Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[TZucchini]

you can be sure that he/she is less prone to resisting the urge to do violence to defend themselves in a confrontation.

How can you be sure of that? It's really a perplexing statement to make. The mere fact that someone is a criminal makes them more likely to commit homicide when their life is in imminent danger? That's just completely ignores every biological instinct we have as animals.

It's like you think that there exists a scenario where both parties are armed, but the attacker still doesn't fear for his life.

Armed intruder breaks into a house. Doesn't know homeowner is armed until it's too late. That was hard.

Yes, so you'd rather use a totally biased statistic that is far, far more one-sided than even the most pessimistic, unreliable estimate of DGUs, which comes from a person who's made a career out of promoting his anti-gun position.

That number doesn't come from Hemmingway. It comes from The Violence Policy Center. If you'd like to attempt character assassination on them, feel free.

Unrepresentative? Unrandomized? Yuh-huh.

I see you didn't read Hemmingway's critique that I linked earlier. It starts on page 5, if you're interested.

[Rukentuts]

I don't understand and how he calls your statistics biased when his raw data relies on a pile of assumptions, similar to every argument made from that side.

[Tinykong]

Gee, I don't know. Maybe where you said "gun grabbers fantasy land," then posted an article about how James Holmes firearm jammed.

Can you read? I never even quoted the picture you posted, just your bullshit statement that needed to be flushed down the toilet.

Sorry which nonsense are you disproving? This statement? : "It's not like anyone has ever been prevented from killing more people because of reloading issues."

Oh right. You didn't disprove that statement.

I'll dumb it down: mass shooters gun jams from high capacity magazine, unable to reload, less people die.

[TZucchini]

Can you read? I never even quoted the picture you posted, just your bullshit statement that needed to be flushed down the toilet.

So you quoted this: It's not like anyone has ever been prevented from killing more people because of reloading issues.

And then gave an example of someone's gun that jammed? How in that relevant to my quote? Oh right, it's not. Just shitposting at this point, I suppose.

[Eroginous]

i don´t see myself being an expert enough, but i can ask one of my colleagues at work, as he´s responsible for this in our state

So, you're not qualified to talk about the efficacy of firearm accessories, but you think they should be looked at on an individual basis an either allowed or banned?

That's brilliant logic...

Let's see if I can be successful one last time in trying to explain things to you. Here in America, we have the term 'assault weapon.' This term has been used to describe a firearm based on specific features and accessories:

Attributes commonly used in assault weapon definitions, and their purposes:

Semi-automatic firearm[5] fires one bullet (round) per trigger pull, unlike automatic (military) firearms, which fire multiple rounds per pull[23]
Detachable magazine with capacity greater than 10 rounds[5]
Folding or telescoping (collapsible) stock,[5] reduces the overall length of the firearm[45]
Pistol grip (on rifle or shotgun)[5]
Bayonet lug[5] allows the mounting of a bayonet
Threaded barrel to accept devices such as a flash suppressor, Suppressor,[5] compensator or muzzle brake
Grenade launcher[5]
Barrel shroud - safety device to prevent burning of shooter's arm or hand.

Obviously a grenade launcher is going to be an NFA item and not available to the average citizen. But features like '10 round detachable magazine' and 'semi automatic' are built into the vast majority of guns in the US. Other features, like barrel shroud, pistol grip, folding stock, bayonette lug, and threaded barrel, do not affect the way a firearm operates in its capacity to shoot bullets.

Calling something an 'assault weapon' based on these features is not useful.

[Tinykong]

So you quoted this: It's not like anyone has ever been prevented from killing more people because of reloading issues.

And then gave an example of someone's gun that jammed? How in that relevant to my quote? Oh right, it's not. Just shitposting at this point, I suppose.

Because he was carrying a high capacity magazine. And didn't need to carry additional magazines.

And was therefore: unable to reload, and had to stop using the weapon. For fucks sake, the level of willful and deliberate ignorance in this thread really boggles my mind some days.

[TZucchini]

Because he was carrying a high capacity magazine. And didn't need to carry additional magazines.

And was therefore: unable to reload, and had to stop using the weapon. For fucks sake, the level of willful and deliberate ignorance in this thread really boggles my mind some days.

A jammed firearm is not a reloading issue. It's a mechanical malfunction.

[Tinykong]

A jammed firearm is not a reloading issue. It's a mechanical malfunction.

A high capacity magazine jam is a reloading issue, since once it has jammed, you can't easily clear the round and continue shooting.

If a normal capacity magazine jams, you simply replace the magazine. When all you have is a 100 round drum, and it jams, you can't shoot anymore.

Which is why Holmes had to switch to a pistol and lives were saved.

Willful. Ignorance.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Because science, right?

Science is certainly a lot better to go on than jack shit.

[PhaelixWW]

How can you be sure of that? It's really a perplexing statement to make. The mere fact that someone is a criminal makes them more likely to commit homicide when their life is in imminent danger? That's just completely ignores every biological instinct we have as animals.

I honestly have no idea where you're coming from, here. Violent criminals, in general and by definition, are more prone to caring about themselves to the utmost and not caring about the impact their actions cause to other people or the moral or lawful implications of said actions. The very mindset that allows the attacker to do the criminal act is such as to predilect violence against the victim, especially if the attacker fears for their life, as well.

At that point, the very natural and biological defensive instincts that you're talking about go hand-in-hand with a lack of moral impediment to causing harm to others.

This should be... obvious, and I don't know why it's not, other than that you want to argue this position because the truth weakens yours.

Armed intruder breaks into a house. Doesn't know homeowner is armed until it's too late. That was hard.

Also a rare scenario. The only case that you can make is one where the attacker is under-informed and the defender shoots before the attacker can see and react. Slant it one direction and of course you're going to find examples. I never said you wouldn't.

But we were talking about all things being equal, n'est-ce pas?

That number doesn't come from Hemmingway. It comes from The Violence Policy Center.

The number still comes from the same source, the NCVS, and I've already addressed the inherent failure of the NCVS to account for all DGUs.

I see you didn't read Hemmingway's critique that I linked earlier. It starts on page 5, if you're interested.

I read it, but it doesn't provide the comeback that you think it does. Most of the critique simply states that the study didn't publish its methodology in absolute painstaking detail. Then it claims that DGUs are so rare that any study will be too unreliable.

And this from a person who has repeatedly done studies trying to find the same exact thing. Herp derp.

Furthermore, I'm not defending the 2.5 million conclusion, per se. I've pretty much always stated that I believe the actual number of DGUs per year to be in the 300-500k range.

Which is why a lot of people, myself included, tend to use a conservative estimate of 300-500k defensive uses per year (which is fairly low on the 100k-3m spectrum).

[Eroginous]

A jammed firearm is not a reloading issue. It's a mechanical malfunction.

It's a mechanical malfunction that is prone to happening with high capacity magazine (much higher chance for jams vs normal cap mags).

[PhaelixWW]

A jammed firearm is not a reloading issue. It's a mechanical malfunction.

Uh... high cap magazines tend to cause the jams in the first place. Double drum magazines, like the one used in Aurora, are notorious for causing jams.

Just like high cap mags (like Loughner's 31-round stick mag) tend to be ungainly and harder to handle/reload, causing things like... dropping the magazine, resulting in a longer window of vulnerability to counterattack.

- - - Updated - - -

And Pre 9-11, I noticed that you ignored my response to your post about the Tucson shooting with one about the VA Tech shooting.

From a comprehensive report on the VA Tech shooting:

The massacre continued for [...] about 10–12 minutes in total[.]

Within that period, Cho murdered 25 students and 5 faculty of Virginia Tech at Norris Hall. Another 17 were shot and survived[.]

Cho expended at least 174 bullets from two semiautomatic guns[.] The police found 17 empty magazines, each capable of holding 10–15 bullets.

47 people shot, classrooms full of people, and 17 magazine reloads, yet nobody was able to stop the shooter?

[petej0]

From a comprehensive report on the VA Tech shooting:

47 people shot, classrooms full of people, and 17 magazine reloads, yet nobody was able to stop the shooter?

With two handguns mind you! The outrage over 47 people vs the 20 in sandy hook arent even comparable. 20 kids die in sandy hook and the problem is assualt rifles. 47 people die in VA Tech and the problem isnt the gun used, but mental health. Hmmm....

[Rukentuts]

And then in Seattle, the shooter was maced when reloading. Mmm anecdotes.

[Tinykong]

And then in Seattle, the shooter was maced when reloading. Mmm anecdotes.

Reloading a shotgun is the same as reloading a magazine fed weapon...

You should know this, being a shot gun owner.

[Mayhem]

So, you're not qualified to talk about the efficacy of firearm accessories, but you think they should be looked at on an individual basis an either allowed or banned?

That's brilliant logic...

Let's see if I can be successful one last time in trying to explain things to you.

actually yes, that is brilliant logic, i acknowledge not knowing enough on how much influence or function they add to a firearm and therefor should be looked at and decided upon, instead of simply universally ban weapons but instead banning the specific accessory

but i see, your an expert on these accessories and can tell that they are purely cosmetic, right

[Rukentuts]

I've pretty much always stated that I believe the actual number of DGUs per year to be in the 300-500k range.

Yeah, you tend to "believe" whatever you want in terms of numbers, ignoring legality amongst other things; damn pesky uncontrolled variables getting in the way. The DOJ is obviously wrong, and what you believe is obviously right

[Eroginous]

actually yes, that is brilliant logic, i acknowledge not knowing enough on how much influence or function they add to a firearm and therefor should be looked at and decided upon, instead of simply universally ban weapons but instead banning the specific accessory

but i see, your an expert on these accessories and can tell that they are purely cosmetic, right

For the last fucking time, I never said the accessories were purely cosmetic. It's the liberal gun control crowd who is decided to pass legislation based on how a firearm looks, turning this into a cosmetic argument.

The overall point is that you keep ignoring the fact that the added functionality of any given accessory doesn't necessarily change the function of the firearm it's added to.

[Dethh]

A jammed firearm is not a reloading issue. It's a mechanical malfunction.

Just going to throw this out there, you can't reload if your gun jams.

[Rukentuts]

http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/274764091.html

That's funny. New law, working as intended.