|
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. |
On October 04 2015 17:25 hfglgg wrote:
well europe is like 50 times as densly populated as america and we do just fine.
? No it isn't.
Here are Europe's population density numbers, with Monaco as a huge outlier, the Vatican and Malta being reasonable outliers as well, and then every other European country at 16-500 people per sq.km. http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=21000&r=eu&l=en
Here are the United States's population density numbers, with NJ and RI as the largest by far, but nearly every other state is between 10-600 people per sq.mile. (1 sq.mile ~ 2.6 sq.km). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population_density
They're actually far more comparable (looking like the only difference is in that ~2.6 unit conversion- far different from a 50 times factor) unless you're only talking about the biggest and emptiest states (which are still basically Iceland in terms of population density lol).
Or, for comparison's sake: population of Europe is 740 million, covering 4 million square miles. So average population density = 185 people per square mile.
Population of the United States is 320 million, covering 3.8 million square miles. So average population density = 84 people per square mile.
So on average, Europe is a little more than 2 times densely populated than the United States. Not 50.
Or are you referring to a different kind of America (North America, Central America, South America, etc.?). Because if that's the case, the relationship to guns strictly in the United States is pretty irrelevant.
|
On October 04 2015 21:39 rawb wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2015 17:10 DucK- wrote:
As much as I am against guns, I can buy into arguments that you may need a gun for protection etc when the gun culture is already so deeply rooted in the US. What I feel can NEVER be justified are:
1. Rifles/military grade weapons
2. Automatic weapons
If you need a hunting rifle to protect against animals, sure I could accept that. If you need a concealed pistol to protect yourself, ok cool. But why the hell would you need to be carrying a AR15 around or in the house. ZERO justification. You're preparing yourself against a war in your backyard? The only difference between a rifle that you'd take hunting and an ar15 is that the hunting rifle could potentially have a higher caliber bullet. Both are semi-automatic. I'm not sure what you mean by military grade - the M16 fires 5.56mm rounds whereas a 9mm handgun, well, fires 9mm rounds.
You have to draw a line in between your granddad's used Remington 8 and a retrofitted M4 carbine with selective fire. I've seen the argument over and over again how "a trained marksman champion can be just as deadly with a low caliber bolt-action", but that's just a god damn cop out. Higher grade rapid fire weapons make it much easier for untrained individuals to indiscriminately harm others or themselves intentionally or accidentally, and access to those weapons should be restricted the exact same way that you don't let your kids into the medicine cabinet or play around heavy farming equipment.
Do you really need an AR-15 to hunt deer or for self-defense? There are areas in the world where owning a gun for self defense is justifiable due to the complete lack of adequate civil police and army protection or government tyranny, but is that really justifiable everywhere in the US? The US already has the highest guns per capita in the world, higher than war torn areas and local weapons black market producers and traders like Yemen, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Congo, Syria, and Iraq, do you really need MORE guns?
And the continued justification for owning more guns, owning higher caliber and non-civilian self-defense weapons, the rejection of any sort of common sense legislation on background checks or closing gun loopholes, etc, is all a part of the exact same rhetoric promoting the same violent gun culture. At this point the US media and political lobbyists do not separate the NRA ideologues from the responsible gun owners on any discourse on gun control, you can't talk about taking ANY reasonable steps because it's always turned into an absolutist "all or nothing" argument. The political extremists in the US always drum up this paranoia to promote civilian gun ownership in ways not even observed in the most volatile regions of the world that face real military conflicts, it's frankly disgusting.
|
United States24680 Posts
On October 04 2015 21:39 rawb wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2015 17:10 DucK- wrote:
As much as I am against guns, I can buy into arguments that you may need a gun for protection etc when the gun culture is already so deeply rooted in the US. What I feel can NEVER be justified are:
1. Rifles/military grade weapons
2. Automatic weapons
If you need a hunting rifle to protect against animals, sure I could accept that. If you need a concealed pistol to protect yourself, ok cool. But why the hell would you need to be carrying a AR15 around or in the house. ZERO justification. You're preparing yourself against a war in your backyard? The only difference between a rifle that you'd take hunting and an ar15 is that the hunting rifle could potentially have a higher caliber bullet. Both are semi-automatic. I'm not sure what you mean by military grade - the M16 fires 5.56mm rounds whereas a 9mm handgun, well, fires 9mm rounds.
I think he needs to give the topic some more thought and perhaps learn more about different types of guns. Regardless, I do think an AR15 is typically a poor choice of weapon for home defense compared to a handgun or shotgun... you really don't need a bullet going through several walls if you miss.
|
On October 04 2015 12:31 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2015 12:18 zlefin wrote:
Defensive gun use isn't that important to compare to homicide, as the linked sources seem to be including many issues and cases that are of far less severity than homicide (i.e. defensive gun use case doesn't mean death was avoided). Looking over the wiki article and its talk page, there seem to be some problems with it as well.
All the more reason we need to get more reliable and thorough research in.
With thorough, sound research, we can get some actually reliable data to make decisions based off of; instead of what we have now. The literature the wiki links to should not be affected by the perceived quality of the article. By definition, it's impossible to know if a DGU saves someone from death as they didn't die. If someone blows away a guy who's pointing a gun at a crowd, it's impossible to say if he prevented a mass murder for the same reasons. All that can be said is that they had a reasonable fear of death at the hands of someone or something.
the links there also had issues, the discussion noted flaws in some of the sources.
at any rate, my point about more research stands.
Also, you can't know specifically for an individual case, but you can determine statistical approximations reasonably well; if you have the data.
|
On October 04 2015 22:45 zlefin wrote:
the links there also had issues, the discussion noted flaws in some of the sources.
at any rate, my point about more research stands.
Also, you can't know specifically for an individual case, but you can determine statistical approximations reasonably well; if you have the data.
...Which is why I wrote the range of defensive gun use estimates, the lowest of which is still five times greater than the gun homicide rate.
The statistics don't exist because "reasonable" exists outside of the legal categories of crime. For example, it can be both reasonable or unreasonable to shoot someone committing armed robbery (a felony) depending on the exact circumstances of the crimes, the same way it can be both reasonable or unreasonable to kill someone brandishing a weapon in public (a misdemeanor) depending on the circumstances of the misdemeanor.
"Reasonable fear of death" is inherently self-selective within any given legal category...and, personally, I think that people save themselves more than 20% of the time in this condition, the number necessary to equal gun homicides using the very lowest estimates of DGU. And it's almost certainly higher than 5% or 0.05%, the percentage necessary to outnumber gun homicides for the common number and highest numbers or DGU respectively. People might generally be unreasonable, but I don't think they are that unreasonable about threats that might kill them.
If it isn't, someone should tell juries, prosecutors, and law enforcement that they're doing it wrong.
You could, of course, run statistics on gun owners and non-gun owners for the same crime categories, but the choice to own a gun is self-selective as well. You'd have to force people to own guns or disarm themselves and run a randomized controlled trial; both ideas are DOA in any legislature. RCTs on gun ownership are likewise DOA for some reason, despite greater RCT use in other areas of public policy.
Research is nice, though you have an unstated preference as to which institutions and think tanks funding should go. But it is, in the grand scale, irrelevant. Talk about how many people guns kill and save is irrelevant to both sides, as it's a fundamental rights issue more akin to privacy or the exclusionary rule.
|
Again though, defensive gun use is a gun used in defense, not necessarily to avoid a death, but to avoid something less than death. You're estimate of the frequency with which defensive gun use prevents a death is not based on much statistics, and it's very easy to make MASSIVE errors when making such estimates. Personally, I suspect the number of people saved by defensive gun use is markedly less than gun homicides (let alone the other deaths guns cause that are not in self-defense). Again though, opinions can easily be wildly inaccurate, which is why we need better data and studies.
It's also not really irrelevant, as it helps shape policy and best practices; there's a lot of wiggle room in many things. It also informs the debate about attempts to change the rights.
The statistic I'd most like, is number of cases of justifiable homicides by civilians. The FBI UCR data shows it to be low, but there's lots of known issues with UCR data, so I'd really like more info; including more mandatory info reporting from the state level.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl15.xls
edit add:
What is your estimate for the number of deaths of non-criminals caused by DGU? i.e. deaths of non-criminals that would not have occurred if a gun was not used for defense. Top reasons for such to occur is that a criminal may be more likely to shoot a victim that's resisting than one that isn't, as well as bystanders hit.
I note that it is often recommended to not resist when being robbed, but to just hand over the money (this is corporate policy in some cases); and that some banks/security guards are set to be unarmed because of the reduced risk of injury/death.
|
On October 05 2015 02:43 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2015 22:45 zlefin wrote:
the links there also had issues, the discussion noted flaws in some of the sources.
at any rate, my point about more research stands.
Also, you can't know specifically for an individual case, but you can determine statistical approximations reasonably well; if you have the data. ...Which is why I wrote the range of defensive gun use estimates, the lowest of which is still five times greater than the gun homicide rate. The statistics don't exist because "reasonable" exists outside of the legal categories of crime. For example, it can be both reasonable or unreasonable to shoot someone committing armed robbery (a felony) depending on the exact circumstances of the crimes, the same way it can be both reasonable or unreasonable to kill someone brandishing a weapon in public (a misdemeanor) depending on the circumstances of the misdemeanor. "Reasonable fear of death" is inherently self-selective within any given legal category...and, personally, I think that people save themselves more than 20% of the time in this condition, the number necessary to equal gun homicides using the very lowest estimates of DGU. And it's almost certainly higher than 5% or 0.05%, the percentage necessary to outnumber gun homicides for the common number and highest numbers or DGU respectively. People might generally be unreasonable, but I don't think they are that unreasonable about threats that might kill them. If it isn't, someone should tell juries, prosecutors, and law enforcement that they're doing it wrong. You could, of course, run statistics on gun owners and non-gun owners for the same crime categories, but the choice to own a gun is self-selective as well. You'd have to force people to own guns or disarm themselves and run a randomized controlled trial; both ideas are DOA in any legislature. RCTs on gun ownership are likewise DOA for some reason, despite greater RCT use in other areas of public policy. Research is nice, though you have an unstated preference as to which institutions and think tanks funding should go. But it is, in the grand scale, irrelevant. Talk about how many people guns kill and save is irrelevant to both sides, as it's a fundamental rights issue more akin to privacy or the exclusionary rule.
The fact that most of your statistics include law enforcement statistics pretty much shows that they aren't at all relevant. We're talking about civilians and you're talking about cops.
|
On October 05 2015 04:13 zlefin wrote:Again though, defensive gun use is a gun used in defense, not necessarily to avoid a death, but to avoid something less than death. You're estimate of the frequency with which defensive gun use prevents a death is not based on much statistics, and it's very easy to make MASSIVE errors when making such estimates. Personally, I suspect the number of people saved by defensive gun use is markedly less than gun homicides (let alone the other deaths guns cause that are not in self-defense). Again though, opinions can easily be wildly inaccurate, which is why we need better data and studies. It's also not really irrelevant, as it helps shape policy and best practices; there's a lot of wiggle room in many things. It also informs the debate about attempts to change the rights. The statistic I'd most like, is number of cases of justifiable homicides by civilians. The FBI UCR data shows it to be low, but there's lots of known issues with UCR data, so I'd really like more info; including more mandatory info reporting from the state level. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl15.xls
If a gun is used to avoid something less than death, then that's murder, assault, or brandishing (the exception being nighttime burglary in Texas). You have to fear dying before legally using a gun in self-defense. Once again, if you believe that the National Crime Victimization Survey is an opinion, I'd love to see what you consider research...and that's the lowest estimate of the number of people who reasonably feared for their life and defended themselves accordingly.
Justifiable homicides is a stupid measurement, as brandishing a gun is the most common defensive use of a gun that leads to the stop of criminal activity. Turns out that most criminals reconsider their actions if their victim isn't defenseless.
On October 05 2015 04:13 zlefin wrote:
edit add:
What is your estimate for the number of deaths of non-criminals caused by DGU? i.e. deaths of non-criminals that would not have occurred if a gun was not used for defense. Top reasons for such to occur is that a criminal may be more likely to shoot a victim that's resisting than one that isn't, as well as bystanders hit.
I note that it is often recommended to not resist when being robbed, but to just hand over the money (this is corporate policy in some cases); and that some banks/security guards are set to be unarmed because of the reduced risk of injury/death.
This category should be under "accidental firearms deaths", "unintentional firearms deaths", or "undetermined firearms deaths", all of which also include non-DGU incidents that result in death by firearm. However, even combined, the number of deaths appears to be below 1k/year. Or 50 times less than the most conservative DGU research.
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr64/nvsr64_02.pdf
In short, extremely low.
It should be noted that the only almost-shooting of an innocent person quoted in Democrat-leaning media tracks back to the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, where a concealed handgun license holder correctly identified a person as a bystander after pointing the gun at him. Which is literally what you're supposed to do before shooting a suspect, and is an utter nonissue. There is a more recent piece that was discussed a couple pages ago that involves an updated news story said media chose to ignore.
On October 05 2015 07:27 Jormundr wrote:
The fact that most of your statistics include law enforcement statistics pretty much shows that they aren't at all relevant. We're talking about civilians and you're talking about cops.
1: Police are civilians, despite your rather strange insistence that they are not.
2: The statistics are for private DGU, and exclude LEOs on active duty as far as I can tell. Off-duty and retired LEOs are included for obvious reasons. If one or more of the studies you read include gun use by active-duty LEOs, please tell me so I can reread them.
|
On October 05 2015 11:29 acker wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2015 04:13 zlefin wrote:Again though, defensive gun use is a gun used in defense, not necessarily to avoid a death, but to avoid something less than death. You're estimate of the frequency with which defensive gun use prevents a death is not based on much statistics, and it's very easy to make MASSIVE errors when making such estimates. Personally, I suspect the number of people saved by defensive gun use is markedly less than gun homicides (let alone the other deaths guns cause that are not in self-defense). Again though, opinions can easily be wildly inaccurate, which is why we need better data and studies. It's also not really irrelevant, as it helps shape policy and best practices; there's a lot of wiggle room in many things. It also informs the debate about attempts to change the rights. The statistic I'd most like, is number of cases of justifiable homicides by civilians. The FBI UCR data shows it to be low, but there's lots of known issues with UCR data, so I'd really like more info; including more mandatory info reporting from the state level. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl15.xls If a gun is used to avoid something less than death, then that's murder, assault, or brandishing (the exception being nighttime burglary in Texas). You have to fear dying before legally using a gun in self-defense.
You are incorrect on this point: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/C/9.32 subheading (a)(2)(B) "to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery."
|
On October 05 2015 12:27 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2015 11:29 acker wrote:On October 05 2015 04:13 zlefin wrote:Again though, defensive gun use is a gun used in defense, not necessarily to avoid a death, but to avoid something less than death. You're estimate of the frequency with which defensive gun use prevents a death is not based on much statistics, and it's very easy to make MASSIVE errors when making such estimates. Personally, I suspect the number of people saved by defensive gun use is markedly less than gun homicides (let alone the other deaths guns cause that are not in self-defense). Again though, opinions can easily be wildly inaccurate, which is why we need better data and studies. It's also not really irrelevant, as it helps shape policy and best practices; there's a lot of wiggle room in many things. It also informs the debate about attempts to change the rights. The statistic I'd most like, is number of cases of justifiable homicides by civilians. The FBI UCR data shows it to be low, but there's lots of known issues with UCR data, so I'd really like more info; including more mandatory info reporting from the state level. https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2010/crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl15.xls If a gun is used to avoid something less than death, then that's murder, assault, or brandishing (the exception being nighttime burglary in Texas). You have to fear dying before legally using a gun in self-defense. You are incorrect on this point: http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/txstatutes/PE/2/9/C/9.32 subheading (a)(2)(B) "to prevent the other's imminent commission of aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery."
You left out a lot of that law. It has prongs and you only listed one of them. Most states have the same rules for deadly force, which boil down to reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. All of those acts would involve a reasonable fear. Even robbery, which under Texas law requires a threat of bodily harm. Rape is considered great bodily harm. And a victim of kidnapping has a reasonable fear of death.
So even in Texas you need a reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. They are just specific about which acts have that.
|
On October 04 2015 22:29 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2015 21:39 rawb wrote:On October 04 2015 17:10 DucK- wrote:
As much as I am against guns, I can buy into arguments that you may need a gun for protection etc when the gun culture is already so deeply rooted in the US. What I feel can NEVER be justified are:
1. Rifles/military grade weapons
2. Automatic weapons
If you need a hunting rifle to protect against animals, sure I could accept that. If you need a concealed pistol to protect yourself, ok cool. But why the hell would you need to be carrying a AR15 around or in the house. ZERO justification. You're preparing yourself against a war in your backyard? The only difference between a rifle that you'd take hunting and an ar15 is that the hunting rifle could potentially have a higher caliber bullet. Both are semi-automatic. I'm not sure what you mean by military grade - the M16 fires 5.56mm rounds whereas a 9mm handgun, well, fires 9mm rounds. I think he needs to give the topic some more thought and perhaps learn more about different types of guns. Regardless, I do think an AR15 is typically a poor choice of weapon for home defense compared to a handgun or shotgun... you really don't need a bullet going through several walls if you miss.
Actually. With the proper ammo an AR15 is better than a handgun or a shotgun when it comes to stopping over penetration thru common wall types.
|
condolences.
If I saw someone with a gun in Vancouver, I'd be pretty fucking surprised.
to someone as simply opinionated as I am, and for the people I know who own a firearm and talk about it,
it's a matter of being proud of owning one. I mean it looks cool and it's a powerful multi-purpose tool.
I actually cannot imagine living somewhere where this is an issue at all. it's usually petty robbery or aggravated assault.
so once again, my condolences for the recent shootings.
|
Its not just guns though. Its the whole mentality and a cultural thing.
In switzerland, if youve been in the military - its pretty normal to have a rifle in the closet. Shootings are still far less common.
Here in Austria, I hardly know anyone with a gun.
The problem is mainly having guns as easily accessable to everyone. I meet plenty of strange people i would never trust with a firearm here - and if they could get a gun with the effort required in the U.S im sure there would be shootings here as well.
I try to understand all the pro gun comments too, If criminals have easy accsess to guns, youre going to want to be on even terms "defending".
But lets be serious here, If someone breaks into your house and actually wants you dead - odds are against you even with owning a gun - the chances youre going to have it ready, loaded and find the guy in a surprised state are bad. Then its a firefight at 5 am, you just woke up and you have to be sure its not your kid who snook out and have to make sure who it is. Maybe its 3 guys, yeah - good luck with that. Maybe should have gone with the rocket launcher, or placed landmines in your living room.
You could argue the possibility of owning a gun will keep criminals away. Thats not really an argument since it doesnt work that way. By arguing pro - guns, youre giving them to people that have very little to lose, mentally unstable people that will actually fire them.
So the arguments for having a gun for defensive use are awful but I do see that they are fun to have. Its also a conversational topic many people are interested in. Just recently someone told me which tank has the longer range in military combat
"Actually. With the proper ammo an AR15 is better than a handgun or a shotgun when it comes to stopping over penetration thru common wall types."
its like
"Well, Innovation has much better TvP than Maru".
Personally, I can just say that from experience - guns should be very restricted. If its your goal to own one, you should be sitting in a few classes and doing psychological evaluations. The united kingdom isnt coming to reclaim texas any time soon.
|
On October 04 2015 22:29 micronesia wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2015 21:39 rawb wrote:On October 04 2015 17:10 DucK- wrote:
As much as I am against guns, I can buy into arguments that you may need a gun for protection etc when the gun culture is already so deeply rooted in the US. What I feel can NEVER be justified are:
1. Rifles/military grade weapons
2. Automatic weapons
If you need a hunting rifle to protect against animals, sure I could accept that. If you need a concealed pistol to protect yourself, ok cool. But why the hell would you need to be carrying a AR15 around or in the house. ZERO justification. You're preparing yourself against a war in your backyard? The only difference between a rifle that you'd take hunting and an ar15 is that the hunting rifle could potentially have a higher caliber bullet. Both are semi-automatic. I'm not sure what you mean by military grade - the M16 fires 5.56mm rounds whereas a 9mm handgun, well, fires 9mm rounds. I think he needs to give the topic some more thought and perhaps learn more about different types of guns. Regardless, I do think an AR15 is typically a poor choice of weapon for home defense compared to a handgun or shotgun... you really don't need a bullet going through several walls if you miss.
A common misconception. Weird as it is, 5.56 typically over-penetrates far less than you'd expect.
Frangible 5.56 ammo (home defense loads) run far less risk of over-penetration than equivalent handgun/shotgun loads.
Any round capable of stopping an attacker will cut right through most normal homes as a matter of policy, but 5.56 is a very light bullet that "tumbles" the second it hits pretty much anything.
If my neighbor had to use a weapon in self-defense, I'd much rather it be an AR-15 with pick-your-poison of frangible 5.56 than pretty much anything else, handgun/shotgun included.
|
United States24680 Posts
On October 05 2015 14:30 Elegy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2015 22:29 micronesia wrote:On October 04 2015 21:39 rawb wrote:On October 04 2015 17:10 DucK- wrote:
As much as I am against guns, I can buy into arguments that you may need a gun for protection etc when the gun culture is already so deeply rooted in the US. What I feel can NEVER be justified are:
1. Rifles/military grade weapons
2. Automatic weapons
If you need a hunting rifle to protect against animals, sure I could accept that. If you need a concealed pistol to protect yourself, ok cool. But why the hell would you need to be carrying a AR15 around or in the house. ZERO justification. You're preparing yourself against a war in your backyard? The only difference between a rifle that you'd take hunting and an ar15 is that the hunting rifle could potentially have a higher caliber bullet. Both are semi-automatic. I'm not sure what you mean by military grade - the M16 fires 5.56mm rounds whereas a 9mm handgun, well, fires 9mm rounds. I think he needs to give the topic some more thought and perhaps learn more about different types of guns. Regardless, I do think an AR15 is typically a poor choice of weapon for home defense compared to a handgun or shotgun... you really don't need a bullet going through several walls if you miss. A common misconception. Weird as it is, 5.56 typically over-penetrates far less than you'd expect. Frangible 5.56 ammo (home defense loads) run far less risk of over-penetration than equivalent handgun/shotgun loads. Any round capable of stopping an attacker will cut right through most normal homes as a matter of policy, but 5.56 is a very light bullet that "tumbles" the second it hits pretty much anything. If my neighbor had to use a weapon in self-defense, I'd much rather it be an AR-15 with pick-your-poison of frangible 5.56 than pretty much anything else, handgun/shotgun included.
On October 05 2015 13:15 ChikNoods wrote:Show nested quote +On October 04 2015 22:29 micronesia wrote:On October 04 2015 21:39 rawb wrote:On October 04 2015 17:10 DucK- wrote:
As much as I am against guns, I can buy into arguments that you may need a gun for protection etc when the gun culture is already so deeply rooted in the US. What I feel can NEVER be justified are:
1. Rifles/military grade weapons
2. Automatic weapons
If you need a hunting rifle to protect against animals, sure I could accept that. If you need a concealed pistol to protect yourself, ok cool. But why the hell would you need to be carrying a AR15 around or in the house. ZERO justification. You're preparing yourself against a war in your backyard? The only difference between a rifle that you'd take hunting and an ar15 is that the hunting rifle could potentially have a higher caliber bullet. Both are semi-automatic. I'm not sure what you mean by military grade - the M16 fires 5.56mm rounds whereas a 9mm handgun, well, fires 9mm rounds. I think he needs to give the topic some more thought and perhaps learn more about different types of guns. Regardless, I do think an AR15 is typically a poor choice of weapon for home defense compared to a handgun or shotgun... you really don't need a bullet going through several walls if you miss. Actually. With the proper ammo an AR15 is better than a handgun or a shotgun when it comes to stopping over penetration thru common wall types.
Oh, interesting. I'd be curious to see the results of tests that compare pistol rounds that tend to have low through-wall penetrability and shotguns with ammo similarly designed not to penetrate multiple walls to standard AR-15 rounds.
As a separate note, a 12 gauge shotgun can be quite intimidating when it is pointed at you and makes the well-known noise.
|
United Kingdom10443 Posts
it's too late to actually do anything about the gun culture in the USA.
Something like a total of 300m guns being owned, I'm not sure if that statistic includes un registered guns either. So even if you decided to go and confiscate and burn half of the guns that is still 150m in circulation, some kid who wants to go shoot up a school can easily get his hands on one.
Basically Obama and all the politicians are full of empty words, there is nothing they can actually do to stop the problem. The "freedom and liberty" that Americans are so proud of will never be overturned to have a ban on firearms and banning certain types of gun like an assault rifle has not been proved to reduce gun violence statistics.
It may sound cold but every country has problems, this problem is of the countries own making and there is nothing they can do to stop it at this point.
|
it's too late to actually do anything about the gun culture in the USA.
Really?
You could have said the same about Slavery or any other topic that changed over the last 10-200 years. It is never too late and people can change pretty quickly.
If you would timetravel back 60 years and tell someone, that gay marriage will be allowed in the US, he probably would call an ambulance for you... Or that Smoking inside will be prohibited in most places...
No, it wouldn't be easy. But calling it impossible is just lazy (and stupid).
|
United Kingdom10443 Posts
On October 05 2015 19:30 Velr wrote:Really? You could have said the same about Slavery or any other topic that changed over the last 10-200 years. It is never too late and people can change pretty quickly. If you would timetravel back 60 years and tell someone, that gay marriage will be allowed in the US, he probably would call an ambulance for you... Or that Smoking inside will be prohibited in most places... No, it wouldn't be easy. But calling it impossible is just lazy (and stupid).
ok what would you do?
comparing it to slavery is ridiculous, the numbers are just not comparable.
|
You ban them and confiscate them.
Why do people think a gun-ban has to be an overnight process? It is an indefinite process, as it is with all illegal materials.
Make guns illegal. Yes, there will still be LOTS of guns. But you'll immediately remove a lot from circulation, and it will allow a future with even less guns. It will make removing guns from the hands of criminals a lot easier, when owning a gun itself is a criminal act.
A total ban, beyond any immediate removal process, will allow for two things to happen:
1) The country will no longer be an open-market for guns. Gun manufacturing and distribution will not be given free-reign. And, yes, this *does* have an immediate impact on the black-market. The criminals use the same guns everyone else does, they all come from "legitimate" manufacturers. The "black-market" for guns is just a middle-man between criminals and gun-stores.
2) For all the guns that remain, illegally, or are homemade, confiscating them will be a forever ongoing process.
It's not anymore complicated that banning any number of other materials that have been banned in pretty much every society on Earth. Does heroin still exist? Yes. But at least we don't have people walking down the streets with bags of heroin hanging from their hip, thinking it's okay. We won't have to ask is that a "good guy" walking around with a weapon for some reason, or is this person violent?
Things are complicated *now*. People thinking it's their "right" to walk into retail stores with guns draped over their shoulders -- now that's fucking complicated. Think of that poor cashier. Banning guns is simple. It won't be easy, and I'm certainly not saying it's ever going to happen. I'm just saying it'd be nice if people realized it actually is a fucking option.
We are supposed to have elected-representation, where we can make our own rules. I thought the whole point of "patriotic gun ownership" was supposed to be about protecting a government-for-the-people? But when the people want to remove your gun, all of a sudden we're told, "that's not possible". The fucking irony.
|
United Kingdom10443 Posts
On October 05 2015 20:31 Leporello wrote:
You ban them and confiscate them.
Why do people think a gun-ban has to be an overnight process? It is an indefinite process, as it is with all contraband.
Make guns illegal. Yes, there will still be LOTS of guns. But you'll immediately remove a lot from circulation, and it will allow a future with even less guns. It will make removing guns from the hands of criminals a lot easier, when owning a gun itself is a criminal act.
A total ban, beyond any immediate removal process, will allow for two things to happen:
1) The country will no longer be an open-market for guns. Gun manufacturing and distribution will not be given free-reign. And, yes, this *does* have an immediate impact on the black-market. The criminals use the same guns everyone else does, they all come from "legitimate" manufacturers. The "black-market" for guns is just a middle-man between criminals and gun-stores.
2) For all the guns that remain, illegally, or are homemade, confiscating them will be a forever ongoing process.
It's not anymore complicated that banning any number of other materials that have been banned in pretty much every society on Earth. Does heroin still exist? Yes. But at least we don't have people walking down the streets with bags of heroin hanging from their hip, thinking it's okay. We won't have to ask is that a "good guy" walking around with a weapon for some reason, or is this person violent?
Things are complicated *now*. People thinking it's their "right" to walk into retail stores with guns draped over their shoulders -- now that's fucking complicated. Think of that poor cashier. Banning guns is simple. It won't be easy, and I'm certainly not saying it's ever going to happen. I'm just saying it'd be nice if people realized it actually is a fucking option.
We are supposed to have elected-representation, where we can make our own rules. I thought the whole point of "patriotic gun ownership" was supposed to be about protecting a government-for-the-people? But when the people want to remove your gun, all of a sudden we're told, "that's not possible". The fucking irony.
This is rather naive.
Firstly, gun ownership is written into the constitution which is a symbol of American freedom. Overturning this and putting in a ban will be viewed as taking away freedom from the American people which is highly unlikely to be passed.
Big business is a major force in American politics, weapon manufacturers, weapon suppliers they all lobby to some extent with the US government and will protect their interest, another reason it won't happen.
You say you will remove a lot of guns from circulation..what percentage? if you remove 50% ok there is still 150m registered guns 75% still 75m. It won't be difficult to put your hand on a gun if you want to.
Blanket bans on products just allow a black market to thrive, look at the alcohol prohibition. Furthermore you proposed heroin as an example. One of the issues in this country is that with drugs being illegal it is the sole province of criminals, anyone looking to get drugs is exposed to criminal elements and aids in funding gangs. Banning guns puts gun distribution solely into the hands of criminals.
Any presidential candidate who even thinks of a blanket ban on guns doesn't make it past the primary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
