At 6/11/07 06:47 PM, dodo-man-1 wrote: If you entered this thread because you read the title and want to unleash a rapid-fire barrage of insults, then leave now. I don't want to deal with you, just those that respect my opinion, whether they agree with it or not.

Now, on to my point. Why do gun stores sell semiautomatic weaponry without having to fill out some kind of form or going through a screening process or something? If you're a deer hunter, or a duck hunter, or any kind of hunter, you don't need semiautomatic fire to kill one deer. If you collect guns, you should be willing to fill out a form of some kind to get a gun you probably won't use. The fact that there is no control on these guns in most places leads to things like... oh, I don't know, the V-Tech rampage?

Don't you think?

I rather see more people armed with guns with the sheer intent to protect themselves against real psycopaths, my reason for this is very simple: You arm people with more guns you have less shootings, in fact you arm more people with weapons you eventually have less fighting. People who haven't already need to eventually learn to govern themselves from the National Leaders down.

At 7/20/12 06:53 PM, Thecrazyman wrote: You arm people with more guns you have less shootings

Can you back this up, because this makes zero sense to me.

At 7/20/12 06:53 PM, Thecrazyman wrote: I rather see more people armed with guns with the sheer intent to protect themselves against real psycopaths, my reason for this is very simple: You arm people with more guns you have less shootings, in fact you arm more people with weapons you eventually have less fighting. People who haven't already need to eventually learn to govern themselves from the National Leaders down.

This is a major fallacy. Sure, you have some of this happening. However, for every scenario where a crime isstopped by "victim" or bystander having a gun, there are numerous other ones that were escalated, or shootings that never would have happened, or accidental shootings. The drop in crime rate and harm that results from the presenting of a gun is smaller than amount of harm caused byguns that would otherwise not have happened had civilians not been allowed to carry at all.

I don't mind people having guns, so long as there is some moderation and oversight in the form of regulation, but please, stop using this BS argument.

At 7/20/12 06:53 PM, Thecrazyman wrote: I rather see more people armed with guns with the sheer intent to protect themselves against real psycopaths, my reason for this is very simple: You arm people with more guns you have less shootings, in fact you arm more people with weapons you eventually have less fighting.

If this were true, then the US would have to be the safest country in the world, seeing as it has the most guns per capita of any nation in the world. Why then does the US also have the most gun violence of any country in the world?

At 7/20/12 07:08 PM, Camarohusky wrote: This is a major fallacy. ...

... but please, stop using this BS argument.

Umm...but it is not a fallacy much less a BS argument. The trends are rather clear: locales with less strict gun "controls" see less gun violence than areas that try to strictly "control" gun violence.

The argument that is not borne out by the statistics is the one that states that the presence of a gun escalates situations. The reality is whenever someone uses a gun in self-defense: 1) the situation de-escalates and 2) when civilians pull their weapon in self-defense there are less injuries/deaths than when the police pull theirs.

The sticky widget is what constitutes a defensive gun use? Some on here have argued that it is when someone pulls a gun and pulls the trigger sending lead speeding towards someone. I on the other hand think it's anytime someone pulls a gun to defend themselves regardless of whether or not they have to pull the trigger.

Thus:
Defensive Gun Uses/yr: 750K (estimated by researchers who only look at times guns are fired) - 2M (estimated by researchers who use guns simply being pulled as the criteria).
Gun Deaths/yr: 35-45K

So I'm sorry Camaro...but it is a perfectly valid argument. Calling it a fallacy or BS doesn't make it so.

At 7/20/12 07:24 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote:

At 7/20/12 06:53 PM, Thecrazyman wrote: I rather see more people armed with guns with the sheer intent to protect themselves against real psycopaths, my reason for this is very simple: You arm people with more guns you have less shootings, in fact you arm more people with weapons you eventually have less fighting.

If this were true, then the US would have to be the safest country in the world, seeing as it has the most guns per capita of any nation in the world. Why then does the US also have the most gun violence of any country in the world?

The truth is once you start digging into the stats the gun/crime correlation does NOT mean correlation. Things that effect gun violence more than guns:

* Educational opportunity
* Economic opportunity
* Ethnic diversity

The US is one of the most ethnically/linguistically diverse countries in the world with uneven educational and economic opportunity distribution. These are the issues we need to address because they are the ones that will have an actual impact on the use of guns in crime.

At 7/20/12 11:42 PM, TheMason wrote: The US is one of the most ethnically/linguistically diverse countries in the world with uneven educational and economic opportunity distribution. These are the issues we need to address because they are the ones that will have an actual impact on the use of guns in crime.

Fair enough point, but would you then agree that the idea that simply having more guns would make gun crime decrease is a flawed notion for the same reason you've just presented?

At 7/20/12 11:36 PM, TheMason wrote: Umm...but it is not a fallacy much less a BS argument. The trends are rather clear: locales with less strict gun "controls" see less gun violence than areas that try to strictly "control" gun violence.

Have you ever thought of why it was this way?

You've got the correlation backward. Crime isn't high becuase the places (mostly urban areas) have gun control. Gun control was enacted because the areas had high crime. Or are you going to try an convince me that San Antonio (in the center of GunLand USA) has less murders than Portland and Seattle (which both have strong gun control) combined?

Thus:
Defensive Gun Uses/yr: 750K (estimated by researchers who only look at times guns are fired) - 2M (estimated by researchers who use guns simply being pulled as the criteria).

Souce this up. Oh, and reporting on deaths only is a great way to skew statistics.

So I'm sorry Camaro...but it is a perfectly valid argument. Calling it a fallacy or BS doesn't make it so.

What about the other two categories? That of gun crimes that wouldn't have een committed? or accidental gun injuries and deaths?

At 7/21/12 12:09 AM, Korriken wrote:

At 7/20/12 06:59 PM, Feoric wrote:

Can you back this up, because this makes zero sense to me.

simple. one person decides to fire on a crowd, the crowd pulls their guns and turn him into oozing pile of blood bones and lead.

the Colorado theater mass shooting? if there were other armed people in the crowd he would not have racked up such a high body count. He would have been riddled with bullet holes quickly.

So people should just carry guns with them everywhere because there's this extremely small chance they might be a victim of a mass murderer? Give teachers guns so they can kill school shooters? I don't see how this doesn't create a culture of paranoia where everybody could be a potential threat.

you take away a man's right to defend himself and you simply empower those who say, "fuck the law, I do that I want!"

You don't always need a gun to defend yourself.

Gun control doesn't work, it's never worked it never will work it cannot work.

First you need to define what "work" is. I don't really consider myself pro-gun or anti-gun because this is primarily a non issue for me so, so I'm not really familiar what gun control activists consider "working." Is it less gun ownership? Is it dangerous criminals having less easy access to obtaining guns? Is it regulating the sales of guns? How is it measured? Homicide rates?

I would think it would vary from person to person but for me personally I think that gun control means allowing any citizen the chance to own a gun if he/she wishes to do so, but a) pass a background check, b) pass some sort of evaluation so you don't get someone with schizophrenia brandishing a concealed pistol with him everywhere he goes, and c) get appropriate training in using the gun and pass some sort of class you have to pass to make sure you know what your legal responsibilities are, knowing self defense laws in your state, knowing how to responsibly carry a gun, etc. If you meet all these requirements, exercise your constitutional right to have a gun. I have no problem with that.

If you think the main goal is to eliminate guns in the united states, then yes, it will never work. I just don't think that's the mission here.

the UK has a ban on pistols. Surely no one in the UK has a pistol right? right? wrong. It happens. Problem is, since those who are being shot at are forcibly disarmed by the government, they can't fight back. Yet those who demand more gun control can't see that simple truth.

There is always going to be a black market and I don't think many people in favor of gun control thinks that there are going to be zero criminals with guns. It's not impossible to defend yourself from someone with a gun. Not every person who uses a pistol to rob someone actually intends to use it as a weapon. It's primarily used as leverage; a tool for intimidation, but of course you get a sicko who wouldn't think twice about taking your life. Keep in mind the punishment for having a gun in the UK is quite high. Unauthorised possession of most kinds of firearm are a mandatory minimum of five years. If you want to see gun related crime in the UK compared to other countries, look here. Slide 2 should be eye opening.

I am perfectly fine with people keeping guns in their houses for self-defense. But this concealed weapons business is poison. High tempers are inevitable, which begets bad judgement.

At 7/21/12 01:45 AM, EKublai wrote: I am perfectly fine with people keeping guns in their houses for self-defense. But this concealed weapons business is poison. High tempers are inevitable, which begets bad judgement.

harldy do you know the qualifications and fine line it takes to have a Concealed carry?

has not been convicted of a felony;
has not been convicted of any crime of violence;
has not been convicted of any offense involving the use of alcohol;
has not been convicted of any offenses involving the unlawful use of narcotics or other controlled substances;
has not been convicted of any offenses involving moral turpitude;
has not been convicted of any offense involving domestic violence;
has not been adjudicated by a court of a state or of the United States as mentally incompetent, unless the adjudication has been withdrawn or reversed.

one little Misdemenor revokes you CCL. I conceal carry legally and have none of these EVEN PARKING TICKETS.

At 7/21/12 12:20 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 7/20/12 11:36 PM, TheMason wrote: Umm...but it is not a fallacy much less a BS argument. The trends are rather clear: locales with less strict gun "controls" see less gun violence than areas that try to strictly "control" gun violence.

Have you ever thought of why it was this way?

Yes...actually I have. I've given this topic very much thought.

You've got the correlation backward. Crime isn't high becuase the places (mostly urban areas) have gun control. Gun control was enacted because the areas had high crime. Or are you going to try an convince me that San Antonio (in the center of GunLand USA) has less murders than Portland and Seattle (which both have strong gun control) combined?

No...the correlation is not backward. The reason why is gun control has been ramped-up on a national level up until the 1980s. At this point some locales started dialing back their gun control laws while other cities either maintained or ramped-up theirs. What criminologists have seen is places where gun control is dialed back crime drops faster than in locales with stricter gun control or drops while the other group actually increases.

As for the San Antonio vs Portland/Seattle red herring, you can't make the comparison. San Antonio is a border town that introduces the problems of gangs, human trafficking and drugs whereby Portland and Seattle (while have this issues as well) are not one of the epicenters.

Thus:
Defensive Gun Uses/yr: 750K (estimated by researchers who only look at times guns are fired) - 2M (estimated by researchers who use guns simply being pulled as the criteria).

Souce this up. Oh, and reporting on deaths only is a great way to skew statistics.

* I'm not going to source these numbers. The reason why: I've sourced them multiple times in multiple threads on this BBS. In fact, most likely I've sourced them on this thread. I think I've established my authority to speak on this issue.
* Intellectual honesty: yes I have a bias being a gun enthusiast. However, I've crunched the numbers myself in several poli sci methodology/statistics courses including on the graduate level. And the math is determinate. Gun control is ineffective policy, and this conclusion is based more on the numbers than on my relationship with guns.
* Skewing statistics: 79K is the number of people who, on average, were treated for non-fatal firearm-related injuries in the 1990s. But that doesn't really change my argument that much, does it? The incidence firearms hurting/killing people are orders of magnitude less than the incidence of people using their guns legitimately for either recreation or self-defense.

So I'm sorry Camaro...but it is a perfectly valid argument. Calling it a fallacy or BS doesn't make it so.

What about the other two categories? That of gun crimes that wouldn't have een committed? or accidental gun injuries and deaths?

* Gun crimes that could've been avoided: Very low, mostly we're talking about so-called "crimes of passion".
* Accidental gun deaths: The number of people who die due to gun accidents in the US is so low that it barely qualifies for its own category of accidental deaths by the Health Department. More people die from walking or falling related accidents than firearms.
* Accidental gun injuries: Again, fairly low. If you want to talk about this then you need to talk about any "extreme" sport.
* Suicides: About 40% of gun deaths are suicides. So take away the guns and those ppl will live right? Wrong. The majority of psychology studies I've seen on this indicate those people would just find another way to kill themselves.

So in conclusion the points you bring up here are so small that when you compare them to the benefits of firearms, the positives outweigh the negatives.

At 7/21/12 01:45 AM, EKublai wrote: I am perfectly fine with people keeping guns in their houses for self-defense. But this concealed weapons business is poison. High tempers are inevitable, which begets bad judgement.

If this was 1990 I think you'd have a point. But since 1986 (when states started adopting "shall issue" CCW) we have had over 30 years of data to look at this concern. And guess what?

* CCWs are generally revoked for nonviolent things like DUIs or improper carrying.
* CCW permit holders are generally less likely to commit crimes than the general population.
* Florida started "shall issue" CCW laws in 1986/7 and the first major incident where a permit holder may have used it "cowboy style" is the Trayvon Martin case.

So no...the data simply points to CCW not being poison.

At 7/21/12 12:59 AM, Feoric wrote: So people should just carry guns with them everywhere because there's this extremely small chance they might be a victim of a mass murderer? Give teachers guns so they can kill school shooters? I don't see how this doesn't create a culture of paranoia where everybody could be a potential threat.

Here's the issue: many of these incidents could've been stopped simply by letting CCW holders carry in those locations. Part of the psychology of these individuals is they look for "soft targets" where they can have a higher chance of success. By making places "gun free" you make that place a "soft targets".

I would think it would vary from person to person but for me personally I think that gun control means allowing any citizen the chance to own a gun if he/she wishes to do so, but a) pass a background check, b) pass some sort of evaluation so you don't get someone with schizophrenia brandishing a concealed pistol with him everywhere he goes, and c) get appropriate training in using the gun and pass some sort of class you have to pass to make sure you know what your legal responsibilities are, knowing self defense laws in your state, knowing how to responsibly carry a gun, etc. If you meet all these requirements, exercise your constitutional right to have a gun. I have no problem with that.

a) We have that, and I have no problem with that.
b) There is actually no evidence that letting people with mental illnesses are more likely to committ gun crime than the general population.
c) Operating a gun safely does not require some Jedi-like training program to do it safely. In fact most of the formal training I've received is a joke.

In the end your points b & c are common sense only to those people who are ignorant either of a) how guns work and/or b) the statics surrounding the issue.

At 7/20/12 11:59 PM, Angry-Hatter wrote: Fair enough point, but would you then agree that the idea that simply having more guns would make gun crime decrease is a flawed notion for the same reason you've just presented?

Respectfully...no. The reason is there is actually no causal relationship between gun availability and gun crime. To admit that it is a flawed notion would be to ignore the social science that indicates that there is an inverse relationship between the number of guns (ie: less strict gun laws) and the incidence of gun crime.

Banning guns will stop crime just like banning drugs will stop people from using them......OH, WAIT!

Wow there are alot of smart guys on here.All I really have to say is anyone who wants to disarm me of my many firearms is my enemy.If you take away a mans means to defend himself it only hurts him and if you take away all of his guns you make him a slave.You know who had good gun control laws? Adolf hitler when he disarmed poland and other places.Mao zedong did the same thing.The U.N. small arms treaty is coming up It only needs 2 more votes to pass.I hate to say it but they could come after my guns That I love.My norinco mak-90 AK47 7.62x39,Ruger mini-14 223 ,Remington 870,Fn Fnp 45,Hi-point 45 jhp,Michell arms 1938 double barrel shotgun,Jenning j-22,Single action army in 45 Long colt,And my marlin bolt action 22. I have Owned these guns for along time The double barrel was given to me by my grandpa it's from 1938.I will never give up my arms I live in oregon which has good gun laws I can open carry Or get my CHL.I grew up shooting guns with my cousin who was in the army.I love guns that is all there is to it and I pray that gun control never happens in the U.S. it's already hard to get guns in some situations.My little brother got drunk and tipped over some garbage cans and threw a rock at the freeway,nobody got hurt but he can not buy guns anymore.He was young and dumb but they take your rights away for things like that.

GOOD NEWS EVERYONE

Calls for gun control stir little support

(AP ASSOCIATED PRESS) WASHINGTON - Gun control advocates sputter at their own impotence. The National Rifle Association is politically ascendant. And Barack Obama's White House pledges to safeguard the Second Amendment in its first official response to the deaths of at least 12 people in a mass shooting at a new Batman movie screening in suburban Denver.

At 7/22/12 07:01 AM, Fuzzymon84 wrote: Adolf hitler when he disarmed poland and other places.Mao zedong did the same thing.

You can't seriously compare gun control laws to laws implemented from an invading country and a communist dictator. I mean there's no way you think this is a good argument.

The U.N. small arms treaty is coming up It only needs 2 more votes to pass.I hate to say it but they could come after my guns

No. The UN doesn't give a shit about your guns. Gun control in this country stopped being an issue past the 2000 elections. There are very few people who vote on candidates solely based on their stance on gun control and if they do they're a single issue voter anyway. The right to bear arms in the country is never going to be taken away, only more (or less) regulated.

My little brother got drunk and tipped over some garbage cans and threw a rock at the freeway,nobody got hurt but he can not buy guns anymore.He was young and dumb but they take your rights away for things like that.

Yeah your rights tend to be taken away or restricted when you act like an idiot.

maybe not so much gun control but ammunition control

the guy at colorado shooting had fucking 6000 rounds of ammunition I heard, who the fuck needs that many bullets unless you live in fucking baghdad. I know gun enthusiast's who do a lot of shooting would probably find that number small but when any person like this nutbag can go on the net and purchase that many rounds of ammunition at the word Go, you gotta see how that could be a problem.

I wouldnt give a shit if everyone owned a musket, handgun or some kind shotgun but a high powered rifle or fully automatic gun shouldnt be as easy to purchase compared to all those weapons I mentioned. Im not saying make the guns more expensive but just checks to see if the person buying is responsible or not because we dont want weapons which are better than killing than the average gun going into the wrong hands. But I hear some states already have those kind of regulations and I dont know wether or not they have helped but its still something to keep in mind.

At 7/23/12 12:00 PM, yonokowhat wrote: the guy at colorado shooting had fucking 6000 rounds of ammunition I heard, who the fuck needs that many bullets unless you live in fucking baghdad. I know gun enthusiast's who do a lot of shooting would probably find that number small but when any person like this nutbag can go on the net and purchase that many rounds of ammunition at the word Go, you gotta see how that could be a problem.

Some people who are serious shooters can go through that amount of ammo. For example in the National Guard we have an annual competition with the M-16 and M-9 (9mm pistol). In order to compete at the top levels you pretty much need to be able to shoot everyday about 500-750 rounds a week per weapon.

Furthermore, it is cheaper to buy in bulk so even the somewhat serious shooter would buy that many rounds at a time.

Finally, it's not like one person could carry all that ammo at one time!

I wouldnt give a shit if everyone owned a musket, handgun or some kind shotgun but a high powered rifle or fully automatic gun shouldnt be as easy to purchase compared to all those weapons I mentioned. Im not saying make the guns more expensive but just checks to see if the person buying is responsible or not because we dont want weapons which are better than killing than the average gun going into the wrong hands. But I hear some states already have those kind of regulations and I dont know wether or not they have helped but its still something to keep in mind.

Okay...with all due respect...this paragraph shows that you have zero to very little knowledge when it comes to guns. But that's okay, I'm about to explain why this "common sense" argument (which is prevelant amongst people persuaded by pro-gun-control arguments) is not based on reality.

1) A musket is FAR more powerful and destructive than a modern assault rifle. Now it is only a single shot and then one has to take time to re-load...BUT a musket slings a ball of soft lead up to .61" in diameter at a target. When it strikes the target it causes massive tissue damage. On the other hand a M-16/AR-15 fires a bullet .223" in diameter at a target. This bullet tends to be a Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) if using a military round which travels at super-sonic speed and enters and exits the body in a linear path and through holes roughly the same size. Which means it is far WORSE to be shot by the MUSKET than by an ASSAULT RIFLE.

2) The shotgun is an incredibly powerful firearm and like the musket, far more lethal when used close quarters. A shotgun will fire either a slug which in a 12guage is .73" in diameter or 7-9 .33" round pellets (buckshot). The effect at close quarters is devistating.

3) High powered rifles: Assualt rifles BY DEFINITION are NOT high powered rifles. An assault rifle is chambered in calibres that are bigger than a pistol round but not as large as traditional hunting rifle calibers (which coincidentally were traditional battle rifle calibers). High powered rifles are hunting rifles. What most hunters use to take deer are 9 times out of 10 significantly more powerful than an M-16 at any range and an AK-47 at long range.

4) Assault rifles/military rifles are "ultra-lethal firearms" (something I heard on the radio...but echoes what you said): FALSE. Besides being an "intermediate" powered round, military rifles are designed to fire FMJ ammo which is designed to follow along with the Geneva Convention protocols about minimizing pain and suffering. Modern military thinking is to wound more than you kill because if you kill one soldier you take one soldier out of the fight. BUT if you wound one soldier you take two of his buddies out of the fight to keep him alive and you tax the enemy's resources. Thus it is wrong to say that assault rifles "are better than killing than the average gun". The only thing they have going for them is the higher capacity magazines. However, that is not all that effective when you consider someone who is "spraying & praying" has zero accuracy and very little chance to hit anything.

But the take away is that you've got the situation reversed. The guns you think are far more deadly are actually less lethal than the ones you think are safer.

At 7/23/12 04:47 PM, TheMason wrote: 1) A musket is FAR more powerful and destructive than a modern assault rifle. Now it is only a single shot and then one has to take time to re-load...BUT a musket slings a ball of soft lead up to .61" in diameter at a target. When it strikes the target it causes massive tissue damage. On the other hand a M-16/AR-15 fires a bullet .223" in diameter at a target. This bullet tends to be a Full Metal Jacket (FMJ) if using a military round which travels at super-sonic speed and enters and exits the body in a linear path and through holes roughly the same size. Which means it is far WORSE to be shot by the MUSKET than by an ASSAULT RIFLE.

"An experienced firer could typically get off three rounds in a minute's time for the smoothbore muskets"

yeah, but who do you think is harder to take down for the police? a guy armed with a thousand musket shots or cartridges which take a long time to reload between each shot which he has to carefully aim to make count or a guy armed with a 100 bullets in a semi automatic or even fully automatic weapon blazing away without having to aim and reloading 30 bullet magazines in a couple of seconds?

2) The shotgun is an incredibly powerful firearm and like the musket, far more lethal when used close quarters. A shotgun will fire either a slug which in a 12guage is .73" in diameter or 7-9 .33" round pellets (buckshot). The effect at close quarters is devistating.

all guns are devastating at close range to be honest. But shotguns firing only shells are dangerous at close range as at long range the spread of the pellets wont hit anything.

3) High powered rifles: Assualt rifles BY DEFINITION are NOT high powered rifles. An assault rifle is chambered in calibres that are bigger than a pistol round but not as large as traditional hunting rifle calibers (which coincidentally were traditional battle rifle calibers). High powered rifles are hunting rifles. What most hunters use to take deer are 9 times out of 10 significantly more powerful than an M-16 at any range and an AK-47 at long range.

I never said assault rifles were high powered rifles.

I just think both are weapons that should be harder to get hold of than pistols or some shotguns, not a on the day purchase weapon.

4) Assault rifles/military rifles are "ultra-lethal firearms" (something I heard on the radio...but echoes what you said): FALSE. Besides being an "intermediate" powered round, military rifles are designed to fire FMJ ammo which is designed to follow along with the Geneva Convention protocols about minimizing pain and suffering. Modern military thinking is to wound more than you kill because if you kill one soldier you take one soldier out of the fight. BUT if you wound one soldier you take two of his buddies out of the fight to keep him alive and you tax the enemy's resources. Thus it is wrong to say that assault rifles "are better than killing than the average gun". The only thing they have going for them is the higher capacity magazines. However, that is not all that effective when you consider someone who is "spraying & praying" has zero accuracy and very little chance to hit anything

its a fucking bullet, it will still kill someone if you fire enough of them and with an assualt rifle you can keep firing into them with ease.

And just because there is very little chance of hitting anything doesnt mean the person wont hit anything. WIth any gun, he can take his time and place his shots and make sure every shot counts but only guns that are fully automatic will give the person the choice of spraying hundreds of round into a crowded area aswell as suppression fire where he can fire upon armed people/police with a lot of bullets so they keep their head down and make him harder to kill.

But the take away is that you've got the situation reversed. The guns you think are far more deadly are actually less lethal than the ones you think are safer.

Yeah, a musket may be more powerful than the guns I said should be banned, but by the time someone would have reloaded the damn thing everyone would have probably scattered. And it doesnt have to be a high calibre musket ball, they can chamber it for a smaller ball. Shotguns are deadly at close range but so is a hammer and a knife but as soon as you get out of that range its not as big of a problem (although I did say "SOME kind of shotgun" not all shotguns).

At 7/23/12 06:59 PM, yonokowhat wrote: "An experienced firer could typically get off three rounds in a minute's time for the smoothbore muskets"

yeah, but who do you think is harder to take down for the police? a guy armed with a thousand musket shots or cartridges which take a long time to reload between each shot which he has to carefully aim to make count or a guy armed with a 100 bullets in a semi automatic or even fully automatic weapon blazing away without having to aim and reloading 30 bullet magazines in a couple of seconds?

* A musket doesn't fire a cartridge.
* A bullet is the projectile, what is commonly referred to as a 'bullet' is actually a cartridge or round.

Might suprise you...but it may be better to go up against the guy with the assault rifle. The reason is once you get above 30 rounds...high capacity mags have jamming issues. This happened in Colorado.

A fully-auto would be even better for the cops. After the first three shots he'd be firing into the air.

The musketeer would probably be seeking cover and taking carefully aimed shots at the cops/victims doing more harm with each hit.

all guns are devastating at close range to be honest. But shotguns firing only shells are dangerous at close range as at long range the spread of the pellets wont hit anything.

* There's not all that great of difference between the damage a rifle or pistol does at close range and the damage it does at its max effective range.

* First a shotgun shots a shell whether it is a slug or it is buckshot or it is bird shot.

* The reason slugs, buckshot and bird shot are ineffective at longer range is the powder charge is not enough to keep it's energy over long distances...not how spread out the pellets are. If that was the case then we would see so many accidental injuries/deaths from people missing.

3) High powered rifles: Assualt rifles BY DEFINITION are NOT high powered rifles. An assault rifle is chambered in calibres that are bigger than a pistol round but not as large as traditional hunting rifle calibers (which coincidentally were traditional battle rifle calibers). High powered rifles are hunting rifles. What most hunters use to take deer are 9 times out of 10 significantly more powerful than an M-16 at any range and an AK-47 at long range.

I never said assault rifles were high powered rifles.

Fair enough. But your post does contain many elements that people who don't know the first thing about guns are parroting from politicians like Mayor Bloomberg and Senator Fienstein as well as liberal talk radio. (Yes there is liberal talk radio...and yes I do listen to it.)

I just think both are weapons that should be harder to get hold of than pistols or some shotguns, not a on the day purchase weapon.

In what way would that solve anything? Furthermore, what is the justification for it when shotguns and handguns are the greater threat?

its a fucking bullet, it will still kill someone if you fire enough of them and with an assualt rifle you can keep firing into them with ease.

In the US you have about a 95% chance of surviving any bullet wound. Couple that with the scientific fact that FMJ rounds are not really effective at killing anything...in Somalia US forces were using the same caliber and starving Somali militiamen were still combat effective after being hit five or six times.

Look at Colorado. The dude opened up with his shotgun. Moved to his AR which jammed after firing only a few shots. Then went to his pistols. When everything is said and done it's probably an 80% chance that those people who got hit with the rifle rounds had a better survival rate (and less serious wounds) than those who got hit by either the shotgun or pistol rounds.

And just because there is very little chance of hitting anything doesnt mean the person wont hit anything. WIth any gun, he can take his time and place his shots and make sure every shot counts but only guns that are fully automatic will give the person the choice of spraying hundreds of round into a crowded area aswell as suppression fire where he can fire upon armed people/police with a lot of bullets so they keep their head down and make him harder to kill.

It works that way in the movies...but not in real life. The North Hollywood Shoot-Out of 1997 proves this. Couple this with the fact that he's using bullets (yes that's the right term since we're talking projectiles) that are not effective at killing...it is safer to have a guy going nuts with an assault rifle than going nuts with a shotgun, pistol or deer rifle.

Yeah, a musket may be more powerful than the guns I said should be banned, but by the time someone would have reloaded the damn thing everyone would have probably scattered. And it doesnt have to be a high calibre musket ball, they can chamber it for a smaller ball. Shotguns are deadly at close range but so is a hammer and a knife but as soon as you get out of that range its not as big of a problem (although I did say "SOME kind of shotgun" not all shotguns).

But guess what? The vast majority of firearms used in murders in the US: Pistols. Followed by: shotguns. In fact when we're talking about what the top 10 most common calibers used in crime 9 of 10 are handgun calibers. The tenth is 12 guage.

So what I said still stands: you're fine with guns that appear less effective/scary/whatever but want restrictions on guns that appear or sound like they are unstoppable machines of death & woe. When in reality you've got their effectiveness reversed.

At 7/23/12 07:41 PM, TheMason wrote: Might suprise you...but it may be better to go up against the guy with the assault rifle. The reason is once you get above 30 rounds...high capacity mags have jamming issues. This happened in Colorado.

that is by chance, it doesnt always happen. A musket also has chance of mis firing or firing when you dont want it too yet you make it sound like the perfect gun. There probably is a reason why we dont arm troops with flintlocks anymore and have taken up the AR15 or other assault rifles.

A fully-auto would be even better for the cops. After the first three shots he'd be firing into the air.

depends really on the gun, M14 that were fully automatic were somewhat pointless as after the first three rounds you would be firing in the air but guns like the AK47 and M16 are bit easier to manage in full auto in keeping in a straight line.

The musketeer would probably be seeking cover and taking carefully aimed shots at the cops/victims doing more harm with each hit.

Anyone who was in a gun fight would try and take cover, this guy had body armour and wasent expecting any resistance from people so he had little reason to take cover, Im not too sure there was even a gun fight between him and the cops.

Just because a musketeer would have to take cover to make up for the fact that his gun is shit wouldnt make him a better killer. If the person was taking cover and using a assualt rifle, he would probably killed a load of cops than anyone than musket would.

* There's not all that great of difference between the damage a rifle or pistol does at close range and the damage it does at its max effective range.

it would still kill you at close range like a shotgun, maybe not as easy or effective as a shotgun but its gunna do something, thats for sure.

* The reason slugs, buckshot and bird shot are ineffective at longer range is the powder charge is not enough to keep it's energy over long distances...not how spread out the pellets are. If that was the case then we would see so many accidental injuries/deaths from people missing.

that aswell effects it aswell but I have seen enough shotgun shoots at long range and seen how far the pellets start to spread out to know that has some effect.

In what way would that solve anything? Furthermore, what is the justification for it when shotguns and handguns are the greater threat?

Because handguns, I am told, are crap weapons. All they are good for is being a backup weapon when your main weapon needs to be reloaded or has ran out of ammo. to keep you in the fight.

They are easy to be concealed than big guns but this killer still managed to smuggle in a rifle and shotgun so its not a big deal the fact that they can be easly concealed.

I dont know what goes through most killers minds but I expect them to be very angry people ready to burst and start killing at anytime. By making it take longer for them to aquire weapons which are better for killing may help save lifes as they might go on a rampage with a less effective or capable weapon like a pistol or knife resulting in fewer deaths.

In the US you have about a 95% chance of surviving any bullet wound. Couple that with the scientific fact that FMJ rounds are not really effective at killing anything...in Somalia US forces were using the same caliber and starving Somali militiamen were still combat effective after being hit five or six times.

Its probably due to the fact they recieve medical antention. I know it takes a while between being shot and dieing but a gun that can fire more bullets faster than other guns is either going to wound more people or make it more likely for one person to die if hes hit with more bullets.

Look at Colorado. The dude opened up with his shotgun. Moved to his AR which jammed after firing only a few shots. Then went to his pistols. When everything is said and done it's probably an 80% chance that those people who got hit with the rifle rounds had a better survival rate (and less serious wounds) than those who got hit by either the shotgun or pistol rounds.
It works that way in the movies...but not in real life. The North Hollywood Shoot-Out of 1997 proves this. Couple this with the fact that he's using bullets (yes that's the right term since we're talking projectiles) that are not effective at killing...it is safer to have a guy going nuts with an assault rifle than going nuts with a shotgun, pistol or deer rifle.

well then if thats true I dont know why the hell the army has fucking assault rifles because from the sounds of it, they sound pretty shit.

But guess what? The vast majority of firearms used in murders in the US: Pistols. Followed by: shotguns. In fact when we're talking about what the top 10 most common calibers used in crime 9 of 10 are handgun calibers. The tenth is 12 guage.

Im not saying those weapons arent used by criminals, but how many times have people gone on a rampage with a pistol or shotgun killed as many people than rampages conducted with assault rifles or hunting/high powered rifles.

So what I said still stands: you're fine with guns that appear less effective/scary/whatever but want restrictions on guns that appear or sound like they are unstoppable machines of death & woe. When in reality you've got their effectiveness reversed.

what ever, I just think more effective killing weapons should be harder to purchase/aquire than other guns.

if certain assault rifles/hunting rifles are less deadly than some shotguns and pistols, then those rifles would be fine with me.

We already tried a ban on assault weapons and it was a joke, nothing more than a slight inconvenience to someone who really wanted one. Columbine happened during the AWB. 30 round Ar-15 magazines were cheap and plentiful during the AWB. In regards to Holmes, only the AR-15 and the big drum magazines would have been covered by the ban. The rest of his arsenal is A-OK. All of the weapons used in Aurora were still legal 1994-2004, including the high capacity magazines. Assault weapons bans don't mean anything since he could still have bought a bunch of guns and bought pre-ban magazines for them, too, since there's literally hundreds of millions of them already out there in the country. All it would do is force him to spend a little more on his credit cards for them. Interestingly, the drum mags that the shooter used actually caused him to throw his gun away because they jammed, as many high capacity magazines tend to do. If anything, it reduced his ability to kill. The only way for such a ban to be effective would be to amend the constitution and then literally go around the country taking people's guns. Obviously, this is never going to happen and is crazy talk. It's one thing to have opinion of what should be done in regards to gun control but it's another to realize that owning a gun in America is a civil right granted by the 2nd amendment. I mean nobody every really talks about gun control anymore because the laws aren't going to be touched anytime soon because there is zero political capital to do it and not enough people wanting reform. Every now and then some wacko goes on a killing spree and we talk about it for 2 weeks and forget about it.

Most people who buy guns are more like enthusiasts or just want to be safe. It should be slightly harder to get guns and a lot harder to get the more powerful weapons. Why you can buy things lik the AA12 I do not know.

At 7/24/12 03:45 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Can you safely say somebody can think clearly on this topic right now?

No, but you can safely say the odds of you changing anyone's mind in this thread is slim to none.

At 7/23/12 08:20 PM, yonokowhat wrote: depends really on the gun, M14 that were fully automatic were somewhat pointless as after the first three rounds you would be firing in the air but guns like the AK47 and M16 are bit easier to manage in full auto in keeping in a straight line.

Not really. I've fired the M-16 on full-auto as part of my military training. Even with a round as light as the .223/5.56 round coupled with a recoil spring, only the first three rounds will strike a man-sized target. And that's if you start by aiming low.

This is why in the 1980s the military got away from full-auto assault rifles and went to three-round burst. Full-auto just isn't effective!

Just because a musketeer would have to take cover to make up for the fact that his gun is shit wouldnt make him a better killer. If the person was taking cover and using a assualt rifle, he would probably killed a load of cops than anyone than musket would.

Whether or not he killed anyone is not a factor of how fast he can pull the trigger. It has everything to do with the ballistics of the bullet that is fired from the gun.

it would still kill you at close range like a shotgun, maybe not as easy or effective as a shotgun but its gunna do something, thats for sure.

Yes...it is going to do something to you. However, you have a far, far, far greater chance surviving getting shot even two or three times from a FMJ round than from a shotgun, soft lead core or ballistic bullet. In fact your chance of dying from a FMJ round is probably around 1% as long as you don't take a round in the heart or brain (those are the two organs that it doesn't really matter what you get shot with).

And again, the reason is the projectile will enter the body piercing a hole roughly the diameter of the bullet. I will travel in a relatively straight line (depending on what if any bones is hit) and exit in a hole roughly the diameter of the entry wound.

On the other hand a shotgun slug will tear-up soft tissue (muscle & organs) and blow-out a rather large exit wound.

Same with soft lead core bullets.

A ballistic tipped bullet (aka jacketed hollow points) will expand and has the possibility of bouncing around inside the body cavity tearing-up organs and muscle.

In what way would that solve anything? Furthermore, what is the justification for it when shotguns and handguns are the greater threat?

Because handguns, I am told, are crap weapons. All they are good for is being a backup weapon when your main weapon needs to be reloaded or has ran out of ammo. to keep you in the fight.

Well...you've been told wrong. Or you've only got the infantryman's perspective which is pretty limited.

About 75% of crimes involving a firearm use handguns. They are easily concealable and when you start getting into the larger calibers (ie: .45 ACP, .357 mag, .44 mag & .45 Long Colt) they are fairly powerful. In fact in many states you can go deer hunting with the last three calibers I mentioned.

Also revolvers do not have the jamming/misfire issue that automatic firearms have.

They are easy to be concealed than big guns but this killer still managed to smuggle in a rifle and shotgun so its not a big deal the fact that they can be easly concealed.

Actually it is. This guy is an outlier. He was not bent on selling meth, robbing a 7/11 or a house, or killing his wife's lover. Instead he just wanted to cause mayhem. He circumvented the need for concealing a weapon by buying a ticket and then leaving through the exit door (propping it open) to change and then re-enter. He didn't need to smuggle anything past anyone.

This is an exceptionally rare incidence. On the other hand, in about (literally) 99.99% of all other gun crime concealability is a major consideration...and thus a 'big deal'.

I dont know what goes through most killers minds but I expect them to be very angry people ready to burst and start killing at anytime. By making it take longer for them to aquire weapons which are better for killing may help save lifes as they might go on a rampage with a less effective or capable weapon like a pistol or knife resulting in fewer deaths.

Actually there is no data that shows waiting periods make any difference in so-called crimes of passion where someone just gets it in their head to kill someone...and has to buy one in order to carry it out.

If you look at all of these shooting sprees the madmen spend months planning these things out. So no...it wouldn't save any lives. It would cost any either. All it would do is cost money for no gain.

Its probably due to the fact they recieve medical antention. I know it takes a while between being shot and dieing but a gun that can fire more bullets faster than other guns is either going to wound more people or make it more likely for one person to die if hes hit with more bullets.

In the old days even with muskets/black powder rifles being shot didn't kill most people...it was infection. So you are correct about receiving medical attention.

However, if anything the faster someone fires the less he's going to hit anyone.

As for the damage done...that is 98% a function of the type of bullet he's firing. NOT the action (semi-auto, full-auto, lever, bolt, etc). NOT the accessories. NOT the type of gun. It's all about the bullet.

well then if thats true I dont know why the hell the army has fucking assault rifles because from the sounds of it, they sound pretty shit.

It's like I explained: it goes back to the Geneva Convention and the fact that if you kill an enemy soldier you only take out one person. Wound him and now he and two of his buddies are taken out of the fight in order for him to get medical attention. Plus the costs of treating wounded warriors only adds to the financial cost of war.

Im not saying those weapons arent used by criminals, but how many times have people gone on a rampage with a pistol or shotgun killed as many people than rampages conducted with assault rifles or hunting/high powered rifles.

Actually there is data. Cho at VT used a .22 and 9mm pistol and only fired like 100 rounds. He moved calmly and aimed most shots. 33 dead (including Cho) and 23 injured.

In 1997 two bank robbers armed with full-auto assault rifles and wearing body armor robbed a Bank of America. The cops were alerted early and responded before the dudes could get away. I want to say the bad guys fired like 1,600-1,800 rounds. They hit 18 people. In fact the only deaths were the perpetrators.

Columbine: they used shotguns and 9mm pistol and rifle. 15 dead, 21 wounded.

1966 U of Texa Austin: A sniper killed 16 and wounded 32 using a combination of shotguns, pistols, hunting rifles and one kinda-sorta-not-really assault rifle (the M1 carbine he used has many shared features...but fires a pistol round).

1989 Stockton, CA: A drifter w/an AK-47 fired 106 rounds into a school yard of Kindergarteners. He killed 5 and wounded 30.

So as grim as the math is...assault rifles are not ultra-lethal...but actually increase the odds of surviving.

what ever, I just think more effective killing weapons should be harder to purchase/aquire than other guns.

And again...why? Pretty much the only weapons that are not all that effective at killing are .22s and military style assault rifle clones. The guns that are the effective machines of death are: pistols, shotguns and hunting rifles.

And with background checks...what more do you want?

At 7/24/12 03:45 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: Can you safely say somebody can think clearly on this topic right now?

Honestly yes: the pro-gun side. The reason being we have the science of ballistics, knowledge of guns and the social scientific data on our side.

The Bloombergs, Fiensteins and Schumers only have emotional arguments that do not reflect realworld realities. And therefore this is the time that their ranting gains any traction.

At 7/24/12 04:28 PM, TheMason wrote: So as grim as the math is...assault rifles are not ultra-lethal...but actually increase the odds of surviving.

Nitpick here, but an "assault rifle" is most commonly defined as a rifle that is both 1) select fire and 2) intermediate caliber. Select fire means that it is possible to choose between the gun shooting a single bullet every time you pull the trigger (semi automatic) or else the gun shooting multiple bullets every time you pull the trigger (automatic or burst fire). This is the most important part of the definition, as automatic weapons are extremely strictly regulated by federal law. Intermediate caliber just means that it shoots a lower-powered cartridge (basically this means a smaller bullet) than a so-called full power rifle cartridge.

Normal people have a hard time getting their hands on automatic weapons, since as noted earlier, they're strictly regulated and have been since the 30s. You can own such a gun as a normal citizen, but there's a complicated process and the guns themselves are extremely expensive - typically in the $6,000-15,000 range.

This is confusing because of the AWB, which is a totally different thing. An "Assault Weapon" was possibly named so that people would confuse it with an "Assault Rifle," but refers instead to any number of otherwise legal semi automatic guns that are banned either by explicitly being named on a list or due to certain "evil" features such as bayonet lugs, pistol grips, etc. The AWB also banned high capacity magazines, but this is only partially related to the issue being covered here. Deer rifles are, statistically, far deadlier than "assault weapons" when it comes to homicides.

The Bloombergs, Fiensteins and Schumers only have emotional arguments that do not reflect realworld realities. And therefore this is the time that their ranting gains any traction.

To be fair, the NRA is guilty of this as well, however on the opposite side of the playing field. The NRA hasn't actually advocated for anything but the Republican party line in a long time. They have in fact been detrimental to the cause of gun rights in a number of ways. The NRA doesn't do jack to encourage social welfare, and every time a democrat says the word "gun," the NRA gets a spike in donations and Republican candidates get more votes. Which, I really find it ironic, because there are so many people ranting and raving about guns due to the Aurora shooting, when guns isn't even the real issue here. In my view, it's more about the state of mental health care in the United States, which is lacking serious funding. If he had gotten the treatment he should have, there wouldn't have been a killing spree. It's not about guns. If you really wanted to kill people you could just drive your car on a crowded sidewalk. What does the NRA do about helping the people with economic troubles or mental health issues? It's these two issues alone that account for a huge amount of homicides and there is a direct correlation between the two. They're ostensibly a political organization.