Another school shooting - DPChallenge Forums

12/20/2012 01:12:11 PM · #901

Originally posted by Venser:

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
The reason behind not allowing the children to have that is to bring back morals to our society.....Oh and might I add...adult should not cuss around kids either...Our society as a whole (not just in the US) has lost our values
How does watching R rated movies or playing violent video games degrade morals? There's absolutely no proof for those assessments.

Cussing? really? Because if kids don't know a certain word they're much more likely to not become killers?

Not that I think kids should cuss, but because it's obvious to me that people value the wrong things.

I frankly think the idea that keeping people/kids ignorant will make them better people is about as stupid of an idea as I've ever heard.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

12/20/2012 01:13:28 PM · #902

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Venser:
In the US, most rated R movies are because of sexual content, not violence.

Right, violence only rates (maybe) a PG "advisory" ...

Speaking of valuing the wrong things.

We don't care if our kids watch Dexter, but Debbie does Dallas is absolutely out of bounds...

Since when was sex worse than murder?

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

12/20/2012 01:24:19 PM · #903

Originally posted by Cory:

Since when was sex worse than murder?

Since about 1022 and Pope Benedict VIII :-)

12/20/2012 01:35:34 PM · #904

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Cory:
Since when was sex worse than murder?

Since about 1022 and Pope Benedict VIII :-)

ROFL! I seriously almost ended that with "I blame the Christians"... ;)

12/20/2012 01:35:59 PM · #905

Originally posted by Cory:

Just a small perspective check.

We can fear crazy gunmen all we wish, but they are still an extremely rare problem - this is what scares the daylights out of me..

what about these guys

12/20/2012 01:50:02 PM · #906

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

Originally posted by Cory:
Just a small perspective check.

We can fear crazy gunmen all we wish, but they are still an extremely rare problem - this is what scares the daylights out of me..

what about these guys

Not really.

Given that there are roughly 312 Million people in the US, and given that I interact with, say 100 people per week, and there are two guys (assuming that they might split up), that gives me rough odds of about 1 in 1.5 Millon chance of running into these fellows during the week or so they're likely to be free.

Even if I "win" out on those odds, and do run into them, there's an astronomically lower chance that they would be any sort of problem for me.

From the stats I posted earlier, you'll remember that only about 60% of firearms used by criminals are operationally functional, so, whatever sort of astronomically low odds I have are roughly doubled.

I'm guessing that the real odds are lower than one in a billion that these fellows will be a problem for me.

Now, compare that to auto accident deaths - which is currently about 1:7000 per year for the general population. Given that I drive something like four or five times as many miles as the average person, and the fact that I drive somewhat aggressively, I think we can safely say that my odds of dieing in a car accident in 2013 will be something around 1:2000 ..

Objectively, I'm a HELL of a lot more worried about 1:2,000 odds than 1:1,000,000,000 odds. Aren't you?

ETA: My odds of dieing of cancer are MUCH better than those of a car accident - probably something like 1:100 or so, given my lifestyle. Really, I find the whole subject to be a non-issue. Of course, I think the odds that I will be paying new fees to continue to own my weapons is something like a 1:1.5 or so at this point - and I'm not really a fan of new taxes to be honest - especially those that won't actually do more than pay for yet another headache I have to deal with yearly. (yes, I still firmly believe that the laws which are about to be passed will be ineffective at best)..

Message edited by author 2012-12-20 13:54:24.

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

12/20/2012 01:53:33 PM · #907

According to FOX News(!?!) there have been nearly 60,000 deaths in Mexico in the six years since we asked them to act as our proxy in dealing with the drug cartels, many with guns purchased in the USA and sold south, and not all of them as part of the Fast&Furious fiasco. Of course, those cartels exist primarily on the export market to the US ...

12/20/2012 01:56:07 PM · #908

Originally posted by GeneralE:

But, doesn't Mexico have fairly restrictive firearms regulations?

ETA: To be fair, the cartel has been known to save ammo by utilizing chainsaws and other tools - so we can't really blame all of this on the guns.

Message edited by author 2012-12-20 13:57:53.

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

12/20/2012 02:02:01 PM · #909

I didn't intend that as an argument one way or the other regarding legal arms availability to the general population, but rather to note the problem of the lack of effective regulation of legal gun purchases in the US leading to easy (illegal) diversion of weapons, and the resultant deaths of innocent civilians, regardless of where they are.

12/20/2012 02:06:47 PM · #910

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Oh I agree. Of course, we've got something like a 200 year supply of weapons available if all production was halted tomorrow.

So does the question really become "are we willing to suffer 200 years of imbalance of power between the criminal element and the citizens in order to deter a few thousand deaths a year?"

I just can't see any way that this could work well given the HUGE number of weapons in circulation.. (as someone pointed out earlier - one for every man, woman, and child alive today in the US)...

Seems to me that y'all are forgetting that you can't just make all of those weapons disappear over night. I'm all for a solution, I just want it to be one that has some reasonable chance of being effective.

12/20/2012 02:09:24 PM · #911

I just want to prepared for the worst.... oh and if the citizens of mexico were armed the drug cartels might keep to themselves more....

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

12/20/2012 02:14:39 PM · #912

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

I just want to prepared for the worst.... oh and if the citizens of mexico were armed the drug cartels might keep to themselves more....

You really think civilians would win out in a firefight with gangsters?

12/20/2012 02:17:37 PM · #913

It's a case of numbers....The civillians far outweigh the cartels with numbers...The civillians would have to stand up and fight though.

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

12/20/2012 02:20:33 PM · #914

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

It's a case of numbers....The civillians far outweigh the cartels with numbers...The civillians would have to stand up and fight though.

If you're going to make our streets a war zone then we're no longer civilians, but draftees ...

12/20/2012 02:25:00 PM · #915

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I just want to prepared for the worst.... oh and if the citizens of mexico were armed the drug cartels might keep to themselves more....

You really think civilians would win out in a firefight with gangsters?

Honest answer? Yes, although I'm thinking the advantage is to the cartels.

I've watched a few videos of them in action, and have studied their tactics. I'd say they are moderately organized, and able to execute a plan with some semblance of efficiency, but they really are still pretty loose in terms of organization.

I expect an unexpected assault from an armed citizen who was flanking them would probably have the effect of causing sufficient confusion to disrupt their organization, and would then be quite likely to even the ground somewhat.

Of course, then there would still be the problem of being a lone citizen engaging ten or more targets - darn hard to do with any real effectiveness, given what firearms are legal to own in Mexico.

So a chance? Yes.. But not a good chance. -

Of course, the real question, I think, is "Would an unexpected assault on a team operating in the field be likely to disrupt the operation sufficiently to ensure their failure to achieve their objective?"

I think the answer to that is a pretty solid yes.

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

12/20/2012 02:37:31 PM · #916

So, you posit a posse of vigilante civilians is going to locate and ambush a population of drug thugs, where the police and army have been unable to. I think you've been watching to many Bruce Willis or Sylvester Stallone movies ...

Of course, we could eliminate most of the problem by returning the production of cocaine, heroin and amphetamines back to our friends in big pharma and letting doctors prescribe them as needed, and see if the cartels can compete with Pfizer ...

12/20/2012 02:45:26 PM · #917

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Are you kidding?? Alot of the cops work for the cartels....The corruption is enourmous

12/20/2012 02:49:29 PM · #918

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Not at all. I was more envisioning that the shop owner or resident would see the shit going down in front of their home or business and would react.

It would be completely unreasonable to think that anyone is going to locate and ambush these groups. Which is why the idea of armed citizen is attractive in the first place - they're already there, no need for them to locate or ambush.

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

12/20/2012 02:50:45 PM · #919

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

Are you kidding?? Alot of the cops work for the cartels....The corruption is enourmous

And many of the thugs are Army deserters/retirees ... I'me sure the pay is better, though I don't know about working conditions.
*****
ETA: I recommend listening to today's episode of Fresh Air: Assault-Style Weapons In The Civilian Market
Be careful, the interview is long on facts and short on (though not totally devoid of) opinions ... audio streaming and podcast download should be available now, and a transcript later this evening.

Originally posted by program summary:

On how the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban defined a semi-automatic weapon

It defined a semi-automatic assault weapon in terms of a gun that had at least two of certain features. One of them was the actual crucial feature, which is the ability to take a high capacity magazine. ... The others were ... almost decorative features that were on these guns, such as a bayonet mount, which means you could put a bayonet on the gun; a thing called a ... flash hider, which means that the flash from the barrel of the gun is less observable; a stock in the rear that could be extended or shortened. ... The requirement that you have at least two of those meant that gun manufactures could say, 'Aha, we can keep the ability to take the high capacity magazine and just knock off the rest of these bells and whistles [and] we still have essentially the same gun, ... but it's now federally legal. And that's what Bushmaster figured out. They actually rose to prominence after the 1994 semi-automatic assault weapons ban because they took off all the truly irrelevant bells and whistles and just produced a basic gun."

What hunter or target shooter needs a 50-caliber sniper rifle, complete with armor-piercing (that's penetrating 1" steel at 1000 yards) ammunition? (One of the items supposedly available to the US public.)

However, what I find really interesting is how the ATF has been prohibited from publishing statistics on firearms use/sales, and how the CDC is prohibited from conducting or funding any studies on the public health impact of gun violence. My skepticism for any argument goes up any time its proponents try to conceal the facts ...

Message edited by author 2012-12-20 17:05:04.

Spork99

OM System OM-1

Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro

12/20/2012 08:44:20 PM · #920

Originally posted by GeneralE:

For one, .50 BMG rifles run about $10,000 and ammo is about $6 every pull of the trigger, so it's way beyond what most people are willing to spend. Second, there's a whole subculture of specialist long range target shooters and that's exactly what they do; shoot little targets from 1000, 2000m and beyond. It's extremely difficult and requires a great deal of skill and familiarity with themselves and gun. Also, these guns are huge and heavy, most weighing in around 30lb, To fire the thing, you set the gun down and lay down behind it. It's not something you can fire from any position other than prone and certainly not something someone is going to use to knock of a liquor store or hold up a bank

Qiki

Fujifilm X100T

Pentax DA 70mm f/2.4 Limited

12/20/2012 09:03:16 PM · #921

Originally posted by Spork99:

For one, .50 BMG rifles run about $10,000 and ammo is about $6 every pull of the trigger, so it's way beyond what most people are willing to spend.

Oh, that's OK then - 'don't worry about weapons like these coz they're too expensive to be misused'. Maybe that's the closest thing to gun control the US will ever see.

blindjustice

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

12/20/2012 09:06:11 PM · #922

ah, make them more expensive. bullet control