The stupidity of limiting ammunition
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
29-04-2013, 10:30 AM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 10:12 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  
(29-04-2013 10:01 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  And this is why I try and avoid gun debates on this forum. It always ends up in name calling and stupidity by both sides. TBD you need to think out your positions better, I'm by no means a gun nut, hell I'd love to do what Australia did, I just don't see it happening in this country. But you tend to get emotional about it because you haven't really thought it out. TheBlackKnight You're just as bad, you offer nothing constructive and simply try to derail any actual conversation.

To Chas and Phaedrus I find your views interesting and would enjoy hashing out ideas but this is never going to happen due to the epic derailments that always occur in gun threads.

Which points of mine do you think need to be thought out more clearly? I see no problem with looking at Australia's example as something to strive for. I am not disillusioned into thinking that their exact legislation will be enacted in the US, in the very same way that I doubt I will see a female atheist as the leader of my country as Australia has.

Emotions are hard to avoid in this debate, but when one side quite literally opens it up with personal attacks, what is the other side to do? I have requested numerous times for the personal attacks and insults to stop, but to no avail. I have no time for someone who has no interest in conversation and interest only in being an obtuse asshole. The very reason BlackKnight is on and will remain on my ignore list.


I wasn't going to post again in this thread but since you asked nicely I will explain what I meant. Your conversion from pro-gun to pro-regulation came after an emotional event and is based off of emotion. Your position is hard to understand even after dozens of posts on it.

I have been following the threads on this subject since I joined this forum and you are one of the few people that speak up consistently on the pro-regulation side but because your position is based off of emotion rather than a logically thought out end game you can easily be turned around.

What I recommend is simply sitting down and going over your ideas one by one and finding out why you think they are the best option. This way when someone comes at you with emotion and name calling you can just ignore it and state fact. Remember in a debate when one side has to resort to emotion it means they are losing when both sides do it means neither has a good position.

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Revenant77x's post
29-04-2013, 10:35 AM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 10:30 AM)Revenant77x Wrote:  
(29-04-2013 10:12 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Which points of mine do you think need to be thought out more clearly? I see no problem with looking at Australia's example as something to strive for. I am not disillusioned into thinking that their exact legislation will be enacted in the US, in the very same way that I doubt I will see a female atheist as the leader of my country as Australia has.

Emotions are hard to avoid in this debate, but when one side quite literally opens it up with personal attacks, what is the other side to do? I have requested numerous times for the personal attacks and insults to stop, but to no avail. I have no time for someone who has no interest in conversation and interest only in being an obtuse asshole. The very reason BlackKnight is on and will remain on my ignore list.


I wasn't going to post again in this thread but since you asked nicely I will explain what I meant. Your conversion from pro-gun to pro-regulation came after an emotional event and is based off of emotion. Your position is hard to understand even after dozens of posts on it.

I have been following the threads on this subject since I joined this forum and you are one of the few people that speak up consistently on the pro-regulation side but because your position is based off of emotion rather than a logically thought out end game you can easily be turned around.

What I recommend is simply sitting down and going over your ideas one by one and finding out why you think they are the best option. This way when someone comes at you with emotion and name calling you can just ignore it and state fact. Remember in a debate when one side has to resort to emotion it means they are losing when both sides do it means neither has a good position.

If I made it appear as though I jumped to a new opinion while on the verge of tears, then I have made an egregious error in how I have portrayed my views.

After discussing it with a friend of mine some months back (a year or more now), I began to consider and reconsider his arguments. I left the thoughts alone for a time, and then Aurora, CO occurs. I pick it back up and think about it some more and my stance begins to change. Newtown occurs and in the wake of that, I decide to better inform myself and to consider more in-depth what I though and what I wanted. I found myself unable to justify my previous pro-gun views in light of my considerations of the arguments. I, for the first time, looked at other countries and what their views were, and I liked it. I saw systems that I view as better than ours, for logical reasons and there were cold hard numbers I could put behind them to further rationalize it.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
29-04-2013, 10:38 AM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 10:14 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  How exactly am I telling someone else how to live their life?

Am I incorrect in presuming that you support the prohibition of certain drugs? Caps on amount of ammunition one can purchase/possess? The type or number of firearms a person can possess?

Those are controls on human behavior. Those who agitate for them are saying, albeit implicitly, that they know better how others should conduct themselves than do others.

I don't think you and I differ in the results we seek.. you through legislation and me through education. The difference lies in the methodology. You seek laws to prohibit particular human actions while I see that those laws only serve to create criminal behavior, often when there was none to begin with.

We don't eliminate criminal behavior through legislation, we eliminate it through educating people about the behavior that produces would be criminals. Slavery didn't end because the state all of a sudden wrote down a law. The state stopped catching slaves and enforcing the right to own other human beings only after about 150 years of educating people on the immorality of slavery.

The beginning of wisdom is to call things by their right names. - Chinese Proverb
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 11:11 AM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
"You are willing to trade other people's freedom for a perception of your own safety. Not very laudable."

If the perception of my safety is real, then yes. Australia has had success. And even Switzerland with its military requirements, high gun ownership, and yearly training is an admirable system. Their perception of safety is very much real. I do indeed desire that. I desire not having to worry about my son when he is at school. Everyone deserves freedom from fear and worry.

Switzerland's laws are reasonable, though I would make some minor modifications. You will note that what you consider 'assault weapons' are common there. The culture there does not look negatively at gun owners; quite the contrary, shooting sports are popular.


"I have hundreds of rounds of ammunition. Am I stockpiling? I suppose.
If there is civil unrest, I want as much ammunition as possible. "


If you stockpiling because you anticipate civil unrest, then you are a fool. I know you are not a fool. If you use your ammunition in a responsible manner and frequently enough when you do use it, then it isn't what I would say is stockpiling. Just regular everyday stock. Why would it matter if there were a cap on it? If you were limited to 100 rounds in your personal stock at any one time, would that not be enough for self-defense? If being at a shooting range allowed for the amount you could have to shoot to be much higher, would that be a problem for you?

Civil unrest could occur for any number of reasons, most of which are not foreseeable. I am not stockpiling ammunition solely for that reason, but it is one of the reasons that I have guns and ammunition. It is just as easy for me to have 1000 rounds of ammunition as 100. It is more convenient when I go to the range to not have to go out of my way to go buy ammunition.

"Catching the criminals after the fact does not save the lives lost. You are still not framing problems and solutions, you are firing broadsides hoping to hit something.
The bureaucracy and paperwork/databases involved would not be useful in preventing anything unless you are going to add a law limiting how much ammunition it is legal to possess, use the database for triggering inspections or searches. What kind of society are you willing to live in? That sounds like an awfully intrusive government to me. All for a marginal perception of safety."


Catching criminals after the fact implies that they would never kill again. Catching a killer and taking them off the street does indeed prevent the loss of life. And I am not arguing for a Orwellian state to live in. I am well aware that freedom must necessarily come at the cost of being prone to being attacked. But the attacks that can be avoided and prevented, should be.

But what you are advocating is not directed at prevention. Note that none of the shooters in mass killings went uncaught.

"I was appalled by Newtown. My second reaction was that if someone in the school had been armed, it would have ended differently."

This kind of reaction astounds me. The what-if argument of the lone cowboy in the school to protect kids from something that shouldn't be there. Nevermind having a shoot-out in a school where people can be injured be each shooter now. Also, nevermind the unstable kids in the schools who might gain access to these weapons. My wife works with kids (mainly middle to high schoolers) and their families. Those with either mental health issues or behavioral problems. Some of these kids are dangers to others and (more likely) themselves. Putting weapons around these kids, is a mistake waiting to happen. And some of these kids give no signs of being unstable until something happens. They hit puberty, a tragedy happens, they develop friends with unhealthy habits, etc. All the kids in the school, aren't little angels.

Yes, I have seen that reaction from others. However, if designated, trained staff (principal, vice principal, front office manager, ...) carried a pistol then we are not talking about 'lone cowboys' or a shoot-out where students are in harm's way. The shooter at Newtown would have been stopped at the door.
And no one is 'putting weapons around these kids'. A pistol properly carried is not a danger to others.


"Please define 'assault rifle' because I don't know what one is. "

That which was designed for, and explicitly used as a military and/or law enforcement weapon. The AR-15 being one example. It is truly a marvel of military engineering. And I don't want Joe-Blow doing with it as he pleases anymore than I want him to have access to military-grade grenades. I am fully aware that there exist hunting rifles that might be considered more dangerous in some ways, but there is a reason they are not used exclusively by the military any longer. They are not as dangerous.

I'm sorry, but the last sentence is not logical. Not as dangerous? How is a rifle that fires the same or more powerful cartridge not as dangerous? The AR platform is simply a well-designed firearm. Military designs have been used or adapted for sport since the invention of firearms.
The anti-gun rhetoric against the ill-defined 'assault weapon' is simply emotional rhetoric without factual substance.
For example, in Massachusetts, I can buy an AR platform rifle if it has only one of the following: pistol grip, folding/telescoping stock, flash suppressor or threaded barrel, bayonet lug, grenade launcher. So, none of these are bad things unless they are combined one with another? Notice that the rifle is no less capable or deadly - it's just less scary-looking.


"We have some states with rational and effective firearms regulations, some with very little regulation (Vermont, New Hampshire), some with odious, ineffective legislation (Massachusetts, Connecticut).

Let's stick to defining actual problems and effective solutions.
Much of what you have put forward are simply burdensome without addressing actual problems."


I think burdensome is not a problem. If the burden prevents death, then I don't see it as a burden. In the same way that it is a burden to go to the DMV. I fully agree that better solutions are needed and (as we have agreed upon many times) homogeneity among the states gun laws is a necessary first step. And a good one to boot. But what laws would you propose? I have failed to ask this I have realized. What does the pro-gun side propose?


Burdensome is a problem. It's a problem in all of government or business. There needs to be a reason to bear a burden.

My first proposal is health care. A real universal health care system like Switzerland. If we have that, then we can have firearms laws like Switzerland's.

The problems with guns in the U.S. are problems with a society that does not take care of people. Guns really are not the problem as Switzerland demonstrates.
Simple, effective, enforced laws that are neither burdensome to people or to administering them.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
29-04-2013, 11:48 AM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
"Switzerland's laws are reasonable, though I would make some minor modifications. You will note that what you consider 'assault weapons' are common there. The culture there does not look negatively at gun owners; quite the contrary, shooting sports are popular. "

I'm not looking to generate a hostile environment to guns. I'm hoping that we can have a more responsible environment towards guns. And the assault weapons that characterize Switzerland are government issue, no? Do they not limit the ammunition for government issued weapons? I thought they did.

"Civil unrest could occur for any number of reasons, most of which are not foreseeable. I am not stockpiling ammunition solely for that reason, but it is one of the reasons that I have guns and ammunition. It is just as easy for me to have 1000 rounds of ammunition as 100. It is more convenient when I go to the range to not have to go out of my way to go buy ammunition."

I realize it is more convenient to own in bulk, but that does not mean necessary. I still like Revenant's idea that owning in bulk may be okay, given that the person is deemed competent and not a risk to society and/or deemed responsible.

"But what you are advocating is not directed at prevention. Note that none of the shooters in mass killings went uncaught."

If I gave the impression that all of the ideas I have brandied about are strictly prevention-centered, then I was wrong. Some of these may serve, for their primary purpose, to aid best as ways to assist in the capture of individuals. Newtown and Aurora had individuals who did not get away, this is very true. But what of people like the Tsarnaev brothers? I realize they used everyday supplies for that purpose, but if someone were to enact a similar scenario with guns, then the paper trail they leave behind could allow for a trail of bread crumbs. I think it best to have some alternate scenarios in place.

"Yes, I have seen that reaction from others. However, if designated, trained staff (principal, vice principal, front office manager, ...) carried a pistol then we are not talking about 'lone cowboys' or a shoot-out where students are in harm's way. The shooter at Newtown would have been stopped at the door.
And no one is 'putting weapons around these kids'. A pistol properly carried is not a danger to others."


I contend that the issue remains that these guns even make it to schools to begin with. We had an officer at my high school, and I did not feel any safer with him there. Do you put in checkpoints and metal detectors? That seems extreme. Preventing them from entering and ensuring that their is always an officer in the immediate vicinity of the school sounds like a plan to me. Locked doors that include someone checking ids and excuses for adults coming in and out. And teachers better educated in looking for problematic students.

As for the "properly carried pistol/weapon", I don't think any given gun could ever be deemed to not be a danger. Granted, that the person who is in charge of it must remove it from its lodging in order for it to affect anyone, but either it is locked away behind a safe where only the authorized people have access to it (and no one writes the bloody combination down) and is therefore inaccessible if someone charges in. Or, you have cops designated to each school for no other purpose but to patrol the hallways. That seems excessive and expensive.

Also, if teachers and personnel have access to these weapons, what is to stop them if they snap? I have had some teachers who were very hot-headed and while I don't think of any of them as dangerous, it might not take much to send some over the edge. How is that scenario prevented?

"I'm sorry, but the last sentence is not logical. Not as dangerous? How is a rifle that fires the same or more powerful cartridge not as dangerous? The AR platform is simply a well-designed firearm. Military designs have been used or adapted for sport since the invention of firearms.
The anti-gun rhetoric against the ill-defined 'assault weapon' is simply emotional rhetoric without factual substance.
For example, in Massachusetts, I can buy an AR platform rifle if it has only one of the following: pistol grip, folding/telescoping stock, flash suppressor or threaded barrel, bayonet lug, grenade launcher. So, none of these are bad things unless they are combined one with another? Notice that the rifle is no less capable or deadly - it's just less scary-looking."


I don't think of an assault rifle as "the scary-looking one." Less dangerous may have been bad phrasing. How about, it has a rate of fire that exceeds (some number, like 10 rounds a minute or something). This factors in the ammo capacity of the weapon as well. My point (and I believe the point of those advocating for assault weapons bans) is to remove the weapons that are easy to use (pistol gripped rifle) and equally as deadly at medium-short to long ranges (a 30-06 hunting rifle with a scope can certainly kill at close range, my aunt died that way, but is more difficult to use for that purpose).

"Burdensome is a problem. It's a problem in all of government or business. There needs to be a reason to bear a burden.

My first proposal is health care. A real universal health care system like Switzerland. If we have that, then we can have firearms laws like Switzerland's.

The problems with guns in the U.S. are problems with a society that does not take care of people. Guns really are not the problem as Switzerland demonstrates.
Simple, effective, enforced laws that are neither burdensome to people or to administering them."


Burdensome on the individual is not a problem, in my book. If it is a burden on the whole system by bogging it down or making it effectively useless, then I agree it is a problem.

I'm all for some health care. Add in some good mental health coverage and education about mental health, and we are in business to solve a great many of our problems.

And, as I have said, I am all for being like Switzerland with respect to guns. They don't own as many, those who own them don't own as many, all are required to serve in the military, and they redo their training yearly. I say, either require all who want to own guns to join the military, or require every US citizen to serve in the military. Or if they are a pacifist like me, the Peace Corps as an alternative.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 12:04 PM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
Quote:I don't think of an assault rifle as "the scary-looking one." Less dangerous may have been bad phrasing. How about, it has a rate of fire that exceeds (some number, like 10 rounds a minute or something). This factors in the ammo capacity of the weapon as well. My point (and I believe the point of those advocating for assault weapons bans) is to remove the weapons that are easy to use (pistol gripped rifle) and equally as deadly at medium-short to long ranges (a 30-06 hunting rifle with a scope can certainly kill at close range, my aunt died that way, but is more difficult to use for that purpose).

Any gun invented more recently than the muzzle loading musket can fire more than 10 rounds a minute.

A personal question (akin the ones you asked me). Have you ever fired a firearm? And, have you ever spent more than ten minutes on a range?

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 12:10 PM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 11:48 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "Switzerland's laws are reasonable, though I would make some minor modifications. You will note that what you consider 'assault weapons' are common there. The culture there does not look negatively at gun owners; quite the contrary, shooting sports are popular. "

I'm not looking to generate a hostile environment to guns. I'm hoping that we can have a more responsible environment towards guns. And the assault weapons that characterize Switzerland are government issue, no? Do they not limit the ammunition for government issued weapons? I thought they did.

"Civil unrest could occur for any number of reasons, most of which are not foreseeable. I am not stockpiling ammunition solely for that reason, but it is one of the reasons that I have guns and ammunition. It is just as easy for me to have 1000 rounds of ammunition as 100. It is more convenient when I go to the range to not have to go out of my way to go buy ammunition."

I realize it is more convenient to own in bulk, but that does not mean necessary. I still like Revenant's idea that owning in bulk may be okay, given that the person is deemed competent and not a risk to society and/or deemed responsible.

"But what you are advocating is not directed at prevention. Note that none of the shooters in mass killings went uncaught."

If I gave the impression that all of the ideas I have brandied about are strictly prevention-centered, then I was wrong. Some of these may serve, for their primary purpose, to aid best as ways to assist in the capture of individuals. Newtown and Aurora had individuals who did not get away, this is very true. But what of people like the Tsarnaev brothers? I realize they used everyday supplies for that purpose, but if someone were to enact a similar scenario with guns, then the paper trail they leave behind could allow for a trail of bread crumbs. I think it best to have some alternate scenarios in place.

"Yes, I have seen that reaction from others. However, if designated, trained staff (principal, vice principal, front office manager, ...) carried a pistol then we are not talking about 'lone cowboys' or a shoot-out where students are in harm's way. The shooter at Newtown would have been stopped at the door.
And no one is 'putting weapons around these kids'. A pistol properly carried is not a danger to others."


I contend that the issue remains that these guns even make it to schools to begin with. We had an officer at my high school, and I did not feel any safer with him there. Do you put in checkpoints and metal detectors? That seems extreme. Preventing them from entering and ensuring that their is always an officer in the immediate vicinity of the school sounds like a plan to me. Locked doors that include someone checking ids and excuses for adults coming in and out. And teachers better educated in looking for problematic students.

As for the "properly carried pistol/weapon", I don't think any given gun could ever be deemed to not be a danger. Granted, that the person who is in charge of it must remove it from its lodging in order for it to affect anyone, but either it is locked away behind a safe where only the authorized people have access to it (and no one writes the bloody combination down) and is therefore inaccessible if someone charges in. Or, you have cops designated to each school for no other purpose but to patrol the hallways. That seems excessive and expensive.

Also, if teachers and personnel have access to these weapons, what is to stop them if they snap? I have had some teachers who were very hot-headed and while I don't think of any of them as dangerous, it might not take much to send some over the edge. How is that scenario prevented?

"I'm sorry, but the last sentence is not logical. Not as dangerous? How is a rifle that fires the same or more powerful cartridge not as dangerous? The AR platform is simply a well-designed firearm. Military designs have been used or adapted for sport since the invention of firearms.
The anti-gun rhetoric against the ill-defined 'assault weapon' is simply emotional rhetoric without factual substance.
For example, in Massachusetts, I can buy an AR platform rifle if it has only one of the following: pistol grip, folding/telescoping stock, flash suppressor or threaded barrel, bayonet lug, grenade launcher. So, none of these are bad things unless they are combined one with another? Notice that the rifle is no less capable or deadly - it's just less scary-looking."


I don't think of an assault rifle as "the scary-looking one." Less dangerous may have been bad phrasing. How about, it has a rate of fire that exceeds (some number, like 10 rounds a minute or something). This factors in the ammo capacity of the weapon as well. My point (and I believe the point of those advocating for assault weapons bans) is to remove the weapons that are easy to use (pistol gripped rifle) and equally as deadly at medium-short to long ranges (a 30-06 hunting rifle with a scope can certainly kill at close range, my aunt died that way, but is more difficult to use for that purpose).

"Burdensome is a problem. It's a problem in all of government or business. There needs to be a reason to bear a burden.

My first proposal is health care. A real universal health care system like Switzerland. If we have that, then we can have firearms laws like Switzerland's.

The problems with guns in the U.S. are problems with a society that does not take care of people. Guns really are not the problem as Switzerland demonstrates.
Simple, effective, enforced laws that are neither burdensome to people or to administering them."


Burdensome on the individual is not a problem, in my book. If it is a burden on the whole system by bogging it down or making it effectively useless, then I agree it is a problem.

I'm all for some health care. Add in some good mental health coverage and education about mental health, and we are in business to solve a great many of our problems.

And, as I have said, I am all for being like Switzerland with respect to guns. They don't own as many, those who own them don't own as many, all are required to serve in the military, and they redo their training yearly. I say, either require all who want to own guns to join the military, or require every US citizen to serve in the military. Or if they are a pacifist like me, the Peace Corps as an alternative.

The per capita ownership of firearms in Switzerland is quite high, and one is allowed to purchase the government-issued assault rifle after completing service. A firearms permit is required, and it needs to be renewed every five years.
Although there is more per capita firepower in Switzerland than any place in the world, it is one of the safest places to be. Switzerland is the proof in the pudding of the argument that guns don't cause crime. Uganda bans private firearms ownership, but it has an extremely high violent crime and murder rate.

There is not a strong correlation between firearms and violence, so we need to look at the complexities of society, identify the issues, address the actual problems
with actual solutions. Mental health care, social support, drug violence, gangs, ...

Focusing on this type or that type of gun, ammunition availability, magazines is to nibble at the leaves of the dandelion without getting at the root.

Let's get at the root.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 12:11 PM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 12:04 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  
Quote:I don't think of an assault rifle as "the scary-looking one." Less dangerous may have been bad phrasing. How about, it has a rate of fire that exceeds (some number, like 10 rounds a minute or something). This factors in the ammo capacity of the weapon as well. My point (and I believe the point of those advocating for assault weapons bans) is to remove the weapons that are easy to use (pistol gripped rifle) and equally as deadly at medium-short to long ranges (a 30-06 hunting rifle with a scope can certainly kill at close range, my aunt died that way, but is more difficult to use for that purpose).

Any gun invented more recently than the muzzle loading musket can fire more than 10 rounds a minute.

A personal question (akin the ones you asked me). Have you ever fired a firearm? And, have you ever spent more than ten minutes on a range?

I have fired guns and in the town I am from, a firing range seems to be defined as "anywhere with wall of sediment/rock behind it to stop the bullet."

I used to shoot .22's with my cousins at toys and 2-liter bottles full of soap and water that we shook-up so they would explode. We used to shoot clay pigeons with 20 and 12 gauge shotguns at my uncle's house. I have only been hunting twice, once for squirrels using .22's and once with my 30-06 rifle (not in my possession up here but still at my mother's house in TN). I may have only shot one other gun though besides these events, and would have been my brother's .44 magnum hunting revolver. We have a shotgun in our house at home at this very moment, but no ammunition and the shotgun is my wife's grandfathers and I am not sure how long it has been since it was properly cleaned, so I don't think it wise to shoot it. But cocking it if I feel threatened would be enough of a deterrent to any would-be intruder, as would setting of our car alarm so that the whole neighborhood would be made aware that something is wrong.

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 12:14 PM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
Then you should be aware just about any gun can fire more than ten times in a minute.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-04-2013, 12:17 PM
RE: The stupidity of limiting ammunition
(29-04-2013 12:10 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(29-04-2013 11:48 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  "Switzerland's laws are reasonable, though I would make some minor modifications. You will note that what you consider 'assault weapons' are common there. The culture there does not look negatively at gun owners; quite the contrary, shooting sports are popular. "

I'm not looking to generate a hostile environment to guns. I'm hoping that we can have a more responsible environment towards guns. And the assault weapons that characterize Switzerland are government issue, no? Do they not limit the ammunition for government issued weapons? I thought they did.

"Civil unrest could occur for any number of reasons, most of which are not foreseeable. I am not stockpiling ammunition solely for that reason, but it is one of the reasons that I have guns and ammunition. It is just as easy for me to have 1000 rounds of ammunition as 100. It is more convenient when I go to the range to not have to go out of my way to go buy ammunition."

I realize it is more convenient to own in bulk, but that does not mean necessary. I still like Revenant's idea that owning in bulk may be okay, given that the person is deemed competent and not a risk to society and/or deemed responsible.

"But what you are advocating is not directed at prevention. Note that none of the shooters in mass killings went uncaught."

If I gave the impression that all of the ideas I have brandied about are strictly prevention-centered, then I was wrong. Some of these may serve, for their primary purpose, to aid best as ways to assist in the capture of individuals. Newtown and Aurora had individuals who did not get away, this is very true. But what of people like the Tsarnaev brothers? I realize they used everyday supplies for that purpose, but if someone were to enact a similar scenario with guns, then the paper trail they leave behind could allow for a trail of bread crumbs. I think it best to have some alternate scenarios in place.

"Yes, I have seen that reaction from others. However, if designated, trained staff (principal, vice principal, front office manager, ...) carried a pistol then we are not talking about 'lone cowboys' or a shoot-out where students are in harm's way. The shooter at Newtown would have been stopped at the door.
And no one is 'putting weapons around these kids'. A pistol properly carried is not a danger to others."


I contend that the issue remains that these guns even make it to schools to begin with. We had an officer at my high school, and I did not feel any safer with him there. Do you put in checkpoints and metal detectors? That seems extreme. Preventing them from entering and ensuring that their is always an officer in the immediate vicinity of the school sounds like a plan to me. Locked doors that include someone checking ids and excuses for adults coming in and out. And teachers better educated in looking for problematic students.

As for the "properly carried pistol/weapon", I don't think any given gun could ever be deemed to not be a danger. Granted, that the person who is in charge of it must remove it from its lodging in order for it to affect anyone, but either it is locked away behind a safe where only the authorized people have access to it (and no one writes the bloody combination down) and is therefore inaccessible if someone charges in. Or, you have cops designated to each school for no other purpose but to patrol the hallways. That seems excessive and expensive.

Also, if teachers and personnel have access to these weapons, what is to stop them if they snap? I have had some teachers who were very hot-headed and while I don't think of any of them as dangerous, it might not take much to send some over the edge. How is that scenario prevented?

"I'm sorry, but the last sentence is not logical. Not as dangerous? How is a rifle that fires the same or more powerful cartridge not as dangerous? The AR platform is simply a well-designed firearm. Military designs have been used or adapted for sport since the invention of firearms.
The anti-gun rhetoric against the ill-defined 'assault weapon' is simply emotional rhetoric without factual substance.
For example, in Massachusetts, I can buy an AR platform rifle if it has only one of the following: pistol grip, folding/telescoping stock, flash suppressor or threaded barrel, bayonet lug, grenade launcher. So, none of these are bad things unless they are combined one with another? Notice that the rifle is no less capable or deadly - it's just less scary-looking."


I don't think of an assault rifle as "the scary-looking one." Less dangerous may have been bad phrasing. How about, it has a rate of fire that exceeds (some number, like 10 rounds a minute or something). This factors in the ammo capacity of the weapon as well. My point (and I believe the point of those advocating for assault weapons bans) is to remove the weapons that are easy to use (pistol gripped rifle) and equally as deadly at medium-short to long ranges (a 30-06 hunting rifle with a scope can certainly kill at close range, my aunt died that way, but is more difficult to use for that purpose).

"Burdensome is a problem. It's a problem in all of government or business. There needs to be a reason to bear a burden.

My first proposal is health care. A real universal health care system like Switzerland. If we have that, then we can have firearms laws like Switzerland's.

The problems with guns in the U.S. are problems with a society that does not take care of people. Guns really are not the problem as Switzerland demonstrates.
Simple, effective, enforced laws that are neither burdensome to people or to administering them."


Burdensome on the individual is not a problem, in my book. If it is a burden on the whole system by bogging it down or making it effectively useless, then I agree it is a problem.

I'm all for some health care. Add in some good mental health coverage and education about mental health, and we are in business to solve a great many of our problems.

And, as I have said, I am all for being like Switzerland with respect to guns. They don't own as many, those who own them don't own as many, all are required to serve in the military, and they redo their training yearly. I say, either require all who want to own guns to join the military, or require every US citizen to serve in the military. Or if they are a pacifist like me, the Peace Corps as an alternative.

The per capita ownership of firearms in Switzerland is quite high, and one is allowed to purchase the government-issued assault rifle after completing service. A firearms permit is required, and it needs to be renewed every five years.
Although there is more per capita firepower in Switzerland than any place in the world, it is one of the safest places to be. Switzerland is the proof in the pudding of the argument that guns don't cause crime. Uganda bans private firearms ownership, but it has an extremely high violent crime and murder rate.

There is not a strong correlation between firearms and violence, so we need to look at the complexities of society, identify the issues, address the actual problems
with actual solutions. Mental health care, social support, drug violence, gangs, ...

Focusing on this type or that type of gun, ammunition availability, magazines is to nibble at the leaves of the dandelion without getting at the root.

Let's get at the root.

Somewhere like Uganda and most South American countries are pointless in the debate. These third-world (or even second-world) countries lack the ability to enforce any laws they have. It doesn't matter what their laws are if they lack the infrastructure necessary to enforce them. And these places have many other issues that the US doesn't have either.

[Image: ownership-death630.png]

In the US, there does seem to be a correlation between gun violence and gun deaths. That shouldn't be surprising though. More guns means more opportunity for gun death. But there is a correlation, I am not saying it is causal in nature, but correlated. The other issues you raise factor in too. But I don't think gun regulations should be left off of the table.

Why should certain types of weapons not be outlawed, when others are? Why should assault rifles (however you want to define them I suppose) be okay, but other weapons not be deemed okay? (grenades, fully automatic weapons like those used by stationary gunners, etc). I want to know why these guns are so staunchly advocated for in particular?

“Science is simply common sense at its best, that is, rigidly accurate in observation, and merciless to fallacy in logic.”
—Thomas Henry Huxley
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: