entire administrative process - what about the exam every 3 years? That's a lot of money.
*: Everyone passes driving tests, and the second they're done, they start driving like crap again. It's easy to fake being decent with a gun. Adam Lanza, the psycho who shot up Sandyhook Elementary, reloaded frequently. Sure he had big magazines, but the police found most of them over half full. He didn't really take advantage of them at all. It doesn't take all that long at all to reload. Hold both arms outstretched. Move one down to your belt, then back up to the other as fast as you can. That's how long reloading takes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sandy_Hook_shooting That's nice anecdotal evidence but I'm pretty sure that what this one guy did isn't necessarily representative of The World. He could just as well have used all his ammunition, and gotten more shot out. The fact that one person can reload quickly doesn't change the fact that maybe the extra one second helps little Sally run around a fucking corner and live an extra 75 happy years. Its not that "one person can reload quickly" its that practically everyone can. Did you try my little experiment? If you did, it didn't take long did it? Sure, people who practice can do it quicker, but its not like someone with no practice takes forever. And when your Gunman-On-Premesis procedure is "lock the door and hide in a corner" it doesn't really make a difference if he has 5 shots or 500 per magazine. That's complete bullshit and you know it, unless you're fooling yourself to feel better or something. If you can get more bullets out quicker without having to tinker around with your weapon, you can kill more people. Simple as that. Even if "almost everyone" can reload quickly, absolutely everyone can shoot fast when they don't have to reload as often, and when they don't have to look for the next clip which's corner got stuck in the bag, or that you can drop because you're clumsy being nervous or whatever. It's absolutely mind blowing to see this ridiculous argument, frankly. It's insane how much people will lie to themselves. But I imagine you'd do just as well with a bolt action rifle as you would crouched in front of a cafeteria full of people with a HMG. It's ridiculous to say that we shouldn't ban things that will barely affect the severity of crimes? Obviously something much more lethal can be worth banning, but something slightly more lethal isn't an open and shut case, even when we consider that victims could be schoolchildren. If I understand him correctly, I think he's indicting the notion that everyone and their grandmother can load and unload a firearm rather than speaking to the precise societal danger inherent in extended clip prevalence. Though, to be frank, I think when it comes to weighing the utility and ease extended clips provide law abiding citizens against the potential to make at least one more mass shooting more difficult to perform, I'm going to go with the latter every time. I've heard quite a few police chiefs and commissioners asked about this issue recently, and most of them (I say most because this may not be a representative sample, but none were opposed from what I saw) said larger clips doesn't make a big difference. These are not random forum goers; these were police leaders speaking to the nation. There's nothing wrong with considering limitations on magazine size and the like, but I just don't like how people here often pre-judge the issue, usually despite any significant knowledge on the subject. Yeah I think we agree more than not, though I'm not convinced that police chiefs or commissioners are in a position to make national policy decisions. They certainly are more likely to have a better understanding of the specifics of crime as a general phenomena, but when it comes to preventing fringe occurrences, the sort that no police chief wants to have to say just happened and are likely to flabbergast anyone involved on a local level, I think a different sort of criteria might be appropriate when judging the propriety of something like an extended clip ban. I'm not entirely certain of my position, so bear with me, but let's say we consider the Colorado shootings. Holmes used a Glock 22 with a reportedly shoddy aftermarket extended clip that carried 40 rounds (a similar magazine would jam on Holmes' AR15, so I guess we have to be glad he was cheap). Let's say that, through effective legislation and either an outright ban or a big hoop to jump through, extended clips become far less common, and in this fantasy land a similar shooter is tackled to the ground as he fumbles for a clip that only holds 12 bullets. Would that be worth it? I'm inclined to think so. I'm inclined to think that if someone in the audience had a concealed gun that held 12+ bullets they would be more likely to stop Holmes then trying to tackle him while he's reloading.
Someone did have a gun, though it wasn't concealed and they weren't in the audience.
And Millitron, did you really just cite two massacres in Japan? I'm sorry, but when it comes to ascertaining societal threat through the lens of government policy, evidence from a nation so unalike our own is simply bad evidence. Almost all blade related massacres in recent history have taken place in Asian countries, countries with an incredibly different population density and accordingly different regard for public space and safety. And I've already described precisely how shooting a bit slower could affect the situation, why ask again? If a shooter like Holmes has easy access to an extended clip that enables him to contiguously fire into a crowd, that warrants attention.
|
On February 06 2013 10:41 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 10:34 Djzapz wrote:
I don't know what kind of authority a police chief has over anyone else in saying that extended clips have no incidence anyway. How the hell do you calculate that? I think the position that more bullets fired = more potential victims is a reasonable one. To say that it has no incidence, given that the data for such events is very limited, IMO is simply disingenuous. If you're not convinced that the ability to shoot faster can lead to more people dying, say you're not convinced.
I don't have the answer, nor do you, nor does police chief number 375830. But I think that my "position" is a lot easier to defend as it simply makes more sense. You seriously weight your opinion on such a matter more than a 'police chief'? I'm certainly not going to say that police chiefs are infallible, but you are not giving them enough credit, and you are giving your 'sense' too much credit. Law enforcement is one of the main group of specialists referred to by politicians when drafting gun legislation, and with good reason.
Frankly that's not how it works. Honestly what you're essentially telling me to do is anyone who's in a slight position of authority should take precedent on everyone else because they're kind of in the field. I don't know. That seems like a shitty way to make opinions.
|
On February 06 2013 10:40 Millitron wrote:
If people can do this much damage without a gun at all, why would making them fire a little slower make any difference at all?
Really, that's your argument? It is possible to do a massacre with a lesser weapon and therefore all weapons are equal. That's your argument. Go back to the drawing board before you start telling me that Breivik could've killed 70 people with a large rock.
A slight difference can make a difference. The relation with "no gun at all" is dubious as hell.
|
On February 06 2013 09:43 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 09:27 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 09:25 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:18 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 09:11 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:09 Zealotdriver wrote:On February 06 2013 09:03 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 08:53 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote:On February 06 2013 08:31 Dawski wrote:
[quote]
The reason he is being aggressive in his responses is you arn't understanding his point at all. You just repeated what he already answered to.
To make this as simple as possible: What he's saying is he isn't for a complete gun ban. Banning assault rifles then figuring out they arn't the problem and banning handguns in turn IS a complete gun ban because are you going to then over-turn the ban on assault rifles? not very likely.
The question to you is, are you for a complete gun ban? you say no and yet your idea for legislation states yes. I'm pretty sure I understand his point, and if I didn't, being aggressive won't help. Jingle: Why would we ban assault weapons when they are used in a low number of crimes. Me: You are using the AWB, which is rather silly, as a scapegoat to reject all proposed gun legislation. I'll say it for a third time. Anything that significantly reduces gun violence will be rejected as being too overbearing or as infringing on 2nd amendment rights. Anything else is rejected as being ineffectual. See the catch 22? Effective gun legislation does not equal unilateral gun bans. Your'e pretending that I'm making claims that I'm not. I own two rifles. No one disagrees with extensive background checks which, i doubt you could argue as you said it yourself, would be effective gun legislation. You're trying to say that if the assault rifle ban doesn't lower gun crime then there's no possible way they will ban hand guns because people will be up in arms (pun unintended) about it and at least it helps a little bit. I'm saying that I don't agree and I feel that it is perfectly valid to worry about a handgun ban followed sometime afterwards edit: also as he pointed out above me. You did in fact say that it was a step in the right direction towards effective gun legislation. What other than the banning of hand guns can you go further in the "right direction"? Now see, if I wanted to go a smart step in the right direction, (and I know I only speak for myself while applying this chunk of common sense, there ARE some whackjobs in the gun lobby), I'd be perfectly fine with permits and registration for handguns. Assuming the process was reasonable, treat it roughly like cars. Take your written and practical exam for a moderate fee, and any handguns you own get registered by serial to your permit. Hell, I'd even be ok with every 3 years or so, having to demonstrate that I still have all handguns registered to my permit, at no additional cost, in the process of renewing. I have to have a license and registration to drive my damned car, I don't see a problem with it as part of owning a handgun, since they're easily concealed and used for homicide. Assuming there's some controls built into the legislation to prevent abuse down the road. I think it would have more effect than an AWB ever could, and if gun control people could show some good faith, a system like this might even happen. Who do you think you are, bringing rational and feasible suggestions to the gun control debate? The people want wild accusations, ludicrous proposals, and political grandstanding. I think the problem for most people has to do with the fact that his suggestion is essentially nothing more than posturing. It would cost money and have no positive effect on anything because it's a shy proposal and a waste of time. It would have no immediate effect on anything, I believe, much as no other gun legislation in a saturated market would have an immediate effect, particularly where criminal uses were concerned. However, it would make straw purchases harder, reducing supply to criminals. It would reduce accidents (which anti-gun people usually laud as an associated goal) through training. Mandatory registration of handguns would absolutely require universal background checks on handgun sales. It would, over some time, reduce handgun related deaths, turn itself around to a revenue stream for the state, and it would pave the way for universal background checks on all sales. Explain how it would be useless, compared to, say, banning shit that doesn't get used in many crimes, or limiting magazine size (guess what, I can still carry more magazines). Supply to criminals is bottomless, I'm not convinced that adding tests would reduce accidents, background checks are limited in utility. As for magazine sizes, carrying more magazines still slows down your overall rate of fire. I don't know that your idea is any worse than clumsy bans but I know we're talking about a ****load of public funds and little to no results. How much do you think it would cost to nationalize that entire administrative process - what about the exam every 3 years? That's a lot of money. Well, the only option that's not going to cost something and have no immediate effect is to do nothing. You prefer that? If supply to criminals is bottomless, then no legislation will work anyways, so actually, I assume you're either advocating no gun control, or you're done here? That's how politicians view issues, and that's why governments waste so much more money than the private sector which has a tendency not to do stuff just for the hell of it. Look at your solution, realize that it'd cost hundreds of millions over the years. Is this worth it, or is it a cop out that'd make the US like it did something? I don't even know what you can do in the US. I have some ideas that may be validated or invalidated by actual research. As people have mentioned before, it has to be a gradual process. Tougher penalties for owning an illegal firearm, more restrictive policies on weapons and equipment deemed dangerous. Slowly remove illegal guns, knowing that the situation is so far out of control, it'll never be good again. Fuck, the whole gun control conversation is a joke in the first place. All those things we talked about when in reality they'd only make marginal differences. You want to reduce crime in America, legalize drugs, that'll break down a shitload of criminal organizations, and work on the massive income disparity between the rich and the poor. Income inequality -> crime. So that's two of the huge sources of your problems. Show nested quote +Oh, and if you think criminals would get guns no matter what, surely you think they'd get 30+ round mags easily too? Hence the whole "you're kinda fucked" thing. But if you can weed out some of the big things, that'd be great. Here in Canada, guns are a bit harder to come across. The Dawson college shooting guy for instance only had access to small caliber weapons, which probably saved many lives that day.
Can we at least get the terminology right? The calibre has fuck all to do with how deadly a gun is. Sure a .50 calibre bullet will do much more damage to you than a .22 but the .22 round has probably killed more people than any other round. The military uses a .223 round which isn't exactly a beefy round.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:22-45.jpg (That .45 round is pretty close to the size of a 9mm and the little one is a .22)
In the shooting at Dawson he had a Shotgun, a Cx4 Storm rifle and a Glock 9mm. The shot gun was a 12 Gauge and the Rifle and pistol were using a pretty large bullet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Many_bullets.jpg The description has the types of bullets. The first one on the left is the 9mm Parabellum and the farthest on the right is the 12 Gauge shell. I can't find details on what size the Rifle was chambered in but the smallest that the rifle is made for is the 9mm Parabellum. They were certainly not "small calibre" weapons used in the shooting.
Calibre has nothing to do with the deadliness of a weapon.
|
On February 06 2013 10:52 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 10:41 micronesia wrote:On February 06 2013 10:34 Djzapz wrote:
I don't know what kind of authority a police chief has over anyone else in saying that extended clips have no incidence anyway. How the hell do you calculate that? I think the position that more bullets fired = more potential victims is a reasonable one. To say that it has no incidence, given that the data for such events is very limited, IMO is simply disingenuous. If you're not convinced that the ability to shoot faster can lead to more people dying, say you're not convinced.
I don't have the answer, nor do you, nor does police chief number 375830. But I think that my "position" is a lot easier to defend as it simply makes more sense. You seriously weight your opinion on such a matter more than a 'police chief'? I'm certainly not going to say that police chiefs are infallible, but you are not giving them enough credit, and you are giving your 'sense' too much credit. Law enforcement is one of the main group of specialists referred to by politicians when drafting gun legislation, and with good reason. Frankly that's not how it works. Honestly what you're essentially telling me to do is anyone who's in a slight position of authority should take precedent on everyone else because they're kind of in the field. I don't know. That seems like a shitty way to make opinions.
You don't think someone who has been working in the field that deals with the gun violence for a very long time and apparently is good at their job to be promoted to chief shouldn't have more clout to their opinion than housewives who are scared of bayonet lugs and firearms painted black?
|
On February 06 2013 10:56 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 09:43 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:27 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 09:25 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:18 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 09:11 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:09 Zealotdriver wrote:On February 06 2013 09:03 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 08:53 Dawski wrote:On February 06 2013 08:43 mynameisgreat11 wrote:
[quote]
I'm pretty sure I understand his point, and if I didn't, being aggressive won't help.
Jingle: Why would we ban assault weapons when they are used in a low number of crimes.
Me: You are using the AWB, which is rather silly, as a scapegoat to reject all proposed gun legislation.
I'll say it for a third time. Anything that significantly reduces gun violence will be rejected as being too overbearing or as infringing on 2nd amendment rights. Anything else is rejected as being ineffectual. See the catch 22?
Effective gun legislation does not equal unilateral gun bans. Your'e pretending that I'm making claims that I'm not. I own two rifles.
No one disagrees with extensive background checks which, i doubt you could argue as you said it yourself, would be effective gun legislation. You're trying to say that if the assault rifle ban doesn't lower gun crime then there's no possible way they will ban hand guns because people will be up in arms (pun unintended) about it and at least it helps a little bit. I'm saying that I don't agree and I feel that it is perfectly valid to worry about a handgun ban followed sometime afterwards edit: also as he pointed out above me. You did in fact say that it was a step in the right direction towards effective gun legislation. What other than the banning of hand guns can you go further in the "right direction"? Now see, if I wanted to go a smart step in the right direction, (and I know I only speak for myself while applying this chunk of common sense, there ARE some whackjobs in the gun lobby), I'd be perfectly fine with permits and registration for handguns. Assuming the process was reasonable, treat it roughly like cars. Take your written and practical exam for a moderate fee, and any handguns you own get registered by serial to your permit. Hell, I'd even be ok with every 3 years or so, having to demonstrate that I still have all handguns registered to my permit, at no additional cost, in the process of renewing. I have to have a license and registration to drive my damned car, I don't see a problem with it as part of owning a handgun, since they're easily concealed and used for homicide. Assuming there's some controls built into the legislation to prevent abuse down the road. I think it would have more effect than an AWB ever could, and if gun control people could show some good faith, a system like this might even happen. Who do you think you are, bringing rational and feasible suggestions to the gun control debate? The people want wild accusations, ludicrous proposals, and political grandstanding. I think the problem for most people has to do with the fact that his suggestion is essentially nothing more than posturing. It would cost money and have no positive effect on anything because it's a shy proposal and a waste of time. It would have no immediate effect on anything, I believe, much as no other gun legislation in a saturated market would have an immediate effect, particularly where criminal uses were concerned. However, it would make straw purchases harder, reducing supply to criminals. It would reduce accidents (which anti-gun people usually laud as an associated goal) through training. Mandatory registration of handguns would absolutely require universal background checks on handgun sales. It would, over some time, reduce handgun related deaths, turn itself around to a revenue stream for the state, and it would pave the way for universal background checks on all sales. Explain how it would be useless, compared to, say, banning shit that doesn't get used in many crimes, or limiting magazine size (guess what, I can still carry more magazines). Supply to criminals is bottomless, I'm not convinced that adding tests would reduce accidents, background checks are limited in utility. As for magazine sizes, carrying more magazines still slows down your overall rate of fire. I don't know that your idea is any worse than clumsy bans but I know we're talking about a ****load of public funds and little to no results. How much do you think it would cost to nationalize that entire administrative process - what about the exam every 3 years? That's a lot of money. Well, the only option that's not going to cost something and have no immediate effect is to do nothing. You prefer that? If supply to criminals is bottomless, then no legislation will work anyways, so actually, I assume you're either advocating no gun control, or you're done here? That's how politicians view issues, and that's why governments waste so much more money than the private sector which has a tendency not to do stuff just for the hell of it. Look at your solution, realize that it'd cost hundreds of millions over the years. Is this worth it, or is it a cop out that'd make the US like it did something? I don't even know what you can do in the US. I have some ideas that may be validated or invalidated by actual research. As people have mentioned before, it has to be a gradual process. Tougher penalties for owning an illegal firearm, more restrictive policies on weapons and equipment deemed dangerous. Slowly remove illegal guns, knowing that the situation is so far out of control, it'll never be good again. Fuck, the whole gun control conversation is a joke in the first place. All those things we talked about when in reality they'd only make marginal differences. You want to reduce crime in America, legalize drugs, that'll break down a shitload of criminal organizations, and work on the massive income disparity between the rich and the poor. Income inequality -> crime. So that's two of the huge sources of your problems. Oh, and if you think criminals would get guns no matter what, surely you think they'd get 30+ round mags easily too? Hence the whole "you're kinda fucked" thing. But if you can weed out some of the big things, that'd be great. Here in Canada, guns are a bit harder to come across. The Dawson college shooting guy for instance only had access to small caliber weapons, which probably saved many lives that day. Can we at least get the terminology right? The calibre has fuck all to do with how deadly a gun is. Sure a .50 calibre bullet will do much more damage to you than a .22 but the .22 round has probably killed more people than any other round. The military uses a .223 round which isn't exactly a beefy round. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:22-45.jpg (That .45 round is pretty close to the size of a 9mm and the little one is a .22) In the shooting at Dawson he had a Shotgun, a Cx4 Storm rifle and a Glock 9mm. The shot gun was a 12 Gauge and the Rifle and pistol were using a pretty large bullet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Many_bullets.jpg The description has the types of bullets. The first one on the left is the 9mm Parabellum and the farthest on the right is the 12 Gauge shell. I can't find details on what size the Rifle was chambered in but the smallest that the rifle is made for is the 9mm Parabellum. They were certainly not "small calibre" weapons used in the shooting. Calibre has nothing to do with the deadliness of a weapon.
You know what I meant, no need to act like someone stole your jello. Some guy got shot to the head multiple times at Dawson college and survived without major issues in his recovery. I was clearly saying that the ammunition he used weren't as lethal as they could have been if he could have had access to "bigger guns."
On February 06 2013 10:58 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 10:52 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 10:41 micronesia wrote:On February 06 2013 10:34 Djzapz wrote:
I don't know what kind of authority a police chief has over anyone else in saying that extended clips have no incidence anyway. How the hell do you calculate that? I think the position that more bullets fired = more potential victims is a reasonable one. To say that it has no incidence, given that the data for such events is very limited, IMO is simply disingenuous. If you're not convinced that the ability to shoot faster can lead to more people dying, say you're not convinced.
I don't have the answer, nor do you, nor does police chief number 375830. But I think that my "position" is a lot easier to defend as it simply makes more sense. You seriously weight your opinion on such a matter more than a 'police chief'? I'm certainly not going to say that police chiefs are infallible, but you are not giving them enough credit, and you are giving your 'sense' too much credit. Law enforcement is one of the main group of specialists referred to by politicians when drafting gun legislation, and with good reason. Frankly that's not how it works. Honestly what you're essentially telling me to do is anyone who's in a slight position of authority should take precedent on everyone else because they're kind of in the field. I don't know. That seems like a shitty way to make opinions. You don't think someone who has been working in the field that deals with the gun violence for a very long time and apparently is good at their job to be promoted to chief shouldn't have more clout to their opinion than housewives who are scared of bayonet lugs and firearms painted black?
See here's the thing, the answer is binary - either yes there's an incidence OR no there's no incidence. If you assume that police chiefs know better than non-police-chiefs, then any given police chief is right. By extension, that's absolutely the right answer. Which is what you guys seem to believe since it apparently completely invalidates what I say. That's an appeal to authority, and not even a good one because we're talking about a fucking police chief...
If we push that logic a little farther, we get a paradox because the police chief who says the opposite is also right. At least more right than the general population. You see how that does not follow?
|
On February 06 2013 10:58 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 10:56 tokicheese wrote:On February 06 2013 09:43 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:27 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 09:25 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:18 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 09:11 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:09 Zealotdriver wrote:On February 06 2013 09:03 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 08:53 Dawski wrote:
[quote]
No one disagrees with extensive background checks which, i doubt you could argue as you said it yourself, would be effective gun legislation.
You're trying to say that if the assault rifle ban doesn't lower gun crime then there's no possible way they will ban hand guns because people will be up in arms (pun unintended) about it and at least it helps a little bit.
I'm saying that I don't agree and I feel that it is perfectly valid to worry about a handgun ban followed sometime afterwards
edit: also as he pointed out above me. You did in fact say that it was a step in the right direction towards effective gun legislation. What other than the banning of hand guns can you go further in the "right direction"? Now see, if I wanted to go a smart step in the right direction, (and I know I only speak for myself while applying this chunk of common sense, there ARE some whackjobs in the gun lobby), I'd be perfectly fine with permits and registration for handguns. Assuming the process was reasonable, treat it roughly like cars. Take your written and practical exam for a moderate fee, and any handguns you own get registered by serial to your permit. Hell, I'd even be ok with every 3 years or so, having to demonstrate that I still have all handguns registered to my permit, at no additional cost, in the process of renewing. I have to have a license and registration to drive my damned car, I don't see a problem with it as part of owning a handgun, since they're easily concealed and used for homicide. Assuming there's some controls built into the legislation to prevent abuse down the road. I think it would have more effect than an AWB ever could, and if gun control people could show some good faith, a system like this might even happen. Who do you think you are, bringing rational and feasible suggestions to the gun control debate? The people want wild accusations, ludicrous proposals, and political grandstanding. I think the problem for most people has to do with the fact that his suggestion is essentially nothing more than posturing. It would cost money and have no positive effect on anything because it's a shy proposal and a waste of time. It would have no immediate effect on anything, I believe, much as no other gun legislation in a saturated market would have an immediate effect, particularly where criminal uses were concerned. However, it would make straw purchases harder, reducing supply to criminals. It would reduce accidents (which anti-gun people usually laud as an associated goal) through training. Mandatory registration of handguns would absolutely require universal background checks on handgun sales. It would, over some time, reduce handgun related deaths, turn itself around to a revenue stream for the state, and it would pave the way for universal background checks on all sales. Explain how it would be useless, compared to, say, banning shit that doesn't get used in many crimes, or limiting magazine size (guess what, I can still carry more magazines). Supply to criminals is bottomless, I'm not convinced that adding tests would reduce accidents, background checks are limited in utility. As for magazine sizes, carrying more magazines still slows down your overall rate of fire. I don't know that your idea is any worse than clumsy bans but I know we're talking about a ****load of public funds and little to no results. How much do you think it would cost to nationalize that entire administrative process - what about the exam every 3 years? That's a lot of money. Well, the only option that's not going to cost something and have no immediate effect is to do nothing. You prefer that? If supply to criminals is bottomless, then no legislation will work anyways, so actually, I assume you're either advocating no gun control, or you're done here? That's how politicians view issues, and that's why governments waste so much more money than the private sector which has a tendency not to do stuff just for the hell of it. Look at your solution, realize that it'd cost hundreds of millions over the years. Is this worth it, or is it a cop out that'd make the US like it did something? I don't even know what you can do in the US. I have some ideas that may be validated or invalidated by actual research. As people have mentioned before, it has to be a gradual process. Tougher penalties for owning an illegal firearm, more restrictive policies on weapons and equipment deemed dangerous. Slowly remove illegal guns, knowing that the situation is so far out of control, it'll never be good again. Fuck, the whole gun control conversation is a joke in the first place. All those things we talked about when in reality they'd only make marginal differences. You want to reduce crime in America, legalize drugs, that'll break down a shitload of criminal organizations, and work on the massive income disparity between the rich and the poor. Income inequality -> crime. So that's two of the huge sources of your problems. Oh, and if you think criminals would get guns no matter what, surely you think they'd get 30+ round mags easily too? Hence the whole "you're kinda fucked" thing. But if you can weed out some of the big things, that'd be great. Here in Canada, guns are a bit harder to come across. The Dawson college shooting guy for instance only had access to small caliber weapons, which probably saved many lives that day. Can we at least get the terminology right? The calibre has fuck all to do with how deadly a gun is. Sure a .50 calibre bullet will do much more damage to you than a .22 but the .22 round has probably killed more people than any other round. The military uses a .223 round which isn't exactly a beefy round. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:22-45.jpg (That .45 round is pretty close to the size of a 9mm and the little one is a .22) In the shooting at Dawson he had a Shotgun, a Cx4 Storm rifle and a Glock 9mm. The shot gun was a 12 Gauge and the Rifle and pistol were using a pretty large bullet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Many_bullets.jpg The description has the types of bullets. The first one on the left is the 9mm Parabellum and the farthest on the right is the 12 Gauge shell. I can't find details on what size the Rifle was chambered in but the smallest that the rifle is made for is the 9mm Parabellum. They were certainly not "small calibre" weapons used in the shooting. Calibre has nothing to do with the deadliness of a weapon. You know what I meant, no need to act like someone stole your jello. Some guy got shot to the head multiple times at Dawson college and survived without major issues in his recovery. I was clearly saying that the ammunition he used weren't as lethal as they could have been if he could have had access to "bigger guns." Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 10:58 tokicheese wrote:On February 06 2013 10:52 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 10:41 micronesia wrote:On February 06 2013 10:34 Djzapz wrote:
I don't know what kind of authority a police chief has over anyone else in saying that extended clips have no incidence anyway. How the hell do you calculate that? I think the position that more bullets fired = more potential victims is a reasonable one. To say that it has no incidence, given that the data for such events is very limited, IMO is simply disingenuous. If you're not convinced that the ability to shoot faster can lead to more people dying, say you're not convinced.
I don't have the answer, nor do you, nor does police chief number 375830. But I think that my "position" is a lot easier to defend as it simply makes more sense. You seriously weight your opinion on such a matter more than a 'police chief'? I'm certainly not going to say that police chiefs are infallible, but you are not giving them enough credit, and you are giving your 'sense' too much credit. Law enforcement is one of the main group of specialists referred to by politicians when drafting gun legislation, and with good reason. Frankly that's not how it works. Honestly what you're essentially telling me to do is anyone who's in a slight position of authority should take precedent on everyone else because they're kind of in the field. I don't know. That seems like a shitty way to make opinions. You don't think someone who has been working in the field that deals with the gun violence for a very long time and apparently is good at their job to be promoted to chief shouldn't have more clout to their opinion than housewives who are scared of bayonet lugs and firearms painted black? See here's the thing, the answer is binary - either yes there's an incidence OR no there's no incidence. If you assume that police chiefs know better than non-police-chiefs, then any given police chief is right. By extension, that's absolutely the right answer. Which is what you guys seem to believe since it apparently completely invalidates what I say. That's an appeal to authority, and not even a good one because we're talking about a fucking police chief... If we push that logic a little farther, we get a paradox because the police chief who says the opposite is also right. At least more right than the general population. You see how that does not follow?
You can buy guns of bigger calibre in Canada without more licenses. You can get .45 calibre hand guns like the M1911, my Rifle is chambered in a .308 round which is bigger than the 9mm round used in the rifle gill used.
9mm rounds are renowned for their stopping power in pistols. The type of bullet used makes a much bigger difference unless it's an extreme like .22 vs .50 cal. FMJ rounds just punch through people and make fairly neat holes. Hollowpoint rounds make a massive exit wound and turn flesh to hamburger.
|
On February 06 2013 11:13 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 10:58 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 10:56 tokicheese wrote:On February 06 2013 09:43 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:27 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 09:25 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:18 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 09:11 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:09 Zealotdriver wrote:On February 06 2013 09:03 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
Now see, if I wanted to go a smart step in the right direction, (and I know I only speak for myself while applying this chunk of common sense, there ARE some whackjobs in the gun lobby), I'd be perfectly fine with permits and registration for handguns. Assuming the process was reasonable, treat it roughly like cars. Take your written and practical exam for a moderate fee, and any handguns you own get registered by serial to your permit.
Hell, I'd even be ok with every 3 years or so, having to demonstrate that I still have all handguns registered to my permit, at no additional cost, in the process of renewing.
I have to have a license and registration to drive my damned car, I don't see a problem with it as part of owning a handgun, since they're easily concealed and used for homicide. Assuming there's some controls built into the legislation to prevent abuse down the road.
I think it would have more effect than an AWB ever could, and if gun control people could show some good faith, a system like this might even happen. Who do you think you are, bringing rational and feasible suggestions to the gun control debate? The people want wild accusations, ludicrous proposals, and political grandstanding. I think the problem for most people has to do with the fact that his suggestion is essentially nothing more than posturing. It would cost money and have no positive effect on anything because it's a shy proposal and a waste of time. It would have no immediate effect on anything, I believe, much as no other gun legislation in a saturated market would have an immediate effect, particularly where criminal uses were concerned. However, it would make straw purchases harder, reducing supply to criminals. It would reduce accidents (which anti-gun people usually laud as an associated goal) through training. Mandatory registration of handguns would absolutely require universal background checks on handgun sales. It would, over some time, reduce handgun related deaths, turn itself around to a revenue stream for the state, and it would pave the way for universal background checks on all sales. Explain how it would be useless, compared to, say, banning shit that doesn't get used in many crimes, or limiting magazine size (guess what, I can still carry more magazines). Supply to criminals is bottomless, I'm not convinced that adding tests would reduce accidents, background checks are limited in utility. As for magazine sizes, carrying more magazines still slows down your overall rate of fire. I don't know that your idea is any worse than clumsy bans but I know we're talking about a ****load of public funds and little to no results. How much do you think it would cost to nationalize that entire administrative process - what about the exam every 3 years? That's a lot of money. Well, the only option that's not going to cost something and have no immediate effect is to do nothing. You prefer that? If supply to criminals is bottomless, then no legislation will work anyways, so actually, I assume you're either advocating no gun control, or you're done here? That's how politicians view issues, and that's why governments waste so much more money than the private sector which has a tendency not to do stuff just for the hell of it. Look at your solution, realize that it'd cost hundreds of millions over the years. Is this worth it, or is it a cop out that'd make the US like it did something? I don't even know what you can do in the US. I have some ideas that may be validated or invalidated by actual research. As people have mentioned before, it has to be a gradual process. Tougher penalties for owning an illegal firearm, more restrictive policies on weapons and equipment deemed dangerous. Slowly remove illegal guns, knowing that the situation is so far out of control, it'll never be good again. Fuck, the whole gun control conversation is a joke in the first place. All those things we talked about when in reality they'd only make marginal differences. You want to reduce crime in America, legalize drugs, that'll break down a shitload of criminal organizations, and work on the massive income disparity between the rich and the poor. Income inequality -> crime. So that's two of the huge sources of your problems. Oh, and if you think criminals would get guns no matter what, surely you think they'd get 30+ round mags easily too? Hence the whole "you're kinda fucked" thing. But if you can weed out some of the big things, that'd be great. Here in Canada, guns are a bit harder to come across. The Dawson college shooting guy for instance only had access to small caliber weapons, which probably saved many lives that day. Can we at least get the terminology right? The calibre has fuck all to do with how deadly a gun is. Sure a .50 calibre bullet will do much more damage to you than a .22 but the .22 round has probably killed more people than any other round. The military uses a .223 round which isn't exactly a beefy round. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:22-45.jpg (That .45 round is pretty close to the size of a 9mm and the little one is a .22) In the shooting at Dawson he had a Shotgun, a Cx4 Storm rifle and a Glock 9mm. The shot gun was a 12 Gauge and the Rifle and pistol were using a pretty large bullet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Many_bullets.jpg The description has the types of bullets. The first one on the left is the 9mm Parabellum and the farthest on the right is the 12 Gauge shell. I can't find details on what size the Rifle was chambered in but the smallest that the rifle is made for is the 9mm Parabellum. They were certainly not "small calibre" weapons used in the shooting. Calibre has nothing to do with the deadliness of a weapon. You know what I meant, no need to act like someone stole your jello. Some guy got shot to the head multiple times at Dawson college and survived without major issues in his recovery. I was clearly saying that the ammunition he used weren't as lethal as they could have been if he could have had access to "bigger guns." On February 06 2013 10:58 tokicheese wrote:On February 06 2013 10:52 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 10:41 micronesia wrote:On February 06 2013 10:34 Djzapz wrote:
I don't know what kind of authority a police chief has over anyone else in saying that extended clips have no incidence anyway. How the hell do you calculate that? I think the position that more bullets fired = more potential victims is a reasonable one. To say that it has no incidence, given that the data for such events is very limited, IMO is simply disingenuous. If you're not convinced that the ability to shoot faster can lead to more people dying, say you're not convinced.
I don't have the answer, nor do you, nor does police chief number 375830. But I think that my "position" is a lot easier to defend as it simply makes more sense. You seriously weight your opinion on such a matter more than a 'police chief'? I'm certainly not going to say that police chiefs are infallible, but you are not giving them enough credit, and you are giving your 'sense' too much credit. Law enforcement is one of the main group of specialists referred to by politicians when drafting gun legislation, and with good reason. Frankly that's not how it works. Honestly what you're essentially telling me to do is anyone who's in a slight position of authority should take precedent on everyone else because they're kind of in the field. I don't know. That seems like a shitty way to make opinions. You don't think someone who has been working in the field that deals with the gun violence for a very long time and apparently is good at their job to be promoted to chief shouldn't have more clout to their opinion than housewives who are scared of bayonet lugs and firearms painted black? See here's the thing, the answer is binary - either yes there's an incidence OR no there's no incidence. If you assume that police chiefs know better than non-police-chiefs, then any given police chief is right. By extension, that's absolutely the right answer. Which is what you guys seem to believe since it apparently completely invalidates what I say. That's an appeal to authority, and not even a good one because we're talking about a fucking police chief... If we push that logic a little farther, we get a paradox because the police chief who says the opposite is also right. At least more right than the general population. You see how that does not follow? You can buy guns of bigger calibre in Canada without more licenses. You can get .45 calibre hand guns like the M1911, my Rifle is chambered in a .308 round which is bigger than the 9mm round used in the rifle gill used. 9mm rounds are renowned for their stopping power in pistols. The type of bullet used makes a much bigger difference unless it's an extreme like .22 vs .50 cal. FMJ rounds just punch through people and make fairly neat holes. Hollowpoint rounds make a massive exit wound and turn flesh to hamburger.
The M1911 is a prohibited weapon, you need a special license and such. Either way, good thing he didn't have anything bigger.
|
On February 06 2013 10:58 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 10:56 tokicheese wrote:On February 06 2013 09:43 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:27 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 09:25 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:18 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 09:11 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:09 Zealotdriver wrote:On February 06 2013 09:03 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 08:53 Dawski wrote:
[quote]
No one disagrees with extensive background checks which, i doubt you could argue as you said it yourself, would be effective gun legislation.
You're trying to say that if the assault rifle ban doesn't lower gun crime then there's no possible way they will ban hand guns because people will be up in arms (pun unintended) about it and at least it helps a little bit.
I'm saying that I don't agree and I feel that it is perfectly valid to worry about a handgun ban followed sometime afterwards
edit: also as he pointed out above me. You did in fact say that it was a step in the right direction towards effective gun legislation. What other than the banning of hand guns can you go further in the "right direction"? Now see, if I wanted to go a smart step in the right direction, (and I know I only speak for myself while applying this chunk of common sense, there ARE some whackjobs in the gun lobby), I'd be perfectly fine with permits and registration for handguns. Assuming the process was reasonable, treat it roughly like cars. Take your written and practical exam for a moderate fee, and any handguns you own get registered by serial to your permit. Hell, I'd even be ok with every 3 years or so, having to demonstrate that I still have all handguns registered to my permit, at no additional cost, in the process of renewing. I have to have a license and registration to drive my damned car, I don't see a problem with it as part of owning a handgun, since they're easily concealed and used for homicide. Assuming there's some controls built into the legislation to prevent abuse down the road. I think it would have more effect than an AWB ever could, and if gun control people could show some good faith, a system like this might even happen. Who do you think you are, bringing rational and feasible suggestions to the gun control debate? The people want wild accusations, ludicrous proposals, and political grandstanding. I think the problem for most people has to do with the fact that his suggestion is essentially nothing more than posturing. It would cost money and have no positive effect on anything because it's a shy proposal and a waste of time. It would have no immediate effect on anything, I believe, much as no other gun legislation in a saturated market would have an immediate effect, particularly where criminal uses were concerned. However, it would make straw purchases harder, reducing supply to criminals. It would reduce accidents (which anti-gun people usually laud as an associated goal) through training. Mandatory registration of handguns would absolutely require universal background checks on handgun sales. It would, over some time, reduce handgun related deaths, turn itself around to a revenue stream for the state, and it would pave the way for universal background checks on all sales. Explain how it would be useless, compared to, say, banning shit that doesn't get used in many crimes, or limiting magazine size (guess what, I can still carry more magazines). Supply to criminals is bottomless, I'm not convinced that adding tests would reduce accidents, background checks are limited in utility. As for magazine sizes, carrying more magazines still slows down your overall rate of fire. I don't know that your idea is any worse than clumsy bans but I know we're talking about a ****load of public funds and little to no results. How much do you think it would cost to nationalize that entire administrative process - what about the exam every 3 years? That's a lot of money. Well, the only option that's not going to cost something and have no immediate effect is to do nothing. You prefer that? If supply to criminals is bottomless, then no legislation will work anyways, so actually, I assume you're either advocating no gun control, or you're done here? That's how politicians view issues, and that's why governments waste so much more money than the private sector which has a tendency not to do stuff just for the hell of it. Look at your solution, realize that it'd cost hundreds of millions over the years. Is this worth it, or is it a cop out that'd make the US like it did something? I don't even know what you can do in the US. I have some ideas that may be validated or invalidated by actual research. As people have mentioned before, it has to be a gradual process. Tougher penalties for owning an illegal firearm, more restrictive policies on weapons and equipment deemed dangerous. Slowly remove illegal guns, knowing that the situation is so far out of control, it'll never be good again. Fuck, the whole gun control conversation is a joke in the first place. All those things we talked about when in reality they'd only make marginal differences. You want to reduce crime in America, legalize drugs, that'll break down a shitload of criminal organizations, and work on the massive income disparity between the rich and the poor. Income inequality -> crime. So that's two of the huge sources of your problems. Oh, and if you think criminals would get guns no matter what, surely you think they'd get 30+ round mags easily too? Hence the whole "you're kinda fucked" thing. But if you can weed out some of the big things, that'd be great. Here in Canada, guns are a bit harder to come across. The Dawson college shooting guy for instance only had access to small caliber weapons, which probably saved many lives that day. Can we at least get the terminology right? The calibre has fuck all to do with how deadly a gun is. Sure a .50 calibre bullet will do much more damage to you than a .22 but the .22 round has probably killed more people than any other round. The military uses a .223 round which isn't exactly a beefy round. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:22-45.jpg (That .45 round is pretty close to the size of a 9mm and the little one is a .22) In the shooting at Dawson he had a Shotgun, a Cx4 Storm rifle and a Glock 9mm. The shot gun was a 12 Gauge and the Rifle and pistol were using a pretty large bullet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Many_bullets.jpg The description has the types of bullets. The first one on the left is the 9mm Parabellum and the farthest on the right is the 12 Gauge shell. I can't find details on what size the Rifle was chambered in but the smallest that the rifle is made for is the 9mm Parabellum. They were certainly not "small calibre" weapons used in the shooting. Calibre has nothing to do with the deadliness of a weapon. You know what I meant, no need to act like someone stole your jello. Some guy got shot to the head multiple times at Dawson college and survived without major issues in his recovery. I was clearly saying that the ammunition he used weren't as lethal as they could have been if he could have had access to "bigger guns." Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 10:58 tokicheese wrote:On February 06 2013 10:52 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 10:41 micronesia wrote:On February 06 2013 10:34 Djzapz wrote:
I don't know what kind of authority a police chief has over anyone else in saying that extended clips have no incidence anyway. How the hell do you calculate that? I think the position that more bullets fired = more potential victims is a reasonable one. To say that it has no incidence, given that the data for such events is very limited, IMO is simply disingenuous. If you're not convinced that the ability to shoot faster can lead to more people dying, say you're not convinced.
I don't have the answer, nor do you, nor does police chief number 375830. But I think that my "position" is a lot easier to defend as it simply makes more sense. You seriously weight your opinion on such a matter more than a 'police chief'? I'm certainly not going to say that police chiefs are infallible, but you are not giving them enough credit, and you are giving your 'sense' too much credit. Law enforcement is one of the main group of specialists referred to by politicians when drafting gun legislation, and with good reason. Frankly that's not how it works. Honestly what you're essentially telling me to do is anyone who's in a slight position of authority should take precedent on everyone else because they're kind of in the field. I don't know. That seems like a shitty way to make opinions. You don't think someone who has been working in the field that deals with the gun violence for a very long time and apparently is good at their job to be promoted to chief shouldn't have more clout to their opinion than housewives who are scared of bayonet lugs and firearms painted black? See here's the thing, the answer is binary - either yes there's an incidence OR no there's no incidence. If you assume that police chiefs know better than non-police-chiefs, then any given police chief is right. By extension, that's absolutely the right answer. Which is what you guys seem to believe since it apparently completely invalidates what I say. That's an appeal to authority, and not even a good one because we're talking about a fucking police chief... If we push that logic a little farther, we get a paradox because the police chief who says the opposite is also right. At least more right than the general population. You see how that does not follow?
Your twisting my words. I never said blindly trust the chief I just said do you not take his opinion more seriously than some one who is entirely uneducated. People need ot form their own opinions but taking some person off the street who has no clue about weapons doesnt work well either.
|
On February 06 2013 11:16 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 11:13 tokicheese wrote:On February 06 2013 10:58 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 10:56 tokicheese wrote:On February 06 2013 09:43 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:27 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 09:25 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:18 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 09:11 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:09 Zealotdriver wrote:
[quote]
Who do you think you are, bringing rational and feasible suggestions to the gun control debate? The people want wild accusations, ludicrous proposals, and political grandstanding. I think the problem for most people has to do with the fact that his suggestion is essentially nothing more than posturing. It would cost money and have no positive effect on anything because it's a shy proposal and a waste of time. It would have no immediate effect on anything, I believe, much as no other gun legislation in a saturated market would have an immediate effect, particularly where criminal uses were concerned. However, it would make straw purchases harder, reducing supply to criminals. It would reduce accidents (which anti-gun people usually laud as an associated goal) through training. Mandatory registration of handguns would absolutely require universal background checks on handgun sales. It would, over some time, reduce handgun related deaths, turn itself around to a revenue stream for the state, and it would pave the way for universal background checks on all sales. Explain how it would be useless, compared to, say, banning shit that doesn't get used in many crimes, or limiting magazine size (guess what, I can still carry more magazines). Supply to criminals is bottomless, I'm not convinced that adding tests would reduce accidents, background checks are limited in utility. As for magazine sizes, carrying more magazines still slows down your overall rate of fire. I don't know that your idea is any worse than clumsy bans but I know we're talking about a ****load of public funds and little to no results. How much do you think it would cost to nationalize that entire administrative process - what about the exam every 3 years? That's a lot of money. Well, the only option that's not going to cost something and have no immediate effect is to do nothing. You prefer that? If supply to criminals is bottomless, then no legislation will work anyways, so actually, I assume you're either advocating no gun control, or you're done here? That's how politicians view issues, and that's why governments waste so much more money than the private sector which has a tendency not to do stuff just for the hell of it. Look at your solution, realize that it'd cost hundreds of millions over the years. Is this worth it, or is it a cop out that'd make the US like it did something? I don't even know what you can do in the US. I have some ideas that may be validated or invalidated by actual research. As people have mentioned before, it has to be a gradual process. Tougher penalties for owning an illegal firearm, more restrictive policies on weapons and equipment deemed dangerous. Slowly remove illegal guns, knowing that the situation is so far out of control, it'll never be good again. Fuck, the whole gun control conversation is a joke in the first place. All those things we talked about when in reality they'd only make marginal differences. You want to reduce crime in America, legalize drugs, that'll break down a shitload of criminal organizations, and work on the massive income disparity between the rich and the poor. Income inequality -> crime. So that's two of the huge sources of your problems. Oh, and if you think criminals would get guns no matter what, surely you think they'd get 30+ round mags easily too? Hence the whole "you're kinda fucked" thing. But if you can weed out some of the big things, that'd be great. Here in Canada, guns are a bit harder to come across. The Dawson college shooting guy for instance only had access to small caliber weapons, which probably saved many lives that day. Can we at least get the terminology right? The calibre has fuck all to do with how deadly a gun is. Sure a .50 calibre bullet will do much more damage to you than a .22 but the .22 round has probably killed more people than any other round. The military uses a .223 round which isn't exactly a beefy round. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:22-45.jpg (That .45 round is pretty close to the size of a 9mm and the little one is a .22) In the shooting at Dawson he had a Shotgun, a Cx4 Storm rifle and a Glock 9mm. The shot gun was a 12 Gauge and the Rifle and pistol were using a pretty large bullet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Many_bullets.jpg The description has the types of bullets. The first one on the left is the 9mm Parabellum and the farthest on the right is the 12 Gauge shell. I can't find details on what size the Rifle was chambered in but the smallest that the rifle is made for is the 9mm Parabellum. They were certainly not "small calibre" weapons used in the shooting. Calibre has nothing to do with the deadliness of a weapon. You know what I meant, no need to act like someone stole your jello. Some guy got shot to the head multiple times at Dawson college and survived without major issues in his recovery. I was clearly saying that the ammunition he used weren't as lethal as they could have been if he could have had access to "bigger guns." On February 06 2013 10:58 tokicheese wrote:On February 06 2013 10:52 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 10:41 micronesia wrote:On February 06 2013 10:34 Djzapz wrote:
I don't know what kind of authority a police chief has over anyone else in saying that extended clips have no incidence anyway. How the hell do you calculate that? I think the position that more bullets fired = more potential victims is a reasonable one. To say that it has no incidence, given that the data for such events is very limited, IMO is simply disingenuous. If you're not convinced that the ability to shoot faster can lead to more people dying, say you're not convinced.
I don't have the answer, nor do you, nor does police chief number 375830. But I think that my "position" is a lot easier to defend as it simply makes more sense. You seriously weight your opinion on such a matter more than a 'police chief'? I'm certainly not going to say that police chiefs are infallible, but you are not giving them enough credit, and you are giving your 'sense' too much credit. Law enforcement is one of the main group of specialists referred to by politicians when drafting gun legislation, and with good reason. Frankly that's not how it works. Honestly what you're essentially telling me to do is anyone who's in a slight position of authority should take precedent on everyone else because they're kind of in the field. I don't know. That seems like a shitty way to make opinions. You don't think someone who has been working in the field that deals with the gun violence for a very long time and apparently is good at their job to be promoted to chief shouldn't have more clout to their opinion than housewives who are scared of bayonet lugs and firearms painted black? See here's the thing, the answer is binary - either yes there's an incidence OR no there's no incidence. If you assume that police chiefs know better than non-police-chiefs, then any given police chief is right. By extension, that's absolutely the right answer. Which is what you guys seem to believe since it apparently completely invalidates what I say. That's an appeal to authority, and not even a good one because we're talking about a fucking police chief... If we push that logic a little farther, we get a paradox because the police chief who says the opposite is also right. At least more right than the general population. You see how that does not follow? You can buy guns of bigger calibre in Canada without more licenses. You can get .45 calibre hand guns like the M1911, my Rifle is chambered in a .308 round which is bigger than the 9mm round used in the rifle gill used. 9mm rounds are renowned for their stopping power in pistols. The type of bullet used makes a much bigger difference unless it's an extreme like .22 vs .50 cal. FMJ rounds just punch through people and make fairly neat holes. Hollowpoint rounds make a massive exit wound and turn flesh to hamburger. The M1911 is a prohibited weapon, you need a special license and such. Either way, good thing he didn't have anything bigger.
It is restricted like any pistol. You don't need a special license for a m1911 other than your restriced license that he would have for his glock.
Any pistol falls under restriced unless its a very short barrel then it's prohibited.
|
On February 06 2013 11:20 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 10:58 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 10:56 tokicheese wrote:On February 06 2013 09:43 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:27 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 09:25 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:18 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 09:11 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:09 Zealotdriver wrote:On February 06 2013 09:03 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
Now see, if I wanted to go a smart step in the right direction, (and I know I only speak for myself while applying this chunk of common sense, there ARE some whackjobs in the gun lobby), I'd be perfectly fine with permits and registration for handguns. Assuming the process was reasonable, treat it roughly like cars. Take your written and practical exam for a moderate fee, and any handguns you own get registered by serial to your permit.
Hell, I'd even be ok with every 3 years or so, having to demonstrate that I still have all handguns registered to my permit, at no additional cost, in the process of renewing.
I have to have a license and registration to drive my damned car, I don't see a problem with it as part of owning a handgun, since they're easily concealed and used for homicide. Assuming there's some controls built into the legislation to prevent abuse down the road.
I think it would have more effect than an AWB ever could, and if gun control people could show some good faith, a system like this might even happen. Who do you think you are, bringing rational and feasible suggestions to the gun control debate? The people want wild accusations, ludicrous proposals, and political grandstanding. I think the problem for most people has to do with the fact that his suggestion is essentially nothing more than posturing. It would cost money and have no positive effect on anything because it's a shy proposal and a waste of time. It would have no immediate effect on anything, I believe, much as no other gun legislation in a saturated market would have an immediate effect, particularly where criminal uses were concerned. However, it would make straw purchases harder, reducing supply to criminals. It would reduce accidents (which anti-gun people usually laud as an associated goal) through training. Mandatory registration of handguns would absolutely require universal background checks on handgun sales. It would, over some time, reduce handgun related deaths, turn itself around to a revenue stream for the state, and it would pave the way for universal background checks on all sales. Explain how it would be useless, compared to, say, banning shit that doesn't get used in many crimes, or limiting magazine size (guess what, I can still carry more magazines). Supply to criminals is bottomless, I'm not convinced that adding tests would reduce accidents, background checks are limited in utility. As for magazine sizes, carrying more magazines still slows down your overall rate of fire. I don't know that your idea is any worse than clumsy bans but I know we're talking about a ****load of public funds and little to no results. How much do you think it would cost to nationalize that entire administrative process - what about the exam every 3 years? That's a lot of money. Well, the only option that's not going to cost something and have no immediate effect is to do nothing. You prefer that? If supply to criminals is bottomless, then no legislation will work anyways, so actually, I assume you're either advocating no gun control, or you're done here? That's how politicians view issues, and that's why governments waste so much more money than the private sector which has a tendency not to do stuff just for the hell of it. Look at your solution, realize that it'd cost hundreds of millions over the years. Is this worth it, or is it a cop out that'd make the US like it did something? I don't even know what you can do in the US. I have some ideas that may be validated or invalidated by actual research. As people have mentioned before, it has to be a gradual process. Tougher penalties for owning an illegal firearm, more restrictive policies on weapons and equipment deemed dangerous. Slowly remove illegal guns, knowing that the situation is so far out of control, it'll never be good again. Fuck, the whole gun control conversation is a joke in the first place. All those things we talked about when in reality they'd only make marginal differences. You want to reduce crime in America, legalize drugs, that'll break down a shitload of criminal organizations, and work on the massive income disparity between the rich and the poor. Income inequality -> crime. So that's two of the huge sources of your problems. Oh, and if you think criminals would get guns no matter what, surely you think they'd get 30+ round mags easily too? Hence the whole "you're kinda fucked" thing. But if you can weed out some of the big things, that'd be great. Here in Canada, guns are a bit harder to come across. The Dawson college shooting guy for instance only had access to small caliber weapons, which probably saved many lives that day. Can we at least get the terminology right? The calibre has fuck all to do with how deadly a gun is. Sure a .50 calibre bullet will do much more damage to you than a .22 but the .22 round has probably killed more people than any other round. The military uses a .223 round which isn't exactly a beefy round. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:22-45.jpg (That .45 round is pretty close to the size of a 9mm and the little one is a .22) In the shooting at Dawson he had a Shotgun, a Cx4 Storm rifle and a Glock 9mm. The shot gun was a 12 Gauge and the Rifle and pistol were using a pretty large bullet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Many_bullets.jpg The description has the types of bullets. The first one on the left is the 9mm Parabellum and the farthest on the right is the 12 Gauge shell. I can't find details on what size the Rifle was chambered in but the smallest that the rifle is made for is the 9mm Parabellum. They were certainly not "small calibre" weapons used in the shooting. Calibre has nothing to do with the deadliness of a weapon. You know what I meant, no need to act like someone stole your jello. Some guy got shot to the head multiple times at Dawson college and survived without major issues in his recovery. I was clearly saying that the ammunition he used weren't as lethal as they could have been if he could have had access to "bigger guns." On February 06 2013 10:58 tokicheese wrote:On February 06 2013 10:52 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 10:41 micronesia wrote:On February 06 2013 10:34 Djzapz wrote:
I don't know what kind of authority a police chief has over anyone else in saying that extended clips have no incidence anyway. How the hell do you calculate that? I think the position that more bullets fired = more potential victims is a reasonable one. To say that it has no incidence, given that the data for such events is very limited, IMO is simply disingenuous. If you're not convinced that the ability to shoot faster can lead to more people dying, say you're not convinced.
I don't have the answer, nor do you, nor does police chief number 375830. But I think that my "position" is a lot easier to defend as it simply makes more sense. You seriously weight your opinion on such a matter more than a 'police chief'? I'm certainly not going to say that police chiefs are infallible, but you are not giving them enough credit, and you are giving your 'sense' too much credit. Law enforcement is one of the main group of specialists referred to by politicians when drafting gun legislation, and with good reason. Frankly that's not how it works. Honestly what you're essentially telling me to do is anyone who's in a slight position of authority should take precedent on everyone else because they're kind of in the field. I don't know. That seems like a shitty way to make opinions. You don't think someone who has been working in the field that deals with the gun violence for a very long time and apparently is good at their job to be promoted to chief shouldn't have more clout to their opinion than housewives who are scared of bayonet lugs and firearms painted black? See here's the thing, the answer is binary - either yes there's an incidence OR no there's no incidence. If you assume that police chiefs know better than non-police-chiefs, then any given police chief is right. By extension, that's absolutely the right answer. Which is what you guys seem to believe since it apparently completely invalidates what I say. That's an appeal to authority, and not even a good one because we're talking about a fucking police chief... If we push that logic a little farther, we get a paradox because the police chief who says the opposite is also right. At least more right than the general population. You see how that does not follow? Your twisting my words. I never said blindly trust the chief I just said do you not take his opinion more seriously than some one who is entirely uneducated. People need ot form their own opinions but taking some person off the street who has no clue about weapons doesnt work well either.
I'm not twisting your words, I'm just talking about the implications... If you're either right or wrong why would I trust someone on some bullshit title if I know full well that he doesn't have much to work off of.
On February 06 2013 11:25 tokicheese wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 11:16 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 11:13 tokicheese wrote:On February 06 2013 10:58 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 10:56 tokicheese wrote:On February 06 2013 09:43 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:27 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 09:25 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:18 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 09:11 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
I think the problem for most people has to do with the fact that his suggestion is essentially nothing more than posturing. It would cost money and have no positive effect on anything because it's a shy proposal and a waste of time. It would have no immediate effect on anything, I believe, much as no other gun legislation in a saturated market would have an immediate effect, particularly where criminal uses were concerned. However, it would make straw purchases harder, reducing supply to criminals. It would reduce accidents (which anti-gun people usually laud as an associated goal) through training. Mandatory registration of handguns would absolutely require universal background checks on handgun sales. It would, over some time, reduce handgun related deaths, turn itself around to a revenue stream for the state, and it would pave the way for universal background checks on all sales. Explain how it would be useless, compared to, say, banning shit that doesn't get used in many crimes, or limiting magazine size (guess what, I can still carry more magazines). Supply to criminals is bottomless, I'm not convinced that adding tests would reduce accidents, background checks are limited in utility. As for magazine sizes, carrying more magazines still slows down your overall rate of fire. I don't know that your idea is any worse than clumsy bans but I know we're talking about a ****load of public funds and little to no results. How much do you think it would cost to nationalize that entire administrative process - what about the exam every 3 years? That's a lot of money. Well, the only option that's not going to cost something and have no immediate effect is to do nothing. You prefer that? If supply to criminals is bottomless, then no legislation will work anyways, so actually, I assume you're either advocating no gun control, or you're done here? That's how politicians view issues, and that's why governments waste so much more money than the private sector which has a tendency not to do stuff just for the hell of it. Look at your solution, realize that it'd cost hundreds of millions over the years. Is this worth it, or is it a cop out that'd make the US like it did something? I don't even know what you can do in the US. I have some ideas that may be validated or invalidated by actual research. As people have mentioned before, it has to be a gradual process. Tougher penalties for owning an illegal firearm, more restrictive policies on weapons and equipment deemed dangerous. Slowly remove illegal guns, knowing that the situation is so far out of control, it'll never be good again. Fuck, the whole gun control conversation is a joke in the first place. All those things we talked about when in reality they'd only make marginal differences. You want to reduce crime in America, legalize drugs, that'll break down a shitload of criminal organizations, and work on the massive income disparity between the rich and the poor. Income inequality -> crime. So that's two of the huge sources of your problems. Oh, and if you think criminals would get guns no matter what, surely you think they'd get 30+ round mags easily too? Hence the whole "you're kinda fucked" thing. But if you can weed out some of the big things, that'd be great. Here in Canada, guns are a bit harder to come across. The Dawson college shooting guy for instance only had access to small caliber weapons, which probably saved many lives that day. Can we at least get the terminology right? The calibre has fuck all to do with how deadly a gun is. Sure a .50 calibre bullet will do much more damage to you than a .22 but the .22 round has probably killed more people than any other round. The military uses a .223 round which isn't exactly a beefy round. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:22-45.jpg (That .45 round is pretty close to the size of a 9mm and the little one is a .22) In the shooting at Dawson he had a Shotgun, a Cx4 Storm rifle and a Glock 9mm. The shot gun was a 12 Gauge and the Rifle and pistol were using a pretty large bullet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Many_bullets.jpg The description has the types of bullets. The first one on the left is the 9mm Parabellum and the farthest on the right is the 12 Gauge shell. I can't find details on what size the Rifle was chambered in but the smallest that the rifle is made for is the 9mm Parabellum. They were certainly not "small calibre" weapons used in the shooting. Calibre has nothing to do with the deadliness of a weapon. You know what I meant, no need to act like someone stole your jello. Some guy got shot to the head multiple times at Dawson college and survived without major issues in his recovery. I was clearly saying that the ammunition he used weren't as lethal as they could have been if he could have had access to "bigger guns." On February 06 2013 10:58 tokicheese wrote:On February 06 2013 10:52 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 10:41 micronesia wrote:On February 06 2013 10:34 Djzapz wrote:
I don't know what kind of authority a police chief has over anyone else in saying that extended clips have no incidence anyway. How the hell do you calculate that? I think the position that more bullets fired = more potential victims is a reasonable one. To say that it has no incidence, given that the data for such events is very limited, IMO is simply disingenuous. If you're not convinced that the ability to shoot faster can lead to more people dying, say you're not convinced.
I don't have the answer, nor do you, nor does police chief number 375830. But I think that my "position" is a lot easier to defend as it simply makes more sense. You seriously weight your opinion on such a matter more than a 'police chief'? I'm certainly not going to say that police chiefs are infallible, but you are not giving them enough credit, and you are giving your 'sense' too much credit. Law enforcement is one of the main group of specialists referred to by politicians when drafting gun legislation, and with good reason. Frankly that's not how it works. Honestly what you're essentially telling me to do is anyone who's in a slight position of authority should take precedent on everyone else because they're kind of in the field. I don't know. That seems like a shitty way to make opinions. You don't think someone who has been working in the field that deals with the gun violence for a very long time and apparently is good at their job to be promoted to chief shouldn't have more clout to their opinion than housewives who are scared of bayonet lugs and firearms painted black? See here's the thing, the answer is binary - either yes there's an incidence OR no there's no incidence. If you assume that police chiefs know better than non-police-chiefs, then any given police chief is right. By extension, that's absolutely the right answer. Which is what you guys seem to believe since it apparently completely invalidates what I say. That's an appeal to authority, and not even a good one because we're talking about a fucking police chief... If we push that logic a little farther, we get a paradox because the police chief who says the opposite is also right. At least more right than the general population. You see how that does not follow? You can buy guns of bigger calibre in Canada without more licenses. You can get .45 calibre hand guns like the M1911, my Rifle is chambered in a .308 round which is bigger than the 9mm round used in the rifle gill used. 9mm rounds are renowned for their stopping power in pistols. The type of bullet used makes a much bigger difference unless it's an extreme like .22 vs .50 cal. FMJ rounds just punch through people and make fairly neat holes. Hollowpoint rounds make a massive exit wound and turn flesh to hamburger. The M1911 is a prohibited weapon, you need a special license and such. Either way, good thing he didn't have anything bigger. It is restricted like any pistol. You don't need a special license for a m1911 other than your restriced license that he would have for his glock.
Alright.
|
On February 06 2013 11:31 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 11:20 tokicheese wrote:On February 06 2013 10:58 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 10:56 tokicheese wrote:On February 06 2013 09:43 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:27 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 09:25 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:18 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 09:11 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:09 Zealotdriver wrote:
[quote]
Who do you think you are, bringing rational and feasible suggestions to the gun control debate? The people want wild accusations, ludicrous proposals, and political grandstanding. I think the problem for most people has to do with the fact that his suggestion is essentially nothing more than posturing. It would cost money and have no positive effect on anything because it's a shy proposal and a waste of time. It would have no immediate effect on anything, I believe, much as no other gun legislation in a saturated market would have an immediate effect, particularly where criminal uses were concerned. However, it would make straw purchases harder, reducing supply to criminals. It would reduce accidents (which anti-gun people usually laud as an associated goal) through training. Mandatory registration of handguns would absolutely require universal background checks on handgun sales. It would, over some time, reduce handgun related deaths, turn itself around to a revenue stream for the state, and it would pave the way for universal background checks on all sales. Explain how it would be useless, compared to, say, banning shit that doesn't get used in many crimes, or limiting magazine size (guess what, I can still carry more magazines). Supply to criminals is bottomless, I'm not convinced that adding tests would reduce accidents, background checks are limited in utility. As for magazine sizes, carrying more magazines still slows down your overall rate of fire. I don't know that your idea is any worse than clumsy bans but I know we're talking about a ****load of public funds and little to no results. How much do you think it would cost to nationalize that entire administrative process - what about the exam every 3 years? That's a lot of money. Well, the only option that's not going to cost something and have no immediate effect is to do nothing. You prefer that? If supply to criminals is bottomless, then no legislation will work anyways, so actually, I assume you're either advocating no gun control, or you're done here? That's how politicians view issues, and that's why governments waste so much more money than the private sector which has a tendency not to do stuff just for the hell of it. Look at your solution, realize that it'd cost hundreds of millions over the years. Is this worth it, or is it a cop out that'd make the US like it did something? I don't even know what you can do in the US. I have some ideas that may be validated or invalidated by actual research. As people have mentioned before, it has to be a gradual process. Tougher penalties for owning an illegal firearm, more restrictive policies on weapons and equipment deemed dangerous. Slowly remove illegal guns, knowing that the situation is so far out of control, it'll never be good again. Fuck, the whole gun control conversation is a joke in the first place. All those things we talked about when in reality they'd only make marginal differences. You want to reduce crime in America, legalize drugs, that'll break down a shitload of criminal organizations, and work on the massive income disparity between the rich and the poor. Income inequality -> crime. So that's two of the huge sources of your problems. Oh, and if you think criminals would get guns no matter what, surely you think they'd get 30+ round mags easily too? Hence the whole "you're kinda fucked" thing. But if you can weed out some of the big things, that'd be great. Here in Canada, guns are a bit harder to come across. The Dawson college shooting guy for instance only had access to small caliber weapons, which probably saved many lives that day. Can we at least get the terminology right? The calibre has fuck all to do with how deadly a gun is. Sure a .50 calibre bullet will do much more damage to you than a .22 but the .22 round has probably killed more people than any other round. The military uses a .223 round which isn't exactly a beefy round. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:22-45.jpg (That .45 round is pretty close to the size of a 9mm and the little one is a .22) In the shooting at Dawson he had a Shotgun, a Cx4 Storm rifle and a Glock 9mm. The shot gun was a 12 Gauge and the Rifle and pistol were using a pretty large bullet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Many_bullets.jpg The description has the types of bullets. The first one on the left is the 9mm Parabellum and the farthest on the right is the 12 Gauge shell. I can't find details on what size the Rifle was chambered in but the smallest that the rifle is made for is the 9mm Parabellum. They were certainly not "small calibre" weapons used in the shooting. Calibre has nothing to do with the deadliness of a weapon. You know what I meant, no need to act like someone stole your jello. Some guy got shot to the head multiple times at Dawson college and survived without major issues in his recovery. I was clearly saying that the ammunition he used weren't as lethal as they could have been if he could have had access to "bigger guns." On February 06 2013 10:58 tokicheese wrote:On February 06 2013 10:52 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 10:41 micronesia wrote:On February 06 2013 10:34 Djzapz wrote:
I don't know what kind of authority a police chief has over anyone else in saying that extended clips have no incidence anyway. How the hell do you calculate that? I think the position that more bullets fired = more potential victims is a reasonable one. To say that it has no incidence, given that the data for such events is very limited, IMO is simply disingenuous. If you're not convinced that the ability to shoot faster can lead to more people dying, say you're not convinced.
I don't have the answer, nor do you, nor does police chief number 375830. But I think that my "position" is a lot easier to defend as it simply makes more sense. You seriously weight your opinion on such a matter more than a 'police chief'? I'm certainly not going to say that police chiefs are infallible, but you are not giving them enough credit, and you are giving your 'sense' too much credit. Law enforcement is one of the main group of specialists referred to by politicians when drafting gun legislation, and with good reason. Frankly that's not how it works. Honestly what you're essentially telling me to do is anyone who's in a slight position of authority should take precedent on everyone else because they're kind of in the field. I don't know. That seems like a shitty way to make opinions. You don't think someone who has been working in the field that deals with the gun violence for a very long time and apparently is good at their job to be promoted to chief shouldn't have more clout to their opinion than housewives who are scared of bayonet lugs and firearms painted black? See here's the thing, the answer is binary - either yes there's an incidence OR no there's no incidence. If you assume that police chiefs know better than non-police-chiefs, then any given police chief is right. By extension, that's absolutely the right answer. Which is what you guys seem to believe since it apparently completely invalidates what I say. That's an appeal to authority, and not even a good one because we're talking about a fucking police chief... If we push that logic a little farther, we get a paradox because the police chief who says the opposite is also right. At least more right than the general population. You see how that does not follow? Your twisting my words. I never said blindly trust the chief I just said do you not take his opinion more seriously than some one who is entirely uneducated. People need ot form their own opinions but taking some person off the street who has no clue about weapons doesnt work well either. I'm not twisting your words, I'm just talking about the implications... If you're either right or wrong why would I trust someone on some bullshit title if I know full well that he doesn't have much to work off of. Show nested quote +On February 06 2013 11:25 tokicheese wrote:On February 06 2013 11:16 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 11:13 tokicheese wrote:On February 06 2013 10:58 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 10:56 tokicheese wrote:On February 06 2013 09:43 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:27 JingleHell wrote:On February 06 2013 09:25 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 09:18 JingleHell wrote:
[quote]
It would have no immediate effect on anything, I believe, much as no other gun legislation in a saturated market would have an immediate effect, particularly where criminal uses were concerned.
However, it would make straw purchases harder, reducing supply to criminals. It would reduce accidents (which anti-gun people usually laud as an associated goal) through training. Mandatory registration of handguns would absolutely require universal background checks on handgun sales.
It would, over some time, reduce handgun related deaths, turn itself around to a revenue stream for the state, and it would pave the way for universal background checks on all sales.
Explain how it would be useless, compared to, say, banning shit that doesn't get used in many crimes, or limiting magazine size (guess what, I can still carry more magazines). Supply to criminals is bottomless, I'm not convinced that adding tests would reduce accidents, background checks are limited in utility. As for magazine sizes, carrying more magazines still slows down your overall rate of fire. I don't know that your idea is any worse than clumsy bans but I know we're talking about a ****load of public funds and little to no results. How much do you think it would cost to nationalize that entire administrative process - what about the exam every 3 years? That's a lot of money. Well, the only option that's not going to cost something and have no immediate effect is to do nothing. You prefer that? If supply to criminals is bottomless, then no legislation will work anyways, so actually, I assume you're either advocating no gun control, or you're done here? That's how politicians view issues, and that's why governments waste so much more money than the private sector which has a tendency not to do stuff just for the hell of it. Look at your solution, realize that it'd cost hundreds of millions over the years. Is this worth it, or is it a cop out that'd make the US like it did something? I don't even know what you can do in the US. I have some ideas that may be validated or invalidated by actual research. As people have mentioned before, it has to be a gradual process. Tougher penalties for owning an illegal firearm, more restrictive policies on weapons and equipment deemed dangerous. Slowly remove illegal guns, knowing that the situation is so far out of control, it'll never be good again. Fuck, the whole gun control conversation is a joke in the first place. All those things we talked about when in reality they'd only make marginal differences. You want to reduce crime in America, legalize drugs, that'll break down a shitload of criminal organizations, and work on the massive income disparity between the rich and the poor. Income inequality -> crime. So that's two of the huge sources of your problems. Oh, and if you think criminals would get guns no matter what, surely you think they'd get 30+ round mags easily too? Hence the whole "you're kinda fucked" thing. But if you can weed out some of the big things, that'd be great. Here in Canada, guns are a bit harder to come across. The Dawson college shooting guy for instance only had access to small caliber weapons, which probably saved many lives that day. Can we at least get the terminology right? The calibre has fuck all to do with how deadly a gun is. Sure a .50 calibre bullet will do much more damage to you than a .22 but the .22 round has probably killed more people than any other round. The military uses a .223 round which isn't exactly a beefy round. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:22-45.jpg (That .45 round is pretty close to the size of a 9mm and the little one is a .22) In the shooting at Dawson he had a Shotgun, a Cx4 Storm rifle and a Glock 9mm. The shot gun was a 12 Gauge and the Rifle and pistol were using a pretty large bullet. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Many_bullets.jpg The description has the types of bullets. The first one on the left is the 9mm Parabellum and the farthest on the right is the 12 Gauge shell. I can't find details on what size the Rifle was chambered in but the smallest that the rifle is made for is the 9mm Parabellum. They were certainly not "small calibre" weapons used in the shooting. Calibre has nothing to do with the deadliness of a weapon. You know what I meant, no need to act like someone stole your jello. Some guy got shot to the head multiple times at Dawson college and survived without major issues in his recovery. I was clearly saying that the ammunition he used weren't as lethal as they could have been if he could have had access to "bigger guns." On February 06 2013 10:58 tokicheese wrote:On February 06 2013 10:52 Djzapz wrote:On February 06 2013 10:41 micronesia wrote:On February 06 2013 10:34 Djzapz wrote:
I don't know what kind of authority a police chief has over anyone else in saying that extended clips have no incidence anyway. How the hell do you calculate that? I think the position that more bullets fired = more potential victims is a reasonable one. To say that it has no incidence, given that the data for such events is very limited, IMO is simply disingenuous. If you're not convinced that the ability to shoot faster can lead to more people dying, say you're not convinced.
I don't have the answer, nor do you, nor does police chief number 375830. But I think that my "position" is a lot easier to defend as it simply makes more sense. You seriously weight your opinion on such a matter more than a 'police chief'? I'm certainly not going to say that police chiefs are infallible, but you are not giving them enough credit, and you are giving your 'sense' too much credit. Law enforcement is one of the main group of specialists referred to by politicians when drafting gun legislation, and with good reason. Frankly that's not how it works. Honestly what you're essentially telling me to do is anyone who's in a slight position of authority should take precedent on everyone else because they're kind of in the field. I don't know. That seems like a shitty way to make opinions. You don't think someone who has been working in the field that deals with the gun violence for a very long time and apparently is good at their job to be promoted to chief shouldn't have more clout to their opinion than housewives who are scared of bayonet lugs and firearms painted black? See here's the thing, the answer is binary - either yes there's an incidence OR no there's no incidence. If you assume that police chiefs know better than non-police-chiefs, then any given police chief is right. By extension, that's absolutely the right answer. Which is what you guys seem to believe since it apparently completely invalidates what I say. That's an appeal to authority, and not even a good one because we're talking about a fucking police chief... If we push that logic a little farther, we get a paradox because the police chief who says the opposite is also right. At least more right than the general population. You see how that does not follow? You can buy guns of bigger calibre in Canada without more licenses. You can get .45 calibre hand guns like the M1911, my Rifle is chambered in a .308 round which is bigger than the 9mm round used in the rifle gill used. 9mm rounds are renowned for their stopping power in pistols. The type of bullet used makes a much bigger difference unless it's an extreme like .22 vs .50 cal. FMJ rounds just punch through people and make fairly neat holes. Hollowpoint rounds make a massive exit wound and turn flesh to hamburger. The M1911 is a prohibited weapon, you need a special license and such. Either way, good thing he didn't have anything bigger. It is restricted like any pistol. You don't need a special license for a m1911 other than your restriced license that he would have for his glock. Alright.
It's not about being wrong or right it's just that some peoples opinions are worth more than others. If I'm a baseball player should I listen to the MLB coach or some guy who has never played a day in his life but like to play armchair general?
I obviously don't mean in absolute terms but in general it is a good idea while forming your own opinion to weigh peoples who are more experienced in something more heavily than those who are not.
|
All right guys, I am bring back English class.
On Facebook, almost every single pro-gun (anti-gun is starting to pick up) image features an attractive woman posing with a gun with a caption supporting their position. Can anyone relate and does the symbolism in these images worry you?
|
On February 06 2013 11:44 Shiragaku wrote:
All right guys, I am bring back English class.
On Facebook, almost every single pro-gun (anti-gun is starting to pick up) image features an attractive woman posing with a gun with a caption supporting their position. Can anyone relate and does the symbolism in these images worry you?
Don't really care. Name any issue that gets this much attention that doesn't do this.
|
On February 06 2013 11:44 Shiragaku wrote:
All right guys, I am bring back English class.
On Facebook, almost every single pro-gun (anti-gun is starting to pick up) image features an attractive woman posing with a gun with a caption supporting their position. Can anyone relate and does the symbolism in these images worry you?
What's wrong with that? About half of the class I attended the other day was women.
Other than that sex sells. This isn't a new thing.
|
On February 06 2013 11:44 Shiragaku wrote:
All right guys, I am bring back English class.
On Facebook, almost every single pro-gun (anti-gun is starting to pick up) image features an attractive woman posing with a gun with a caption supporting their position. Can anyone relate and does the symbolism in these images worry you?
If the reasoning and logic in the caption is well-founded, I don't really care. But if I were to make one such image, I think an alluring female simply for the purpose of eye candy would be pretty distracting, misleading, and ultimately unhelpful. (¬_¬)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
