hate these ads?, log in or register to hide them
Page 3 of 74 FirstFirst 1234561353 ... LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 1462

Thread: An article on gun laws

  1. #41
    Movember '11 Best Facial Hair, Best 'Tache Movember 2011Movember 2012Donor helgur's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 24, 2011
    Location
    Putting owls in your Moss
    Posts
    8,926
    On a very related note on gun control. In the country I am from, 25 of the country's 27 police commisioners are against arming the police with sidearms. As it stands today, the cops go out to do their everyday job without a firearm. They do have a gun locked inside the squadcar, but you have to get special permission to unlock the case and gain access to the weapon.

    Study done by the Police themselves show that police with lethal sidearms will only increase incidents with fatalities involving guns. On a yearly basis, the Norwegian police use firearms between 0 and 6 times, since 2002 we have had 25 situations where the cops have used live ammunition.

    My neighbouring country, Sweden which I often go to visit, have had cops with firearms since the 60'ies. Walking down the street in a city right by the border, observing police with guns holstered feels weird. On a side note they also have a lot more incidents involving gun related fatalities then we have. To the point where it is disproportional.

    Now, in a country where you gain easy access to all kinds of semiautomatic weapons I can understand why the police want to arm themselves for their personal protection. Even if it is statistically counterproductive in the long term. I do however wonder why the cops carry sidearms in countries like Sweden. I am not familiar with the debate on gun control over there and how this in particular have been discussed but I would like to know.

    Before the time of the biggest bank robbery (also known as the NOKAS raid), and the terrorist incident of 22/7, gun incidents in this country where so rare, you could walk along the sidewalk with a fully automatic assault rifle and no one would bother.

    Digression:

      Spoiler:
    When I was in the military, and had a weekends leave like we did almost every weekend I felt a bit adventurous (and stupid. I know, it was very very stupid but I was also very bored) so I figured I would try to smuggle my service weapon out and see if anyone would notice. I dissasembled it, packed it in a sleeping bag and went away. The staff sargeant found out about this by the next day and phoned me, and I assured him I would go right down to the police station with it, to lock it down there untill I got back to the camp.

    So I assembeled the gun, and walked downtown. Upon entering the station, the officer behind the bulletproof glass was a bit reluctant to talk to me offcourse seing an unfamiliar face in front of him with a rifle like that. But I removed the magazine and cocked it to show the chamber was empty. I explained to him that I needed to store the rifle safely there untill my weekends leave was up and I would be back to get it.

    I got it back on sunday, to my surprise no questions asked. They just handed the damn rifle over to me. I didn't tell the police I had smuggeled the weapon out offcourse, and no details about my superiors either (I didn't want the police to begin asking questions, which would raise avareness of this and by implication get my staff seargant in a lot of trouble - and by proxy me aswell offcourse).

    Just goes to show how little on edge the Police was back then. Today, I suspect if I pulled something off like that, all hell would break loose
    Last edited by helgur; July 23 2012 at 10:46:07 PM.

  2. #42
    Movember '11 Ginger Excellence Movember 2011Movember 2012 sarabando's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Basingstoke England
    Posts
    2,630
    "why do you need a bigger magazine and a pistol grip and a more powerful round doesnt a regular hunting rifle not do everything you want?"

    well why do people buy a car that can do more than the national speed limit?
    because they fit either what they want or need.
    an AR-15 is a more fuel efficient and economical machine basically and some people like it for its aesthetic and some people like it for its function.

    large capacity magazine - why not you dont tell people that they should all have gastric bands so they can't over eat do you?

    pistol grips - are a comfortable way to hold a firearm that allows for safe handling of a weapon (ever tried firing from the hip with an ar15 is really uncomfortable)

    high power rounds - the 223/5.56 round is bullet so is a .22 if it hits you its going to do damage.

    i had written out a huge post but i think i can sum it up with this.

    look at the gun community you will find people there who take their kids and familys shooting who safly practice target shooting or hunting, compete in competitions and generally have a great time. but you will also find weirdos who are very anti social who are often in the public eye (think those NRA open carry types) who abuse firearms and give the community a bad name.

    but then look at the driving comunity you will find people who take their kids and familys to drift days or to watch races or even just for a sunday drive and have a great time, then you can see the twats who
    drive at 120mph down the motorway and act like wankers on the roads. upgrading their cars with parts that offer no "transportation" benifits just make it go faster and louder.

    and then look at the drinkers among us who go out with friends and have a few drinks and have a great time and the wankers who abuse the alchol and drink too much and cause trouble especially when combined with
    either of the other groups.

    in my opinion the ownership of firearms is very important as it goes hand in hand with the basic human right to defend yourself, how can i defend myself if legally i am unable to own anything that even remotely evens the playing field (just look at the uk atm) BUT we do need to adress how people get them, mental health checks, finance checks, police checks ect are all really important a firearms dealer should be able to access (or have it done for him) that flags up a person who has a history or alcohol abuse and domestic violence ect so they can refuse the sale. (not saying that would stop murder because he could just use a hammer or his car or hands)

    you can not stop someone who is dead set on causing violence by restricting access to weapons they will adapt. all we can do is give people the rights and abilities to defend themselves and also educate people more and try to spot the signs that some one is going that way in advance.

    i hope this made sense and is ok for the srsbsns section this topic is very close to me living in the uk and being a firearms enthusiast means i often have to deal with alot of bull crap and it annoys me at the misinformation and lies that are often used as fact.

  3. #43
    Roam's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    1,159
    Booyah, I got in. Right, so as the unlikely instigator of this here shindig, I'll try and maintain some structure to this debate. On a personal level, I would like some of the pro-gun proponents to respond to my previous post regarding the condensed arguments from the first thread, now edited with contributions from Sarabando, Krans and GiDiYi in this thread.

    On a more serious note, I am looking to understand the opposition's perspective and arguments, which is why I think this can be a good thread and discussion.

    In the last thread, we established the following arguments:
    1) This wouldn't have happened if everyone had a gun. (disproven, by the simple notion that a pitch black room with reverberating walls, lots of noise, flickering lights, mass hysteria, screaming, panic and uncertainty probably isn't the best place for untrained people to try and fight off a kevlar armoured lunatic)

    2) It's our constitutional right to bear arms, and therefore it would be infringing about our freedom (a founding concept for America) to restrict guns. (Still an ongoing discussion!) EDIT: Changed this from "disproven" to "ongoing" due to krans's contribution that can be found here and GiDiYi's response found here.

    3) You can't stop madmen if they want to go on a rampage, if he didn't have guns he'd have used a knife (Disproven, because a) it assumes all weapons have equal killing force, which they don't and b) by simple statistics that 95% of gun casualties are not by mad rampaging lunatics but temper incidents that escalated due to presence of a gun and the fact that countries who DO have restrictions available have not even the tiniest fraction of the US's gun homicide figures.)

    4) Restricting of Assault Rifles could be seen as a compromise that would benefit everyone, but it isn't really because again it infringes upon constitutional right (Again, disproven, because there is no such constitutional right, and because Assault Rifles are far far more lethal than a common handgun. It's very purpose is nothing more and nothing less than to kill better, and more efficiently.) EDIT: See Sarabando's response as to why he thinks ARs are necessary. Post found above me, link here for the truly lazy.

    5) If guns kill people, spoons made Rosie O'donnel fat and cars kill people. (Logical fallacy, because it chooses to ignore context and simplify an already simplified statement to the point of nonsensical ridiculousness. A spoon of carrots is less likely to make Rosie o'donnel fat than a spoon of Ben and Jerry's. A drunk person riding a bicycle is less likely to kill someone after a collision than the same person driving a tank. In the same trend, a man wielding a tomato with the intent to kill is less likely to be successful than an assault rifle using fully kevlar armored mad man.)

    So the above are the 5 most mentioned arguments in the global debate and the last thread. All of them have been disproven, so I'd like to hear from proponents what their current arguments are.

  4. #44
    Ophichius's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 15, 2011
    Location
    Hedonistic Imperative
    Posts
    5,251
    Now, I don't really have a horse in this race legislation-wise, as the only two viable parties seem to be 'ban all the scary murderguns' and 'fuck you commie pinko scum', neither of which is a camp I want to put myself in. However, the lack of factual points with regards to the weapons themselves is grating on my nerves.

    I'm going to go over some quotes, then post a whole bunch of education on guns. I'm tired of seeing people debate guns without knowledge of the topic.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roam View Post
    In before the lock and all that, but after the raging discussion we had about this, there was one specific article that I wanted to share with Nicho, Jason, Frug, elmicker, Fenrial, Ophichius etc etc. So mods, before you lock this: I'd like to argue that the inherent intent of a forum is to be able to share information with your fellow forumites, and that's exactly what I'm doing. If it gets out of hand, by all means lock it.

    Anyway, I've been reading a lot of articles from both sides of the debate, and this one is so far the most balanced and eloquent one I've read, so I wanted to share it.
    I'm not sure I'd call that balanced. What with all the glaring factual inaccuracies and all. To say nothing of the framing. It's very much a piece of anti-gun screed, complete with rhetorical hammers and breathless hyperbole.

    -Why handguns serve a useful purpose as means to domestic protection, whereas assault rifles (like the one used in the Colorado shooting) serve no other point but to kill more quicker, harder and efficiently. They should therefore remain, as the constitution demands, amongst well trained, responsible military/militias instead of untrained citizens.
    The AR-15 is not an assault rifle. Assault rifles are selective-fire weapons (This means both fully-automatic and semi-automatic fire modes.) The AR-15 is a semi-automatic only rifle.

    And now some choice bits from the article:

    What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let's see - does it fire more rounds without reload?
    Capacity is magazine-dependent, not an intrinsic property of the rifle, you can get low capacity magazines for AR-15s just as easily as you can get high-cap magazines for .30-06 rifles. There is nothing special about the AR-15 in that regard.

    Does it fire farther and more accurately?
    5.56 NATO/.223 Remington is an intermediate rifle cartridge. It retains less energy down range and has lower effective range than hunting rifle cartridges such as the .30-06 or .308 Winchester. So the answer is no.

    Does it accommodate a more lethal payload?
    For the same reasons that it has less effective range, the 5.56 NATO/.223 Remington cartridge also has significantly less energy delivery downrange (terminal wound ballistics are a tricky and hotly-debated field, but in general more energy = more damage = higher chance of lethality on any given hit.) So again, the answer is no.

    So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away.
    Except that a hunting rifle has a higher probability of single-impact incapacitation or kill and a greater effective range.

    These weapons are military weapons.
    No, they really aren't. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle firing a small, relatively light cartridge. It meets the definition of 'scary black rifle', but is not a military firearm.

    They are not the same as hunting rifles or sporting rifles.
    The AR-15 is the very definition of a sporting rifle. It's a rifle whose primary use does not extend to hunting large game, as it doesn't have enough stopping power to produce reliable and humane kills. Hence its primary use is restricted to sport shooting.

    ----

    And now on to the education portion.

    Here's an excellent video on the differences between semi-automatic, fully-automatic, hunting and sporting rifles:



    It was made for the debate around the Assault Weapons Ban, but is equally relevant today, as the same argument has been going for decades. The misuse of the term 'assault rifle' and the weaselly use of the related term 'assault weapon' or 'assault-style weapon' is disingenuous at best.

    Now, for some power comparisons. Here's an AR-15 firing .223 at a watermelon:



    Now here's a .30-06 (Common deer hunting round) fired at a watermelon:



    When it comes down to it, the AR-15 is a low-powered, semi-automatic rifle. It is not particularly powerful, nor is it outstandingly accurate compared to other rifles, nor is it capable of firing on full auto.

    Whatever your views on the subject, please educate yourselves on firearms before continuing to debate.

    -O
    I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those Thukkers, that way I wouldn't have to have any goddamn stupid useless conversations with anybody.
    Failing the Voight-Kampff test, one tortoise at a time.

  5. #45
    Roam's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    1,159
    As I said in the plusrep: Thanks for posting that. I'm embarrassed by my lack of knowledge on guns, so thanks for educating me. Found the videos useful as well.

  6. #46
    Movember 2012 Nicho Void's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Posts
    2,831
    Quote Originally Posted by Roam View Post
    In the last thread, we established the following arguments:
    1) This wouldn't have happened if everyone had a gun. (disproven, by the simple notion that a pitch black room with reverberating walls, lots of noise, flickering lights, mass hysteria, screaming, panic and uncertainty probably isn't the best place for untrained people to try and fight off a kevlar armoured lunatic)
    Both sides of this particular point rely on conjecture. I can just as rationally argue that a trained conceal and carry citizen could stop the attack as you could argue the panic, dark room, hysteria point. Neither of those things actually happened.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roam View Post
    2) It's our constitutional right to bear arms, and therefore it would be infringing about our freedom (a founding concept for America) to restrict guns. (Still an ongoing discussion!) EDIT: Changed this from "disproven" to "ongoing" due to krans's contribution that can be found here and GiDiYi's response found here.
    GiDiYi's post is excellent.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roam View Post
    3) You can't stop madmen if they want to go on a rampage, if he didn't have guns he'd have used a knife (Disproven, because a) it assumes all weapons have equal killing force, which they don't and b) by simple statistics that 95% of gun casualties are not by mad rampaging lunatics but temper incidents that escalated due to presence of a gun and the fact that countries who DO have restrictions available have not even the tiniest fraction of the US's gun homicide figures.)
    You've disproven the second half of the statement (rightfully so), but not the first...because the counter argument is that you CAN stop madmen if they want to go on a rampage. Madmen kill everywhere, regardless of control measures. I can agree that it would be less likely, but not preventable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roam View Post
    4) Restricting of Assault Rifles could be seen as a compromise that would benefit everyone, but it isn't really because again it infringes upon constitutional right (Again, disproven, because there is no such constitutional right, and because Assault Rifles are far far more lethal than a common handgun. It's very purpose is nothing more and nothing less than to kill better, and more efficiently.) EDIT: See Sarabando's response as to why he thinks ARs are necessary. Post found above me, link here for the truly lazy.
    I don't really have a stance on this.

    Quote Originally Posted by Roam View Post
    5) If guns kill people, spoons made Rosie O'donnel fat and cars kill people. (Logical fallacy, because it chooses to ignore context and simplify an already simplified statement to the point of nonsensical ridiculousness. A spoon of carrots is less likely to make Rosie o'donnel fat than a spoon of Ben and Jerry's. A drunk person riding a bicycle is less likely to kill someone after a collision than the same person driving a tank. In the same trend, a man wielding a tomato with the intent to kill is less likely to be successful than an assault rifle using fully kevlar armored mad man.)
    You can't call one side of this stance a logical fallacy and uphold the other. The entire premise is stupid. My gun has shot nothing but paper targets down range. Is that gun a killer? Of course not. Context.

    Edit: I use "you" generally, not aimed at Roam in particular.

  7. #47
    Roam's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 11, 2011
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    1,159
    First off, good post. Sorry if I seemed dismissive in the past, I was under the impression you were more interested in trolling than actual debating, but this was a solid post.

    Responding to a few things, it's getting very late and I've been up about 20 hours, so I'll keep it brief to prevent major tiredness-induced herpderping.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicho Void View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Roam View Post
    In the last thread, we established the following arguments:
    1) This wouldn't have happened if everyone had a gun. (disproven, by the simple notion that a pitch black room with reverberating walls, lots of noise, flickering lights, mass hysteria, screaming, panic and uncertainty probably isn't the best place for untrained people to try and fight off a kevlar armoured lunatic)
    Both sides of this particular point rely on conjecture. I can just as rationally argue that a trained conceal and carry citizen could stop the attack as you could argue the panic, dark room, hysteria point. Neither of those things actually happened.
    I understand why you'd argue both sides are based on conjecture, but I disagree with your assumption that comparing the situation with a lone, trained, concealed gun carrying citizen is relevant to this particular point. Unfortunately, the inherent nature of this statement was polarizing: According to the Texas representative (who, regardless of mockery aimed at his state, is still given some influence and representational power), this tragedy would never have occurred if the proliferation of weaponry had been further encouraged, and laws preventing guns to be brought into places like a movie theater to be eased, thereby giving everyone in the audience the (potential) access to a gun.

    I agree hypothetically that a single trained citizen could have shot the shooter (ignoring for the moment the issue of head-to-toe kevlar), but the discussion is not about placing single, trained individuals at strategic locations for the sake of potential tragedies. The issue is a binary one: Would more people have died if no one, or almost everyone (this therefore also includes UNtrained and INexperienced citizens) had been carrying a gun.

    To me it seems very straightforward that anyone not specifically trained to deal with a situation like that (confusion, sensory deprivation, adrenaline from fight or flight) would be a much larger risk than a possible beneficial factor in a crowded movie theater like that, which is what the issue was about.


    Quote Originally Posted by Nicho Void
    Quote Originally Posted by Roam View Post
    2) It's our constitutional right to bear arms, and therefore it would be infringing about our freedom (a founding concept for America) to restrict guns. (Still an ongoing discussion!) EDIT: Changed this from "disproven" to "ongoing" due to krans's contribution that can be found here and GiDiYi's response found here.
    GiDiYi's post is excellent.
    I agree. Nothing more to add here, really. Well, apart from the fact that I think the entire debate on right to bear arms based on the need to defend yourself from government interference, and it needing to be comparable to equipment that the military has access to is a ludicrous one. It's no longer culturally relevant, nor is it even viable due to the advancement in weapon technology that allows the US military to nuke a specific location with a massive missile guided by satellite. Unless we make that technology available to the common man, we can't argue that the right to bear arms is in ANY way justifiable by "but I need it to defend from the possibility of the military going dictatorship". If that were to happen, a few handguns would do absolutely nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicho Void
    Quote Originally Posted by Roam View Post
    3) You can't stop madmen if they want to go on a rampage, if he didn't have guns he'd have used a knife (Disproven, because a) it assumes all weapons have equal killing force, which they don't and b) by simple statistics that 95% of gun casualties are not by mad rampaging lunatics but temper incidents that escalated due to presence of a gun and the fact that countries who DO have restrictions available have not even the tiniest fraction of the US's gun homicide figures.)
    You've disproven the second half of the statement (rightfully so), but not the first...because the counter argument is that you CAN stop madmen if they want to go on a rampage. Madmen kill everywhere, regardless of control measures. I can agree that it would be less likely, but not preventable.
    I think we misunderstood each other here, or we're discussing semantics. Clearly, under the right circumstances (again: fully trained special ops man that just so happens to be at the scene of the crime at the right time, with a clear shot etc etc), a crazed gunman can be stopped.

    My point, however, was to argue that, unfortunately, if a psychotic person were to plan meticulously enough, there would be very little chances of preventing them from making ANY casualties. Breivik being the prime example here. The disproven in the quoted statement refers specifically to the second part (Ie: "if a madman wanted to kill 50 people, he'd be able to do it with both a knife or a gun, so why ban guns?") but I never tried to disprove that it's nigh on impossible to stop an armed, prepared and trained psychotic. A later argument of "but it's not those insanely rare psychotic but capable and scheming shooters that do 90%+ of the killings, it's everyday arguments escalating, accidents and other such related incidents" hinges partially on the fact that the Breiviks of the world can't be stopped, so gun control laws shouldn't be there to chiefly discourage those lunatics, but rather to prevent the 90% of gun casualties that CAN be prevented.

    This point became somewhat unintelligible near the end, but I hope you get what I'm trying to say. I'm fucking tired.

    Quote Originally Posted by nicho void
    Quote Originally Posted by Roam View Post
    4) Restricting of Assault Rifles could be seen as a compromise that would benefit everyone, but it isn't really because again it infringes upon constitutional right (Again, disproven, because there is no such constitutional right, and because Assault Rifles are far far more lethal than a common handgun. It's very purpose is nothing more and nothing less than to kill better, and more efficiently.) EDIT: See Sarabando's response as to why he thinks ARs are necessary. Post found above me, link here for the truly lazy.
    I don't really have a stance on this.
    Not much to add here either.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicho void
    Quote Originally Posted by Roam View Post
    5) If guns kill people, spoons made Rosie O'donnel fat and cars kill people. (Logical fallacy, because it chooses to ignore context and simplify an already simplified statement to the point of nonsensical ridiculousness. A spoon of carrots is less likely to make Rosie o'donnel fat than a spoon of Ben and Jerry's. A drunk person riding a bicycle is less likely to kill someone after a collision than the same person driving a tank. In the same trend, a man wielding a tomato with the intent to kill is less likely to be successful than an assault rifle using fully kevlar armored mad man.)
    You can't call one side of this stance a logical fallacy and uphold the other. The entire premise is stupid. My gun has shot nothing but paper targets down range. Is that gun a killer? Of course not. Context.
    I admit I don't fully get what your argument is here. Are you saying that because your gun has only shot paper targets that the premise is therefore stupid, and should always be judged based on individual case by case basis? Because that makes little sense to me. The premise by the NRA is that Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Which is just as idiotic as the "guns kill people" statement, except that the latter is a simplified oneliner from a much earlier debate about the fact that guns legality does, in fact, increase crime, homicide and gun casualties rate. The argument, which has been verified by numerous scientific studies from all across the world and by objective agents, is that having a gun available seems to statistically correlate to a LOWER level of safety, rather than a HIGHER value of safety. This being due to the nature of escalation, accidents and other such fun stuff. These are facts that can easily be verified, so aren't really subject to the inherent bias of either side of the fence. In short: I think I'm misunderstanding what you're saying here, and I aplogize for that. Maybe you can explain more what your point is.

    Anyway, that's it for me for now, will spellcheck and do some formatting, then go to bed. Much Roamy <3 for you all, keep the posts coming.

  8. #48
    Ophichius's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 15, 2011
    Location
    Hedonistic Imperative
    Posts
    5,251
    I thought I'd go a bit more in-depth on firearms, since my prior post was a bit shallow. We'll start with the very basics, so this is going to be long (and fairly boring) if you already know about firearms.

    At the most basic level, a firearm is just a tube with gunpowder in it that's closed at one end,has a projectile at the other end, and some way to ignite the powder. This describes everything from the most ancient Chinese firearms to your grandfather's rifle and pistol, to the most modern of cannons. However, through the ages, various advances have been made.

    Colonial-era black-powder rifles were muzzle-loaders. What this means is that you loaded the ammunition from the front (the muzzle) of the gun. This was a slow and time consuming process, as you had to pour the black powder down the barrel, then ram a piece of cloth or paper (the wadding) down the barrel to sit on top of the powder, then ram the bullet down the barrel after the wadding. Then you brought your gun up, put a dash of priming powder in the pan, and started looking for a target.

    The first major change to firearms was the introduction of the revolving action. Now instead of loading a single chamber at a time, you could load multiple chambers, each rotated into line with the barrel as you needed it. The first revolvers were crude, manually-advanced things, but they let you pre-load four or five shots in an era where everyone else was still shooting one shot and reloading. Unfortunately, revolvers did have some nasty problems, such as occasionally having the flame flash over from one chamber to the next and consequently blowing the entire front of the gun off. This limited their use in long guns, where you'd have your other hand in front of the cylinder supporting the barrel.

    The next really big invention was the metallic cartridge. The metallic cartridge eliminated the need to separately load each component of the charge, as well as removing the need for an external ignition source. It was a metal tube (usually brass) that contained a pre-measured charge of gunpowder, with a bullet sealed tightly atop it. At the base was a primer, a small ampoule of sensitive explosive which would detonate when crushed, and ignite the gunpowder. This whole contraption could be inserted into the chamber of a gun and fired. This meant you could now load guns from the back (breech-loading), something firearms designers had been after for years. It was much faster than muzzle loading, and could be done without having to swing a fairly long chunk of iron around a great deal, thus making it quite a bit easier.

    Metallic cartridges breathed new life into revolvers, allowing them to be reloaded faster, as well as reducing the flashover problem. At the same time, a crop of inventors were busy working away at making a rifle that could hold multiple shots. Two separate inventions were realized at similar times, the bolt action and the lever action. The bolt action is so named because it resembles working the bolt to lock a door. The user grasps a handle on the outside of the rifle, rotates it upwards, and pulls back to eject the spent cartridge, then pushes forward to chamber a fresh cartridge, and rotates the handle down to lock the bolt.

    Lever actions are more complicated in their inner workings, but even easier to operate. One simply swings the lever down and out away from the weapon, then back in and up in a single fluid motion. Suddenly, rapid fire becomes as easy as moving your hand a few inches and then pulling the trigger again.

    Simultaneous with this, people were inventing new ways to store the rounds, as a repeating action was no good without a way to store the cartridges. Hence the internal magazine (Basically a space inside the gun with a spring in it to push the stacked cartridges where you wanted them to go), the tubular magazine (a tube under the barrel, each cartridge loaded nose-to-tail, pushed down the tube by a spring), and eventually the removable box magazine (what we think of as a magazine most often these days, little more than a box with a spring in it.). 'clips' are distinct from magazines, and bear special mention as the two are often confused. A clip is a small piece of metal used to 'clip' several rounds together. The two most common varieties are stripper clips and en bloc clips. Stripper clips are used to hold ammunition for transport, and are not meant to be put into the firearm, rather they are set against the magazine, and one pushes their thumb down on the rounds to strip them from the clip and into the gun, hence 'stripper clip' En bloc clips are loaded entirely into the gun, and the firing mechanism is adapted to remove the rounds one by one from the clip, typically ejecting the clip once all the rounds are expended (The M1 Garand is the most famous example of a weapon which used an en bloc clip. The distinctive 'ping' of an empty Garand ejecting the clip is nigh-unmistakeable.)

    The next big jump in technology was the self-loading, or semi-automatic rifle. These come in two sub-types, gas-operated and recoil-operated. A gas-operated semi-automatic rifle works by tapping a small portion of the high-pressure gas generated when a round is fired, and using that pressure to push the bolt back against a spring, which then pushes the bolt closed. (As an aside, the AR-15 and the AK-47 variants featured in the video I linked are both gas operated. You can see the gas tube on the AKs, it's the skinny tube above the barrel that attaches to the barrel out past the end of the foregrip). Recoil-operated rifles use the force of the recoil to throw the bolt backwards against a return spring.

    After that jump came automatic fire, which is really not so much a jump as a small step, but the impact it had was huge. Automatic weapons were a simple evolution of the semi-automatic principles, tied to a mechanism that would fire the weapon as soon as it finished loading itself. Coupled with a magazine capable of holding many rounds this led to the first machine guns. Later machine guns would feed ammunition from massive belts, initially canvas belts with loops on them to hold the individual cartridges, later metal belts as feed rates became higher.

    Everyone still with me so far? Good.

    I haven't talked about calibers or powder types yet. Just how the guns actually get the ammunition into the chamber to fire it. Not what they're actually firing.

    The biggest innovation to date in propellants was smokeless (nitro) powder. Using nitrocellulose as part of the mixture, it cut down on the smoke from gunfire, as early black powder rifles would release choking clouds of thick white smoke upon firing. Without smokeless powder, an automatic weapon would be a smoke screen generator that blinded the firer within a few shots.

    When it comes to projectiles...well, lead has always been the preferred metal. It's dense, malleable, and easy to cast. The shapes it's been cast into, and what metals it's been covered with have changed pretty drastically however.

    Initially, round shot was the standard ammunition type, in relatively huge calibers, 0.9 to 1.0 caliber (0.9-1.0 inches in diameter) was not uncommon. One of the first major changes was the introduction of the semi-conical Minie ball. Resembling a cylinder with a point at one end, it was remarkably close in approximate shape to what we commonly think of as a bullet. A bit shorter relative to width, but firmly recognizeable. After this came the slow evolution of shapes and sizes, and the invention of coating a bullet with a harder metal in order to reduce fouling (bullets leave lead on the barrel as they rub against it, and this fouls the barrel, necessitating frequent cleaning to maintain accuracy.), As more energetic powders were introduced, smaller calibers of bullets were used, as the recoil of a fast-moving gigantic bullet was too much to handle, and a faster projectile spends less time travelling to the target, improving accuracy.

    By the outbreak of world war I, bullet calibers for rifles were hovering around .30-35 caliber, with pistols at around .45-.50 caliber, firing larger but slower rounds. During WWII, virtually every side fielded weapons firing some variant on a .30 caliber projectile, from 7.92x57mm Mauser, to .303 British, to 7.62x54R. The amount of powder behind the bullet varied, but the caliber itself was remarkably similar on all sides. During the war, German experience with SMGs firing pistol cartridges, and battle rifles firing full-power hunting cartridges convinced them of the need for something in between. Something that had the range and punch of a rifle, but the controllable fully automatic firing capability of an SMG. And in the waning days of the war, they produced the Sturmgewehr 44. Quite literally the world's first assault rifle, and in fact the rifle from which that type gets its name, as Sturmgewehr translates to 'assault rifle' (or 'storming rifle', as in 'to storm a position'.)

    The StG 44 used an unusual cartridge. Too powerful to be a pistol cartridge, not powerful enough to be a full rifle round, it was the first of the intermediate rifle cartridges. A cartridge designed for medium to short ranges and fully automatic fire. Following this development came the 7.62x39 Soviet, and the 5.56x45 NATO round. Lightweight, low-recoil rounds intended for use in lightweight, full-auto weapons. (Technically the 5.56x45 NATO is actually a varmint rifle round, rather than a purpose-built man-stopper like the 7.62x39 Soviet was intended to be.).

    Now, I've glossed over a lot of little fiddly bits and odd historical digressions and dead ends, if you go digging you'll find the history of firearms is much more complicated, interesting, and intricate. But hopefully this has been a solid primer on them.

    And finally, because it should put some of the 'semi-auto rifles are so much faster than any other kind of rifle' nonsense to rest, here's a video a friend of mine shot, showing a bolt-action rifle being cycled at high speed:



    -O
    I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those Thukkers, that way I wouldn't have to have any goddamn stupid useless conversations with anybody.
    Failing the Voight-Kampff test, one tortoise at a time.

  9. #49
    Movember 2011 Daco's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Where the sheep roam free
    Posts
    3,366
    So I was chatting with chris and jason last night about gun control and it was very interesting to hear what Jason did to get his gun licence.

    I never really thought people in America could just walk in and buy a machine gun and walk out but I was under the impression it was very easy to get firearms over there. From what he said if you want a hand gun you need to go through a lot of channels and paper work to try and get one and that you can't just buy an automatic weapon anymore. Only the people that had an automatic weapon before that certain law came through got to keep them.

    Over here in NZ you read a book on gun safety etc then you sit a written test and then you have your firearms licence. There is no restriction on semi-auto or manual but you can't get Automatic weapons, you aren't even allowed automatic paintball guns. Also you need to go through a lot of paper work to try and get a licence for a hand gun and even then you're only allowed to keep the hand gun at a shooting range in a locked safe.

    Our way of getting a gun licence sounds very similar to how you get it in America which tbh I think is fine. I think the problem is the saturation of firearms over in America/Canada/Alaska. I don't think you could really get anymore gun control than there is without going down the no one is allowed a firearm unless you're a soldier road.

    Quote Originally Posted by EntroX View Post
    i love you fhc, never change

  10. #50
    pratell's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    North Dakka
    Posts
    3,097
    Quote Originally Posted by Daco Cutter View Post
    So I was chatting with chris and jason last night about gun control and it was very interesting to hear what Jason did to get his gun licence.

    I never really thought people in America could just walk in and buy a machine gun and walk out but I was under the impression it was very easy to get firearms over there. From what he said if you want a hand gun you need to go through a lot of channels and paper work to try and get one and that you can't just buy an automatic weapon anymore. Only the people that had an automatic weapon before that certain law came through got to keep them.

    Over here in NZ you read a book on gun safety etc then you sit a written test and then you have your firearms licence. There is no restriction on semi-auto or manual but you can't get Automatic weapons, you aren't even allowed automatic paintball guns. Also you need to go through a lot of paper work to try and get a licence for a hand gun and even then you're only allowed to keep the hand gun at a shooting range in a locked safe.

    Our way of getting a gun licence sounds very similar to how you get it in America which tbh I think is fine. I think the problem is the saturation of firearms over in America/Canada/Alaska. I don't think you could really get anymore gun control than there is without going down the no one is allowed a firearm unless you're a soldier road.
    i brought my driver's license in to the gun store and walked out with my driver's license and a beretta 92fs. gun control is a joke.
    Image

  11. #51
    Administrator Movember 2012 Don Pellegrino's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Montreal, Canada
    Posts
    3,361
    I really like how civil this discussion is for the most part. This post isn't an argument, it's my personal opinion (always prone to change if you can convince me), see it as a story.

    As Nartek said earlier, I think this is entirely a cultural issue. All that issue can be debated ad nauseum on different points as Roam is doing, but it really all depends on how and where you were brought up. If you were taught that guns keep you safe, even the best arguments won't be able to get rid of that "what if" feeling in the back of your head, even if you were to entirely agree with the other side. It's really just a matter of "what makes me feel safe?". "Feel" being the keyword here.

    Here I'm taking Quebec as an example, because it's the only place that I can accurately talk about. Basically no one has guns and in my entire (and rather short so far) life, I've only known one person who has a gun license (only hunting rifles are allowed) and he doesn't own one right now. I live in a city with a bit over 1 million people, around 3.4 million if you count the metropolitan area. There have been 31 murders in that 3.4 million people in 2009, 37 in 2010. Compared to cities of the same size, it's nothing. I can walk back to my appartment after a night out alone, clearly drunk, at 4 AM and it's totally safe. I've never heard of anyone being mugged and the feeling of safety was even greater before I moved here almost a year ago. I used to live in almost perfectly uniform white middle class cities of 150k-700k people. There are basically no guns out here, I don't feel the need to own one to be safe. We have no street crime to speak of and the mafia/organized crime don't care about the average citizen. We don't have 15+ various secret services and in general our government is a lot less powerful and intrusive. You could meet the prime minister at the bathroom in Ottawa. The prime minister before our current one had a cream pie perfectly thrown at his face and the guy spent 8 days in prison. If I remember correctly he also helped the police immobilize the guy (our PM was in his 60s when it happened), but that might be another incident. Patriotism is the exception, not the norm. Our government is a joke, not a threat and that's how we like it. Things like that shape the amount of trust and fear towards the government a lot. All these things indirectly affect the perception of guns to a different degree.

    If you or your parents grew up in an area where there's a larger income disparity, or is more multicultural, or more violent or simply where guns are a tradition, I can totally understand that one would feel naked and vulnerable without a gun. I can totally understand that the talk of restricting guns more (wheter it works or not) makes you uneasy. If I lived somewhere that >75% of the people owned at least a gun I'd probably get one, too. And this is just conjonctures, but if all of a sudden there was a strong anti-gun movement in the US, it would probably take decades of very slow changes making it less relevant and more of a nuisance to own a gun for the gun culture and the feeling of armed safety to go away. You don't need a PhD of american sociology to realize that in some areas it's an inherent part of the cultural identity. Traditions can't be broken overnight with a law, but for now if the people in that area want it that way, let them deal with the consequences of it, wheter they are mostly positive or mostly negative. As a side note, I think that for issues like that the individual states should have more control and the federal government less, the difference between some states is greater than between canadian provinces and most european countries.

    Finally, as I said: it's all cultural differences and I'm not trying to promote one point of view over the other, this is probably a case of whatever makes people happy. From a logical point of view, ONE method has to be better than the other in an absolute way, but no place compares to the US, so all we can do is discuss and argue back and forth and vote for the side of the debate that will make the local population happier.

    That was just some semi-drunken rambling, and I hope someone will find it interesting or insightful, but all I have to say is: I'm glad I don't have to live in fear all the time and I like the way it is here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nartek
    So, you can all wring your hands, and cry out in earnest all you want. But IT (America) is probably NEVER going to be a europeanized nation. The sooner you get that wrapped around your european nuggets, and just learn to stop trying to fix shit and bask in the superiority you already have... the better off Europe itself will be.
    I think you missed the point, most people are discussing which system is the best in an absolute way, while some others are discussing which is the best for the US, no need to throw insults.

  12. #52
    Super VIP Dot Kransthow's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    どんちゃかちゃっかー♪
    Posts
    6,709
    Quote Originally Posted by GiDiYi View Post
    First off: Let's keep the discussion in the bounds of the article that was quoted in the OP.
    My post was, it was a retort to this:
      Spoiler:
    Quote Originally Posted by The Article
    ...Many of them cite patriotism as their reason - true patriots support the Constitution adamantly and wholly. Constitution says citizens have the right to bear arms in order to maintain organized militias. I'm no constitutional scholar so here it is from the document itself:

    As passed by the Congress:
    "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
    As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
    "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

    So the patriots are correct, gun ownership is in the constitution - if you're in a well-regulated militia. Let's see what no less a statesman than Alexander Hamilton had to say about a militia:

    "A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."

    Or from Merriam-Webster dictionary:
    Definition of MILITIA
    1
    a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
    b : a body of citizens organized for military service
    2
    : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service

    The advocates of guns who claim patriotism and the rights of the 2nd Amendment - are they in well-regulated militias? For the vast majority - the answer is no...


    Quote Originally Posted by GiDiYi View Post
    But: This isn't even close to what is the reality in the US today. You're not allowed to own any kind of the more serious armaments needed to fight against the army of the United States of America in its current state as an american citizen no matter where you live. And if we're thinking about it, it's probably a good idea, that the regular John Doe doesn't have access to nuclear strategic intercontinental ballistic missiles.
    You don't need an intercontinental ballistic missile to fight against the united states army, a bunch of sandniggers in Idon'tgiveafuckistan seem to do well enough with rusty AKs and RPGs

    Quote Originally Posted by GiDiYi View Post
    Let's say, Obama is a communist spy, who's been secretely inserted by the KGB (who still exists, because that whole downfall of CCCP was just a really well disguised plan to distract the enemy), to turn the US over to Russia. Finally the populace of the US realize this and rise up against their leaders. Obama, being the commander in chief of the US military immediately deploys his troops to suppress the population while he's handing over the daily administration to Stalin (who still lives, because cunning plan etcetc.).

    Well, guess what. Your average GI Joe is a citizen of the United States and probably has a family living in this country of some sort. I am not saying, that GI Joe is an intelligent person (haha, US educational system), but he's got family and friends living in this country. So, when GI Joe gets told by Comrade Obama to get in his A-10 and bomb the living shit out of site A with his 30 mm's of death, while site A happens to be in Aurora, Colorado (picked for no particular reason), the city he grew up in, it'll almost certainly generate second thoughts in Joe.

    And I am not making this up. Look at Northern Africa in the last two years. Those rebels had almost nothing to start with, but suddenly they were all riding around in (stylish) Toyota Pick-Ups with mounted Heavy Machine Guns and shit. A little later they had sophisticated rocket launchers. Before you go :tinfoil: and say, they got it from the US or the EU, I'd say it might be true in some cases, but the largest parts of it by far came directly from the libyan, egyptian or syrian military (i.e. deserters).
    Yeah sure, at the moment one could make a reasonable case that the army is fairly likely to side with the public good.

    You could make the exact same reasonable case back when they wrote the constitution itself. However they knew that they had no way to ensure that the government would always look out for the public good and that the army would always side with the people.

    You simply cannot honestly say with a reasonable degree of certainty that the army will always side with the public forever. If you take away the ability for the people to posses effective arms with which they could mount a reasonable threat to the government with then the government no longer fears the will of the people.

    You bring up north africa as an example, yes a lot of soldiers deserted. And just as many if not more so stayed loyal to the government. You seem to be certain that if the time comes for revolution that enough soldiers will desert and shower the people with sufficient arms with which they will be able defend their own freedoms and you just can't guarantee that it will play out like that. The most certain way to ensure that the people are able to defend their freedom is for them to have the freedom to equip themselves with means of protecting those freedoms.

    Quote Originally Posted by GiDiYi View Post
    It has been said several times in this thread, but to sum my post up: People have the freedom to own and bear arms in the US. Fair enough. But, do we have to give every John Doe out there the ability to generate a massive massacre at a whim?

    It's unavoidable in some cases (the latest case with a seemingly really motivated lunatic might be such a case), because you really can't make it impossible. But it would be pretty easy to make it a lot harder without giving up a single dime of :freedom:, that the US and its citizens have fought for about 240 years ago.

    Happy posting.
    So tell me more about this pretty easy way to make it a lot harder to commit gun crime, gun control? Legal gun ownership has virtually no correlation with gun crime, internationally or in America. Almost all mass murders are committed with illegally obtained weapons, and on top of that many were committed in "gun-free" zones. And surrendering your freedom to self defense seems like a dime of freedom to me. To restrict legal access to certain kinds of guns which are deemed effective at causing bodily harm to others will not reduce gun deaths and will serve only to reduce the ability of the people to protect their own rights and :freedom:.

    The thing is America doesn't have a gun violence issue, America has a violence issue. It's quite easy to point at guns and go "LOOK, THE CULPRIT" but all that serves to do is distract from the real causes of the culture of violence that exists in America.

    You want to reduce gun violence? Try sensible drug laws, an effective education system and improved living conditions for the impoverished for starters.


    It'll actually do something other than strip your rights.

    e: don't edit my posts hast
    Last edited by Kransthow; July 24 2012 at 09:14:13 AM.

  13. #53
    Moderator Moderator F*** My Aunt Rita's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 10, 2011
    Location
    Whereever particular mexicans congregate.
    Posts
    3,026
    I read this thing:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...d-gun-control/

    1. America is an unusually violent country. But we’re not as violent as we used to be.



    2. The South is the most violent region in the United States.



    3. Gun ownership in the United States is declining overall.



    4. More guns tend to mean more homicide.

    (NO PICTURE)

    5. States with stricter gun control laws have fewer deaths from gun-related violence.



    6. Gun control is not politically popular.


  14. #54
    ry ry's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    snuff
    Posts
    3,896
    Quote Originally Posted by Kransthow View Post
    The thing is America doesn't have a gun violence issue, America has a violence issue. It's quite easy to point at guns and go "LOOK, THE CULPRIT" but all that serves to do is distract from the real causes of the culture of violence that exists in America.

    You want to reduce gun violence? Try sensible drug laws, an effective education system and improved living conditions for the impoverished for starters.
    ..and yet that doesn't change the fact that gun crime, something generally considered bad, typically involves a gun of some description. I'd go so far as to say the vast majority of women and children shot to death would have survived if the shooter wasn't armed.

    Calm down, the content is coming.

    I'm not enough of a hypocrite to sit in a leather chair eating my bacon sandwich, and tell you i don't approve of hunting - if a dude want to hunt delicious cuddly animals then that is entirely his business. Similarly the cat is very much out of the bag as far as guns in the US go. There are enough guns floating around to arm several small armies and at this point banning them would not stop people getting hold of some. Obviously the extremely political and polarising nature of any discussion about gun control goes without saying.

    Not an ideal scenario but an unfortunate reality. For me the issue is one of responsible gun ownership and ease of access and this seems to differ wildly from one country (and in the case of the US, state) to another.

    They just need to have one set of relatively sensible rules to ensure that people who want to own guns can, but have do so responsibly.

    Guns should not be easy to obtain. They really shouldn't. If i want to drive a car i need a license, i need to meet some basic medical criteria, i need to insure and register my vehicle. It is not governmental meddling, it is not an erosion of my civil liberties. It just means that if somebody runs me over their details are recorded somewhere, or if they have incurred enough points on their license by using their vehicle dangerously it will be taken off them.

    It also make the DVLA oodles of cash but in my survivalist underground bunker i've been stockpiling fiat 500s and petrol, so when the revolution comes i'll be able to drive down to Dixons for the looting.

    Guns should not be mundane. Last time i was in the states i was down in florida we stopped in a walmart and there was a Sporting Goods department sandwiched between Consumer Electronics and Toys. Round my way sporting goods consists of footballs, swimming goggles and sweatbands, here there were a variety of pump action shotguns.

    Guns shouldn't be treated as something you'll decide to pick up whilst popping down to the shops to buy a pallet of mountain dew, and there should be a legal obligation to ensure they are not accessible to minors. There are not many occasions in life where you *need* to buy a gun in the next 24 hours, certainly there might be times when it'd be convenient or desirable, but its important not to confuse those with requirement.

    Guns are a privilege, not a right. You can have a hunting rifle, sure no worries - prove you're not medically blind and don't have a string of firearms convictions and you're golden, but why on earth do you need that 30mm anti-aircraft cannon? You do not have the divine right to own everything that is physically capable of propelling metal through the air at lethal velocity, similarly my driving license does not permit me to drive a lorry or a 747.

    There is a bunch of ancillary detail, but that's pretty much the crux of it imo. Guns for everybody!*


    *providing they are capable of owning one sensibly.





    FULL DISCLOSURE: i'm mainly ambivalent, leaning slightly towards anti-gun.
    Last edited by ry ry; July 24 2012 at 10:34:15 AM.

  15. #55
    Ophichius's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 15, 2011
    Location
    Hedonistic Imperative
    Posts
    5,251
    Keep in mind that looking at gun-related deaths and attempted homicides in a vacuum is poor statistics. You should really be comparing gun-related violence vs total violence. If halving gun ownership halves the total incidence of violent crime, then it's actually something reasonable. If halving gun ownership halves the incidence of gun-related crime, but the slack is taken up by improvised weapons, knives, etc, then there really is very little point to it, as it restricts freedoms without a measurable impact on societal ills.

    There's also a question of chicken-and-egg going on with the oft-quoted 'more guns = more homicide' statistic. People purchase guns often times in order to feel safe. It's quite possible that there are higher per-capita rates of gun ownerships in areas -because- of the violent crime, rather than that there is a higher violent crime rate because of the per-capita gun ownership. Remember statistics 101: Correlation does not imply causation.

    -O
    I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those Thukkers, that way I wouldn't have to have any goddamn stupid useless conversations with anybody.
    Failing the Voight-Kampff test, one tortoise at a time.

  16. #56
    ry ry's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    snuff
    Posts
    3,896
    Unfortunately the only accurate way to profile that is to ban guns and see what happens, in the case of america i'd hazard a guess the reaction would be somewhere between political suicide and armed rebellion.

    Its the main reason tighter controls is the only reasonable 'anti-gun' stance - anything else is naive posturing.
    Last edited by ry ry; July 24 2012 at 10:39:51 AM.

  17. #57
    Ophichius's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 15, 2011
    Location
    Hedonistic Imperative
    Posts
    5,251
    Quote Originally Posted by ry ry View Post
    ..and yet that doesn't change the fact that gun crime, something generally considered bad, typically involves a gun of some description. I'd go so far as to say the vast majority of women and children shot to death would have survived if the shooter wasn't armed.
    That very much depends on what weapon was used instead. You're ignoring the proper question, which is "Would they have been attacked had a gun not been available." You're also loading the discussion by invoking 'women and children' specifically. Please don't do that.



    Guns should not be easy to obtain. They really shouldn't. If i want to drive a car i need a license, i need to meet some basic medical criteria, i need to insure and register my vehicle. It is not governmental meddling, it is not an erosion of my civil liberties. It just means that if somebody runs me over their details are recorded somewhere, or if they have incurred enough points on their license by using their vehicle dangerously it will be taken off them.
    Gun availability varies by state in the US. Handguns of any description require a background check already, and there is a fairly strong movement (And equally strong backlash) to get rifles covered under similar provisions.

    Guns should not be mundane. Last time i was in the states i was down in florida we stopped in a walmart and there was a Sporting Goods department sandwiched between Consumer Electronics and Toys. Round my way sporting goods consists of footballs, swimming goggles and sweatbands, here there were a variety of pump action shotguns.

    Guns shouldn't be treated as something you'll decide to pick up whilst popping down to the shops to buy a pallet of mountain dew, and there should be a legal obligation to ensure they are not accessible to minors. There are not many occasions in life where you *need* to buy a gun in the next 24 hours, certainly there might be times when it'd be convenient or desirable, but its important not to confuse those with requirement.
    Why not? For many people, a gun is a sporting good. Talk to all the IPSC shooters, the the folks who shoot clays, or even just your typical paper-target shooter on the range. What purpose does the vague statement "Guns should not be mundane." serve? And how would you go about it anyways? Put them behind an adults-only curtain, like porn in movie stores? That just adds to the mystique of it.

    Guns are a privilege, not a right. You can have a hunting rifle, sure no worries - prove you're not medically blind and don't have a string of firearms convictions and you're golden, but why on earth do you need that 30mm anti-aircraft cannon? You do not have the divine right to own everything that is physically capable of propelling metal through the air at lethal velocity, similarly my driving license does not permit me to drive a lorry or a 747.
    You can't get a 30mm anti-aircraft cannon inside the US without jumping through some incredibly impressive hoops, including having a federal firearms dealer's license (A $5000 fee by itself, and a hell of a background check required.) And even then you couldn't have the radar for it (Owning/operating it would require a small mountain of paperwork from the FCC and a shitton of training. I've never heard of privately-owned fire control radar, ever.), private ownership of a cannon of that magnitude is basically non-existent. To extend your vehicle license analogy, these people have their pilot's license rated for both IFR, VFR, and commercial flight. And now they're finally getting the 747 to go with it. It's not like Joe Sixpack can walk down to wal-mart and pick up a GAU-8 and a crate of 30mm HEI.

    -O
    I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those Thukkers, that way I wouldn't have to have any goddamn stupid useless conversations with anybody.
    Failing the Voight-Kampff test, one tortoise at a time.

  18. #58
    Ophichius's Avatar
    Join Date
    December 15, 2011
    Location
    Hedonistic Imperative
    Posts
    5,251
    Quote Originally Posted by Roam View Post
    I agree hypothetically that a single trained citizen could have shot the shooter (ignoring for the moment the issue of head-to-toe kevlar), but the discussion is not about placing single, trained individuals at strategic locations for the sake of potential tragedies. The issue is a binary one: Would more people have died if no one, or almost everyone (this therefore also includes UNtrained and INexperienced citizens) had been carrying a gun.
    Two things. First, the shooter was not wearing armor.

    CNN showed his gear purchase:



    Tracking down that vest, we find that it is this:

    http://www.blackhawk.com/product/Urb...est,275,86.htm

    Which is very clearly not a bulletproof vest, nor even close. It actually leaves the most vulnerable part of the torso completely uncovered. It's a tactical vest meant to keep equipment close at hand (mostly magazines).

    Secondly. It's not a binary issue, you're framing it as one. CCW shooters tend to be very aware that they need to be well-trained, due to the high-stress environments that would necessitate actually drawing and firing. That said, I would fully support mandated training and evaluations for CCW, similar to certifying/recertifying CPR or EMT qualifications. There is no logical reason why the only two options are 'lots of untrained people with guns' or 'nobody with guns'. You're deliberately ignoring any middle ground or nuanced approach in favor of knee-jerk extremism.

    -O
    I thought what I'd do was, I'd pretend I was one of those Thukkers, that way I wouldn't have to have any goddamn stupid useless conversations with anybody.
    Failing the Voight-Kampff test, one tortoise at a time.

  19. #59
    ry ry's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    snuff
    Posts
    3,896
    Clearly the first bit was loaded, i worded it so very obviously in the hope of eliciting a wry smile, but was still no more loaded than Kransthow suggesting that people getting shot was not at all linked to gun ownership. I'm also aware gun availability varies wildly from state to state - the whole point of what i posted was that there should be some standardised rules for all firearms, background checks being part of that.

    As far as vague statements like "guns should not be mundane" go what i mean specifically is that they should not be stacked on racks in the supermarket like any other household item. I don't believe putting them behind a counter would add to their 'mystique', and similarly i don't think taking that further putting them out of sight would have any negative side effect.

    The point of that is to make firearms less ubiquitous, if they cease to be something so commonplace you don't give them a second thought i'd anticipate that would - over a period of years - hopefully erode the sense of necessity/entitlement attached to them.


    Interestingly a number of UK retailers have recently put covers over cigarette counters displays, in a few years we'll know if this actually reduces the number of cigarettes sold in the longterm (i know this has nothing to do with guns, it was just an interesting aside)
    Last edited by ry ry; July 24 2012 at 11:31:55 AM.

  20. #60
    Movember '11 Ginger Excellence Movember 2011Movember 2012 sarabando's Avatar
    Join Date
    April 9, 2011
    Location
    Basingstoke England
    Posts
    2,630
    every time some one goes off with a gun all we get is "ban guns k" instead of tackling the real issues of "why they did it" and "how they got firearms" the last few shootings the world have seen brevik,moat,and holmes have all clearly been mentally unstable but still been able to gain access to firearms this is the bigger issue imo. in the uk banning guns didnt reduce the gun crime that much because there wasnt that much to begin with also imo.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •