5,002 Forum Posts by "TheMason"
At 2/16/08 08:43 AM, Al6200 wrote: Yeah, that certainly would explain why we'd keep a lot of troops there. But let's also remember that the US provides military support and defense for the former axis powers, since we didn't want them to develop their own militarizes after WW2.
That is only really applicable to Japan. Germany has a flourishing defense industry and is involved in projects such as the Tornado in the 1980s and more recently is a partner in the JSF. There are no restrictions on the German military.
However, Japan has a pacifist constitution that prohibits it from gaining an offensive military capability and nuclear weapons. This is good for East Asia and Japan because Japan simply does not have enough resources to build a war machine (hence the Imperial expansion of the early 20th Century) and having the US there keeps a lid on the thousands of years of hostile history between Japan, China and Korea (the last being Japan's favorite invasion route into China).
At 2/16/08 09:15 AM, Al6200 wrote:
So the government has given itself the right to label print media based on its ideology and messages, and has now given itself the right to restrict the ownership and sale of said media based on a particular view or ideology.
My point of departure with you AI6200 is what about pronography? Is the 18+ restriction in place correct for Hustler and Club? The reason pornography is restricted is that while kids will get ahold of it, it still warps their attitudes towards sex during their most formational years.
The Army has been doing research on the FPS for over a decade as a means of bypassing the inhibition most people have against shooting another human being. So yeah, these games can contribute (note that I did NOT say cause) violent behaviors and therefore I do think their sale should be self-regulated.
Yet because the victims are never shown, and you blow up the starship instead of the individual, it gets a T rating. But perhaps more importantly, Star Wars is an old series, part of the old media that still resonates with the politicians who are making these laws. Perhaps they're fond to point out violence in GTA, but are a little less comfortable about putting a violent sticker on Star Wars or Romeo and Juliet (the later of which is in my opinion worse than Halo, since the violence and death is meaningless and wanton).
And yet a new game like Halo gets an M-rating. Why? The player kills individual enemy soldiers, in much the same way that an X-wing destroys Star Destroyers in Rogue Squadron. Are the motivations any different? Both are about struggling societies trying to defend their unique values and culture (think Mon Calmari from Battle of Endor).
I think there are a few differences between the three games that makes for the different ratings.
GTA: There are sexual themes with hookers and it is a game that reinforces anti-social behavior.
Halo: It is a FPS, but you're mostly shooting aliens so I would let my teenager play it depending on her personality when she gets that old. One of the reasons that I am favor of the "M" rating for Halo 2 & 3 is the online play. I don't think I'd let my kid play the game with teamspeak on unless she was playing with friends she (and I) knew in RL.
Star Wars: Somehow I don't think Star Wars is that high up on Hillary Clinton's (or any other legislator looking into games) list of cultural influences. But it probably does seem less obscure in their minds. However, there is a difference in that the mind does not associate blowing up a starship with killing people. Fighter/Bomber pilots usually count their victories in terms of tanks, ships, buildings, planes, etc while avoiding discussion of how many people where killed because the mind does not associate these real life acts of violence with murder. So Rogue Squadron probably does not deserve a M. But titles such as KOTR or Dark Forces are a little more grey...
Playing the race card and the class in one orgasmic topic of Liberal guilt!
At 2/15/08 01:01 AM, Stoicish wrote: A few things you need to know about anything political:
1. Never trust blogs.
a) Some blogs are better than others, you need to look at the blogger's credentials.
b) Using italics and bold are commonly used and accepted in quoting other political science scholars in scholarly articles.
2. Don't trust your average 24 hours news network.
a) Celebrity news is most heavy during slow news days/cycles. For example the day Brittany Spears was taken to the nut house, CNN only mentioned it and moved on to ad naseum coverage of the Obam/Clinton debate. Afterall, since news is all they show they have to report on something so why not something that gets ratings?
b) American Govt 101; the vast majority of mainstream media outlets tend to be moderate.
3. Don't trust other people.
Where do you think all of that information comes from? That's right; other people are writing those sources of information.
4. Religion. While I'm on the subject.
Yay! Another Deist!
At 2/15/08 08:42 AM, Takeshima wrote: America needs something it can really have fear. Bring the war to them Putin.
Yeah, perhaps we should pull out of East Asia and leave Japan alone to deal with its Imperial/Colonial legacy with China and Korea...
At 2/14/08 10:58 PM, RommelTJ wrote: These guns are then illegally smuggled into Mexico, which furthers the crisis in there because guns are illegal in Mexico. With those guns, criminals and drug dealers control immigration and drug flows into the United States.
Other way around my friend. Guns move South to North more than North to South.
I hope you are happy, since School shootings are very common in the USA.
They only seem very common because of media coverage but they are actually quite rare.
At 2/14/08 09:16 PM, zNelson24 wrote: What part of "ESRB notice: experience may change during online play". I mean Xbox LIVE has Family Settings and the famlies that dosent use the settings point fingers at games just because some person (an online person, not the game's content) says the F word. I hate it when parents just blame the game industry for their inresponsibility as parents to watch what games their children. Reminds me of me being compaired to other teenagers when I get a auto insurance quote (and im 16, havent got in a single accident).
Dude, just delete the irrelevant parts of the message you're not responding to.
I know what the ESRB "game experience can change online" means. Some gamers act like little assholes, which reduces the enjoyment of play. Furthermore, I'm pretty much what you'd call a libertarian (not librarian) which means I do agree with the idea that it is up to the parents (not government) to police what their kids are doing.
Ruby Ridge...Waco...
Just more proof of why grenade launchers, bayonets and machine guns should be legal for civilian ownership...
At 2/14/08 06:34 PM, Imperator wrote:At 2/14/08 06:24 PM, Der-Lowe wrote: ok...Didn't work?
NG is not a safe place for my little brother, the things I learn every day...
Eh....should've stuck to my guns and said "allergic to spooning".....
I'm just nervous that a fellow liberal arts major knew the chemical acronymn rather than the street name of a date rape drug. Tell me Impy, is that a drug lab under your toga or are you just happy to be on NG?
Luckily it appears that this was not that bad of a shooting. 30 shots fired with a shotgun and pistol. So far we're looking at 3 in critical condition, 8 stable and 6 in good condition.
Well, luckily there is the Presidential race so we're not seeing the same looping of the same scant information.
Number of people now being treated is down to 15 although they are reporting that the gunman shot 13 ppl mostly in the head. So I'm wondering if there were not two gunmen.
I'm also wondering if it wasn't a .410 the guy was using because they are talking about many head shots but only talking about one or two deaths.
In a new update, they are reporting the gunman used a shotgun Link to the hospital treating the victims...
At 2/14/08 06:01 PM, Imperator wrote:<------- having Keg party at house, arrive by 4:00 PM, bring chips or something.My role will simply be to spike the drink.
Wait...if I'm your valentine should I be concerned? lol
At 2/13/08 01:49 PM, DarkSytze wrote: adults want a say in everything, but they are too half-arsed to dig deep to actually know something about the game. so what do they do? they tune into fox news and see that the games that kids play are full of sex and racism. whilst fox news just continues there hatred for games propoganda, adults don't seem to care a shit and don't bother doubting fox news.
1) Not all adults slavishly follow a media outlet. I'm 32, Republican, parent and a gamer. Fox's coverage of the XBox pisses me off (a source of great amusement for my Democratic classmates).
2) This really belongs in the general forum and not politics. Not everything you see on the news is de facto appropriate for this forum.
3) I play Halo 3 and Mass Effect...in fact I'm playing in a tournament next week. I hate the shit talking on XBox Live. Most of the time I just mute it because the chatter and shit talking going on during the match is distracting (from my own teammates). I mean a 12-16yo talking shit about my sex life because I've got more going on in my life than chasing acheivements is more pathetic on their part and amusing at first...but gets boring quick.
Well CNN is reporting that there has been another campus shooting at Northern Il University's DeKalb campus in/near Chicago. 18 students have been hurt with reports of two dead...one of whom I think is the gunman.
NIU was able to text/call/email its students quickly and effectively so the carnage is contained.
While a CNN reporterette speculated that "...it had to be a powerful gun..." because 18 ppl are wounded, there is no word yet on what type of gun/ammo was used.
At 2/14/08 04:07 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Would i be able to argue that gun restrictions are equal to the result of government paranoia of terror attacks and subsequent measures taken to ruin people's privacy etc. etc. [?]
I don't know, would you be able to construct and articulate that argument?
I live in MO but have a 9yo daughter who lives in Alabama with my ex-wife who is a totally insane bitch (I'm actually being generous).
So when I send presents I like paking the gifts in TONS of packing "peanuts" and/or those snappy, noise making things.
Working up the money and courage to send her the drum & caffeine/candy uber-obnoxious Christmas or Birthday present!
At 2/14/08 01:26 AM, Imperator wrote: ^^^^^^
I'll be your date!
I'm talkin to you Mason!
Awwww...I feel so love-ed!
For the record:
I've spent EVERY V-day alone, so unless you're 65 and beat the record of 21 years I win the pathos award. You don't mess with IMPERATOR, the word does mean "SUCCESSFUL general" after all......
Let's see...I'm 32...married for 8 years-2.5 years of separation=5.5 (round up to 6) 32-6=26 lonely Valentines Days...
But it's not a pissing contest...(or is it?)
God I hate Valentine's Day...even when I was dating or married to my ex-wife. I mean I like being romantic but she was just a bitch and didn't appreciate my efforts. Now that I'm single again...the dating scene really sucks for a 32yo divorced grad student.
One of my friend's GFs had the idea of having a party where couples dressed in red and singles in black. (Salt in the wound?)
My friend (the above mentioned GF's BF) tried to make it better by suggesting a party with all the couples in the department w/me being the only single...much better.
Well...at least I'll be saving money on jewelry, flowers, candy, etc...
Argh.
At 2/13/08 09:40 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:At 2/13/08 05:38 PM, TheMason wrote:A) Are you kidding me? A guy using grenades and a grenade launcher is going to be alot more deadly then a guy with 2 handguns. Yes, not at CLOSE RANGE, of course, but who said anything about close range?
At effective range for the individual weapons I would probably be MORE lethal with just one handgun than with a grenade launched from a SKS. See the concussion of the grenade will probably only kill one or two ppl while the shrapnel will wound the other bystanders. Now someone with a .45 and hydroshock rounds stands a reasonable chance of killing between 2-7 people.
B) The magnitude is irrelevent. You said there MUST be a trend, I ONLY brought up nukes to show that you don't always need a trend.
You brought up an extreme example where the expected utility would be significant enough to entail efforts at non-proliferation without a trend of use.
No, there isn't an observed Negative trend. When PP was outlawed, THERE HAD NEVER BEEN ONE CASE OF IT, EVER. Since it was outlawed, there has been ONE CASE of PP: In 2007, a Minnesota wall mart sold a particular brand of birth control for too cheap, and was ordered for a month not to. There was NO economic damage.
Furthermore, most economic theorists claim even if PP WAS implemented, it would fail miserably. I can go into details about those reasons if you PM me (dont want to derail topic).
Dude, I study PE (Political Economy) I understand the history and process and there have been several cases of PP being brought to trial (France v Amazon.com). While there are not demonstrated bankruptcies there are other economic impacts such as layoffs as less competitive companies attempt to adjust.
I have proven you wrong on:True.
Grenade launchers and bayonets are legal, one of your fundamental premises.
Now the rest of your statement/belief is wrong as long as there is no observed trends in the use of these items in crime. I have spent awhile looking for any data or reports of either of these being used in a crime during periods where they were either legal or illegal. I could not find a single case.But you also asked me to "prove" my point that theres no legal, practical purpose for them; it's impossible to "prove" that, only DISPROVE it if it's wrong, so feel free to find a practical reason for me to need a grenade launcher on my gun.
1) What can be proven is that you wrong in your assumption that the availability of GLs and bayonets will lead to use in crime. Since they are NOT used in crime and can be LEGALLY obtained...this assumption is wrong.
2) If you look at the GL of the SKS picture I posted; the practical purpose is that it acts as a compensator and helps reduce barrel rise making the firearm more accurate.
I do not know for certain; however I can be reasonably sure that there was not an increase in black market sale of grenades because there is not even a single case of someone being harmed or killed in a grenade attack...because there were no grenade attacks even though they are legal and available.I thought you said Grenades where illegal?
I was speaking of the legality purchasing grenade launchers. Even though one could purchase a SKS with Grenade Launcher starting in 2004 there has not been a sudden spike in grenade attacks.
"WHICH HAS NO POSSIBLE PURPOSE OTHER THEN CRIME"Which happens often, like the 2 cases I gave.
This is your only point that I cannot take any issue with in terms of its logic. However, if this is the strongest argument for a ban it is simply not good enough. Legislators are going to spend time and money debating/researching the ban. Then the ban will have to be enforced which will consume more public funds and resources. In the end you will have the government spending millions of taxpayer dollars per year to deal with something scary in hypothetical land but has no basis in real world trends. Over time these millions add up to billions to deal with a non-issue.
No it does not, laws have to justify their expected utility and impact on the public welfare.
In short you're wasting time, money and resources that could be better spent on things like education which has a much stronger correlation to reducing crime. Therefore, a grenade launcher/bayonet ban probably prevents more murders/assaults from being prevented...than murders/assaults it would actually prevent.Not really. If we simply ban the continued production of launchers, grandfather it so as not to reduce current supplies, it at least helps a small bit without any real cost.
Not at all they tried that with high capacity magazines...and yet the market and prices for high cap mags remained steady all ten years of the 1994 assault rifle ban.
Therefore nuclear non-proliferation is worth the expenditure when compared to its expected utility whereas banning grenade launchers/bayonets has little to no expected utility and is therefore not worth the expenditure.Yet PP was?
Not to go off topic, but PP is self-defeating so its probably costing more than it is saving.
Furthermore, I would say Nukes are no more deadly then Grenade Launchers. Very few could afford to purchase, store, and build systems to launch a nuke (Think the Rockefellers and Bill Gates), and even then would NEVER be able to fire one.
They are, of course, still deserving to be banned because bill gates doesn't need a hydrogen bomb.
Now you're going far out there, you're point was based in reality but to attempt to amend it in this way is just...silly.
Every point you have made is based upon an assumption that is proven to be erroneous.No, they weren't. Your little claim that you need to show trends to ban something is a PERSONAL IDEAL, not an actual legal precident, so it doesn't disprove anything I said.
The points that are erroneous are:
1) Grenade launchers & bayonets should not be made legal...when they are.
2) If GLs and bayonets were legally available they would be used in crimes/makeing them more dangerous. This is erroneous because there has not been any documented cases of a legally purchased GL or bayonet being used in crime.
These are the points that disprove much of what you have said.
All you are left with is the weak argument of the possibility of them being used which is not a good enough reason to validate the utilization of public funds and resources.:Why would Grenade launchers be applied to a different standard then a multitude of other banned things which had no trend of use?
We have decades of data of them being legal and there being NO crime comitted with them. Therefore a ban will cost millions and save NO lives. However, what if those millions are used to boost education and/or inner city jobs programs reducing crime and over the long run preventing murders saving...oh lets say 100 lives?
Again, I bring you to Nukes; nukes, like Launchers, are something which SERVE NO PURPOSE THEN CRIME. If used, they WOULD BE DEADLY, and COULD NOT ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING BUT CRIME. If the "it's never been used YET, so it isnt an issue" thing is to be used, nukes are to be legalized.
We know some terrorist groups such as al-Qaida and Aum Shirinko are actively seeking nuclear devices to detonate within a civilian center. There is no reason to believe that inner city gangs are stocking up on GLs for inner city gang wars. There are real threats posed by nukes...but not by GLs or bayonets. (Come back to reality please.)
At 2/13/08 09:20 PM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:At 2/13/08 11:53 AM, TheMason wrote:Again, you can not use 2 individual factors to make an average.
The fact of the matter was that the two men could have had DIFFERENT SKILL LEVELS. They could have fired from DIFFERENT DISTANCES. One could have been specifically going for heads, whereas the other just went for random firing. One could have had MORE TIME then the other.
The only way this could be usable is if it was the same guy, in the same building, with the same number of people in the same position, on the same day, but once with pistols and once with the Chinese assault rifle.
As long as all those differences exist, my example of a bat being able to kill more people then a rocket launcher stands.
No, your example does not stand. First of all, I can make the comparison because of what is known about the characteristics of both firearms and the ammo used. Furthermore, there have been several cases of shooting sprees using sniper techniques, handguns and assault rifles. In bringing in these other cases it becomes clear that slower rates of fire and handgun/hunting ammo leads to more deaths and more people hit.
SKILL LEVEL: Purdy purchased his AK clone in August 1988 and comitted his crim in January 1989...about five months to practice with. Cho on the other hand bought his first gun in Feb 2007, second one in March 2007 and did his crime in April 2007. If anything Purdy had more time to become more skilled especially since he was a drifter with nothing else to do while Cho was a student.
DISTANCE: Equally irrelevant because both Cho and Purdy engaged their targets at their respective firearms effective ranges.
MORE TIME: Remember, part of this debate revolves around the erroneous assumption that rapid fire is deadly. Purdy fired his 100 rounds as fast as he could pull the trigger while Cho used deliberate, aimed fire.
MORE TIME (PART II): Furthermore, Purdy and Cho had all the time they need for their respective attacks because neither shooter was stopped by the cops and committed suicide.
The point is, Cho used more lethal weapons.Cho was a more lethal shooter.
Cho used more lethal rounds and used a more lethal method.
Why would "trend", something not applied to many other things which have been made illegal, be applied to grenade launchers and bayonets.
Because you keep stating that a "trend" must be shown for GL's, yet that's an IDEAL which you WANT to be the case, not the ACTUALLY LEGAL REQUIRMENTS, since MANY things have been made illegal without a "trend".
First of all the actual legal requirements are currently in my favor, as is the reality that these do not pose a threat to the public welfare.
Because there is none to little expected utility in this case to make the related expenditures worthwhile. There is simply better things to spend the time, effort and money on.
And no this is not an "ideal" that I "want" to be the case. There must be an expected utility that would result from banning a product or practice to justify making something illegal. You have yet to establish this.
Burst fire, as demonstrated previously, is not "very deadly". Erroneous assumptions.
That's bullshit. You're telling me a professional soldier can't fire 3 shots at a guy without it automatically missing 100% of the time? So, by that logic, no soldier has ever fired, say, 10 rounds at once, since at that point they would be firing way up into the air?
You have said that's what most armies use. Why would an army not use the most deadly form of fire to kill people? Theres a very specific reason you dont see Marines with .22 Bolt-Actions.
Your basic assumption that modern armies are looking for the most deadly form of firepower and their goal is to kill others is erroneous. See my response to TNT.
As for you calling "Bullshit" on me, full auto: wastes ammo, is uncontrollable and increases fatigue. The M-16A1 that were used in Vietnam demonstrated that soldiers loose effectiveness when firing on full-auto. Only the first three rounds can reasonably be expected to hit the target. Round 4 is going above the target's head. Round 10 on up will be in the air. Even when fired by trained soldiers. The only people who could possibly control a full-auto assault rifle would be a body builder...not the average or even above average soldier.
But since you don't believe this shooter/US serviceman who has actually fired this weapon on burst; here's some other's opinions:
Discussion of auto in a firefight...guy favors semi (as do I).
At 2/13/08 12:08 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:At 2/11/08 11:21 AM, TheMason wrote:Why? It's exactly why we ban nations from owning nuclear weapons. The fact that they serve no possible purpose other then crime over rides the fact that they haven't been used in widespread criminal activity.
This is actually a good analogy that is logically sound. However, the one flaw to it is the order of magnitude posed by these weapons. A nuclear bomb in the wrong hands is going to cause hundreds of thousands of deaths in the best case and start WWIII (or WWIV by some counts) causing human extinction in the worst. Then there would be environmental, social and economic collateral damage. Thus it is worth the time, effort and money to do it.
On the other hand, there is none to little collateral damage with grenade launchers and would probably not be significantly more deadly/harmful than a guy with two 9mm handguns or a shotgun at close range. Thus the potential good is not worth the cost.
Another example is Predatory Pricing. It's NEVER driven a business to bankruptcy, or even been successfully implemented, period, but it still serves NO GOOD and is therefor banned.
This is not as good of an example because while it does not cause bankruptcy; it is still harmful and negative trends can be observed. This is a fundamental difference between this and Grenade Launchers and Bayonets. There is no observed negative trend that is associated with their legal sale.
You have not demonstrated that.Nor can I prove "god does not exist". It's a statement that can't be proven if correct, only disproved if incorrect. If your positive that I'm wrong, then search for an example, and I'm sure you'll find one.
Bad example bringing in God.
Originally you posited the following:
If grenade launchers and bayonets were legal then crime would become more dangerous/destructive/damaging.
I have proven you wrong on:
Grenade launchers and bayonets are legal, one of your fundamental premises.
Now the rest of your statement/belief is wrong as long as there is no observed trends in the use of these items in crime. I have spent awhile looking for any data or reports of either of these being used in a crime during periods where they were either legal or illegal. I could not find a single case.
A) You don't know if there was an increased sail of Grenades.
I do not know for certain; however I can be reasonably sure that there was not an increase in black market sale of grenades because there is not even a single case of someone being harmed or killed in a grenade attack...because there were no grenade attacks even though they are legal and available.
B) I wasn't aware grenade launchers where legal. However, it would not be without precident to ban something, WHICH HAS NO POSSIBLE PURPOSE OTHER THEN CRIME, before they become an issue.
"WHICH HAS NO POSSIBLE PURPOSE OTHER THEN CRIME"
This is your only point that I cannot take any issue with in terms of its logic. However, if this is the strongest argument for a ban it is simply not good enough. Legislators are going to spend time and money debating/researching the ban. Then the ban will have to be enforced which will consume more public funds and resources. In the end you will have the government spending millions of taxpayer dollars per year to deal with something scary in hypothetical land but has no basis in real world trends. Over time these millions add up to billions to deal with a non-issue.
In short you're wasting time, money and resources that could be better spent on things like education which has a much stronger correlation to reducing crime. Therefore, a grenade launcher/bayonet ban probably prevents more murders/assaults from being prevented...than murders/assaults it would actually prevent.
Therefore nuclear non-proliferation is worth the expenditure when compared to its expected utility whereas banning grenade launchers/bayonets has little to no expected utility and is therefore not worth the expenditure.
See above, they are cheap and plentiful. Your argument is simply wrong and baseless.I maintain every point I made about Grenade launchers deserving to be illegal stands, but yes, I WAS under the impression they where illegal.
Every point you have made is based upon an assumption that is proven to be erroneous. Therefore, each of your points needs to be re-evaluated. The next assumption up being that if grenade launchers were legal then there would be and increase in their use in crime. However, they are not used in crime. So assumption/point #2 is also incorrect. All you are left with is the weak argument of the possibility of them being used which is not a good enough reason to validate the utilization of public funds and resources.:
Prove it? The fact that they have not been used in a gang shoot out doesn't mean they wouldn't effect a shoot out if they WHERE used. Up until the first time a mentally insane man murdered someone with a firearm, it's not like guns should have been made available to the insane.
If something has the complete possibility of POSING a major risk, and it's only practical purpose is to COMMIT that major risk, you have the right to ban it, even if it hasn't yet killed someone.
Again, a ban involves an expenditure of public funds and resources that takes away from other ways to spend that money and expend those resources. Therefore, it is irresponsible to ban things when the only sound argument is a hypothetical risk that does NOT have an associated, observed trend. To do so could cause more harm than good.
At 2/13/08 12:08 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote:At 2/11/08 11:21 AM, TheMason wrote:Yet it factors. Hypothetically; killing 500 babies in a nursery ward of a hospital without any active security guards using a baseball bat, VS. Shooting 1 out of 19 heavily armed and trained soldiers at a checkpoint in Iraq using a rocket launcher does NOT make baseball bats more deadly then Rockets.
This is emotive hyperbole that obfuscates from the discussion at hand. (ie: more irrelevancy)
We are talking about two tactical situations where the same amount of ammo was fired using two different types of firearms and the techniques best associated with them. The point I was attempting to make was that 1) handguns are more lethal than assault rifles and 2) the idea that spray & pray=mass casualties is false.
The police response is irrelevent to this particular disccusion.
V-Tech happened, basically, because although he had 2 weaker weapons, he KNEW HOW TO USE THEM WELL, and did NOT face as many armed law enforcers as he should have.
1) Cho knew how to use them, however he bought them 5-14 days before the attack. He wasn't all that profecient with them...thank God he did not know how to use them well.
2) How do you define weaker? Assault rifle rounds have a higher velocity; but handguns fire more deadly projectiles. Furthermore, the lower velocity .45 FMJ is more dangerous because it is a heavy bullet and the lower velocity makes it behave as a hollow point.
The point is, Cho used more lethal weapons.
If you know how to handle a gun, however, you can still hold a machine gun low enough for long enough to hurt a few innocent people.
Not even if you're Rambo. By the third round you are shooting over people's head.
:... The point is what it's capable of when misused versus what good it serves for practical uses; much like how I say a grenade launcher should be illegal, while an AK clone should be legal.
While the possibility for misuse is a factor, this must be coupled with a trend...which grenade launchers and bayonets do not demonstrate such a trend.
I win.Well, I still win about Grenade Launchers, then, no matter what you say.
How?
I'm undecided about burst fire for civilian models. On one hand, very deadly.
Burst fire, as demonstrated previously, is not "very deadly". Erroneous assumptions.
Will respond to the rest later...class is about to begin...
At 2/12/08 05:41 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:At 2/11/08 05:10 PM, TheMason wrote: Geneva ConventionsJust as a little correction, it was the Hague Convention, not the Geneva Convention, where expanding military rounds were banned.
Oh man, Cellar! Why didn't you just PM so I could correct it myself...now I don't look like I know what I'm talking about! Good lookin' out, brother! (j/k) :-)
At 2/12/08 05:32 AM, WolvenBear wrote: There's something sad when all the people need to be educated to what a "round" is in a gun argument. Or "bullet" or various words referring to parts everybody should know if they're debating guns.
On one hand I agree with you. I don't think legislators should legislate on things they do not understand. Furthermore, if you do not understand these basics you must understand your opinion is not as good as people who actually know what they are talking about.
However, I think it is incumbent upon those of us who do understand the technicalities to post accurate information and educate them. I have some anti-gun friends who I plan on taking shooting when the weather gets better. Get to know the guns, the ammo and the facts. If after all this they continue to hold these opinions...okay. Although every anti-gunner I've taken to the range tends to adjust their opinions after...
At 2/12/08 06:51 AM, Togukawa wrote:At 2/9/08 10:53 PM, TheMason wrote: 1) You overestimate the effectiveness of those platforms against an armed insurgency. Those weapons are useless against non-modern tactics such a guerilla war (which really is not all that cowardly when differentiated from suicide bombers). While an AK-47 nest would not effectively defend against a B-2 or F-16...these platforms would not be able to effectively target rednecks in the woods with rifles.Really? I'd think cluster bombs would make short work of that, or chemical weapons if need be. Once you stop bothering to discriminate between civilians and enemy combatants, which would be effictively the same in the government vs people scenario, and disregard all international conventions, things get really scary.
Straight up airpower is effective against modern armies in open settings such as industrializied areas or deserts. In Kosovo our aircraft were ineffective against the Serbs until the KLA was able to force troops and other resources into the open where we could bomb them. Same thing with cluster bombs...the woods provide ready cover that blunts their effectiveness.
Anyway, you're not going to defeat the government using guerilla tactics. Again, just look at Iraq. It's an armed insurgency, and most kills are made by bombs, not gunfights. Still, the insurgents are not even remotely coming close to defeating the US forces. I really don't think the insurgents having assault rifles or only handguns would change much.
They do not only have ARs and handguns. They have RPG and other weapons...that a US rebel force would have. Furthermore, US rebels would have one advantage the insurgents in Iraq do not: US military experience. In short there would be veterans who would have knowledge of the government's tactics.
What gets us in trouble is that people think that technology always trumps determination and cunning. Vietnam, Somalia and quite possibly Iraq (if Obama has his way) show that all of the US' power can be effectively countered by insurgents.
Sure, but on the other hand, it's not going to be civilian population vs government either. You'll definitely have at least a part of the civilian population still supporting the government. And on their own turf, the rebels might indeed have a chance to hold out. But what odds do you give them when trying to overthrow the government by arms, say by attacking the white house? A challenge for an invading force, sure, but being able to challenge the government as in invading force themselves?
2) You forget that a great number of these people would have either military training themselves and/or have been hunting/farming/scouting the land around their communities for all of their lives. This would be a challenge for any invading force no matter how well equiped or trained.
Why do you think that there would be that much of a difference? Either way they'd have to face tanks, planes, etc.
Besides, I don't think it's very relevant, since the odds of this kind of war ever breaking out seem pretty low.
Hey this isn't something I want. However, this is the reasoning behind the Second Amendment...not hunting or self-defense but to protect civilian access to military arms. The founding fathers knew history; governments progress to a point and then regress...becoming more oppressive as they decline.
Furthermore, look at the genocides in the Sudan and the former Yugoslavia. When a government fails, people who do not have guns are oppressed by those who do.
At 2/11/08 02:25 AM, bobomajo wrote: Guess I should have thought twice about debating about an issue in a different country. Still you can't argue that deaths from guns isn't a problem in America. If your country will not do anything about it, then nothings going to change.
The problem is not gun restrictions/control. We have a reasonable degree of this already. The problem with violent crime in the US is more a function of poverty and lack of educational opportunities and in some parts a glamorization of "thugism" or "gangstaism".
Even still, more people die in auto accidents a year than by guns (roughly 3x more). And then when you add dependancy upon foreign oil and damage to the environment and public health from pollution...America's car habit/addiction is much more pressing than America's gun habit/addiction.
Here is a link to a site that 1) informs on the legality of owning a "machine gun" (ie: full-auto) and 2) sells them.
Same site, but link to a M203 Grenade Launcher for the M-16/AR-15 retailing at $400.
Same site, this time selling a Yugo SKS w/GRENADE LAUNCHER & BAYONET for $195. (NOTE: Last gun show I went to I saw them on sale for $180.
Again, same site. This time a M79 40MM Launcher that specifically says legal for civilians. (NOTE: The M203 listed above may or may not be legal for civilian ownership in the form listed. I have seen them for sale at gun shows, however they are moded in someway that makes them legal.)
At 2/11/08 03:11 PM, Tri-Nitro-Toluene wrote: @ Mason:
Quick question:
If military ammo is less effective at killing people than other sorts then why is it used in military situations?
Surely logic would dictate that if there was going to be a difference between the ammo sorts, then it would be the other way round with your average Joe having the less deadly ammo, and the soldiers having the more deadly as it allows them to do their job better, on top of the fact the soldiers will be better trained to deal with the more deadly ammo.
Is there any reason for this or is it just random chance?
Very good question TNT.
The answer is your logic would be correct IF the underlying assumption made by most civilians was correct that the objective of military action was killing the enemy. Yes USMC recruits chant "KILL, KILL, KILL" during basic training. However, military necessity and treaty/convention restraints dictate a round that is less lethal than one would think.
Terminology
When I use the word round I am referring to what the layperson would call a bullet. "Round" refers to the entire thing and is made up of: a primer, cartridge, powder and bullet/projectile.
When I use the word bullet I am referring to the projectile that is fired from the gun. The projectile is what is full metal jacket, hollow point, jacketed hollow point or soft lead core.
When I use the word ignorant I am referring to a person knowledge level only in regards to the topic at hand. To many people this is the same as calling them stupid. That is not what I mean. I am a hunter, I have been a competitive shooter, and I was in the USAF on active duty and now am in the Air National Guard. In short, I have been shooting since I was in the 8th grade (if my dad had had his way I would've been shooting even before that). I got my first assault rifle at 18 before joining the military. I follow the legal gun trade and go to gun shows and read trade publications such as The Shotgun News so I can rattle off real gun prices from memory. So when someone makes several certain arguments, it leads me to believe they lack technical knowledge of the subject.
Military Necessity
First of all, if I'm in a firefight and my buddy dies I'm going to be pissed and keep fighting. However, if my buddy is injured myself and probably another person is going to stop fighting and render aid. So the logic here is when you kill an enemy you take out one adversary. However, if you wound one enemy you take out three adversaries.
This is not the case in hunting or a self-defense situation. In hunting I want to kill with one shot so as to 1) minimize the animal's suffering and 2) drop the animal so it does not run and die somewhere that I cannot find it (and I'm big on economy of effort, ie: lazy, and do not want to track it down). In a self-defense situation I want to kill the attacker because there is more of a chance of a lawsuit if he survives than if he dies. I've got a kid to put through college, a much better use of my money than giving it to someone who at one point wanted to criminally do me bodily harm.
Training
Before moving onto the Geneva Conventions, I would like to address your point on training. Chances are there is a higher percentage of people going into the military who have never fired a weapon than there are people who start hunting and have never fired a weapon. In short: a hunter has most likely been shooting since s/he was a kid...and most likely with hunting style hollow points.
Furthermore, once you know how to handle/shoot one you know how to handle/shoot the other type of ammo. Lethality is mostly a function of the round, not the firearm and functionality (accuracy, handling, etc) is mostly a function of the firearm.
Geneva Conventions
Under Geneva the kind of ammo used in war is restricted. There is less pain and suffering associated with full metal jacket rounds than hollow points, jacketed hollow points or soft lead core bullets (the latter three being popular hunting/self-defense bullets). If you kill a person it causes pain and suffering to the people back home. If you don't kill them with a hunting style round it causes extreme pain and suffering. So in an attempt to lessen the human cost of war the Geneva Conventions outlaws other types of projectiles other than full metal jacket.
You will see military shotguns but shot is not allowed and their use in combat is severely limited. Mostly they are used for security operations rather than battlefield operations.
At 2/11/08 12:57 AM, Cuppa-LettuceNog wrote: What do you mean by 'clones'?
They are identical in every way to the AK-47, M-16, etc used by militaries with one exception: they are only capable of semi-automatic fire...not full-auto or burst.
Yet the school should have been warned when a dead body was found.
Irrelevent to any tactical comparison between the two incidents if you are looking at things such as killing effectiveness of the weapons.
The points are:But fires it in lower amounts.
1) The bullet type matters; the typical handgun ammo is much more lethal than military ammo.
That is a function of the firearm, not the bullet. Look at what I've said elsewhere. Even with spray & pray in Mogadishu the straving Somali gunmen were taking multiple wounds with military ammo and still getting up to fight. One .45 (handgun) SXT round (self-defense) or a .270 deer hunting round and they would be done.
Furthermore, an UZI does not fire slower if you use SXT round or military rounds (UZIs fire handgun ammo).
Furthermore, the idea that high cap mags is that significant of an advantage is false. You can quickly reload clips and with the use of speed loaders a person can reload a revolver in seconds.
2) Spray and pray is incredibly inefficient and usually results in less instead of more deaths.If I walk up to 20 yards away from you on the street and open up with a semi-auto, your probably dead. If I do the same with a fully-automatic, you AND at least 1 bystander are probably dead.
See above...probably not because if your knowledge of how to use a firearm is so limited that you think spray & pray is effective you're probably also ignorant enough to use military ammo which means I'll probably live. Furthermore, when you bum fire (pulling the trigger as fast as you can on a semi-auto) or you spray & pray (using burst or full-auto) the weapon pulls up which means your shots are going to go high which even reduces the risk to by-standers.
Please stop basing your argument on what you see in movies or what you think you know. The tactical data shows that spray & pray shooting sprees are highly ineffective and result in less deaths than shooting sprees invovling deliberate, slow rates of fire. You're arguing hypotheticals against fact.
Yet I bet you can't find a single military that favors semi-auto or single shot over full auto.
I win. The USAF trains its airmen exclusively on semi-auto fire. I've been in going on 8 years and every time I have fired the M-16 on semi-auto. The only time I got to switch over to burst was I was given 9 rounds to fire off as a reward for being helpful to the firearms instructors. Furthermore, the US military as a whole favors burst fire over "spray & pray". Burst is three rounds per trigger pull. It allows you to put three rounds down range because simply holding the trigger down is highly ineffective.
Again...here you go making erroneous assumptions.
Yet they also don't serve a purpose. I think if someone is a soldier, policeman, or other law enforcement agent with an immaculate record, then they alone should be allowed to purchase a fully-automatic rifle. Otherwise, theres NO REASON for a civilian to own one.
There's no reason to make the law more restrictive either...at least not a reason that has been articulated. Furthermore, "NO REASON" to own one under current law is no reason to make the law more restrictive.
Because they are something which serve one use in the entire world; crime.
You have not demonstrated that.
Fine. But if people started to sell legal grenade launchers, there would be a HUGE jump in illegal grenades. Furthermore, grenade launchers aren't commonly used because grenade launchers are not commonly found. I personally know people in this town that could get me drugs, gun, suppresors, etc in a heartbeat, yet I doubt I could find a black market grenade launcher dealer if I busted my ass trying.
Did you look at the pic of the SKS I posted? It had BOTH a grenade launcher and a bayonet. In that configuration it is legal to sell and retails for about $180 and I saw MANY of them at the last gun show I went to. Furthermore, they are readily available from any licensed gun dealer for about the same price. They were legal before the 1994 "ban" and they are currently legal since the "ban" expired. You can legally purchase grenade launchers AND they are CHEAP. AND YET YOU HAVE NOT SEEN A SPIKE IN THE BLACKMARKET SALE OF GRENADES OR THEIR USE IN CRIME (SAME WITH BAYONETS)!! You keep arguing hypotheticals against reality my friend.
The point is that there is no statistical evidence to support your assumption that bayonets or grenade launchers make firearms like the Yugoslavian SKS shown below (with bayonet and grenade launcher) increases the "danger" of this firearm which has been legal to purchase since the sunsetting of the so-called 1994 Assault Rifle "ban".Because the supply of Grenade Launchers and Bayonets are so low.
See above, they are cheap and plentiful. Your argument is simply wrong and baseless.
... However, when shooting up an enemy gang, the presence of a grenade launcher and bayonet DO increase the danger of said misuse.
Prove it. There is no evidence that a bayonet or grenade launcher has been used in crime. They were legal up until the 1994 "ban" and have been legal since the 2004 sunsetting of the ban. I do not think there has been one documented case of either being used in crime during those timeframes.
At 2/7/08 09:14 AM, TheMason wrote:Which instantly makes the KIA, WIA and MIA ratios smaller than they would have been with the full amount.At 2/6/08 10:58 AM, D2Kvirus wrote:Total US forces in Vietnam: 8,744,000FACT CHECK
This many Americans did not fight and/or deploy to Vietnam. This is the total number of Vietnam era soldiers which means this is how many people who cycled in an out of the military during the conflict. Now just because you served in the military during this time does not mean you deployed to Vietnam.
I wasn't really arguing with your argument...just pointing out a factual error. The reality is even less of those troops (about half) were ever exposed to combat.
By the way, seven coast guard KIA? That's just bizarre...
Well the USCG is the seventh largest Navy! The USCG deploys in a time of war to provide costal support whenever we go into a country. In fact, they are in Iraq right now.
