Gun control (provocative subject title I know)
-
As Lao Tzu once said, "A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step."
==================================== Transvestites - Roberts in Disguise! ====================================
it touted as a solution not a step
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
The recent atrocity was carried out using a legally held assault rifle. If they were illegal, his mother could not have legally posessed it, and he would not have been able to take it, shoot her and 26 other people. QED
==================================== Transvestites - Roberts in Disguise! ====================================
-
The gun was his mother's, he stole it from her because he was unable to get a weapon on his own
I can't get a gun and neither can my mother
==================================== Transvestites - Roberts in Disguise! ====================================
-
Can someone explain why banning Assault rifles will make any difference what so ever? Isnt it like banning ice cubes from the Titanic's bars?
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
Can someone explain why banning Assault rifles will make any difference what so ever?
That's a very difficult question. Of course if you want a waepon you can get one and of couse someone could kill another with manuell weapon. But with an automatic or semi-automatic weapon you can kill more people in less time. Don't get me wrong. I don't believe that banning any weapon in USA will lower the number of people being killed. In switzerland or canada there is nearly the same amount of weapons per head, but there is much less murder. You can even look at the United States. In NY there are less weapons than in most other states, but more killings. It's a problem of the society and this won't change just by banning some types of weapons - but perhaps a rampage with many killings will be made more difficult. As long as the society thinks, that weapons are the only way to hold up freedom and peace - well it might be that freedom and peace will be threatened by the same. Although in switherland for example there are many weapons, the relationship towards them is a big difference in comparison to the US.
------------------------------ Author of Primary ROleplaying SysTem How do I take my coffee? Black as midnight on a moonless night. War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
-
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
Can someone explain why banning Assault rifles will make any difference what so ever?
That's a very difficult question. Of course if you want a waepon you can get one and of couse someone could kill another with manuell weapon. But with an automatic or semi-automatic weapon you can kill more people in less time. Don't get me wrong. I don't believe that banning any weapon in USA will lower the number of people being killed. In switzerland or canada there is nearly the same amount of weapons per head, but there is much less murder. You can even look at the United States. In NY there are less weapons than in most other states, but more killings. It's a problem of the society and this won't change just by banning some types of weapons - but perhaps a rampage with many killings will be made more difficult. As long as the society thinks, that weapons are the only way to hold up freedom and peace - well it might be that freedom and peace will be threatened by the same. Although in switherland for example there are many weapons, the relationship towards them is a big difference in comparison to the US.
------------------------------ Author of Primary ROleplaying SysTem How do I take my coffee? Black as midnight on a moonless night. War doesn't determine who's right. War determines who's left.
I think you may be right, in switzerland owning a gun is a chore and a duty, in the US it is a life choice and a right
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
Can someone explain why banning Assault rifles will make any difference what so ever? Isnt it like banning ice cubes from the Titanic's bars?
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
I don't think there is any real chance of a ban happening. Congress might push though a feel good bill about limiting magazine size. But that won't really change anything. The best guns are belt fed anyway ;P I really gotta get this SUV[^]
Play my game Gravity: IOS[^], Android[^], Windows Phone 7[^]
-
Can someone explain why banning Assault rifles will make any difference what so ever? Isnt it like banning ice cubes from the Titanic's bars?
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Rifles have a bit more power than a pistol. My AR-15 fires a round that is 5.56mm in diameter, wheres my pistol fires a round that is 9mm in diameter. The pistol bounces off a 1/4" of steel, the rifle slices through it like butter and still has some power on the other side. Much less but it is still moving faster than the eye can see. Also the longer barrel provides more accuracy at range, hitting a golf ball at 100 meters isn't that difficult a feat with a rifle using proper optics, but with a pistol it is tricky. Then we move to bolt action vs semi-automatic. With bolt action, the capacity tends to be lower. 5-10 from what I have seen on average. Every shot you have to work the action and for a shooter on the move, that makes maintaining a sight picture more difficult for their following shot. More muscle movement and other things to remember, plus the time in between when you work the bolt. Whereas a semi-automatic, you just pull the trigger, eyes don't even leave the sight, just move it to the next, pull the trigger again. In essence, more skill required, more time between each shot, and fewer bullets before reloading would make it more difficult to unload 30 rounds into a crowd. The other thing that is being discussed is magazine capacity being limited to 10. So even if you do have a semi-automatic, you have to reload more often and earlier, plus making it harder to carry as much ammo.
-
The recent atrocity was carried out using a legally held assault rifle. If they were illegal, his mother could not have legally posessed it, and he would not have been able to take it, shoot her and 26 other people. QED
==================================== Transvestites - Roberts in Disguise! ====================================
It was legally acquired buy its original registered owner. The perp was turned down during the federally required background check when he tried to legally acquire a rifle earlier last week. He also *stole* the guns he used from their registered owner, so he was in possession of stolen property. He committed a felony with the illegally held weapon (shot his mother), so technically at that point, he wasn't allowed to have a firearm in his possession. The weapon was not legally *held*.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
But he also had multiple automatic handguns so that makes that argument a bit weak, plus its only assult rifles so i take it bolt action is fine? I understand that It defines the rifle type of assault weapon as a semiautomatic firearm with the ability to accept a detachable magazine and two or more of the following: a folding or telescoping stock a pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon a bayonet mount a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed so its sounds like its not difficult to find a semi automatic rifle that id NOT classified as an assault rifle so as measure designed to stop these terrible events it looks as effective as a chocolate fireguard
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
But he also had multiple automatic handguns
SEMI-automatic handguns. Let's try to be a bit more precise.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
so its sounds like its not difficult to find a semi automatic rifle that id NOT classified as an assault rifle
Calling a rifle an "assault rifle" simply because of cosmetic similarities it might have to an automatic rifle is patently absurd. Technically ALL rifles are "assault" rifles, even shotguns.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
I think you may be right, in switzerland owning a gun is a chore and a duty, in the US it is a life choice and a right
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
I beg to differ - I see it as a responsibility and a duty as well. I happen to agree with the framers that the keeping and bearing Arms by the People is necessary to the security of a free State. It's an unhappy fact that more Americans don't feel the same way (and that attitude is mostly from a lack of education).
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
Rifles have a bit more power than a pistol. My AR-15 fires a round that is 5.56mm in diameter, wheres my pistol fires a round that is 9mm in diameter. The pistol bounces off a 1/4" of steel, the rifle slices through it like butter and still has some power on the other side. Much less but it is still moving faster than the eye can see. Also the longer barrel provides more accuracy at range, hitting a golf ball at 100 meters isn't that difficult a feat with a rifle using proper optics, but with a pistol it is tricky. Then we move to bolt action vs semi-automatic. With bolt action, the capacity tends to be lower. 5-10 from what I have seen on average. Every shot you have to work the action and for a shooter on the move, that makes maintaining a sight picture more difficult for their following shot. More muscle movement and other things to remember, plus the time in between when you work the bolt. Whereas a semi-automatic, you just pull the trigger, eyes don't even leave the sight, just move it to the next, pull the trigger again. In essence, more skill required, more time between each shot, and fewer bullets before reloading would make it more difficult to unload 30 rounds into a crowd. The other thing that is being discussed is magazine capacity being limited to 10. So even if you do have a semi-automatic, you have to reload more often and earlier, plus making it harder to carry as much ammo.
RJOberg wrote:
whereas my pistol fires a round that is 9mm in diameter.
You just need a bigger pistol - something in a .45ACP. :)
RJOberg wrote:
The other thing that is being discussed is magazine capacity being limited to 10. So even if you do have a semi-automatic, you have to reload more often and earlier, plus making it harder to carry as much ammo.
I can fire 30 well-aimed rounds from three 10-round magazines almost as fast as I can fire 30 well aimed rounds from a single 30-round magazine (as long as there's no requirement to maintain direct custody of spent magazines).
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
RJOberg wrote:
whereas my pistol fires a round that is 9mm in diameter.
You just need a bigger pistol - something in a .45ACP. :)
RJOberg wrote:
The other thing that is being discussed is magazine capacity being limited to 10. So even if you do have a semi-automatic, you have to reload more often and earlier, plus making it harder to carry as much ammo.
I can fire 30 well-aimed rounds from three 10-round magazines almost as fast as I can fire 30 well aimed rounds from a single 30-round magazine (as long as there's no requirement to maintain direct custody of spent magazines).
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
You just need a bigger pistol - something in a .45ACP. :)
Working on it. I do like the 1911, but I also like H&K's Mark 23, the one thing I don't like is the price tag.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I can fire 30 well-aimed rounds from three 10-round magazines almost as fast as I can fire 30 well aimed rounds from a single 30-round magazine (as long as there's no requirement to maintain direct custody of spent magazines).
The same, however what are our definitions of "well aimed"? For me, it is within a very small margin of my intended point of impact. At 100 yards, I like to keep it under an inch off the point of aim. On the other hand, if I am trying to hit somewhere on a body sized target at 20 yards, I can put them all on target in a much shorter time. I would also wager that you and I have a lot more range time than the majority of these shooters. When I first started with a semi-automatic rifle it took me a lot more time reload without losing my sight picture. I started in a world of single round bolt actions so I was used to losing my sight picture and it was habit to drop the rifle slightly.
-
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
You just need a bigger pistol - something in a .45ACP. :)
Working on it. I do like the 1911, but I also like H&K's Mark 23, the one thing I don't like is the price tag.
John Simmons / outlaw programmer wrote:
I can fire 30 well-aimed rounds from three 10-round magazines almost as fast as I can fire 30 well aimed rounds from a single 30-round magazine (as long as there's no requirement to maintain direct custody of spent magazines).
The same, however what are our definitions of "well aimed"? For me, it is within a very small margin of my intended point of impact. At 100 yards, I like to keep it under an inch off the point of aim. On the other hand, if I am trying to hit somewhere on a body sized target at 20 yards, I can put them all on target in a much shorter time. I would also wager that you and I have a lot more range time than the majority of these shooters. When I first started with a semi-automatic rifle it took me a lot more time reload without losing my sight picture. I started in a world of single round bolt actions so I was used to losing my sight picture and it was habit to drop the rifle slightly.
A decent reddot helps at close range. Both of my ARs wear Aimpoints.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997 -
Can someone explain why banning Assault rifles will make any difference what so ever? Isnt it like banning ice cubes from the Titanic's bars?
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
Can someone explain why banning Assault rifles will make any difference what so ever?
Australia managed to eliminate mass shootings by banning assault rifles and shotguns after a mass shooting in 1996 where, "... a lone gunman killed 20 innocents with his first 29 bullets, all in the space of 90 seconds." http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/16/opinion/australia-gun-laws/index.html[^]
"As beings of finite lifespan, our contributions to the sum of human knowledge is one of the greatest endeavors we can undertake and one of the defining characteristics of humanity itself"
-
I beg to differ - I see it as a responsibility and a duty as well. I happen to agree with the framers that the keeping and bearing Arms by the People is necessary to the security of a free State. It's an unhappy fact that more Americans don't feel the same way (and that attitude is mostly from a lack of education).
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997you seem to be in a minority, and if you feel that you need to be armed to preserve your security then either you or your society has serious problems that a gun will not cure (and in fact is likely to make worse)
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
But he also had multiple automatic handguns
SEMI-automatic handguns. Let's try to be a bit more precise.
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
so its sounds like its not difficult to find a semi automatic rifle that id NOT classified as an assault rifle
Calling a rifle an "assault rifle" simply because of cosmetic similarities it might have to an automatic rifle is patently absurd. Technically ALL rifles are "assault" rifles, even shotguns.
".45 ACP - because shooting twice is just silly" - JSOP, 2010
-----
You can never have too much ammo - unless you're swimming, or on fire. - JSOP, 2010
-----
"Why don't you tie a kerosene-soaked rag around your ankles so the ants won't climb up and eat your candy ass." - Dale Earnhardt, 1997The Model 1911 .45 Automatic Pistol well that is what Browning call it so why I am wrong? http://www.browning.com/library/infonews/detail.asp?id=301[^] the definition of assault rifle was from the US law banning such weapons
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
Rifles have a bit more power than a pistol. My AR-15 fires a round that is 5.56mm in diameter, wheres my pistol fires a round that is 9mm in diameter. The pistol bounces off a 1/4" of steel, the rifle slices through it like butter and still has some power on the other side. Much less but it is still moving faster than the eye can see. Also the longer barrel provides more accuracy at range, hitting a golf ball at 100 meters isn't that difficult a feat with a rifle using proper optics, but with a pistol it is tricky. Then we move to bolt action vs semi-automatic. With bolt action, the capacity tends to be lower. 5-10 from what I have seen on average. Every shot you have to work the action and for a shooter on the move, that makes maintaining a sight picture more difficult for their following shot. More muscle movement and other things to remember, plus the time in between when you work the bolt. Whereas a semi-automatic, you just pull the trigger, eyes don't even leave the sight, just move it to the next, pull the trigger again. In essence, more skill required, more time between each shot, and fewer bullets before reloading would make it more difficult to unload 30 rounds into a crowd. The other thing that is being discussed is magazine capacity being limited to 10. So even if you do have a semi-automatic, you have to reload more often and earlier, plus making it harder to carry as much ammo.
considering that nearly all these events are close range affairs the advantages of the rifle are heavly nagated, in fact at short range a high velocity round can pass though without fatal injury if you take your argument to a logical extream then a single shot weapon that is very difficult to reload and takes a lot of training to load and fire would be ideal?
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
I don't think there is any real chance of a ban happening. Congress might push though a feel good bill about limiting magazine size. But that won't really change anything. The best guns are belt fed anyway ;P I really gotta get this SUV[^]
Play my game Gravity: IOS[^], Android[^], Windows Phone 7[^]
I doubt anything will occur that will have any actual effect on the problem, you americans are far to attached to your guns to let a few deaths sway things, a short term political storm yes, but give it few months without a reoccurance and it will dissapear again
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
Bergholt Stuttley Johnson wrote:
Can someone explain why banning Assault rifles will make any difference what so ever?
Australia managed to eliminate mass shootings by banning assault rifles and shotguns after a mass shooting in 1996 where, "... a lone gunman killed 20 innocents with his first 29 bullets, all in the space of 90 seconds." http://edition.cnn.com/2012/12/16/opinion/australia-gun-laws/index.html[^]
"As beings of finite lifespan, our contributions to the sum of human knowledge is one of the greatest endeavors we can undertake and one of the defining characteristics of humanity itself"
if you read it, it was not just the banning but a series of steps taken at govenment level Maybe I am wrong, but as he US has tried this already and it has completely failed then my guess is that one(or more) of the other measures taken was a lot more effective
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
-
if you read it, it was not just the banning but a series of steps taken at govenment level Maybe I am wrong, but as he US has tried this already and it has completely failed then my guess is that one(or more) of the other measures taken was a lot more effective
You cant outrun the world, but there is no harm in getting a head start Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time.
I don't think the US has ever banned assault rifles and shotguns, like the Australians did. Note that the judge who presided over the Australian mass shooting case said, "This "pathetic social misfit," was empowered to achieve his final toll of 35 people dead and 18 seriously wounded by firing semi-automatic rifles originally advertised by the gun trade as "assault weapons."" He's basically pointing out that the death toll would have been lower if the shooter had a less 'effective' weapon. The other measures taken, tightening of gun owner licensing and registration of remaining firearms to uniform national standards, merely served to compliment the bans. What the US should do is implement similar legislation and wait to see how effective it will be. The Australians have been waiting for 16 years to see its effectiveness and they have had no mass shootings.
"As beings of finite lifespan, our contributions to the sum of human knowledge is one of the greatest endeavors we can undertake and one of the defining characteristics of humanity itself"