Yay for American gun laws
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-05-2014, 11:21 PM
RE: Yay for American gun laws
Not an assault rifle. Also do you know how much 360 rounds of ammo in magazines weighs? Also you can't buy a rifle under age 18. If you're worried about kids using their parents' guns, maybe you should instead look at ways to make gun safes or cabinets more affordable.


You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It's like a young earth creationist talking about the irreducible complexity of the eye or something. Facepalm It amazes me that a group of people who champion knowledge, facts, and skepticism can so gleefully celebrate ignorance of a topic and dismiss any attempt to bring facts into it.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post
04-05-2014, 11:51 PM
RE: Yay for American gun laws
(04-05-2014 11:21 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Not an assault rifle. Also do you know how much 360 rounds of ammo in magazines weighs? Also you can't buy a rifle under age 18. If you're worried about kids using their parents' guns, maybe you should instead look at ways to make gun safes or cabinets more affordable.


You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It's like a young earth creationist talking about the irreducible complexity of the eye or something. Facepalm It amazes me that a group of people who champion knowledge, facts, and skepticism can so gleefully celebrate ignorance of a topic and dismiss any attempt to bring facts into it.
Hey its a foreign perspective, may not be correct but a gun like that seems more designed for people hunting then deer.
where are you getting this $20,000 figure from.

Theism is to believe what other people claim, Atheism is to ask "why should I".
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2014, 12:07 AM
RE: Yay for American gun laws
(04-05-2014 11:51 PM)sporehux Wrote:  
(04-05-2014 11:21 PM)Phaedrus Wrote:  Not an assault rifle. Also do you know how much 360 rounds of ammo in magazines weighs? Also you can't buy a rifle under age 18. If you're worried about kids using their parents' guns, maybe you should instead look at ways to make gun safes or cabinets more affordable.


You clearly have no idea what you're talking about. It's like a young earth creationist talking about the irreducible complexity of the eye or something. Facepalm It amazes me that a group of people who champion knowledge, facts, and skepticism can so gleefully celebrate ignorance of a topic and dismiss any attempt to bring facts into it.
Hey its a foreign perspective, may not be correct but a gun like that seems more designed for people hunting then deer.
where are you getting this $20,000 figure from.

A gun like that is mostly made for putting holes in paper. An AR-15 is most often a hobby gun. You drop $800 - $2000 on your base gun (or purchase all the parts separately) and build up a rifle to have the accuracy, features, and calibre you want. It's a whole modular system where you can pick a stock that is ergonomically right for you, choose the sights you want (iron sights? red dot? laser? telescopic? combination?), if you want a flashlight on it or a foregrip. Maybe get a drop-in .22 conversion if you want to shoot cheaper ammo some of the time. Etc.

ARs, AKs, and other semi-automatic rifles are used in less than 1% of all crimes committed with guns.



An assault rifle is a carbine-length rifle firing an intermediate cartridge that has select-fire capability (can fire full automatic or in a burst). An AR-15 is an assault rifle only if it has a fully automatic switch. If it does, it is regulated as a machine gun by the ATF. No new machine guns can be registered in the US since 1986, except by act of congress. That means that there hasn't been a new assault rifle available to the civilian market since 1986; only the ones already registered. That means there's a finite supply.

I'm not a part of the machine gun scene (way too pricey) so I don't know exact prices, but I've heard $20,000 quoted for an AR-15 with an autosear (a 1980s hack to make a semi-auto function as a machine gun; now the parts for an autosear are considered machine guns in of themselves). I've heard $40,000 for an actual M16 or fully automatic AK-47. Light machine guns will run $50,000+. Thompson guns start at $25,000 for one in usable condition, to $100,000 for a collector grade one. Cheapest machine gun you can get would be a MAC-10 or MAC-11, which would still run you around $2,000-$5,000 depending on the market at that moment. Before you flip your shit about one of those, keep in mind a MAC-10 is basically an easy way to shoot 20 bullets, and have less effect than a handgun firing 3 bullets.

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
05-05-2014, 03:08 AM
RE: Yay for American gun laws
One statistic difficult to obtain (because it isn't really tracked, as such) is the number of gun victims who were NOT the first casualty of a gun incident. But there are some measures that permit approximation, and the approximation is enough. Basically, the percent of gun incident victims who were the FIRST casualty is approximately 99%.

Apply some generous rounding off and call it 95%. 5% of gun victims got a 2nd, 3rd or 80th bullet; 95% got the first bullet that did harm.

The problem is not assault type weaponry or magazine capacity. Focusing on those attributes of firearms is like trying to combat arson by limiting how many matches are in a matchbook.

If gun violence is a serious problem (and there are arguments that rated against disease, natural disaster and old age, death by gunfire isn't all that significant, and so trying to prevent it may take resources away from advances against cancer and so on), the problem to solve isn't prevention of only 5% of the casualties, the problem to solve is preventing (or at least reducing) the 95% of casualties that were felled by the first bullet.

That won't happen by restricting firearm magazine capacity. That will only happen by restricting firearms outright.

We put restrictions everywhere in the service of public safety. We can't take certain drugs. We can't operate certain types of equipment without training and license. We can't conduct certain types of businesses without training and license and periodic audit. Unauthorized possession of a variety of substances and materials is prohibited. In many states such simple pyrotechnics as firecrackers are outlawed.

Why the United States exempts firearms from similar restrictions cannot be grounded in anything rational. Luckily, at the moment, the epidemic of culturally tolerated gun violence afflicts only a third of a billion people in the US, out of 7 billion worldwide. Only 5%. By some perspectives, perhaps the problem isn't that serious.

But it wouldn't be a perspective shared by those struck by the first bullet.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Airportkid's post
05-05-2014, 04:16 AM (This post was last modified: 05-05-2014 05:40 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Yay for American gun laws
(03-05-2014 10:27 AM)Dom Wrote:  You have to keep in mind that the culture here is based on paranoia from back in the pioneer days, through the wild west and into large city environments. The crime rate is high, too.

The chances that a stranger enters your home in order to do something nice are practically non-existent.

If someone suddenly shows up in my living room, I am better off shooting first and asking questions later. If I don't, the odds weigh towards never asking another question again.

The culture is what it is. Not defending yourself will most likely result in not ever being able to do so again. Just because the culture is far from being ideal doesn't mean one has to be a setting duck. Idealism does not save lives.

Who wants to risk their life in order to ask questions? Not me.


I'm just going to say that your reasoning sounds dangerously circular. In areas saturated with guns, they unsurprisingly see more gun crime; the weapons are simply easier to come by (and yes I realize that the most common firearm used is a cheap .22 pistol, so this is not an 'assault weapon' rant). People in those areas become more paranoid and fearful of being victimized, causing many of them to buy even more guns to defend themselves; which perpetuates the problem by adding even more guns into the ecosystem. Are all of those gun owners (or those with easy access to other's guns) sensible, responsible people with licenses, training, proper gun lockers, cleared background checks and stable bills of mental health? The answer here is an resounding NO. This helps to perpetuate a culture of paranoia, gun fetishism, and increased gun violence; both purposeful and tragically accidental.


For the record, I think the OP's case falls firmly into the 'purposeful' category and I hope he gets convicted for something substantial. The man appears to lack empathy and sense, and if so has no place owning any firearm; let alone retaining his freedom after having killed someone in seemingly premeditated cold blood.


I'm not going to claim that I have the answer to all of these problems; but the NRA's answer of giving more guns to more people, seems to me at least, to be a colossal step in the wrong direction. If another person had a gun in that crowded Aurora movie theater shooting back at James Holmes through the smoke grenades, I doubt it would have resulted in anything more than an even greater number of wounded and killed bystanders.


Fuck, does anyone remember when cops used to shout out 'FREEZE' before they shot at people? Yeah, me neither...


I just feel sick when I think about it because it's so easy to see that we have a significant problem here, but there are no easy answers to fixing it; and there are massive moneyed interests that have an incentive to keep the status quo. The NRA doesn't represent gun owners, it represent gun manufacturers. I think that might be the most disheartening thing of all, stemming from the bigger problem of our corrupted and broken 'democracy' that is bought and paid for by those with the most money to push their own agendas; the rest of the country be damned.


Fuck me, now I'm all depressed and shit... Dodgy


:EDIT:


Fuck me some more for not stopping myself from reading more on Wikipedia. Insofar as it pertains to the aforementioned Aurora shooting...

"Colorado gun sales spiked after the shooting, with the number of background checks for people seeking to purchase a firearm in the state increasing to 2,887, up 43% from the previous week. Gun sales in Washington, Florida, California, and Georgia also increased."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora...rol_debate
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_211421...ce-tragedy
http://nypost.com/2012/07/25/gun-sales-s...-shooting/

They want us scared, paranoid, and shooting each other; because it's good for business... Dodgy

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
05-05-2014, 07:55 AM (This post was last modified: 05-05-2014 07:59 AM by wazzel.)
RE: Yay for American gun laws
(05-05-2014 03:08 AM)Airportkid Wrote:  One statistic difficult to obtain (because it isn't really tracked, as such) is the number of gun victims who were NOT the first casualty of a gun incident. But there are some measures that permit approximation, and the approximation is enough. Basically, the percent of gun incident victims who were the FIRST casualty is approximately 99%.

Apply some generous rounding off and call it 95%. 5% of gun victims got a 2nd, 3rd or 80th bullet; 95% got the first bullet that did harm.

The problem is not assault type weaponry or magazine capacity. Focusing on those attributes of firearms is like trying to combat arson by limiting how many matches are in a matchbook.

If gun violence is a serious problem (and there are arguments that rated against disease, natural disaster and old age, death by gunfire isn't all that significant, and so trying to prevent it may take resources away from advances against cancer and so on), the problem to solve isn't prevention of only 5% of the casualties, the problem to solve is preventing (or at least reducing) the 95% of casualties that were felled by the first bullet.

That won't happen by restricting firearm magazine capacity. That will only happen by restricting firearms outright.

We put restrictions everywhere in the service of public safety. We can't take certain drugs. We can't operate certain types of equipment without training and license. We can't conduct certain types of businesses without training and license and periodic audit. Unauthorized possession of a variety of substances and materials is prohibited. In many states such simple pyrotechnics as firecrackers are outlawed.

Why the United States exempts firearms from similar restrictions cannot be grounded in anything rational. Luckily, at the moment, the epidemic of culturally tolerated gun violence afflicts only a third of a billion people in the US, out of 7 billion worldwide. Only 5%. By some perspectives, perhaps the problem isn't that serious.

But it wouldn't be a perspective shared by those struck by the first bullet.

Violent crime is about more than just the availibility of a gun. Banning guns will not stop people from getting killed or magically make violent crime go away. If strict gun control was all it took to make places safer Russia and South Africa would be some of the safeist places on the planet instead of some on the most violent.

Most gun crime is committed by handguns. The most common are cheap modles in 9mm and 0.380.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2014, 08:14 AM
RE: Yay for American gun laws
(05-05-2014 07:55 AM)wazzel Wrote:  
(05-05-2014 03:08 AM)Airportkid Wrote:  One statistic difficult to obtain (because it isn't really tracked, as such) is the number of gun victims who were NOT the first casualty of a gun incident. But there are some measures that permit approximation, and the approximation is enough. Basically, the percent of gun incident victims who were the FIRST casualty is approximately 99%.

Apply some generous rounding off and call it 95%. 5% of gun victims got a 2nd, 3rd or 80th bullet; 95% got the first bullet that did harm.

The problem is not assault type weaponry or magazine capacity. Focusing on those attributes of firearms is like trying to combat arson by limiting how many matches are in a matchbook.

If gun violence is a serious problem (and there are arguments that rated against disease, natural disaster and old age, death by gunfire isn't all that significant, and so trying to prevent it may take resources away from advances against cancer and so on), the problem to solve isn't prevention of only 5% of the casualties, the problem to solve is preventing (or at least reducing) the 95% of casualties that were felled by the first bullet.

That won't happen by restricting firearm magazine capacity. That will only happen by restricting firearms outright.

We put restrictions everywhere in the service of public safety. We can't take certain drugs. We can't operate certain types of equipment without training and license. We can't conduct certain types of businesses without training and license and periodic audit. Unauthorized possession of a variety of substances and materials is prohibited. In many states such simple pyrotechnics as firecrackers are outlawed.

Why the United States exempts firearms from similar restrictions cannot be grounded in anything rational. Luckily, at the moment, the epidemic of culturally tolerated gun violence afflicts only a third of a billion people in the US, out of 7 billion worldwide. Only 5%. By some perspectives, perhaps the problem isn't that serious.

But it wouldn't be a perspective shared by those struck by the first bullet.

Violent crime is about more than just the availibility of a gun. Banning guns will not stop people from getting killed or magically make violent crime go away. If strict gun control was all it took to make places safer Russia and South Africa would be some of the safeist places on the planet instead of some on the most violent.

Most gun crime is committed by handguns. The most common are cheap modles in 9mm and 0.380.

Why would the pro-gun side be opposed to restrictions that would simply ensure that guns don't fall into the wrong hands?

In my mind, a gun should be licensed like a vehicle, only much more strictly.

- A background check.
- A psychological evaluation.
- Basic instruction on gun handling and safety.
- A written test.
- A practical test.

Ideally it should be repeated every few years... The psychological aspect being the most important in my mind.

In my opinion, if you can demonstrate that you have a clean record, are of sound mind, and know how to handle and store a gun safely... Then good hunting sir.

I love the friends I have gathered together on this thin raft,
We have constructed pyramids in honor of our escaping.
- Jim Morrison
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2014, 08:17 AM
RE: Yay for American gun laws
(05-05-2014 04:16 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(03-05-2014 10:27 AM)Dom Wrote:  You have to keep in mind that the culture here is based on paranoia from back in the pioneer days, through the wild west and into large city environments. The crime rate is high, too.

The chances that a stranger enters your home in order to do something nice are practically non-existent.

If someone suddenly shows up in my living room, I am better off shooting first and asking questions later. If I don't, the odds weigh towards never asking another question again.

The culture is what it is. Not defending yourself will most likely result in not ever being able to do so again. Just because the culture is far from being ideal doesn't mean one has to be a setting duck. Idealism does not save lives.

Who wants to risk their life in order to ask questions? Not me.


I'm just going to say that your reasoning sounds dangerously circular. In areas saturated with guns, they unsurprisingly see more gun crime; the weapons are simply easier to come by (and yes I realize that the most common firearm used is a cheap .22 pistol, so this is not an 'assault weapon' rant). People in those areas become more paranoid and fearful of being victimized, causing many of them to buy even more guns to defend themselves; which perpetuates the problem by adding even more guns into the ecosystem. Are all of those gun owners (or those with easy access to other's guns) sensible, responsible people with licenses, training, proper gun lockers, cleared background checks and stable bills of mental health? The answer here is an resounding NO. This helps to perpetuate a culture of paranoia, gun fetishism, and increased gun violence; both purposeful and tragically accidental.


For the record, I think the OP's case falls firmly into the 'purposeful' category and I hope he gets convicted for something substantial. The man appears to lack empathy and sense, and if so has no place owning any firearm; let alone retaining his freedom after having killed someone in seemingly premeditated cold blood.


I'm not going to claim that I have the answer to all of these problems; but the NRA's answer of giving more guns to more people, seems to me at least, to be a colossal step in the wrong direction. If another person had a gun in that crowded Aurora movie theater shooting back at James Holmes through the smoke grenades, I doubt it would have resulted in anything more than an even greater number of wounded and killed bystanders.


Fuck, does anyone remember when cops used to shout out 'FREEZE' before they shot at people? Yeah, me neither...


I just feel sick when I think about it because it's so easy to see that we have a significant problem here, but there are no easy answers to fixing it; and there are massive moneyed interests that have an incentive to keep the status quo. The NRA doesn't represent gun owners, it represent gun manufacturers. I think that might be the most disheartening thing of all, stemming from the bigger problem of our corrupted and broken 'democracy' that is bought and paid for by those with the most money to push their own agendas; the rest of the country be damned.


Fuck me, now I'm all depressed and shit... Dodgy


:EDIT:


Fuck me some more for not stopping myself from reading more on Wikipedia. Insofar as it pertains to the aforementioned Aurora shooting...

"Colorado gun sales spiked after the shooting, with the number of background checks for people seeking to purchase a firearm in the state increasing to 2,887, up 43% from the previous week. Gun sales in Washington, Florida, California, and Georgia also increased."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Aurora...rol_debate
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_211421...ce-tragedy
http://nypost.com/2012/07/25/gun-sales-s...-shooting/

They want us scared, paranoid, and shooting each other; because it's good for business... Dodgy

I prefer the intruder has a gun - better to die that way than to be strangled, hit over the head with a fire poker, stabbed, beaten to death and what have you. In that situation, the gun is a kindness.

[Image: dobie.png]

Science is the process we've designed to be responsible for generating our best guess as to what the fuck is going on. Girly Man
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2014, 08:26 AM
RE: Yay for American gun laws
(05-05-2014 08:14 AM)Sam Wrote:  
(05-05-2014 07:55 AM)wazzel Wrote:  Violent crime is about more than just the availibility of a gun. Banning guns will not stop people from getting killed or magically make violent crime go away. If strict gun control was all it took to make places safer Russia and South Africa would be some of the safeist places on the planet instead of some on the most violent.

Most gun crime is committed by handguns. The most common are cheap modles in 9mm and 0.380.

Why would the pro-gun side be opposed to restrictions that would simply ensure that guns don't fall into the wrong hands?

In my mind, a gun should be licensed like a vehicle, only much more strictly.

- A background check.
- A psychological evaluation.
- Basic instruction on gun handling and safety.
- A written test.
- A practical test.

Ideally it should be repeated every few years... The psychological aspect being the most important in my mind.

In my opinion, if you can demonstrate that you have a clean record, are of sound mind, and know how to handle and store a gun safely... Then good hunting sir.

IMO becasue of the all or nothing way the debate has become politicalized.

Personally I am for regulated gun ownership. I am fine with licensing and testing even tho I do not know how much it will help. I have a friend that is a cop in South Africa. They have extreemly strict fire arms laws and ownership is severly restricted, but still a very violent place.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-05-2014, 08:40 AM
RE: Yay for American gun laws
(05-05-2014 08:17 AM)Dom Wrote:  I prefer the intruder has a gun - better to die that way than to be strangled, hit over the head with a fire poker, stabbed, beaten to death and what have you. In that situation, the gun is a kindness.


Really? Cause I see my chances as way better against a guy with a baseball bat over a guy with a gun. For the record, mass-stabbings generally seem to end up with far fewer casualties. I'll take the 22 wounded by some disturbed 10th grader over any other fatal shooting. Had James Holmes walked into that movie theater with a knife or a bat and started randomly attacking people, how many more would still be alive today? Almost assuredly more of them. Had this asshole in Montana not had that shotgun at his disposal, would Diren Dede still be alive today? Almost assuredly.


This mentality that it's okay to shoot first and ask questions later is all a little fucked in the head, and frankly that scares the shit out of me.

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
Post Reply

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread: Author Replies: Views: Last Post
  More evidence that American education is fucked Hughsie 34 868 14-05-2014 03:03 PM
Last Post: Impulse
  More American school violence. Banjo 11 288 10-04-2014 09:42 AM
Last Post: Alex_Leonardo
  "Secularism" as a front for religion-motivated laws in Quebec Elesjei 59 1,379 30-11-2013 07:27 PM
Last Post: Elesjei
  girl dying from cancer because of abortion ban laws shiranl 19 1,445 23-08-2012 11:55 PM
Last Post: Birdguy1979
  New Florida Laws that went into effect on July 1, 2012 shadostr13 5 768 12-07-2012 10:41 PM
Last Post: Hamata k
  Canadian Money is Pornographic and Anti-American Erxomai 18 1,505 11-05-2012 02:22 AM
Last Post: DLJ
  American Atheists 2012: The Year of the Ex-Preacher Continue reading on Examiner.com Clint Barnett 0 294 03-04-2012 02:20 PM
Last Post: Clint Barnett
Forum Jump: