| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/04/2013 08:33:33 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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? :-) |
Fair enough... They might benefit from airbags and seatbelts I suppose. ;)
Still more dangerous to those outside in any case. ;)
DAILY DOUBLE!
Message edited by author 2013-04-04 20:33:46. |
|
|
|
04/04/2013 08:35:27 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
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 :-( |
Well, I suppose someone has to do it. ;)
This really does illustrate the problem pretty well though - when the tough-wannabe gangbanger starts shooting, would you prefer to be the teacher with, or without, a gun? |
|
|
|
04/04/2013 08:40:24 PM · #53 |
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. |
My apologies, I remembered the stats wrong. Only about 6% of kids who died of all causes in 2007 were killed by guns. What I was remembering was that about 20% of the kids who didn't die of natural causes were killed by guns. Which is actually true.
|
|
|
|
04/04/2013 08:44:35 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Cory:
This really does illustrate the problem pretty well though - when the tough-wannabe gangbanger starts shooting, would you prefer to be the teacher with, or without, a gun? |
Dunno, but I'm pretty sure I don't want the wannabe gangbanger to have a large magazine. |
|
|
|
04/04/2013 09:24:16 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by Cory:
This really does illustrate the problem pretty well though - when the tough-wannabe gangbanger starts shooting, would you prefer to be the teacher with, or without, a gun? |
You're reading my scenario all wrong. In my scenario, I see the gangbangers acting tough and pushing kids around and generally acting like assholes, and the TEACHER feeling threatened and pulling a gun and letting fly. Self-defense, don'tcha know? Do we really wanna go there?
Once you start arming the teachers, testosterone takes over the gangster population and things spiral out of control. That's MY prediction. YMMV |
|
|
|
04/04/2013 09:43:07 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by Cory:
This really does illustrate the problem pretty well though - when the tough-wannabe gangbanger starts shooting, would you prefer to be the teacher with, or without, a gun? |
Dunno, but I'm pretty sure I don't want the wannabe gangbanger to have a large magazine. |
Two facts here:
1. My magazines hold between 7 and 25 rounds.
2. I only need 1 of those to be effective.
..
Additional fact:
I can switch mags out in about 1 second, even on a bad day. |
|
|
|
04/04/2013 09:48:30 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by Cory:
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. |
interesting fact, if you look at driver fatalities by year, they spike down drastically when the economy in in the toilet or when gas prices shoot up, i.e. when less people drive.
its has a profound effect, more than any safety feature implemented does.
Message edited by author 2013-04-04 21:49:25. |
|
|
|
04/04/2013 10:58:23 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I dont want to live anyplace that enjoys taking away freedoms and make the citizens more dependant on the govmt. Colorado used to be sensible....I also would not be happy in New York or California. |
You should move to Canada... you would love it here, why gay marriages have been legal here for many years... how is that for being open minded. :O)
Ray |
|
|
|
04/05/2013 02:02:19 AM · #59 |
I find it sad that this is what has gun rights advocates upset.
The fact that legislation crippling existing and future gun enforcment was slipped into the continuing resolution to fund our federal government until September. Anonymously. Basically a hidden member of congress put a poison pill in an essential piece of legislation, a rider totally unrelated to the bill which will:
Limit ATF’s ability to manage its own data in a modern and efficient manner, and strip the agency of autonomy and its ability to make independent decisions.
Interfere with the disclosure and use of data crucial to law enforcement and gun-trafficking research
Frustrate efforts to regulate and oversee firearms dealers
Stifle public health research into gun-related injuries and fatalities
Link Link Link
I keep hearing "Don't pass new laws, enforce the ones on the books" But here we have new laws, only they weaken the enforcement of the laws on the books. Those who live in fear of the government seizing their guns seem to have no issue with crippling the government's ability to enforce existing laws, in fact getting guns into as many hands as possible seems to be the goal. Who cares if they are the hands of criminals or not, just as long as the law enforcement agencies can do nothing about it. I guess as long as you have enough guns, others with a gun will be no threat. The law of the jungle is the only law we need.
You are shocked that a Colorado Congress person can't tell the difference between a magazine and a bullet? That scares you? How about a guy in Florida who claims he can "switch mags out in about 1 second, even on a bad day"? He clearly is confused about how you load a magazine, or how long a second is. But don't worry, as long as the NRA owns some secret member of congress, we will never be able to reduce the number of Americans who are killed by our insane gun policy.
Message edited by author 2013-04-05 05:29:54. |
|
|
|
04/05/2013 04:33:59 AM · #60 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
interesting fact, if you look at driver fatalities by year, they spike down drastically when the economy in in the toilet or when gas prices shoot up, i.e. when less people drive.
its has a profound effect, more than any safety feature implemented does. |
Gee, interesting "fact". Sure fatalities ebb and flow with miles traveled to some very small extent, but mandated safety features are a vastly more important arbiter of fatalities than the economy.
Look at US automobile fatalities per capita since 1966. See that steadily falling leg of the chart? In 1966 the The United States Department of Transportation was created. They forced seat belts to be included in every car sold in the United States. Then they made crash testing standards. Then the kept raising the bar on minimum safety.
50,000 people killed in automotive fatalities in 1966, 25,000 killed in 2011. That is half as many deaths as an absolute number. Between 1966 and now the number of cars on the road has gone up about roughly 3.5 million cars per year. So in 1966 we had about 1/4 as many cars on the road as we do now, with twice as many fatalities. As far as miles we Americans drive per year, it was 1.1 trillion in 1970, and it is 3 trillion today. 3 times the miles, 4 times the cars, half as many deaths.
Simply put, since government got involved in dictating to manufacturers what safety features they had to put in any car sold in the US, the cars we drive are much, much safer
Message edited by author 2013-04-05 04:36:25. |
|
|
|
04/05/2013 08:00:09 AM · #61 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
You are shocked that a Colorado Congress person can't tell the difference between a magazine and a bullet? That scares you? How about a guy in Florida who claims he can "switch mags out in about 1 second, even on a bad day"? He clearly is confused about how you load a magazine, or how long a second is. But don't worry, as long as the NRA owns some secret member of congress, we will never be able to reduce the number of Americans who are killed by our insane gun policy. |
Yep.. I'm totally confused. ROFL. Please, share your superior knowledge, and tell me what I've been doing wrong when I switch out mags, have I been failing to lick them properly or something?
Honestly, I'd make a video to prove it, but you'd probably take it as a personal threat, or something silly like that. For what it's worth, I know precisely how long a second is, and in truth it's a damned long time, especially when you're talking about a move you've trained on until it has become reflex. Now honestly, I might have been a little stingy with one second on a bad day, but let's just say on a great switch it's absolutely less than a second, and on my worst day it's not over three or four seconds.
Of course, beyond these small points - I find it telling that you're more afraid of my ability to change a mag out, and my apparent complete lack of knowledge about guns, than you are of ignorance in those who legislate. The foolishness of this position is astonishing.
Oh, and if you'd been paying attention, you would have known that I'm not in Florida anymore dude.
Besides all of that, do you really think I want criminals to have guns, are you that thick? The entire point is that there are guns in the fucking prisons - and you really think we can keep them off the streets?
Do you honestly think more than 10% of criminals stop to think, for even one second, about what the laws or consequences are? Hell no, and why? Because if they thought they'd be caught, they wouldn't commit the crime.
Message edited by author 2013-04-05 08:15:19. |
|
|
|
04/05/2013 08:12:11 AM · #62 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by mike_311:
interesting fact, if you look at driver fatalities by year, they spike down drastically when the economy in in the toilet or when gas prices shoot up, i.e. when less people drive.
its has a profound effect, more than any safety feature implemented does. |
Gee, interesting "fact". Sure fatalities ebb and flow with miles traveled to some very small extent, but mandated safety features are a vastly more important arbiter of fatalities than the economy.
Look at US automobile fatalities per capita since 1966. See that steadily falling leg of the chart? In 1966 the The United States Department of Transportation was created. They forced seat belts to be included in every car sold in the United States. Then they made crash testing standards. Then the kept raising the bar on minimum safety.
50,000 people killed in automotive fatalities in 1966, 25,000 killed in 2011. That is half as many deaths as an absolute number. Between 1966 and now the number of cars on the road has gone up about roughly 3.5 million cars per year. So in 1966 we had about 1/4 as many cars on the road as we do now, with twice as many fatalities. As far as miles we Americans drive per year, it was 1.1 trillion in 1970, and it is 3 trillion today. 3 times the miles, 4 times the cars, half as many deaths.
Simply put, since government got involved in dictating to manufacturers what safety features they had to put in any car sold in the US, the cars we drive are much, much safer |
Ahh, I see - you just like to cavil. Mike was actually arguing for your side of this if I understood him - he was saying that fewer cars = fewer deaths, which is exactly the argument you're making about guns.
The problem with this is that people usually kill each other with cars via inattention and carelessness. People kill each other with guns much more intentionally - so the accident avoidance aspect is less useful when it comes to guns (not that accidents don't happen, but when they do it's usually because someone wasn't using the safety equipment.)..
So, I can see you're a believer in the government's abilities. I just have to ask - how well do you think most government agencies operate? (TSA, the DEA, the ATF, local Police, etc)
Do you really think you should be fully dependent upon these people for your protection? Hell they'll readily admit that stopping crime isn't really their job - their job is to document and punish crime. |
|
|
|
04/05/2013 08:22:37 AM · #63 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
The fact that legislation crippling existing and future gun enforcment was slipped into the continuing resolution to fund our federal government until September. Anonymously. Basically a hidden member of congress put a poison pill in an essential piece of legislation, a rider totally unrelated to the bill which will:
...
I keep hearing "Don't pass new laws, enforce the ones on the books" But here we have new laws, only they weaken the enforcement of the laws on the books. Those who live in fear of the government seizing their guns seem to have no issue with crippling the government's ability to enforce existing laws, in fact getting guns into as many hands as possible seems to be the goal. Who cares if they are the hands of criminals or not, just as long as the law enforcement agencies can do nothing about it. I guess as long as you have enough guns, others with a gun will be no threat. The law of the jungle is the only law we need. |
And to dispense with the meat of your argument- are you really saying that you think the government you're talking about above will fix anything?
Clearly they can't make a single move without stepping on their own feet - and you want to place this onus upon them? Really? Surely you MUST be able to see just how poorly they perform at everything else, what makes you think they'll succeed with this, given that they rarely get anything right?
Just to put some icing on this - I just read a very interesting article, apparently James Holmes' psychiatrist warned the police that he was a danger to the public and had been making homicidal comments.
So, THEY KNEW HE WAS A SIGNIFICANT THREAT A FULL MONTH BEFORE HE WENT ON THAT RAMPAGE! Tell me again, why do you think these people should be trusted to be my only line of defense? Remind me why you think they are so damned great? Seems to me that they aren't really very good at preventing crime at all.
Message edited by author 2013-04-05 08:31:01. |
|
|
|
04/05/2013 08:42:30 AM · #64 |
| "Guns don't kill people, cars do" is the Godwin's Law of gun threads. |
|
|
|
04/05/2013 09:05:43 AM · #65 |
Originally posted by JH:
"Guns don't kill people, cars do" is the Godwin's Law of gun threads. |
Heh.. There is some valid comparison to be made, but yeah, unfortunately it really has become the new Godwin hasn't it?
But since you've postulated this, it should be known as Johnwin's Law. ;) |
|
|
|
04/05/2013 11:42:33 AM · #66 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
...who claims he can "switch mags out in about 1 second... |
No idea about Cory, but this is the video that I had seen comparing firing rates with smaller magazines and larger ones. If you want to skip to the fun you can see at 2:26 that he changes a clip in just over one second (let's call it two seconds). I can nitpick with some smaller details of the experiment, but it did make me think that high capacity clip bans are a small part of the solution at best.
YouTube clip |
|
|
|
04/05/2013 11:50:12 AM · #67 |
Nice post Doc... Skip to the 7:00 mark to see what a completely incompetent shooter's scores look like.
Even she was slapping clips in under three seconds.
I mean, how hard do people think it is to insert a mag?
Does it take you two minutes to put your key in the door? That's harder than inserting a magazine, no doubt. |
|
|
|
04/05/2013 11:51:50 AM · #68 |
Also, the 9:00 mark shows exactly how stupid the idea of trying to tackle a shooter is when he reloads..
And he's using my gun at the 12:00 mark.
7 round clips, 21 shots, on target - 9 seconds.
ETA: Just to be clear, why, after seeing this, would you even say they are a part of the solution?
Clearly they make almost no difference, and they greatly increase the fun factor when shooting - so tell my why you want to take away my toys again? Given that it won't make any meaningful difference in an active-shooter type situation, it seems that you'd be happy to take any small bit of our gun rights away, no matter what the real value of doing so.
Forgive me, but it just seems insane that after seeing this you'd still support such a non-sense measure.
By the way, skip to the end, and you can see what effect fully banning semi-auto weapons would have. (the answer is none at all BTW..)
Message edited by author 2013-04-05 12:04:24. |
|
|
|
04/05/2013 12:01:06 PM · #69 |
| You guys DO realize that magazine-swapping under such controlled conditions on a range is a far cry from doing same in action, from a pocket, while the adrenaline's blazing away? |
|
|
|
04/05/2013 12:01:31 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I mean, how hard do people think it is to insert a mag?
Does it take you two minutes to put your key in the door? That's harder than inserting a magazine, no doubt. |
To repeat a fact that has probably been stated dozens of times already, the Arizona shooter dropped the magazine, which allowed people to react and stop him shooting some more. So the fewer bullets he'd had in the first round, the fewer deaths and injuries would have resulted; and the more he's forced to reload, the greater the opportunity to get away or stop him. Pretty simple. |
|
|
|
04/05/2013 12:04:17 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Tell me again, why do you think these people should be trusted to be my only line of defense? (emphasis added) |
The thing that scares me is that we can't dispense with the false arguments.... |
|
|
|
04/05/2013 12:05:24 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Cory:
Tell me again, why do you think these people should be trusted to be my only line of defense? (emphasis added) |
The thing that scares me is that we can't dispense with the false arguments.... |
How is this a false argument?
Do you think the cops are there to prevent crime? Or do you understand that they only show up once the crime has been committed? |
|
|
|
04/05/2013 12:08:00 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You guys DO realize that magazine-swapping under such controlled conditions on a range is a far cry from doing same in action, from a pocket, while the adrenaline's blazing away? |
True. And this was part of my nitpicking (also it doesn't simulate a mobile shooter who has clips in his pocket instead of on a barrell in front of him). BUT, it did open my eyes. I used to be all gung ho for banning high capacity clips because it seemed to make sense, but now I'm more lukewarm about it being some important "part of the solution". Universal background checks are, I think, the biggest bang for our buck and make the most sense. All the rest of this stuff is window dressing. |
|
|
|
04/05/2013 12:12:32 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I mean, how hard do people think it is to insert a mag?
Does it take you two minutes to put your key in the door? That's harder than inserting a magazine, no doubt. |
And if it's so easy, then why do you care? All this complaining because it's going to be slightly more inconvenient for you to reload while you're playing with your gun? |
|
|
|
04/05/2013 12:16:24 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Cory:
I mean, how hard do people think it is to insert a mag?
Does it take you two minutes to put your key in the door? That's harder than inserting a magazine, no doubt. |
And if it's so easy, then why do you care? All this complaining because it's going to be slightly more inconvenient for you to reload while you're playing with your gun? |
Damn right. All this argument because you are trying to do something, to which I object for various reasons, without any logical reason at all.
In other words you want me to lose something that matters to me (even if only a little), so that you can gain something that means nothing at all to you.
Seems like there's some similarity to a school-yard bully who smashes other kids toys just to watch them cry. |
|
