Languish.org

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/14/health/gun-injuries-more-deadly/index.html

Executive summary: While the technical ability of doctors to treat gunshot wounds has never been greater, the fatality rate of gunshot victims is increasing year over year as we are seeing

1) Each wound being more lethal due to greater firepower and more deadly ammunition, and
2) the typical victim presenting with more wounds as weapons which can fire faster and longer become more and more common.

The reality is that control does matter, and in fact the loosening of gun control laws does have an effect, and it isn't positive. We could have reduced this increasing lethality had reasonable control measures been in place previously. I can't *prove* that though, because attempts to actually collect data in an organized and systemic manner are fought tooth and nail.

There is plenty that can be done that is measured, reasonable, and clearly no kind of attempt to challenge the Second Amendment. There is a reasonable middle ground, even if the NRA and their supporters pretend like there is not.

What is really frustrating is that at the same time the gun fanatics will argue that there isn't any "real data" about how laws effect outcomes, at the exact same time they also make it certain that the efforts to collect data will fail, even if the anecdotal data is clear, and demands more study.

How someone can argue that studying gun violence is an attack on individual rights is baffling.

How has firepower increased?  Are people running around the streets with Barrett .50 cal rifles or something?

Quote from: derspiess on June 15, 2016, 11:02:57 AM
How has firepower increased?  Are people running around the streets with Barrett .50 cal rifles or something?

Read the article.

Facts are dangerous, they might lead to people changing their minds.

QuoteIn 2004, a law known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired. It had restricted the number of bullets that a magazine could legally carry to 10. Since then, more criminals have carried weapons that can shoot continuously and inflict even more damage, Spitzer said.

This is a bit misleading.  The AWB did not ban "large" capacity magazines that were manufactured prior to the ban.  And there was such a glut of magazines before the ban that you had no difficulty finding them for reasonable prices through 2004.  I would imagine if you were going to go shoot someone, a superficial 10 round magazine limit wasn't going to get in your way and you'd get a hold of higher capacity magazines pretty easily.  So I dispute the notion that the AWB had any practical limit on the number of shots fired.

Quote from: derspiess on June 15, 2016, 11:38:14 AM

QuoteIn 2004, a law known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired. It had restricted the number of bullets that a magazine could legally carry to 10. Since then, more criminals have carried weapons that can shoot continuously and inflict even more damage, Spitzer said.

This is a bit misleading.  The AWB did not ban "large" capacity magazines that were manufactured prior to the ban.  And there was such a glut of magazines before the ban that you had no difficulty finding them for reasonable prices through 2004.  I would imagine if you were going to go shoot someone, a superficial 10 round magazine limit wasn't going to get in your way and you'd get a hold of higher capacity magazines pretty easily.  So I dispute the notion that the AWB had any practical limit on the number of shots fired.

Of course - no matter what law is proposed, there is going to be an argument just like this for why it won't matter. If a law is passed, it can have no effect other than to restrict law abiding citizens. Since it is "pretty easy" to get a hold of large capacity magazines, then we should not restrict the availability, sale, and manufacture of large capacity magazines. The logic is crystal clear, like some good meth. I hear that is pretty easy to get a hold of, so why try to regulate it, amiright?

We don't know of course, because we are also against actual studies on the effectiveness of such laws. And study done ought to be ignored.

And yet...the fatality rate of gunshot victims continues to rise even as medical technology and responsiveness increases. It is such a mystery! How can it be that gunshot victims are showing up with more and larger holes in them?

Hard to say why, of course, since you and your NRA friends support the refusal to fund any study or systemic collection of data.

All these "determined people will get guns/clips/ammo" arguments miss the fact that getting and possessing illegal items increases the risk one is caught before committing a crime.  And smart criminals actually do try to avoid getting up for some secondary shit.

Quote from: Berkut on June 15, 2016, 11:44:59 AM
Since it is "pretty easy" to get a hold of large capacity magazines

Well, it was just a matter of going online to....pretty much anywhere....and buying the magazines you want (those would be labeled with a bold "Pre-ban!1!" or something similar).  It was "pretty easy" in the sense that it was exactly the same as buying anything else online.

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on June 15, 2016, 12:11:16 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 15, 2016, 11:44:59 AM
Since it is "pretty easy" to get a hold of large capacity magazines

Well, it was just a matter of going online to....pretty much anywhere....and buying the magazines you want.  It was "pretty easy" in the sense that it was exactly the same as buying anything else online.

Right. It is "pretty easy" so we should, of course and obviously, make it continue to be "pretty easy" forever and ever. Indeed, we should make it even easier.

Quote from: Berkut on June 15, 2016, 12:13:08 PM
Right. It is "pretty easy" so we should, of course and obviously, make it continue to be "pretty easy" forever and ever. Indeed, we should make it even easier.

The expiration of the ban didn't change how you buy them.  It just changed the way they were labeled.  It was stupid.

E:  Or maybe not: https://www.massfirearmsshop.com/preban-usgi-ar15-round-magazine-p-3925.html  They still list them as pre-ban even.

Well the answer would seem to be that if you ban high capacity magazines, then you ban them completely (presumably with some kind of buy-back program).

Yes, I know, not everyone is going to turn in their high capacity magazines.  But it prevents them from being openly sold, and you prohibit the manufacture of new ones.  Over time it should reduce their availability.

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on June 15, 2016, 12:13:45 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 15, 2016, 12:13:08 PM
Right. It is "pretty easy" so we should, of course and obviously, make it continue to be "pretty easy" forever and ever. Indeed, we should make it even easier.

The expiration of the ban didn't change how you buy them.  It just changed the way they were labeled.

Is there a point in here somewhere?

Are you claiming that ER doctors are lying, and that gunshot victims are not showing up with more holes poked in them?

Or are you claiming that access to high capacity magazines never changed at all as a result of the ban on them or the removal of said ban, and some other factor is what is causing people to shoot people more times per incident than magazine sizes or weapon capabilities?

Do you have some evidence to back that up? Did average prices remain constant? Availability?

Of course, data would be hard to find, since the NRA blocks any and all attempts for the federal government to actually quantify anything.

I found it pretty chilling that a fellow on a FBI watchlist, a wifebeater with a nutjob father, could legally buy a fairly impressive weapon so easily  :mad:

Even Trump seems to agree http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36540388

Berk, there's a link right there for you.  Pre-ban 30 round mags still in stock.  That's what Spiess was talking about.  It made no difference.  Click and buy just like everything else.

Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2016, 12:16:45 PM
Well the answer would seem to be that if you ban high capacity magazines, then you ban them completely (presumably with some kind of buy-back program).

Yes, I know, not everyone is going to turn in their high capacity magazines.  But it prevents them from being openly sold, and you prohibit the manufacture of new ones.  Over time it should reduce their availability.

Yes, that would be the way you'd have to do it. 

Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on June 15, 2016, 12:17:20 PM
I found it pretty chilling that a fellow on a FBI watchlist, a wifebeater with a nutjob father, could legally buy a fairly impressive weapon so easily  :mad:

Even Trump seems to agree http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-36540388

He wasn't actually on the watchlist at the time.

Eh, I somewhat agree with berkut, somewhat agree with derspiess. There's no good reason to block studies, information is always good.

I would genuinely like to know why GSWs are becoming more lethal, because as a pretty gun savvy guy I'm not aware of any technological changes in the past 20 years that would cause this. It makes me wonder (and again, as berk points out, we have no data) that shooters may be more lethal in intent these days. I.e. they're may be some cultural reasons they're making sure they finish the job for sure, but I don't know why that would be.

In terms of lethality size of the bullet and composition of it are the largest factors, and the most deadly rounds aren't anything new--high caliber hollow point, they make big holes and break up inside the body and do horrific damage. Probably the most lethal round widely available at least at 25 yard range or so would probably be 00 buckshot, and that's 100 year old technology.

Most newer/exotic rounds are more about weird use cases, armor piercing stuff, etc. But those can actually be less lethal against a target not wearing armor.

I will say that as a gun owner who would be fine with more restrictions, every AWB ban that's been proposed since Newtown, and the one in effect from '94-2004 are stupid and will do little to prevent gun deaths. Plus they focus on something that in aggregate doesn't matter. The gun debate we do focus more on spectacle than reality. There's some 33,000 odd gun deaths a year, the vast majority are suicides (20,000), and I think the vast majority of those are with handguns. I think of the 8000 or so homicides, most of those are with handguns too. Rifles are responsible for I believe less than 1k fatalities a year, and only a subset of those fatalities is ascribed to "semiautomatic scary-makes Dianne Feinstein cry" type guns affected by proposed AWBs.

As for being on a FBI watchlist, the reality is he wasn't. He was in a database sometimes called a watchlist, but it's easy to get on that--and there's no due process at all. I'd be very hesitant to infringe on someone's rights because of the result of a process that involves no due process. To be honest both things they investigated him for were nonsense. He made some dumb statements and got looked at in 2013 and he basically admitted he was mad and said something stupid. Then in I think 2014 he said he knew a guy who was a suicide bomber in Syria. They investigated and found while he had had contact with him, it was extremely minimal. I'm not really sure what the FBI was supposed to do at that point, none of the things mentioned are criminal, or would even warrant charges. He wasn't even on the no-fly list.

On the other side, he was a licensed security guard and had gone through a lot of hoops for that purposes, and even worked as an armed guard at a courthouse. I think there was little ability or reasonable way to stop Mateen without some draconian measures (like blanket deep surveillance of any "angry Muslims") that itself would raise serious constitutional concerns.

I should mention there is some data out there. CDC is banned from doing studies, but the DOJ has done a few and the FBI's UCR is informative as well. FWIW in 2004 when the AWB expired the DOJ did a study on it and concluded it essentially prevented no crime, and said the most effective part of the ban was the restriction on high capacity magazines--but even then they noted they "expect" the difference between 10 and 30 round magazines might represent no more than a 5% difference in number of fatalities in a mass shooting event.

Plus, as has been mentioned, 30 round magazines were not illegal at all (so they weren't like crystal meth.) The AWB just prohibited manufacturers from making them "for the civilian market", any produced before 1994 were still legal to buy/sell/possess. If state law allowed (and some did not and still do not.)

It's pretty obvious that gun control reduces gun crime. Absolute no brainer.

I'm actually pretty hopeful for the future on this issue. In light of Sander's recent success it is really clear that America is changing. Who would have thought 5 years ago that a socialist would be able to put such a good showing in the US?
Give it a decade or two and views on gun control across a majority should have similarly became far more moderate.

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on June 15, 2016, 12:13:45 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 15, 2016, 12:13:08 PM
Right. It is "pretty easy" so we should, of course and obviously, make it continue to be "pretty easy" forever and ever. Indeed, we should make it even easier.

The expiration of the ban didn't change how you buy them.  It just changed the way they were labeled.  It was stupid.

E:  Or maybe not: https://www.massfirearmsshop.com/preban-usgi-ar15-round-magazine-p-3925.html  They still list them as pre-ban even.

In states that have enacted their own Assault Weapons Bans, like Massachusetts, pre-ban magazines and pre-ban scary looking rifles with flash hiders and bayonet lugs are legal to own.  So you kind of need to label them pre-ban there so people know it's legal for them to have them.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 15, 2016, 12:27:35 PM
but even then they noted they "expect" the difference between 10 and 30 round magazines might represent no more than a 5% difference in number of fatalities in a mass shooting event.

Well 5% is not exactly insignificant when we are talking about human lives...

Quote from: Tyr on June 15, 2016, 12:31:36 PM
It's pretty obvious that gun control reduces gun crime. Absolute no brainer.

I'd say the Assault Weapons Ban had no noticeable effect on crime.  All it really did was outlaw aesthetic features-- unless drive-by bayonetings were a big problem prior to 1994.

Quote from: derspiess on June 15, 2016, 12:39:32 PM

Quote from: Tyr on June 15, 2016, 12:31:36 PM
It's pretty obvious that gun control reduces gun crime. Absolute no brainer.

I'd say the Assault Weapons Ban had no noticeable effect on crime.  All it really did was outlaw aesthetic features-- unless drive-by bayonetings were a big problem prior to 1994.

A mass bayonetting would be pretty old school.

Quote from: Tyr on June 15, 2016, 12:31:36 PM
It's pretty obvious that gun control reduces gun crime. Absolute no brainer.

I'm actually pretty hopeful for the future on this issue. In light of Sander's recent success it is really clear that America is changing. Who would have thought 5 years ago that a socialist would be able to put such a good showing in the US?
Give it a decade or two and views on gun control across a majority should have similarly became far more moderate.

Only gun control that reduces gun numbers, which neither the 1994 AWB or any subsequently proposed ones have. Australia took action after Port Arthur, with all the states agreeing on a unified gun control regime, and they had a huge national buyback in which like 650,000 guns were purchased by the government. Every few years since then they've had amnesties as well, where hold outs could surrender the guns they held onto illegal without penalty.

Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 12:33:56 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 15, 2016, 12:27:35 PM
but even then they noted they "expect" the difference between 10 and 30 round magazines might represent no more than a 5% difference in number of fatalities in a mass shooting event.

Well 5% is not exactly insignificant when we are talking about human lives...

Eh, at societal scale "5% of mass shooting fatalities" is pretty much nothing. How many people die in a "mass shooting" each year? It's estimated we might have 5% less deaths of that number.

Edit: You can't just use "human lives" to justify everything. If every car in America was required to have an ignition interlock device (like drunks get after they have too many DUIs) I bet we'd save thousands of lives a year. But there's a cost to that as well (the cost of the device) and the hassle, to people who have not actually ever driven drunk and may view it as an unfair imposition.

We are not going to have effective gun control without a Constitutional amendment. The Gun lobby knows this so like hell do they want possibly persuasive gun violence research out there being funded by US tax dollars.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 15, 2016, 12:43:28 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 12:33:56 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 15, 2016, 12:27:35 PM
but even then they noted they "expect" the difference between 10 and 30 round magazines might represent no more than a 5% difference in number of fatalities in a mass shooting event.

Well 5% is not exactly insignificant when we are talking about human lives...

Eh, at societal scale "5% of mass shooting fatalities" is pretty much nothing. How many people die in a "mass shooting" each year? It's estimated we might have 5% less deaths of that number.

But what's the downside of eliminating said deaths (apart from expenditure of political capital)? Or from the flipside, hardly seems like we are gaining much by keeping with those 5% of deaths from mass shootings.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 15, 2016, 12:43:28 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 12:33:56 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 15, 2016, 12:27:35 PM
but even then they noted they "expect" the difference between 10 and 30 round magazines might represent no more than a 5% difference in number of fatalities in a mass shooting event.

Well 5% is not exactly insignificant when we are talking about human lives...

Eh, at societal scale "5% of mass shooting fatalities" is pretty much nothing. How many people die in a "mass shooting" each year? It's estimated we might have 5% less deaths of that number.

Edit: You can't just use "human lives" to justify everything. If every car in America was required to have an ignition interlock device (like drunks get after they have too many DUIs) I bet we'd save thousands of lives a year. But there's a cost to that as well (the cost of the device) and the hassle, to people who have not actually ever driven drunk and may view it as an unfair imposition.

There were 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people.  A 5% reduction means 24 people aren't dead.  That sounds pretty good to me.

I think it's likely that the reason for the number and severity of gunshot wounds increasing is precisely because medical technology is improving.  People usually don't shoot someone to injure, they want to kill them.  If the victim manages to stay alive then it didn't work, and so the perpetrator is going to resort to stronger methods next time.

Quote from: derspiess on June 15, 2016, 12:33:00 PM
In states that have enacted their own Assault Weapons Bans, like Massachusetts, pre-ban magazines and pre-ban scary looking rifles with flash hiders and bayonet lugs are legal to own.  So you kind of need to label them pre-ban there so people know it's legal for them to have them.

I don't think California allows these things at all, or at least not without some huge license.  I think I'd have to remove some stuff (grenade launcher and bayonet) from my SKS to make it legal over there, even though that has zero effect on anything unless I wanted to perform a bayonet charge or get nailed by ATF for trying to buy NATO rifle grenades.

Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2016, 12:47:24 PM
There were 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people.  A 5% reduction means 24 people aren't dead.  That sounds pretty good to me.

It does sound good, but those probably weren't all by dickheads with 30 round magazines in their rifles.  Most of them were probably by dickheads with handguns.  Still, that would mean, what, 2 or 3 more people survived this last attack?  That's not a bad thing, no matter how you look at it.  Again though, as you say, it would have to be a full ban, not just saying new ones can't be made but you can still buy the old ones.

How many lives would a national 55 mph speed limit save? I'm not sure 24 dead is enough of a reduction to ban anything.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 15, 2016, 12:53:31 PM
How many lives would a national 55 mph speed limit save? I'm not sure 24 dead is enough of a reduction to ban anything.

Quote from: Homer Simpson55? That's ridiculous! Sure, it'll save a few lives, but millions will be late!

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on June 15, 2016, 12:48:23 PM

Quote from: derspiess on June 15, 2016, 12:33:00 PM
In states that have enacted their own Assault Weapons Bans, like Massachusetts, pre-ban magazines and pre-ban scary looking rifles with flash hiders and bayonet lugs are legal to own.  So you kind of need to label them pre-ban there so people know it's legal for them to have them.

I don't think California allows these things at all, or at least not without some huge license.  I think I'd have to remove some stuff (grenade launcher and bayonet) from my SKS to make it legal over there, even though that has zero effect on anything unless I wanted to perform a bayonet charge or get nailed by ATF for trying to buy NATO rifle grenades.

Yeah, I think California has a more severe ban.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 15, 2016, 12:53:31 PM
How many lives would a national 55 mph speed limit save? I'm not sure 24 dead is enough of a reduction to ban anything.

55mph?  Road rage through the roof. 

As far as the number goes, yeah it's statistically tiny (and they did apparently say "no more than" 5%, so it could go lower), but meh.  10 vs 30 everywhere you're doing legal stuff with it doesn't seem like a yuuge meaningful difference. Although that's just like my opinion man.

Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2016, 12:47:24 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 15, 2016, 12:43:28 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 12:33:56 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 15, 2016, 12:27:35 PM
but even then they noted they "expect" the difference between 10 and 30 round magazines might represent no more than a 5% difference in number of fatalities in a mass shooting event.

Well 5% is not exactly insignificant when we are talking about human lives...

Eh, at societal scale "5% of mass shooting fatalities" is pretty much nothing. How many people die in a "mass shooting" each year? It's estimated we might have 5% less deaths of that number.

Edit: You can't just use "human lives" to justify everything. If every car in America was required to have an ignition interlock device (like drunks get after they have too many DUIs) I bet we'd save thousands of lives a year. But there's a cost to that as well (the cost of the device) and the hassle, to people who have not actually ever driven drunk and may view it as an unfair imposition.

There were 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people.  A 5% reduction means 24 people aren't dead.  That sounds pretty good to me.

Is that how the percentages work?  I wasn't sure.  I that if someone shoots you have a less then 10% of dying (about 9.7), I wasn't sure how the 5% would fit in there.  I'm not good at math. :(

QuoteWhat is really frustrating is that at the same time the gun fanatics will argue that there isn't any "real data" about how laws effect outcomes, at the exact same time they also make it certain that the efforts to collect data will fail, even if the anecdotal data is clear, and demands more study.

There is plenty of wounding data, ballistic tests, etc, that have been done since WW2. Pull open youtube and look at various ballistic gel test on penetration/expansion, hydrostatic shock, and wound channels of various types of handgun and rifle bullets.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZIYMTlf19A

QuoteHow someone can argue that studying gun violence is an attack on individual rights is baffling.

It isn't of course

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 15, 2016, 11:20:45 AM
Facts are dangerous, they might lead to people changing their minds.

Right back at ya.

Quote from: derspiess on June 15, 2016, 11:38:14 AM

QuoteIn 2004, a law known as the Federal Assault Weapons Ban expired. It had restricted the number of bullets that a magazine could legally carry to 10. Since then, more criminals have carried weapons that can shoot continuously and inflict even more damage, Spitzer said.

This is a bit misleading.  The AWB did not ban "large" capacity magazines that were manufactured prior to the ban.  And there was such a glut of magazines before the ban that you had no difficulty finding them for reasonable prices through 2004.  I would imagine if you were going to go shoot someone, a superficial 10 round magazine limit wasn't going to get in your way and you'd get a hold of higher capacity magazines pretty easily.  So I dispute the notion that the AWB had any practical limit on the number of shots fired.

Besides, criminals don't care about obeying the law, so black market magazines, stolen from the military, would provide the holding capacity they wanted.

Not that you need large capacity mags. I can reload in under a second. If my old ass can do that anyone can with a little practice.

Quote from: Siege on June 15, 2016, 01:36:23 PM
Besides, criminals don't care about obeying the law, so black market magazines, stolen from the military, would provide the holding capacity they wanted.

Not that you need large capacity mags. I can reload in under a second. If my old ass can do that anyone can with a little practice.

Yeah but the thing everybody is wringing their hands about are not criminals or trained pros but random losers who just shoot up a bunch of people. I don't think anybody thinks organized crime types are ever going to be disarmed. Even in Britain.

Again not that it really matters. The Right to Bear Arms is a Constitutional right, backed up by USSC precedent.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 15, 2016, 12:25:25 PM
Eh, I somewhat agree with berkut, somewhat agree with derspiess. There's no good reason to block studies, information is always good.

I would genuinely like to know why GSWs are becoming more lethal, because as a pretty gun savvy guy I'm not aware of any technological changes in the past 20 years that would cause this. It makes me wonder (and again, as berk points out, we have no data) that shooters may be more lethal in intent these days. I.e. they're may be some cultural reasons they're making sure they finish the job for sure, but I don't know why that would be.

In terms of lethality size of the bullet and composition of it are the largest factors, and the most deadly rounds aren't anything new--high caliber hollow point, they make big holes and break up inside the body and do horrific damage. Probably the most lethal round widely available at least at 25 yard range or so would probably be 00 buckshot, and that's 100 year old technology.

Most newer/exotic rounds are more about weird use cases, armor piercing stuff, etc. But those can actually be less lethal against a target not wearing armor.

I will say that as a gun owner who would be fine with more restrictions, every AWB ban that's been proposed since Newtown, and the one in effect from '94-2004 are stupid and will do little to prevent gun deaths. Plus they focus on something that in aggregate doesn't matter. The gun debate we do focus more on spectacle than reality. There's some 33,000 odd gun deaths a year, the vast majority are suicides (20,000), and I think the vast majority of those are with handguns. I think of the 8000 or so homicides, most of those are with handguns too. Rifles are responsible for I believe less than 1k fatalities a year, and only a subset of those fatalities is ascribed to "semiautomatic scary-makes Dianne Feinstein cry" type guns affected by proposed AWBs.

As for being on a FBI watchlist, the reality is he wasn't. He was in a database sometimes called a watchlist, but it's easy to get on that--and there's no due process at all. I'd be very hesitant to infringe on someone's rights because of the result of a process that involves no due process. To be honest both things they investigated him for were nonsense. He made some dumb statements and got looked at in 2013 and he basically admitted he was mad and said something stupid. Then in I think 2014 he said he knew a guy who was a suicide bomber in Syria. They investigated and found while he had had contact with him, it was extremely minimal. I'm not really sure what the FBI was supposed to do at that point, none of the things mentioned are criminal, or would even warrant charges. He wasn't even on the no-fly list.

On the other side, he was a licensed security guard and had gone through a lot of hoops for that purposes, and even worked as an armed guard at a courthouse. I think there was little ability or reasonable way to stop Mateen without some draconian measures (like blanket deep surveillance of any "angry Muslims") that itself would raise serious constitutional concerns.

The issue in the article at least isn't that new tech is involved - it is in the types of guns criminals are using. At least according to the article, criminals even 15-20 years ago were more likely to rely on .38 "Saturday Night Specials". Now they are more likely to be using better quality automatics with large capacity magazines.

QuoteThe handguns people use now have more of an ability to create severe tissue injury than the typical .38 Special injuries we used to see 15 or 20 years ago," Moore said. "And if you have weapons that deliver a multitude of bullets, allowing the shooter to continue shooting, (that) is far more damaging than the amount of energy delivered by a single bullet."

On call last week, Moore treated a patient shot six times. "It's not uncommon anymore. Not at all," he said. And he hears that from trauma teams across the country.

"A key difference today in these mass shootings, and even in your bank robberies and assaults, is that now, individuals have these weapons that shoot multiple bullets without delay," Moore said. "It can be a challenge with that many bullets in that many body parts, and the damage is extensive."

None of the tech is new, it would seem: it is merely a change in patterns of use. At least, allegedly.

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on June 15, 2016, 01:00:33 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 15, 2016, 12:53:31 PM
How many lives would a national 55 mph speed limit save? I'm not sure 24 dead is enough of a reduction to ban anything.

55mph?  Road rage through the roof. 

As far as the number goes, yeah it's statistically tiny (and they did apparently say "no more than" 5%, so it could go lower), but meh.  10 vs 30 everywhere you're doing legal stuff with it doesn't seem like a yuuge meaningful difference. Although that's just like my opinion man.

So as I asked, what's the upside of having those 20 people die when the downside simply seems to be - people can have a little less fun with guns?

Quote from: Barrister on June 15, 2016, 12:47:24 PM
There were 372 mass shootings in the US in 2015, killing 475 people.  A 5% reduction means 24 people aren't dead.  That sounds pretty good to me.

There are probably thousands of government policies can save more than 24 people a year at a lesser cost (political and monetary).

Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 01:44:55 PM
So as I asked, what's the upside of having those 20 people die when the downside simply seems to be - people can have a little less fun with guns?

I don't know.  You'll have to ask someone who would care about 30 round magazines being banned. vOv

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on June 15, 2016, 01:50:12 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 01:44:55 PM
So as I asked, what's the upside of having those 20 people die when the downside simply seems to be - people can have a little less fun with guns?

I don't know.  You'll have to ask someone who would care about 30 round magazines being banned. vOv

Aren't you the one who just said 20 lives isn't a meaningful difference in your opinion?

Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 01:51:09 PM
Aren't you the one who just said 20 lives isn't a meaningful difference in your opinion?

No?  :huh:

E:  Are you talking about 10 vs 30 round magazine sizes?  10 round magazine sizes would be allowed under an AWB type thing that actually bans stuff.  30 would not.  The difference is not meaningful when you're doing legal things with them imo.  Killing people in clubs is not legal as far as I know.

yeah, the sources the article uses is more about criminal enterprises than mass shooters. the problem is that mass shootings* are more popular these days than in the past. this wouldn't be possible if the US weren't a gun society, but it is, and that's not going to change for a long time. anti-gun control supporters are on the rise, probably due to political rhetoric, so guns will likely be readily available for decades at least and mass shootings will continue to occur. maybe over time they'll stop happening with as much frequency, but I don't think so--the cat's out of the bag.

*mass shootings defined as shootings in public places against unknown bystanders

Quote


The research letter in the Journal of the American Medical Association on Tuesday takes a closer look at the nature of gunshot wounds in patients at Denver's largest trauma center. What it finds is that based on the increasing severity of gunshot wounds and the increasing number of patients shot multiple times, patients are now more likely to die from a gunshot wound than they were even 10 years ago. That's not the case for other trauma such as falls, accidents and stabbings.

Well yea. If someone falls off a building 3-4 times of course he has a greater chance of dying than if he just fell off once. Silly comparison. 

Quote
The data came from Denver Health Medical Center between 2000 and 2013, during which time death rates from gunshot wounds increased by about 6% on average every couple of years, according to the research. The authors are careful to say it is hard to extrapolate these data without having more of it from other trauma centers.

What data do you need. You don't really need any to come to a conclusion.

Specialty ammo+high capacity+rapid firing type actions= increased death rates from gunshot wounds.

Quote

But Denver doctors haven't forgotten how to treat trauma patients. The survivability rates from those other kinds of trauma show that the technology and the communication among the trauma teams, and the kind of care you can get, is "some of the best in the country," according to study author Dr. Angela Sauaia. What's changed, she said, is the nature of the gunshot injuries.

"To be blunt, instead of a 2-centimeter hole, you are seeing a 3-centimeter hole with more damage. And there are more wounds, so the team has to repair more damage," Sauaia said.

In handguns, specialty ammo like Hydra-Shoks will cause that. Those are more expensive than standard full metal jacket type surplus bullets. However specialty ammo is more prevalent in hand guns than usable in Assault Rifles.

Generally there are two categories of bullets;
1. Expanding
  a. non-jacketed lead: Wadcutter for example. More prevalent in handguns nowadays.
  b. jacketed soft points:
    1. Cup & Core: Designed with a copper jacket and a lead core. It usually has a small exposed lead tip. It is designed to expand for greater one shot killing capacity. Been around for over a century. Does not work well in assault rifles. Subject to core separation at high velocity. 
    2. Controlled expansion: developed in the '40's and '50's to minimize core separation, such as the Nosler partition. Aids in penetration on heavy game while maintaining bullet integrity. 
  c. expanding solid: All copper mix bullet with a hollow type point. Expensive
2. Non-expanding
  a. Full metal jacket: full metal/copper jacket with a softer lead type core. Readily available as surplus military ammo and the ammo of choice for these wack jobs with assault rifles.
  b. Solid: (not armor piercing which is illegal) mainly a solid copper type bullet with no provision to aid in expansion. Another in this category is tungsten core. Designed for penetration. Primarily used for dangerous game in large caliber stopping rifle. Very, very expensive.

A 5.56mm (3000 ft/sec muzzle velocity) with a regular soft point cup & core bullet at point blank range is absolutely devastating compared to the milsurplus FMJ at the same velocity and speed. Problem is, the assault rifle doesnt reliably feed soft point bullets. They are more expensive than milsurplus. 



 

Quote
The data do not get at why the injuries are more severe. Those records were unavailable to the team, Sauaia said, but co-author and world-renowned trauma surgeon Dr. Ernest Moore said he knows exactly what has changed. He blames the kinds of weapons used and the high capacity magazines.

"The handguns people use now have more of an ability to create severe tissue injury than the typical .38 Special injuries we used to see 15 or 20 years ago," Moore said. "And if you have weapons that deliver a multitude of bullets, allowing the shooter to continue shooting, (that) is far more damaging than the amount of energy delivered by a single bullet."

Yes getting shot more than once increases the damage and chance of dying.

Quote
"A key difference today in these mass shootings, and even in your bank robberies and assaults, is that now, individuals have these weapons that shoot multiple bullets without delay," Moore said. "It can be a challenge with that many bullets in that many body parts, and the damage is extensive."That is consistent with what gun experts say is the weapon of choice among American criminals.

Without delay...like a fully automatic weapon. I don't believe there are loads of automatic weapons on the streets. They are illegal and have been. Even a semi-auto has a delay.

Quote from: MadBurgerMaker on June 15, 2016, 01:52:20 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 01:51:09 PM
Aren't you the one who just said 20 lives isn't a meaningful difference in your opinion?

No?  :huh:

E:  Are you talking about 10 vs 30 round magazine sizes?  10 round magazine sizes would be allowed under an AWB type thing that actually bans stuff.  30 would not.  The difference is not meaningful when you're doing legal things with them imo.  Killing people in clubs is not legal as far as I know.

Oh I misunderstood. Sorry. :D :hug:

No worries garb. I should have put "magazines" in there somewhere now that I'm looking at it.  :hug:

Quote from: Siege on June 15, 2016, 01:36:23 PM
Besides, criminals don't care about obeying the law, so . . .

If the premise is true that would suggest keeping regulation tight, because it increases the chance that someone will get caught on a weapons charge before they can commit a more serious crime. 

Quote from: garbon on June 15, 2016, 01:44:55 PMSo as I asked, what's the upside of having those 20 people die when the downside simply seems to be - people can have a little less fun with guns?

I think government needs a good justification to ban anything, and saving twenty lives isn't that great of one, to me, when we're talking about a society-wide ban.

Quote from: Malthus on June 15, 2016, 01:39:54 PMThe issue in the article at least isn't that new tech is involved - it is in the types of guns criminals are using. At least according to the article, criminals even 15-20 years ago were more likely to rely on .38 "Saturday Night Specials". Now they are more likely to be using better quality automatics with large capacity magazines.

I'd argue a lot of that is probably cultural. In my youth a lot of people really preferred revolvers because there was the stereotype they were more reliable and that semiautomatic pistols were basically crap that failed all the time. Some of that critique of semiautos is  born out of reality, the older semiautomatics, and I mean like turn of the century 1911s up through maybe mid-20th century, weren't all that reliable. But by the time law enforcement agencies started phasing out revolvers (which was in the 70s), there wasn't much of a compelling argument for revolvers any longer.

Price is probably more or less a wash, some guns have gotten cheaper relatively (I remember a Mossberg pump gun was around $150 in the 80s and is only around $290 now, at the cheapest level, so it hasn't even kept up with inflation.) But a big caliber, well made semiautomatic was expensive  back then, and with many of them at $800-1000+ they're still pretty expensive today. You can find real cheap ones, but that was true back then, as well.

There are some really well made, higher caliber "pocket carry" guns, that are smaller and deadlier than comparatively small guns in the past. But frankly the difference in concealment, for the criminal use, between those guns and semiautomatics available in the 80s isn't all that great. Most of these guys are carrying waist band or jacket pocket.

QuoteNone of the tech is new, it would seem: it is merely a change in patterns of use. At least, allegedly.

That would seem likely--and thus it would seem the premise of the thread, that diminished gun control has contributed to the lethality doesn't make a lot of sense. This stuff was available 30 years ago, it just wasn't used as much. There are exotic rounds, new ones come out all the time, but I think very few criminals use them--those are honestly more hobbyist use.

As far as Baltimore homicides go, figuring out why there has been an increase in GSW lethality in recent years has never really been rocket science:

% of GSW homicide victims shot in the head:
1995: 13.3%
1998: 22.0%
2009: 48.0%
 

QuoteDr. Thomas M. Scalea, physician in chief at Maryland Shock Trauma Center, said he has not seen a marked increase in victims shot in the head, but said that could be because they are going straight to the morgue.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 15, 2016, 12:25:25 PM
As for being on a FBI watchlist, the reality is he wasn't. He was in a database sometimes called a watchlist, but it's easy to get on that--and there's no due process at all. I'd be very hesitant to infringe on someone's rights because of the result of a process that involves no due process. To be honest both things they investigated him for were nonsense. He made some dumb statements and got looked at in 2013 and he basically admitted he was mad and said something stupid. Then in I think 2014 he said he knew a guy who was a suicide bomber in Syria. They investigated and found while he had had contact with him, it was extremely minimal. I'm not really sure what the FBI was supposed to do at that point, none of the things mentioned are criminal, or would even warrant charges. He wasn't even on the no-fly list.

this part, I don't quite get.
Someone admits he is mad, and you let him have assault rifles.

For a Québécois, I'm pretty liberal on gun control.  I'd let people have a handgun and carry it around, if they pass certain tests on a regulard basis.
But giving guns to people with any kind of mental health issues?  Assault rifles?  No frickin' way.

Quote
On the other side, he was a licensed security guard and had gone through a lot of hoops for that purposes, and even worked as an armed guard at a courthouse. I think there was little ability or reasonable way to stop Mateen without some draconian measures (like blanket deep surveillance of any "angry Muslims") that itself would raise serious constitutional concerns.

Hmm, aren't "hoops" for being a security guard much lower than anything else, even some civilian, non armed jobs in the government?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 15, 2016, 08:10:48 PM
As far as Baltimore homicides go, figuring out why there has been an increase in GSW lethality in recent years has never really been rocket science:

% of GSW homicide victims shot in the head:
1995: 13.3%
1998: 22.0%
2009: 48.0%

So GTA is to blame.  Damn video games.

Quote from: Tyr on June 15, 2016, 12:31:36 PM
Who would have thought 5 years ago that a socialist would be able to put such a good showing in the US?

it's not so much "socialism" as "fuck the system".  Similar vote to Trump, albeit not racist.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 15, 2016, 08:10:48 PM
As far as Baltimore homicides go, figuring out why there has been an increase in GSW lethality in recent years has never really been rocket science:

% of GSW homicide victims shot in the head:
1995: 13.3%
1998: 22.0%
2009: 48.0%
 

QuoteDr. Thomas M. Scalea, physician in chief at Maryland Shock Trauma Center, said he has not seen a marked increase in victims shot in the head, but said that could be because they are going straight to the morgue.

It would appear marksmanship is improving.

Man, it would have been funny seeing Seedy work as a cop in the 1990's.


Det: "We found a real house of horrors here.  Who ever the perps are they're sick.  More than one as well.  Look how they hung the body"
Seedy  "Yes, sir"
Det "judging from the decomposition this body has been up like this for at least three months"
Seedy, "Uh sir, I think we can call off the APB"
Det "Why is that"
Seedy "John Hopkins has been dead for over 100 years and this is a medical school"
Det "Good point, but we aren't canceling the APB".

Quote from: Siege on June 15, 2016, 01:36:23 PM
Besides, criminals don't care about obeying the law, so black market magazines, stolen from the military, would provide the holding capacity they wanted.

do criminals often attack civilians with assault rifles?  I don't think so.  Victims are collateral damages, not intended targets in such shootings.

That particular point is moot.

Quote
Not that you need large capacity mags. I can reload in under a second. If my old ass can do that anyone can with a little practice.

Of course.  All we need is intensive training in our local militia since birth, in the IDF when we reach our teens, and in the US Army a little later on.  Anyone can do that.

Quote from: 11B4V on June 15, 2016, 08:51:28 PM
It would appear marksmanship is improving.

Typical noncom grunt, thinking everything translates to range distance.

Not much marksmanship involved walking up and shooting somebody point-blank in the head.

Do gangsters get much time on the range?

My theory is all the movies and shows that referenced "two in the chest and one in the head."

Quote from: Razgovory on June 15, 2016, 09:57:47 PM
Do gangsters get much time on the range?

Free range gangsters?  Not as much as you think.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 15, 2016, 10:06:57 PM
My theory is all the movies and shows that referenced "two in the chest and one in the head."

That's what the cops are taught.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.wonderfulengineering.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F05%2FRIP-bullet.jpg&hash=42f7a7824820f6feb51f52c820623895fca18731)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2547765/New-devastating-hollow-R-I-P-bullet-dubbed-round-need-released-single-women-protect-homes.html

http://www.sgammo.com/product/g2-rip/20-round-box-40-cal-sw-hollow-point-g2-research-rip-ammo

For God's sake, man, at least use some Kleenex.

http://sploid.gizmodo.com/the-rip-bullet-that-will-take-out-all-your-vital-organs-1515333535

Quote from: 11B4V on June 15, 2016, 10:23:24 PM
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn.wonderfulengineering.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2015%2F05%2FRIP-bullet.jpg&hash=42f7a7824820f6feb51f52c820623895fca18731)

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2547765/New-devastating-hollow-R-I-P-bullet-dubbed-round-need-released-single-women-protect-homes.html

http://www.sgammo.com/product/g2-rip/20-round-box-40-cal-sw-hollow-point-g2-research-rip-ammo

Is it just me who feels that the use of these bullets goes way beyond self-defence needs?

 :lmfao:

Quote from: Razgovory on June 15, 2016, 09:06:03 PM
Man, it would have been funny seeing Seedy work as a cop in the 1990's.


Det: "We found a real house of horrors here.  Who ever the perps are they're sick.  More than one as well.  Look how they hung the body"
Seedy  "Yes, sir"
Det "judging from the decomposition this body has been up like this for at least three months"
Seedy, "Uh sir, I think we can call off the APB"
Det "Why is that"
Seedy "John Hopkins has been dead for over 100 years and this is a medical school"
Det "Good point, but we aren't canceling the APB".

Fucking twat

Quote

The recoil bruised my shoulder, which can happen if you don't know what you're doing. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary form of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/firing-ar-15-horrifying-dangerous-loud-article-1.2673201

Quote from: 11B4V on June 16, 2016, 12:14:15 AM
Fucking twat

Quote

The recoil bruised my shoulder, which can happen if you don't know what you're doing. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary form of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/firing-ar-15-horrifying-dangerous-loud-article-1.2673201

What a pussy.  PTSD?  Smell of sulfur and destruction?  And how on earth does the recoil from an AR bruise your shoulder?  The recoil spring and buffer bring recoil down to .22 levels.

The non-gun people I've taken shooting have all enjoyed themselves, much to their own surprise. 

Even though I don't know much about guns, it seems silly (as in, counter-productive) that a military caliber weapon would have such nasty after-effects on the shooters.

Quote from: 11B4V on June 16, 2016, 12:14:15 AM
Fucking twat

Quote

The recoil bruised my shoulder, which can happen if you don't know what you're doing. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary form of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/firing-ar-15-horrifying-dangerous-loud-article-1.2673201

:lol:

Next time, give him my dad's old ten-gage.  ;)

I shot a 12-gauge for the first time a few months back.  The 00 buckshot load did hurt my shoulder (no bruising) and my brief PTSD was overcome by the hilarity of the milk jug exploding.

Quote from: derspiess on June 16, 2016, 08:53:10 AM
I shot a 12-gauge for the first time a few months back.  The 00 buckshot load did hurt my shoulder (no bruising) and my brief PTSD was overcome by the hilarity of the milk jug exploding.

You was a old shotgun virgin.

Quote from: Monoriu on June 15, 2016, 11:03:53 PM
Is it just me who feels that the use of these bullets goes way beyond self-defence needs?

I get what you're saying, but in self defense you do not shoot to wound. 

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 16, 2016, 08:55:23 AM

Quote from: derspiess on June 16, 2016, 08:53:10 AM
I shot a 12-gauge for the first time a few months back.  The 00 buckshot load did hurt my shoulder (no bruising) and my brief PTSD was overcome by the hilarity of the milk jug exploding.

You was a old shotgun virgin.

12-gauge virgin.  I had shot a 20 gauge and a crappy .410 before.

Quote from: derspiess on June 16, 2016, 08:56:50 AM

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 16, 2016, 08:55:23 AM

Quote from: derspiess on June 16, 2016, 08:53:10 AM
I shot a 12-gauge for the first time a few months back.  The 00 buckshot load did hurt my shoulder (no bruising) and my brief PTSD was overcome by the hilarity of the milk jug exploding.

You was a old shotgun virgin.

12-gauge virgin.  I had shot a 20 gauge and a crappy .410 before.

Felt good slamming those shells in, didn't it?

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 16, 2016, 08:59:41 AM
Felt good slamming those shells in, didn't it?

It was okay.  A shotgun just seems like such a blunt, brutish tool.  It was fun to see what it did to the targets.

Quote from: 11B4V on June 16, 2016, 12:14:15 AM
Fucking twat

Quote

The recoil bruised my shoulder, which can happen if you don't know what you're doing. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary form of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/firing-ar-15-horrifying-dangerous-loud-article-1.2673201

LOL

Quote from: derspiess on June 16, 2016, 09:02:44 AM

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 16, 2016, 08:59:41 AM
Felt good slamming those shells in, didn't it?

It was okay.  A shotgun just seems like such a blunt, brutish tool.  It was fun to see what it did to the targets.

kind and sensitive person.

Quote from: Berkut on June 15, 2016, 11:20:40 AM

Quote from: derspiess on June 15, 2016, 11:02:57 AM
How has firepower increased?  Are people running around the streets with Barrett .50 cal rifles or something?

Read the article.

Hey retard, the 2nd ammendment is a constitutional right, whether you like it or not. You wanna remove the 2nd? Get 38 States to support your removal of the 2nd.

In the meantime, the 2nd is a constitutional right:

https://youtu.be/DNDcd1Fe5lg

Quote from: derspiess on June 16, 2016, 08:53:10 AM
I shot a 12-gauge for the first time a few months back.  The 00 buckshot load did hurt my shoulder (no bruising) and my brief PTSD was overcome by the hilarity of the milk jug exploding.

When I was a lad I shot a 12 gage, memorably, into an old TV set a friend of mine was throwing out. Very satisfying.  :D

The 10 gage is even nastier. I can see why it is less popular these days.  :lol: You really have to hold it tight to your shoulder or you will regret it.

It would probably break that fellow in the article.  ;)

Quote from: derspiess on June 16, 2016, 09:02:44 AM

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 16, 2016, 08:59:41 AM
Felt good slamming those shells in, didn't it?

It was okay.  A shotgun just seems like such a blunt, brutish tool.  It was fun to see what it did to the targets.

I don't like shotguns. Range is too limited, and if the animal is wearing body armor you are reduced to head and extremity shots, which i prefer not to do.

Quote from: Malthus on June 16, 2016, 09:19:50 AM

Quote from: derspiess on June 16, 2016, 08:53:10 AM
I shot a 12-gauge for the first time a few months back.  The 00 buckshot load did hurt my shoulder (no bruising) and my brief PTSD was overcome by the hilarity of the milk jug exploding.

When I was a lad I shot a 12 gage, memorably, into an old TV set a friend of mine was throwing out. Very satisfying.  :D

The 10 gage is even nastier. I can see why it is less popular these days.  :lol: You really have to hold it tight to your shoulder or you will regret it.

It would probably break that fellow in the article.  ;)

You are supposed to do that with every weapon system.
You hold it tight against your shoulder to control the recoil, so it pushes you instead of kicking you. Any space between your shoulder and the buttstock will give momentum to the recoil kick.

You can take an AR15 and putt it tight against your balls and fire it with no problem, as long as it is tight. Don't do that with a shotgun though.

Quote from: Siege on June 16, 2016, 09:32:53 AM
You are supposed to do that with every weapon system.
You hold it tight against your shoulder to control the recoil, so it pushes you instead of kicking you. Any space between your shoulder and the buttstock will give momentum to the recoil kick.

I know; I'm just making the point that if you fail to do that with a 10 gage, you will *really* regret it, because it kicks like a mule.

Not only that, but modern guns often come with fancy padded buttstocks and the like. My dad's old 10 gage is, of course, bare wood, like nature intended.  ;) Fail to hold it tight against the shoulder, and it is like being beaten with a club - or so I'm told; I always held it tight.

QuoteYou can take an AR15 and putt it tight against your balls and fire it with no problem, as long as it is tight. Don't do that with a shotgun though.

I'll take your word on that.  :lol:

My Mosin Nagant M44 carbine has a nice steel buttplate on the stock.  That's one that will definitely bruise you if you don't hold it snug against your shoulder.

Quote from: Siege on June 16, 2016, 09:17:43 AM

Quote from: Berkut on June 15, 2016, 11:20:40 AM

Quote from: derspiess on June 15, 2016, 11:02:57 AM
How has firepower increased?  Are people running around the streets with Barrett .50 cal rifles or something?

Read the article.

Hey retard, the 2nd ammendment is a constitutional right, whether you like it or not. You wanna remove the 2nd? Get 38 States to support your removal of the 2nd.

In the meantime, the 2nd is a constitutional right:

https://youtu.be/DNDcd1Fe5lg

Who said anything about removing the second?

Quote from: Berkut on June 16, 2016, 10:36:28 AM

Quote from: Siege on June 16, 2016, 09:17:43 AM

Quote from: Berkut on June 15, 2016, 11:20:40 AM

Quote from: derspiess on June 15, 2016, 11:02:57 AM
How has firepower increased?  Are people running around the streets with Barrett .50 cal rifles or something?

Read the article.

Hey retard, the 2nd ammendment is a constitutional right, whether you like it or not. You wanna remove the 2nd? Get 38 States to support your removal of the 2nd.

In the meantime, the 2nd is a constitutional right:

https://youtu.be/DNDcd1Fe5lg

Who said anything about removing the second?

OVB did, oddly enough.

I read something about this before, but I just took a look at the text of the 2nd amendment:

QuoteA 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.

How, exactly, do you go from "a well regulated militia" to "I should be able to get whatever guns I want and shoot people who threaten me"?

Quote from: Solmyr on June 16, 2016, 10:43:08 AM
I read something about this before, but I just took a look at the text of the 2nd amendment:

QuoteA 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.

How, exactly, do you go from "a well regulated militia" to "I should be able to get whatever guns I want and shoot people who threaten me"?

Because guns are cool.

Quote from: Berkut on June 16, 2016, 10:43:54 AM

Quote from: Solmyr on June 16, 2016, 10:43:08 AM
I read something about this before, but I just took a look at the text of the 2nd amendment:

QuoteA 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.

How, exactly, do you go from "a well regulated militia" to "I should be able to get whatever guns I want and shoot people who threaten me"?

Because guns are cool.

The more serious answer is that of course you cannot.

The idea that the 2nd enunciates a personal right to bear particular weapons is actually rather new, and was never understood to mean that for the first couple hundred years the amendment existed.

The NRA did a masterful job of Soviet like propaganda and invented the current "interpretation" of the Second pretty much out of whole cloth, and got it sold.

Now, it does mean that, because the USSC says it means that. Shrug.

They also say that doesn't mean that things like magazine size restrictions are unconstitutional, but the brilliant constitutional scholars like Siege are rather selective in their acceptance of these facts.

Quote from: Solmyr on June 16, 2016, 10:43:08 AM
I read something about this before, but I just took a look at the text of the 2nd amendment:

QuoteA 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.

How, exactly, do you go from "a well regulated militia" to "I should be able to get whatever guns I want and shoot people who threaten me"?

I still say that right ought to enable folks to have as many 18th century flintlocks as they want, in case the US requires a militia in the form the framers intended. Sadly, my interpretation is not listened to.  :D

Quote from: Siege on June 16, 2016, 09:26:59 AM
I don't like shotguns. Range is too limited, and if the animal is wearing body armor you are reduced to head and extremity shots, which i prefer not to do.

Animals wear body armor now?  That's quite an impressive evolutionary response to hunting.

Quote from: Solmyr on June 16, 2016, 10:43:08 AM
I read something about this before, but I just took a look at the text of the 2nd amendment:

QuoteA 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.

How, exactly, do you go from "a well regulated militia" to "I should be able to get whatever guns I want and shoot people who threaten me"?

For those who are interested, you can look up David Konig's "Why the Second Amendment Has a Preamble: Original Public Meaning and the Political Culture of Written Constitutions in Revolutionary America"

Quote from: 11B4V on June 16, 2016, 12:14:15 AM
Fucking twat

:blink: What kind of...I swear to God it is terrible stuff like this is why people give the media so much shit.

QuoteAnimals wear body armor now?  That's quite an impressive evolutionary response to hunting.

Siege only hunts Armadillos. And he should, fuckers will dig big holes in your yard.

Quote from: Berkut on June 16, 2016, 10:46:54 AM
Now, it does mean that, because the USSC says it means that. Shrug.

Yep.

Pretty much then only guns I have ever shot have been shotguns for clay pigeon shooting fun.

Quote from: Solmyr on June 16, 2016, 10:43:08 AM
I read something about this before, but I just took a look at the text of the 2nd amendment:

QuoteA 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.

How, exactly, do you go from "a well regulated militia" to "I should be able to get whatever guns I want and shoot people who threaten me"?

Through the independent clause that follows the well regulated militia clause.

Quote from: Malthus on June 16, 2016, 10:48:02 AM

Quote from: Solmyr on June 16, 2016, 10:43:08 AM
I read something about this before, but I just took a look at the text of the 2nd amendment:

QuoteA 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.

How, exactly, do you go from "a well regulated militia" to "I should be able to get whatever guns I want and shoot people who threaten me"?

I still say that right ought to enable folks to have as many 18th century flintlocks as they want, in case the US requires a militia in the form the framers intended. Sadly, my interpretation is not listened to.  :D

Actually, by law, the militia in the U.S. consists of all able-bodied male citizens between 17 and 70 (might have the ages wrong;  I'm doing this from memory).  I'd like to see what happens if a gun-control advocate tries to argue that means we can ban women from owning guns.

We've never had this discussion here in languish before, how refreshing. :rolleyes:


I personally would love to live in a society with no guns, but since I don't, I'll continue to carry one myself.

Be the gun control you want to see in the world.

Beat the change you want to see into the world.

Quote from: Habbaku on June 16, 2016, 04:51:09 PM
Be the gun control you want to see in the world.

Yes, I keep control of my gun, which is what I wish other gun owners would do.

Be a dick and then die.

 :hmm: That doesn't seem like good advice.

Also, if some are interested in what historians had to say about the Second Amendment:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_historians.pdf

Quote from: Habbaku on June 16, 2016, 05:11:06 PM
:hmm: That doesn't seem like good advice.

Try it first.

Rrrow.  Hiss.

Quote from: Oexmelin on June 16, 2016, 05:12:53 PM
Also, if some are interested in what historians had to say about the Second Amendment:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/07-290_amicus_historians.pdf

in addition, for those interested in what historians had to say about the second amendment:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_academicsforsecondamendment.pdf

figured may as well post the opposite side's  ;)

Well, "Academics for the Second Amendment" is, surprise, surprise, funded in part by the NRA, whose main academic members (amidst many, who are not) are not historians, but law professors.

here's another that was filed

http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publishing/preview/publiced_preview_briefs_pdfs_07_08_07_290_RespondentAmCuCATOInstJMalcolm.authcheckdam.pdf

is there a reason to reject, without considering the material, this brief as well?

Grabon's off his meds again.

Quote from: garbon on June 16, 2016, 05:19:17 PM

Quote from: Habbaku on June 16, 2016, 05:11:06 PM
:hmm: That doesn't seem like good advice.

Try it first.

That's not very well regulated militia-friendly.

La Croix: You misunderstand me: the briefs do not have to be rejected. They were filed, and are part of the debate. I presented the Amicus brief of Rakove, Cornell, Konig et al., as the brief of "historians", because they represent what I assess is a majority view amongst early americanists and specialists of the early republic. I happen to think that "Academics for the Second Amendment" are lousy historians. Joyce Lee Malcolm is not. I disagree with her analysis, but she can, and should be engaged and taken seriously - as have, repeatedly, the historians aforementioned.

appreciate the clarification

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 16, 2016, 09:07:22 AM

Quote from: derspiess on June 16, 2016, 09:02:44 AM

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 16, 2016, 08:59:41 AM
Felt good slamming those shells in, didn't it?

It was okay.  A shotgun just seems like such a blunt, brutish tool.  It was fun to see what it did to the targets.

kind and sensitive person.

It is and very effective

Quote from: Berkut on June 16, 2016, 10:43:54 AM

Quote from: Solmyr on June 16, 2016, 10:43:08 AM
I read something about this before, but I just took a look at the text of the 2nd amendment:

QuoteA 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.

How, exactly, do you go from "a well regulated militia" to "I should be able to get whatever guns I want and shoot people who threaten me"?

Because guns are cool.

Yes a blast.
Just spent all day in live fires, building clearing. Active shooter drills with simunitions. Drilled a dude in the dick with a three round burst.  :lol:

My historical-legal opinion on the second is it was specifically a protection of the State's right to maintain a well armed militia force, so that they were, enshrined in the constitution, the irrevocable right to maintain their own military power independent from the Federal government. I think essentially every person in America alive in the 18th century and a functioning brain believed gun ownership to be a natural right no different from the right to own any number of things, but I don't think it was specifically enumerated. The Founders were pretty damn specific that they had written a limited constitution, and that when they passed the Bill of Rights it absolutely was not an exhaustive list of rights, in fact they even made sure one of the Amendments specifically said there are rights the people reserve that have not been enumerated in the BoR.

Unfortunately once Congress found its way around the "limited government" aspect of the constitution we found out that only specifically enumerated rights were much protected at all from Congress.

Quote from: Solmyr on June 16, 2016, 10:43:08 AM
I read something about this before, but I just took a look at the text of the 2nd amendment:

QuoteA 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.

How, exactly, do you go from "a well regulated militia" to "I should be able to get whatever guns I want and shoot people who threaten me"?

The founding fathers, in one of the whatever they wrote with their comments, said that the militia means everybody in America that does not work for the gruberment.

Well regulated in the times parlance meant well stocked, well supplied.

I'll have to dig it out were they say the militia is everyone not in the government. I know is not the federalist papers.

Also, when Washington was asked what weapons, his answer was " the full equipment of war" or something to that effect.

Okay, Siege, breath, think, then post.

Quote from: 11B4V on June 16, 2016, 08:23:15 PM
Just spent all day in live fires, building clearing. Active shooter drills with simunitions. Drilled a dude in the dick with a three round burst.  :lol:

Those 15 mph speed bumps on base thank you for your service.

QuoteThe founding fathers, in one of the whatever they wrote with their comments, said that the militia means everybody in America that does not work for the gruberment.

I'm kind of partial to this one.  You can't fake this kind of combination of ignorance and insanity.  As a purveyor of both, I have to respect it.

iirc, "militia" means militia in the military sense. but the idea was we wanted militia that anyone could join. i.e., we didn't want congress to pick and choose who could become militiamen. this meant everyone should have the right to become militia. so while, technically, only militiamen's right/keep arms were codified in the second amendment, the underlying principle that everyone should have the right to bear/keep arms that brought about the codified language means the second amendment protects the right to own guns.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 16, 2016, 11:24:18 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on June 16, 2016, 08:23:15 PM
Just spent all day in live fires, building clearing. Active shooter drills with simunitions. Drilled a dude in the dick with a three round burst.  :lol:

Those 15 mph speed bumps on base thank you for your service.

Eat duck Yum Yum boy. :moon:

Quote from: 11B4V on June 16, 2016, 11:52:02 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 16, 2016, 11:24:18 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on June 16, 2016, 08:23:15 PM
Just spent all day in live fires, building clearing. Active shooter drills with simunitions. Drilled a dude in the dick with a three round burst.  :lol:

Those 15 mph speed bumps on base thank you for your service.

Eat duck Yum Yum boy. :moon:

I'd say go through your windshield and die in a head-on collision, but hey, those 15 mph speed bumps save lives.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 16, 2016, 11:13:28 PM
Okay, Siege, breath, think, then post.

Why the fuck would he start now?

The truth is that there wasn't a lot of discussion and debate on the Second Amendment, so it is not and never well be entirely clear what the intent was.  That's a problem for originalists - who are commited to interpreting everything according to original intent.  They are stuck plunging into the weeds of the history of the English common law, historical colonial practice, ratification debates over state constitutions, etc.  It's not as much of a problem for sensible people who are not originalists.  What the drafters of a constitutional provision may have intended or though is an interesting interpretive datum, but why should it be determinative?  It's quite possible that the drafters of the 14th amendment were OK with the principles of "separate but equal" ultimately enunciated in Plessy; experience, however, demonstrated the shortcomings of that formula and so it was discarded.  The fact that many of the people who voted for the 14 amendment may have been horrified by Brown v. Board shouldn't matter.

The historical underpinning of the Second is thus an interesting *historical* question but not a critical legal one.  If the question is say a proposed ban on certain large capacity magazines, I can say with a good degree of confidence that the drafters of the Bill of Rights and the ratifiers had no opinion to offer on that subject.  It is up to us today to figure out and decide what the ambiguous language of the text does and should mean.  In the contemporary era the two main views have been: (a) the Second should be viewed as an historical anachronism with little present day application and can and should be limited in its preclusive effect, and (b) the Second should be given meaningful effect by interpreting to be a personal right in line with the personal rights its sister amendments.  Both of these views are IMO defensible legal interpretations, even though I suspect neither are in line with the 18th century era historical intent.  View (a) dominated throughout much of the 20th century until view (b) took over in Heller.

Interesting that it appears the killer of our MP had to resort to buying/importing a US survialist/White power magazine or guide, to tell him how to make an crude, improvised gun.

At least that appears to be the case given how the description of an eye witness closely matches the illustration in the guide.

(https://www.splcenter.org/sites/default/files/howtomake-pistol.png)


(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.dailymail.co.uk%2Fi%2Fpix%2F2016%2F06%2F17%2F10%2F355C148B00000578-3645727-image-a-25_1466155521578.jpg&hash=f4327be4143f8461de4af47117f5741c5bc40852)


It's that hard to find an illegal gun in the UK, I think this means our gun control laws are working?

Quote from: Siege on June 16, 2016, 11:05:37 PM

Quote from: Solmyr on June 16, 2016, 10:43:08 AM
I read something about this before, but I just took a look at the text of the 2nd amendment:

QuoteA 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.

How, exactly, do you go from "a well regulated militia" to "I should be able to get whatever guns I want and shoot people who threaten me"?

The founding fathers, in one of the whatever they wrote with their comments, said that the militia means everybody in America that does not work for the gruberment.

Well regulated in the times parlance meant well stocked, well supplied.

I'll have to dig it out were they say the militia is everyone not in the government. I know is not the federalist papers.

Also, when Washington was asked what weapons, his answer was " the full equipment of war" or something to that effect.

than that means Americans should be allowed to posess tanks, airplanes, missiles, ballistic submarines?

I'd like to have me a tank, maybe an attack sub (yellow of course).

Quote from: Siege on June 16, 2016, 11:05:37 PM

Quote from: Solmyr on June 16, 2016, 10:43:08 AM
I read something about this before, but I just took a look at the text of the 2nd amendment:

QuoteA 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.

How, exactly, do you go from "a well regulated militia" to "I should be able to get whatever guns I want and shoot people who threaten me"?

The founding fathers, in one of the whatever they wrote with their comments, said that the militia means everybody in America that does not work for the gruberment.

Well regulated in the times parlance meant well stocked, well supplied.

I'll have to dig it out were they say the militia is everyone not in the government. I know is not the federalist papers.

Also, when Washington was asked what weapons, his answer was " the full equipment of war" or something to that effect.

The well-regulated militia is described in the Federalist papers.  It is officered by state appointment, has uniforms and equipment, and is trained to a standard not much inferior to that of a regular soldier.  It is quite clearly the National Guard that the Second Amendment refers to when it talks about the well-regulated militia.  The reference to 'the people" here is reminiscent of the reference in "We, the People" in the preamble to the constitution.

The "militia of the whole" was dismissed by the Federalists as a guarantor of the peoples' liberties because it had proven in the Revolutionary War to be incapable of standing up to a regular army.  That is precisely why they wanted to ensure the establishment and maintenance of a well-regulated militia like today's National Guard.

Is there some kind of movement to rebrand the proper, gentlemanly, and rather conservative Washington as some kind of rabble rousing anarchist? First Raz's rather bizarre thing he saw on Facebook and now Siege's Washington quote. Granted that is a rather small sample.

Quote from: Valmy on June 17, 2016, 12:00:30 PM
Is there some kind of movement to rebrand the proper, gentlemanly, and rather conservative Washington as some kind of rabble rousing anarchist? First Raz's rather bizarre thing he saw on Facebook and now Siege's Washington quote. Granted that is a rather small sample.

Not sure if serious. :hmm:

Quote from: mongers on June 17, 2016, 10:21:23 AMIt's that hard to find an illegal gun in the UK, I think this means our gun control laws are working?

Of course they do--gun control unambiguously works when it's fairly comprehensive in nature. I wonder why he didn't just buy a shotgun though, my understanding is that while there are hoops to jump through they are generally available to people who really want one in Britain. I guess unless he had some sort of disqualifying criminal/mental record.

Not super concealable, but pretty damn easy to saw one down into a length where you could conceal it for this guy's purposes--and it'd function much more reliably than a homemade gun (albeit admittedly his homemade gun appears to have worked just fine, unfortunately.)

Yeah, cursory research suggests that while it'll take a few months, shotguns aren't too hard to get. Unlike weapons classified as "firearms" in Britain (a shotgun isn't considered one), it appears you just need to pay the 80 pound application fee, have a proper gun cabinet a police officer can inspect, get one person to countersign for you that you've known at least two years, and not have a disqualifying criminal or health record. Unlike with firearms where you have to survive scrutiny demonstrating a legitimate need, with a shotgun you can just say for pest control in rural areas or for "shooting sports" if you don't live in a rural area where that argument would pass muster.

Quote from: grumbler on June 17, 2016, 11:57:19 AM
The well-regulated militia is described in the Federalist papers.  It is officered by state appointment, has uniforms and equipment, and is trained to a standard not much inferior to that of a regular soldier.  It is quite clearly the National Guard that the Second Amendment refers to when it talks about the well-regulated militia.  The reference to 'the people" here is reminiscent of the reference in "We, the People" in the preamble to the constitution.

The "militia of the whole" was dismissed by the Federalists as a guarantor of the peoples' liberties because it had proven in the Revolutionary War to be incapable of standing up to a regular army.  That is precisely why they wanted to ensure the establishment and maintenance of a well-regulated militia like today's National Guard.

I think Siege is referring to the definition of the militia in the US Code. But it doesn't say "everyone not in the government" It's something like all males between 18 and 40 and all women who are in the Guard. Presumably even members of the government.  :P

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 17, 2016, 12:31:24 PM

Quote from: mongers on June 17, 2016, 10:21:23 AMIt's that hard to find an illegal gun in the UK, I think this means our gun control laws are working?

Of course they do--gun control unambiguously works when it's fairly comprehensive in nature. I wonder why he didn't just buy a shotgun though, my understanding is that while there are hoops to jump through they are generally available to people who really want one in Britain. I guess unless he had some sort of disqualifying criminal/mental record.

Not super concealable, but pretty damn easy to saw one down into a length where you could conceal it for this guy's purposes--and it'd function much more reliably than a homemade gun (albeit admittedly his homemade gun appears to have worked just fine, unfortunately.)

Yes,  the mental health would probably an insurmountable hurdle, as your following post goes on to mention. I think for someone like that, well know in his community it would have been difficult to get his doctor, MP, JP or police officer to countersign a shotgun application.

http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/national-international/NH-Dealer-Offers-Free-AR-15-With-Car-383463951.html?_osource=SocialFlowFB_CHBrand

http://www.thoughtsandprayersthegame.com

Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2016, 11:47:00 PM
http://www.thoughtsandprayersthegame.com

This looks like something douchey so I am not going to click on it.

Quote from: Valmy on June 20, 2016, 08:34:33 AM

Quote from: Martinus on June 19, 2016, 11:47:00 PM
http://www.thoughtsandprayersthegame.com

This looks like something douchey so I am not going to click on it.

To be fair to Marty, that's the reason I don't click on 90% of the links Languishites post here.

So, according to the timeline given, Mateen opens fire at 1:58 a.m.

Within a few minutes, over 100 police converge on the scene, and at 2:08 a.m. officers (including two SWAT officers who had responded, but obviously not a complete team) go into the club and engage Mateen, while other officers help people get away.

Mateen retreats into a bathroom with some number of hostages. By 2:35 a.m. he is calling people to brag.

That means, if I am reading this correctly, that Mateen shot about 100 people in the space of about ten minutes, and with a 50% fatality rate.

There is no way, IMO, he could have reasonably accomplished that with just a handgun, and certainly not with one that was limited to a ten round magazine. That kind of carnage takes an ability to put out a LOT of firepower very quickly. An AR-15 with a 30 round clip is damn near ideal for that - short of some kind of light machine gun.

This seems to me to be exactly the kind of situation that bans on assault rifles and high capacity magazines are intended to mitigate.

Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2016, 01:10:16 PM
So, according to the timeline given, Mateen opens fire at 1:58 a.m.

Within a few minutes, over 100 police converge on the scene, and at 2:08 a.m. officers (including two SWAT officers who had responded, but obviously not a complete team) go into the club and engage Mateen, while other officers help people get away.

Mateen retreats into a bathroom with some number of hostages. By 2:35 a.m. he is calling people to brag.

That means, if I am reading this correctly, that Mateen shot about 100 people in the space of about ten minutes.

There is no way, IMO, he could have reasonably accomplished that with just a handgun, and certainly not with one that was limited to a ten round magazine. That kind of carnage takes an ability to put out a LOT of firepower very quickly. An AR-15 with a 30 round clip is damn near ideal for that - short of some kind of light machine gun.


This seems to me to be exactly the kind of situation that bans on assault rifles and high capacity magazines are intended to mitigate.

Yip

Are you agreeing that this is the kind of situation that such bans are intended to mitigate, or agreeing that such bans would actually mitigate them?

Honest question from an amateur:  what sorts of uses are there for an AR-15, other than collectability?  Is it useful for sporting or hunting?  Other things?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 21, 2016, 01:20:25 PM
Honest question from an amateur:  what sorts of uses are there for an AR-15, other than collectability?  Is it useful for sporting or hunting?  Other things?

It is a semi-auto rifle - you can use it for anything you can use a semi-auto rifle for - hunting, target shooting, etc.

My brother in law has one, and we went shooting with it. It is super easy to shoot, and a lot of fun.

I could not really distinguish it in any practical sense from the M-16 I used in the military, other than it not having a lever with "Three round burst" as an option.

Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2016, 01:19:10 PM
Are you agreeing that this is the kind of situation that such bans are intended to mitigate, or agreeing that such bans would actually mitigate them?

I'm agreeing that high capacity mags (pistol/assault rifles) and assault rifles themselves, don't belong in the hands of civilians. Such a ban is not an infringement on the 2nd.

If there were such a ban, it would possibly mitigate the high causality rate depending on the initial response time of Law Enforcement. However a shooter carrying 3-4 semi auto pistols w/ 10 round mags, still has a good chance to inflict a lot of damage depending on their skill and ability. 

Quote from: 11B4V on June 21, 2016, 01:26:30 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2016, 01:19:10 PM
Are you agreeing that this is the kind of situation that such bans are intended to mitigate, or agreeing that such bans would actually mitigate them?

I'm agreeing that high capacity mags (pistol/assault rifles) and assault rifles themselves, don't belong in the hands of civilians. Such a ban is not an infringement on the 2nd.

If there were such a ban, it would possibly mitigate the high causality rate depending on the initial response time of Law Enforcement. However a shooter carrying 3-4 semi auto pistols w/ 10 round mags, still has a good chance to inflict a lot of damage depending on their skill and ability. 

True enough. We found something to agree on today.

I think my problem with things like an AR-15 is touched upon in your response. It lowers the bar of skill needed to really inflict serious damage. You don't have to be particularly skilled to wreak some serious carnage - it is a really, really great weapon in that sense. Super easy to use well.

Hitting a moving target with a handgun, even at short range, is actually pretty hard for an amateur. It isn't even that easy once you get training in it.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 21, 2016, 01:20:25 PM
Honest question from an amateur:  what sorts of uses are there for an AR-15, other than collectability?  Is it useful for sporting or hunting?  Other things?

Any rifle, AR-15 included, can be useful for sport shooting.  Apparently the AR-15 is particularly good for shooting because it has low recoil.

The AR-15 is also highly modular.  You can change it to a larger calibre ammunition and use it for hunting - and now you don't need to buy two separate rifles.

BB, berkut - that all makes sense, thanks.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 21, 2016, 01:41:06 PM
BB, berkut - that all makes sense, thanks.

Also, because it's modular there's a whole subculture of modifying them.  Think computer enthusiasts today, or hot rodders of the 1950s-1960s.  The practical benefits probably aren't really there, but they have fun doing it anyways.

To be fair, that nut in Virginia Tech killed 30+ just with pistols.

Quote from: DGuller on June 21, 2016, 01:49:35 PM
To be fair, that nut in Virginia Tech killed 30+ just with pistols.

In a lot of ways pistols are more dangerous because they can be concealed.  Pretty hard to sneak an AR-15 into a crowded nightclub without being noticed.

True. He managed to kill 30 people in nine minutes using 17 magazines and two pistols. How in the hell did he carry 17 magazines???

Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2016, 01:55:45 PM
True. He managed to kill 30 people in nine minutes using 17 magazines and two pistols. How in the hell did he carry 17 magazines???

Not hard really. They make all kinds of "High speed" vest for example to carry stuff like that.

Quote from: 11B4V on June 21, 2016, 01:59:37 PM

Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2016, 01:55:45 PM
True. He managed to kill 30 people in nine minutes using 17 magazines and two pistols. How in the hell did he carry 17 magazines???

Not hard really. They make all kinds of "High speed" vest for example to carry stuff like that.

And the need for high speed vests is clearly protected by the second as well, I am sure.

Well I think laws should be sensible. Our gun laws mostly are not (on the side of being too permissive) but there's a few areas where they are not on the other side. Banning a type of clothing would be an example of bad policy, namely because it's fucking stupid. Unless you ban needle and thread I seriously doubt the super small number of people who would use such a vest couldn't replicate them in an afternoon at home. Maybe faster if they just use some cheap velcro tape.

The prohibition on silencers is also frankly stupid. It'd be a great boon for people's ears if we didn't so restrict them in America. You'd still need to wear ear protection, but if you shoot at an indoor range (and a lot of people do) silenced shots in aggregate would make it a good bit less noisy.

I do tend to think the form of the 1994 AWB was essentially worthless. Like I've said--the only meaningful gun control is gun control which reduces the number of guns in society and reduces the number of gun owners. The 1994 AWB didn't do that.

That's why instead of focusing on "scary weapons", we should focus on licensing. I also think the optics are better. When you're in the business of banning specific guns, I think it's much easier to represent that as government overreach, "taking things away from citizens", even among people who aren't gun owners. But if we create a licensing requirement to own firearms we aren't taking anything away at all, we're just promoting good, safe gun ownership. The NRA will pitch a fit over both, but I think political capital should be expended on licensing, since that will kill "casual" gun ownership. That significantly reduces the problem of guns in America all by itself in a few generations.

FWIW I'd be fine with restricting civilian semiautomatic rifles to 5-10 round magazines and capping pistol magazines at 10 rounds.

I have several semiautomatic rifles but my favorite is actually Springfield M1A Scout, I've never had anything more than a 10 round magazine in it, and frankly if it had come with a 5 round instead of a 10, that would cover my uses just fine as well.

I just think in a world of limited political capital focuses on feature/weapon bans aren't really the right approach.

You can't have any silencers in America?

Quote from: The Brain on June 21, 2016, 02:29:01 PM
You can't have any silencers in America?

Silencing is not permitted.  First Amendment.

Quote from: The Brain on June 21, 2016, 02:29:01 PM
You can't have any silencers in America?

Not easily.

QuoteIn the United States, taxes and strict regulations affect the manufacture and sale of suppressors under the National Firearms Act. They are legal for individuals to possess and use for lawful purposes in 41 of the 50 states. However, a prospective user must go through an application process administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which requires a federal tax payment of $200 and a thorough criminal background check. The tax payment buys a revenue stamp, which is the legal document allowing possession of a suppressor. The use of a gun trust to register with the BATFE has become an increasingly popular method of acquisition and ownership of silencers.[41] The following jurisdictions have explicitly banned any civilian from possessing a suppressor: California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island,[42] and the District of Columbia. The federal legal requirements to manufacture a suppressor in the United States are enumerated in Title 26, Chapter 53 of the United States Code.[43] The individual states and several municipalities also have their specific requirements. Federal law provides severe penalties for crimes of violence committed using firearms equipped with silencers: a minimum prison sentence of 30 years.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 21, 2016, 02:34:31 PM

Quote from: The Brain on June 21, 2016, 02:29:01 PM
You can't have any silencers in America?

Not easily.

QuoteIn the United States, taxes and strict regulations affect the manufacture and sale of suppressors under the National Firearms Act. They are legal for individuals to possess and use for lawful purposes in 41 of the 50 states. However, a prospective user must go through an application process administered by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), which requires a federal tax payment of $200 and a thorough criminal background check. The tax payment buys a revenue stamp, which is the legal document allowing possession of a suppressor. The use of a gun trust to register with the BATFE has become an increasingly popular method of acquisition and ownership of silencers.[41] The following jurisdictions have explicitly banned any civilian from possessing a suppressor: California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island,[42] and the District of Columbia. The federal legal requirements to manufacture a suppressor in the United States are enumerated in Title 26, Chapter 53 of the United States Code.[43] The individual states and several municipalities also have their specific requirements. Federal law provides severe penalties for crimes of violence committed using firearms equipped with silencers: a minimum prison sentence of 30 years.

Thanks Obama.

Getting a silencer is a real pain in the ass.  It's much easier to just go old school and use a pillow.

That's pillow talk! :o

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 21, 2016, 01:20:25 PM
Honest question from an amateur:  what sorts of uses are there for an AR-15, other than collectability?  Is it useful for sporting or hunting?  Other things?

Aside what been said by B and BB. One just needs to look at the assault rifle development and why it was created to get an answer.

No one can use the excuse for hunting (unless humans). Utter bullshit. The run of the mill assault rifle is not more accurate than the average bolt gun. They are more expensive to boot and less accurate. Most states have caliber restrictions on big game. One shot one down animal. High capacity is irrelevant. You don't fill the thing full of holes. Rather counterproductive. Not to mention you'd be laughed out of any serious hunting camp as a fool.

Varmints you say, again bullshit. To accurize an AR costs even more dough. The cost of an accurized AR, you could buy an accurized bolt gun with a nice scope for 500 yard shooting. Hence serious varmint hunters go bolt action or single shot.

So for hunting, that excuse is utter bullshit.

Home defense they say....bullshit again. A shotgun is far more suitable.

 :lol: Hunting


It's simple, really:  they're cool.  That's all there is to it.

Well, that and to feel better about your penis and protecting yourself from the darkies, the government or even worse: a government of the darkies, by the darkies, for the darkies.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 21, 2016, 07:42:20 PM
:lol: Hunting


It's simple, really:  they're cool.  That's all there is to it.

Well, that and to feel better about your penis and protecting yourself from the darkies, the government or even worse: a government of the darkies, by the darkies, for the darkies.

I have an SR556  zeroed it 3-4 years ago and it hasn't moved since. Maybe 25 total rounds through it, brand new gun. A G-3 (not an assault rifle, but a battle rifle) last time it was out IIRC was 2008.

Is accurized a thing?  Or do you mean accessorized?

Quote from: 11B4V on June 21, 2016, 07:50:29 PM
I have an SR556  zeroed it 3-4 years ago and it hasn't moved since. Maybe 25 total rounds through it, brand new gun. A G-3 (not an assault rifle, but a battle rifle) last time it was out IIRC was 2008.

Pfft, that's nothing;  I have multiple service medals for the SR338 in BF4, and all the unlocks.

Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 21, 2016, 07:51:21 PM
Is accurized a thing?  Or do you mean accessorized?

Accurized. Lap the bolt and barrel, square the receiver, better trigger, etc.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 21, 2016, 07:55:19 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on June 21, 2016, 07:50:29 PM
I have an SR556  zeroed it 3-4 years ago and it hasn't moved since. Maybe 25 total rounds through it, brand new gun. A G-3 (not an assault rifle, but a battle rifle) last time it was out IIRC was 2008.

Pfft, that's nothing;  I have multiple service medals for the SR338 in BF4, and all the unlocks.

Rather saucy again.

Shows how much I use the above two weapons. Notice I said weapons, because that's what they are. Compared my two main hunting rifles a Remington M700 8x57mm and Custom Winchester M70 8x57mm with over 500 rounds between them in just load development.

I should break out the Sako 375 and work up loads with it this year, but have other things to do. It's got a break on it so shooting off the bench all day is no problem. That round makes a 5.56 look comically cute in comparison.

Quote from: 11B4V on June 21, 2016, 08:05:38 PM
Notice I said weapons, because that's what they are.

(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fs2.quickmeme.com%2Fimg%2F31%2F31b994f629575687b2d5c4a26c669b656263c679d62f345730d53d3cbe4c8af3.jpg&hash=2aadd606f2aae48b85c19bd8c57d178205f11655)

I masturbate with my SKS-M.

Quote from: DGuller on June 21, 2016, 02:47:08 PM
Getting a silencer is a real pain in the ass.  It's much easier to just go old school and use a pillow.

You can make your own suppressor.  It'll likely be only good for a few shots, but odds are if you really need a suppressor, then you probably only need a few shots.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 21, 2016, 08:22:06 PM

Quote from: DGuller on June 21, 2016, 02:47:08 PM
Getting a silencer is a real pain in the ass.  It's much easier to just go old school and use a pillow.

You can make your own suppressor.  It'll likely be only good for a few shots, but odds are if you really need a suppressor, then you probably only need a few shots.

Had a friend try and do that.

One 30-06
One 3 liter bottle stuffed with toilet paper
=
A loud noise and toilet paper all over the range.

 ;)Told him it wouldn't work.

I think you need something a bit more sturdy than a plastic bottle.  Something that can contain the blast of powder going off.  My understanding is that suppressor works by using something like rubber washers to slow down both the gas and the bullet to a subsonic speed.

Quote from: Razgovory on June 21, 2016, 08:40:31 PM
I think you need something a bit more sturdy than a plastic bottle.  Something that can contain the blast of powder going off.  My understanding is that suppressor works by using something like rubber washers to slow down both the gas and the bullet to a subsonic speed.

Oh they can be made to be sure. I'm not disagreeing with you in anyway.  I'm sure you could Google also.

Brace yourself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFY0aHftVHg

Quote from: 11B4V on June 21, 2016, 08:47:37 PM
Brace yourself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFY0aHftVHg

Watch the April Fool's Day video from that page, as well.  Quite a hoot.  Fast Acting Resonance Technology, indeed! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-dCF-5ZT5s

Quote from: grumbler on June 21, 2016, 09:24:40 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on June 21, 2016, 08:47:37 PM
Brace yourself

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFY0aHftVHg

Watch the April Fool's Day video from that page, as well.  Quite a hoot.  Fast Acting Resonance Technology, indeed! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-dCF-5ZT5s

The tucking thing is crooked towards the end. Good catch. :lmfao:

Quote from: Razgovory on June 21, 2016, 08:40:31 PM
I think you need something a bit more sturdy than a plastic bottle.  Something that can contain the blast of powder going off.  My understanding is that suppressor works by using something like rubber washers to slow down both the gas and the bullet to a subsonic speed.

I had the opportunity to shoot a Beretta 92* (M9, maybe?) with a milspec silencer/suppressor using subsonic ammunition once.  Shit is not like the movies at all  :lol:  Makes you realize how fucking loud the slide during ejection really is.  Pfft-pfft silencer movie FX, my ass.

*Edit, so 11B doesn't have kittens:  fire a Beretta 92
**Double edit, since he's having kittens anyway: discharge a Beretta 92

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 21, 2016, 10:13:52 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 21, 2016, 08:40:31 PM
I think you need something a bit more sturdy than a plastic bottle.  Something that can contain the blast of powder going off.  My understanding is that suppressor works by using something like rubber washers to slow down both the gas and the bullet to a subsonic speed.

I had the opportunity to shoot a Beretta 92* (M9, maybe?) with a milspec silencer/suppressor using subsonic ammunition once.  Shit is not like the movies at all  :lol:  Makes you realize how fucking loud the slide during ejection really is.  Pfft-pfft silencer movie FX, my ass.

*Edit, so 11B doesn't have kittens:  fire a Beretta 92
**Double edit, since he's having kittens anyway: discharge a Beretta 92

I carry the M9.

And you look damned sexy doing it.

Quote from: Barrister on June 21, 2016, 01:35:26 PM
The AR-15 is also highly modular.  You can change it to a larger calibre ammunition and use it for hunting - and now you don't need to buy two separate rifles.

Yeah, the modularity works both ways though.  Once you have a rifle in a certain configuration, you want one in a different configuration with a longer barrel.  Then you want one in 7.62x39.  Fairly easy to build with a small investment in tools, and parts are cheaper and in better quality than ever before.  Next thing you know there are half a dozen ARs in your safe  :blush:

One for every occasion!

"This one here is my 'steppin' out about town' model."

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 22, 2016, 12:11:14 PM
One for every occasion!

"This one here is my 'steppin' out about town' model."

It is more than just a lifestyle.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 22, 2016, 12:11:14 PM
One for every occasion!

"This one here is my 'steppin' out about town' model."

I built one for my wife that I was going to put pink furniture on, but just couldn't get myself to do it.

Noting wrong with going Hello Kitty with an AR.  It's not like anybody's going to laugh at it.

I haven't showed her the Hello Kitty AR pictures, because she absolutely would want that.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 22, 2016, 01:43:33 PM
Noting wrong with going Hello Kitty with an AR.  It's not like anybody's going to laugh at it.

It's funny, but not "ha ha" funny. 

;)

Quote from: 11B4V on June 21, 2016, 07:33:57 PMAside what been said by B and BB. One just needs to look at the assault rifle development and why it was created to get an answer.

No one can use the excuse for hunting (unless humans). Utter bullshit. The run of the mill assault rifle is not more accurate than the average bolt gun. They are more expensive to boot and less accurate. Most states have caliber restrictions on big game. One shot one down animal. High capacity is irrelevant. You don't fill the thing full of holes. Rather counterproductive. Not to mention you'd be laughed out of any serious hunting camp as a fool.

Varmints you say, again bullshit. To accurize an AR costs even more dough. The cost of an accurized AR, you could buy an accurized bolt gun with a nice scope for 500 yard shooting. Hence serious varmint hunters go bolt action or single shot.

So for hunting, that excuse is utter bullshit.

Home defense they say....bullshit again. A shotgun is far more suitable.

I use my M1A essentially as a "ranch rifle." I have a lot of property and when driving it with truck or ATV I like to have it just in case. I'm not hunting in such a situation, just checking on things. A lot of hilljack nonsense goes on in the mountains and it's not necessarily unheard of to stumble upon it, since I'm on my own property I'd rather have a proper rifle versus a handgun, which I've never been that great with. I don't carry handguns outside of the home and frankly feel it's a pointless addition of hassle to your life for little practical gain, but out where I'd need to deal with something on my own if something came up I simply prefer to be armed, and armed to what I feel is appropriate standard. There's reasons neither handgun or shotgun are ideal for this.

If we lived in a hypothetical world where the M1A was confiscated as part of some fanciful gun ban, my next choice would be something akin to a Winchester 1886 variant, lever action with 8+1 capacity. I suspect those sort of guns would not face much scrutiny because they aren't loaded with detachable magazines of varying size and they fail on almost all the "scary" tests.

I like Remington bolt actions for my hunting rifle as well, but I'm curious as to why you're rolling with an 8x57mm, after some pointless deviation into a 7mm Rem Mag I went back to the .30-06 I've used for deer my entire life. The .30-06 at least at my gun store is $10/box cheaper than the 8x57 and it's also found damn near everywhere I've ever shopped for ammo, which I can't say about the 8x57.

I would love to have me a M14/M1A. But I don't really need it, it would be used to kill paper more than anything else. :(

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 21, 2016, 10:13:52 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on June 21, 2016, 08:40:31 PM
I think you need something a bit more sturdy than a plastic bottle.  Something that can contain the blast of powder going off.  My understanding is that suppressor works by using something like rubber washers to slow down both the gas and the bullet to a subsonic speed.

I had the opportunity to shoot a Beretta 92* (M9, maybe?) with a milspec silencer/suppressor using subsonic ammunition once.  Shit is not like the movies at all  :lol:  Makes you realize how fucking loud the slide during ejection really is.  Pfft-pfft silencer movie FX, my ass.

*Edit, so 11B doesn't have kittens:  fire a Beretta 92
**Double edit, since he's having kittens anyway: discharge a Beretta 92

Soviet era Nagant pistols could use a suppressor, since it has no slide and ejects no casing, I wonder if it's more quite.

Quote from: lustindarkness on June 22, 2016, 04:39:56 PM
I would love to have me a M14/M1A. But I don't really need it, it would be used to kill paper more than anything else. :(

It certainly seems a more practical choice than an AR-15 if you're dealing with a substantial amount of property like Otto for a "ranch rifle".

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 22, 2016, 04:22:31 PM
I don't carry handguns outside of the home and frankly feel it's a pointless addition of hassle to your life for little practical gain,

They are a pain in the ass.  People who cream themselves over the thought of a concealed carry license never had to wear one every goddamned day. 

Doesn't seem desirable to wear a hunk of metal next to your body on either a hot summer day or a cold winter day.  But never tried it.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 22, 2016, 07:09:16 PM

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 22, 2016, 04:22:31 PM
I don't carry handguns outside of the home and frankly feel it's a pointless addition of hassle to your life for little practical gain,

They are a pain in the ass.  People who cream themselves over the thought of a concealed carry license never had to wear one every goddamned day.

Quit being over dramatic, Nancy.

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on June 22, 2016, 07:20:57 PM
Doesn't seem desirable to wear a hunk of metal next to your body on either a hot summer day or a cold winter day.  But never tried it.

Well you don't have next to your skin. Some people do, but they're knobs.

Quote from: 11B4V on June 22, 2016, 07:25:01 PM
Quit being over dramatic, Nancy.

Says the service holster boy. 

Only problem with conceal carry is where to jam your extra magazines. I know 7 rounds isn't enough for me.

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 22, 2016, 07:42:48 PM
Only problem with conceal carry is where to jam your extra magazines. I know 7 rounds isn't enough for me.

Oh brother.

Quote from: 11B4V on June 22, 2016, 07:44:58 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 22, 2016, 07:42:48 PM
Only problem with conceal carry is where to jam your extra magazines. I know 7 rounds isn't enough for me.

Oh brother.

I'm gonna spray rounds like I spray my DNA around.

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 22, 2016, 07:42:48 PM
Only problem with conceal carry is where to jam your extra magazines. I know 7 rounds isn't enough for me.

Good grief.

Just leave the house with six in the cylinder, and an Uncle Mike's "Uh Oh" belt pouch for an extra six, Seedy Earp style.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 22, 2016, 07:38:11 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on June 22, 2016, 07:25:01 PM
Quit being over dramatic, Nancy.

Says the service holster boy.

You have summer carry, winter carry and formal carry for formal wear/occasions. We're not savages here. You have to diversify your ensemble for different occasions.

Quote from: 11B4V on June 22, 2016, 07:55:20 PM
You have summer carry, winter carry and formal carry for formal wear/occasions. We're not savages here. You have to diversify your ensemble for different occasions.

Fall, Winter, Spring: Bianchi Tuxedo(tm) shoulder holster
Summer:  Fuck, I'm fat

I miss my guns.  :cry:

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 22, 2016, 07:51:29 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 22, 2016, 07:42:48 PM
Only problem with conceal carry is where to jam your extra magazines. I know 7 rounds isn't enough for me.

Good grief.

Just leave the house with six in the cylinder, and an Uncle Mike's "Uh Oh" belt pouch for an extra six, Seedy Earp style.

:showoff:

(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/fr/cp0/e15/q65/13458560_10209415613578490_2022782880322597892_o.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoibCJ9)

Awesome placemat.

.38 wadcutters?  Really?    :P

But yes, I love my speedloaders, and I don't care who knows it.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 22, 2016, 07:03:41 PM

Quote from: lustindarkness on June 22, 2016, 04:39:56 PM
I would love to have me a M14/M1A. But I don't really need it, it would be used to kill paper more than anything else. :(

It certainly seems a more practical choice than an AR-15 if you're dealing with a substantial amount of property like Otto for a "ranch rifle".

That term in quotes refers to a gun used for probably legal killings on private property that don't get reported to the police.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 22, 2016, 04:22:31 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on June 21, 2016, 07:33:57 PMAside what been said by B and BB. One just needs to look at the assault rifle development and why it was created to get an answer.

No one can use the excuse for hunting (unless humans). Utter bullshit. The run of the mill assault rifle is not more accurate than the average bolt gun. They are more expensive to boot and less accurate. Most states have caliber restrictions on big game. One shot one down animal. High capacity is irrelevant. You don't fill the thing full of holes. Rather counterproductive. Not to mention you'd be laughed out of any serious hunting camp as a fool.

Varmints you say, again bullshit. To accurize an AR costs even more dough. The cost of an accurized AR, you could buy an accurized bolt gun with a nice scope for 500 yard shooting. Hence serious varmint hunters go bolt action or single shot.

So for hunting, that excuse is utter bullshit.

Home defense they say....bullshit again. A shotgun is far more suitable.

I use my M1A essentially as a "ranch rifle." I have a lot of property and when driving it with truck or ATV I like to have it just in case. I'm not hunting in such a situation, just checking on things. A lot of hilljack nonsense goes on in the mountains and it's not necessarily unheard of to stumble upon it, since I'm on my own property I'd rather have a proper rifle versus a handgun, which I've never been that great with. I don't carry handguns outside of the home and frankly feel it's a pointless addition of hassle to your life for little practical gain, but out where I'd need to deal with something on my own if something came up I simply prefer to be armed, and armed to what I feel is appropriate standard. There's reasons neither handgun or shotgun are ideal for this.

If we lived in a hypothetical world where the M1A was confiscated as part of some fanciful gun ban, my next choice would be something akin to a Winchester 1886 variant, lever action with 8+1 capacity. I suspect those sort of guns would not face much scrutiny because they aren't loaded with detachable magazines of varying size and they fail on almost all the "scary" tests.

I like Remington bolt actions for my hunting rifle as well, but I'm curious as to why you're rolling with an 8x57mm, after some pointless deviation into a 7mm Rem Mag I went back to the .30-06 I've used for deer my entire life. The .30-06 at least at my gun store is $10/box cheaper than the 8x57 and it's also found damn near everywhere I've ever shopped for ammo, which I can't say about the 8x57.

M1A = Battle rifle IMO.  Not an assault rifle by my definition.

Excellent choice BTW.

:P


http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/06/21/chicago-journalist-denied-ar-15/

Quote

Journalist Tries to Buy an AR-15 to Prove a Point, Gets Humiliated



A Chicago journalist dedicated to investigating the ease with which one can acquire an AR-15 had his purchase denied based on a "domestic battery" charge uncovered by the gun store.
The journalist — Neil Steinberg — attempted to buy the gun at Maxon Shooter's Supplies in Des Plaines, Illinois. He needed a FOID care (Firearm's Owners' Identification Card) — which he had — was required to fill out background check forms — which he did — and then had to wait 24 hours before picking up the gun. It was during the 24-hour wait that Steinberg found out Maxon would not sell him an AR-15 because of the past charge and "an admitted history of alcohol abuse."

Writing in the Chicago Sun-Times, Steinberg explained the process of going into the store — seeing the "cases of weapons" — and of trying to buy the AR-15.

He looked at a Smith & Wesson M&P AR-15 and made sure to point out that the gun comes with a "standard issue 30-round magazine." He agreed to buy the gun.

While explaining the process of buying the gun, he wrote in a way that showed him reflecting on friends who have suffered the loss of family members to suicide. He also reflected on his neighbor's shocked reaction when he told her, "I just bought an assault rifle."

But in the end, he did not really buy the rifle. Rather, the gun store rejected the sale, saying, "It was uncovered that Mr. Steinberg has an admitted history of alcohol abuse, and a charge for domestic battery involving his wife."

Steinberg responded to the cancelled sale by writing, "Would-be terrorists can buy guns. Insane people can buy guns. But reporters . . . that's a different story."

Oh good. More breitbart.

Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2016, 06:17:14 PM
Oh good. More breitbart.

:showoff:

Come on garby, that is pretty damn fun whatever the source.

I don't recall a box on the application to check off for "an admitted history of alcohol abuse"

Typical liberal Illinois gun laws.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2016, 08:54:56 PM
I don't recall a box on the application to check off for "an admitted history of alcohol abuse"

Of course you don't you haven't bought a gun in ages.

Anybody who "admits" to a "history of alcohol abuse" is too retarded to get a gun anyway.

I've enjoyed a history of alcohol abuse but certainly wouldn't admit it.

Alcohol abuse is when you spill your drink right?

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 24, 2016, 08:54:56 PM
I don't recall a box on the application to check off for "an admitted history of alcohol abuse"

There isn't one on the ATF 4473, and while he did get arrested for domestic violence I don't think he was convicted of a domestic violence misdemeanor, I can't tell if he actually had a "qualifying" conviction on his record under the Lautenberg Amendment or if he entered some sort of diversion/charges dismissed program.

The gun seller in this case exercised their right as firearm dealers to decline the sale, and only after needling from him (he claimed he knew the government hadn't blocked the sale, so he expected his 4473 was clean) did they explain their reasons were "his history of domestic violence and alcohol abuse." In his career as a reporter, back in 2008 Neil Steinberg was a drunk with anger problems. One night him and his wife got into it, he slapped her in the face when she went to call 911 and then pulled the phone out of the wall. He was suspended and later an article about him, and the problem among some journalists with alcohol abuse and etc. was published in the paper where he worked (Sun-Times.) My guess is, since other than this most recent thing here, the first page google result for Steinberg is that 2008 article about his domestic violence and alcohol abuse, that the gun store googled his name and reacted based on that.

Since they already knew he wasn't going to leave the store with the gun (and that he couldn't even legally transport it to his home since he lives in Chicago), and had told him they'd just buy it right back from him, it obviously wasn't a genuine moral concern for a bad guy getting a gun. I think he probably rubbed the gun stores guys the wrong way (I read his article 11B4V's Breitpart link references), and he comes off as a giant whiny ass bitch kind and sensitive person, so my guess is the good ole boys relished the opportunity to give him a hearty fuck off.

Quote from: OttoVonBismarck on June 24, 2016, 11:03:31 PM
(I read his article 11B4V's Breitpart link references), and he comes off as a giant whiny ass bitch kind and sensitive person, so my guess is the good ole boys relished the opportunity to give him a hearty fuck off.

I did too and I think your assessment of him is correct.

I found this passage a bit weird in his article:

Quote from: kind and sensitive person reporterOur transaction took nearly an hour because we chatted. Mike used to read newspapers but doesn't anymore because of opinion writers like me. He knew whether it was legal to bring the gun to Chicago — it's not. He was friendly, candid, so I asked difficult questions. Did he ever feel guilty about the people killed by the guns he sells? No, he said, that's like asking a car dealer if he felt guilty if someone gets drunk and kills somebody in a car he sold. It seemed a fair answer. I asked him if I could quote him in the newspaper, and he said no, I couldn't, so I'm not quoting him.

Is this normal practice when it comes to not quoting people? Honest question, I don't know these things at all.

That seems like he was being a major dipshit. 

E: Whatever happened with that toolshed who was talking about having PTSD from shooting an AR-15 at a range?  He was also talking about weird crazy town shit like imagining bodies dropping in front of him and things like that. 

Quote from: The Brain on June 25, 2016, 02:02:49 AM
I found this passage a bit weird in his article:

Quote from: kind and sensitive person reporterOur transaction took nearly an hour because we chatted. Mike used to read newspapers but doesn't anymore because of opinion writers like me. He knew whether it was legal to bring the gun to Chicago — it's not. He was friendly, candid, so I asked difficult questions. Did he ever feel guilty about the people killed by the guns he sells? No, he said, that's like asking a car dealer if he felt guilty if someone gets drunk and kills somebody in a car he sold. It seemed a fair answer. I asked him if I could quote him in the newspaper, and he said no, I couldn't, so I'm not quoting him.

Is this normal practice when it comes to not quoting people? Honest question, I don't know these things at all.

Seems like perfectly normal  douchebag reportage to me.   :lol:

This would be quoting him--
I asked him if I could quote him in the newspaper, and he said, "Sure, you can quote me."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/hawaii-becomes-first-state-put-145141639.html?nhp=1

QuoteHawaii Becomes First State to Put Gun Owners in FBI Database

Hawaii passed a law making it the first state to put gun owners on a federal criminal record database and monitor them.

Hawaii Governor David Ige signed the bill Thursday, which allows police to enroll firearms applicants and individuals who are registering their firearms into "Rap Back," a Federal Bureau of Investigation database that monitors criminal activities by people under investigation or in positions of trust, Reuters reported.

The law takes effect immediately. "Rap Back" allows Hawaii police to be notified when a Hawaii firearm owner is arrested anywhere in the U.S. In addition, the law allows Hawaii police to evaluate whether a firearm owner should continue owning a gun after being arrested.

This move comes after a sit-in by Democrats to support gun control measures that would keep people on the no-fly list from buying a gun.

Previously, Ige had signed a law that disqualifies people convicted of stalking and sexual assault from owning a gun and a law that requires firearm owners diagnosed with a mental, behavioral or emotional disorder to surrender their firearms.

Quote from: The Brain on June 25, 2016, 02:02:49 AM
Is this normal practice when it comes to not quoting people? Honest question, I don't know these things at all.

I've never read an article before in which a person who wanted to remain off the record was quoted.  But then again what can you expect from a juicehead wifebeater.

Cleaning up the big stick for some load workups.

(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/fr/cp0/e15/q65/13495535_10209441024293742_9220099406053642581_o.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoibCJ9)


.308 Winchester or 7.62x51mm  on the right
(https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/t31.0-8/fr/cp0/e15/q65/13458526_10209441024613750_6956739922812238480_o.jpg?efg=eyJpIjoibCJ9)

I'm thinking you're just about the manliest nerd ever Before.

Quote from: garbon on June 25, 2016, 05:17:39 PM

The law takes effect immediately. “Rap Back” allows Hawaii police to be notified when a Hawaii firearm owner is arrested anywhere in the U.S. In addition, the law allows Hawaii police to evaluate whether a firearm owner should continue owning a gun after being arrested.

I don't have a problem with the monitoring part.  I have some problem with the second part, though, in that it seems to go against the grain of "innocent until proven guilty" and in light of SCOTUS rulings might be considered to be depriving a person of a constitutional right without due process.

QuotePreviously, Ige had signed a law that disqualifies people convicted of stalking and sexual assault from owning a gun and a law that requires firearm owners diagnosed with a mental, behavioral or emotional disorder to surrender their firearms.

[/quote]

No problem with this in principle, depending on how the law defines a "mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder" in this context.  I mean, it doesn't make much sense to keep from owing a gun because they have, for example, dyslexia.

Is dyslexia typically considered a mental, behavioural or emotional disorder? I thought it was a learning disorder.

Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2016, 11:40:16 PM
Cleaning up the big stick for some load workups.

You need to clean up that elliptical.  Less workups, more workouts.  #NoMoreBuwwets

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2016, 01:20:23 PM

Quote from: 11B4V on June 25, 2016, 11:40:16 PM
Cleaning up the big stick for some load workups.

You need to clean up that elliptical.  Less workups, more workouts.  #NoMoreBuwwets

I use it all the time. I like rowing machines better, but a good one costs some DOUGH. :o

Yep, the Concept2 I have was $900 new but I legit do use it all the time, and it's basically "fitness club" grade. Damn near nothing can break on it but the chain, which is a relatively cheap part to replace and is rated for a huge number of "meters" of rowing (and will likely last long beyond that as long as you oil it every 6 months or so.)

Quote from: 11B4V on June 26, 2016, 01:34:25 PM

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2016, 01:20:23 PM
You need to clean up that elliptical.  Less workups, more workouts.  #NoMoreBuwwets

I use it all the time. I like rowing machines better, but a good one costs some DOUGH. :o

And those game shelves are a mess.  Your Arab/Israeli stuff is everywhere.  And put all your Kursk-related shit together.  Don't think I don't see that Ring of Fire in the wrong goddamned place, either.

I'm trying to figure out which game that is. DAS REICH SETUP AREA? Boner!

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 26, 2016, 05:52:47 PM
I'm trying to figure out which game that is. DAS REICH SETUP AREA? Boner!

SS Panzer

Quote from: 11B4V on June 26, 2016, 05:57:21 PM

Quote from: Ed Anger on June 26, 2016, 05:52:47 PM
I'm trying to figure out which game that is. DAS REICH SETUP AREA? Boner!

SS Panzer

Oh! I think I have that one.  :blush:

Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2016, 02:50:50 AM
Is dyslexia typically considered a mental, behavioural or emotional disorder? I thought it was a learning disorder.

Learning disorders are sometimes considered mental disorders;  I don't know about "typically".  And dyslexia was just an example;  I could have used something like anorexia or arachnophobia that might be considered a mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder instead.  I would doubt that they should be considered as such for the purposes of the bill, hence my statement that I don't have a problem with the law in principle, but expressed reservations as to what disorders might be covered.

And you've been in Jolly Olde too long--you're adding an extra "u" to some words.  :)

Quote from: dps on June 26, 2016, 11:23:59 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2016, 02:50:50 AM
behavioural

And you've been in Jolly Olde too long--you're adding an extra "u" to some words.  :)

Yeah, knock that shit off, goddammit.

Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2016, 06:24:25 AM

Quote from: dps on June 26, 2016, 11:23:59 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2016, 02:50:50 AM
behavioural

And you've been in Jolly Olde too long--you're adding an extra "u" to some words.  :)

Yeah, knock that shit off, goddammit.

Blame my phone. I'm not going to spend time correcting when autocorrect puts in an actual spelling.

Quote from: dps on June 26, 2016, 11:23:59 PM

Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2016, 02:50:50 AM
Is dyslexia typically considered a mental, behavioural or emotional disorder? I thought it was a learning disorder.

Learning disorders are sometimes considered mental disorders;  I don't know about "typically".  And dyslexia was just an example;  I could have used something like anorexia or arachnophobia that might be considered a mental, behavioral, or emotional disorder instead.  I would doubt that they should be considered as such for the purposes of the bill, hence my statement that I don't have a problem with the law in principle, but expressed reservations as to what disorders might be covered.

And you've been in Jolly Olde too long--you're adding an extra "u" to some words.  :)

Yes with a silly objection. Not that gov'ts don't fuck up but I still don't see why an initial reaction would be ok but with reservations that by disorders they don't mean my list of disorders that have nothing to do with competency at using a gun.