diablopilot 2 #26 January 9, 2013 Quotethe bar tender is held responsible for giving people too much. Evidence that you don't believe in the concept of people being held responsible for their own actions. I can't argue with crazy people.---------------------------------------------- You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
piisfish 140 #27 January 9, 2013 I'd rather have people exposed to .50, RPG's and high capacity mags rather than to Justin Bieber, Nicki Minaj, Kim Kardashian and all that crap. These people are doing far more damage to society than anything elsescissors beat paper, paper beat rock, rock beat wingsuit - KarlM Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
thedude911 0 #28 January 9, 2013 5.56 was also developed to give more of a chance to wound rather than straight up kill someone, a more "humane round" by NATO standards. Reason being, it takes more man power to treat and remove wounded soldiers from the battlefield thus decreasing an enemy's combat effectiveness. Personally, I think 7.62 is deadlier all around, this guy's argument is pretty stupid. It doesn't have the range of 5.56 but it sure as shit has way more stopping power and can punch through thicker material. 5.56 isn't exactly too devastating as he put it either. Granted I haven't been in a warzone. It took me 4 rounds of 5.56 M193 FMJ just to kill a fucking rabid raccoon a few months ago behind my house, the first three were body shots, but still... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #29 January 9, 2013 I don't think many disagree that we need to keep weapons out of the hands of loonies. The question is how to do that without trampling on their rights. Do we intervene when a person has a heated argument with their spouse and take their guns away for a period of time? If we did something like that, then what is the process the person has for getting their guns back? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #30 January 9, 2013 QuoteNumber of deaths due to DUI in 2011. 10,228 You don't see us banning alcohol, or high powered cars...... No but BECAUSE of 10,000 people being killed every year, cars, driving and DUI is HEAVILY regulated, and so is alcohol. Drunk driving is a mere shadow of what it used to be 50 years ago and the results of that 'regulation', changes in the laws, and many other programs put into place HAVE in fact altered the statistics. So the fact is that multiple programs, working in unison to solve a problem, INCLUDING the regulation of the tool being used could in fact help to reduce gun violence and gun crime. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #31 January 9, 2013 You cannot overlook the fact that cars are safer than they were 50 years ago. Consumer awareness and a greater sense of unacceptability has also played a major role. It's not just a simple matter of more laws, it's more of a change of culture. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #32 January 9, 2013 QuoteQuoteThe first is a standard military round. The second is a hunting round that has been around since 1906, and is more lethal and damaging. On the basis of an individual round, you'd be correct. On the basis of kinetic energy that can be expended per reload cycle (AR-15 with 100 round drum vs M1 and 8 round "en bloc" clip) you'd be wrong -- woefully wrong. I don't think regulation ought to be determined solely by the energy of a single round, but instead how much energy can be continuously delivered over a larger period of time. For instance, a minute, taking into account reloading by an expert user. Wrong again A sporting Browning BAR can spit em out as fast as an AR15 You can get it in a .223 30-06 22-250 and I thnk even in a 7MM magnum You can get magazines made for as many rounds as you want and it was never included in the first ban and would be exempt this time too Please Try again And again as posted else where Mass shooting are NOT on the increase"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #33 January 9, 2013 QuoteIt takes time. It's not difficult. It's a period of time and loss of focus for the potential mass murderer. A magazine can be changed in an AR15 type weapon in less that two second Rounds can be changed in a revolver in less than 3 seconds with a speed loader Next"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #34 January 9, 2013 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe first is a standard military round. The second is a hunting round that has been around since 1906, and is more lethal and damaging. On the basis of an individual round, you'd be correct. On the basis of kinetic energy that can be expended per reload cycle (AR-15 with 100 round drum vs M1 and 8 round "en bloc" clip) you'd be wrong -- woefully wrong. I don't think regulation ought to be determined solely by the energy of a single round, but instead how much energy can be continuously delivered over a larger period of time. For instance, a minute, taking into account reloading by an expert user. So how much energy can a classroom full of first graders safely absorb? I find the whole line of argument pointless. There is no way to fit a gun with so many guards and bumpers that it will be safe if fired in a crowded theater. The problem begins and ends with the person firing the gun. And to the idea that weapon X is too powerful for mere civilians ... this is ceeding them to the folks that brought us Kent State. This is a first I agree with you!"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #35 January 9, 2013 QuoteGenerically, along with all other weapons systems, it would make sense as an overall strategy to reduce gun violence in the US. I'm not suggesting a straight line in the assignment of kinetic energy, but perhaps some sort of curve which would allow something like a five round load in a .50, but not allow a 100 round drum on say, a .22. I'm saying it should be one of several factors so hunters can still hunt, but idiots can't just spray a room full of people. You dont have a stategy You have an emotional response to a tragety"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #36 January 9, 2013 QuoteQuoteYou don't see us banning alcohol . . . Nope. It is, however, regulated and unlike guns and ammo, the bar tender is held responsible for giving people too much. There is a limit to how much you're legally allowed to have in your body and drive a car. Again, there is a wide gulf between an out right ban and additional regulation. You appear to think there can not be a middle ground between no regulation and confiscation. That's simply not the case. Another lie Guns are heavily regulated And how did regulating alcohol work out? I know, it cured everything"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #37 January 9, 2013 Quote5.56 was also developed to give more of a chance to wound rather than straight up kill someone, a more "humane round" by NATO standards. Reason being, it takes more man power to treat and remove wounded soldiers from the battlefield thus decreasing an enemy's combat effectiveness. Personally, I think 7.62 is deadlier all around, this guy's argument is pretty stupid. It doesn't have the range of 5.56 but it sure as shit has way more stopping power and can punch through thicker material. 5.56 isn't exactly too devastating as he put it either. Granted I haven't been in a warzone. It took me 4 rounds of 5.56 M193 FMJ just to kill a fucking rabid raccoon a few months ago behind my house, the first three were body shots, but still... I used to think that as well as it was what we were told when we switched from 7.62 to 5.56 but the truth of the matter is not so simple. Having worked for years on people who have been shot in a trauma setting I developed an interest in wound ballistics. Watch this, I think you'll find it interesting. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fb0_1350399880&comments=1When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Hooknswoop 19 #38 January 9, 2013 QuoteIt takes time. It's not difficult. It's a period of time and loss of focus for the potential mass murderer. You want to ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds to buy time for victims of mass shootings to escape? How much time would it buy them? Would it make a difference? Derek B quade - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Southern_Man 0 #39 January 9, 2013 QuoteQuotethe bar tender is held responsible for giving people too much. Evidence that you don't believe in the concept of people being held responsible for their own actions. I can't argue with crazy people. I don't think it is evidence of anything that Quade believes as much as it is simply statement of existing legal precedent. "Dram shop liability" is well established in the US legal system."What if there were no hypothetical questions?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #40 January 9, 2013 QuoteQuoteNumber of deaths due to DUI in 2011. 10,228 You don't see us banning alcohol, or high powered cars...... No but BECAUSE of 10,000 people being killed every year, cars, driving and DUI is HEAVILY regulated, and so is alcohol. Hardly. I can buy any vehicle as big or fast as I want without a background check, although if I want to use it on public roads I need to register it so I can pay taxes to maintain the roads. Provided that I passed a basic driving test as a child, answer a few questions when I move into a new state, and can see well enough the government will give me a license to operate almost anything in populated areas (I don't need a license to operate off-highway vehicles on private property or public places like BLM land) even a 60' truck + boat trailer combination. Since I'm over 21 I can buy any number of alcoholic beverages of any strength I want. It's illegal for me to have more than a couple drinks then drive. In many or most jurisdictions I can't have an open container in my passenger compartment (although some still allow drinking and driving when you stay under the limit). That said the only things stopping me from drinking and driving are that 1) I think it's abhorrent to risk people's lives that way 2) If I didn't care about that the liability exposure would be unacceptable 3) If neither of the above applied something bad could happen to me legally if I was caught like spending a night in jail, loosing my license for four months, and spending thousands of dollars more on insurance. Compare and contrast that with gun laws. Some one possessing an AR15 and a short barrelled upper receiver without an AR15 pistol lower is guilty of felony constructive possession of a short barrelled rifle punishable by 4, 6, or 8 years in state prison. Quote So the fact is that multiple programs, working in unison to solve a problem, INCLUDING the regulation of the tool being used could in fact help to reduce gun violence and gun crime. I'm all for treating guns like cars and alcohol: No limits on purchases, no registration if I'm content using them on private property, and a trivial test and registration lets me use them (carry concealed) in populated areas in all fifty states. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #41 January 9, 2013 QuoteIt gives more time for some to get away. Problem: these shooters all reload. And nobody gets away because they are hiding or cowering. Utterly defenseless. QuoteIt opens a gap in the firing sequence where people could potentially overtake the gun man by, if nothing else, brute force. Yep. And there is an amazing history of that not happening. So it hasn't happened in the past. Let's just keep on hoping it happens it the future. Perhaps it will, with people deciding - like on airliners - that we will fuck up anyone who tries to do anything. Maybe we'll see unarmed people in droves fighting armed wrongdoers. But I doubt it. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,111 #42 January 9, 2013 >Provided that I passed a basic driving test as a child, answer a few questions when >I move into a new state, and can see well enough the government will give me a >license to operate almost anything in public even a 60' truck + boat trailer >combination. Really? You could buy and legally drive a car without brakes or taillights and a big battering ram in front? (to mitigate the problem of not having brakes of course) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DrewEckhardt 0 #43 January 9, 2013 Quote>Provided that I passed a basic driving test as a child, answer a few questions when >I move into a new state, and can see well enough the government will give me a >license to operate almost anything in public even a 60' truck + boat trailer >combination. Really? You could buy and legally drive a car without brakes or taillights and a big battering ram in front? (to mitigate the problem of not having brakes of course) Yes, just not on public roads in populated areas where a few more constraints exist. While the battering ram remains legal (They're called "bull bars" and popular on assault trucks) in that environment, the vehicle needs to be able to stop and the equivalent of hunter orange is required for motoring participant safety in low-light conditions. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #44 January 9, 2013 QuoteQuoteThe first is a standard military round. The second is a hunting round that has been around since 1906, and is more lethal and damaging. On the basis of an individual round, you'd be correct. On the basis of kinetic energy that can be expended per reload cycle (AR-15 with 100 round drum vs M1 and 8 round "en bloc" clip) you'd be wrong -- woefully wrong. I don't think regulation ought to be determined solely by the energy of a single round, but instead how much energy can be continuously delivered over a larger period of time. For instance, a minute, taking into account reloading by an expert user. DC snipers killed over 10 people with AR over several weeks so how would your ballistics, timing figure into your equasion? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
cvfd1399 0 #45 January 9, 2013 Very valid point! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
OHCHUTE 0 #46 January 10, 2013 QuoteQuoteI believe that it is currently against the law for anybody, to spray bullets at a room full of people, and it has not seemed to work very well. Right, which is exactly why we need to limit their ability to do so. Currently they have all too easy access to the tools to do that. Let's make it just a bit more difficult than buying a 32 ounce soda. The mentally ill are too calculating. How will you screen them? Lanza shot his mom in the face 4 times. I guess she didn't see that coming and she lived in the same house with the perp that shot her. We've been in Iraq for over 25 uears and idiots are still blowing themselves up killing people. We need face reality: SOCIETY IS A LANDMINE FIELD. As long as there are weapons and people there will be violence. JEESH Cain killed Able, the worlds first family and they couldn't even keep from killing each other. Thats why you need a gun to defend yourself. People are nuts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #47 January 10, 2013 QuoteQuoteI believe that it is currently against the law for anybody, to spray bullets at a room full of people, and it has not seemed to work very well. Currently they have all too easy access to the tools to do that. Let's make it just a bit more difficult than buying a 32 ounce soda. You haven't been to NYC lately have you? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Skyrad 0 #48 January 10, 2013 25 Years???When an author is too meticulous about his style, you may presume that his mind is frivolous and his content flimsy. Lucius Annaeus Seneca Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #49 January 10, 2013 Regardles of your personal position on gun control; these items should be kept in mind: 1. Just because you have risen high in one field (be it entertainment, academics, military, or whatever) does not make you an expert in other fields. Quoting this General because he gained notoriety and has an opinion on the matter carries no more weight than quoting Streisand on social issues. 2. General officers are selected by Congress. They are, by definition, political creatures. Their public opinions are therefore just as suspect as any other politician.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
davjohns 1 #50 January 10, 2013 Yup.I know it just wouldnt be right to kill all the stupid people that we meet.. But do you think it would be appropriate to just remove all of the warning labels and let nature take its course. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
