Be a Supporter!

Gun Control Does Not Work (proof)

  • 45,767 Views
  • 1,772 Replies
New Topic Respond to this Topic
RacistBassist
RacistBassist
  • Member since: Jun. 14, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 16
Melancholy
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-21 19:27:24 Reply

At 2/21/13 11:25 AM, Saen wrote: In my opinion, the sport of hunting involves a certain amount of risk, patience, precision, and tracking. When using an Ak-47 two of those skills are immediately thrown out, precision and risk. That is if you fire one shot with a semi auto and miss, you can just instantly fire again, allowing less time for your target to escape. As for risk, well any dangerous animal that gets close to you can be shot at over and over until it's dead.

Your opinion means fuck all. Precision and risk do not go out the window. All a semi-automatic does is make it down to personal preference and being able to have a quick follow up shot for an ethical kill if you scored a shot but it isn't one of the instantly fatal ones. Shit, I would argue it takes more skill due to the need to be closer compared to the more traditionally used rifles. And are you seriously suggesting that hunters should be forced to take a greater personal risk due to wild animals if they go out hunting?

So you the invention of semi automatic rifles required hunters and soldiers to be even more accurate with their shots? You've got it backwards dude.

Yes it does. Those super scary carbines just aren't designed to be about laying down highly accurate fire. They're meant to keep the enemies head down, or to tear things up in close quarters. There's a reason why rifleman have such low kill counts in wars.

I don't have anything against buying ammo over the internet, nor am I in favor of banning semi-automatic rifles. Magazine size is my concern, but I'm pretty tiered of saying this over and over. So I'll just leave you with this thought.

Do you research on shootings that were a result of a semi-auto pistol versus a revolver. Both are handguns and are easy to conceal, however a semi-auto pistol has a much higher rate of fire, faster reload rate, and magazine capacities over twice the amount of revolvers. It seems the decreased reliability of a magazine doesn't seem to deter the majority of criminals from making it their gun of choice.

This comparative high rate of fire, fast reload rate, and large magazine capacity is an example of a deadly combination I'm talking about. Does it really need to be made more effective with magazines that can hold 20+ rounds of ammo?

When shooting at something that doesn't shoot back it doesn't matter if you need to reload every 30 or every 5. You could walk around killing everybody execution style with a revolver, or you could just spray and pray with an assault rifle knockoff. You have until somebody armed shows up to rack up the kills.


All the cool kids have signature text

BBS Signature
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-21 19:41:57 Reply

At 2/21/13 11:25 AM, Saen wrote: In my opinion,

right there

the sport of hunting involves a certain amount of risk, patience, precision, and tracking. When using an Ak-47 two of those skills are immediately thrown out, precision and risk. That is if you fire one shot with a semi auto and miss, you can just instantly fire again, allowing less time for your target to escape. As for risk, well any dangerous animal that gets close to you can be shot at over and over until it's dead.

one you are not a hunter you have admitted ignorance on the subject, if you have you would know it requires all of this regardless if its a semi-auto or a bolt action. Rate of fire is not a issue.


If anything, it would make it more sporting because semi-autos are less accurate than bolt action rifles (this is why the majority of sniper rifles are bolt action and not semi-auto like the Barret or the Halo sniper rifle). Therefore, it requires the hunter to be a better shot.
So you the invention of semi automatic rifles required hunters and soldiers to be even more accurate with their shots? You've got it backwards dude.

-LOL Rate of fire doesn't promote Spray n pray.
- you still have to hit your target regardless what firing mode its in
- less energy means a trajectory that is less flat which, by definition, means less accurate
- The movement of the action as it cycles reduces accuracy

Magazine size is my concern, but I'm pretty tiered of saying this over and over.

To bad its a DEAD ISSUE everyone knows ( who are knowledgeable in the Subject) knows that Hi-cap mags don't promote spray and pray and are highly ineffective due to the fact they are cumbersome, heavy and VERY prone to jamming

Do you research on shootings that were a result of a semi-auto pistol versus a revolver. Both are handguns and are easy to conceal, however a semi-auto pistol has a much higher rate of fire, faster reload rate, and magazine capacities over twice the amount of revolvers. It seems the decreased reliability of a magazine doesn't seem to deter the majority of criminals from making it their gun of choice.

This comparative high rate of fire, fast reload rate, and large magazine capacity is an example of a deadly combination I'm talking about. Does it really need to be made more effective with magazines that can hold 20+ rounds of ammo?

since Mason just schooled your ass with three posts with shit I was gonna say I might as well not bother

do some REAL research kid.

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 12:19:06 Reply

So back in the days when war was conducted with muskets, a frontline footmen could afford to be less accurate than if he was armed with a semi-auto? Absolutely not. When you have x-amount of reload/recovery time after firing a shot, you need to be that much more accurate when firing opposed to a semi-auto of similar accuracy.

This will be my final though on hunting. One of the biggest contradictions within the conservative party is their views on guns and hunting. When it comes to any other political issue, the old way and preserving traditional methods always comes first. But when it comes to guns and hunting and even fishing, technology can't progress fast enough! Semi-auto heavy assault rifles, high caliber hollow points, shooting from a helicopter, truck, off-road vehicle are all very much embraced in the America way of "hunting".

Oh and Mason, no culture of people on this planet has ever used swords or knifes as weapons for hunting. The most extreme method of hunting (a method which none of you could possible fathom doing let alone imagine possible) is marathon tracking and hunting, where one or a few runners, armed with a spear chase and track their prey for hours until it physically collapses from exhaustion or is within throwing range.

Any weapon or hunting method that makes your target as easy and efficient to kill while keeping you as far away from danger as possible adds to the sport of hunting in your minds. Fucking definition of a pussy right there. Hell hunters here won't even step foot in the woods, because they're afraid of coyotes, bears, or burning a few calories! Meanwhile I spend the entire day deep in the forest with only a knife, compass, and my experimental equipment! This only adds to my point that gun fanatics are terrified of their own shadows and will never feel adequately armed for any kind of threat. What a way miserable way to live your life.

Obviously reducing magazine size would be cutting too much off your dick sizes, so I suggest we move onto another topic.

Requiring liability insurance for owning a gun. Gone on, tell me why you all disagree and that this is another outrageous and constitootionally unacceptable idea!

SuperDeagle
SuperDeagle
  • Member since: Feb. 10, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 24
Movie Buff
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 12:32:05 Reply

At 2/22/13 12:19 PM, Saen wrote: Oh and Mason, no culture of people on this planet has ever used swords or knifes as weapons for hunting.

"Dude...this is just silly. It reminds me of those guys who come on here talking about using swords and martial arts instead of guns for self-defense."

I don't think I need to help Mason in defending himself, but seriously, do you even bother reading what people say to you? Everything else in your post is just mindless drivel.


Wut?

BBS Signature
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 12:40:59 Reply

At 2/22/13 12:19 PM, Saen wrote: So back in the days when war was conducted with muskets, a frontline footmen could afford to be less accurate than if he was armed with a semi-auto? Absolutely not. When you have x-amount of reload/recovery time after firing a shot, you need to be that much more accurate when firing opposed to a semi-auto of similar accuracy.

strawmen argument

This will be my final though on hunting. One of the biggest contradictions within the conservative party is their views on guns and hunting. When it comes to any other political issue, the old way and preserving traditional methods always comes first. But when it comes to guns and hunting and even fishing, technology can't progress fast enough! Semi-auto heavy assault rifles, high caliber hollow points, shooting from a helicopter, truck, off-road vehicle are all very much embraced in the America way of "hunting".

yeah because the republican party values and preserves the Second Amendment for the reason it was drafted to protect yourself and have a means to overthrow a tyrannical unconstitutional government. Hollow points ruin the meat because you wont be able to separate it from the meat if you had knowledge in the subject you would know that. yup its not unheard of to hunt from a truck in some areas since hunting season there is COLD.

Any weapon or hunting method that makes your target as easy and efficient to kill while keeping you as far away from danger as possible adds to the sport of hunting in your minds. Fucking definition of a pussy right there.

lets see you trek 3 miles with 150Lb of gear then when you finally get a shot. or at least wait Semi-auto is use to ensure you get a clean kill with the second round otherwise if you use more than one you have a chance of ruining the meat.

once again your ignorance is showing

Hell hunters here won't even step foot in the woods, because they're afraid of coyotes, bears, or burning a few calories! Meanwhile I spend the entire day deep in the forest with only a knife, compass, and my experimental equipment! This only adds to my point that gun fanatics are terrified of their own shadows and will never feel adequately armed for any kind of threat. What a way miserable way to live your life.

where do you live? and I call bullshit with the knife its probably because the forest area is private land with no trespassing and hunting there can lead to either a misdamenor to a FELONY (in some states)

Obviously reducing magazine size would be cutting too much off your dick sizes, so I suggest we move onto another topic.

not really. Magazine size is a DEAD ISSUE, it doesn't promote spray n pray, it james more often and they are cumbersome.
if anything they are for self defense (20R pistol mag) or competitive and recreational shooting.

perfectly legal

Requiring liability insurance for owning a gun. Gone on, tell me why you all disagree and that this is another outrageous and constitootionally unacceptable idea!

because U.S. Insurers Resist Push to Make Gun Owners Get Coverage and the fact that gun owners (citizens), the Gun Lobby and gun makers don't want it. the bill that they tried passing would make gun owners insure there guns which would cost $200 a firearm Monthly

now why don't you go back to General?

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 13:16:56 Reply

At 2/22/13 12:40 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
yeah because the republican party values and preserves the Second Amendment for the reason it was drafted to protect yourself and have a means to overthrow a tyrannical unconstitutional government. Hollow points ruin the meat because you wont be able to separate it from the meat if you had knowledge in the subject you would know that.

Completely missed the point I was making.

yup its not unheard of to hunt from a truck in some areas since hunting season there is COLD.

Like I've said, definition of a pussy.


lets see you trek 3 miles with 150Lb of gear then when you finally get a shot. or at least wait Semi-auto is use to ensure you get a clean kill with the second round otherwise if you use more than one you have a chance of ruining the meat.

Going to be much much more than 3miles trekking if you're actually hunting and tracking your target. That's why very few Americans and certainly no hunters in Florida actually do this, they're far too lazy! They sit in their truck on the side of the road, let their dogs out into the woods, and sit and wait, they don't even step foot in the woods!


where do you live? and I call bullshit with the knife its probably because the forest area is private land with no trespassing and hunting there can lead to either a misdamenor to a FELONY (in some states)

The Apalachicola National Forest in the panhandle of Florida, where hunting is most certainly allowed in season along with with a hunting license.


not really. Magazine size is a DEAD ISSUE, it doesn't promote spray n pray, it james more often and they are cumbersome.
if anything they are for self defense (20R pistol mag) or competitive and recreational shooting.

It is certainly not a dead issue in Connecticut and many other states, but I am absolutely disgusted and through talking about it any further with you guys.


because U.S. Insurers Resist Push to Make Gun Owners Get Coverage and the fact that gun owners (citizens), the Gun Lobby and gun makers don't want it. the bill that they tried passing would make gun owners insure there guns which would cost $200 a firearm Monthly

An it's not too expensive for an average gun owner to buy dozens of guns, even take out loans to buy more guns, and yet they can't afford the insurance?


now why don't you go back to General?

My first post ever on NG was in politics and was the reason I created an account in the first place.

There is nothing more precious to a redneck than his gun, that's why these debates get so heated. I've lived in the south for just about my whole life, I'm used to it. The point of a gun control debate is to reduce violence and killings, the vast majority of which are caused by guns.

Here is an opinion of mine which I'm sure you'll fine interesting. One method I'm in favor for reducing gun violence is much harsher legal punishment for gun-related crimes. For example, a person murders someone else in cold blood, so shooting someone over an x-box, $20, drugs, etc. is put in prison FOR LIFE, period.

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 13:36:11 Reply

At 2/22/13 01:16 PM, Saen wrote:
Here is an opinion of mine which I'm sure you'll fine interesting. One method I'm in favor for reducing gun violence is much harsher legal punishment for gun-related crimes. For example, a person murders someone else in cold blood, so shooting someone over an x-box, $20, drugs, etc. is put in prison FOR LIFE, period.

Now I can see how you'll take this the wrong way and yell, "Well people will just use knifes to kill each other retard! Guns don't kill people, floobity derp de durp!"

No that's not the idea, the idea is murder in cold blood = in prison for life :'(. Potential criminals think "gee wiz, maybe I shouldn't shoot this guy for $20 so I don't get locked up for the rest of my life."

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 13:46:19 Reply

At 2/22/13 01:16 PM, Saen wrote: Completely missed the point I was making.

hardly

Like I've said, definition of a pussy.

no its not in hunting season here in Minnesota it can get -10 to -30 during hunting season its called common sense but most people do trek it but might take a truck or 4 wheeler just to carry gear and game.

of course you wouldn't know since you play golf.

Going to be much much more than 3miles trekking if you're actually hunting and tracking your target. That's why very few Americans and certainly no hunters in Florida actually do this, they're far too lazy! They sit in their truck on the side of the road, let their dogs out into the woods, and sit and wait, they don't even step foot in the woods!

convience plus the fact that hunter deaths are common. if you come up to minnesota its nothing but roaming in forests until the snow hits thats when truck hunting and deer stands come into play.

you judge all hunters on the basis of Florida ones you must be real ignorant.

It is certainly not a dead issue in Connecticut and many other states, but I am absolutely disgusted and through talking about it any further with you guys.

of course because Mason and I debunked all the shit you said because: you have no real experience on this issue

An it's not too expensive for an average gun owner to buy dozens of guns, even take out loans to buy more guns, and yet they can't afford the insurance?

lets I own 36 firearms and if I have to pay lets say 100 a month for each whats 100X36 thats $3,600 annually and the fact that the premiums can go up is even more discerning.

The point of a gun control debate is to reduce violence and killings, the vast majority of which are caused by guns.

to bad thats not the case seeing California, Chicago, NYC, Jersey just do the research. they are all heavy Gun control states and haven't done shit.

Here is an opinion of mine which I'm sure you'll fine interesting. One method I'm in favor for reducing gun violence is much harsher legal punishment for gun-related crimes. For example, a person murders someone else in cold blood, so shooting someone over an x-box, $20, drugs, etc. is put in prison FOR LIFE, period.

personally I am in favor for hard labor for life. they can rebuild and or maintain the crumbling national infrastructure.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 13:47:50 Reply

At 2/22/13 01:36 PM, Saen wrote: No that's not the idea, the idea is murder in cold blood = in prison for life :'(. Potential criminals think "gee wiz, maybe I shouldn't shoot this guy for $20 so I don't get locked up for the rest of my life."

unfortunately some people get to the point they don't care about themselves and just do it anyways. then you have fanatics, people against the wall, the plain crazies etc.

ya can only do so much.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 13:49:40 Reply

not really. Magazine size is a DEAD ISSUE, it doesn't promote spray n pray, it james more often and they are cumbersome.
if anything they are for self defense (20R pistol mag) or competitive and recreational shooting.
It is certainly not a dead issue in Connecticut and many other states, but I am absolutely disgusted and through talking about it any further with you guys.

Like I've linked the DoJ doesn't think it will have an affect. And the most fatal school shooting of all time was carried out with two handguns with a 10 and 15 round capacity.
Most mass shootings in general occur in gun free zones.
Guess who actually cares about gun free zones (Hint not mass murderers)

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 14:13:43 Reply

At 2/22/13 01:49 PM, Ceratisa wrote:
Like I've linked the DoJ doesn't think it will have an affect. And the most fatal school shooting of all time was carried out with two handguns with a 10 and 15 round capacity.
Most mass shootings in general occur in gun free zones.
Guess who actually cares about gun free zones (Hint not mass murderers)

Then how was Adam Lanza able to kill 26 people and his own mother with a weapon that's supposedly not lethal, unreliable, and inaccurate? This is directly adressed at the weapon used, not whether or not teachers, children, or officers were armed.

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 14:28:33 Reply

At 2/22/13 01:46 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
lets I own 36 firearms and if I have to pay lets say 100 a month for each whats 100X36 thats $3,600 annually and the fact that the premiums can go up is even more discerning.

Lmao I'm sorry did you mean to say 36 firearms?


to bad thats not the case seeing California, Chicago, NYC, Jersey just do the research. they are all heavy Gun control states and haven't done shit.

And what about Louisiana having the highest homicide rate? Florida, North and South Carolina, Alabama, Missouri, Mississippi, all much some of the highest murder rates, even higher than New York or New Jersey

I lived in the murder capital of Florida, Jacksonville for 12 years, turn on the 11 o'clock news, 3 people dead, shot to death, every single fucking day. A high concentration of guns along with little to no regulation is a huge liability. This is exactly why the southern states have the highest murder rates.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 14:33:06 Reply

At 2/22/13 02:13 PM, Saen wrote:
At 2/22/13 01:49 PM, Ceratisa wrote:
Like I've linked the DoJ doesn't think it will have an affect. And the most fatal school shooting of all time was carried out with two handguns with a 10 and 15 round capacity.
Most mass shootings in general occur in gun free zones.
Guess who actually cares about gun free zones (Hint not mass murderers)
Then how was Adam Lanza able to kill 26 people and his own mother with a weapon that's supposedly not lethal, unreliable, and inaccurate? This is directly adressed at the weapon used, not whether or not teachers, children, or officers were armed.

Which they weren't so you can't actually say that.

So tell me why Adam Lanza couldn't do as much damage to children with the supposedly high powered "assault weapon" that a student could do on a college campus with two pistols?

That is your own logic there.
The faster the rate of fire the less accurate you are, but you've been told this many times.
High capacity magazines are prone to jamming and the rounds often used in them are designed to not make death inevitable. It costs your opponent more to nurse the wounded then bury the dead. Including during actual combat, fighting strength is affected when wounded need to be removed from the field.

The AR-15 is called "military style" for a reason. Because the similarities aren't that strong.

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 14:40:11 Reply

At 2/22/13 02:28 PM, Saen wrote: Lmao I'm sorry did you mean to say 36 firearms?

sorry I am on my phone posting.

And what about Louisiana having the highest homicide rate? Florida, North and South Carolina, Alabama, Missouri, Mississippi, all much some of the highest murder rates, even higher than New York or New Jersey

California and Chicago as of 2011 made up 85% of the Homicides and other crimes with firearms, I use to have the link to source but my bookmarks got erased.

A high concentration of guns along with little to no regulation is a huge liability. This is exactly why the southern states have the highest murder rates.

30,000 deaths a year NATIONALLY is hardly a liability.

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 14:53:58 Reply

At 2/22/13 02:33 PM, Ceratisa wrote:
Which they weren't so you can't actually say that.

So tell me why Adam Lanza couldn't do as much damage to children with the supposedly high powered "assault weapon" that a student could do on a college campus with two pistols?

450 people at Sandy Hook Elementary, over 17,000 students at Virginia Tech uh duurrrrr!

That is your own logic there.
The faster the rate of fire the less accurate you are, but you've been told this many times.
High capacity magazines are prone to jamming and the rounds often used in them are designed to not make death inevitable. It costs your opponent more to nurse the wounded then bury the dead. Including during actual combat, fighting strength is affected when wounded need to be removed from the field.

The AR-15 is called "military style" for a reason. Because the similarities aren't that strong.

My logic is Adam used a weapon with plenty of ammo capacity, rounds with enough power to shoot through desks and doors, a high rate of fire, and deadly accuracy. He killed all his victims (other than himself) with one gun, even though he was carrying two handguns. This is why the Sandy Hook shooting resurfaced the debate on the legality of assault rifles and high capacity mags.

Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 14:59:51 Reply

At 2/22/13 02:40 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
30,000 deaths a year NATIONALLY is hardly a liability.

It's actually the highest among all industrialized nations. Here, here, and here my good man.

SuperDeagle
SuperDeagle
  • Member since: Feb. 10, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 24
Movie Buff
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 15:00:12 Reply

I'm just going to leave this here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/sep /27/gun-crime-map-statistics


Wut?

BBS Signature
Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 15:00:56 Reply

450 people at Sandy Hook Elementary, over 17,000 students at Virginia Tech uh duurrrrr!

Little children DURRRRRR


That is your own logic there.
The faster the rate of fire the less accurate you are, but you've been told this many times.
High capacity magazines are prone to jamming and the rounds often used in them are designed to not make death inevitable. It costs your opponent more to nurse the wounded then bury the dead. Including during actual combat, fighting strength is affected when wounded need to be removed from the field.

The AR-15 is called "military style" for a reason. Because the similarities aren't that strong.
My logic is Adam used a weapon with plenty of ammo capacity, rounds with enough power to shoot through desks and doors, a high rate of fire, and deadly accuracy. He killed all his victims (other than himself) with one gun, even though he was carrying two handguns. This is why the Sandy Hook shooting resurfaced the debate on the legality of assault rifles and high capacity mags.

He wasn't that accurate. And please link actual sources indicating that he only used the AR-15 to shoot everyone?
Your logic is based on your emotions and lack of understanding. You go on to mention your feelings on the subject numerous times rather then relying on facts or even DoJ findings. But I guess you know better then the DoJ

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 15:06:12 Reply

At 2/22/13 02:59 PM, Saen wrote:
At 2/22/13 02:40 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
30,000 deaths a year NATIONALLY is hardly a liability.
It's actually the highest among all industrialized nations.
Here,

thats just murder statistics

here,

UN data? not reliable a bit.

and here my good man.

its far lower than that its only tens of thousands of gun deaths. Most within Gun control states

SuperDeagle
SuperDeagle
  • Member since: Feb. 10, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 24
Movie Buff
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 15:09:53 Reply

At 2/22/13 03:06 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: its far lower than that its only tens of thousands of gun deaths. Most within Gun control states

That last link is from 1990...


Wut?

BBS Signature
Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 15:13:53 Reply

At 2/22/13 03:00 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: I'm just going to leave this here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/sep /27/gun-crime-map-statistics

This is pretty cool. Isn't it ironic how every state in the bible belt has a murder rate higher than the U.S. average? I guess Baptists scratched out the commandment "Thou shalt not kill".

Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 15:14:05 Reply

At 2/22/13 03:09 PM, SuperDeagle wrote:
At 2/22/13 03:06 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: its far lower than that its only tens of thousands of gun deaths. Most within Gun control states
That last link is from 1990...

mine or his? anyways somewhere around the 30K range is the actual conservative death rate yearly via firearms, the links have been posted Mason can do it again.

Ceratisa
Ceratisa
  • Member since: Dec. 8, 2012
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 07
Gamer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 15:30:03 Reply

Homicide is down yearly, why are guns such a huge issue that needs to be fixed by banning weapons that contribute only a fraction to our firearm related homicides?

SuperDeagle
SuperDeagle
  • Member since: Feb. 10, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 24
Movie Buff
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 15:30:08 Reply

At 2/22/13 03:13 PM, Saen wrote:
At 2/22/13 03:00 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: I'm just going to leave this here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/interactive/2011/sep /27/gun-crime-map-statistics
This is pretty cool. Isn't it ironic how every state in the bible belt has a murder rate higher than the U.S. average? I guess Baptists scratched out the commandment "Thou shalt not kill".

You need to quit looking at rates, they're misleading. Start looking at actual numbers and social interactions/causations.
This graph is particularly for firearm murders.
SC firearm related murders was 223.
NY firearm related murders was 445.
CA firearm related murders was 1220.

Compare to populations of 4.7 mil, 8.2 mil, and 38 mil respectively. Between these three, there seems to be a consistent trend when it comes to firearm murders and population sizes. Roughly, 200 murders for every 4 million people. (Yes, Cali is still off, but flat numbers are easier to work with.)

Still though, firearm murders... ehh not very big numbers.


Wut?

BBS Signature
SuperDeagle
SuperDeagle
  • Member since: Feb. 10, 2004
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 24
Movie Buff
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 15:33:34 Reply

At 2/22/13 03:14 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: mine or his? anyways somewhere around the 30K range is the actual conservative death rate yearly via firearms, the links have been posted Mason can do it again.

His NYtimes link is what I was referring too. Did you mean to post a link in that reply?


Wut?

BBS Signature
Tony-DarkGrave
Tony-DarkGrave
  • Member since: Jul. 15, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Supporter
Level 43
Programmer
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 15:54:54 Reply

At 2/22/13 03:33 PM, SuperDeagle wrote:
At 2/22/13 03:14 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: mine or his? anyways somewhere around the 30K range is the actual conservative death rate yearly via firearms, the links have been posted Mason can do it again.
His NYtimes link is what I was referring too. Did you mean to post a link in that reply?

what you quoted me in your post.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 16:40:20 Reply

@ Saen

I want to begin by apologizing on behalf of all legal, ethical hunters. I have no love or respect for poachers. Here in Mo, if you are poaching or road hunting and get caught you are arrested and your truck, everything in your truck, and your rifle are all seized.

But I did some digging on Fl game laws. Road hunting is a prohibited method for taking game. As for the use of dogs in hunting, this is actually a traditional method for hunting going back through colonial times, the middle ages, and to the first dogs prehistoric humans domesticated. In modern times though, many states such as Missouri prohibit the use of dogs in taking game such as deer but allow them for hunting small game such as raccoons.

You are correct to be upset over poachers and road killers. This is not hunting, legal, or ethical. It also gives hunters a bad name. However, it has been my experience that legal & ethical hunters far outnumber the those who are criminals.

But at the same time, I would like you to recognize that you err in painting legitimate hunters with too broad of a brush. Furthermore, there are many reasons people hunt. Some for sport, others for meat, and yet others for wildlife management. Me I'm the latter two. I'm not in it for the sport. My reasons are twofold:
1) I am a landowner, I own and live on 52 acres in the middle of the country. One of the issues we have in Missouri is the health of our deer population. As the human population has expanded, the deer's natural predators have shrunk in population whereas people feeding deer because they are cute and cool to have around causes them to overpopulate and succumb to diseases like Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) and starvation during droughts and harsh winters. As a landowner I have a responsibility to monitor the wildlife on my land. I can take up to two deer for free a year as well as an additional two for $15. I can also allow other hunters on my land. How many I take per year is dependant upon the size of the herd and their health which I monitor with trail cams.
2) I also hunt because it IS a source of cheap meat. Of the deer around here will yield 70-80lbs of meat. The cost to process it is about $70-80. So I get steak and deer burger for about $1/lb. I cannot get meat at the store for cheaper.

As for hunting methods:
These too change with the hunter. Some hunters prefer more traditional means of hunting such as black powder, bow, and even an atlatl. However there are some ethical issues with these methods that cause hunters like me (who are not in it for the sport) to prefer modern firearms:
1) You point to hollowpoints as something that takes away from hunting. But here's what it adds: humanity. These rounds are quicker to kill which means that the animal suffers less. It also means that wounded animals are easier to track and do not run as far, therefore the hunter can use a pistol to put it out of its misery instead of not being able to find it and so it dies slowly, painfully. So I think using ballistic type ammo is by far more ethical and human than traditional hunting methods.
2) You brought up accuracy. In the days of the Revolution the military had smoothbore muskets. These things were very inaccurate. But when you had lines of soldiers marching towards each other you did not have to hit the guy you were aiming at. It was just as well to hit one of the two guys on his left or the two guys on his right. By the civil war our guns had something called rifling (hence the term rifling) which made their shots much more accurate. However, these guns required that each shot's powder and ball be loaded by hand which meant that (even though powder charges were pre-made) there was some variation between loads...which effected accuracy. This lead to the invention of the cartridge which reduced this variation.

The accuracy of the military rifle probably reached its zenith between the 1870s and World War II when most armies used bolt action rifles. These remain the most accurate rifles out there because they are most efficient in terms of energy as well as stable. Automatic firearms provide the shooter with other advantages bolt action rifles do not have...but at the cost of accuracy.

3) Re-read my post. I was not saying anything about bladed weapons being used for hunting. Instead, you made a comment about 'risk' being part of hunting. I was merely pointing out that this is an absurb argument, and only makes you sound like you do not know anything about hunting. I was making my point by comparing your argument to those guys who come in here and say you do not any type of gun for home/self-defense. Your re-buttal does nothing to help your case...it is if anything a weak attempt at manipulating what I was saying into another line of argument. One that fails utterly.

At 2/22/13 01:16 PM, Saen wrote: It is certainly not a dead issue in Connecticut and many other states, but I am absolutely disgusted and through talking about it any further with you guys.

But on the federal issue, it is probably not going to go anywhere. Furthermore, why are you absolutely disgusted? At this point I have provided you with links that show you that LCMs are not causing the type of carnage that you think they are.

Also, I share the same goal as you: preventing needless deaths due to gun violence. The only difference is I'm looking at this from the perspective of what options are:
A) What options are realistic?
B) What options are effective.

At this point all the science points to is dealing with the magazine issue will not solve any problems and what effect it would have would be trivial compared to the effects of mobilizing the same money and manpower in other directions.

... The point of a gun control debate is to reduce violence and killings, the vast majority of which are caused by guns.

Yes it is. But here's the thing, I've shown repeatedly that your solutions to gun violence are based upon erroneous assumptions. Therefore, while guns are used in those killings...they are not the root cause of those killings. I have shown you multiple reasons why further gun control would be counter-productive and largely ineffective.

I have also shown you policy suggestions that would have a far greater impact on reducing gun violence...but would suffer from further gun control policies that would divert money, resources, and manpower into other agencies (predominately law enforcement). And yet all you retort with is retrenchment in your false assumptions.


Here is an opinion of mine which I'm sure you'll fine interesting. One method I'm in favor for reducing gun violence is much harsher legal punishment for gun-related crimes. For example, a person murders someone else in cold blood, so shooting someone over an x-box, $20, drugs, etc. is put in prison FOR LIFE, period.

We have already tried these things and there is some evidence of their effectiveness. But, these are limited. For example, in the case of gang shootings (which are a HUGE portion of killings) there is a culture of non-cooperation with police which reduces the effectiveness of the police to solve the murders.

Instead of spending the money on punitive measures hoping they will be a deterent...why not spend money on programs that will actually tackle the causes of gun violence...instead of symptomatic media sensationalism?


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 17:20:02 Reply

At 2/22/13 02:13 PM, Saen wrote: Then how was Adam Lanza able to kill 26 people and his own mother with a weapon that's supposedly not lethal, unreliable, and inaccurate? This is directly adressed at the weapon used, not whether or not teachers, children, or officers were armed.

1) Lanza killed his mother with four shots from a .22...not the AR-15.

2) Re-read what has been written. I have not said that the AR-15 is NOT lethal...I have pointed out the fact that is not as lethal as the majority of other firearms including pistols, shotguns, or hunting rifles. So please, don't twist my words.
a) 20 of his victims were very young children who are especially vulnerable to traumatic injury which any gunshot wound (irregardless of calibur) counts as. For example they cannot afford to loose near as much blood as an adult or teen.
b) Lanza may not have been spraying and praying. He may have been taking aimed shots for the head and/or heart. GSWs to the brain leave only a 5% chance of survival, while GSWs to the heart leave only a 15%.
c) Lanza also shot many of his victims multiple times, the highest I've read is 11. This means a much faster bleed-out rate.

3) The AR-15/M-16 family of guns are prone to misfires, but much of these can be mitigated by: maintenance, small magazine size, and type of ammo used. Lanza appears to have been very well trained and his personality disorder may have made him a very neat and meticulous individual who maintained the gun.

4) Inaccurate: again you're either not understanding what is being said, cherry picking what is being said, or twisting my words. The AR-15 is highly accurate...for an assault rifle class weapon. However, bolt and lever action guns are even more accurate. Don't confuse scale with lack of ability.

On a final not with Lanza: PBS' Frontline included an interesting fact. Seems that Lanza changed mags well before it was necessary. This indicates that he probably did not take advantage of the AR-15's high rate of fire...or the volume of fire provided by the LCMs. This also means that the mags' chances of failing were reduced because as the magazine spring decompresses the less rapidly/forcefully is the next round loaded...which is why these mags are prone to failure. So Lanza is an outlier and not typical of the shooter who choses an assault rifle clone. Just like the DC Snipers.

====

If Lanza did indead take aimed shots and did not merely spray and pray...then he could have accomplished the same amout of death with handguns with smaller mag capacities. Even if we're talking about seven round mags. Look at Cho. He took aimed shots with only 100 rounds at the same range. He just used less bullets.

Which is largely why the following argument does not hold water:

At 2/22/13 02:53 PM, Saen wrote: 450 people at Sandy Hook Elementary, over 17,000 students at Virginia Tech uh duurrrrr!

Cho did not blindly spray the entire population of VT with rounds. He went to a single building and stalked from classroom to classroom much like Lanza most likely did. The difference is Cho needed less bullets because the 9mm loaded with JHPs can kill adults with a fewer bullets.

(Also, since neither school's population was clustered together...makes this point very irrelevent.)

At 2/22/13 02:59 PM, Saen wrote:
At 2/22/13 02:40 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:
30,000 deaths a year NATIONALLY is hardly a liability.
It's actually the highest among all industrialized nations. Here, here, and here my good man.

Again...highly irrelevent and from a scientific/academic perspective: invalid. There are culture and socio-economic differences between countries that makes cross-national studies very problematic. Furthermore, I would not rely upon them if I were on your side of the debate. Because while they do make a compelling and reasonable argument on their surface...once you get past the descriptive statistics what light is shed points away from gun availability and to education, economic opportunity, and racial tensions.


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature
Saen
Saen
  • Member since: Feb. 22, 2006
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 18
Reader
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 17:30:10 Reply

At 2/22/13 04:40 PM, TheMason wrote:
I want to begin by apologizing on behalf of all legal, ethical hunters. I have no love or respect for poachers. Here in Mo, if you are poaching or road hunting and get caught you are arrested and your truck, everything in your truck, and your rifle are all seized.

I appreciate it, but this is not the case. It is completely legal to hunt from your truck so long as it is not moving and the motor is shut off. This is by far the most popular method of hunting deer in Florida.

"Shooting from vehicles, powerboats or sailboats moving under power. Motors must be shut off or sails furled, and the vesselâEUTMs progress must cease from such motor or sail before hunters may take wildlife."


As for the use of dogs in hunting, this is actually a traditional method for hunting going back through colonial times, the middle ages, and to the first dogs prehistoric humans domesticated. In modern times though, many states such as Missouri prohibit the use of dogs in taking game such as deer but allow them for hunting small game such as raccoons.

Once again not the case in Florida, perfectly legal to hunt deer with dogs.


You are correct to be upset over poachers and road killers. This is not hunting, legal, or ethical. It also gives hunters a bad name. However, it has been my experience that legal & ethical hunters far outnumber the those who are criminals.

It is legal and it gives hunters a bad name.


But at the same time, I would like you to recognize that you err in painting legitimate hunters with too broad of a brush. Furthermore, there are many reasons people hunt. Some for sport, others for meat, and yet others for wildlife management. Me I'm the latter two. I'm not in it for the sport. My reasons are twofold...

I don't think any less of you for being a hunter, as an outdoorsman and a student of biology I have respect for decent hunters and their role in maintaining ecosystems, but they are few and far between.

When I get time to travel I plan on hunting invasive pythons and water monitors in the Everglades and hopefully I'll get the chance to spearfish Lionfish and feed them to native sharks and grouper.

As for hunting methods:
These too change with the hunter. Some hunters prefer more traditional means of hunting such as black powder, bow, and even an atlatl. However there are some ethical issues with these methods that cause hunters like me (who are not in it for the sport) to prefer modern firearms:
1) You point to hollowpoints as something that takes away from hunting. But here's what it adds: humanity. These rounds are quicker to kill which means that the animal suffers less. It also means that wounded animals are easier to track and do not run as far, therefore the hunter can use a pistol to put it out of its misery instead of not being able to find it and so it dies slowly, painfully. So I think using ballistic type ammo is by far more ethical and human than traditional hunting methods.

Hunting deer ethically isn't really a concern to me, but I understand why ethics laws are in place for vertebrates.

2) You brought up accuracy. In the days of the Revolution the military had smoothbore muskets. These things were very inaccurate. But when you had lines of soldiers marching towards each other you did not have to hit the guy you were aiming at. It was just as well to hit one of the two guys on his left or the two guys on his right. By the civil war our guns had something called rifling (hence the term rifling) which made their shots much more accurate. However, these guns required that each shot's powder and ball be loaded by hand which meant that (even though powder charges were pre-made) there was some variation between loads...which effected accuracy. This lead to the invention of the cartridge which reduced this variation.

Bolt-Action rifles have always had decent accuracy, but never a rate of fire or ammo capacity comparable to a heavy assault rifle. Like you said, you can hunt with an AK-47 and have similar power and accuracy to a bolt-action , but you get semi-auto and much larger capacity.

It's just my opinion, and it's nothing to get worked up over, hunting with a heavy assault rifle takes the sport out of it.

The accuracy of the military rifle probably reached its zenith between the 1870s and World War II when most armies used bolt action rifles. These remain the most accurate rifles out there because they are most efficient in terms of energy as well as stable. Automatic firearms provide the shooter with other advantages bolt action rifles do not have...but at the cost of accuracy.

3) Re-read my post. I was not saying anything about bladed weapons being used for hunting. Instead, you made a comment about 'risk' being part of hunting. I was merely pointing out that this is an absurb argument, and only makes you sound like you do not know anything about hunting. I was making my point by comparing your argument to those guys who come in here and say you do not any type of gun for home/self-defense. Your re-buttal does nothing to help your case...it is if anything a weak attempt at manipulating what I was saying into another line of argument. One that fails utterly.

Well I'm not one of those guys who thinks you shouldn't hunt with a gun or protect your home with one. Whether you make the sarcastic claim that we should protect ourselves or hunt with swords, either way it's absurd. I'm not afraid of guns nor will I ever be a gun fanatic, it's too expensive and unnecessary.


But on the federal issue, it is probably not going to go anywhere. Furthermore, why are you absolutely disgusted? At this point I have provided you with links that show you that LCMs are not causing the type of carnage that you think they are.

You're being quite reasonable, it's the monkeys that keep hooting, hollering, and jumping in the fray thinking I'm out to get their guns that are driving me crazy!

Also, I share the same goal as you: preventing needless deaths due to gun violence. The only difference is I'm looking at this from the perspective of what options are:
A) What options are realistic?
B) What options are effective.

At this point all the science points to is dealing with the magazine issue will not solve any problems and what effect it would have would be trivial compared to the effects of mobilizing the same money and manpower in other directions.

Like educating poor populations on excessive gun-buying (addiction) and it's role in the circle of poverty.

We have these debates on guns specifically to determine which are ethical, appropriate, and safe for civilian use. Because of this recent massacre committed by a common high capacity assault rifle, the debate on the Ar-15 has resurfaced.


We have already tried these things and there is some evidence of their effectiveness. But, these are limited. For example, in the case of gang shootings (which are a HUGE portion of killings) there is a culture of non-cooperation with police which reduces the effectiveness of the police to solve the murders.

And I agree with you, gun laws are not the most effective nor cost effective in preventing gun violence. Education on the circle of poverty and dedicated funding towards the poor will not only be the most effective in reducing violence, but also in bulking and strengthening our middle class by reducing lower class numbers.


Instead of spending the money on punitive measures hoping they will be a deterent...why not spend money on programs that will actually tackle the causes of gun violence...instead of symptomatic media sensationalism

Poverty is the leading cause of violence, excessive population growth, and disease everywhere in the world. It is the root of almost every major global issue.

TheMason
TheMason
  • Member since: Dec. 26, 2003
  • Offline.
Forum Stats
Member
Level 08
Blank Slate
Response to Gun Control Does Not Work (proof) 2013-02-22 18:20:15 Reply

At 2/22/13 05:30 PM, Saen wrote: Bolt-Action rifles have always had decent accuracy, but never a rate of fire or ammo capacity comparable to a heavy assault rifle. Like you said, you can hunt with an AK-47 and have similar power and accuracy to a bolt-action , but you get semi-auto and much larger capacity.

You get the similar power and accuracy at close range...up to about 100-150 yards. Beyond that, the assault rifle round begins to drop.

Also, don't use the term 'heavy assault rifle'. It's an oxymoron...by definition an assault rifle is not a heavy round. It makes the person saying it sound uninformed (much like I've hear Piers Morgan say 'magazine clips').

Semi-auto, as I've said before, does not give the hunter the advantage you think. A hunter with a lever action or pump shotgun is capable of just as quick a follow-up shot.

As for LCM...as you can tell from both FL and MO law LCMs are illegal to use while hunting. So this point is irrelevent.


It's just my opinion, and it's nothing to get worked up over, hunting with a heavy assault rifle takes the sport out of it.

I'm not getting worked up over it...I'm just pointing out that using an AK-47 to take a deer is nowhere near as unsporting or unrealistic as many may think it is. Furthermore, given that the 7.62x39 round is less powerful than standard deer loads it makes hunting more safe in the event a hunter misses.

The perceived loss in 'sport' is more than outweighed by the gains made in the safety category.

Like educating poor populations on excessive gun-buying (addiction) and it's role in the circle of poverty.

We have these debates on guns specifically to determine which are ethical, appropriate, and safe for civilian use. Because of this recent massacre committed by a common high capacity assault rifle, the debate on the Ar-15 has resurfaced.

Yes...absolutely true. However, when you look into the facts and trends the argument that these guns are not ethical, appropriate or safe for civilian use fade away.

In the end, the hysteria over 'assault rifles' is more about feeling the need 'to do something' and a public ritual of cleansing evil from our midst. The shooter died so our justice system cannot work on behalf of the victims so we transfer our anger and need for vengance on a symbol: the gun used.

We'd probably be having a conversation about handguns (and one far more able to be supported by facts) had he used his handguns instead.


And I agree with you, gun laws are not the most effective nor cost effective in preventing gun violence. Education on the circle of poverty and dedicated funding towards the poor will not only be the most effective in reducing violence, but also in bulking and strengthening our middle class by reducing lower class numbers.

Agreed...see there is common ground. :)


Debunking conspiracy theories for the New World Order since 1995...
" I hereby accuse you attempting to silence me..." --PurePress

BBS Signature