Page 33 of 101 FirstFirst ... 2331323334354383 ... LastLast
Results 481 to 495 of 1510

Thread: Gun Control

  1. #481
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Metro East, St. Louis
    Posts
    7,320
    Rep Power
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Scat View Post
    And if the shooter simply takes a dozen pre-loaded clips with him?
    In a dozen different guns, presumably? How many guns can you realistically strap on? Even then, you are limited to, say, 120 bullets. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that you can currently get that many bullets in four magazines, reducing the cost and increasing the convenience.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scat View Post
    All of these measures being recommended are not going to stop the types of crimes that have been perpetrated. They are knee jerk reactions to horrific crimes.
    I agree they won't stop these crimes. All you can hope for is to reduce the amount of damage a perpetrator can engender.
    http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/

    Isaiah 1:18 -- Come now, and let us reason together

    Any habitual action, such as eating or dressing, may be performed on the appropriate occasion, without any need of thought, and the same seems to be true of a painfully large proportion of our talk. -- Bertrand Russell

  2. #482
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,831
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by One Brow View Post
    I can see your point about rapid fire increasing recoil. Do we have any knowledge of whther these school shooters used a rapid-fire mode anyhow, and how it affected the casualties?
    There is no rapid fire mode. He was referring to simply pulling the trigger faster.

    Quote Originally Posted by One Brow View Post
    In a dozen different guns, presumably? How many guns can you realistically strap on? Even then, you are limited to, say, 120 bullets. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that you can currently get that many bullets in four magazines, reducing the cost and increasing the convenience.
    No, he was taking about a shooter carrying 1 gun, but having a bunch of pre loaded clips in his pocket. So when he runs out of bullets, he simply changes the clip (which took less than 1 second in that video GF posted).

  3. #483
    Moderator Stoked's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Southern Utah
    Posts
    18,759
    Rep Power
    78
    Quote Originally Posted by One Brow View Post
    In a dozen different guns, presumably? How many guns can you realistically strap on? Even then, you are limited to, say, 120 bullets. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that you can currently get that many bullets in four magazines, reducing the cost and increasing the convenience.



    I agree they won't stop these crimes. All you can hope for is to reduce the amount of damage a perpetrator can engender.
    I am by no means a firearms expert but I can chage a clip in under 5 seconds. I can manage around 3 seconds. So you have 3 seconds to go from hiding/cowering/running to disarming me.

    Just in my house alone I have to firearms loaded with one in the chamber and a second fully loaded clip next to them. Locked up but when I grab my gun I am taking my 2nd clip. That gives me 31 bullets for one gun and 21 for the other.

  4. #484
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Metro East, St. Louis
    Posts
    7,320
    Rep Power
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by SaltyDawg View Post
    There is no rapid fire mode. He was referring to simply pulling the trigger faster.
    Correction noted. Thank you.

    Quote Originally Posted by SaltyDawg View Post
    No, he was taking about a shooter carrying 1 gun, but having a bunch of pre loaded clips in his pocket. So when he runs out of bullets, he simply changes the clip (which took less than 1 second in that video GF posted).
    Yes, that's why I mentioned the push for legislation that would require it taking more time to change clips. If you change that 1 second to 30 seconds while reducing the bullet count as well, you can reduce the amount of damage that can be done.
    http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/

    Isaiah 1:18 -- Come now, and let us reason together

    Any habitual action, such as eating or dressing, may be performed on the appropriate occasion, without any need of thought, and the same seems to be true of a painfully large proportion of our talk. -- Bertrand Russell

  5. #485
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    9,571
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by One Brow View Post
    Correction noted. Thank you.



    Yes, that's why I mentioned the push for legislation that would require it taking more time to change clips. If you change that 1 second to 30 seconds while reducing the bullet count as well, you can reduce the amount of damage that can be done.

    You also reduce the effectiveness of that weapon for self defense, the reason we have the right to firearms in the first place.

  6. #486
    Senior Member TheSilencer1313's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Tooele, Utah
    Posts
    3,101
    Rep Power
    17
    Quote Originally Posted by Gameface View Post
    You also reduce the effectiveness of that weapon for self defense, the reason we have the right to firearms in the first place.
    Not to mention passing legislation does nothing to change what non-law abiding citizens do anyway.
    "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered." - Thomas Jefferson

  7. #487
    Senior Member Scat's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    5,414
    Rep Power
    36
    Quote Originally Posted by Chad Feldheimer View Post

    Quote Originally Posted by larryselbows View Post
    Thank you, glad to see the violent crime rate go down during the Clinton administration, source please.
    Quote Originally Posted by Chad Feldheimer View Post
    assault weapon ban didn't do much of anything. The rate was dropping before and after the ban.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
    Quote Originally Posted by larryselbows View Post
    The data speaks for itself, I don't need an interpretation of the data. All it shows is that the violent crime rate went down after 1992, feel free to interpret it any way you feel fit.
    Aside from the assault weapon ban, guess what else happened in the early 90's? More and more states began issuing concealed carry permits. Here's a fun little history of states that put CC into action.



    Interesting that violent crime rates dropped so dramatically during this same time period starting in 1992. It is also interesting that the states which still do not issue CC permits all have some of the highest rates of gun related crime.
    Last edited by Scat; 01-01-2013 at 09:35 PM.

  8. #488
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Metro East, St. Louis
    Posts
    7,320
    Rep Power
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Gameface View Post
    You also reduce the effectiveness of that weapon for self defense, the reason we have the right to firearms in the first place.
    The situations where you need more than ten bullets for self-defense are much rarer than those where such limitations would reduce damage.
    http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/

    Isaiah 1:18 -- Come now, and let us reason together

    Any habitual action, such as eating or dressing, may be performed on the appropriate occasion, without any need of thought, and the same seems to be true of a painfully large proportion of our talk. -- Bertrand Russell

  9. #489
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Metro East, St. Louis
    Posts
    7,320
    Rep Power
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Scat View Post
    It is also interesting that the states which still do not issue CC permits all have some of the highest rates of gun related crime.
    Those states, containing large urban centers, have always had some of the highest rates of gun-related deaths. For example, even though it's law changed little, Illinois saw a huge drop in crime rates, including gun-related crimes rates, just like every other state.
    .
    Violent crimes are committed by young men, for the most part., expecially those born to women who felt they were not ready to have children. As the population has aged and women have more ways to avoid/terminate pregnancies, crime has gone down
    .
    Also, it's very aqmusing to hear the same group of people say that, one the one hand, criminals without guns will still be capable of massive attacks, but on the other hand, people without guns can't defend themselves.
    http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/

    Isaiah 1:18 -- Come now, and let us reason together

    Any habitual action, such as eating or dressing, may be performed on the appropriate occasion, without any need of thought, and the same seems to be true of a painfully large proportion of our talk. -- Bertrand Russell

  10. #490
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    9,571
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by One Brow View Post
    The situations where you need more than ten bullets for self-defense are much rarer than those where such limitations would reduce damage.
    This isn't a matter of statistics. A person has the right to defend their self and therefore the means to do so. Psychos going on killing sprees have nothing to do with my right to self defense.

  11.  

     

  12. #491
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Metro East, St. Louis
    Posts
    7,320
    Rep Power
    35
    Quote Originally Posted by Gameface View Post
    This isn't a matter of statistics. A person has the right to defend their self and therefore the means to do so. Psychos going on killing sprees have nothing to do with my right to self defense.
    Everyone agrees the right to self defense has limitations and trade-offs. It's not a trump card that wins an argument simply by pulling it out.
    http://lifetheuniverseandonebrow.blogspot.com/

    Isaiah 1:18 -- Come now, and let us reason together

    Any habitual action, such as eating or dressing, may be performed on the appropriate occasion, without any need of thought, and the same seems to be true of a painfully large proportion of our talk. -- Bertrand Russell

  13. #492
    Senior Member fishonjazz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    K-TOWN
    Posts
    12,195
    Rep Power
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by Gameface View Post
    This isn't a matter of statistics. A person has the right to defend their self and therefore the means to do so. Psychos going on killing sprees have nothing to do with my right to self defense.
    So according to this post, it sounds like civilians should be able to purchase tanks, stealth bombers, rocket launchers, grenades, flamethrowes, land mines..... i mean you never know what you are going to need when the time comes that you may have to protect yourself right?

  14. #493
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,831
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by One Brow View Post
    Also, it's very aqmusing to hear the same group of people say that, one the one hand, criminals without guns will still be capable of massive attacks, but on the other hand, people without guns can't defend themselves.
    And that seems to be v the main point that gun control enthusiasts just can't comprehend.

    Restrictive laws only affect people that don't break the law. It's already illegal to go on a mass shooting spree, and most of the people doing it got their guns illegally.

    So yes, restricting guns will absolutely limit the right of self defense for law abiding citizens. It will not necessarily hinder a criminal's ability to go on a mass killing spree. They'd have to respect and follow the law in order for it to affect them.

  15. #494
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    2,831
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by fishonjazz View Post
    So according to this post, it sounds like civilians should be able to purchase tanks, stealth bombers, rocket launchers, grenades, flamethrowes, land mines..... i mean you never know what you are going to need when the time comes that you may have to protect yourself right?
    Sure, why not?

  16. #495
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    9,571
    Rep Power
    0
    Quote Originally Posted by One Brow View Post
    Everyone agrees the right to self defense has limitations and trade-offs. It's not a trump card that wins an argument simply by pulling it out.
    Sure, but to say something should be banned because it's only useful in rare situations isn't very convincing, imo. You are aware that more people are killed by lightning every year than in mass shootings, right?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •