This is scary - DPChallenge Forums

04/04/2013 04:29:04 PM · #26

Originally posted by Ann:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Ann:

The point of banning the high capacity magazines is to stop mass shootings. One article I read said that most mass shootings are stopped when someone tackles the shooter, which is much easier to do when the shooter pauses to reload.

This seems to make sense, but I've seen tests posted on YouTube where the same number of rounds are fired using one clip, two clips and four clips. The difference was mere seconds. Good luck with getting your tackle in.

That's all it takes if you're nearby. Think Gabby Giffords. My understanding from reading the article was that scenario (someone clubbed him over the head with a folding chair when he went to reload) is more common than not. It probably didn't hurt that he dropped the magazine when he was reloading.

I'd like to find that article again. I found it when we were discussing guns in that other thread, but now, every search I can think of brings up articles that are incredibly one sided (on both sides). But if I recall the study correctly, they looked at a bunch of public shootings where the shooter either shot 4 or more people (the FBI definition of a mass shooting), or it looked like he was planning to keep shooting, but was stopped. Something like 1.5% were stopped by another shooter. The majority of the rest were stopped by an unarmed nearby bystander.

I'm not against banning high capacity clips if for no other reason than to let the NRA know they are not all powerful, but my feeling is that if we had a graph charting the number of shootings and number of people killed for the period ten years before such a ban and ten years after the two periods of time would be indistinguishable. (Of course that's my own hunch.)

04/04/2013 04:31:39 PM · #27

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I think it is comical when Obama calls for a common sense approach to gun control.....If his proposal had common sense maybe more people would agree with him

i find it comical that you continue to blame Obama and liberals, its not their fault, its both parties fault. All politician rarely take the common sense approach, the knee jerk reaction to calm their constituents is the preferred course.

in reality Obama's programs are probably the way to approach it, if most crime is a function of poverty, why not try to reduce poverty.

The govmt giving money to people in poverty is not the way to end poverty. That just sends everybody to poverty.

04/04/2013 04:34:51 PM · #28

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

What freedoms did Bush take??? If he did I dont remember.

Try the Patriot Act, for one. Eviscerated a few constitutional rights for the sake of "public safety". Or don't you remember that?

04/04/2013 04:38:57 PM · #29

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
What freedoms did Bush take??? If he did I dont remember.

Try the Patriot Act, for one. Eviscerated a few constitutional rights for the sake of "public safety". Or don't you remember that?

I think you just yanko'd Cory...

04/04/2013 04:48:32 PM · #30

Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:

Originally posted by Ann:
The point of banning the high capacity magazines is to stop mass shootings. One article I read said that most mass shootings are stopped when someone tackles the shooter, which is much easier to do when the shooter pauses to reload.

And it would be even easier to take him down if he had some other weapon besides a gun.

How to allow "responsible gun owners" to have their toys while keeping them out of the hands of the nut jobs is the problem I am seeing. Banning guns is unrealistic. It won't happen in in the US, and I do agree if it did happen, it would make crime easier. The problem I see is that many of the mass shooting have been done by people who were "responsible gun owners". Until they snapped. Or stole the guns from someone who was "responsible".

Might I point out that you actually don't ever want to attempt to tackle a guy with a knife. Simply too dangerous - that's what guns are for.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

04/04/2013 04:48:54 PM · #31

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I think you just yanko'd Cory...

And how! :) rofl!

Message edited by author 2013-04-04 16:49:03.

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

04/04/2013 04:52:09 PM · #32

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

I think it is comical when Obama calls for a common sense approach to gun control.....If his proposal had common sense maybe more people would agree with him

Last I heard, 90 percent agreed with him regarding expanded background checks, and over 70 percent agreed with several of his other proposals. Must be lots of common sense there, then, don't ya think?

04/04/2013 04:57:35 PM · #33

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I think it is comical when Obama calls for a common sense approach to gun control.....If his proposal had common sense maybe more people would agree with him

Last I heard, 90 percent agreed with him regarding expanded background checks, and over 70 percent agreed with several of his other proposals. Must be lots of common sense there, then, don't ya think?

Sure is!

The problem is that it's like using the finest ingredients for the crust on a goatshit-pie - I don't care how sensible the thing might look when you glance at the surface, if it's filled with crap and just wrapped in a sensible looking crust, then we only find out just how horrible the recipe was once we take our first big bite.

Moral of the story: Agree to buy on superficial qualities without paying careful attention to the hidden parts, and you're likely to find that delicious and sensible looking item was stuffed full of shit.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

04/04/2013 05:00:55 PM · #34

well put cory

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

04/04/2013 05:02:14 PM · #35

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I think it is comical when Obama calls for a common sense approach to gun control.....If his proposal had common sense maybe more people would agree with him

Last I heard, 90 percent agreed with him regarding expanded background checks, and over 70 percent agreed with several of his other proposals. Must be lots of common sense there, then, don't ya think?

Sure is!

The problem is that it's like using the finest ingredients for the crust on a goatshit-pie - I don't care how sensible the thing might look when you glance at the surface, if it's filled with crap and just wrapped in a sensible looking crust, then we only find out just how horrible the recipe was once we take our first big bite.

Moral of the story: Agree to buy on superficial qualities without paying careful attention to the hidden parts, and you're likely to find that delicious and sensible looking item was stuffed full of shit.

lol! So I assume you don't like the background check proposal? :-)

04/04/2013 05:11:08 PM · #36

There is already an FBI background check when you purchase a firearm. If something comes up...like a criminal history etc. they put you on hold for a closer look. I am highly against having to register my firearms for a master list at the federal level. That just gives them a list to make it easier to go door to door and TRY to confiscate everyones weapons in the future.

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

04/04/2013 05:12:16 PM · #37

I saw this in an article and it is very true..

When the principle architect of the ban on large-capacity magazines and clips does not understand the mechanics behind a central criticism of her plan â�� that the huge number of such devices already in existence negates much of the purported benefit â�� it becomes harder for Democrats to claim they are operating from â��common sense.â��

Judith Polakoff

Nikon D7000

04/04/2013 05:23:20 PM · #38

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

I'm quite sure you're aware of the fact that there isn't always an FBI background check with every sale of a firearm...

Olympus 12-40mm f/2.8 Pro

04/04/2013 05:39:45 PM · #39

If it is purchased at a store...you have a background check. If I sell to a friend...no there is not... I also know that in Louisiana at gun shows you also have to have a background check.

eta. It is also illegal to sell a weapon in another state that the state of your residence without 1st going to an FFL dealer.

Message edited by author 2013-04-04 17:41:30.

Ann

Olympus OM-D E-M1

04/04/2013 06:37:12 PM · #40

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

I agree with you, because the number of people killed in mass shootings is a blip in the overall gun death numbers. The vast majority of gun deaths aren't public mass shootings, and don't make the news. They're so common that the media doesn't pay attention. If we're serious about reducing gun deaths in this country, a good first step would be to publicly fund studies that treat gun violence as a public health issue. 20% of the deaths of school age kids are caused by guns. That sounds to me like a public health issue. Right now, we don't have any idea what works against gun violence and what doesn't, because nobody is studying it.

If you compare, guns kill about as many kids as cars do. For cars, we have all sorts of laws about car safety, mandatory liability insurance requirements, seat belt and child safety seat laws, federally mandated recalls for safety problems, driver licensing requirements, road safety rules, minimum driving ages, graduated drivers licenses for young drivers, increasingly strict laws about drunk driving, etc, etc, etc. For guns, we have....we have...some background checks, and...the occasional underfunded buyback program, and some trigger lock giveaways, and....and.....okay, I'm stumped. What do we have?

04/04/2013 06:58:54 PM · #41

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I think it is comical when Obama calls for a common sense approach to gun control.....If his proposal had common sense maybe more people would agree with him

Last I heard, 90 percent agreed with him regarding expanded background checks, and over 70 percent agreed with several of his other proposals. Must be lots of common sense there, then, don't ya think?

Sure is!

The problem is that it's like using the finest ingredients for the crust on a goatshit-pie - I don't care how sensible the thing might look when you glance at the surface, if it's filled with crap and just wrapped in a sensible looking crust, then we only find out just how horrible the recipe was once we take our first big bite.

Moral of the story: Agree to buy on superficial qualities without paying careful attention to the hidden parts, and you're likely to find that delicious and sensible looking item was stuffed full of shit.

lol! So I assume you don't like the background check proposal? :-)

Oh no, you've misunderstood me I'm afraid.

I don't mind an expanded background check, or at least a more effective one. What I mind is all the ill-informed mess that will be wrapped up with it.

04/04/2013 07:05:20 PM · #42

Originally posted by Ann:

If you compare, guns kill about as many kids as cars do. For cars, we have all sorts of laws about car safety, mandatory liability insurance requirements, seat belt and child safety seat laws, federally mandated recalls for safety problems, driver licensing requirements, road safety rules, minimum driving ages, graduated drivers licenses for young drivers, increasingly strict laws about drunk driving, etc, etc, etc. For guns, we have....we have...some background checks, and...the occasional underfunded buyback program, and some trigger lock giveaways, and....and.....okay, I'm stumped. What do we have?

You can't really be this silly.

We do have safety rules, minimum ages (21 for a pistol in fact), licenses in some states, and CCW licenses are required if you don't want to wear it openly (a bad idea generally), we also need to consider the fact that while you can have a seatbelt in a car, they aren't really the same thing - guns aren't blasting around at 75mph with human occupants, and they aren't complex machines that need safety equipment to protect the user from the device - what you're comparing is nearly incompatible given that the level of regulation and types of regulation need to be quite different for each. Besides, seatbelts and airbags won't make a bit of difference to you if you're on the outside of the car - and I don't think I've heard of anyone riding about inside of their guns, outside of the Navy anyway.

The only real valid comparison is to say that both are dangerous in the wrong hands, no matter what laws are passed.

04/04/2013 07:26:19 PM · #43

Originally posted by Cory:

I don't think I've heard of anyone riding about inside of their guns, outside of the Navy anyway.

Not to be pedantic, but... How about tanks? :-)

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG HSM for Nikon

04/04/2013 07:46:22 PM · #44

Finally some gun legislation that makes sense

bohemka

Nikon D700

04/04/2013 07:56:27 PM · #45

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

Finally some gun legislation that makes sense

From that article...

Originally posted by Indiana bill sponsor Rep. Jim Lucas:

"I've been approached by several teachers that would love the ability to have their natural right to self-defense recognized and would gladly do this without being paid."

Quite frankly the thought of teachers champing at the bit to take guns to school scares the hell out of me. I can get behind an armed police officer at every school, but teachers walking around the halls with weapons?

04/04/2013 08:13:33 PM · #46

Originally posted by Ann:

20% of the deaths of school age kids are caused by guns.

You have to quote me the source of this because I'm not sure that's the truth. It also sounds potentially worse than it is because so few school aged childred die.

I'm just quibbling though. I don't disagree with your larger point.

04/04/2013 08:13:36 PM · #47

Originally posted by bohemka:

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
Finally some gun legislation that makes sense

From that article...

Originally posted by Indiana bill sponsor Rep. Jim Lucas:
"I've been approached by several teachers that would love the ability to have their natural right to self-defense recognized and would gladly do this without being paid."

Quite frankly the thought of teachers champing at the bit to take guns to school scares the hell out of me. I can get behind an armed police officer at every school, but teachers walking around the halls with weapons?

Yeah... This raises the specter of some gang-banger "tough" kids pushing a teacher too far, and an ensuing gun battle in the hallways :-(

04/04/2013 08:18:10 PM · #48

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Ann:
20% of the deaths of school age kids are caused by guns.

You have to quote me the source of this because I'm not sure that's the truth. It also sounds potentially worse than it is because so few school aged childred die.

I'm just quibbling though. I don't disagree with your larger point.

No percentages here, but:

"In 2011, guns were used to murder 8,583 people living in the U.S., according to the most recent FBI data available. Among those murdered by guns, there were 565 young people under the age of 18, and 119 children ages 12 or younger -- the latter number nearly equivalent to six Newtown mass shootings. And these figures include only homicides."

//www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/child-gun-deaths-newtown_n_2347920.html

04/04/2013 08:32:30 PM · #49

The trouble is the CDC has a 15-24 age group which contains some high schoolers and some adults. That's why I can't get at the numbers. But in the groups that are purely school age kids (age 5-14), the homicide rate is about 6% of deaths (261 total). Of course not all those are guns and I don't know if we count suicide and how many of the "unitentional injury" are from firearms. I'm just generally skeptical of round numbers thrown out like that. 72% of the time they are wrong... ;P

But, again, this is just kvetching like we are apt to do in Rant...

Message edited by author 2013-04-04 20:34:39.