This is scary - DPChallenge Forums

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

04/05/2013 12:23:13 PM · #76

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?

Absolutely true BTW.

..

Let's go back to the genesis of all of this BS though - what are we trying to prevent?

I understood it that we were trying to prevent mass shootings - funny enough, the system failed many times in each of these cases, every time there were opportunities to stop this from happening, sometimes more obvious, sometimes less obvious.

This is a system that already has multiple layers that are supposed to catch and prevent this type of thing, and yet you folks seem to think adding another layer to the system will ensure that it somehow will magically start working.

Explain that logic to me, maybe that's where I'm falling down on the whole thing, as it just seems entirely insensible to me.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

04/05/2013 12:47:40 PM · #77

So your argument is that since the safeguards built into the system have failed to prevent gun violence, there's no point in even TRYING to control or regulate the guns themselves? That's what it's boiling down to. And bear in mind that the system is so badly warped right now by pro-gun lobbying in congress that we're not even allowed to keep STATS on guns and share them among the different arms of law enforcement.

"The systems F*CKED, people! Arm yourselves to the teeth, it's the only rational response!"

Message edited by author 2013-04-05 12:48:08.

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

04/05/2013 01:08:14 PM · #78

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Yeah, that's pretty much the idea, at least up the the conclusion.

If a system is not working, rarely does piling on more shit make it start working.

In fact, that's what we do with government all the time - just add more layers hoping it'll get magically better.

I don't really advocate arming everyone "to the teeth", but I do very much think I should be able to own a 30 round clip, and a semi-automatic weapon, they're both about as relevant as the color of cars involved in accidents when it comes to these mass shootings anyway.

As for a solution? Figure out what's wrong with society and why so many people are so fucked up. Until we've done that the violence will continue unabated - and I choose to arm myself knowing that it's not likely to make a difference, but knowing that it could.

It's a bit like arguing about mandatory seat-belt laws and airbags when there are a huge number of drivers who drive around at 150MPH. I don't really care what sort of seat-belts and airbags are installed, if there are cars with a delta-V of more than 100MPH the seat-belts simply don't matter, and it won't make a bit of difference in terms of overall survivability. Instead, it's probably smarter to figure out a way to slow down the people who insist on driving their car too fast..

Yet, even if there were people on the road going WAY too fast to make a seatbelt effective, I'd still wear mine, knowing that it could help. The thing is, I would never argue that we should make it illegal to own a car over 50HP, since there are MANY reasons why people need and want cars with more power. Sure, they can be used in a very dangerous way, but that's why we punish people who drive in a dangerous manner.

Like it or not, every one of these guys showed a huge number of warning signs, and in Holmes' case, those signs were even reported to law enforcement by a mental health professional. That was the single point where this could have been stopped, the single moment when history could have been changed. But the system failed.

Even if we had no guns available, I have a strong suspicion that this fellow wouldn't have simply given up due to that minor inconvenience. If you'll remember, he was apparently also talented with explosives to some degree, and was obviously more than intelligent enough to enact any plan that he might have come up with.

Lesson? I'm not even sure there is one, but if there is, it's something about the fact that the weapons don't matter nearly as much as the persons, and trying to solve the problem by nipping away at my ability to enjoy life is a shit approach.

Just imagine the reductio absurdum, since all obese people eat too many calories, and since calorie dense foods are clearly a huge part of their diet, perhaps we should ban all high calorie foods, such as Meat, Cheeses, and Pastry items, along with the obvious killers like Pizza.

Would you support someone who wanted to take away your ability to purchase or make pizza because some people are unable to control their eating?

Message edited by author 2013-04-05 13:17:55.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

04/05/2013 01:14:42 PM · #79

Originally posted by Cory:

Lesson? I'm not even sure there is one, but if there is, it's something about the fact that the weapons don't matter nearly as much as the persons.

Nevertheless, we're the most heavily-armed industrial nation around, and our gun-violence rates are the highest of any of our peers. Surely that correlation should give one pause?

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/05/2013 01:25:22 PM · #80

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Cory:

Lesson? I'm not even sure there is one, but if there is, it's something about the fact that the weapons don't matter nearly as much as the persons.

Nevertheless, we're the most heavily-armed industrial nation around, and our gun-violence rates are the highest of any of our peers. Surely that correlation should give one pause?

Surely it should. But it's important to recognize that our overall violence rates are very high.

Again, if you go to a country where trucks are popular, and the roads are dangerous, and then conclude that all would be well if only trucks were banned, then you're tracking down the wrong path of logic.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

04/05/2013 01:29:26 PM · #81

The OP was referencing a lawmaker who "simply misspoke", then you claimed that you can reload a clip in under a second. A minor overstatement. 2-4 seconds off a gun range table, sure that I believe, on a good day. But we should not assume you know nothing of guns for making it, yet that was the point of the article.According to the original article it seems if you make an error in speech or writing you are not competent to hold an opinion. If saying clip for bullet makes you "appear(s) not to understand how guns work," would not your minor mistake make you as ignorant? Or is your error totally forgivable as a small overstatement, while the error of the Colorado Congresswoman makes her an idiot who has no right to an opinion?

Originally posted by Cory:

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.

This is a far more relevant point than clip size to keep down the rate of mass shootings. We have no method of keeping people who are known to be psychologically unfit from buying military hardware. Gee why is that?

Medical records are private, until a court makes a legal finding, you can not limit the rights of a patient. They may not be able to drive a car, which is seen as a privilege, but the mentally unbalanced can buy a gun which is seen as an inherent right. So as long as we fear the state's right to control the folks on the margins, and we don't control weapon sales there is nothing government is allowed to do. Now if only the right to buy body armor and a military variant of an AR-15 with a 100 round magazine was as seen as as big a threat to society as the right to drive a Jetta. Your notion that there are supposed to be multiple layers of control between the insane and their weapons is simply wrong. There are none. They have been taken away by people who do not trust government.

I get that you hate the government of the United States, and you believe that any person who enters public service becomes a corrupt mind dead leach on you and all you stand for. I think you are wrong. I hold a different opinion. If an armed man shows up at my door, I always prefer if he is wearing a policeman's uniform. He works for me, the rest of you guys with guns do not have my best interest at heart.

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/05/2013 01:45:04 PM · #82

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Oh, so by your logic here, she was arguing to limit the capacity of bullets?

Seriously? She didn't misspeak nor did she just underestimate a number, she demonstrated a serious deficiency in her knowledge, and yes, I do think that makes her unqualified to participate in the creation of laws limiting this. It's the same as 80 year old senators voting on computer-technology law - there's no way they're making well informed decisions.

I really can indeed slap a clip into my weapon in the 1 second range, I didn't really misspeak at all, but to avoid bullshit pissing contests I just decided to go ahead and allowed for 2 or 3 seconds, why not? What difference does it really make? Even that untrained girl in the video was doing it in under 2 for most clips.

And, besides all of that, I'm not trying to make laws about this, she is.

blindjustice

Canon EOS-7D

04/05/2013 01:51:33 PM · #83

There are myriad problem with the rationalizations that no gun control is needed and "we need to protect ourselves and hunt, etc." and that we will be safer with (1)everyone armed and (2) a gun in every school, etc. is that

when you look at the empirical evidence, the threat of "gangbangers" knocking down your door and killing you is minuscule compared to the rates of death among women and children just from having "protective guns" in the home. Not to mention that the plan to arm at least one person in a school is just not logical. too many bad variables, especially in schools like Newtown, and as noted before, in high tension schools.

But what you really need to consider, is that the NRA, and those against "gun control" feign interest in safety and all manner of American "freedoms"- just to sell guns.

04/05/2013 01:57:14 PM · #84

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

I get that you hate the government of the United States, and you believe that any person who enters public service becomes a corrupt mind dead leach on you and all you stand for. I think you are wrong. I hold a different opinion. If an armed man shows up at my door, I always prefer if he is wearing a policeman's uniform. He works for me, the rest of you guys with guns do not have my best interest at heart.

Ahh, but you're wrong on this as well.

I do not hate the government, I simply ~~think~~ understand that their effectiveness and efficiency sucks.

And in what fantasy world are you talking about with this non-sense about police at your door?

Face the facts, if the cops are at your door, it's for one of two reasons, they either have a warrant, and are about to bust down your door (in which case it will be 50 cops and an armored vehicle), or it will be a detective trying to get you to talk to them and say something that will allow them to frame a case upon which they can secure a conviction.

If you think the police are there to protect you, you're a fool. They exist only to punish, not to prevent - besides, what's the local response time to your house? Do you think you'd even manage to dial 911 before they had you dead or subdued?

And really, you think I don't have your best interest at heart? Really? So you see me as someone who is probably going to use my guns to shoot you in the face before I rape your children?

Sheesh man, you're looking like a paranoid delusional with a very fairy-tale vision of reality that is wrapped up with a twisted trust complex in which you actually believe the government exists to serve you.. In fact, I'd be more likely to defend you than most, and have done so many times in the past for complete strangers.

And as a final joke, I actually often times do work for the government as a contractor, in defense, education, services, healthcare, and even enforcement.

04/05/2013 02:26:22 PM · #85

Originally posted by Cory:

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.

I've already stated the reasons for limiting magazine capacity but apparently you missed it:

"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."

I'd say it's a no-brainer that the tradeoff -- a little inconvenience to you in return for fewer people being shot -- is worth making and one that rational people are willing to make.

04/05/2013 02:28:29 PM · #86

Originally posted by Cory:

This is a system that already has multiple layers that are supposed to catch and prevent this type of thing, and yet you folks seem to think adding another layer to the system will ensure that it somehow will magically start working.

And you seem to think that adding more guns will solve the problem.... because that's worked out so well for us, right?

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/05/2013 02:31:38 PM · #87

Originally posted by Cory:

Again, if you go to a country where trucks are popular, and the roads are dangerous, and then conclude that all would be well if only trucks were banned, then you're tracking down the wrong path of logic.

The false argument again.... not only is it impossible to accomplish, but no one is proposing that all guns be banned.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

04/05/2013 02:41:11 PM · #88

Originally posted by Cory:

if the cops are at your door, it's for one of two reasons, they either have a warrant, and are about to bust down your door (in which case it will be 50 cops and an armored vehicle), or it will be a detective trying to get you to talk to them and say something that will allow them to frame a case upon which they can secure a conviction.

If you think the police are there to protect you, you're a fool. They exist only to punish, not to prevent

"Sheesh man, you're looking like a paranoid delusional with a very fairy-tale vision of reality that is wrapped up with a twisted...."

You said it.

The paranoid often believe people are out to get them. You seem to live in a very dark place. I hope you never feel the need to use your guns to protect you from those you see as enemies.

04/05/2013 02:44:24 PM · #89

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Hell, he was such a tool it's surprising he didn't drop the gun.

Realize that this guy was the epitome of incompetence, and realize that most people won't drop the clip and bend over to pick it up. In fact, larger capacity clips make this scenario MORE likely because they are heavier, and if the attacker is using many small capacity clips, they probably wouldn't bend over to grab the dropped one, but would just grab another from their bag.

No, I'm afraid your argument is much like a decorative pot - it just looks pretty on the surface, but doesn't really hold water.

04/05/2013 02:55:32 PM · #90

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Cory:
This is a system that already has multiple layers that are supposed to catch and prevent this type of thing, and yet you folks seem to think adding another layer to the system will ensure that it somehow will magically start working.

And you seem to think that adding more guns will solve the problem.... because that's worked out so well for us, right?

Nope, but I think the number of guns in the hands of criminals is more or less a constant, at least for a decade or more after strict bans are enacted.

That is the concern - is the period of time where the only people with guns are indeed the ones who want to use them to victimize other people. The simple fact that many homes do have guns in them, I think does more to give pause to criminals than any law, as they fear guns just as much as you do - in fact, probably much more so, as they're the ones who are very likely to be faced with a firearm in the course of their daily routine.

So, I don't think we need more guns, nor do I think we need fewer - really it's that we need to better control who has them. The one thing I do know is that we need fewer people who are out to victimize other people, with or without guns.

Heck, I'd trade - you support making it cheaper and easier for me to own real fully-automatic firearms, and smaller destructive devices (think M-79 or M-203 type stuff) and I'll gladly support a very comprehensive testing and certification process that is applied to all gun-owners, along with a yearly certification - as long as the cost and time required are not unreasonable impediments to ownership.

What I would not support is in-home inspections, ownership databases, and restrictions on ammunition or clips, or sights, or accessories of any kind, function, or form.

Sound fair? You get the comprehensive universal background checks, I get the full toy-box opened up.

04/05/2013 02:58:53 PM · #91

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Cory:
Again, if you go to a country where trucks are popular, and the roads are dangerous, and then conclude that all would be well if only trucks were banned, then you're tracking down the wrong path of logic.

The false argument again.... not only is it impossible to accomplish, but no one is proposing that all guns be banned.

Why not? You do realize that you really do need to ban them all to have any real effect whatsoever right?

I mean, these people we're talking about kinda seem to think that if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a bag full of puppies. They're not right, they don't play by the rules, and they generally tend to not give a *%@# about anyone or anything other than themselves.

And my argument wasn't false, it really isn't - we do live in a violent country - surely you don't dispute that fact?

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/05/2013 03:01:38 PM · #92

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Cory:
if the cops are at your door, it's for one of two reasons, they either have a warrant, and are about to bust down your door (in which case it will be 50 cops and an armored vehicle), or it will be a detective trying to get you to talk to them and say something that will allow them to frame a case upon which they can secure a conviction.

If you think the police are there to protect you, you're a fool. They exist only to punish, not to prevent

"Sheesh man, you're looking like a paranoid delusional with a very fairy-tale vision of reality that is wrapped up with a twisted...."

You said it.

The paranoid often believe people are out to get them. You seem to live in a very dark place. I hope you never feel the need to use your guns to protect you from those you see as enemies.

Dude. The cops HAVE fricken been at my door several times, for exactly the reasons above (thankfully only once were they planning to bust it down - I was fortunate enough to wake up and open the door right before they did). I've been harassed for a variety of things, from taking photos, to being white while driving around Overtown (and they SAID as much, 12 squad cars and a fricken helicopter, while they violated my rights and searched my and my car without reason or cause, and over my objections)...

Yeah, I do live in a VERY dark place, it's called the real world - I'd be glad to take you for a tour sometime if you ever come down from your palace.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

04/05/2013 03:04:48 PM · #93

Originally posted by Cory:

What I would not support is in-home inspections, ownership databases....

Explain to me this fear of a database of registered guns. I register my cars every year, the records are kept in a database that are open to law agencies but not the public. Where is the risk to gun owners of having a similar system?

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

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

04/05/2013 03:09:22 PM · #94

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by Cory:
What I would not support is in-home inspections, ownership databases....

Explain to me this fear of a database of registered guns. I register my cars every year, the records are kept in a database that are open to law agencies but not the public. Where is the risk to gun owners of having a similar system?

When the President suspends the Second Amendment and orders the Army to confiscate all the guns, it will be easier to find out who has them.

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

04/05/2013 03:14:49 PM · #95

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Can't. The thread would go Godwin.

It's really just that it's a pattern with gun-control in other countries, establish a reasonable registry, then in a decade or so, go ahead and confiscate the guns. Name a country that has long had a well-established gun-registry that never used it to confiscate newly "illegal" weapons. The fact is you can't, simply because that is the real reason for such a registry.

The car registry makes much more sense, since vehicles are readily identifiable from paint marks, skid marks, licence plates, eye-witness descriptions, and a variety of other things that make a database needed and practical, even though it may well be used to confiscate cars one day too. If guns were identifiable and recognizable like cars are, then I think the database idea would make sense.

As it is, it doesn't work the same for guns and cars. Again, don't get too caught up in the analogies that I and other people use, just because guns can be effectively compared to cars sometimes, doesn't really make them just like cars. Of course, you know that I'm sure, so your argument strikes me as somewhat silly - are you just caviling with me for fun, or do you really believe this stuff?

Mike

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/05/2013 03:19:07 PM · #96

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

driving is a privilege or so the argument goes...

04/05/2013 03:20:17 PM · #97

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Cory:
Again, if you go to a country where trucks are popular, and the roads are dangerous, and then conclude that all would be well if only trucks were banned, then you're tracking down the wrong path of logic.

The false argument again.... not only is it impossible to accomplish, but no one is proposing that all guns be banned.

Why not? You do realize that you really do need to ban them all to have any real effect whatsoever right?

I mean, these people we're talking about kinda seem to think that if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a bag full of puppies. They're not right, they don't play by the rules, and they generally tend to not give a *%@# about anyone or anything other than themselves.

And my argument wasn't false, it really isn't - we do live in a violent country - surely you don't dispute that fact?

You can change the subject if you like, but we weren't arguing about whether this is a violent country. Everyone knows this is a violent country. Your implied argument in the original quotation is that the proposal is to ban guns, and it's not.

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

04/05/2013 03:34:07 PM · #98

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Cory:

Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:

Originally posted by Cory:
Again, if you go to a country where trucks are popular, and the roads are dangerous, and then conclude that all would be well if only trucks were banned, then you're tracking down the wrong path of logic.

The false argument again.... not only is it impossible to accomplish, but no one is proposing that all guns be banned.

Why not? You do realize that you really do need to ban them all to have any real effect whatsoever right?

I mean, these people we're talking about kinda seem to think that if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a bag full of puppies. They're not right, they don't play by the rules, and they generally tend to not give a *%@# about anyone or anything other than themselves.

And my argument wasn't false, it really isn't - we do live in a violent country - surely you don't dispute that fact?

You can change the subject if you like, but we weren't arguing about whether this is a violent country. Everyone knows this is a violent country. Your implied argument in the original quotation is that the proposal is to ban guns, and it's not.

Sure it is. It's just that it's the first step in a series of steps.

Don't deny it - history says otherwise.

RayEthier

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

04/05/2013 06:40:02 PM · #99

Originally posted by Cory:

It's really just that it's a pattern with gun-control in other countries, establish a reasonable registry, then in a decade or so, go ahead and confiscate the guns. Name a country that has long had a well-established gun-registry that never used it to confiscate newly "illegal" weapons. The fact is you can't, simply because that is the real reason for such a registry.

Could you provide us with some links that support this... I did a quick check and found nothing.

Also, when you mention "Gun Registry" are you referring to "Firearms Registration" because in this country there is a difference between the need to register firearms and what used to be called the "Long Gun Registry".

The need to register firearms in Canada has been in place for quite a long time now and so far the government has not initiated massive seizures.

Ray