[split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-11-2014, 08:21 PM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(14-11-2014 06:19 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  
(14-11-2014 04:24 PM)Chas Wrote:  Why not do like Switzerland? They have a 0.6 murder rate compared to our 4.7 murder rate and the 4th highest rate of gun ownership in the world.

The rate of gun ownership does not directly correlate with homicide rate.

The Swiss still have a high suicide rate by guns, and have had one mass shooting within the last five years (I can't remember when exactly). They are also trained how to use guns from early childhood, gun ownership is a part of their cultural identity, not just a machismo feeling like in the states. It's a total unrealistic comparison.

Horseshit. Guns are an integral part of the American experience.

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
14-11-2014, 08:58 PM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(14-11-2014 08:11 PM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  Should this have been in the other part of the Firearm Education Thread? I presume it doesn't matter.
(14-11-2014 08:51 AM)Chas Wrote:  I don't understand what you're asking.
Allow me to rephrase the question:
What are the concealed carry laws for? What should they be for/ how would you change them?

Concealed carry allows one to have a weapon and not upset people, unlike open carry.

Quote:
(14-11-2014 08:51 AM)Chas Wrote:  'Gun collecting' is generally thought of has owning for the sake of having, not necessarily for use.
Yes. That's exactly what I said. I was asking: If the rationale behind gun ownership being OK is that they serve a purpose, how you you feel about guns that don't serve that purpose?

I collect watches, no different.

Quote:I asked a couple of other questions in the same vein. The automatics one for example.

I believe I answered that.

Quote:
(14-11-2014 08:51 AM)Chas Wrote:  There is no 'standard bullet type'. And the criminals aren't going to pay any attention.
True enough. I'm at least demonstrating what I meant when I said that I wasn't particularly well informed on the subject. Rephrasing again:
-If a new type of bullet is sufficient to serve the task the gun has been purchased for and less dangerous in potentially extremely hazardous scenarios, isn't it "better," a nebulous, ill defined "better," for those bullets to be more widely used?

There are frangible rounds, the bullet will fragment if it hits something hard so it is unlikely to penetrate walls. So those are 'better' in that they're safer.

Hollow point ammunition is used in defensive ammunition because it is less likely to exit the body. So it is also safer.

Quote:
(14-11-2014 08:51 AM)Chas Wrote:  Neither, although either will be effective at close range.
What I mean is: SABOT is, to my understanding, specifically for armour penitration, doesn't that make it overkill for that scenario? Couldn't that be extended out to a whole host of other guns purchased for the same role?

A sabot round is one where the effective projectile is smaller in diameter than the barrel of the weapon, the rest of the space is taken up by a spacer - the sabot.

You are confusing two different types of sabot ammunition. A shotgun sabot slug is not armor penetrating - you are thinking of antitank artillery rounds.

Quote:I mean things like this:



I know the Geneva Convention doesn't cover civilian behaviour but isn't that the sort of thing that's specifically mentioned in them as being "excessive bodily harm?

(OK. Yes. It looks cool.)

The military already uses incendiary rounds, explosive rounds, armor piercing rounds, ...

[Image: tab1-4.gif]

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
14-11-2014, 09:39 PM (This post was last modified: 14-11-2014 09:43 PM by Cathym112.)
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(14-11-2014 12:48 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(14-11-2014 06:37 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  [You are really frustrating on this topic.
And so are you.
Most of the time you merely offer propoganda memes
Guns don't kill people
Guns just fire projectiles
Gun owners arent criminals

It's all vacuous repitition of what has been spoon fed to you. I'd like you to engage in thoughtful discussion rather than this tripe.

(14-11-2014 06:37 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  How would you restrict a criminals access to weapons?
I'd make use of gun control.
I'd make pistols illegal
I'd make automatics and semi automatics illegal
I'd ensure background checks.
I'd keep a gun register.
I'd make high capacity magazines illegal.
Guns would be a privilege not a right.



(14-11-2014 06:37 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Nyc doesn't allow guns within the parameters of the city.
Yes I understand it would be difficult to restrict guns into a city that belongs to a country where pretty much anyone can pick up an AR15 from their nearest convenience store.


(14-11-2014 06:37 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Criminals stormed the diamond district and stole 2 million worth of stuff and pistol whipped a guard. So what do you suggest? Tougher gun laws? Great idea! Tell me that part again where criminals obey laws?
In NZ most criminals don't carry guns, most police don't carry guns. When people do commit crimes with guns its generally a sawn off shot gun or a 0.22 , generally not a pistol or a high calibre rifle, they are much harder to come by. We do have some gun assaults and you are going to get that in a country where guns aren't completely illegal. It is in human nature to commit crimes and guns are a handy tool for that.

(14-11-2014 06:37 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  The second a person not registered to the gun picks it up, they instantly become a criminal in that they do not have lawful possession of the gun.
And in USA there are lot's and lots and lots of guns for these criminals to get their hands on. Guns is big business over there, there is a never ending supply.

(14-11-2014 06:37 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Therefore, claiming that lawful gun owners become criminals is an illogical impossibility.
Picture this if you will.
A legal gun owner, gets angry with his girlfriend. He hits, punches or shoots her. He is now a criminal. This isn't an impossible scenario is it?

Another scenario,
A legal gun owner gets excited about the "make my day" policy and gets grumpy about a local thief. He opens his garage, puts a purse on a table, grabs his gun and waits in the bushes. Thief comes, thief gets murdered, next minute Mr legal gun owner is a criminal.

(14-11-2014 06:37 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Since the second they commit a crime, they are no longer a lawful gun owner. If my husband got convicted of assault - then bam - he instantly becomes an unlawful gun owner and would have to relinquish the guns.
LOL, if only all people who are criminals would just simply relinquish their guns. Voluntarily.

(14-11-2014 06:37 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Very few crimes are commited with legally obtained guns because the second a lawful owner gives access to their gun to an unregistered person - that is unlawful!
The point is not whether the owner is lawful or not, the point is that they have got their hands on a gun. If you make access easy then the crims will have an easy time getting whatever weapon they want.

(14-11-2014 06:37 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  A gun is effective. No one is denying that.
Then why the bullshit about boxcutters?

(14-11-2014 06:37 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Further - a gun facilitates far more "weak" people to protect themselves than it facilitates a "weak" person to commit a crime.
Where is your logic here?
a 5 year old could rob you at gun point. But without a gun they would struggle to get you to give up your money.


(14-11-2014 06:37 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  There is no illusion that men have a disparity of force against a woman. Why would you deny a woman access to the most effective means to protect herself?
Because women are generally the victims of gun crimes.
Wives and girlfriends are much more likely to be murdered if their is a gun in the house.

(14-11-2014 06:37 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  People are far more dangerous with a drugs and alcohol or religious fanaticism than they are a gun.
I can survive if my neighber is high or if my neighbor is praying or both. I may not survive in my neighbor is shooting at me.

For fuck's sake Stevil. The only tripe here is from you. Guns have no purpose, guns make criminals commit crimes and therefore removing guns reduces crimes.

Since you have no experience with guns, I'd say the only person peddling propoganda is you. I own guns and am experienced with them. You've never fired a gun, held a gun, or attempted to gain knowledge of a gun. You have no stats or data to back up your ridiculous logic.

Further - your suggestions on restrictions? The U.S. has been already doing that for more than 35 years. It doesn't stop criminals from getting guns. Just like banning alcohol didn't get people to stop drinking it.


The reason I keep harping on the fact that an inanimate object isn't capable of killing and that it fires a projectile is because you are focusing on the wrong fucking thing.

It's tantamount to you saying a car was used in the commission of a crime, cars are therefore more likely to make people commit crimes, so let's ban cars.

Or knives, or baseball bats, or tire irons, or a lead pipe, or literally anything that can be welded to kill someone.

I am 5 foot tall and under 130 lbs. I have a low chance against the average guy. And even a lesser one with someone bigger than average. The only disparity of force I would ever have over someone is if I was attacked by a dwarf. And I don't think Peter Dinkledge is going to be trying to break into my house anytime soon.

Your logic is so unbelievably faulty that more guns causes more crime, when in fact in city and city, the data shows that with more concealed guns there is less crime. The reason for this is pretty simple once you stop being afraid of the mere sight of a gun. We - as a society - can't stop criminals from getting, or using guns. But we can allow normal responsible people protect themselves and stop crimes from happening to them. Works every fucking time.

Stop letting your fear of guns control your rational brain. The Hollywood gun fights you see are NOT reality. why are you obsessed with "assault rifles" when it's already been demonstrated on another thread, that you can't even pick out what is the assault rifle from a bunch of pics. Further, why do you keep confusing an assault rifle with an "AR-15"? You don't even know what the AR stands for! (An Armalite Rifle is NOT an assault rifle!!!!!!)

You are better than this.

A little rudeness and disrespect can elevate a meaningless interaction to a battle of wills and add drama to an otherwise dull day - Bill Watterson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2014, 09:45 PM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(14-11-2014 04:24 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(14-11-2014 04:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  I ain't retired. Angry

I know that.
standard old person joke, okay?

(14-11-2014 04:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  Senses mild sarcasm. Dodgy

No, I'm actually quite sincere about that, judging from your posting history on the topic.

(14-11-2014 04:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  Not at all sure of your meaning there. Consider

I mean that crime will happen regardless, and that whatever one's response to personal situations one will be legally bound to respond proportionately.

(14-11-2014 04:17 PM)Chas Wrote:  The law does, in fact, provide for differing circumstances. The courts provide for individual circumstances.

Well, yes, there are of course varying provisions. But at some point there are generalisations. Now, the point of having a human judge and jury is in part to accomodate the nuance that can't be written into the law...

There's no law that will satisfy everyone and there's no law that won't admit of exceptions, is what I'm saying.

OK. Thumbsup

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
14-11-2014, 11:09 PM (This post was last modified: 14-11-2014 11:17 PM by Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue.)
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(14-11-2014 08:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  [quote='Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue' pid='685929' dateline='1416017497']
Should this have been in the other part of the Firearm Education Thread? I presume it doesn't matter.
Allow me to rephrase the question:
What are the concealed carry laws for? What should they be for/ how would you change them?

Concealed carry allows one to have a weapon and not upset people, unlike open carry.

(14-11-2014 08:11 PM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  Yes. That's exactly what I said. I was asking: If the rationale behind gun ownership being OK is that they serve a purpose, how you you feel about guns that don't serve that purpose?

I collect watches, no different.[/quote]
It's possible that they were stupid questions.

(14-11-2014 08:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  [quote='Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue' pid='685929' dateline='1416017497']
I asked a couple of other questions in the same vein. The automatics one for example.

I believe I answered that.
Quote:Yes and you answered it to my satisfaction. I was just referencing that you had.

You seem kinda snippy: Are you annoyed? I'll shut up if you are.

(14-11-2014 08:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  [quote='Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue' pid='685929' dateline='1416017497']
True enough. I'm at least demonstrating that I meant it when I said that I wasn't particularly well informed on the subject. Rephrasing again:
-If a new type of bullet is sufficient to serve the task the gun has been purchased for and less dangerous in potentially extremely hazardous scenarios, isn't it "better," a nebulous, ill defined "better," for those bullets to be more widely used?

There are frangible rounds, the bullet will fragment if it hits something hard so it is unlikely to penetrate walls. So those are 'better' in that they're safer.

Hollow point ammunition is used in defensive ammunition because it is less likely to exit the body. So it is also safer.
I'd used frangible rounds in a couple of games (Shadowrun most prominently.) for some reason I'd thought they were fictional.

I was also talking about dealing less damage to the person whom your shooting while still disabling them. That's probably also a stupid question. If you've shot somebody you really should be doing so with in a situation which validates shooting them.

On that note. What's the idea behind the "hold your ground" stuff in Florida? I understand that it makes it legal to shoot somebody who's advancing on you but I've also heard that it makes it illegal to move away or something. Am I miss-remembering?

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2014, 11:17 PM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
For some reason it seems I can have only so many quotes in a single post. I've broken it up and this is the second half:
(14-11-2014 08:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-11-2014 08:11 PM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  What I mean is: SABOT is, to my understanding, specifically for armour penitration, doesn't that make it overkill for that scenario? Couldn't that be extended out to a whole host of other guns purchased for the same role?

A sabot round is one where the effective projectile is smaller in diameter than the barrel of the weapon, the rest of the space is taken up by a spacer - the sabot.

You are confusing two different types of sabot ammunition. A shotgun sabot slug is not armor penetrating - you are thinking of antitank artillery rounds.
Oh. OK. Deus Ex lied to me.

How about the appropriateness of a weapon purchased for the role? You said a couple of pages back that you don't have a problem with people owning assault weapons. Sure. I can respect that; I can't justify being against that rationally.

But do you understand where people, a generic, non-inclusive "people," are coming from when they have a problem with; people owning the very powerful, very dangerous assault weapons for personal defense?
(14-11-2014 08:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-11-2014 08:11 PM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  I mean things like this:



I know the Geneva Convention doesn't cover civilian behaviour but isn't that the sort of thing that's specifically mentioned in them as being "excessive bodily harm?

(OK. Yes. It looks cool.)

The military already uses incendiary rounds, explosive rounds, armor piercing rounds, ...

[Image: tab1-4.gif]
Yeah. Just took a moment to look it up: Ammo types in arms aren't covered by the Geneva Conventions or any of the doctrines of war. I think that's an oversight rather than a conscious choice given that they do cover putting a stone in a snowball.

Soulless mutants of muscle and intent. There are billions of us; hardy, smart and dangerous. Shaped by millions of years of death. We are the definitive alpha predator. We build monsters of fire and stone. We bottled the sun. We nailed our god to a stick.

In man's struggle against the world, bet on the man.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2014, 01:59 AM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(14-11-2014 08:21 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(14-11-2014 06:19 PM)Im_Ryan Wrote:  The Swiss still have a high suicide rate by guns, and have had one mass shooting within the last five years (I can't remember when exactly). They are also trained how to use guns from early childhood, gun ownership is a part of their cultural identity, not just a machismo feeling like in the states. It's a total unrealistic comparison.

Horseshit. Guns are an integral part of the some Americans experience.

Fixed.
But seriously though Chas, it's not even close. America is way too broad to be generalized like that.

Atir aissom atir imon
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2014, 02:38 AM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(14-11-2014 09:39 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Since you have no experience with guns, I'd say the only person peddling propoganda is you. I own guns and am experienced with them. You've never fired a gun, held a gun, or attempted to gain knowledge of a gun.
As I have said to you before, I have fired a shotgun, several 0.22, a 0.308, a pistol and a semi-automatic rifle.
I've killed rabbits, possums, cats, magpies,

But I don't hold that this makes me more qualified to debate about the dangers of guns in society than anyone else, even someone whom has never held a gun.

I don't live in USA, I don't get fed propaganda. The gun debate is not one that is of much public interest in NZ. It's a political non event.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2014, 02:42 AM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(14-11-2014 09:39 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  Further, why do you keep confusing an assault rifle with an "AR-15"? You don't even know what the AR stands for! (An Armalite Rifle is NOT an assault rifle!!!!!!)

You are better than this.
Where in this thread have I been calling an AR-15 an assault rifle?
What are you on about?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2014, 06:52 AM
RE: [split] Firearm Education Thread (lots of pics)
(14-11-2014 11:09 PM)Stuffed_Assumption_Meringue Wrote:  
(14-11-2014 08:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  Concealed carry allows one to have a weapon and not upset people, unlike open carry.


I collect watches, no different.
It's possible that they were stupid questions.

No, not stupid. You are asking some interesting questions, but some of them are just not clear to me.

Quote:
(14-11-2014 08:58 PM)Chas Wrote:  I believe I answered that.
There are frangible rounds, the bullet will fragment if it hits something hard so it is unlikely to penetrate walls. So those are 'better' in that they're safer.

Hollow point ammunition is used in defensive ammunition because it is less likely to exit the body. So it is also safer.
I'd used frangible rounds in a couple of games (Shadowrun most prominently.) for some reason I'd thought they were fictional.

[Image: 362574.jpg]

Quote:I was also talking about dealing less damage to the person whom your shooting while still disabling them. That's probably also a stupid question. If you've shot somebody you really should be doing so with in a situation which validates shooting them.

Non-lethal ammunition is used by law enforcement in situations like crowd control where there aren't lethally armed opponents.

Quote:On that note. What's the idea behind the "hold your ground" stuff in Florida? I understand that it makes it legal to shoot somebody who's advancing on you but I've also heard that it makes it illegal to move away or something. Am I miss-remembering?

It is never illegal to move away, retreat, or avoid the situation. It is usually preferable, it's just not always possible.

I have mixed feelings about 'stand your ground' laws. While I agree in principle that I have a right to be unmolested in a public place and no one has the right to fuck with that, it seems that that could be open to abuse.

However, the majority of states have adopted such a law.

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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: