5,002 Forum Posts by "TheMason"
At 1/17/13 07:01 AM, SenatorJohnDean wrote:
At 1/14/13 05:05 PM, TheMason wrote:I'm getting that the main point of your argument would be that the government would eventually bring about their own demise by overusing their superior firepower...At 1/14/13 01:10 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:I'm going to address the three general themes of your post rather than go point by point. As I see them they are:
1) An imbalance of military hardware skewed towards the government
2) That this hardware would totally pwn an armed civil populace.
3) That the key difference that would favor the government domestically over overseas engagements is the gloves would come off.
Main point? No...not at all. That is the third point. As Princess Leia said: "The more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip through your fingers." (This is based on history.) That if the gloves came off and the goverment stopped following international and domestic law in fighting rebels...the faster their support will erode.
This may have been the case in the past when there was a time factor, but nowadays there are weapons of instant death and humanless armies. So if the population slowly catches on today that the government sucks, the firepower is too strong. Slow dissenters can be instantly wiped out and there are no humans to kill. The government can just keep killing with drones like the last scene in Matrix 3.
This would be true if not for what is actually my main point: That the military would fracture, and other actors such as states and militias would gain possession of the same military hardware.
In short, the same weapons like F-16s, drones, tanks, and armored vehicles a hypothetical tyrannical federal government would have...the rebels would have too.
In essence...significant portions of the military would abandon the government when the orders are issued. Therefore, the government's advantage is illusionary.
At 1/17/13 02:12 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: Ammo capacity, rate of fire, things like this is purely cosmetic? I'm not a big gun guy but even I know that's ridiculous.
Ammo capacity and rate of fire is not cosmetic...you are correct. At the same time, do they really make these firearms uncommonly or unusually deadly or threatening? While on the surface the logical answer is 'yes'...once you start to learn about firearms you see the threat to the public these things pose are vastly overstated.
Secondly, many things with the ban are cosmetic and/or even semantic differences:
* pistol grips
* barrel shrouds (which are the same things as foreends)
* flash suppressors/muzzle brakes
* grenade launchers (which either only fires flares or grenades that are not available even to the US military).
* collapsable stocks
And again I say if that's the attitude, then we shouldn't have any laws and everybody should do whatever the fuck they want as long as it's in the name of protecting themselves. This is the logical end point to your argument.
The other illogical extreme is we should outlaw cars because drunk drivers will lose their licenses...but drive anyway. So we need to take the killing machine away from everyone.
Again, I fail to see how making bans to keep assault weapons, which are demonstrably different from handguns, out of the public's hands is merely a ban on "cosmetics".
They are demonstrably different from handguns in that:
* Handguns are used in crime.
* Handguns tend to be far more deadly than military style assault rifles.
Those are not matters of opinion...these are facts.
How so? Also if the current regulations don't solve the problem, why then is the answer "drop all regulations" instead of "well, let's make some better ones"?
You misunderstand the argument. It isn't that we're saying 'drop all regulations'...what we're saying is you are regulating the wrong things.
We're saying we've done all we can do with gun regulation to the point that we cannot expect anymore effect to be had by further regulation. We need to address other problems such as education, economic issues, racial issues, and even the place violence occupies in our society.
Well, then whatever sources your using (which are probably friendly, or getting info from the NRA) are lying.
While Obama doesn't think so, a wide body of ACADEMIC research exists on this subject. We are talking about peer-reviewed academic journals...not the rags of special interest groups preying upon the emotions of people on both sides.
Again, show me what you mean by "looks" and "cosmetics". Because all I hear is banning assault type weapons. Which are not merely cosmetically different from a handgun, they are FUNCTIONALLY different as well.
They have greater ammo capacity. They also fire ammo that inflicts harm on a much smaller scale than handguns do. An AR-15 round go so fast that even hollow point ammo will not have much effect. On the other hand, a handgun fires a bullet that is often 2-3x larger than an assault rifle's bullet. It also fires at a slower speed meaning that the round has more chance to expand and do more damage.
High cap mags have a greater chance of failing.
Semi-autos have a higher chance of failing (regardless of pistol, rifle, or shotgun).
Also, yes the ban in 1994 was based on cosmetics (none of us can speak on what the final bill will look like since it hasn't been written yet). It allowed high capacity magazines...but defined a firearm as an 'assault weapon' if it had the following features:
* pistol grip
* collapsable stock
* bayonet lugs
* inoperable bayonet lugs
* flash suppressors
I can sign off on the idea of accepting a high-cap mag being something functional that differentiates an assault rifle from other firearms...but that is not something the '94 AWB prohibited. My AK was purchased legally under the '94 AWB, the only difference between it and a military style AK-47 was that it had a thumbhole stock and lacked a flash suppressor and bayonet lug.
But it is the same gun as an AK-47 clone in all the ways that matter....it just looks different.
At 1/17/13 10:02 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
There is no lawful need for a high round magazine. There is no lawful need for a gun the looks like a military gun.
There is one purpose: national defense. The second amendment was designed to provide for an armed populace that forms the backbone of our military. Afterall, the Constitution establishes a permanent Navy...but only authorizes the Army to be funded for two years at a time. There are numerous reasons for this, but the largest reason is they feared a standing army if you read the writings of the Founders.
The original intent was for civilians to provide their own small arms.
Now once that becomes a threat to the public good, health, and/or welfare...any attempt to ban them is unnecessary. At this point...no such threat can be demonstrated to exist.
At 1/17/13 01:18 AM, theburningliberal wrote: The phrase "well-regulated" also appears in reference to militias, and Supreme Court reading of the second Amendment not only denies parity between military and civilian guns (which is why a civilian can't go to the local gun store and pick up an M4 or something), but takes the phrase "well-regulated" and extends it to all gun laws on the book. As long as gun laws pass the test of constitutional muster (usually strict scrutiny with 2nd Amendment rights), it is constitutional. This usually means that there needs to be a significant and compelling state interest in regulating these weapons, but guns can, in fact, be regulated by the government.
* You can go to the store and buy a M-4 that has all the features of a military M-4 with the exception of selective fire. Now here's the thing...the only thing a burst fire setting is good for is for suppressive fire...of making the bad guy keep their heads down. It does not make them more deadly. In fact the recoil created by higher rates of fire reduces accuracy to the point of absurdity. That's why militaries are abandoning full-auto assault rifles in favor of 3-round bursts.
The M-4 civilian variant is still capable of 99% of military operations.
* Secondly, the SCOTUS talks about the government having the right to limit unusual and uncommon firearms. The question becomes: do military style assault rifle 'clones' count as unusual or uncommon? Now, if the intent of the second amendment is not self-defense or hunting (as according to SCOTUS in 2008)...then the M-4 and AK-47 is actually very common. The AK is the prolific gun in the world. On the other hand .50 cal turret mounted machine guns and light machine guns are not common and are unusual. Furthermore, the intermediate round fired by the assault rifle is not unusually deadly...in fact military style ammo is often LESS lethal than common hunting rifle rounds (which are more powerful). They are also less lethal than self-defense rounds which are less powerful.
Ergo there is nothing about about these firearms (and their caliburs) that makes them uncommon or unusual. Therefore, these do not qualify for regulation under the SCOTUS language.
* Finally, let's talk about the term 'well-regulated'. It is used in the text of the second amendment as a modifier. What it means is: the militia conforms to accepted military standards. An example of this was the requirment of males between certain ages drilled according to a certain schedule. It was not written to describe government laws...but the nature of the militia as an organized (somewhat) fighting force.
Which brings me to another point: the hypocrasy of the 'well-regulated militia' crowd. The argument that supporters of the second amendment focus on the 'shall not be infringed' part of the amendment while ignoring the 'well-regulated militia' part. The truth is the people who focus on the second half of the text focus on that because that is where the focus of the second amendment is. Let's look at this grammatically:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
There is no action verb in the first clause: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,". The only verb (regulated being a modifier here) in this clause is 'being' which is defined as: existing. Hell...some dictionaries don't even consider the word to even be a verb but a noun or adjective! In short, there is no action that is either authorized or prohibited in this clause.
It exists strictly as a preamble to describe why the second amendment is important. It was a very common custom at the time for things of such great import to have a preamble clause.
Now let's look at the second clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" Shall is a verb...an action verb. It perscribes an action that compliance with is deemed necessary...or when coupled with 'not' perscribes an action that will not occur. In this way this clause does two things:
a) establish that access to arms is a right of the people...which means it is an individual right as opposed to a federal or state right.
b) establishes that this right will not be taken away.
I think there is a limit to this. I don't see where a civilian needs a tank, F-16 or even machine guns (which an assault rifle does not qualify for). While the national guard is NOT the same thing as the militia...it does serve a similiar purpose. In the event of a national collapse...many of those weapons would fall under the control of the state militias.
But as for assault rifles...the intent is the militia provides their own small arms. Therefore, it is important for these types of firearms to remain available.
At 1/17/13 10:02 AM, Camarohusky wrote: There is no lawful need for a high round magazine. There is no lawful need for a gun the looks like a military gun.
I am still waiting to see exactly how this is an unessecary infringement when the right to bear arms still exists and the arms being restricted have no lawful purpose.
While there is minimal lawful need...similarly there is no compelling purpose to ban them either. There is no public good to be had from their banning.
Ergo since there is no compelling need or public good to be had in banning them, any law regulating, restricting, or banning them is by definition unnecessary.
The argument that this is an unnecessary infringment is that there is no justification that makes these laws necessary.
At 1/16/13 06:32 PM, adrshepard wrote:
Not in all states. .223 is perfectly acceptable for deer hunting in lots of places. Sure, its not as strong as extra large pistol rounds or higher calibre rifle rounds, but it still has more stopping power than regular pistol rounds. Besides, how many semi-automatic weapons are there for public sale chambered for rounds larger than .223?
1) Yes...in some states .223 is legal for use in deer hunting. However, even in these cases it is frowned upon. While there are hunters who claim it works fine. However, from what I've experienced talking with fellow hunters here in Mo and on gun BBSs online...it is not the norm and is a minority opinion.
2) There are actually many semi-auto weapons for sale in caliburs larger than .223. I've seen semi-auto .308, then there is the AK-47 round, and even a few 6mm sized caliburs that have been specifically created to make the AR-15 platform more suitable for hunting.
The 45 may be larger, but its not going anywhere near as fast as a rifle round. I'm not big on the nuts and bolts of guns, but I haven't found anything on the internet through a little research that says a standard pistol round has more stopping power than a .223.
The speed is actually what makes the .223 a weaker round for self-defense and stopping & killing power.
A .223 is only a 55 to 69 grain bullet. A .45 (doesn't matter if it is .45ACP, .45LC or .45GAR) on the other hand goes up to 250 grains with the smallest bullet for a .45 is 225 grains. (Grains are how bullets are weighed.) So the .45, at its smallest, is over 3x larger than the smallest .223.
Add to this the bullet's shape. Even with a hollow point bullet, the .223 tapers down to a sharp point whereas the .45 is flat. This means that the shape of the bullet makes the .223 a much better penetrator. Again this sounds like it would make the .223 the better round. But it does not. That it is the better penetrator means that it does significantly less damage.
The speed that the bullet is traveling, the weight and diameter, and shape all contribute to a bullet that over-penetrates and does little damage to the body. At the speed a .223 is traveling a hollow point or soft-lead core bullet will not have much of a chance of expanding. It goes in and out leaving being a very small wound channel.
On the other hand, a .45 since it is traveling slow has a greater chance of doing one of two things:
A) A hollow-point has a greater chance of expanding.
B) More of a chance of not leaving the body.
Even if it does leave the body, a .45 will lead a larger wound channel doing more damage. Furthermore, even if its not an expanding bullet like a HP or JHP....45 tends to make a larger exit wound than entry wound. Whereas the .223 leaves roughly the same size exit wound as entry wound. The .45 simply delivers more brute force whereas the .223 punches through and keeps going leaving less damage in its wake.
In the end the only time that an AR would be preferable over the .45 is when the intruder is wearing body armor. The .223 has a greater chance of penetrating it...but its more likely that that it will hurt the intruder a little more. But even still...a .45 would knock the guy on his ass.
At 1/17/13 01:03 AM, Camarohusky wrote:At 1/16/13 11:21 PM, LemonCrush wrote: I don't give a flying fuck about liberal interpretation of the law.Reading into the plain text of the Second Amendment the right to own assault weapons IS a liberal interpretation of the law.
A strict interpretation would not read that in.
How so? Especially when given the historical context of when the amendment was written the notion that it would not cover assault rifles and other military arms would be revisionist.
At 1/16/13 05:03 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: Then why exactly do you need them so badly.
Without getting into ballistics minutae...even though the M-16 round is illegal for hunting in many states because of just how ineffective it is at killing something the size of a deer or human...my AK-47 is actually a good short-range deer rifle. With the right ammo, I can go hunting in the woods or in some of the fields around my house minimizing the chance that I hit something I don't want to in case I miss.
A long time ago I posted an article about a little girl who got hit by a stray hunter's bullet while riding a horse. The vast majority of hunting rifles are more powerful than assault rifle rounds. So using an AK for short-range hunting...is actually a safety thing.
But again...those wanting to ban them have to come up with a justification (or series thereof) for banning them. At this point, their justifications dissolve upon inspection.
At 1/16/13 04:16 PM, adrshepard wrote: The bigger problem with his point is that assault rifles fire more powerful rounds which travel at higher speeds. A .223 round is going to cause much more damage than a 9mm or .45 bullet, and there's arguably no practical reason why anyone would need that large a round for self-defense purposes.
Absolutely false! You can hunt deer with a .45LC or .44 rem mag...but you cannot hunt one with a .223 because it is deemed to be an unethical kill because it lacks the killing power of other rounds!
The high rate of speed of a 5.56 makes hollow points less likely to mushroom, plus it delivers less punch. Force equals mass x velocity. What is going to produce more force? A smaller or larger bullet? Simply put a .45 ACP will kill much quicker than .223 or even 7.62x39.
... obviously, but Mason's point is that there aren't any similar arguments that apply to the AR-15 or similar semi-automatic rifles because they simply aren't used in that many crimes and don't have a comparatively larger potential for massacres than other weapons.
And the fact that their bullets are not capable of inflicting the amount of damage gun control nuts claim they can.
At 1/16/13 03:47 PM, Camarohusky wrote: How does this bear on whether or not AWBs are an unessecary infringement?
It is directly related to it being unnecessary. If the guns are not used in crime and not a significant source of gun deaths...why ban them?
Everyone is asking 'why should civilians own these guns'? That's the wrong question, the right question is: 'what reason is there to ban them'? The reality is, there is nothing that makes military clones something that we need to ban.
But a great deal of military ammunition is meant to tumble after hitting a soft target thus creating large and deep wound cavity. Sounds more than harmful enough. Other military ammunition is meant to shatter into shrapnel upon impact with a soft target. Sounds pretty harmful. SO which is worse: mushrooming with shallower depth; tumbling with extreme deoth; or shrapnel? The only real difference in lethality or capacity to harm in these is the distance with which either happens from the barrel to the target.
Tumbling is possible with any bullet. But guess what? A .223/5.56 round (what is used in a AR-15) travels at such a high velocity that the possibility is actually reduced by these firearms. When it comes out of the barrel a .223 is travelling at 3,110 fps. A .44 mag is traveling at 1,282 fps by comparison.
Either way, saying assault weapons are not meant to harm is nothing less than specious. Guns are designed solely to harm flesh. You may be right that in close situations the most crime takes place assault weapons may end up causing less harm, but to imply that any gun is truly safe is just plain false. Guns are meant to be lethal.
I did not say HARM, so please do not re-phrase what I said to put words in my mouth.
What I said is: military small arms are designed to fire rounds that do not make death inevitable. Furthermore, Obama said military weapons are designed to inflict maximum damage...and that's what I'm taking issue at: while they are capable of killing they are designed to minimize the chance of death.
In no one am I saying that they do not harm, nor am I saying that any gun is truly safe. I know guns. I know that even blanks can kill if the circumstances are right.
But what I said stands: military ammo is designed to wound more than they are designed to kill.
3) Rate of fire does not make a gun more deadly; in fact the faster one fires the less probable people will get hurt.Depends on use and intent, but in the vast majority of case this is correct. Still not sure how this makes AWBs an uneccesary infringement.
Because this is a reason advocates for an AWB claim that this is a reason that makes it necessary. However, it is false. Ergo, since it is false and untrue...it does not makes it necessary.
So without this justification...it adds to the unnecessary column.
You still haven't shown where these firearms need to be treated as a special case.
High Cap mags
All you have done here is shown that Assault weapons don't make that good of crime weapons. Come back and say why that fact has anything to do with an AWB being an unessecary infrigement.
Don't focus on the crime aspect, focus on the infringement aspect.
I am focusing on the infringement aspect by deconstructing the reasons why policy makers and advocates claim that this infringement is necessary.
Ergo...their claims that an AWB infringement is necessary is based upon claims with no foundation or basis in reality. So at this point...there has been no cause shown that makes the policy a necessary good to the public. Nothing supports it as good public policy.
In the end the burden of proof is not on me...it is on anyone who supports these measures to demonstrate why we should pass this law.
And they fall far short of this benchmark.
At 1/16/13 01:16 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Apparently Alex Jones has a new conspiracy floating around and Sandy Hook. ...
Jones on his show was the smartest thing Piers Morgan could do. Jones makes Morgan sound intelligent and reasonable by comparison, despite Morgan's ignorance and bloody shirt journalism.
At 1/16/13 10:55 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: Clearly restricted magazines are not an infringement on owning guns. Americans have shown irresponsible with gun ownership and have an ultra high gun related crime rate with means they gave up the responsibility, right and privilege to own guns. Once again the shit apples fucked it all up for the few that were legitimate gun owners whom played by the rules.
Actually, there is no data to back this up.
* Crime rates are going down...and have been percipitously since 1992 when many states started liberalizing gun laws to the point that people can now carry guns on their person outside of their homes.
* Our 'ultra high gun related crime rate' is a myth. Once you look at our gun crime rates they are about 0.86 standard deviations away from the international mean for developed countries. For anyone who has not had statistical analysis for the social sciences...this means that our gun crime rate is not significantly higher than what you would expect for an industrialized society.
* Guns have been consistently shown not to have a causal relationship with crime.
* Gun accidents have gone down 95% since 1904 when the government started keeping stats.
* Our suicide rate is flat, which leads most quantitative psychologists to believe that guns do not contribute to our suicide rate even though suicides with firearms equal or outnumber firearm homicides.
* Likewise, mass killings are done by people with mental illness who accomplish their terrible ends through meticulous planning. Just as suicidal individuals will find other ways to kill themselves (ie: substitution effect)...so will mass killers. Explosives and some chemicals are easily obtained and/or created so if some sick mind wants to committ mass murder they will find away.
* The vast, vast, vast majority of gun owners are responsible. It is not the insignificant few that you insinuate.
The answer is not in gun control. Instead it is public health; mental illness and even environmental toxins like residual lead.
At 1/16/13 01:09 PM, Camarohusky wrote:At 1/16/13 10:48 AM, TheMason wrote: Yes...the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing on the right of individuals to own firearms. AWBs and mag bans are an unnecessary infringement.Explain how.
1) Assault rifles are simply not used in crime. Over and over again, crime stats bear out that assault rifles are used in less than 5% of crime, probably more like 1-2% of crimes.
2) Obama claimed, a claim bandied about by many gun control activists, that assault rifles like ARs fire rounds designed for "maximum destruction". This is simply not true, since the 1800s military ammo has been purposely made to have the lowest chance of causing death than any other ammo type aside from maybe wadcutters. To quote the Hague Convention; military smallarms ammo may not "make death inevitable".
3) Rate of fire does not make a gun more deadly; in fact the faster one fires the less probable people will get hurt.
4) High-cap mags increase the chances that a gun will misfire. Obama made the claim that a high cap magazine allowed James Holmes in Colorado to spray so many bullets that he was able to hit more people than he could have with a smaller capacity magazine. He ignores the fact that Holme's 100rd drum mag failed causing him to switch from his AR to his shotgun and then to his handgun. Furthermore, with lower cap mags, a shooter can still change quickly and with speed loaders a person can re-load revolvers almost as fast as person swapping mags.
In the end, all Obama's gun control is going to do is divert time, money, resources, and manpower from programs that will actually address the causes of firearm crime. He made the assertion that the causes of gun crime are unknown and that we lack any kind of scientific knowledge about these causes. The problem is: such a body of scientific literature exists...but it doesn't support the agenda of part of his party's base.
Obama talks about saving one life...all he's going to do is cost lives.
At 1/16/13 12:19 AM, Warforger wrote:At 1/16/13 12:09 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Maybe. Then again, what a company makes, and what people can buy, should not be dictated by the government.It should if it's designed to kill people.
Well then by your own argument the government should NOT ban 'assault weapons' that are military in style. Afterall, they are the only guns designed NOT to kill!
The self-defense handguns, shotguns, and hunting rifles are the firearms specifically designed to kill.
Military firearms smaller than a .50 call or a sniper rifle (which are simply hunting rifles re-purposed) are designed not to make death inevitable.
Says who?The Constitution.......
Yes...the Constitution prohibits the government from infringing on the right of individuals to own firearms. AWBs and mag bans are an unnecessary infringement.
At 1/16/13 12:06 AM, Warforger wrote: Private industry would probably then just sell guns that have 7 round capacity or less.
The question here is of necessity. The reality is, high capacity mags do not present the threat that the media hype makes them out to be. As I've said before; it is the bullet that kills not barrel shrouds, bayonet lugs, 'grenade launchers', pistol grips, etc. Not even rate of fire adds that much lethality...it encourages spray and pray which in turns means only three shots are close to being on target. The rest end up in the ceiling.
Also, high-cap mags suffer serious problems of feed. Look at Holmes...he used a 100rd drum mag, which is notoriously unreliable for jamming. That's what happened at Aurora, his AR-15 drum mag failed so he switched to his shotgun and pistols.
Unfortunately, this means he switched to more deadly weapons.
'
In another side story, thankfully, thousand of police chiefs nationwide have publicly said they will defy enforcement of any law they deem unconstitutional, in regards to guns and gun rights.That's retarded. The only people who should be doing that is the Supreme Court, if anyone else does that the government falls apart like it did when the states tried to do it for Slavery.
Not retarded at all...as immigration has proved that federal law cannot be enforced at the local level. Federal authorities cannot keep up with illegal immigrants arrested by local law enforcement so many cities have no choice but to let them go. The same with any bans on assault weapons and mags.
While the government can prohibit the sale of new guns and mags...they will not be able to stem the trade of existing mags and guns.
It's a fool's errand, and one that's likely to get Sherrif's deputies killed. I know many local deputies...none of them want to take guns from law-abiding citizens because they feel that they may get the guns from one or two homes but the third home will shoot them as they knock on the door.
Not only that...they don't agree with the law fundamentally.
At 1/15/13 05:57 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: Sick of all these morons with more egos than brains talking like they are John Wayne.
I'm sick of all these morons with more egos than brains talking like they are the Albert Einstein of guns, crime, and how these two relate to public policy when they don't know the first thing about the subject they are pontificating on!
At 1/15/13 05:46 PM, leanlifter1 wrote: You can also make bombs and poison and traps but why would you or course you could just lock the fucking door like a normal person. Less guns among people means less crime. Guns are for uneducated rednecks and otherwise general ignoramuses and plebs even. I have nary the use of a gun in 28 years on this planet although I will admit I do have a Bow that I keep around in case I ever need to hunt game as a food source.
* You're right! Locking your door will protect you against bomb blast, chemical clouds, and someone breaking in through the window!
* Also, I'm so glad you're hear dispensing your wisdom to us poor, uneducated rednecks who have grown up around guns, have an understanding of the science involved with ballistics, and might just have advanced degrees in a field relevant to the actual social science that shows the opposite trend of 'less guns means less crime' is a reality.
You, Sir are a fool.
At 1/15/13 04:13 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: That's politics. But in this particular case, there is some merit to the idea of responding to a gun crime by saying "hey, maybe it should be that much harder to get a crime. Might maybe help some". There IS some logic here.
There is logic, but the problem is is that it is ground in ignorance instead of logic. The simple fact of the matter is that violent crime has gone down precipitously since 1992 while gun ownership has gone up...as well as the liberalization of gun laws. Also add to that, that the correlation between guns and crime is a spurious one and that crime's causes are found in other social dynamics.
To do anything more on the front of gun control will divert attention, effort, time and money from those sectors where society could see more benefit.
But there is downside to the ones who can legally get guns (the mother in Newtown) who allows access to the weapons (shooter son). The unsafe can get guns as well as the safe, and I think it's at least worth looking into trying to keep the weapons out of the wrong hands, even though the better and bigger fix here is to focus on the mental health aspect.
I don't think the answer is on the side of stopping the bad guys from getting weapons. They will get them no matter what. When they can't get guns they'll resort to explosives and chemicals.
Instead, we should harden our soft targets. Colleges in Colorado allow CCW permit holders to carry on campus...and have experienced reductions in crime without turning them into unsafe bastions of murder and accidental deaths. Holmes looked at three theaters before attacking the Galaxy...he passed them up because the other theaters allowed CCW.
If they choose to? That's it? No rules? No regulations? Again, you didn't address my point, and then stepped into another tricky cow flop of a sentence. Also, more armed people doesn't always lead to better outcomes.
1) "No rules or Regulations" I think the cow flop here is you. We have had CCW since 1992 (in Florida, even earlier) and there are rules and regulations. No one I've seen here is advocating for allowing everyone to carry at any time no matter what. So I think you're injecting something here that doesn't exist.
2) We have seen that more guns, as a trend, does lead to better outcomes. Yes, bad people do get a hold of guns and use them for nefarious purposes. But permissive laws allowing civilians to own firearms do not add to gun crime, however it has been proven that as a trend it reduces it.
They ARE relevant. A licensed and legal owner HAD the guns, and then Lanza being her son was able to OBTAIN them to a bad end. Same thing happened at Columbine and just about any school shooting. Legal owners who aren't responsible IS a problem.
True, but the one thing all mass killers since Columbine have in common is that these attacks took planning. They were not the random acts of a madman. Therefore, focusing on the weapons they get will do nothing but force them to find other means of murder. Meanwhile the good guys will be wasting time, money, and effort.
I get how people see the problem and look for answers...and they usually find simple answers. But guess what? These simple answers are often deceptively simple.
At 1/15/13 12:14 AM, leanlifter1 wrote: They are just trying to start a flame trolling war I would leave it alone. Nobody is that ignorant to think that seat belts kill people.
That would be just as ignorant as thinking that they never do. Seat belts are not designed to save every life, they are designed to increase your chances of survival.
The point is that in some cases they actually work against survival...and even cause a person to die. Albeit statistically unlikely.
At 1/14/13 11:22 PM, metalstorm wrote: I don't think that it is suspicious that she hid when she did but I stand by my point that it was an irrational response to run and hide in fear of her life when at that stage all he had done is ring the doorbell a few times assuming she didnt know who he was.
One night as my ex-wife and I were prepare to go to bed my doorbell rang. It was 10pm on a Sunday, and we were not expecting anyone. We lived in a duplex and we heard knocking...but it was on the door of the person who lived above us. I went to the hallway leading to our front door, and saw the outline of a hooded figure. At that point I retreated to our bedroom and locked the door.
She probably had a similar experience. Looked out and saw a guy that made her nervous.
Since the most probable scenario is that she did know the intruder she would have had a pretty good idea of what was going to happen and thus acted accordingly
I wouldn't say that this is the most probable scenario. She most likely looked out a window and got a look at the guy. Furthermore, running and hiding was not her first action. Listening to the 911 tapes she called her husband, probably unsure of whether or not he was a threat yet.
Furthermore, listening to the audio tapes of the 911 call, she fled after he crow-barred the door open. He even pursued one of the 9 yo twins as they fled with their mom.
Now, let's say that she looked out her window and saw someone she and her husband had criminal dealings with. I agree, she may have known in this scenario that he was up to no good and that he was violent. Even still...their prior dealings no matter how nefarious, does not negate her right to self-defense.
I think her actions are only suspect in that they suggest a high probability that the woman (and her husband) knew the intruderwhich would mean there is likley a lot more to the story than is actually being reported
I'm not sure that it is all that high of a probablity. One is a black man with a felony record. The other is a white middle-class family living in what appears to be a rural subdivision. So it doubtful that they had any criminal dealings with the man previously. The combination of socio-economic class and even race, make it statistically unlikely. I'm not saying race is the key factor in this, but it does contribute. What speaks most to your thought being false, is the differing socioeconomic classes.
Now, they could have had some business dealings with the man that went sour. They could've hired him and then fired him, and he could've threatened them. Under this scenario, it remains a very strong case FOR guns saving lives.
At 1/15/13 02:21 AM, TheKlown wrote: The government says that all you should have is a weak pistol when some murderer breaks into your house. So do you want to have a weak Pistol when the criminal could have a Pistol as well or would you rather have an AK47, so you can blow them to KINGDOM COME?
Believe it or not, I'd prefer the pistol over an AK-47...and this is coming from a guy who, when it was my only firearm, used an AK for home defense.
Even with hollow points, at close range, the AK would fire at a higher muzzle velocity that will prevent the bullet from expanding.
Furthermore, if we're talking about home defense you have the tactical advantage. You can lock yourself in your bedroom and cover the door. He has only way to come at you, but he doesn't know where you're at in the room. You have a better chance at hitting him than he you.
Finally, the Georgia shooting is an anomaly. Most firefights only use about 3 round each. So the rounds in the AK mag is really superfolous.
The ultimate home defense weapon is a tactical shotgun.
At 1/14/13 02:09 PM, metalstorm wrote:this is another story that is relevant, in this case, the mother got wounded but her son killed her attacker. Another note is that the attacker was a convicted felon and had no way to legally obtain a gun, yet he had one, and was using it.
There are also a couple of odd details on the story such as the mum going to hide with the kids before the man went to break in. At that stage he had only rang the doorbell a few times so running and hiding in fear of your life seems like an incredibly irrational response. She also went on to ring her husband instead of the police.
It seems highly likley that the indruder was known to both the woman and her husband.
You do bring up a few good points.
1) That the mother emptied her gun is a little questionable, but as you yourself points out...that could be the result of her freaking out and being fearful for the lives of her children.
2) That a grown woman called her husband instead of 911 first is a little curious. On the other hand, it is possible that this was out in the country and the police would be exceedingly slow to respond (I know where I live it is measured in hours). Calling her husband may have been, to her mind, the safer option.
But where you go wrong, and your thought process falls apart, is criticizing her hiding as irrational. In fact, this is the most reasonable, rational step any person could have taken in this situation. You essentially have three options in this case:
A) Exit the house and flee. The problem here is how many people are outside? Now you are exposed and you have given up about 90% of your tactical advantage.
B) Confront the man. In this case you are opening yourself up to be overpowered (especially if your are a woman). You are giving up tactical advantage and putting yourself on an even playing field. He can see you, and chances are you are exposed and out from behind cover.
C) Flee to a safe room. This is the best thing to do. No one knows your house better than you. Furthermore, you have command of his points of entry to you. If there is only one door, you now where he is coming from. But he doesn't know where you'll attack from. (If you need to.) The other advantage is about 98% of the time a home intruder will flee, especially if he is only there to burglarize the home. Now if you make it known you are armed...chances are they will flee if they are only there for your TV. They are there for a quick buck...not lose their life.
It is thus the safest thing for all parties involved. By retreating to a safe room, it shows that the woman didn't want to kill or harm the person. That her only concern was for herself and her children. She was not concerned for her TV or other material goods. This would be a person exercising option B.
So in the end, the course of action you deem suspect and irrational is actually the most reasonable and sane action a person could take if their home is being invaded.
At 1/14/13 05:22 PM, VGmasters wrote: The first part you mentioned was already shown in the video, if you'd take the time to watch the entire thing.
Meh.
I started watching it. It seemed like they were talking about 20th Century events while I'm watching Centennial. Thought I'd go back to my movie. :)
At 1/14/13 12:43 AM, Warforger wrote: Jesus Christ that has got to be the most paranoid Gun nut website I have ever seen. ... Threats of ammo shortage? Constant flow of articles about how the government is gonna take our guns away? ...
There are some who are conspiracy minded on this board. But I think the majority of us on here are reasonable and clear thinking.
As for ammo shortage, I did not watch the video (I'm not for conspiracy theories myself) but I can tell you there are ammo shortages and fluctuations on the market. Ammo is a good that has to be manufactured, sold etc and therefore are suceptible to disruptions. An example of this Henry Arms, their gun manufacturing plant was shut-down by Hurricane Sandy halting production of lever action rifles. The same with ammo. I've seen ammo plants shut down by disasters and that causes the price of ammo to go up. Similarly, talk of new 'gun control' measures drives people to buy ammo and guns thereby making them scarce. For example, right now I'm having a hard time finding even .22 ammo.
Secondly, there are flows of articles of certain political factions wanting to take some things away like 'assault weapons' and high capacity magazines. While I'm sure these policy initiatives are well-meaning, they are borne out of fear, ignorance, and emotion rather than academic study, reason, and logic. Therefore these intiatives are irrational and unfounded, and that they are seriously being considered makes those of us who are informed and knowledgable of these issues see these initiatives as unnecessary and dangerous.
At 1/14/13 05:04 PM, VGmasters wrote: You people really oughta watch this. Be warned though cause it contains some graphic images.
We actually have a history of this in the US. In the 1800s we disarmed the Indians as a means of preparing them for treaty breaking and slaughter. Same thing with our black population. 'Gun control' was part of the 'Black Codes' that disarmed African-Americans making them easy targets for the KKK (back when the Klan was the terrorist wing of the Democratic party).
At 1/14/13 01:10 AM, aviewaskewed wrote:
I'm going to address the three general themes of your post rather than go point by point. As I see them they are:
1) An imbalance of military hardware skewed towards the government
2) That this hardware would totally pwn an armed civil populace.
3) That the key difference that would favor the government domestically over overseas engagements is the gloves would come off.
One by one:
Imbalance of Arms
Like I said and you acknowledged; the military will fracture. Just by doing this the imbalance would probably be balanced. For several reasons:
a) Modern military equipment in the US requires a lot of maintenance and support. The loyalists would have a deficiet of trained personnel to fix and maintain the tanks, fighters, etc. Furthermore, increasingly a lot of the infrastructure is becoming relient upon civilian contractors which adds an x factor since a good portion of defense contractors are increasing having little or no military experience (ergo they are not as 'programmed' as you think military members are).
b) The constitutionalists as well as the apathetic will take all sorts of weapons with them. If there is succession involved, the constitutionalist states would maintain control over tanks, armored vehicles, artillery, missiles (except nuclear weapons), etc. So you would have state and private militias with more than rifles, magnums (which is a type of round...not a type of gun and mostl pistols BTW) and pistols.
So no...the government would not retain all the toys like you're assuming. A major part of this is what states will NOT go along with martial law. Texas has a third branch to their state military in addition to the Army & Air Natl Guard other states have. I believe SC has one too. Several states such as Wyoming have put forth legislation that would nullify federal gun law...going as far as fining and jailing federal law enforcement agents who enforce federal gun law.
Desserters would take weapons and equipment with them, and then maintenance issues will inflict losses through attrition. Then there is the issue of the ability to man the equipment. Say an Air Force base stays under Federal control, it has three F-16 squadrons each with 20 aircraft. After the constitutionalists and apathetic people leave they may only be able to launch and maintain less than 20.
Likewise, a civilian populace has the means and skills to cut off supply routes that will keep the jets flying. Afterall, a Falcon cannot take off without gas.
Hardwar Pwnage
The deserts of Iraq and the open spaces of Afghanistan are suited for the US war machine. However, tanks and armored vehicles cannot manuever in wooded spaces...this means we have so many more choke points in which armor and mobile infrantry can become ambushed or pinned down or otherwise rendered ineffective.
Likewise, you cannot bomb what you cannot see. Rules of Engagement does not really change this. We saw this in Vietnam when we bombed the jungle in order to make toothpicks for the Viet Cong. Quite simply, the US military may actually be too large to fight its own populace. It may be too technologically advanced. We are incredibly dependant upon logistics and the US is too large of a country to support the military. A civilian military force would be able to cut-off these supply routes blunting the military might of the war machine.
So you can see the battlespace here in the US would actually limit a degraded US military's ability to fight.
Gloves Coming Off
I think some of the rules would still apply. I think rebels would have supply routes that would cross both the Canadian and Mexican border and US units would not be allowed to pursue.
In the areas where the government would be more ruthless I think that would work against them. We see this time and time again, when the government goes too far it actually erodes their support amongst the population and is a tool for recruitment. Therefore anytime they take the gloves off and fight dirty...all it does is hasten the regime's end.
At 1/13/13 06:56 PM, Proteas wrote:At 1/13/13 06:40 PM, TheMason wrote: I prefer my Benelli .12 guage...with slug/buckshot hybrid shells. :)Winchester PDX1?
Yep!
Much better than the .45 I used to keep for home defense (and the MAK-90 I kept before that!)
At 1/13/13 06:18 PM, Proteas wrote: I should probably shut up at this point, before people start thinking I'm a serial killer. ^_^;
As a kid did you needlessly kill small animals?
What about your relationship with your parents?
Let me show you some ink blots...
lol
At 1/13/13 06:18 PM, Proteas wrote:At 1/13/13 03:41 PM, TheMason wrote: I wonder what type of rounds she used. Could've been wad cutters or FMJ which do less damage.Remember kids; if you're going to keep a pistol for home defense, load it with hollow point bullets.
THE MORE YOU KNOW.... XD
Just speculating since I haven't read anything anywhere about the rounds she used...not that this is ever reported. Depending on where they hit, hollow points may have exited before having a chance to expand.
A .38 is my wife's gun...a lady Smith & Wesson. I prefer my Benelli .12 guage...with slug/buckshot hybrid shells. :)
I don't think she particularly aimed for any one particular part of the dude's body. She just shot at what was visible at the moment.
I wonder what type of rounds she used. Could've been wad cutters or FMJ which do less damage.
