U.S. Gun Violence

Post Reply New Topic

Again, are you going to come up with more than that one crime to justify your position? What's next, "if it saves just one life..." or "for the children!! !"?

What? Doubling vs. adding by 1/4 isn't significant to the argument?


That is true, but disingenuous. There are scenarios that are more likely, and scenarios that are less likely. Maybe, if he hadn't dropped the second magazine, God would have intervened and struck him down on the spot.

If she'd had security with her, sure. I guess the rest of us are just SOL.

We've already demonstrated that it does make a difference.


I left it out because I don't think that 'he's a pretty good shot' (at what?) really answers my statement adequately. If he can't see well enough to drive, even with correction, I DO NOT feel safe, nor do I think that most people would feel safe, having him running around in public with a concealed weapon. He's going to do more harm than good if he gets into a firefight. If 'legally blind' is the standard, you CANNOT claim that CCW permits are in any way 'safe' or that CCW holders are better shots or less dangerous than the police.

^
Two more things, just for fun.

1. Do we know that the round count correlated 1:1 with the deaths in the Tuscon shooting? How do we know that all the damage wasn't done by the first 10 rounds?

2. You're failing to account for self defense shootings in which the extra rounds made the difference; considering that defensive gun use is much more prevalent than criminal gun use, we could be talking a significant number.

Also, what you're failing to understand with SJC and Raptor is that when they say "extended magazine", they mean something larger than what the gun was designed to work with, where as you seem to be referring to anything over whatever you think is "normal" as extended. A 30 round magazine in a Glock is extended, because the gun was designed around a 17 rounder, where as the AR15 was designed with a 30 round magazine in mind, so a 30 rounder is standard capacity.

I still don't understand why a criminal simply could not make a high cap magazine. I mean if they are that gung-ho to feel that they absolutely must have it for mass murder than they will simply make it in their garage. Hell, it might even be cheaper.

Here are some cool looking dudes sporting field modified mags in Vietnam.

Last edited by Sherlock03 on 22 Jan 2014, 8:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

1. There are some close tolerances that have to be replicated in order for them to be reliable or even fit the magazine well.
2. They really wouldnt have to worry too much about getting hi-cap mags. Each time we have one of these hoarding frenzies like we've had in '09 and last year millions of magazines end up in private hands. Really, after a ban it would only be matter of greater cost. Instead of $15 for a 30 round aluminum AR-15 mag it would be more like $50, give or take. Expensive but probably not prohibitively so. This is what the antis don't get: Each time we have one of these hoardings driven by fear of legislation it only adds significantly to the number of guns in private hands AND creates new crop of gun owners, many of which vote.

That would depend upon the magazine, how the cartridges stack , and maybe the spring. Here is a tutorial http://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html? ... 5&t=586506.

You didn’t think I forgot about you, did you?

Modestly harsh at best, but fitting the occasion.


He blows the situation, not that there really is one, out of proportion and proposes draconian gun laws that would be no more effective than the war on drugs. I’m not going to go back address every one of them here because you read them, too.


I don’t see how he has a grasp on how things work in the US when it comes to law or crime. I don't even think he has a grasp on things in Australia if he believes their over the top gun laws have ended the possibility of a massacre. Really, you don’t have to read much of what he’s written here to see that.
Opinion? A certain other anti-gunner from across the pond held the opinion that we’re murderers and you saw fit to tell on him. Hey, we’re all entitled to our opinions, right?

Were those for certain field modified? I would think it would definitely take some metal fab shop work to do that.

I don't keep a log of what everyone here has seen. Everyone has seen a black helicopter or two. I've seen several but the color alone is not the point. It was the mission they claimed those black choppers were here for that had some people in an uproar. We have helicopters flying around here almost constantly because of the base and also the cops have them. I pay them no mind except when they buzz over at practically treetop level.


Yes, if your going to have "plants" it pays to conceal them well and preferably off of your property.


I didn't know there was a book written on it.

Hmmm.....my attitude is the opposite in that I'd stand and fight to the death. But then again a nationwide house to house gun grab is logistically impossible.

I'm no friend of the UN, either.


I thought he'd settled in Montana after the Ruby Ridge thing settled.

The website said this one was the others were probably made at a small shop in Vietnam. Looks like he may have cut some tabs and folded them in place.

What are you talking about? They do work fine or I'd either fix them or toss them out.

The book.
Black Helicopters over America: Strikeforce for the New World Order
by Jim Keith
3.57 of 5 stars 3.57 · rating details · 14 ratings · 2 reviews
The original book on the black helicopter phenomenon! What is the meaning of Black Choppers! Movement of Troops! Creation of Detention Centers! National Police Force! The Surrender of U.S. Military Authority to the U.N.! Why are foreign troops secretly moving war equipment across America? The first book to explore the truth behind the war within our borders.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Where_is_Rand ... _now#page1

Well you certainly can ban something because of what people can potentially use them for and we do so all the time. Informed judgement of the risk combined with foresight to prevent or reduce the damage of tragedy is the best option for implementing good policy. Only a terrible policy wonk insists on responding to a crisis after it has happened and we all share in the responsibility if we choose not to act. You don't need to hit a car at 100mph to realize that getting out of the way is a good idea. As such, there is not much in the core of this argument that recommends it to an outsider trying to consider your views.

Now as for the idea that you might actively undermine legislation, I am not sure how you can do that and claim to still be a responsible citizen. You could chose to sell equipment on the black market and when we look at places like the UK and Australia, they certainly develop but as the weapons are slowly collected, they slowly disappear from circulation. So citing difficulty in enforcement of effective gun control in the United States does not really recommend itself to me as an objection. Rather, I think you will throw out pretty much anything because you are not interested in acting as a responsible citizen who follows the law and are just interested in your guns, which is a very good argument for you not being trusted with one.



Well I cannot see any argument against citizens holding one another accountable that does not undermine any social contract built on the responsible gun ownership. The preference you have is the antithesis of the view that a collective understanding between citizens that gun ownership should be responsible and accountable cannot happen if you do not allow citizens to hold one another to account. Society has every reason for keeping grenade launchers out of the hands of fellow citizens, as someone qualified on the 203, I cannot see any reason you would need one. The fact that you see laws that prohibit the ownership of grande launchers as unwelcome expansion of government powers, in line with your views that outlawing drum magazines, shows that your position is based in a conspiracy theory and not logic. I am not sure what person takes on such a view, unless they are both paranoid and a gun lover, which is surely a bad combination to place at the core of a society.



If any person presents at a shooting range and does not appear to be a serious individual, they should not be shooting on it. Firing ranges are not appropriate locations for living out one's fantasy that being a civilian with a gun makes them Rambo. The fact that you conflate common sense gun safety with thought policing does nothing to fill me with confidence in your judgement.



There are people in the rest of the world (otherwise known as the rest of the USA) that sometimes think of Southerns as xenophobic, bigoted, ignorant and proud of those virtues. I for one don't buy into that stereotype but you are making really difficult for me right now.



The fact that you realize those weapons are inappropriate for hunting, sort of makes my point for me.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nEdyYP-vERs[/youtube]



How many mass-shootings have there been in Australia since the introduction of the gun reforms? 0.. We went from around one per year to zero. I never claimed that the laws stopped the illegal sale of guns, I bet you that the number in circulation is much lower than the US. but I made no Utopian claim.



Well for starters Australia was also a colony, so lets ditch the British slang shall we? I never claimed I had a vote in the US but I certainly don't think that building a fort around your state to logical discussion with the outside is going to do much at all. As I discussed with sliqua-jcooter, I can see the argument for a social contract built upon the responsible possession of firearms by reasonable citizens. I cannot see an argument in favor of living as if there is no social contract and then adding guns to the mix, that seems more like a recipe for the failure of inter-citizen relations. I can reason with a person who makes the former argument but am quite convinced that the latter is a terrible position that I should not take on. I cannot reason against a position built in personal paranoia because such a position is not open to reason.

Is it, and does he? Notice how he keeps referring to "civilized" countries, implying we are not, the way he keeps saying that we're not responsible gun owners if we don't conform to his very narrow and opinionated criteria of attitude and deportment, the way he thinks he's more qualified than us to decide what we do and don't "need" and society's role in that decision, and the general air of condescension coming off of him. AG, a poster who I respect immensely, once said that he was the most intellectually dishonest poster on this board, and after having made the mistake of trying to argue with him in a number of these gun threads, I've come to agree with that assessment. His tone and attitude justify the harsh replies, and his perspective is neither unique nor valid, being pretty standard issue for the Commonwealth, although he at least has actually handled and shot guns before, which is more than I can say for most of his ilk.

I stated that Virginia was my favorite place in the United States and I used the term a couple of times, to refer to the 'rest' of the civilized world, the only implication given by the term 'rest' is that the US is included. Further, I also stated that I resist the stereotype of the Southern United States, although some members of this discussion certainly make it difficult to do so. I am responsible for what I write, not how you chose to slant it.

Here they are if you want to read them again:
"When I look around the rest of the more civilized areas of the world I see social contracts that involve weapons but do not involve the claim that they ought to be used to uphold the social contract."

" If you are a pro gun chap, then you should make yourself accountable, register your weapon and have its ballistics on record, don't go buying after market gear to sex it up and understand that in the rest of the civilised world, a gas operated weapon is not considered a hunting rifle (so the assault weapons distinction is meaningless), unless you are hunting the Taliban. Background checks and registrations, these things should be no briainers (and polling shows that they mostly are), as should restrictions on taking weapons across state lines. Further, lets be perfectly honest, gun control in a big city is totally different from the countryside. Urban centres should have restrictions on handguns. "



Well anyone is free to go over my post history and view all of my engagements with AG and I stand by all of them.

Your definition of responsible citizen and mine differ, I can assure you of that.
In your infinite knowledge of the United States, do you know how well our decades long war on dugs is going? It’s irrelevant whether or not you think I can be trusted with guns or not, I’ve already got lots and lots of them. About all you’re doing is making me feel like adding another to my battery.


Back to the social contract thing again. Your use of the term in that context cheapens it. Yeah, right. Guns are responsible for crime and forks are responsible for obesity and my having a drum mag for my AR makes me dangerously irresponsible.


You’re associating apparel and weaponry with character and safety. The place is out in the boonies so we can’t very well justify dressing all dapper in our Sunday’s best, since that’s probably what you’d consider appropriate since then we wouldn’t look too tactical.


Those people are basing their views on having never been to the south which makes them ignorant. Judging by how much business and industry has moved to the southern states I’d say the south is doing quite well. Why do you think I’m here? Really, you’re insulting your own intelligence with things like this.
When did I claim to be a southerner? I’d have to have roots in the south to be a true southerner.


Not at all. I don’t have an AR-15 (and others) for hunting. I have them because I like that kind of weapon for reason you couldn’t even begin to understand.


I’m not even going to bother to look up Australia’s crime stats. Why? Because, like ours, some of them will be intentionally inaccurate. Mostly because I could care less what you all do over there. I don’t see myself ever going there for no other reason that I don’t want to spend that much time on airplanes and in airports between here and there. It was enough of a pain in the ass flying to Alaska and Europe. Australia may as well be on Mars for all I care.
Getting back to guns and crime: You must be quite naïve to think that few, if any, L1A1’s AR-15, AK’s Mini-14’s and whatever else was banned got rounded up or will be rounded up.
Secondly, your knowledge of weapons and tactics is lacking if you honestly believe that it takes a semi-auto with a high cap mag to carry out a massacre. A common Mossberg or Remington pump shotgun will suffice. I have two No. 4 SMLE’s (WW2 era bolt action .303) that with either I could personally wreak havoc with, given a good concealed vantage and up to 300 meters from a high pedestrian traffic area. I don’t even consider myself anywhere close to an expert marksman but I know I’m capable of that and then some.


You stole sliqua-jcooter’s heart by saying loving things about Virginia.
Rest assured, you’ll never have that effect on me. About social contracts (why the obsession??! !), read what again what I wrote above because it’s as good as you’ll get from me. Talk social contracts as they apply to a more serious and applicable subject and maybe I’ll be willing to talk but not a minute until then.