Gun (Lack of) Control


A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (as always, locked for the duration of major international championship)

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Blues » Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:09 am

preston wrote:
JRM wrote:...How many of the recent mass shooters would have gone through the trouble of making 1000 bullets, if they couldn't pull 10 boxes off the shelf at Walmart? If you remove easy access, you likely remove 99% of the incidents.

This is not correct. When you're talking about Javon Belcher, the answer is yes; however, in the case of mass killings where the person has little or no connection to the strangers they aim to kill we KNOW that this is something that they PLAN. It's not a crime of passion or greed; this is an act of evil. It's about as premeditated as something can be and people like these will not be stopped or deterred; they'll just research another way to inflict their mayhem.


But what some of us are saying is that some of those involved may not have planned it if they didn't already have the high powered weapons in their hands or know they were readily available, to make them feel the atrocity was easily attainable...
Blues
 
Posts: 1090
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby JRM » Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:13 am

preston wrote:Interestingly, the same people who are trying to infringe on the rights of guns owner arguing "that it only makes sense" and "who needs a semi-auto to hunt..." , often seems to be the same ones who invoke first amendment rights and howl about "censorship". If the 2nd amendment has to give, then the first will have to give too.


Then maybe it's time for people to realize that possessing a tool is not a "right."
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Blues » Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:28 am

Daisy wrote:
preston wrote:Interestingly, the same people who are trying to infringe on the rights of guns owner arguing .... "who needs a semi-auto to hunt..." ........If the 2nd amendment has to give, then the first will have to give too.

So why does the second amendment need to give in this scenario?


I'm curious too. Does the second amendment actually state that it protects "the right of the people to keep and bear ANY AND ALL arms"? Or were the creators of the 2nd amendment incompetent enough back in the late 1700's to somehow leave out the ANY AND ALL part and risk violating the God given rights of the NRA and hunters of the 21st century? :wink:
Blues
 
Posts: 1090
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:37 am

I don't disagree that possessing a "tool" is not a right, but neither should the ability to go on the internet and learn how to build a nuclear device be "right" either. But, the internet is defended as the almost the last right. I'm just saying that the proliferation of some IDEAS are far more dangerous than any tool. There's no right to be able to learn how to build a dirty bomb, or a nuclear device, or a Molotov cocktail but someone with child pornography on their hard-drive is going to jail.

Ted Bundy's granddad:
    His pathology may have been due to his relationship with his grandfather, Samuel Cowell, a church deacon, who was described as a "tyrannical bully". Samuel was a known bigot, who hated blacks, Hispanics, Italians, Catholics, and Jews. Bundy stated that Samuel also tortured small animals, including neighborhood dogs and cats, and kept an extensive collection of "odd" pornography in his greenhouse. It would later be revealed that the pornography was of a violent nature; rape, torture, and mock-snuff.

...an episode of Criminal Minds where Rossi claims that Ted Bundy told him the story about pornography contributing to his violent impulses, stating "If you want to stop people from becoming like me, don't burn Catcher in the Rye, burn Hustler".

Are we gonna ban violent video games, movies, etc? South Korea is having one hell of a time trying to ban pornography, btw.http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/digit ... vigilantes

The point is that "freedom" is as much of the problem as the "tools". Freedom is a concept, a thought, a belief, but to many it is tangible, real and ... inalienable. That freedom seems to show MORE of a connection to the eventual crimes than the actual presence of the tools.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Pego » Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:53 am

preston wrote:Ted Bundy story


I suspect that inheriting grandpa's tendencies toward violent behavior rather than the relationship with him is more likely the explanation of TB's psychopathology.
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Blues » Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:07 am

jeremyp wrote:
Cooter Brown wrote:If you want to be licenses as a gun owner, you should have to pass a mental health assessment. Maybe require an update to it every 10 years. If you have someone with mental health issues living in your home, guns can't be housed on site.

It'd be really hard for the pro-gun lobby to argue and win over public opinion that the mentally ill have a right to own or have access to guns.

In 25 years as a mental health professional I can recall only 2-3 murders by our patients in a semi large metropolitan area. There is no assessment that can show how prone to violence an individual is. Most mass killings done by mentally ill individuals involve paranoids, and paranoids are notorious for keeping their cards close to their chest. Lanza was a social "weirdo," as was Loughner, are we going to deny guns to the nerds? Depression is a mental illness and many shooters are depressed and suicidal but are we going to deny guns to those assessed as depressed? That would be millions. Sociopaths are killers but quite capable of fooling the best assessor. What is needed however is for the health industry to add mental health to it's treatment options and not keep it available for only the wealthy and those on medicaid.


Good comments. In my 8 years as a healthcare provider at a large state psychiatric hospital though, I saw severely ill patients who'd committed a combined total of dozens of murders, but the majority of those murders were committed before they were admitted to the hospital and were what led to their being committed. And that hospital wasn't even the one that housed the most severely and incorrigibly criminally insane in the state.
Blues
 
Posts: 1090
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby bijanc » Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:19 am

One of my fellow contributors to AlterNet suggested that the issue be championed not by politicos, but by independent advocates, with MADD as the model.
bijanc
 
Posts: 1415
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Conor Dary » Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:40 am

This is a start in the change of mood:

    The reaction to the Newtown shootings spread to corporate America and to California on Tuesday, as a private equity firm said it would immediately sell the company that made the assault-style rifle used in shootings, while California lawmakers announced an effort to regulate the sale of ammunition more tightly.

    In announcing the sale of the gun manufacturer, the private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management made clear that the decision stemmed from the killings at Sandy Hook Elementary School, in Newton, Conn. “It is apparent that the Sandy Hook tragedy was a watershed event that has raised the national debate on gun control to an unprecedented level,” Cerberus said in a news release.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012 ... n-guns/?hp
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Dec 18, 2012 11:56 am

Daisy wrote:OK, blues just gave me the term. Hollow point bullets. So, why do gun enthusiasts need them?

Is this a serious question? What do you think the objective is when hunters shoot animals? And since you’re also opposed to “armor piercing” bullets which maintain their shape upon impact, as opposed to deforming, what type of bullets are you okay with? FYI, information about the hows and whys of bullet design can be easily found on the internet with minimal effort.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby JRM » Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:01 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Daisy wrote:OK, blues just gave me the term. Hollow point bullets. So, why do gun enthusiasts need them?

Is this a serious question? What do you think the objective is when hunters shoot animals?


I think this encapsulates a bigger issue: "what is the objective of shooting things?", regardless of the type of bullet or gun involved...
JRM
 
Posts: 2625
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Woodland Hills, CA

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Daisy » Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:10 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Daisy wrote:OK, blues just gave me the term. Hollow point bullets. So, why do gun enthusiasts need them?

Is this a serious question? What do you think the objective is when hunters shoot animals? And since you’re also opposed to “armor piercing” bullets which maintain their shape upon impact, as opposed to deforming, what type of bullets are you okay with? FYI, information about the hows and whys of bullet design can be easily found on the internet with minimal effort.

Your snide comments and evasion are pathetic.

Hunters do not need the most powerful bullets, or the most powerful guns to 'enjoy' their sport. Obviously they think they do though.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:19 pm

Blues wrote:if I asked 1000 gun owners, 1000 law enforcement personnel, or 1000 medical personnel what they thought a "flesh shredding bullet" might be, I'd venture a guess that all of them would suggest a hollow point type bullet.

And you would guess wrong. As a matter of fact I'm pretty certain you would confuse most gun enthusiasts. I work with dozens of avid gun owners and hunters, and we discuss guns all the time, so I'm familiar wieth the lingo. Additionally, I'm a former FFL holder, with all that entails, and the first time I'd ever seen or heard that term was in Daisy's post. I've heard of flesh-eating bacteria but never flesh-eating bullets. In case you didn't know it, there are other types of deform-on-impact bullet designs besides hollow points. Are you familiar with Glaser safety slugs? By the way, Blues, what's you firearms background?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:32 pm

Daisy wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
Daisy wrote:OK, blues just gave me the term. Hollow point bullets. So, why do gun enthusiasts need them?

Is this a serious question? What do you think the objective is when hunters shoot animals? And since you’re also opposed to “armor piercing” bullets which maintain their shape upon impact, as opposed to deforming, what type of bullets are you okay with? FYI, information about the hows and whys of bullet design can be easily found on the internet with minimal effort.

Your snide comments and evasion are pathetic.

You question was pathetic. I would suggest that you educate yourself just a little so as not to reveal your dearth of knowledge on the subject.

Daisy wrote:Hunters do not need the most powerful bullets, or the most powerful guns to 'enjoy' their sport. Obviously they think they do though.

Please tell me how powerful a weapon hunters need to enjoy their sport. FYI, the standard unit of measurement is foot-pounds of muzzle energy. Are you can give your answer in joules if you'd like.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Dec 18, 2012 12:41 pm

preston wrote:Interestingly, the same people who are trying to infringe on the rights of guns owner arguing "that it only makes sense" and "who needs a semi-auto to hunt..." , often seems to be the same ones who invoke first amendment rights and howl about "censorship". If the 2nd amendment has to give, then the first will have to give too.

This morning on CNN, I heard one Joe Klein suggest that laws need to be passed against violent video games and movies, which he feels has desensitized a generation of young people to violence. If government can regulate the sexual content that we are exposed to, why can't it regulate violent content? Why shouldn't overly violent video games be treated like child porn?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:07 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:...If government can regulate the sexual content that we are exposed to, why can't it regulate violent content? Why shouldn't overly violent video games be treated like child porn?

I didn't say violent video games should be regulated and I'm not advocating for their regulation, either. I'm just noting that the same people who want to take away someelse's "right" are usually hell bent on protecting their own. I think it's easy to say that violent video games and a number of societal "breakdowns" are responsible and you would be half right and all wrong. These are not easy problems. If we NEVER want another single person to die in a HWY accident all we have to do is lower automobile speeds to be no faster than 15 mph, but when it takes some people a full week to go to work, some will realize that whatever the number of deaths are "acceptable".

And, THAT'S what we're talking about in Sandy Hook/Newtown. If this was just about kids dying then MORE would have been done after Ok City, or Ruby Ridge, etc, but those were political statements and didn't strike at the heart of people who THOUGHT they had safely buffered themselves from the nonsense that others have to live through. This WASN'T the inner city; this was the protected dream. Look at the demographics of Sandy Hook, according to wikipedia
As of the census of 2000, there were 25,031 people, 8,325 households, and 6,776 families residing in the town.
-The racial makeup of the town was 95.14% White, 1.75% Black or African American, 0.14% Native American, 1.40% Asian, 0.04% Pacific Islander, 0.64% from other races, and 0.89% from two or more races. Hispanic or Latino of any race were 2.36% of the population.
-There were 8,325 households out of which 44.7% had children under the age of 18 living with them,
-73.3% were married couples living together, 5.8% had a female householder with no husband present, and 18.6% were non-families. 14.8% of all households were made up of individuals and 5.8% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.90 and the average family size was 3.24.
-In the town the population was spread out with 29.3% under the age of 18, 4.4% from 18 to 24, 32.5% from 25 to 44, 25.1% from 45 to 64, and 8.7% who were 65 years of age or older.
-The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females there were 104.9 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 103.5 males.
-The median income for a household in the town was $90,193, and the median income for a family was $99,192 (these figures had risen to $101,937 and $119,175 respectively as of a 2007 estimate[8]). Males had a median income of $68,965 versus $42,217 for females.
-The per capita income for the town was $37,786. About 2.2% of families and 3.1% of the population were below the poverty line, including 3.0% of those under age 18 and 3.9% of those age 65 or over.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Daisy » Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:08 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Daisy wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:
Daisy wrote:OK, blues just gave me the term. Hollow point bullets. So, why do gun enthusiasts need them?

Is this a serious question? What do you think the objective is when hunters shoot animals? And since you’re also opposed to “armor piercing” bullets which maintain their shape upon impact, as opposed to deforming, what type of bullets are you okay with? FYI, information about the hows and whys of bullet design can be easily found on the internet with minimal effort.

Your snide comments and evasion are pathetic.

You question was pathetic. I would suggest that you educate yourself just a little so as not to reveal your dearth of knowledge on the subject.

Daisy wrote:Hunters do not need the most powerful bullets, or the most powerful guns to 'enjoy' their sport. Obviously they think they do though.

Please tell me how powerful a weapon hunters need to enjoy their sport. FYI, the standard unit of measurement is foot-pounds of muzzle energy. Are you can give your answer in joules if you'd like.

Again, just hiding behind the terminology. And if the other side is ignorant of this terminology you just blow off their opinions. Are you really saying that you can't discuss this in big picture concepts?

And still no one has said anything about how a restriction on all semi-automatic weapons and certain bullets impinge on the second amendment.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Conor Dary » Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:15 pm

Daisy, this might answer your question in today's Times:

    The courts have upheld federal laws banning gun ownership by people convicted of felonies and some misdemeanors, by illegal immigrants and by drug addicts. They have upheld laws making it illegal to carry guns near schools or in post offices. They have upheld laws concerning unregistered weapons. And they have upheld laws banning machine guns and sawed-off shotguns.

    Nor does Heller impose any major hurdles to many of the most common legislative proposals in the wake of the Newtown shootings, said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California in Los Angeles and the author of “Gun Fight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.” Among the responses that Heller allows, he said, are better background checks, enhanced mental health reporting and a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/us/gu ... ng.html?hp
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Daisy » Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:25 pm

Conor Dary wrote:Daisy, this might answer your question in today's Times

That helps.

The article wrote:The main obstacles to the passage of such measures is likely to be politics, not constitutional law, scholars say

So the NRA and their puppets.

The article wrote:Justice Scalia added that laws banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” are “another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms.”

So what is dangerous and unusual? Scalia's example was “M-16 rifles and the like”, so should semi-automatics be in the same class?
Last edited by Daisy on Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:37 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:29 pm

Conor Dary wrote:Daisy, this might answer your question in today's Times:

    ...Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California in Los Angeles and the author of “Gun Fight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.” Among the responses that Heller allows, he said, are better background checks, enhanced mental health reporting and a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/us/gu ... ng.html?hp

Lanza's purported Asberger's syndrome would not have fallen under the Aegis of mental illness; Asberger's is a developmental disorder and his mother would have probably passed a background check. The only thing, of the 3 listed, that could have LIMITED the amount of casualties is a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips.
Daisy wrote:...
Justice Scalia added that laws banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” are “another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms.”

So what is dangerous and unusual? Scalia's example was “M-16 rifles and the like”, so should semi-automatics in the same class?

The question that jazz asked is how would you define semi-automatic? I've heard other politicians say that too, so it's NOT jazz playing semantics, it's real. I don't know how you do it; I'm not nearly as versed in guns as jazz or others, but that is what MAY be hindering a well-written bill that can actually find the funding to be effective.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Daisy » Tue Dec 18, 2012 1:36 pm

preston wrote:The question that jazz asked is how would you define semi-automatic? I've heard other politicians say that too, so it's NOT jazz playing semantics, it's real.

My instinct would say that 'rate of fire' is a key thing here. This from the perspective of trying to reduce the killing rate.

If Lanza's mother had owned 5 shot guns would we have seen the same thing?

I then read about semi-automatics with respect to the 1994 legislation.
Congress didn’t want to ban all semiautomatic weapons — that would ban most guns, period. So, in crafting the 1994 ban, lawmakers mainly focused on 18 specific firearms, as well as certain military-type features on guns. Complicated flow charts laid it all out. Certain models of AR-15s and AK-47s were banned. Any semiautomatic rifle with a pistol grip and a bayonet mount was an “assault weapon.” But a semiautomatic rifle with just a pistol grip might be okay. It was complicated. And its complexity made it easy to evade.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/won ... -one-post/


Red is why the politicians are afraid to do anything concrete. Blue is why half ass legislation does not work.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Tue Dec 18, 2012 2:18 pm

Daisy wrote:Red is why the politicians are afraid to do anything concrete. Blue is why half ass legislation does not work.

But, even if it's NOT half-assed legislation there are ways to still grind down the effectiveness. Not to start a debate about healthcare, but since funding bills must start in the house, all they have to do is not fund certain elements. The politics of nearly any state allows that bills don't really have to be enforced (even the ruling of separate but equal didn't lead to "equal" schools). The most effective comprehensive bills have been transportation related: drunk driving, click it or ticket, 55 mph (which started going back up a few years back).
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Blues » Tue Dec 18, 2012 3:48 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Blues wrote:if I asked 1000 gun owners, 1000 law enforcement personnel, or 1000 medical personnel what they thought a "flesh shredding bullet" might be, I'd venture a guess that all of them would suggest a hollow point type bullet.


And you would guess wrong.....

.... I've heard of flesh-eating bacteria but never flesh-eating bullets. In case you didn't know it, there are other types of deform-on-impact bullet designs besides hollow points. Are you familiar with Glaser safety slugs? By the way, Blues, what's you firearms background?


Daisy wrote "flesh shredding bullets", and now you've changed it to "flesh eating bullets". That makes a difference in how Daisy's comment comes across. You claimed you had no idea what Daisy was referring to, when I'm sure you at least had an idea that Daisy was referring to deforming ammunition meant to deliver greater stopping power and associated greater tissue damage, and the vast majority of ammunition sold in this category by a landslide are hollow points of some type, or else "disguised" hollow point ammo like Federal Guard Dog. Your Glasers are manufactured by a tiny company with 5 to 10 employees, with annual sales of about $500,000. Glaser Safety Slugs aren't even in the same universe as many of the most popular hollow points in sales and popularity.

And your reply to Daisy here seemed a little smug:

"And since you’re also opposed to “armor piercing” bullets which maintain their shape upon impact, as opposed to deforming, what type of bullets are you okay with? FYI, information about the hows and whys of bullet design can be easily found on the internet with minimal effort."

As any child who ever shot a cap pistol knows (wink), armor piercing bullets are quite different than the common lead full metal jacketed bullets. You seemed to imply that Daisy's opposition to hollow points and armor piercing ammo left gun enthusiasts no serious ammo at all, which is pretty silly. Armor piercing bullets often (but not always) have a sharper point, and always consist of harder materials than standard full metal jacket type lead ammo that would still be available to the public if the bullet types Daisy mentioned weren't. Either you didn't know that and obviously don't understand ammunition, or you were spin doctoring to try to discredit Daisy's views. To repeat the advice you gave Daisy, "the hows and whys of bullet design can be easily found on the internet with minimal effort".
Last edited by Blues on Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Blues
 
Posts: 1090
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Dec 18, 2012 7:42 pm

Daisy wrote:Again, just hiding behind the terminology. And if the other side is ignorant of this terminology you just blow off their opinions. Are you really saying that you can't discuss this in big picture concepts?

And still no one has said anything about how a restriction on all semi-automatic weapons and certain bullets impinge on the second amendment.

Okay, let me state this in as civil a manner as I can. The primary objective of big game hunters is to drop their game in its tracks. They don't want to wound an animal in such a manner that they will have to chase it for a half mile through thick woods and brush, while trying to follow a barely visible blood trail. Hunters hate losing animals that they've wounded. One of the ways that hunters minimize the possibility of this happening is by avoiding underpowered weapons and underperforning ammunition. It just so happens that weapons and ammunition that are effective at taking down deer, elk and moose are also effective at taking down humans.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Blues » Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:03 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Daisy wrote:Again, just hiding behind the terminology. And if the other side is ignorant of this terminology you just blow off their opinions. Are you really saying that you can't discuss this in big picture concepts?

And still no one has said anything about how a restriction on all semi-automatic weapons and certain bullets impinge on the second amendment.

Okay, let me state this in as civil a manner as I can. The primary objective of big game hunters is to drop their game in its tracks. They don't want to wound an animal in such a manner that they will have to chase it for a half mile through thick woods and brush, while trying to follow a barely visible blood trail. Hunters hate losing animals that they've wounded. One of the ways that hunters minimize the possibility of this happening is by avoiding underpowered weapons and underperforning ammunition. It just so happens that weapons and ammunition that are effective at taking down deer, elk and moose are also effective at taking down humans.


I thought we were talking about gun owners in general rather than hunters specifically. Isn't it possible that restricting hollow points and armor piercing ammo for handguns wouldn't necessarily restrict the most effective ammo choices for hunting rifles?
Blues
 
Posts: 1090
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 9:58 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby gh » Tue Dec 18, 2012 8:19 pm

jazzcyclist wrote:
Daisy wrote:Again, just hiding behind the terminology. And if the other side is ignorant of this terminology you just blow off their opinions. Are you really saying that you can't discuss this in big picture concepts?

And still no one has said anything about how a restriction on all semi-automatic weapons and certain bullets impinge on the second amendment.

Okay, let me state this in as civil a manner as I can. The primary objective of big game hunters is to drop their game in its tracks. They don't want to wound an animal in such a manner that they will have to chase it for a half mile through thick woods and brush, while trying to follow a barely visible blood trail. Hunters hate losing animals that they've wounded. One of the ways that hunters minimize the possibility of this happening is by avoiding underpowered weapons and underperforning ammunition. It just so happens that weapons and ammunition that are effective at taking down deer, elk and moose are also effective at taking down humans.


When, many decades ago, I was a deer hunter, I used CPEs (copper-point expandings) because those indeed inflicted more ripping of flesh.

Guess what? Not being a PETA guy at this point of my life, if banning anything but a "small hole" round saves a few humans at the expense of the agony of a few ungulates here and there, sign me up.

Like I could give a flying fuck if "Hunters hate losing animals that they've wounded." (I could go on about how "chasing a wounded animal through woods and brush" was part of how hunting was how I learned it) (hey, call me Natty Bumpo)
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby kuha » Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:03 pm

gh wrote:Like I could give a flying fuck if "Hunters hate losing animals that they've wounded." (I could go on about how "chasing a wounded animal through woods and brush" was part of how hunting was how I learned it) (hey, call me Natty Bumpo)


Yup. That is the lamest reason yet for all the obscene weapons and ammo floating freely through our society. We're putting up with the ramifications of that shit just so a bunch of hobbyists aren't unduly put out in the woods? Seriously? Think about how pathetic that argument actually is. And try not to cry.
kuha
 
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Tue Dec 18, 2012 9:46 pm

kuha wrote:Yup. That is the lamest reason yet for all the obscene weapons and ammo floating freely through our society. We're putting up with the ramifications of that shit just so a bunch of hobbyists aren't unduly put out in the woods? Seriously? Think about how pathetic that argument actually is. And try not to cry.

I guess I just don't understand folks like you and gh. I explained why hunters preferred weapons with superior stopping power, but I assumed that it would be self-evident why stopping power was even more important in self-defense situations. If I hear someone breaking into my home in the wee hours of the morning, I want to stop the intruder as quickly as possible, I have no interest in giving him a fighting chance. You used the word pathetic, but nonsenical is the word that popped in my head when I read your post.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby gh » Tue Dec 18, 2012 10:13 pm

jazz... I'm way cognizant of the concept of "stopping power," but feel a line has to be drawn somewhere. Does every homeowner need an elephant gun? I think not.

I can't swear to it with facts, but I'm convinced that the number of average citizens whose lives have been saved by a big-ass gun (where a peashooter would have served the same purpose) compared to the numbers wiped out by said same weapon of mass-individual destruction is way slanted towards the killing of innocents.

And back to my major point. Whatever caliber/load/jacketing, who needs magazines with countless rounds? If, indeed, a homeowner has a weapon with the ultimate stopping power you espouse, why does he need one with ultimate times x? If you can't get it done in the first couple of shots, you be a dead man already. Unless you really believe the Sons Of Anarchy en masse are the ones knocking at your door.
gh
 
Posts: 46327
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Pego » Wed Dec 19, 2012 4:22 am

jazzcyclist wrote:I want to stop the intruder as quickly as possible


All right jazzcyclist, you usually have data supporting your position, so I will ask you two related questions.

1. How many intruders have been stopped by armed citizens in a year (any year you might have). Could be the entire country, region, state. Stats, not stories/testimonials.
2. In the same year, how many accidental shootings were there in the homes of armed citizens?
Pego
 
Posts: 10199
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:15 am

preston wrote:The question that jazz asked is how would you define semi-automatic? I've heard other politicians say that too, so it's NOT jazz playing semantics, it's real. I don't know how you do it; I'm not nearly as versed in guns as jazz or others, but that is what MAY be hindering a well-written bill that can actually find the funding to be effective.

Actually, semi-automatic weapons are easy to define in an objective manner. Even Wayne LaPierre and Michael Bloomberg would agree on that definition. It's assault weapons that are in the eyes of the beholder.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:31 am

Pego wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:I want to stop the intruder as quickly as possible


All right jazzcyclist, you usually have data supporting your position, so I will ask you two related questions.

1. How many intruders have been stopped by armed citizens in a year (any year you might have). Could be the entire country, region, state. Stats, not stories/testimonials.
2. In the same year, how many accidental shootings were there in the homes of armed citizens?

I honestly have no idea. Have you looked it up? What we need to have in this country is a debate about private gun ownership. Some people in the media have been touting European-style gun laws lately. At least that's a legitimate debate if you can get around the constitutional issues in a democratic manner. But what I don't think makes sense is that you allow people to have guns for hunting (killing animals) and personal protection (killing people) on the one hand, but tell them that their weapons must not be too powerful on the other hand. Keep in mind that the BATF already has limits in place on what you can possess. Automatic weapons require a class III license. Anything larger than .50 caliber requires a class III license. Do we want to go further than that? How about limiting private gun ownership to rim-fire weapons or muzzle-loaders like the founding fathers used? Is that where this is heading?
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:41 am

gh wrote:jazz... I'm way cognizant of the concept of "stopping power," but feel a line has to be drawn somewhere. Does every homeowner need an elephant gun? I think not.

I can't swear to it with facts, but I'm convinced that the number of average citizens whose lives have been saved by a big-ass gun (where a peashooter would have served the same purpose) compared to the numbers wiped out by said same weapon of mass-individual destruction is way slanted towards the killing of innocents.

I wouldn't be opposed to mandatory gun safety classes for folks buying guns. Also, I don't think it makes sense that gun owners can sell their weapons without leaving a paper trail for the government. When you buy a car, you must leave a paper trail whether the car is new or used, but when you buy a gun, you only have to leave a paper trail when it's purchased new from an FFL dealer.

gh wrote:And back to my major point. Whatever caliber/load/jacketing, who needs magazines with countless rounds? If, indeed, a homeowner has a weapon with the ultimate stopping power you espouse, why does he need one with ultimate times x? If you can't get it done in the first couple of shots, you be a dead man already. Unless you really believe the Sons Of Anarchy en masse are the ones knocking at your door.

That's a good point and that's why I think we'll definitely see large capacity (greater than 10 or 15 rounds) magazines banned in the future. I already have my stockpile so I'm good anyway. :wink:
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:43 am

Blues wrote:I thought we were talking about gun owners in general rather than hunters specifically. Isn't it possible that restricting hollow points and armor piercing ammo for handguns wouldn't necessarily restrict the most effective ammo choices for hunting rifles?

There are definitely different issues involved when talking about handguns vs long guns. No one hunts with a 9mm.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby kuha » Wed Dec 19, 2012 6:51 am

jazzcyclist wrote:You used the word pathetic, but nonsenical is the word that popped in my head when I read your post.


And on that note, I will observe that you over-value your own rhetoric on this issue. You are convincing only to the already convinced.
kuha
 
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:24 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
kuha wrote:Yup. That is the lamest reason yet for all the obscene weapons and ammo floating freely through our society. We're putting up with the ramifications of that shit just so a bunch of hobbyists aren't unduly put out in the woods? Seriously? Think about how pathetic that argument actually is. And try not to cry.

I guess I just don't understand folks like you and gh. I explained why hunters preferred weapons with superior stopping power, but I assumed that it would be self-evident why stopping power was even more important in self-defense situations. If I hear someone breaking into my home in the wee hours of the morning, I want to stop the intruder as quickly as possible, I have no interest in giving him a fighting chance. You used the word pathetic, but nonsenical is the word that popped in my head when I read your post.

Nonsensical and self-righteous is what I thought too, jazz. He might actually believe that but it is Kuha with too much self-regard for his own opinion. The reason wasn't lame, it was rational. Kuha's assessment of how hunters SHOULD think is just as arrogant as German automakers refusing to put cupholders in their cars that were being exported to America because the German automakers believed that Americans should NOT be drinking while driving. Laziness is rational. Not wanting to chase a deer through shrubbery is rational. Building a gun that is more likely to drop an animal in his tracks so you don't have to chase him is rational. (it's like most things in our lives: they are wants, not needs)

The ramifications of user error in cars kills 5 times as many people as are killed by guns and yet people don't seem unduly put out by these "hobbyists" to curtail driving privileges altogether, rollback max speeds to 12 mph or making one lane to everywhere to force traffic that slows everyone down.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby jazzcyclist » Wed Dec 19, 2012 7:42 am

kuha wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:You used the word pathetic, but nonsenical is the word that popped in my head when I read your post.


And on that note, I will observe that you over-value your own rhetoric on this issue. You are convincing only to the already convinced.

Let's be honest. It is very seldom that anyone changes anyone's mind on issues like these on the board, and it's even less likely to happen when you personalize the debate. So I'll make a deal with you in the future, if you don't personalize these issues with me, I won't personalize them with you.
jazzcyclist
 
Posts: 10860
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Marlow » Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:24 am

preston wrote:Nonsensical and self-righteous is what I thought too, jazz. He might actually believe that but it is Kuha with too much self-regard for his own opinion.

Though I have never found that to be true regarding kuha, there does seem to a lot of that going on around here . . .

which is precisely why I have little hope for substantive change in gun control. Too many NRA-types think they have a divine right to owning guns that couldn't possibly be for any purpose except to kill LOTS of people.
Marlow
 
Posts: 21088
Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 5:00 pm
Location: Somewhere over the . . . hill

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby Conor Dary » Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:27 am

Marlow wrote:
preston wrote:Nonsensical and self-righteous is what I thought too, jazz. He might actually believe that but it is Kuha with too much self-regard for his own opinion.

Though I have never found that to be true regarding kuha, there does seem to a lot of that going on around here . . .

which is precisely why I have little hope for substantive change in gun control. Too many NRA-types think they have a divine right to owning guns that couldn't possibly be for any purpose except to kill LOTS of people.


More nonsense from 7sided. What else is new?

    Preston is a known shit-disturber who walks the fine line. Advice from management, so you don't get caught up in a purge: keep your cool and avoid all-caps postings.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=48507&p=806048

Advice I intend to follow...
Last edited by Conor Dary on Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Conor Dary
 
Posts: 6297
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: कनोर दारी in Ronald MacDonald's Home Town, and once a Duck always a Duck.

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby kuha » Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:35 am

jazzcyclist wrote:
kuha wrote:
jazzcyclist wrote:You used the word pathetic, but nonsenical is the word that popped in my head when I read your post.


And on that note, I will observe that you over-value your own rhetoric on this issue. You are convincing only to the already convinced.

Let's be honest. It is very seldom that anyone changes anyone's mind on issues like these on the board, and it's even less likely to happen when you personalize the debate. So I'll make a deal with you in the future, if you don't personalize these issues with me, I won't personalize them with you.


Of course, you are exactly right on the general failure of arguments to convince the other side. I've made note of that in the past, also. But there is nothing personal here; there's no point to that. You referred to my statement as "nonsensical." I don't believe that it was. My response was simply to alert you to the fact that your very lengthy posts haven't been all that convincing on this overall issue. There is, certainly, some "nonsense" in all of this, but we need to be more attentive to unchallenged dogma, simple assertions taken as fact, and cherry-picked data points being elevated into larger trends or truths.

At the end of all this, I guess I have a very simple question. In what ways do your views deviate from official NRA/gun industry positions? Those points of difference--if any--would provide ground for a more interesting dialogue.
kuha
 
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: 3rd row, on the finish line

Re: Gun (Lack of) Control

Postby preston » Wed Dec 19, 2012 8:52 am

Conor Dary wrote:
Marlow wrote:
preston wrote:Nonsensical and self-righteous is what I thought too, jazz. He might actually believe that but it is Kuha with too much self-regard for his own opinion.

Though I have never found that to be true regarding kuha, there does seem to a lot of that going on around here . . .

which is precisely why I have little hope for substantive change in gun control. Too many NRA-types think they have a divine right to owning guns that couldn't possibly be for any purpose except to kill LOTS of people.


More nonsense from 7sided. What else is new?

    Preston is a known shit-disturber who walks the fine line. Advice from management, so you don't get caught up in a purge: keep your cool and avoid all-caps postings.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=48507&p=806048

Advice I intend to follow...

Conor, I know that you think I was talking about you when I mentioned child pornography on your hard-drive, but I wasn't; you never crossed my mind. I also mentioned that child rapists wouldn't last another day if murder was legal and that also hasn't come to pass. The point: it's not all about you, even though you have your own demons to contend with.
preston
 
Posts: 1075
Joined: Tue Nov 29, 2011 1:09 pm

PreviousNext

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests