AnimeSuki Forums

Register Forum Rules FAQ Members List Social Groups Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   AnimeSuki Forum > General > General Chat

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
Old 2012-08-01, 19:20   Link #141
Lost Cause
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Virginia
Age: 37
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone
Maybe I'm a coward, but I'll take the loss of my wallet ahead of blood loss from a bullet/knife wound. If they're that close, I'd just give them what they wanted (most robbers are only in it for the money). If you showed your gun they might panic and seriously injure you (particularly if they have a gun).
The idea here is to THINK before you use it! If they have the drop on you and want your wallet, don't give it to them toss it past them! Thus creating a distraction giving you the time to either run or pull your gun, knife, base ball bat, sai, katana, boomerang, whatever and light them up!
The deadliest weapon in the world is the human mind, but it won't work if you don't know how too use it!
Lost Cause is offline  
Old 2012-08-01, 20:26   Link #142
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
Not sure where you're getting your information from...

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s0308.pdf

the murder rate among the 50 states goes anywhere from 0.9 to 12.3. If you add in Washington D.C., then it becomes 24.2. Ironically, D.C. had one of the most restrictive gun control laws in the entire US (and still do).
Your figures are the same as mine. If you look through those figures, and compare them to the gun laws in these regions, there's very little correlation. Places with high restrictions, are generally the same as those with low restrictions.

The only decisive factor I can see is how rural/urban a population is. What makes DC unique is that it's the only territory that is 100% urban, with no rural population. Compare that to a rural state like Wyoming, or Vermont with a rate of 2.0 and 1.3 respectively. There are also likely other factors as well.

If you looked at states there that had permissive and restrictive gun use laws, you'd find no meaningful correlation in murder rates, provided you looked at states with similiar demographics and geography.

More interesting would be to see the percentage of murder victims that own/carried a gun and see how that compares to national gun ownership rates. Criminals getting murdered might skew it upwards a bit, as criminals are more likely to carry a weapon, and also more likely to get murdered. If you excluded things like that, I'd say murder victims have roughly the same likelihood of carrying a gun as the general population. Until we see statistics, of course, it's difficult to really know. It would also be interesting to know how frequently people get killed with their own weapon, be it through accident, misuse, or an assailant turning it on them.

Certainly I think statewide statistics shows that being allowed to carry(and use) a gun does not necessarily make you safer. Case statistics would make things even more certain.

Quote:
Before or after the civil war?
Would it really be so bad if every gun you owned had a license attached, and you were not able to freely resell your gun to whomever you wish? I'm not even talking about banning concealed carry here.

Quote:
Funny enough that's what we have in the US already, we just disagree on the degree of restriction and control.
The restriction is laughably loose.

To go back somewhat to what started all of this (the Aurora, Colorado massacre), I don't think Gun control will stop the most determined crazies from getting the weapons they need to commit their massacres, though it may hinder the less resourceful ones (teen mass murderers in particular, who likely don't have much money or contacts). My main concern is the common criminal and organized crime.

To put it simply, gun control prevents common criminals from getting guns, while reducing the number of guns organized crime can acquire. In reducing the firepower of criminal elements the likelihood of a robbery or assault ending in a murder is reduced, while it also allows the police to do their work more cheaply and easily as there are less police casualties over all.
DonQuigleone is offline  
Old 2012-08-01, 21:29   Link #143
0utf0xZer0
Pretentious moe scholar
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Age: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
You're not going to stop the damage they do by banning anything.
Andrew Kohoe proved that in 1927, and Tim McVeigh proved it again in 1995.
When a killer is intent on committing mass murder he will find any way to do so and banning weapons/magazine/flashhiders/folding stocks/etc. does nothing to stop him/her.
Indeed some do find pretty creative ways of killing many people. But making mass killing easier is simply bad policy. To say otherwise assumes that all these nutjobs have unlimited resolve and patience (and great intelligence, knowledge, foresight, etc.), which Iím pretty damn sure is not the case. Hell, the guy who shot up the Quebec National Assembly planned the whole thing during a psychotic episode.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
Statements like that show an ignorance of firearms.
The Glock doesn't fire people seeking bullets,
Really? Just like the rifles I've handled didn't fire those fancy target seeking bullets?

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
you still have to be a good shot.
Had Jared used a 12 guage shotgun, in 5 shots he could have let off 40 rounds of 9mm steel balls.
You're focusing too much on the tools used and not on WHY.
Laughner was determined to kill on that day, as was every other mass murder in history.
My question about the Tuscon shooting is where the hell was her security and why didn't they do their job?
So why didnít he use the shotgun instead of the Glock in his attempt? Wouldnít it be more effective?
Iím thinking itís because he didnít want a weapon that would be harder to conceal and deploy without notice or suspicions. Chances seem pretty damn good he would have used a lower capacity handgun mag and caused less damage had he not had the high capacity mag.
Iím not going to limit my inquiries to why he did it because Iím not a pro-gun fundamentalist, recognize that youíre never going to stop every guy like him, and identify other ways to limit the damage.


Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
No, odds don't mean shit.
I cannot believe you are seriously trying to convince me of this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
I keep hearing from gun-control nutjobs about how on the one hand James Holmes would have done all kinds of damage with the AR-15, but on the other hand a person with a CCW couldn't have taken him down because the theater was smoke filled and dark.
Which is it?
I ask because a rifle isn't easy to hit with at close range, that's why SWAT teams use 9mm MP5's and SHOTGUNS for CQB.
Being a crappy shot, Iím well aware that hitting stuff with a rifle isnít easy. I also donít think itís hard to hit people in a crowded theatre with a rifle when you can deploy many rounds in a short period of time. I certainly know enough about guns to say he would have caused more damage with it than the handguns.
CCW? I havenít said anything about what utility it would have had in Aurora and donít intend to. Itís not the issue Iím commenting on.

I'm also calling BS on it being harder to hit a target with a rifle than an 9mm in a situation like the one Holmes was involved in because he wasn't using an automatic weapon and wouldn't have the controlability issues that entails. If you're going to try and impress me with your extensive firearms knowledge, you're going to have to make it more relevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
Good, then you also know that Breivik had planned out his attack well, and used explosive during it.
Had he not had a rifle, it is clear he would have used other means because he was determined to kill those people.
He was intentionally targeting leftist youth leaders, an idea he got from Latin American death squads. On an island, which is not a site conducive to bombing. His bombing in Oslo was also far less effective than the gun attack.
I donít buy into this ďhe would have found another way to be as effective it anywayĒ stuff. History says these guys arenít any more rational, intelligent, or foresightful than the rest of humanity is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
You mean your ASSUMPTIONS mean more to you.
Just because you imagine more carnage from hi-cap mags does not make it so.
I realize you fantasize about Holmes killing off many more people because of the evil and scary looking Beta-C magazine, but the fact is there is no way to know.
To use the same line the hoplophobes keep yammering on about, the theater was dark, smoke filled, and not conducive to shooting a weapon that requires you to aim it to hit with any accuracy.
Some day, maybe someone Iím debating is going to rant about what I think and actually be ranting about what I think, rather than ranting about what they think I think. Iím going to be surprised when that day finally rolls around and Iím not holding my breath for it. You seriously think I think a Beta-C mag is scary looking?

Iím not the one basing my arguments on the assumption that nutjob shooters have limitless resolve, knowledge, and intelligence.
__________________

Signature courtesy of Ganbaru.
0utf0xZer0 is offline  
Old 2012-08-01, 23:42   Link #144
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Certainly I think statewide statistics shows that being allowed to carry(and use) a gun does not necessarily make you safer. Case statistics would make things even more certain.
Yet the anti-gun crowd have absolutely zero issue with claiming with 100% certainty that more restrictive or outright ban will make them "safer".

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Would it really be so bad if every gun you owned had a license attached, and you were not able to freely resell your gun to whomever you wish? I'm not even talking about banning concealed carry here.
Personally I have no issue with registration in principal, but who's gonna pay for it? and how much will it cost? how often does it need to be renewed? My guess is that like most things it'll end up being 1. me, 2. entirely too much, 3. way too often. This also opens up a runaround where you effectively allow state or other local governments to institute their own "ban" by making the registration process impractical and prohibitively costly (just like what TN is doing right now to run around Roe v. Wade and effectively ban abortion by instituting ridiculous regulations on abortion clinics within its border).

As for the ability to resell, I see zero reason why the government should have the right to tell anyone what they can or cannot do with their personal possession in this case, as this would be yet another area where they'll just be able to tack on even more costs to gun owners.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
The restriction is laughably loose.
That completely depends on where you live.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
To put it simply, gun control prevents common criminals from getting guns, while reducing the number of guns organized crime can acquire. In reducing the firepower of criminal elements the likelihood of a robbery or assault ending in a murder is reduced, while it also allows the police to do their work more cheaply and easily as there are less police casualties over all.
Not in the US, no. There are so much weapons already in circulation that your ideas would be nothing more than pipe dreams here. You would need to institute a federal- level statute FORCING everyone to register their firearms (something btw all criminals would just ignore). The chance of something like that gaining enough traction in the general public and Congress is about as good as Assad deciding to have a kiss-and-make-up breakfast brunch with the Syrian rebels tomorrow.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2012-08-02, 00:01   Link #145
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Eh, we have gangs too, the difference is that our gangs don't have guns. If Ireland had the same number of gang members per capita as the US it would be 11340 gang members. Unfortunately, I don't know of any statistics that have been put out on the matter.
Be thankful they're not like our street gangs.
Violence is a right of intiation with most of them.

Quote:
Obviously an issue, but I don't think there's any kind of consensus out there regarding the efficacy of gun control. Anyway, I know it's difficult to prove that gun control prevents crime-related deaths overall. I think I have presented good arguments for the idea that extensive unregulated gun ownership does not make a given society "safer", all else being equal.
I think what we've shown is that culture plays a huge role in whether gun control is effective or not.
You've shown me that in Ireland there isn't much in the way of gang violence or violent crime period.
While here in the US, guns or no guns, we have a serious problem with gang violence and violent crime in general.
Gun control cannot and will not stop that.

Quote:
Firstly, how often do muggings happen at gas stations?
That is a good question. I could not find any info/statistics on that.
For me it happened with almost no one around, so I imagine different times of the day and different areas would have a wide variety of frequency of crime at gas stations.

Quote:
If these are personal experiences, you seem to attract a lot of trouble...
I've lived in some really rough places.
I'm lucky those are all that happened.

Quote:
Maybe I'm a coward, but I'll take the loss of my wallet ahead of blood loss from a bullet/knife wound.
That is your choice, and you are not a coward over it.
I don't know much about Ireland.
Are you more or less likely to get stabbed/hurt by cooperating or resisting?
Here there is no way to know. You could hand over your wallet and still get knifed/shot/blungeoned depending on the neighborhood and person mugging/robbing you.

Quote:
I don't see how guns for self defense are excellent. The assailant will always strike first. And if you have lax gun laws he will always have a gun. With gun control, he'll be stuck with a knife, while you may have a gun that you registered with the authorities (that I still don't think will help much but...). Either way, keeping guns out of the hands of common criminals is a good, and achievable goal.
Better to have it and not need it, then not have it and lose your life over it.
However, that too is a personal choice that each person should be able to make.
The government should not be making it for you.

Quote:
In Britain and Ireland, the population is not completely disarmed. People can still own a rifle, and under certain circumstances even carry it around. You just have to go through a background checks, can't resell your weapon, and it prevents common criminals from getting weapons cheaply. The average teen shoplifter has no idea how to get a gun, and is subsequently a lot more easily subdued when the gardai roll around.
Are you required by law to be apart of the national militia?
We here in the US are, and I wouldn't want it any other way.
The 2nd amendment is simply an extension of Article 1 Section 8 of the US constitution.
Because of that, we have the right to keep, bear, and own military style weapons.
This was decided in US vs Miller by SCOTUS.

Also, are your police armed with machine guns, grenades, use APCs, or have assault rifles in their patrol cars?
Ours do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0 View Post
Indeed some do find pretty creative ways of killing many people. But making mass killing easier is simply bad policy.
So is disarming people, leaving them to be victims of any idiot who wants to prey upon them.
We had a high-cap magazine ban, and it didn't stop the North Hollywood bank robbers.
In fact they had FULLY AUTOMATIC REAL assault rifles from China.



All this AFTER armor piercing bullets were illegalized, FULLY AUTOs were illegallized without a license, new large-cap mags were illegalized for sale, carrying a rifle in public in CA was illegal, robber was illegal, shooting at cops is illegal, shooting in public is illegal.
And how do the cops stop them...they go to a local gun shop and get AR-15s!
Why?
Because they were LEGAL!

Gun laws don't stop or deter crime.
Every study posted on this thread has shown that.

The 1994-2004 ban didn't stop Columbine, it didn't stop the DC Sniper, it didn't stop diddley squat.
Putting it back in place will only make things worse.
Stop deluding yourself.

Quote:
So why didnít he use the shotgun instead of the Glock in his attempt? Wouldnít it be more effective?
Because he was an idiot, and thank god he was.
Had he gone in there with the same shotgun that James Holmes used...it would have been much worse than it was IMO.

Quote:
Iím thinking itís because he didnít want a weapon that would be harder to conceal and deploy without notice or suspicions.
Not really, he was wearing a trenchcoat, so he could just have easily carried in a shotgun or just sawed the barrel off of a shotgun even with the magazine tube like this:



Very concealable, and more deadly at close range than any pistol or rifle.

Quote:
Chances seem pretty damn good he would have used a lower capacity handgun mag and caused less damage had he not had the high capacity mag.
Iím not going to limit my inquiries to why he did it because Iím not a pro-gun fundamentalist, recognize that youíre never going to stop every guy like him, and identify other ways to limit the damage.
Proof you don't know what you're talking about.



Two 7 shot magazines, fired, and reloaded in .2 seconds.
The idea that Laughner would have done any less damage simply by taking away the 33 round mag is totally ridiculous and shows a complete lack of understanding about guns.

Let me give you another example.
This time nothing but old single-action weapons.

How fast you can shoot a SINGLE shot pump-action shotgun (5 shots), single action revolver (12 shots, 6 each pistol), and lever-action rifle (10 shots) and HIT EVERY FRIGGIN TARGET in 41 seconds flat:



The reason I'm showing you this is so that you realize that a low-capacity doesn't mean less death. All it means is the shooter has to get more creative, and you yourself just admitted these mass shooters are creative.

Here's a guy with a shotgun reloading at lightening speed.



And what a revolver can do:



Now I don't expect a mass shooter to be a speed shooter, but they don't have to be to make my point that you are wrong with your statement that Laughner wouldn't do as much damage with lower capacity clips. That is a complete bunk and I just proved it.

Quote:
I cannot believe you are seriously trying to convince me of this.
Convince you? No, I dismissed you.

Quote:
Being a crappy shot, Iím well aware that hitting stuff with a rifle isnít easy. I also donít think itís hard to hit people in a crowded theatre with a rifle when you can deploy many rounds in a short period of time. I certainly know enough about guns to say he would have caused more damage with it than the handguns.
He only had one handgun with him, the other was in the car, and no he wouldn't have hit more people unless he was incredibly "lucky" or had nightvision goggles on, but even then...
You act like that AR-15 shoots full auto or something. There is NO difference between the way the handguns shoot (semi-auto) and the AR-15.



In fact, the 9mm is a .36 caliber round that is heavier and at close range has greater stopping power than a .223 caliber rifle round. The reason for this is due to the fact that the 65 Grain, 5.56mm at 3100 fps, overpenetrates targets at ranges of less than 50 meters.
Unless you get a really "lucky" shot and hit bone (which will shatter) a 147 GR, 9mm Jacketed hollowpoint at 1200 fps is much more effective.

It is a rifle caliber, not a pistol or shotgun and is thus meant for long-range combat not CQB.
In laymans terms it would be like trying to swat flies with a chop stick.

Quote:
I'm also calling BS on it being harder to hit a target with a rifle than an 9mm in a situation like the one Holmes was involved in because he wasn't using an automatic weapon and wouldn't have the controlability issues that entails. If you're going to try and impress me with your extensive firearms knowledge, you're going to have to make it more relevant.
Then you don't know anything about the AR-15 or the 5.56mm NATO.
It is a .22 caliber round that is very accurate, but not in the dark, with a drum that unbalances that light rifle and makes hitting with it hard in broad daylight let alone a smoke filled room.
See, unlike you, I've actually fired an AR-15 with a 100 round drum and know accuracy sucks with it and can't hit crap when fired from the shoulder.
Prone position isn't bad as it holds the gun down.
On a bench, sighting in a new AR or new barrel (after work has been done), it is a great tool to have and very little can compare to it for that purpose.
It's also great fun to fire at paper targets (or the like) down range when you want to improve your skills.
But using it to try and hit moving targets, in darkness, with smoke filling the room, with a gas-mask on, and from the shoulder? Impossible, from the hip, pure shit luck if he were to hit.
Unless people were huddling in large masses, and he were at point-blank range (litterally on top of them) then he might have had a chance to hit a few of them from pure chance.

Quote:
He was intentionally targeting leftist youth leaders, an idea he got from Latin American death squads. On an island, which is not a site conducive to bombing. His bombing in Oslo was also far less effective than the gun attack.
I donít buy into this ďhe would have found another way to be as effective it anywayĒ stuff. History says these guys arenít any more rational, intelligent, or foresightful than the rest of humanity is.
Or really, then how are they able to pull off these attacks so efficiently?
James Holmes was a neuroscientist, are they not more rational, intelligent and foresightful?

Quote:
Iím not the one basing my arguments on the assumption that nutjob shooters have limitless resolve, knowledge, and intelligence.
Neither am I, but I also am not naive enough to think that any ban on any weapon is going to deter them or lessen the carnage they inflict.
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline  
Old 2012-08-02, 00:31   Link #146
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
But using it to try and hit moving targets, in darkness, with smoke filling the room, with a gas-mask on, and from the shoulder? Impossible, from the hip, pure shit luck if he were to hit.
Unless people were huddling in large masses, and he were at point-blank range (litterally on top of them) then he might have had a chance to hit a few of them from pure chance.
Haha, so true.

Shooting from the shoulder, with vests and gas mask on, is a major pain even in broad daylight. Do that in the dark, with a loldrum magazine, smokes, and on moving targets no less? any hits would have far more to do with pure luck than anything else, and if he was firing from the hip, he may as well have been firing blind.

And yes, I actually do have experience in similar scenarios (minus the loldrum mag).
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2012-08-02, 01:55   Link #147
Yu Ominae
ARCAM Spriggan agent
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Coquitlam, BC, Canada/Quezon City, Philippines
Send a message via Yahoo to Yu Ominae
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post

Also, are your police armed with machine guns, grenades, use APCs, or have assault rifles in their patrol cars?
Ours do.
The An Garda SŪochŠna is an unarmed police force. But the Emergency Response Unit/Regional Support Unit (Can be the equal of most SWAT teams in the US) have access to submachine guns and assault rifles.

Same goes with special units like the Special Detective Unit and other plainclothed units.
__________________

Even if we were at odds with each other, I still thank you for training me, Instructor Bowman - Yu Ominae, reflecting on Bowman's death after killing him in Phantom Island
Yu Ominae is offline  
Old 2012-08-02, 02:15   Link #148
0utf0xZer0
Pretentious moe scholar
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Age: 27
I’m getting extremely tired of having to wade through all the side tracks that don’t address the points I’ve been arguing and constant underestimating of what I know about firearms and associated tactics, so I’m going to keep this short. I’m also not going to stick around if you don’t start addressing the points I made instead of spamming talking points and belittling the opposition.

I’m less concerned about what organized criminals can acquire, mass murder isn’t their primary purpose and most mass murderers lack the necessary connections to get the stuff they do. Mass murders generally don’t seem to be speedy reloaders, Laughner outright screwed up his only shot at a reload. Trenchcoats probably aren’t the best outfit to wear if you’re trying not to attract suspicion and I’m not convinced he’s smart enough to think of a sawed off anyway. And aside from the fact that blind firing 100 rounds – or even 33 - has a much higher chance of hits than blind firing 10, your statements indicate to me that a prone shooter could go pretty far with a 100 round and a crowd, nothing illegal or messy explosives required.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
Or really, then how are they able to pull off these attacks so efficiently?
James Holmes was a neuroscientist, are they not more rational, intelligent and foresightful?
Being effective isn’t a yes or no question – it is a spectrum. Rifle plus high cap made Brevik more effective. Didn’t work so well for Holmes (whose neuroscientist degree didn't stop him making some mistakes), but tried it instead of explosives anyway – shooting sprees seem to have a certain “guts and inglory” draw for these guys. Laughner honestly doesn’t strike me as particularly competent, nor does Denis Lortie (the Quebec National Assembly shooter).

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
Gun laws don't stop or deter crime.
Every study posted on this thread has shown that.

The 1994-2004 ban didn't stop Columbine, it didn't stop the DC Sniper, it didn't stop diddley squat.
Putting it back in place will only make things worse.
Stop deluding yourself.
Real world statistics don’t occur in an environment where you can control for other factors very well, which is why they should always be taken with a grain of salt. I’m not going to disregard qualitative analysis of what made a shooter effective because of what some generalized statistic says about gun violence. Especially since most studies aren’t even limited to the kinds of shooting sprees I’m dissecting.

I have yet to be convinced that any of the guys I mentioned would have been as effective without their high cap mags – except Holmes, in whose case I wouldn’t count on a jam next time, and Lortie, whose targets didn’t show up because he mistimed his entry. You need to address that before you try and convince me I’m deluding myself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Yu Ominae View Post
The An Garda SŪochŠna is an unarmed police force. But the Emergency Response Unit/Regional Support Unit (Can be the equal of most SWAT teams in the US) have access to submachine guns and assault rifles.

Same goes with special units like the Special Detective Unit and other plainclothed units.
I’ve been to places in Continental Europe where SMGs are standard issue for a good chunk of the non-SWAT officers.
__________________

Signature courtesy of Ganbaru.
0utf0xZer0 is offline  
Old 2012-08-02, 02:57   Link #149
Ithekro
Space Battleship
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
"High Capacity" magazines depends on what you consider a lot of bullets. A 15 bullet or 20 bullet clip is fairly reasonable. A 50 to 100 bullet clip is bulky and many have jamming tendencies. Swapping clips on a rifle might take a second or two due to where the release is and the need to put in a larger clip. But a pistol clip can be changed really fast due to the ease of the release on the grip and the thin size of the clip.

Rifles are designed for ranged work in the 50+ meter range. Pistols are close in weapons. Because of this it is easlier to aim a pistol at a relatively close range and with moving target even in low light conditions. A rifle is more ungainly and needs more precise aim to hit a close in target or else you are just randomly sending out bullets that are probably just hitting the floor or ceiling or wall rather than what you are aiming at. If you are aiming properly with a rifle, you will be taking more time between shots than you would with a pistol.

Also due to the nature of the bullets used in these different weapons, the pistol rounds are more likely to cause heavy damage as they tend to be designed to flatten out more when they hit a body. The rifle bullets tend to pass through a body more often due to the shape and speed.

For close in work against a crowd, the shotgun is the most ideal gun (or Riot Guns as several militaries have been forced to call them due to international treaties). It can use loaded with a variaty of different rounds from a single solid slug, to a few small bullets, to a spray of BB sized pellets, to rubber rounds or plastic bean sacks. The spray of BB sized pellets will likely hurt the most number of people over a wider area per shot than anything else.

The only chance these other nutjobs might have been less effective with smaller clips is if the split second it took them to notice they needed to reload and actually reload was enough for the police to down them. Otherwise, it would make no effective difference what size magazine they carried as long as they carried more than one that was loaded. The only kind of nutjob I can see the magazine capacity making a real difference are the ones in tunnel vision that bring one or more weapons and shoot until it runs out, than toss it aside to shoot the next one, rather than reload. Or the ones that tunnel vision and have only one gun...use every bullet of a single clip until it runs out and keep clicking until they break down (or save the last bullet for themselves).

Such things don't effect the average criminal that likely isn't going to need to shoot his weapon, or if he does, probably only needs one or two shots before they run off into the night. Only gangbanging and shootouts with the police will they even need more bullets (or New Years when they spray bullets into the air to celebrate). Most run of the mill criminals that even have a gun likely have a 6 shot revolver or a small semiautomatic pistol that will have between 7 and 15 bullets in a clip (average tends to be 10). Some even carry smaller guns to hide them better...little two shot things or 4 shot .22 revolvers.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is online now  
Old 2012-08-02, 03:19   Link #150
0utf0xZer0
Pretentious moe scholar
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Age: 27
I pretty much was just going on the 10 round threshold from the AWB and Vexx's analysis.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
The only chance these other nutjobs might have been less effective with smaller clips is if the split second it took them to notice they needed to reload and actually reload was enough for the police to down them. Otherwise, it would make no effective difference what size magazine they carried as long as they carried more than one that was loaded. The only kind of nutjob I can see the magazine capacity making a real difference are the ones in tunnel vision that bring one or more weapons and shoot until it runs out, than toss it aside to shoot the next one, rather than reload. Or the ones that tunnel vision and have only one gun...use every bullet of a single clip until it runs out and keep clicking until they break down (or save the last bullet for themselves).
You're making the same mistake of assuming all shooters are highly skilled as everyone else did. I once again would point to Laughner's mag - some of these guys just aren't very good or crack under pressure. The time to reload adds up too - particularly important if you recall I'm not advocating a CCW ban in the US.
__________________

Signature courtesy of Ganbaru.

Last edited by 0utf0xZer0; 2012-08-02 at 03:36.
0utf0xZer0 is offline  
Old 2012-08-02, 03:54   Link #151
Ithekro
Space Battleship
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
Even if it take a few seconds like it takes me (I'm not a high skilled shooter), the only difference is if that is enough time for the police to act.

If they crack and had less rounds, then you have to ask the other question...would the average number of casualties be any different with ten rounds verses 33 rounds? Would they have been more selective with less and gotten more hits with less rounds? Were they spraying and praying with the high capacity, or were they picking targets? Would they just have a second gun to make up the difference?

Finally is it warrented to make a law based on what the lunatics do? Doesn't that just punish the 99+% of the population for the crimes of less than 1% of the population that this crazy and packing? The rest of the criminal element usually doesn't matter if they have high capacity magazines or sometime even need to have bullets in their guns to get their crime committed. Having a high capacity magazine can be useful, but generally it makes one sloppier in the "oh I have more bullets, I don't have to aim" region.

The primary objection to those restrictions is the abritary nature of them. Why 10 bullets or 15 bullets? Why not 20 bullets or three bullets? Handguns and rifles tend to be around the same general size relative to each other due to the needs to fit average sized human hands, arms, and shoulders. The main difference between them tendes to be the size of the bullets in length and diameter. The smaller the bullet the more can fit into the same relative space in the gun verses less larger bullets in the same general area. A a gun the size of a 5 shot .50 caliber revolver will likely be similar to a 15 shot .22 caliber revolver. A 7 shot .45 caliber semiautomatic pistol will be about the same size as a 15 shot 9mm semiautomatic pistol.

For rifles you have more potental space for the ammunition because you usually attach it seperately from the handgrip. Also rifles tend to use longer bullets for more accuracy at range, or more stopping power against larger targets (deer, bears, and the like). Some can have small clips or large clips. Some have no clips. A Remington Nylon 66 has a tube in the stock of the rifle that carries 14 .22 caliber long rifle bullets and can carry a 15th in the chamber. It has no clip. Other bolt action rifles might not have a clip at all and can only have one bullet in it at a time. others might have a giant clip to feed the bolt action rifle...depending on the design. Others (level action) tend to have tubes under the barrel for bullets. Pump action and semiautomatic shotguns have these tubes as well.

But your average criminal will likely have just a pistol as it is easier to hide.

The evidence so far has not been conclusive to say that gun control reduces crime, nor does having more guns reduce crime. But neither option have been shown to raise crime either. The only difference is the catagory of "gun crimes" but the total number of crimes does not change...only the instrument used. Changing instruments when the crime is still successfully committed does not make for a good case as the crime is still there, as is the death.
The difference is death by stabbing or death by blunt force trama verses death by gun wound. The operative phrase is still "death". It doesn't matter what the criminal uses to kill you as you are still dead.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!
Ithekro is online now  
Old 2012-08-02, 04:05   Link #152
0utf0xZer0
Pretentious moe scholar
 
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Age: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
Having a high capacity magazine can be useful, but generally it makes one sloppier in the "oh I have more bullets, I don't have to aim" region.
Which, when your shooter is firing into a crowd yet has a specific target in mind as in Laughner's case means more collateral damage.
__________________

Signature courtesy of Ganbaru.
0utf0xZer0 is offline  
Old 2012-08-02, 07:18   Link #153
Bri
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
Also, are your police armed with machine guns, grenades, use APCs, or have assault rifles in their patrol cars?
Ours do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0 View Post
I’ve been to places in Continental Europe where SMGs are standard issue for a good chunk of the non-SWAT officers.
I guess it's a peculiarity of the Anglo-American police model that the police has to deal with all situations themselves, and the strict separation between police and military.

In continental Europe, but also in other countries, you have often have a Gendarmerie type military police that exist next to national and local police forces, with a mandate to police civilians. They have access to similar equipment as combat troops which gives them the means to enforce police duties even in conflict zones.

The existence of this type of force is probably a necessity for the crime prevention requirement on the police.

Last edited by Bri; 2012-08-02 at 08:21. Reason: spelling
Bri is offline  
Old 2012-08-02, 08:14   Link #154
Vexx
Obey the Darkly Cute ...
*Author
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: On the whole, I'd rather be in Kyoto ...
Age: 56
An underlying thread in the decline of the last few decades in violent crime in the US has been very basic - putting violent criminals in jail and *leaving* them there til they're too old to continue that behavior. As Ithekro notes, more or less guns, does not seem to have any real statistical effect on crime, whereas this correlation is a lot more solid.

One failure in the US has been that we happily put so many *non-violent* people in jail (suspicions on those outsourced private prison profiteering) that we're seeing violent felons being released early. Their release and almost immediate subsequent violent re-offending rates are very high (a kind of "duh" moment there).

As for "shooting back", the biggest problem in a theater situation outside of lack of tactical training is that the "good guy" is trying to hit the Right Target in the pandemonium whereas the "crazy guy" is shooting at Any Target.

As an example of how guns aren't 'magic', one of my wife's cousins (a police officer) took 5 slugs at point blank range (3 in the vest and 2 in the arm) and was still able to kill the thug with his own service firearm. Of course, he had to have extensive surgery/rehab and suffered PTSD...

Homicides in the US run between 15000 and 20000 a year (out of a total population of 300 million) according to CDC statistics. That's 0.006%. Media hyper-focus and repetitive reporting often make it seem like 10% or worse. Murder-by-stupidity (also known as automobile fatalities) run 0.011% -- almost twice as high (40000 people a year roughly). I find it interesting that no such outrage heads in that direction since most accidents are due to lack of skill, lack of caring, lack of training, lack of sobriety. I would dearly like to see the majority of Americans not needing a car before I kick the bucket.

Last edited by Vexx; 2012-08-02 at 08:35.
Vexx is offline  
Old 2012-08-02, 08:17   Link #155
DonQuigleone
Knight Errant
 
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Dublin, Ireland
Age: 25
Quote:
Originally Posted by kyp275 View Post
Yet the anti-gun crowd have absolutely zero issue with claiming with 100% certainty that more restrictive or outright ban will make them "safer".
Nothing is certain. I would say it's probable though.
Quote:
Personally I have no issue with registration in principal, but who's gonna pay for it? and how much will it cost? how often does it need to be renewed? My guess is that like most things it'll end up being 1. me, 2. entirely too much, 3. way too often. This also opens up a runaround where you effectively allow state or other local governments to institute their own "ban" by making the registration process impractical and prohibitively costly (just like what TN is doing right now to run around Roe v. Wade and effectively ban abortion by instituting ridiculous regulations on abortion clinics within its border).
If it was one federal body doing it, it would not be expensive. Also, in the long run it might be ultimately cheaper as the police force would have several cost savings:
1. Not all police would be required to carry guns, or have gun training.
2. There would be less police casualties due to Police being much less likely to get shot in the line of duty, meaning less healthcare costs for Police, and less Police will be recuperating in hospitals.
3. Police would be more likely to confront criminals directly and be less likely to shirk duty due to not being afraid of being shot (your average cop would prefer not to be a "hero" and die in the line of duty...).
4. Less Police Deaths, and so less turnover. Every Police death/permanent injury is not only a tragedy, but also means you have to train up a replacement at great cost.

Finally, you could also have the registration cost be borne by the person buying the gun, and not by the general population at large.
Quote:
As for the ability to resell, I see zero reason why the government should have the right to tell anyone what they can or cannot do with their personal possession in this case, as this would be yet another area where they'll just be able to tack on even more costs to gun owners.
How else are you going to block criminals from buying weapons from the civilian population? It's not without precedent, you can't resell your prescription medication on either. Every time someone resells a gun to someone who is irresponsible, they are being complicit in their act, even if they don't commit it themselves. If we don't regulate resale you'll get guys selling legally acquired weapons to gangs, knowing they're probably going to use in a crime.

Instead, if you want to resell to an acquaintance, you should have to go through a licensed vendor who'll do the paperwork and background checks necessary for you.
Quote:
Not in the US, no. There are so much weapons already in circulation that your ideas would be nothing more than pipe dreams here. You would need to institute a federal- level statute FORCING everyone to register their firearms (something btw all criminals would just ignore). The chance of something like that gaining enough traction in the general public and Congress is about as good as Assad deciding to have a kiss-and-make-up breakfast brunch with the Syrian rebels tomorrow.
It would need to be a gradual process. First you would restrict resales through gun fairs etc. requiring all purchases to go through the licensed vendors that already exist. Then you would implement a more uniform federal registration standard, to eliminate the patchwork of laws that can easily be exploited. Then you would place a reasonable cap on the number of guns a single person can have registered to them (with exceptions for certain collectors, sportsmen, hunters etc.).

With the control over new supplies you can then begin to crack down on the guns in circulation. Guns already in circulation would be "grandfathered", however the police would begin to offer amnesties allowing people to get rid of any guns they might own without any issues. You might also give out temporary cash rewards for registering grandfathered guns. They might also even buy up certain guns and dispose of them. You would reduce the number of guns in general circulation through a process of attrition.

Over the course of ~50 years you would build a tighter control over the supply and flow of arms, throttling the illegal trade while allowing people to still own a restricted number of arms. As the rate of gun crime dropped, less people will feel a need to carry guns, and so will voluntarily get rid of them, further reducing the number of guns in circulation. You would not try to implement it instantaneously, but gradually.

Quote:
Originally Posted by GundamFan0083 View Post
Be thankful they're not like our street gangs.
Violence is a right of intiation with most of them.
You sure? Going by these statistics
(page 46, dividing by 46 to get crime per 100,000), in 2010 we had 51.6 sexual offences to 29.1 "rapes" in America, 70 robbery to the US's 119, 1668 thefts to the US's ~2200 thefts, 374 "Attempts/Threats to Murder, Assaults, Harassments" to 252 "aggravated assaults" in the USA. Ireland uses slightly different crime classifications though. Still, plenty of violent crime going on. I've never been shaken down, but a friend of mine has gotten a can thrown at him from a car(causing a pretty bad injury) ,and my mother on several occasions has gotten rocks through her car window. Scangers do these things just because they can. I once had one push me into the muck for the fun of it.

Quote:
I think what we've shown is that culture plays a huge role in whether gun control is effective or not.
You've shown me that in Ireland there isn't much in the way of gang violence or violent crime period.
While here in the US, guns or no guns, we have a serious problem with gang violence and violent crime in general.
Gun control cannot and will not stop that.
I'm just glad then when I encounter scangers it's knives they're playing with and not guns.

Quote:
That is your choice, and you are not a coward over it.
I don't know much about Ireland.
Are you more or less likely to get stabbed/hurt by cooperating or resisting?
Well, there are some that do it for shits and giggles. But they'd probably stab you before you could do anything about it. Thankfully, I've never been in a dangerous situation. From what I've heard, it's better to just cooperate and move on. Muggers don't want to kill, else you'd already be dead.
Quote:
Better to have it and not need it, then not have it and lose your life over it.
However, that too is a personal choice that each person should be able to make.
The government should not be making it for you.
The issue comes when your decisions endangers the lives of other people. For instance when you sell a gun to someone who would not be able to acquire one legally. If they can't buy through legal channels, maybe they're not sound individuals?

Nope, Ireland has no hope of defending itself, so we don't even try!
Quote:
Also, are your police armed with machine guns, grenades, use APCs, or have assault rifles in their patrol cars?
Ours do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yu Ominae View Post
The An Garda SŪochŠna is an unarmed police force. But the Emergency Response Unit/Regional Support Unit (Can be the equal of most SWAT teams in the US) have access to submachine guns and assault rifles.

Same goes with special units like the Special Detective Unit and other plainclothed units.
This guy is exactly right. We have an unarmed police force. Standard issue is just a baton, stabproof vest, pepper spray and cuffs. The citizenry feels less intimidated when the guy giving them a traffic ticket is unarmed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
The evidence so far has not been conclusive to say that gun control reduces crime, nor does having more guns reduce crime. But neither option have been shown to raise crime either. The only difference is the catagory of "gun crimes" but the total number of crimes does not change...only the instrument used. Changing instruments when the crime is still successfully committed does not make for a good case as the crime is still there, as is the death.
The difference is death by stabbing or death by blunt force trama verses death by gun wound. The operative phrase is still "death". It doesn't matter what the criminal uses to kill you as you are still dead.
Yes, but blunt trauma and stab wounds are less likely to lead to death then a gun wound. Furthermore, a blunt object or knife is less effective then a gun, as they can't be used from range.

Overall, compared to the United States, most of the developed world has lower homicide rates (but not necessarily crime rates) , which I think is in large part due to the fact that our crimes are committed with knives and not guns.

Gun Control doesn't cut down the number of crimes, but it makes it a whole lot less likely for crime to kill you.
DonQuigleone is offline  
Old 2012-08-02, 11:32   Link #156
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by 0utf0xZer0 View Post
I’m getting extremely tired of having to wade through all the side tracks that don’t address the points I’ve been arguing and constant underestimating of what I know about firearms and associated tactics, so I’m going to keep this short. I’m also not going to stick around if you don’t start addressing the points I made instead of spamming talking points and belittling the opposition.
You mean you're getting tired of me ripping your argument for a hi-cap ban into confetti.

There is no justification to punish 300,000,000 people for the actions of less than 1% of murderers over the last 100 years.

Quote:
I’m less concerned about what organized criminals can acquire,...
Then you have no argument.
If we had mass shootings like the Russian Beslan School Massacre, maybe you'd have point, but we don't.

Quote:
Being effective isn’t a yes or no question – it is a spectrum.
Actually it is. If he kills anybody, then he was effective, if he doesn't then he's not.

Quote:
Especially since most studies aren’t even limited to the kinds of shooting sprees I’m dissecting.
Yeah, you know why these studies on mass killers are inconclusive?
It's because they don't happen often enough to get an idea of what causes them.

Quote:
I have yet to be convinced that any of the guys I mentioned would have been as effective without their high cap mags – except Holmes, in whose case I wouldn’t count on a jam next time, and Lortie, whose targets didn’t show up because he mistimed his entry. You need to address that before you try and convince me I’m deluding myself.
Oh spare me...you've already been shown the evidence.
You know it took 90 seconds for the cops to show up in Aurora, I showed you a shooter who laid down 27 shots (62 bullets, due to shotgun) in less than 41 seconds all without a hi-cap magazine.
So yes, you are deluding yourself if you think that any kind of ban is going to stop or lessen the numbers in a future mass killing.
What will either increase or decrease the carnage will be the shooter's ability, the victims' immediate response, and the circumstances of the event itself (environment, etc.).
Prevention of these events can only come through finding the perps BEFORE they act and getting them help.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
"High Capacity" magazines depends on what you consider a lot of bullets. A 15 bullet or 20 bullet clip is fairly reasonable. A 50 to 100 bullet clip is bulky and many have jamming tendencies. Swapping clips on a rifle might take a second or two due to where the release is and the need to put in a larger clip. But a pistol clip can be changed really fast due to the ease of the release on the grip and the thin size of the clip.

Rifles are designed for ranged work in the 50+ meter range. Pistols are close in weapons. Because of this it is easlier to aim a pistol at a relatively close range and with moving target even in low light conditions. A rifle is more ungainly and needs more precise aim to hit a close in target or else you are just randomly sending out bullets that are probably just hitting the floor or ceiling or wall rather than what you are aiming at. If you are aiming properly with a rifle, you will be taking more time between shots than you would with a pistol.

Also due to the nature of the bullets used in these different weapons, the pistol rounds are more likely to cause heavy damage as they tend to be designed to flatten out more when they hit a body. The rifle bullets tend to pass through a body more often due to the shape and speed.

For close in work against a crowd, the shotgun is the most ideal gun (or Riot Guns as several militaries have been forced to call them due to international treaties). It can use loaded with a variaty of different rounds from a single solid slug, to a few small bullets, to a spray of BB sized pellets, to rubber rounds or plastic bean sacks. The spray of BB sized pellets will likely hurt the most number of people over a wider area per shot than anything else.

The only chance these other nutjobs might have been less effective with smaller clips is if the split second it took them to notice they needed to reload and actually reload was enough for the police to down them. Otherwise, it would make no effective difference what size magazine they carried as long as they carried more than one that was loaded. The only kind of nutjob I can see the magazine capacity making a real difference are the ones in tunnel vision that bring one or more weapons and shoot until it runs out, than toss it aside to shoot the next one, rather than reload. Or the ones that tunnel vision and have only one gun...use every bullet of a single clip until it runs out and keep clicking until they break down (or save the last bullet for themselves).

Such things don't effect the average criminal that likely isn't going to need to shoot his weapon, or if he does, probably only needs one or two shots before they run off into the night. Only gangbanging and shootouts with the police will they even need more bullets (or New Years when they spray bullets into the air to celebrate). Most run of the mill criminals that even have a gun likely have a 6 shot revolver or a small semiautomatic pistol that will have between 7 and 15 bullets in a clip (average tends to be 10). Some even carry smaller guns to hide them better...little two shot things or 4 shot .22 revolvers.
100% correct as ususal Ithekro.
You are spot on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
Even if it take a few seconds like it takes me (I'm not a high skilled shooter), the only difference is if that is enough time for the police to act.

If they crack and had less rounds, then you have to ask the other question...would the average number of casualties be any different with ten rounds verses 33 rounds? Would they have been more selective with less and gotten more hits with less rounds? Were they spraying and praying with the high capacity, or were they picking targets? Would they just have a second gun to make up the difference?

Finally is it warrented to make a law based on what the lunatics do? Doesn't that just punish the 99+% of the population for the crimes of less than 1% of the population that this crazy and packing? The rest of the criminal element usually doesn't matter if they have high capacity magazines or sometime even need to have bullets in their guns to get their crime committed. Having a high capacity magazine can be useful, but generally it makes one sloppier in the "oh I have more bullets, I don't have to aim" region.

The primary objection to those restrictions is the abritary nature of them. Why 10 bullets or 15 bullets? Why not 20 bullets or three bullets? Handguns and rifles tend to be around the same general size relative to each other due to the needs to fit average sized human hands, arms, and shoulders. The main difference between them tendes to be the size of the bullets in length and diameter. The smaller the bullet the more can fit into the same relative space in the gun verses less larger bullets in the same general area. A a gun the size of a 5 shot .50 caliber revolver will likely be similar to a 15 shot .22 caliber revolver. A 7 shot .45 caliber semiautomatic pistol will be about the same size as a 15 shot 9mm semiautomatic pistol.

For rifles you have more potental space for the ammunition because you usually attach it seperately from the handgrip. Also rifles tend to use longer bullets for more accuracy at range, or more stopping power against larger targets (deer, bears, and the like). Some can have small clips or large clips. Some have no clips. A Remington Nylon 66 has a tube in the stock of the rifle that carries 14 .22 caliber long rifle bullets and can carry a 15th in the chamber. It has no clip. Other bolt action rifles might not have a clip at all and can only have one bullet in it at a time. others might have a giant clip to feed the bolt action rifle...depending on the design. Others (level action) tend to have tubes under the barrel for bullets. Pump action and semiautomatic shotguns have these tubes as well.

But your average criminal will likely have just a pistol as it is easier to hide.

The evidence so far has not been conclusive to say that gun control reduces crime, nor does having more guns reduce crime. But neither option have been shown to raise crime either. The only difference is the catagory of "gun crimes" but the total number of crimes does not change...only the instrument used. Changing instruments when the crime is still successfully committed does not make for a good case as the crime is still there, as is the death.
The difference is death by stabbing or death by blunt force trama verses death by gun wound. The operative phrase is still "death". It doesn't matter what the criminal uses to kill you as you are still dead.
QFT.


Quote:
Originally Posted by VEXX
An underlying thread in the decline of the last few decades in violent crime in the US has been very basic - putting violent criminals in jail and *leaving* them there til they're too old to continue that behavior. As Ithekro notes, more or less guns, does not seem to have any real statistical effect on crime, whereas this correlation is a lot more solid.

One failure in the US has been that we happily put so many *non-violent* people in jail (suspicions on those outsourced private prison profiteering) that we're seeing violent felons being released early. Their release and almost immediate subsequent violent re-offending rates are very high (a kind of "duh" moment there).

As for "shooting back", the biggest problem in a theater situation outside of lack of tactical training is that the "good guy" is trying to hit the Right Target in the pandemonium whereas the "crazy guy" is shooting at Any Target.

As an example of how guns aren't 'magic', one of my wife's cousins (a police officer) took 5 slugs at point blank range (3 in the vest and 2 in the arm) and was still able to kill the thug with his own service firearm. Of course, he had to have extensive surgery/rehab and suffered PTSD...

Homicides in the US run between 15000 and 20000 a year (out of a total population of 300 million) according to CDC statistics. That's 0.006%. Media hyper-focus and repetitive reporting often make it seem like 10% or worse. Murder-by-stupidity (also known as automobile fatalities) run 0.011% -- almost twice as high (40000 people a year roughly). I find it interesting that no such outrage heads in that direction since most accidents are due to lack of skill, lack of caring, lack of training, lack of sobriety. I would dearly like to see the majority of Americans not needing a car before I kick the bucket.
That is an excellent analysis.
I agree that the media hypes these incidents up to the point of the facts getting skewed behind a mass of hyperbolic sensationalism.
The result is SNAFU and nothing productive comes of it.
The shooting back in the theater depends on a wide variety of factors.
This is why there is no way to know what might have happened in there if one or more persons (say the 3 US servicemen) had weapons.
We can speculate all we want, but it was just a really bad situation all around and no matter the weaponry would have had mass casualties.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
You sure? Going by these statistics
(page 46, dividing by 46 to get crime per 100,000), in 2010 we had 51.6 sexual offences to 29.1 "rapes" in America, 70 robbery to the US's 119, 1668 thefts to the US's ~2200 thefts, 374 "Attempts/Threats to Murder, Assaults, Harassments" to 252 "aggravated assaults" in the USA. Ireland uses slightly different crime classifications though. Still, plenty of violent crime going on. I've never been shaken down, but a friend of mine has gotten a can thrown at him from a car(causing a pretty bad injury) ,and my mother on several occasions has gotten rocks through her car window. Scangers do these things just because they can. I once had one push me into the muck for the fun of it.
Yes, unfortunately I'm sure about it. Especially with the Crips, Bloods, and K-13.
We have a serious gang problem in the US.

Quote:
I'm just glad then when I encounter scangers it's knives they're playing with and not guns.
I wouldn't be glad about either.
Both are lethal, and a knife can be worse because no one will hear a shot, so help may take longer to find you.

Quote:
Well, there are some that do it for shits and giggles. But they'd probably stab you before you could do anything about it. Thankfully, I've never been in a dangerous situation. From what I've heard, it's better to just cooperate and move on. Muggers don't want to kill, else you'd already be dead.
The issue comes when your decisions endangers the lives of other people. For instance when you sell a gun to someone who would not be able to acquire one legally. If they can't buy through legal channels, maybe they're not sound individuals?
I'm glad you've never been in a dangerous situation.
In the US it is ILLEGAL to sell to someone you know is a felon.
Again, showing our gun laws aren't followed in the US.

Quote:
Nope, Ireland has no hope of defending itself, so we don't even try!
Then you are very lucky DQ, most of the world isn't like that.

Quote:
This guy is exactly right. We have an unarmed police force. Standard issue is just a baton, stabproof vest, pepper spray and cuffs. The citizenry feels less intimidated when the guy giving them a traffic ticket is unarmed.
There was a time here in the US, not too long ago, that the police only carried a six-shot revolver, a shotgun in the patrol car, and a baton.
Now they have been militarized to the point of looking like Army MPs.
It's actually kinda scary when you compare them to the old German Gestapo.

Quote:
Yes, but blunt trauma and stab wounds are less likely to lead to death then a gun wound. Furthermore, a blunt object or knife is less effective then a gun, as they can't be used from range.
Nah, too many variables to make that call.
It depends on where you are hit and how you are hit.
Look at Rep. Gabby Giffords. She was shot in the head and survived.
Some people get stabbed in the neck and die.
Granted, a shotgun blast will probably kill you (high probability) but many people survive pistol wounds.

Quote:
Overall, compared to the United States, most of the developed world has lower homicide rates (but not necessarily crime rates) , which I think is in large part due to the fact that our crimes are committed with knives and not guns.
Actuallly I'd say it's due to the fact you have a higher standard of living, better education, no drug war, far less government corruption (I hope), and less violent gangs.

Quote:
Gun Control doesn't cut down the number of crimes, but it makes it a whole lot less likely for crime to kill you.
No, not in the US it doesn't.
Perhaps in Ireland it does, and if so, good for you all in the British Islands.
Here, a criminal will stab you to death if they can.
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline  
Old 2012-08-02, 11:39   Link #157
Ithekro
Space Battleship
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
Considering the level of trust Americans have towards their own govenment (very little), I don't think they will be able to take the gun away without a fight.

The gun owners will think they are being made into criminals by the new laws. The more extreme will think the govenment to breaking the Bill of Rights. If whatever adminitration is attempting to impliment these laws doesn't loose the following election, or the laws are set out by the beaurocracy that can't be removed from office...there will be a revolt.

It might not be a full on Civil War, but it might as well be from what the results will be. The armed civilians will lose. Their guns will then be removed by force. the 2nd Ammendment will be repealed as being dangerous for the state in light of the revolt and the effect that there is no militia anymore.

The surviving former gun owners will call it a police state or worse, even if they police only have batons and pepper spray.

The amount of gun related deaths will eventually fall...but the damage will have been done to the nation. Be it for good or ill those that live during it will be sure the nation will fall because of it.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!

Last edited by Ithekro; 2012-08-02 at 11:54.
Ithekro is online now  
Old 2012-08-02, 11:54   Link #158
GundamFan0083
Senior Member
 
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: classified
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ithekro View Post
Considering the level of trust Americans have towards their own govenment (very little), I don't think they will be able to take the gun away without a fight.

The gun owners will think they are being made into criminals by the new laws. The more extreme will think the govenment to breaking the Bill of Rights. If whatever adminitration is attempting to impliment these laws doesn't loose the followig election, or the laws are set out by the beaurocracy that can't be removed from office...their will be a revolt.

It might not be a full on Civil War, but it might as well be from what the results will be. The armed civilians will lose. Their guns will then be removed by force. the 2nd Ammendment will be repealed as being dangerous for the state in light of the revolt and the effect that there is no militia anymore.

The surviving former gun owners will call it a police state or worse, even if they police only have batons and pepper spray.

The amount of gun related deaths will eventually fall...but the damage will have been done to the nation. Be it for good or ill those that live during it will be sure the nation will fall because of it.
I don't think we can accurately say what the results would be.
You have to assume that ALL of the military and LEO will go along with such orders, and/or that the US government will be able to abandon all of its overseas commitments and bring home their forces.

I think Mexico is a prime example of what it would look like if only a small fraction of people revolted (say 1% of gun owners or 800,00 people.), if more than that took up arms, it's over.
No amount of technology can win against overwhelming numbers, especially if those numbers have morale and motivation.

It would certainly all turn out bad no matter what side won.
I can see us becoming either a total Facist state if the government won, or a total Theocracy if the other side won.
Either way we're screwed.
__________________
GundamFan0083 is offline  
Old 2012-08-02, 12:31   Link #159
kyp275
ZA ZOMBIE!!!
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Somewhere in the EVE cluster...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Nothing is certain. I would say it's probable though.
The issue is that it's no more "probable" than the other side.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
If it was one federal body doing it, it would not be expensive.
Hah, never gonna happen. Also, you may not realize this, but in the US there is a big gap between federal and state/local government, with the vast majority of interaction being on the state/local level. What you're proposing would entail a massive expansion of the ATF both in size and jurisdiction/authority, or the creation of a brand new federal agency with equivalent power, neither of which would be "cheap", or for that matter legal for the federal government to do.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Also, in the long run it might be ultimately cheaper as the police force would have several cost savings:
1. Not all police would be required to carry guns, or have gun training.
2. There would be less police casualties due to Police being much less likely to get shot in the line of duty, meaning less healthcare costs for Police, and less Police will be recuperating in hospitals.
3. Police would be more likely to confront criminals directly and be less likely to shirk duty due to not being afraid of being shot (your average cop would prefer not to be a "hero" and die in the line of duty...).
4. Less Police Deaths, and so less turnover. Every Police death/permanent injury is not only a tragedy, but also means you have to train up a replacement at great cost.
1. In the US? not in a hundred years (or two, or forever). To expect otherwise is to be completely ignorant of the US's inherently different social-economic state, and resulting policing needs to a tiny nation like Ireland's.

2. Maybe this is a result of your unfamiliarity with the US, but this is really a reach here. You'd need to have daily shootouts for it to have anything remotely close to what you're suggesting here.

3. No, just no. It's when you get lax and complacent that things goes wrong. This includes assuming the person you're talking to is not armed, firearms or otherwise. Also, shirking duty? people who would "shirk their duty" because they're afraid of getting shot wouldn't want to be, and shouldn't be, be a police officer, and I resent your implication otherwise here.

4. From a cost perspective, it's really negligible. Cities pays out far more money in settling police brutality lawsuits than training replacement officers (which btw, is often paid for by those aspiring to be a LE officer themselves).

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Finally, you could also have the registration cost be borne by the person buying the gun, and not by the general population at large.
No, it'll just end up being both, and I've already mentioned in the previous post why that would be a bad idea.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
How else are you going to block criminals from buying weapons from the civilian population? It's not without precedent, you can't resell your prescription medication on either.
A prescription medicine is something that is prescribed for your personal use ONLY, and has no legal use outside of personal consumption for specific medical conditions. Firearms on the other hand is not. People can (and often do) loan out their guns to family or friends.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Every time someone resells a gun to someone who is irresponsible, they are being complicit in their act, even if they don't commit it themselves.
We'd better start arresting every car salesman out there, god knows how many cars were sold to irresponsible drivers every year who then go out and kill/injures other drivers and bystanders.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
If we don't regulate resale you'll get guys selling legally acquired weapons to gangs, knowing they're probably going to use in a crime.
Oh ffs, as if any resale regulations will stop that from happening. All they'll have to do is claim they lost it or it was stolen. Or are you going to criminalize losing stuff or getting stuff stolen? too

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
Instead, if you want to resell to an acquaintance, you should have to go through a licensed vendor who'll do the paperwork and background checks necessary for you.
Yea, fees to buy the gun, fees to get the gun, fees to register the gun, fees to carry the gun, and fees to sell the gun. Anything else you'd like? perhaps fees to clean the gun? maybe fees to look at the gun? or a fee for every time you touch the gun?

and no, the government don't, and shouldn't have the right to regulate the sale of private prop

Quote:
Originally Posted by DonQuigleone View Post
pipe dream stuff
Never going to happen in the US, there is no political will or population consensus to force the issue. Your suggestions runs face-first into the wall that is the 2nd Amendment so many times it's not even worth dreaming about.
kyp275 is offline  
Old 2012-08-02, 13:37   Link #160
Ithekro
Space Battleship
 
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Republic of California
Age: 36
One of the main points for the Bill of Rights and the Ammendments to the Constitution are to limit the powers of the Federal Governement. It states what the Federal Government can and cannot do. This was done two protect two things. One the People, and two the State Governments.

Yes the United States of American is effectively a union of 50 semi-independant nation-states plus 6 territories under the protection of the Federal Government. Each state has its own laws and aside from thing covered by the Constitution are not to be interfered with by the Federal Governement by way of the Tenth Ammendment.

In the last 235 years the rules have changed a lot. The Federal Governement does have more power following the Civil War in the 1860s and following multiple wars and national emergencies in the 20th century and now the 21st century. But the older laws and especially the Ammendment to the Constitution still stand (minus Prohabition which was added and removed via ammendments).

With over 200 years of the Constitution being in place, their is a fairly deep seated desire to hold on to it. Now the Europeans may find that silly to want to hold on to our weapons because of a small, seemingly outdated ammendment to our Constituton, but that is how we are.

Our Civil War, while ultimately being about slavery, was started due to the Southern states feeling the Federal Government was taking too much power away from the States. They feared that incoming President Lincoln would use Federal power to outlaw slavery (and thus take away the owner's private property). To them it was about property rights. To others it was about the freedom of a living being (some would still not call the slaves "human being" even if they desired them to be free). They made a mistake. They didn't wait for Lincoln to take office. Lincoln stated that he would do whatever to took to maintain the union. If that meant leaving slavery alone, he would have do that. The South broke away before he was even President...they forced his hand into reuniting the uion by force of arms.

We don't want another Civil War, but there is always that chance something will happen that will divide the country so much that one will occur.
__________________
Dessler Soto, Banzai!

Last edited by Ithekro; 2012-08-02 at 13:48. Reason: Civil War.
Ithekro is online now  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 20:18.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
We use Silk.