U.S. Gun Violence

Post Reply New Topic

I was just paraphrasing the supreme court decision - they're public record, so feel free to go read it in it's entirety for yourself.



I can't think of any standard-issue military arms that wouldn't meet that definition.

ArrantPariah and Raptor - I've just removed a bunch of noise from each of you in this thread and unless these ridiculous trolling accusations stop immediately, here and elsewhere, further action will be taken.

military type weapons, with huge clips, are significant overkill compared to what a citizen needs for 'self-defense,' unless he's a drug runner in LA.

My stepmom carries a pistol when she goes horseback riding out in the hills: partly so that she can shoot a horse if she has to (most likely), partly so that she can shoot a mountain lion if she has to (a little likely), and partly so that she can shoot a person if she has to (not very likely, but nice to be prepared). She doesn't go out armed against the need to defend herself against a troop of Taliban militiamen.

Do you agree that Iowa allowing blind people to carry is a little bit ridiculous?
What about senile old people? My great uncle is getting a little bit paranoid in his dotage; afaIk he doesn't have a CCW permit, but I can totally see him shooting the mailman from his front porch someday. Not saying he should have his guns taken - he's had to shoot mountain lions after his sheep (in his front yard) before - but it does present a blurry line of what is 'reasonable.'

First of all, I fixed your quote for you. Calling a magazine a clip is nails on a chalkboard for gun enthusiasts.

Also, what are you defining as a "military type weapon", and why are huge magazines a problem?

Sorry, Dox has gotten me on 'clip' vs. 'magazine' before, too. Usually I remember.
As for what a 'military-type weapon' is, I think that you or Dox is probably far more qualified to make that determination than I am; as for why large magazines are a problem, it's because they're mainly for killing lots of people in a short period of time, without needing to reload. If a civilian finds him- or herself in a situation where he or she needs that kind of firepower, he or she has bigger problems than his or her magazine. What's a normal handgun carry, 10 or 12 bullets? That should be more than enough for all but your drug-war uses.

Again, though: blind people? Senile people? Paranoid schizophrenics?

Normal handgun is anywhere between 7-15 rounds. Normal rifle is anywhere between 15-30 rounds, although you can get hunting mags with 3-4 to comply with local hunting laws and/or you're a serious sniper and want to lose the extra weight. Normal shotgun is 6-10, though there are a lot of shotguns that have dual magazine tubes and get you up to 14 rounds.

The reason for having larger magazines isn't to shoot faster - a shooter with about a day of practice can shoot through 2 or 3 magazines just about as fast as with one large mag (with the notable exception of shotguns, as the magazine is fixed and attached). The utility of high-capacity magazines is that you have to reload the magazine less often - which is really only a concern when you're practicing out at the range, as in a real-life scenario the solution is simply to carry more mags.

In general, as long as they haven't proven themselves to be a danger to themselves or others, I don't think that the law has any place limiting the rights of people to own weapons. In the instance of the blind man who carries, he's clearly proven himself capable of safely operating a weapon. If he ever employs his weapon and ends up shooting some innocent person, he will go to jail for a very long time - and I believe that's incentive enough for him to make sure that he knows what he's doing.

As for your great uncle - it's much the same story. If at any point he proves to be a danger to himself of others with his firearms, they should be taken away. I would certainly hope you and your family would do that long before a situation presented itself where the courts would have to.

The Giffords shooter was tackled when he stopped to reload - which would have been, iirc, about fifteen bullets earlier, and several dead people earlier, if he hadn't been carrying extended magazines.
The only rifle I ever shot - afaIk a pretty standard hunting rifle - carried 10 bullets.

There was a recent school shooting in which a 12 year old took his parents' hunting shotgun to school; luckily, it only carried three rounds.

As far as more magazines vs. larger magazines: why? WTF does any civilian need more than 10 rounds? This isn't Afghanistan.

Again, and for the 4th time: blind people? Senile people? Paranoid Schizophrenics?

Well, there is some truth to this. For example, the type 94 Nambu ( Japanese WW2 service pistol) had a nasty habit of going off if you squeezed the frame too hard. However, most handguns are very reliable and may not even have a round chambered. A healthy fear of a gun isn't necessarily a bad thing, since it is conducive to safety. Obviously where you sit would be your choice, however, I think I would choose smokeless powder to smoker any day of the week.

Last edited by Sherlock03 on 20 Jan 2014, 6:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

There was also a lawfully-armed person right around the corner who heard the shots and was running to stop whatever was going on. IIRC the handgun in that instance was a Glock - which has several extended magazines available for it. He easily could have slapped a 30rd drum magazine on it if he wanted to. The problem with those extended magazines is they mostly don't function correctly, and they add considerable weight to the gun which makes them impractical for almost all serious purposes.

Quite frankly I want a mass shooter to be carrying extended mags, because I know that 3 or 4 rounds in he'll have some type of failure.



Ok. Hunting rifles typically have less rounds because of limits on how much ammo you can carry to hunt with - the idea being you are only allowed to kill a certain number of things in a season, and you definitely shouldn't be missing every other shot. Most hunters I know have a small-cap magazine for hunting, and a large-cap magazine for target shooting, specifically because reloading magazines is pretty much the most awful waste of time ever.



During a typical day at the range, I blow through about 1000 rounds. That's a lot of time wasted spent reloading mags vs. time spent shooting. That's why I typically load up 4-5 mags for each gun I'm bringing - so I don't have to worry about reloading mags while I'm in the booth, taking up time someone else could be using to shoot.

Actually, now that I took another look into the materials on that particular shooting, it appears that he did carry an extended mag into the shooting, and based on the number of rounds shot it appears that he did, in fact, have a malfunction.

yes, there was a CCW guy who came running and helped to tackle the shooter... after he decided, logically (and in support of Dox's earlier statements) that it wasn't a good situation in which to have a shoot-out with multiple weapons. One of several heroes that day.


Wait, do these magazines jam, or not? Is there some sort of magazine magic that makes them jam when the shooter's some insane guy mowing down civilians, but not when aimed at targets in a shooting range?
And didn't you just say, a couple of posts back, that switching magazines takes hardly any time at all?

Fifth time: CCW permits for blind people, senile people and paranoid schizophrenics: yes, or no?

He came to that conclusion because the shooter was already on the ground, he didn't "help tackle him" he "helped hold him down": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4xVLe4myuY



Extended handgun magazines jam *all the time*. I have a 20rd mag for one of my pistols that is borderline useless. But even then, at a shooting range I can take my time and deal with failures - in an actual situation, it's entirely different.




Switching magazines doesn't take much time - reloading magazines once you've run out of loaded mags to switch to is what takes time. A lot of time.



I already answered you, maybe you should actually go back and read my posts.

I would like to take a crack it answering that. First, blind does not always mean that they can't see anything, nor does it mean that they could not act appropriately to defend themselves. Perhaps a fair comparison could be made to someone with 20/20 vision who is assaulted on a moonless night and without any means of artificial illumination. The later would certainly have a right to use a gun in their defense. Why should the former then be excluded. As for dementia, the ability to own a gun would depend upon the degree of the illness. The same could be said for Paranoid schizophrenics since not all of them are violent, despite being stigmatized by the public . Therefore, we should not be so prone to classify people according to our labels and fears.; and thus misrepresent a human life by it's cover.

Logic over facts . . . if a weapon is present, it is more likely that a weapon will discharge.



It's not about knowing who to avoid - it's theoretical. I would rather live in an environment in which no weapons are present.


I actually enjoy tobacco smoke, so I'm biased.