Guns don't kill people - DPChallenge Forums

08/14/2012 06:09:45 PM · #626

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Cory:
... Same thing would hold true for a gun ban, the cost of enactment and enforcement are likely to FAR outweigh the benefits, put the money and effort somewhere where it'll make a greater difference.

Let everyone keep their guns...but stop producing ammo. That might be a start and it would not violate your constitutional rights... Right?

Ray

Wrong... You're just trying to do the same thing, but in a very underhanded way.

You apparently have either ignored, or don't understand what I've said before, so I'll try to keep this very simple.

I can make ammo easier than the guns, you can make it illegal, but then only those who should be armed will be disarmed, leaving those who should not be armed with yet another advantage upon the list of advantages they already have by default.

Can it get any easier to understand? Your idea won't get the results you think it will.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/14/2012 06:23:50 PM · #627

Originally posted by Venser:

He braised my friends hand and ran off.

I'm trying to picture a robber armed with a large saucepan ...?

08/14/2012 06:28:29 PM · #628

Originally posted by Venser:

Originally posted by jagar:
You obviously can't see the irony of him being armed with the gun he took from your kitchen before you kicked him out.

But if you now purchase a weapon to defend yourself, we're back at parity and everyone is happy and safe.

Surely you jest...There is a monumental amount of difference between plugging holes in a piece of paper and shooting at someone who is shooting back.

Happy and safe do NOT form part of the equation in such a scenario.

Ray

08/14/2012 06:32:56 PM · #629

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Cory:
... Same thing would hold true for a gun ban, the cost of enactment and enforcement are likely to FAR outweigh the benefits, put the money and effort somewhere where it'll make a greater difference.

Let everyone keep their guns...but stop producing ammo. That might be a start and it would not violate your constitutional rights... Right?

Ray

Wrong... You're just trying to do the same thing, but in a very underhanded way.

You apparently have either ignored, or don't understand what I've said before, so I'll try to keep this very simple.

I can make ammo easier than the guns, you can make it illegal, but then only those who should be armed will be disarmed, leaving those who should not be armed with yet another advantage upon the list of advantages they already have by default.

Can it get any easier to understand? Your idea won't get the results you think it will.

Really now.

Out of the millions of gun owners in the USA, what percentage do you honestly believe have the ability to produce ammunition... or is that a knowledge reserved for ONLY the criminal elements of our society.

Legally, the proposal I made does not violate your constitutional right to bear arms... you can still keep them but after a while you will have to resort to using them as clubs.

Ray

Message edited by author 2012-08-14 18:33:25.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/14/2012 06:40:21 PM · #630

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Out of the millions of gun owners in the USA, what percentage do you honestly believe have the ability to produce ammunition...

I know how to make ammunition â�� it's not that hard ... if you have a musket or flintlock pistol ... ;-)

08/14/2012 06:42:50 PM · #631

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Cory:
... Same thing would hold true for a gun ban, the cost of enactment and enforcement are likely to FAR outweigh the benefits, put the money and effort somewhere where it'll make a greater difference.

Let everyone keep their guns...but stop producing ammo. That might be a start and it would not violate your constitutional rights... Right?

Ray

Wrong... You're just trying to do the same thing, but in a very underhanded way.

You apparently have either ignored, or don't understand what I've said before, so I'll try to keep this very simple.

I can make ammo easier than the guns, you can make it illegal, but then only those who should be armed will be disarmed, leaving those who should not be armed with yet another advantage upon the list of advantages they already have by default.

Can it get any easier to understand? Your idea won't get the results you think it will.

Really now.

Out of the millions of gun owners in the USA, what percentage do you honestly believe have the ability to produce ammunition... or is that a knowledge reserved for ONLY the criminal elements of our society.

Legally, the proposal I made does not violate your constitutional right to bear arms... you can still keep them but after a while you will have to resort to using them as clubs.

Ray

Yes, really now.

I think the percentage can be very small, but once the need arises informal training will occur. And hell yes, if it's illegal, then only criminals would care enough to bother wouldn't they? (and then there's the definition thing, but we'll ignore that)..

I can make my own ammo, I just wouldn't... Then again, as previously stated, if I wanted to kill someone, a gun would not be my first choice for a variety of reasons. To ban guns thinking you'll ban killing is just silly. And you should know it.

08/14/2012 06:44:28 PM · #632

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RayEthier:
Out of the millions of gun owners in the USA, what percentage do you honestly believe have the ability to produce ammunition...

I know how to make ammunition â�� it's not that hard ... if you have a musket or flintlock pistol ... ;-)

Any reasonably intelligent individual should be able to make much, much more than just ammo without any real difficulty. Even the lead can be smelted pretty easy, and the powder can also be made without great trouble.

It's just a matter of want.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/14/2012 06:51:14 PM · #633

Gunpowder and shot are easy -- a brass casing and primer which will fit a breechloader, and a bullet capable of working in a rifled barrel quite a bit harder ...

08/15/2012 06:52:47 AM · #634

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Pretty solid thinking there Ray. Really. I'm not being facitious here - it actually is a thoughtful proposal that does not infringe on my 2nd amendment rights. Clever.

It would likely make ammunition the new barter currency however.
And for anyone who has shot in the shooting sports like PPC (Police Pistol Combat), reloading is fairly common.

08/15/2012 07:38:48 AM · #635

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Cory:
... Same thing would hold true for a gun ban, the cost of enactment and enforcement are likely to FAR outweigh the benefits, put the money and effort somewhere where it'll make a greater difference.

Let everyone keep their guns...but stop producing ammo. That might be a start and it would not violate your constitutional rights... Right?

Ray

Pretty solid thinking there Ray. Really. I'm not being facitious here - it actually is a thoughtful proposal that does not infringe on my 2nd amendment rights. Clever.

It would likely make ammunition the new barter currency however.
And for anyone who has shot in the shooting sports like PPC (Police Pistol Combat), reloading is fairly common.

I live in NJ and they are trying to pass legislation to limit ammo sales.

08/15/2012 09:19:29 AM · #636

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Venser:
He braised my friends hand and ran off.

I'm trying to picture a robber armed with a large saucepan ...?

Here I think of a large pair of scissors, or a long wood chisel, or drill bit wrapped in tape, or...what else could we make a shank out of? Plastic? Wood? Glass?

Am really hoping to see some other suggestions for restricting items not already restricted. Ray proposed banning ammunition. It seems to me there isn't much of a middle ground. Either severly restrict firearms from everybody which replaces that weapon choice with another (ie. shank, bludgeon, necktie, etc) or allow them with the risks associated.

The key element being missed in my view is the issue of "Disparity of Force". This is the condition where unequal force is present. As in young against old or big against small or many against few. Disparity of force is the factor not considered in eliminating firearms. For some it is a worthwhile trade off. But isn't that really the question? What are your tradeoffs? One group is willing to trade injury and victimization of the elderly and weak for the "safety" of no guns. Whilst the other group is willing to trade the occassional injury of innocents for the right of all to be able to address force disparities.

08/15/2012 07:05:17 PM · #637

Originally posted by Flash:

...indeed and I am quite familiar with the process involved and the requisite equipment. Mind you, even in the environment that you speak of, there are limited numbers of individuals who (at this time) who could undertake such an action.

Ray

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/15/2012 07:16:02 PM · #638

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Venser:
He braised my friends hand and ran off.

I'm trying to picture a robber armed with a large saucepan ...?

Here I think of a large pair of scissors, or a long wood chisel, or drill bit wrapped in tape, or...what else could we make a shank out of? Plastic? Wood? Glass?

My response was a joke based on the OP's (presumed) typo ... braising is a method of cooking something in a small amount of water ... bruising is something which might occur during an attempted robbery.

08/15/2012 07:17:41 PM · #639

Originally posted by Flash:

The key element being missed in my view is the issue of "Disparity of Force". This is the condition where unequal force is present. As in young against old or big against small or many against few. Disparity of force is the factor not considered in eliminating firearms. For some it is a worthwhile trade off. But isn't that really the question? What are your tradeoffs? One group is willing to trade injury and victimization of the elderly and weak for the "safety" of no guns. Whilst the other group is willing to trade the occassional injury of innocents for the right of all to be able to address force disparities.

Ah but you see my friend (as of course you well know) that well informed and properly trained people can counter sheer force with other non lethal counter measures.

Having worked on one man detachments on a number of occasions (never once carrying my firearm) I had to (when confronted with a violent situaton) resort to the wonderful training I received in the RCMP academy... and it worked like a charm.

My biggest problem with firearms is that too often they are in the hands of well intentioned but otherwise totally clueless individuals who think that this is their salvation.

Ray

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

08/15/2012 07:52:41 PM · #640

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Flash:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Venser:
He braised my friends hand and ran off.

I'm trying to picture a robber armed with a large saucepan ...?

Here I think of a large pair of scissors, or a long wood chisel, or drill bit wrapped in tape, or...what else could we make a shank out of? Plastic? Wood? Glass?

My response was a joke based on the OP's (presumed) typo ... braising is a method of cooking something in a small amount of water ... bruising is something which might occur during an attempted robbery.

Heh.. I think the word he was actually going for was "grazed"... As in a near-hit.

ETA: Hey Vensor, what the hell did you mean to type anyway? ;)

Message edited by author 2012-08-15 19:53:46.

Melethia

Canon EOS-80D

08/16/2012 01:03:42 AM · #641

Guns may not kill people, but in rare instances, the shoot their owners... :-)

Man shoots himself in buttocks

jagar

Samsung Galaxy S9/S9+

Sony Sonnar FE 2.8 35mm ZA

08/16/2012 01:23:33 AM · #642

Originally posted by Melethia:

Guns may not kill people, but in rare instances, the shoot their owners... :-)

Man shoots himself in buttocks

The fact that someone can enter a cinema in all legality with a gun, is a truly terrifying thing.

Venser

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

08/16/2012 04:21:32 AM · #643

Originally posted by Melethia:

Guns may not kill people, but in rare instances, the shoot their owners... :-)

Man shoots himself in buttocks

You're forgetting about the better known incident of Plaxico Burress. Dude had something like a $180M contract at the time and lost it all.

Olympus OM-D E-M1 Mark II

08/16/2012 07:11:02 AM · #644

Originally posted by Venser:

Originally posted by Melethia:
Guns may not kill people, but in rare instances, the shoot their owners... :-)

Man shoots himself in buttocks

You're forgetting about the better known incident of Plaxico Burress. Dude had something like a $180M contract at the time and lost it all.

What Burress did was illegal, he got caught and went to jail.

Venser

Olympus 40-150mm f/2.8 PRO M.Zuiko

08/16/2012 07:57:14 AM · #645

Originally posted by mike_311:

What Burress did was illegal, he got caught and went to jail.

It was more the point of idiots who shoot themselves accidentally with their own firearm.

08/16/2012 08:02:37 AM · #646

Originally posted by Venser:

Originally posted by mike_311:
What Burress did was illegal, he got caught and went to jail.

It was more the point of idiots who shoot themselves accidentally with their own firearm.

yep and he derailed the Giants repeat at Superbowl with that action, for that alone he remains an idiot in my book.

08/16/2012 10:10:42 AM · #647

Originally posted by GeneralE:

It obviously went over my head. Now that you explained it - it was a funny reply.

08/16/2012 10:24:50 AM · #648

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Flash:

The key element being missed in my view is the issue of "Disparity of Force". This is the condition where unequal force is present. As in young against old or big against small or many against few. Disparity of force is the factor not considered in eliminating firearms. For some it is a worthwhile trade off. But isn't that really the question? What are your tradeoffs? One group is willing to trade injury and victimization of the elderly and weak for the "safety" of no guns. Whilst the other group is willing to trade the occassional injury of innocents for the right of all to be able to address force disparities.

Ah but you see my friend (as of course you well know) that well informed and properly trained people can counter sheer force with other non lethal counter measures.

Having worked on one man detachments on a number of occasions (never once carrying my firearm) I had to (when confronted with a violent situaton) resort to the wonderful training I received in the RCMP academy... and it worked like a charm.

My biggest problem with firearms is that too often they are in the hands of well intentioned but otherwise totally clueless individuals who think that this is their salvation.

Ray

True. And in your experience, you have certainly seen the victims of violence. Some of whom may have benefitted from a higher force option than what they had at their immediate disposal.

Having been a certified PPCT Weapon retention/disarm Instructor and SHARP (Sexual Harassment Assault Rape Prevention) Instructor and having received training not only with Bruce Siddle (PPCT) but Massad Ayoob (LFI - Lethal Force Institute) and several ASLET (American Society of Law Enforcement Trainers) Seminars, you are correct that on the force contiuum there are several levels of de-escalation that are available short of firearms. My somewhat laboring littany (at times) is my attempt to inject other than lethal force into the thinking/discussion - while still maintaining that "some" scenarios/situations do have as the correct response - deadly force. It - however, is relatively rare. Meaning - that both sides on this issue have a point. One - due to the rarity, the risk is worth it to society to ban firearms - although some will pay the ultimate price via violence against them. And Two - even though rare, some will choose to be prepared anyway (as in legally arm themselves) - although in doing so, others may pay the ultimate price by having firearms accessible to those who would mis-use them. It really does come down to who you feel is the expendable group to place at risk.

The way I crunch the numbers (specifically the way John Lott crunches the numbers) the better option is legally owned firearms available to law abiding citizens (as at least people have a choice as to arm themselves or not versus banning firearms and removing that choice). But I can certainly see/understand the other sides argument.

edit for clarity... and to add that I specifically mention PPCT as Bruce Siddle claimed his system was used by the RCMP amongst many other LE agencies world wide, thus I suspect you are familiar with this pressure point control tactics training and its effectiveness on nerve centers and the interruption of comminucation between the brain and muscle groups.

Message edited by author 2012-08-16 13:25:51.