General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[synaesthetic]

lol

just lol

Bullets are very, very easy to make. Guns are harder to make. I know plenty of hunters and shooters who reloaded spent brass, and one who actually cast his own bullets (he had a lot of really old guns where the rounds just aren't made anymore).

What is a bullet? It's a shaped piece of lead. Lead has a very low melting point and can be cast very easily. Lead is also really cheap. The hardest part of a bullet to make is the brass, but even that can be done easier than, say, an M1911A1, which has a load of small, precisely-engineered parts that interlock and interact with each other.

@Kaijo: As for your guns being overkill for defense assertion, the problem with this is that there aren't any equivalent less-lethal options.

- Tasers are bulky, heavy and failure-prone.
- Stun guns require direct physical contact.
- Mace/OC spray may not work on some enraged/intoxicated attackers. It also requires you to be close.
- Airguns with soporific darts may not work on some enraged/intoxicated attackers. If the dose is too high it may also kill the person.
- Dazzlers need to be pointed directly at the person's eyes and held there long enough to overload their retina. That's a small target.
- Sonic weapons are "crowd control" weapons. They don't incapacitate; they cause pain and extreme discomfort. An attacker will just get madder.

Until there's something with the same speed, reliability, power and effectiveness as an autopistol, you're going to always be at a severe disadvantage against an attacker with a gun.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

lol

just lol

Bullets are very, very easy to make. Guns are harder to make. I know plenty of hunters and shooters who reloaded spent brass, and one who actually cast his own bullets (he had a lot of really old guns where the rounds just aren't made anymore).

What is a bullet? It's a shaped piece of lead. Lead has a very low melting point and can be cast very easily. Lead is also really cheap. The hardest part of a bullet to make is the brass, but even that can be done easier than, say, an M1911A1, which has a load of small, precisely-engineered parts that interlock and interact with each other.

You are 100% correct Syn.

Here is an example of a hand bullet press/mold.



Progressive Reloading Press:


And a typical reloader's shop in the basement:


A typical set up like that can reload 50-100 rounds per hour.

Cartriges are easy to produce.
Powder is easy to produce.
Brass is very easy to produce.
Jackets for the bullets are easy to add to lead coating via electroplate.
Primers....not so much, but it can be done.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

lol

just lol

Bullets are very, very easy to make. Guns are harder to make. I know plenty of hunters and shooters who reloaded spent brass, and one who actually cast his own bullets (he had a lot of really old guns where the rounds just aren't made anymore).

What is a bullet? It's a shaped piece of lead. Lead has a very low melting point and can be cast very easily. Lead is also really cheap. The hardest part of a bullet to make is the brass, but even that can be done easier than, say, an M1911A1, which has a load of small, precisely-engineered parts that interlock and interact with each other.

If you're shooting from a musket, sure. But today's bullets are specifically-shaped, with a certain amount and type of explosive gunpowder. Like I said, if you want any accuracy with a bullet, you need a specific type to fit your gun, one that will fly straight. THAT kind of bullet isn't easy to make.

Hey, I think we're on to something here! Yes, everyone has the right to a gun... but only the ones our founding fathers had access to at the time! Imagine how much safer the world would be, if everyone had single-shot flint muskets?

Edit: Gundam fan, for what kind of gun are those for? How accurate are they, compared to professionally-done bullets? What is the rate of bad bullets to good, ie, how many shots do you fire before you hit a dud, or one that blows up in your gun?

Never underestimate the value of the QC department.

[GundamFan0083]

Boy, I don't know how many 7.62 NATO muskets there were , but here's the bullet mold for that round.

[synaesthetic]

Seriously stop threadcrapping.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Say hello to Patricia Maisch, a 61 year old grandma, who stopped a shooter as he stopped to reload. Oh hey, if only we restricted bullets to a certain size and gave people more chances to stop a shooter as he's reloading, eh? But that's difficult to do, and only elderly people have a chance at doing that.

I guess your assertion is incorrect.

Um, I never claimed that people weren't stopped while they were reloading (bad form btw, seek cover first). It is YOU who made the blanket statement, and I quote "Every single person committing a massacre, who didn't kill themselves... was stopped by other people when they were forced to pause and reload.", which is factually incorrect.

Seriously? You really think a shooting being indoors or outdoors makes a difference? It doesn't fuckin' matter. The question is 30 bullets or 10. Which is safer for the people around? Are you seriously trying to tell me that you'd feel safer if a shooter had 30 bullets to spend, instead of 10?

I'll assume you don't have much in the way of tactical training or knowledge, so let me put it in a way that maybe you'll understand.

- The surrounding matters because that's what's going to dictate the distance any potential "rusher" have to cover, the route of retreat for both civilians and the shooter, and potential cover that may be available.

-The type of people is self explanatory - a bunch of elderly people or elementary school kids isn't going to do much even if they tried to rush.

-The number of people is also important - if you lack sufficient number (which would depend on the surrounding environment and the shooter), it would also not be successful.

And to answer your question, neither. I would be far more concerned with his location, marksmanship, use of cover, and whether he's wearing body armor. Magazine size is of minor annoyance at best for those who are prepared and trained.

I'm not surprised you aren't aware of the state of technology nowadays; very few people realize how far things have come. But here, have a portable sonic weapon. And Canadians have been buying blinding lasers for quite awhile now.

Now show me where you can actually buy them I can't find anything on that "Sonic Devastator" other than those dubious looking photos and a referral to a company website that no longer exists.

As for the dazzlers, I was referring to those that uses normal visible light that doesn't cause permanent blindness, it's quite well known that high power lasers can blind people permanently. That being said, I'd love to see how effectively you can blind even one person who's charging at or shooting at you, nevermind multiple.

On the contrary, regulating bullets is easier. Why? Because it is MUCH more difficult to make a good bullet. Anyone can piece together a gun in their garage, but damn few can make an accurate bullet with any kind of stopping or penetrating power.

O_O

It's the exact opposite. Building a functional firearm from scratch requires special expertise, while the making of ammunition is relatively simple. Tons of people cast their own bullets and reload their own ammo.

Because no one was able to hunt before the invention of the gun, hmm? Man, I feel sorry for all those people who hunt with bows and arrows and traps. Someone ought to tell them they aren't supposed to be able to hunt. Seems to be, a true man could easily hunt via traps and a self-made spear... not following in the grand steps of Palin, who shot a high-powered rifle from a helicopter. Helluva hunter, there.

Some people hunt for sport, others do it as a necessity, some do it for both. You want them to use a far less efficient method to hunt? sure, as long as you agree to pay the bill for their food.

But yes, I'll grant my suggestion was a wee extreme. But I'd be more than willing to regulate small sales of hunting bullets to hunters. But self-defense shooters get rubber bullets only. Better?

I'd say your suggestion is more than a wee bit extreme. I'll agree to rubber bullets only for self-defense when you can guarantee all criminals will also use rubber bullets only.


@james0246
I agree, but the point I was trying to make is that Kaijo's take on the scenario is too simplified and one sided.

Originally Posted by Kaijo

If you're shooting from a musket, sure. But today's bullets are specifically-shaped, with a certain amount and type of explosive gunpowder. Like I said, if you want any accuracy with a bullet, you need a specific type to fit your gun, one that will fly straight. THAT kind of bullet isn't easy to make.

Hey, I think we're on to something here! Yes, everyone has the right to a gun... but only the ones our founding fathers had access to at the time! Imagine how much safer the world would be, if everyone had single-shot flint muskets?

Edit: Gundam fan, for what kind of gun are those for? How accurate are they, compared to professionally-done bullets? What is the rate of bad bullets to good, ie, how many shots do you fire before you hit a dud, or one that blows up in your gun?

Never underestimate the value of the QC department.

Reloading isn't exactly an art, while it requires skill and practice like everything else, it's pretty simple and straight forward. Many hunters reload their own ammo to their liking, and many competition shooters do the same as well, as they feel that the variance in commercially available rounds are too much. It's almost like buying off-the-shelf PC and building your own in a way, "professionally-done" ammo are just made by larger automated machines, with the usual faults that such automated process comes with. On the other hand the serious reloaders will actually go through every single round and check for the exact dimension.




Edit: damn, you guys are going too fast!

[Kaijo]

Oh, by the way, wanted to address this:

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

- Dazzlers need to be pointed directly at the person's eyes and held there long enough to overload their retina. That's a small target.
- Sonic weapons are "crowd control" weapons. They don't incapacitate; they cause pain and extreme discomfort. An attacker will just get madder.:

You mentioned a few others, but the ones I was advocating, were the blinding lasers and the the sonic weapons, and on those two points, you are incorrect. Regular old laser pointers can temporarily blind someone with just a second or two, at most, of contact. Add a bit more power, and you need even less time. And I was advocating that, once an attacker is temporarily blinded, that is when you can rush and disarm him.

Hand-held sonic weapons, whether at a certain frequency or a certain decibel, is sufficient to incapacitate someone. The military uses larger versions for crowd control and range, yes, because they are dealing with... a crowd! When you only want to focus on one person, you can focus your weapon upon them. Thus, you don't need something bulky or powerful. I already gave a few links, but I'll point you once again to this from wikipedia:

"Extremely high-power sound waves can disrupt and/or destroy the eardrums of a target and cause severe pain or disorientation. This is usually sufficient to incapacitate a person. Less powerful sound waves can cause humans to experience nausea or discomfort. The use of these frequencies to incapacitate persons has occurred both in counter-terrorist and crowd control settings."

Certain frequencies can also play havoc with any open cavity (of which there are quite a few in your body). So by directing it at your chest, I can make it hard for you to breathe, and also make you want to vomit, as well as cause nausea. Gonna be kinda hard to keep hooting under those conditions.

Originally Posted by kyp275

Um, I never claimed that people weren't stopped while they were reloading (bad form btw, seek cover first). It is YOU who made the blanket statement, and I quote "Every single person committing a massacre, who didn't kill themselves... was stopped by other people when they were forced to pause and reload.", which is factually incorrect.

Because you didn't take my full sentence into context. Right now, your English teacher is upset at you. "Every single person committing a massacre, who didn't kill themselves... was stopped by other people when they were forced to pause and reload." Granted, it wasn't fully accurate, as some turned themselves in. But the larger point remains, and I gave factual links to back up my assertions. You have, so far, provided exactly 0 links to back up your assertions. Guns aren't needed to stop a shooter, and a smaller magazine can work just fine.

I'll assume you don't have much in the way of tactical training or knowledge, so let me put it in a way that maybe you'll understand.

- The surrounding matters because that's what's going to dictate the distance any potential "rusher" have to cover, the route of retreat for both civilians and the shooter, and potential cover that may be available.

-The type of people is self explanatory - a bunch of elderly people or elementary school kids isn't going to do much even if they tried to rush.

And you lack an understanding of physics. Even a 150 pound elderly person can drop someone to the floor, if there is momentum behind it, ie, they are running at the shooter. Mass + Velocity = ? (I'll leave this to you as an exercise for the reader)

-The number of people is also important - if you lack sufficient number (which would depend on the surrounding environment and the shooter), it would also not be successful.

And what a coincidence, that at the site of practically every mass shooting, there has been a lot of people. Say, how about we reduce the number of bullets a shooter can fire at any one time, and let those large groups of people take out the shooter when he stops to reload?

And to answer your question, neither. I would be far more concerned with his location, marksmanship, use of cover, and whether he's wearing body armor. Magazine size is of minor annoyance at best for those who are prepared and trained.

Body armor and marksmanship are irrelevant when he's out of bullets and people are tackling him.

Now show me where you can actually buy them I can't find anything on that "Sonic Devastator" other than those dubious looking photos and a referral to a company website that no longer exists.

You can build them at home, if you are industrious enough. But part of my point was that blinding lasers are banned, while guns are okay. So, let's unban blinding lasers and allow people to carry them. The next time someone starts shooting, he'll have several people blinding him.

As for the dazzlers, I was referring to those that uses normal visible light that doesn't cause permanent blindness, it's quite well known that high power lasers can blind people permanently. That being said, I'd love to see how effectively you can blind even one person who's charging at or shooting at you, nevermind multiple.

Most of these shooters were actually quite slow and methodical. They didn't move very fast. In those conditions, and with the right laser or flash weapon, it would be fairly easy to blind someone.

It's the exact opposite. Building a functional firearm from scratch requires special expertise, while the making of ammunition is relatively simple. Tons of people cast their own bullets and reload their own ammo.

You may be unaware of makerbots, which can currently build several pieces of a gun to exact specification. There are plans on the internet. It is only a small matter of time until the last few pieces are up.

Some people hunt for sport, others do it as a necessity, some do it for both. You want them to use a far less efficient method to hunt? sure, as long as you agree to pay the bill for their food.

I find it intriguing that you complain about cost and functionality above, and then completely ignore that someone can more easily make their own arrows. And traps. A good hunter actually knows how to shoot, trap, and fire an arrow, because all might be needed depending on what you are hunting.

I'd say your suggestion is more than a wee bit extreme. I'll agree to rubber bullets only for self-defense when you can guarantee all criminals will also use rubber bullets only.

Irrelevant. We don't care what the bad guys are using. What we are looking to do, is introduce less lethal alternatives. You can take down a shooter with a few rubber bullets.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Because you didn't take my full sentence into context. Right now, your English teacher is upset at you. "Every single person committing a massacre, who didn't kill themselves... was stopped by other people when they were forced to pause and reload." Granted, it wasn't fully accurate, as some turned themselves in. But the larger point remains, and I gave factual links to back up my assertions. You have, so far, provided exactly 0 links to back up your assertions. Guns aren't needed to stop a shooter, and a smaller magazine can work just fine.

sigh...

http://articles.cnn.com/2007-12-10/u...sings?_s=PM:US

The shooter was shot by security while attempting to gain entrance to the church to continue his killings, wasn't reloading. Also, didn't realize that guns aren't needed to stop shooters, I'll make sure to notify the sheriffs at all the courthouses and those that are manning guard posts on military bases, apparently they didn't get your memo.

And you lack an understanding of physics. Even a 150 pound elderly person can drop someone to the floor, if there is momentum behind it, ie, they are running at the shooter. Mass + Velocity = ? (I'll leave this to you as an exercise for the reader)

I feel like I'm trying to explain basic tactic 101 to a new recruit who's not listening. Did you not see everything I laid out? stop and think everything through first. Your 150 pound elderly person can't exactly run very far if the shooter put a few in them from 50 yards away can they? And in confined settings like classrooms there are a lot of obstructions and potential narrow spaces that can prohibit any sort of running.

While I'm no Force Recon, I'm still basing my opinions and conclusions from formal military training and combat experience. May I ask on what ground are you refuting my conclusions on?

Frankly I find this to be utterly comical. Not two pages back I have an avid anti-gunner telling me that guns should be banned because rushing is practically impossible in nearly all circumstances, and now I have another avid anti-gunner telling me that normal magazines should be banned because rushing would otherwise be a guaranteed success! The fact of the matter is that the practicality of rushing a shooter is a tactic that depends GREATLY on the specific scenario, sometimes it is, sometimes it's not.

Say, how about we reduce the number of bullets a shooter can fire at any one time.

As automatic weapons are not legal and very difficult to acquire, the answer to your question would be one, as each trigger pull in a semiauto correspond to only one shot. Well, except for shotguns with buckshots I guess. If you're talking about total shots possible, then it's only limited by what the shooter can carry.

Body armor and marksmanship are irrelevant when he's out of bullets and people are tackling him.

Body armor directly affects my course of action. If I'm carrying a 9mm with HP rounds, it would likely to be largely ineffective if the round impacts the armor.

I fail to see how one can come to the conclusion that marksmanship is irrelevant in a mass shooter scenario, especially where you're planning a rush - it makes a big difference whether the bullet hits you or not.

You can build them at home, if you are industrious enough. But part of my point was that blinding lasers are banned, while guns are okay. So, let's unban blinding lasers and allow people to carry them. The next time someone starts shooting, he'll have several people blinding him.

Permanently blinding people (and maiming) on purpose is banned for a reason, much like why torture is, and I don't think you appreciate just how difficult it'll be to do in practice.

Look at the clock and see how long two seconds actually is, now imagine having to hold a laser beam on a person's eye, while he's moving and/or shooting at you.

You may be unaware of makerbots, which can currently build several pieces of a gun to exact specification. There are plans on the internet. It is only a small matter of time until the last few pieces are up.

3D printing is nothing new, people have tried it already. They made a lower receiver housing that cracked after SIX shots, and that's just the HOUSING, which is barely under any stress comparatively. There's no way it can be used to make the upper receiver - 3D print plastics are not going to stand up to 50~60,000+ psi.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLlJshR6nvg

The only vids where the printed housing didn't crack are the ones that was shooting .22LR, not exactly something you'd want to use outside of plinking.

I find it intriguing that you complain about cost and functionality above, and then completely ignore that someone can more easily make their own arrows. And traps.

How are the costs and practicality of novel non-lethal weapon systems related to making arrows, in any way shape or form?

A good hunter actually knows how to shoot, trap, and fire an arrow, because all might be needed depending on what you are hunting.

While you're certainly free to romanticize hunting, most people I know that hunts only care about making clean kills as soon as possible. Bow hunting for the most part is for those who enjoys it as a sport.

Irrelevant. We don't care what the bad guys are using. What we are looking to do, is introduce less lethal alternatives. You can take down a shooter with a few rubber bullets.

You may not care, but others do. Let's put it this way, if you and I are in a shootout, you have the rubber bullet, I have the real one, how do you think it'll end?


And with that, time to go make dinner and watch the Lions get wtfpwnd on national TV again, will return later after I stop lamenting at this terrible travesty of a season

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by kyp275

You may not care, but others do. Let's put it this way, if you and I are in a shootout, you have the rubber bullet, I have the real one, how do you think it'll end?

Since it'd take several rubber bullets to maybe incapacitate someone, and only one actual bullet to kill someone... the answer here is pretty obvious.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

And what a coincidence, that at the site of practically every mass shooting, there has been a lot of people. Say, how about we reduce the number of bullets a shooter can fire at any one time, and let those large groups of people take out the shooter when he stops to reload?

Please stop.
Your total ignorance of firearms is headache inducing.
A "five" shot hunting shotgun loaded with 00 buck can unleash 40 rounds in under 6 seconds.
That is exactly what James Holmes did in Colorado, since the AR-15 jammed and the cops found it discarded on the floor.
It happened again in Oregon with the same type of weapon only with a 30 round magazine.

So if your argument is that a smaller magazine/capacity makes it easier for someone to be tackled/taken down because they need time to reload, then you are gravely mistaken.
Vexx already pointed out that it takes only 2 seconds to drop and load a new 10 rounder into a semiauto-pistol. Same with a rifle.
Hell proficiency with a shotgun can be achieved with little training.

All it takes is some practice with obsolete technology guns and a person can be just as deadly, if not more.

Irrelevant. We don't care what the bad guys are using. What we are looking to do, is introduce less lethal alternatives. You can take down a shooter with a few rubber bullets.

Then you are defending the criminal and asking others to be the victim.
Here's the kind of weaponry that drug dealers have.




I ask you, do you think they give a rats ass about your wanna-be Star Trek nonlethals.
When we get Phasers that can disintegrate a target, then you may have an argument.

But as it stands now, criminals can get better arms from the same people they get the drugs they sell from.
All it takes is money.
The notion that a smaller capacity magazine is going to somehow turn unarmed citizens into Rambos that will charge a guy while he's reloading is silly.
You've clearly never been shot at.

[Lost Cause]

A few things, first for Kaijo:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEOeRTo_YNg&sns=em
The rifle in question is an SKS of Russian manufacture. It holds 10 shots in a non-detachable magazine and is loaded via a stripper clip!
2:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGfAr_iXRIM&sns=em
Warning it's long!
Rubber bullets:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaM5p3CMr4M&sns=em
Might be graphic!
Now what were you saying about rubber bullets, reloading, and limited capacity magazines?

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by kyp275

sigh...

http://articles.cnn.com/2007-12-10/u...sings?_s=PM:US

The shooter was shot by security while attempting to gain entrance to the church to continue his killings, wasn't reloading. Also, didn't realize that guns aren't needed to stop shooters, I'll make sure to notify the sheriffs at all the courthouses and those that are manning guard posts on military bases, apparently they didn't get your memo.

You're missing the point, and so I won't respond to everything. You're also knocking down a mighty fine strawman.

What we are talking about, is stopping a shooter from committing a massacre. We aren't talking about sheriffs or military personnel, so please try to keep focused on the point here. Yes, someone with a gun can shoot a shooter to stop them. Congratulations on linking probably the only instance of that happening. It's incredibly rare. So, unless you're talking about arming up everyone (and I'll line up for my free gun if you're buyin'), then we need another approach.

If we can't arm up everyone (and I don't think you want to go down the road of putting more guns in schools, unless you want the blood of every accidental shooting on your hands), then we need to even the odds and power down the shooters. Reducing the amount of ammunition they can carry, makes them more vulnerable. I've already pointed out that is possible. That's all I need: to show, in the real world, that it is possible.

I feel like I'm trying to explain basic tactic 101 to a new recruit who's not listening. Did you not see everything I laid out? stop and think everything through first. Your 150 pound elderly person can't exactly run very far if the shooter put a few in them from 50 yards away can they? And in confined settings like classrooms there are a lot of obstructions and potential narrow spaces that can prohibit any sort of running.

Right. Let's step out of your hypothetical world, and into the real world, where we have school massacres and theater massacres. In fact, pretty much every massacre has a lot of people around. The shooter won't be aiming for everyone, so *someone* isn't being shot at. *Someone* doesn't have the attention of the shooter who is trying to reload. That means that, yes, that elderly person can tackle the shooter to the ground, and once people see that happen, they'll join in and stop him.

And here's the kicker: When you reload, you look down. Your attention is dragged off the scene around you. Even a couple of seconds is all someone needs. And even disregarding that, limiting ammunition that someone can carry, equals less people they can potentially kill, even if no one rushes them.

Permanently blinding people (and maiming) on purpose is banned for a reason, much like why torture is, and I don't think you appreciate just how difficult it'll be to do in practice.

Right. So shooting someone in the neck is human and killing them is bad. But blinding someone is bad, mmkay? Why don't you go ask those mothers of Newton, if they would prefer their children to be dead, or blinded. What do you think they'd say? Would you prefer your friends dead, or blind?

Look, I'd love to continue with you, but you're arguing off into the absurd and attacking strawmen.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Please stop.
Your total ignorance of firearms is headache inducing.
A "five" shot hunting shotgun loaded with 00 buck can unleash 40 rounds in under 6 seconds.

Because they fire so many pellets, the energy each pellet carries is actually fairly low, which means a shotgun only has stopping power at close range. That's also where the pellets are still clustered fairly close together. THey are also larger and more unwieldy than handguns, which means instead of two hand guns, they have just one gun.

I'd actually prefer it if my shooters had a shotgun, as opposed to two handguns (still constrained by that 10 bullet limit).

Then you are defending the criminal and asking others to be the victim.
Here's the kind of weaponry that drug dealers have.

But as it stands now, criminals can get better arms from the same people they get the drugs they sell from.
All it takes is money.
The notion that a smaller capacity magazine is going to somehow turn unarmed citizens into Rambos that will charge a guy while he's reloading is silly.
You've clearly never been shot at.

Riddle me this... where is the drug gun crime in Canada? In the Uk? In Australia? Ever since they banned guns, they've had extremely little problem with criminals shooting people. Japan, for that matter, is also extremely light on gun deaths. When was the last time you heard about a massacre in *any* of those countries?

Let me help you: You haven't.

I'm not saying we need to ban guns in the US, but your fearmongering about what the criminals are armed with, rings hollow when compared to real world evidence.

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

A few things, first for Kaijo:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEOeRTo_YNg&sns=em
The rifle in question is an SKS of Russian manufacture. It holds 10 shots in a non-detachable magazine and is loaded via a stripper clip!
2:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGfAr_iXRIM&sns=em
Warning it's long!
Rubber bullets:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YaM5p3CMr4M&sns=em
Might be graphic!
Now what were you saying about rubber bullets, reloading, and limited capacity magazines?

Not sure what point you're trying to make here. For the first vid, I see no problems. And for the last, because of the way kinetic energy works for both lead and rubber bullets, the rubber bullet will actually end up hurting more. And since it delivers more kinetic impact on the skin, it has a greater chance of knocking someone over. Surprising, no?

And now I must ask a question of those who are trying to argue against a 10 bullet limit (which is a bill in congress, by the way)... why argue so hard against limiting guns/magazines to 10? If it doesn't affect any legal uses, and makes things more difficult for a shooter (which, we've already proven can be taken down while trying to reload)... then why argue so hard against it? Could there be another reason we want our 30+ bullet clips?

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Because they fire so many pellets, the energy each pellet carries is actually fairly low, which means a shotgun only has stopping power at close range. That's also where the pellets are still clustered fairly close together. THey are also larger and more unwieldy than handguns, which means instead of two hand guns, they have just one gun.

I'd actually prefer it if my shooters had a shotgun, as opposed to two handguns (still constrained by that 10 bullet limit).

Pellets?
There are a variety of different shotgun loads.
From slugs, to 00 buck, to 000 buck, to deer and pheasant loads.
You clearly don't know enough about this subject to be discussing it.
Syn was right, you are a threadcrapper.

Riddle me this... where is the drug gun crime in Canada? In the Uk? In Australia? Ever since they banned guns, they've had extremely little problem with criminals shooting people. Japan, for that matter, is also extremely light on gun deaths. When was the last time you heard about a massacre in *any* of those countries

Gun crime?
That is a propaganda term used by the hoplophobes that are so terrfied of firearms that they just want them to go away.
I've tried very hard not to label you that, but your posts are becoming more and more emotional and fanatical.

The fact is, the UK, Canada, and Australia are vastly smaller than the US in population.
I've already gone throught this earlier in this thread, but I'll give one of my examples again.
Texas has a population of 25,000,000 people, that is the same size as Austraila (23,000,000).
Texas had 113,000 violent crimes last year.
Australia had 117,000 violent crimes last year.
Texas has nearly zero gun control and a large percentage of gun ownership.
Australia has heavy controls on guns and a modest gun owning public.
What effect does the gun control actually have?
Let me help you oh deluded one, it's effect is little to nothing.

Japan is vastly different than the US from a cultural, moral, social, and government standpoint. Comparing the two is the proverbial "apples and oranges."

I'm not saying we need to ban guns in the US, but your fearmongering about what the criminals are armed with, rings hollow when compared to real world evidence.

Fearmongering?
Mr. "I'm afraid of someone with a gun that holds too many bullets" has the gaul to accuse me of that.
And don't try and tell me you "aren't saying we need to ban guns" no, you're saying we need to illegalize them.
I know your type, I've been fighitng with them for 20 years now.
You're all the same group of Utopian pie-in-the-sky numbskulls who are scared of the world.

And now I must ask a question of those who are trying to argue against a 10 bullet limit (which is a bill in congress, by the way)... why argue so hard against limiting guns/magazines to 10? If it doesn't affect any legal uses, and makes things more difficult for a shooter (which, we've already proven can be taken down while trying to reload)... then why argue so hard against it? Could there be another reason we want our 30+ bullet clips?

30 round bullet clips?
Are you fucking kidding me?
You parrot the propaganda of the hoplophobes right down to their errors.
They carry cartriges, not bullets.
The bullet is the projectile that comes out of the cartrige, not the cartridge itself.
Military slang uses the term, "round" as in a five-round clip.
I know that the main stream media can't get it right, so I know where you're getting your misinformation from.
NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox and MSNBC.
Try doing some research on your own instead of letting those idiots spoon-feed your their drivel.

A ten round limit does encur legal issues.
It violates article 1 section 8 of the US constitution by prohibiting unorganized militia members from being able to train with standard military equipment.
If it were a proposed law that forced people who want those magazines and/or para-military weapons to join the CMP, that would at least be mostly constitutional.
But a ban is a direct infringement.
Bans also don't work to curb crime, so there is no legitimate reason for one.

Connecticut already has an assault weapon ban and has had one for 18 years.
It didn't stop the shooting in Newtown.
The 1994 ban didn't stop Columbine in 1999 or any of a whole slew of other mass shootings.
All of the studies done on this subject have indicated that the "high-capacity" ban did nothing to curb crime or lessen damage done.
Even David Hemmenway, a gun control advocate, has said "assault weapons" and "high capacity" bans do little.
Also, the 2nd amendment is not a suggestion, it is LAW.
In 1994 the AWB was possible due to something called the collective rights model interpretation of the 2nd amendment that claimed that the right only applied to states' miltias.
SCOTUS shot that down in the Heller vs. US case, making the right individual not collective.
US vs. Miller is the case where the SCOTUS said that the only weapons protected by the 2nd amendment are military weapons, not hunting, sporting or anything other than those useful for the common defense: i.e. the military arms of the soldiers of their day.

Dianne Feinstein's bill has been introduced since 2004. Before that she wanted to expand the 1994 AWB to include all "sniper rifles," which means bolt-actions.

Here are two examples of the proper role of para-military militia rifles (which is what an AR-15 is):

A 15 year old defends himself and his sister with an AR-15:

Four armed men attempt to invade someone's home but are repelled:

And finally, I will post this again and again and again until some of you people learn what a real assault rifle is and what it isn't.

An AR-15 is not now, nor will it ever be, an assault rifle.

[kyp275]

Listen, if all you're going to do is perpetuating myths and ignore facts, then there's no point in continuing this debate with you.

Originally Posted by Kaijo

What we are talking about, is stopping a shooter from committing a massacre. We aren't talking about sheriffs or military personnel, so please try to keep focused on the point here.

No, your explicit statement was that guns are not needed to stop shooters, something the LE and military have to deal with quite often.

Yes, someone with a gun can shoot a shooter to stop them. Congratulations on linking probably the only instance of that happening. It's incredibly rare.

You're the one making outrageous statements here, why don't you show us the information you used to come to the conclusion that every single shooter was stopped when they were reloading? Go ahead, we'll wait right here.

If we can't arm up everyone (and I don't think you want to go down the road of putting more guns in schools, unless you want the blood of every accidental shooting on your hands), then we need to even the odds and power down the shooters. Reducing the amount of ammunition they can carry, makes them more vulnerable. I've already pointed out that is possible. That's all I need: to show, in the real world, that it is possible.

Oh yea? how are you going to limit what the shooter can carry? please enlighten us. I didn't realize you have the power to enforce what people can wear or what they can carry.

Right. Let's step out of your hypothetical world, and into the real world, where we have school massacres and theater massacres. In fact, pretty much every massacre has a lot of people around. The shooter won't be aiming for everyone, so *someone* isn't being shot at. *Someone* doesn't have the attention of the shooter who is trying to reload. That means that, yes, that elderly person can tackle the shooter to the ground, and once people see that happen, they'll join in and stop him.

Hypothetical? which part of what I said was hypothetical? What sort of tactical training have you received? on which battlefield have you had to use them?

It's ironic that you keep bringing up the school and theater shootings as examples where people can rush, where was the rushers Columbine? Virginia Tech? Aurora? Sandy Hook? You know what happens when civilians with no training do when fired upon? most run, some freeze, almost none ever thinks about fighting back.

And here's the kicker: When you reload, you look down. Your attention is dragged off the scene around you. Even a couple of seconds is all someone needs. And even disregarding that, limiting ammunition that someone can carry, equals less people they can potentially kill, even if no one rushes them.

Can you please go educate yourself on the subject before you make yourself look even worse? This is not a videogame, no one who's proficient with their weapon needs to "look down" when they reload, especially in a combat scenario.

Right. So shooting someone in the neck is human and killing them is bad. But blinding someone is bad, mmkay? Why don't you go ask those mothers of Newton, if they would prefer their children to be dead, or blinded. What do you think they'd say? Would you prefer your friends dead, or blind?

And the one accusing others of using strawman heaps on the strawman themselves The two are apple and oranges, and the one you have to take up the issues with is the UN Human Rights Commission, along with the rest of the civilized world, not me. Law Enforcement and the military are not allowed to torture people regardless of cause, but they're authorized to kill in certain situations. It makes for an interesting philosophical debate, but if you honestly can't tell the difference...

Look, I'd love to continue with you, but you're arguing off into the absurd and attacking strawman

It only seems absurd to you because of your lack of knowledge.

Because they fire so many pellets, the energy each pellet carries is actually fairly low, which means a shotgun only has stopping power at close range. That's also where the pellets are still clustered fairly close together. THey are also larger and more unwieldy than handguns, which means instead of two hand guns, they have just one gun.

Good lord, where did you get your "information" from? and I use that term in the loosest sense possible. Shotgun, only have stopping power at close range? two handguns instead of just one gun??!!!!???

This is unbelievable.

...because of the way kinetic energy works for both lead and rubber bullets, the rubber bullet will actually end up hurting more. And since it delivers more kinetic impact on the skin, it has a greater chance of knocking someone over. Surprising, no?

...seriously, please put away your videogame-based knowledge, you're moving into the realm of the absurd. Rubber rounds have reduced powder loads, with muzzle velocity averaging between 70-100 m/s on general, versus 1000~1200 m/s from most pistols and over 3000 m/s from rifles, the difference in kinetic energy between the two is beyond immense, with the latter also piercing your body, and you're trying to tell me the rubber bullet will hurt more? You have got to be kidding me.

So far, you've demonstrated that you don't know how weapons actually functions or perform in real life, you have no knowledge or training in accessing tactical situations. If you wish to continue this debate in good faith, I suggest you go educate yourself a bit more on the subject first.

I have zero issue with anyone who have studied and educated themselves on the subject, and comes to a different conclusion, hell, I greatly enjoy debating the merits of various ideas and policies with them. What I can't stand are people who are blatantly clueless about the topic, tries to talk as an expert, yet refuses to expend the effort to educate themselves on the simplest of facts.

[synaesthetic]

Which is the whole dangerous point I've been trying to make. People with no knowledge in the subject are trying to make laws. Power without knowledge is one hell of a dangerous combination.

The people who should be writing gun laws are the ones who are educated in how firearms work. There's a reason why people tend to oppose magazine capacity limits and it was already mentioned here once--weapons are designed a certain way. If you change one of the design parameters there's a good chance something will go wrong.

Lower-capacity magazines tend to have shorter, weaker springs. This can cause jams and failure-to-feed issues.

[Solace]

I'm reopening the thread to help accommodate the recent news about gun control. I'll be real clear on this. If you cannot discuss this topic without being civil and reasonable, I will not hesitate to take action up to bans and closing this thread permanently.

Choose your words wisely.

[Vallen Chaos Valiant]

I am not sure what Obama did just recently, but it seems he didn't go far enough for the people who want to ban guns. It's mostly about identifying those with violent mental issues and blacklist them from gun ownership. And to close loopholes of private weapon sales that don't need background checks.

Still, I don't understand why Obama is so sheepish. He could have gone much further. Guess he just wants to get this over and done with and go on with something else, rather than drag it out his whole 2nd term.

[Lost Cause]

Well there is the current economic crisis here that still isn't fixed for one thing. Plus certain members of Congress will be up for re-election in 2014 and Obama has tossed the ball in their court.
It's doubtful we'll see a weapons ban, but a magazine ban is possible. And actually I find most if his proposals logical, especially the mental health thing.

[james0246]

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Still, I don't understand why Obama is so sheepish. He could have gone much further.

I don't think he could, and I'm reluctant to think he should. Obama chose a very common sense approach to gun legislation. There is no real need for assault weapons or larger magazines (sorry gun enthusiasts, but there isn't), and additional checks and precautions are always useful and helpful. Each point on his agenda is directly related to the current tragedies, and since his solution is very simple, the debate, while undoubtedly and needlessly partison, should be easily understood by the voters (who can voice their displeasure quite loudly if given the chance).

(Video games being brought inot the discussion reeks of Obama trying to strong arm Republican support, since Repubs (and a few Democrates) like blaming inane things for violence.)

Originally Posted by Vallen Chaos Valiant

Guess he just wants to get this over and done with and go on with something else, rather than drag it out his whole 2nd term.

That is undoubtedly true. In fact, I expect he would like this resolved within a month or so since the ever present economic crisis needs to be addressed once again.

[Kaijo]

Obama's proposals are fairly logical and reasonable, mostly, but they are still fairly weak if we seriously intend to crack down on gun deaths. (But the NRA will howl and whip their members into a frenzy opposing every single little one having to do with weapons; All to sell guns, of course)

Actually, the biggest elephant in the room that is ignored, is that the vast majority of gun violence and death is committed with handguns... not the vague "assault weapons." So if anything, I'd require handguns to be either old school 6-bullet revolvers, or smart guns. The smart gun I see the most promise in, is the one that requires the owner to have a ring on their finger with a chip inside. The gun will only fire if it detects that chip in close proximity. Hence, the gun is fairly useless if stolen (would require expert modification to remove the smart gun technology, which would be difficult). And it also prevents young kids from finding it and shooting themselves, or from people using the gun to commit suicide.

Anyway, I thought I'd inject some numbers into this debate. The FBI's numbers say 15,241 persons were murdered nationwide in 2009. 44% of those, nearly half, took place in the south (roughly 20% in the west and midwest each, and 12% in the Northeast). That's gotta be a point of pride for the gun-lovin' south.

Also, about 44% of people were killed by someone they knew. 12% were done by a stranger, and the remaining 44% are unsolved (and thus unknown) at the moment. So, apparently you are at a much bigger risk of being killed by someone you know with a gun, then you are by a stranger that breaks into your home. You know, the scary scenario that is constantly brought up as a huge threat. Of course, there have been various studies that show there is dramatically increased risk of death to anyone living in a home that has a gun. I'll quote from one of my favorite studies:

"A total of 743 firearm-related deaths occurred during this six-year period, 398 of which (54 percent) occurred in the residence where the firearm was kept. Only 2 of these 398 deaths (0.5 percent) involved an intruder shot during attempted entry. Seven persons (1.8 percent) were killed in self-defense. For every case of self-protection homicide involving a firearm kept in the home, there were 1.3 accidental deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms."

Protection or Peril, indeed. Another study sums things up nicely in the conclusion: "Rather than confer protection, guns kept in the home are associated with an increase in the risk of homicide by a family member or intimate acquaintance."

It's fairly unanimous all studies that I could find, with some saying: "A gun in the home is twelve times more likely to result in the death of a household member or visitor than an intruder."

Also from that article: "Firearm-related violence vastly increases expenditures for health care, services for the disabled, insurance, and our criminal justice system," writes Dr. Steven Lippmann of University of Louisville School of Medicine, and colleagues. "The bills are paid by taxpayers and those who buy insurance."

Given that, I'd say society has a strong incentive, if it is fiscally conservative, to consider stronger gun control as a way to keep costs down. Even doctors are beginning to break their silence on the subject.

And the lessons from Latin America has shown that the abundance of weapons hasn't helped much there. Mexico, at least, is pretty pissed that people buy legals guns in America and bring them across the border; 70% of siezed guns were traced back to the US! Many governments in the Americas have come to the conclusion that more guns is definitely not the answer.

So, based on all these scientific studies, I'd say the path forward is fairly clear. Not only is our gun problem a problem for us, but it's a huge problem for our neighbors. Forget about illegal guns coming over the border... it's the other way around. We are supplying the guns to other countries!