Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Zenfoldor]

More specifically, I suppose, 'regulating magazine capacity effects reloading.' Which is certainly does.

To what extent? Hard to tell. If 90 bullets are fired during a shooting, a 10 round mag compared to a 30 round mag means 8 reloads, instead of 2. It also means he shooter must carry around 8 magazines, rather than 2. Is that significant? It certainly can be.

Would mag capacity limits, limit the effectiveness of weapons to law abiding citizens? Hell yes. Of course 30 rounds is better than 10. Would it limit the effectiveness of criminals? In most cases no, quite frankly. Besides the magazine manufacturers using existing dies to make their reduced cap magazines, there are millions of Magpul gen 2 30 rounders and Glock 19 17 rounders out there already, which aren't confiscatable in the US and which would exist before and after a defacto ban. They(magpul) are about 7 bucks each now and gun guys buy them by the truckload. The fuckton. A general rule a lot of AR15 guys go by is 30 magazines per gun.

You would probably have as hard of a time clearing the US of 30 round AR magazines as you would clearing it up actual guns period. You have got to understand the level of these 30 round magazines sold per day in the US and the cheap going rate. People buy them by the case.

Would you propose a 30 round cap magazine confiscation from those existing owners, who in some cases have spent thousands of dollars on magazines? These "pre-ban" magazines would remain legal if previous magazine limitations are any indication, and thus still in circulation.

[Tinykong]

Poverty and lack of education are major drivers of crime in general. When crime in general in the US is largely facilitated by firearms, that leads to shooting being a rather common thing. Addressing the wealth gap is probably one of the best things we could do for dropping the crime rate.

It's been falling for almost 20 years.

[Zenfoldor]

It's been falling for almost 20 years.

Yes, aren't we at a near 20 year low for violent crime? I might be making that up. This also interestingly correlates with an increase in gun circulation among civilians, just sayin'. Reading this forum one might think a gun never stopped a crime.

[Rukentuts]

Glad we're back to ignoring a whole bunch of variables involved and making conclusions off of raw data.

[Tinykong]

Glad we're back to ignoring a whole bunch of variables involved and making conclusions off of raw data.

Crime rates across the board have been falling for almost 20 years. That isn't a conclusion, it's stating a fact.

I'm sorry if this dispels your chicken little hysteria.

[Synagain]

I am not from US, by why wouldn't anyone support it? Like he said you don't use assault weapons to hunt deer or any other animals for that matter.

It's a tough debate, Most of us just enjoy the sport of shooting. I have a military background - I use my assault weapons just for the sport more so than anything else. If someone were to say invade my home, my go to wouldn't be my assault rifle.

Is there a reason to ban them? No I don't believe there is, the good guys will have them if they are legal. The bad guys will have them, regardless if they are legal or not.

Silly debate if you ask me.

[PhaelixWW]

Police and Military. These are non-criminals, most of whom have good morals. Yet they don't seem to hesitate to eliminate a threat to their life. Hell if anything, Police get criticized for using lethal force way too early, and too often.

And police and military personnel get training to deal with those situations. And they have to deal with those situations far more frequently than your average civilian.

So this idea that criminals with bad morals are more likely to defend their life compared to non-criminals with good morals is just completely unfounded.

We're talking about all homicides here. So on the one side, you have criminals committing murders as well as criminals defending their lives to the point of killing their opponent against armed resistance. On the other side, all you have are defenders defending their lives. And while they have the same interest in defending their life in against armed resistance, they'll have statistically less desire to go all the way to killing their opponent if shooting at them, or even shooting them non-fatally will get the job done.

So you have all murders and all defensive actions by a class of people who by nature are more likely to use full lethal force vs. only defensive actions by people less likely to use full lethal force.

Further slanting the comparison is the idea that criminals will rarely choose to face an armed defender, so most situations will simply be armed vs. unarmed.

OK. But what does your anecdote have to do with my statement?

Yours was an anecdote, not a statement. So I responded in kind with a counter-anecdote.

Feel free to try and show a trend of people being tackled while reloading though. Otherwise, what you and Rukentuts would do is just scoff and say "Anecdotal evidence is all you have!"

[Tinykong]

Feel free to try and show a trend of people being tackled while reloading though. Otherwise, what you and Rukentuts would do is just scoff and say "Anecdotal evidence is all you have!"

I prefer to respond with the classic The Batman "hashtag anecdote hashtag"

[PhaelixWW]

Is that significant? It certainly can be.

Not with any statistical significance.

- - - Updated - - -

so then smaller magazine should be a thing gunners actually want?

If you're trying to swap magazines quickly and are worried about jams, yes.

Most shooters are not worried about paper targets charging them and tackling them, however.

the more illegal hoops he have to jump through the higher the probability of being caught prior to running amok?

Even in places with high magazine capacity restrictions, people are almost never arrested or prosecutes for those violations, unless they're already being arrested and prosecuted for worse and the police/DA are looking to throw the book at them.

Most police/sheriffs that I've talked to either disobey the law themselves, or follow a look-the-other-way attitude towards most high-cap mag violations.

- - - Updated - - -

I prefer to respond with the classic The Batman "hashtag anecdote hashtag"

Yeah, but on a purely anecdotal level, the VA Tech shooting is more meaningful than the Tucson shooting for talking about reloads impeding a mass shooting. The Tucson shooter was essential in the middle of a crowd already, and he fumbled his reload, dropping it on the ground. His lack of skill, his choice of magazine (which is about a foot long), and his placement all were more important factors in his being tackled than simply the fact that he had to reload.

[petej0]

You would probably have as hard of a time clearing the US of 30 round AR magazines as you would clearing it up actual guns period. You have got to understand the level of these 30 round magazines sold per day in the US and the cheap going rate. People buy them by the case.

Would you propose a 30 round cap magazine confiscation from those existing owners, who in some cases have spent thousands of dollars on magazines? These "pre-ban" magazines would remain legal if previous magazine limitations are any indication, and thus still in circulation.

That is actually a good point. There are so many high capacity magazines out there already that a ban would not rid the world of them. They dont magically disappear because you pass new regulations. Hell I have five 30 rounds mags for an AR15 and I dont even own an AR15. I just acquired them through my time in the military. And those five are what I have left from dozens that I have given away to various friends. They are practically a dime a dozen, it the equivalent to the $5 DVD bin at WalMart, but free.

[Tinykong]

Yeah, but on a purely anecdotal level, the VA Tech shooting is more meaningful than the Tucson shooting for talking about reloads impeding a mass shooting. The Tucson shooter was essential in the middle of a crowd already, and he fumbled his reload, dropping it on the ground. His lack of skill, his choice of magazine (which is about a foot long), and his placement all were more important factors in his being tackled than simply the fact that he had to reload.

Which is why, imo, magazine size isn't the controlling factor on whether or not reloading will create a moment of opportunity, shooter skill does.

[petej0]

Yeah, but on a purely anecdotal level, the VA Tech shooting is more meaningful than the Tucson shooting for talking about reloads impeding a mass shooting. The Tucson shooter was essential in the middle of a crowd already, and he fumbled his reload, dropping it on the ground. His lack of skill, his choice of magazine (which is about a foot long), and his placement all were more important factors in his being tackled than simply the fact that he had to reload.

Not to mention the policy of educational institutions. All persons go on lock down. This means there isnt anyone around to stop the guy while he is reloading (until authorities arrive). He can bust into a classroom, empty his 10 rounds and move onto the next classroom while reloading. If he has two guns you can empty 20 rounds and then move on. Hospitals, Shopping malls are all similar. If you can enter any enclosed space unload, reload among the dead and move on it will all be the same. You have to judge the hero factor of those who may be around. If you want max deaths you pick a target where the hero factor is little to none, like elementary schools and stores frequented by women. Not only can you get high death rates, but you also get the double whammy of killing women in children which are the most heart wrenching victims you could find.

After the VA Tech shooting the media and politicians didnt have a field day trying to ban guns because the killer used hand guns. The topic of the day was mental health. Sandy hook was much different. It was all about trying to ban "Assault Rifles" more better known as "scary looking weapons". Why? Because the victims were mostly children. We must stop children from being killed by these "assault rifles". If the killer used hand guns I wonder what the agenda would have been.

[Mayhem]

Yes, aren't we at a near 20 year low for violent crime? I might be making that up. This also interestingly correlates with an increase in gun circulation among civilians, just sayin'. Reading this forum one might think a gun never stopped a crime.

http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives...olent-country/

no, not even close, nope

- - - Updated - - -

Even in places with high magazine capacity restrictions, people are almost never arrested or prosecutes for those violations, unless they're already being arrested and prosecuted for worse and the police/DA are looking to throw the book at them.

Most police/sheriffs that I've talked to either disobey the law themselves, or follow a look-the-other-way attitude towards most high-cap mag violations.

you see that´s a different topic you´re discussing? the police not enforcing the laws doesn´t make restrictions worthless

- - - Updated - - -

Which is why, imo, magazine size isn't the controlling factor on whether or not reloading will create a moment of opportunity, shooter skill does.

if shooter skill is the controlling factor then reloading is critical, the fewer reloads the lesser chances of messing it up

[petej0]

http://kieranhealy.org/blog/archives...olent-country/

no, not even close, nope

Actually, yes. Crime today in the US is at its lowest in the last 20 years.

[Tinykong]

if shooter skill is the controlling factor then reloading is critical, the fewer reloads the lesser chances of messing it up

That's the point: skilled shooters don't "mess up." They can reload a weapon in 2 seconds and fire continuously.

[petej0]

you see that´s a different topic you´re discussing? the police not enforcing the laws doesn´t make restrictions worthless

If it isnt being enforced the restriction is worthless. What good is a law if nobody follows it and law enforcement isnt enforcing it? It becomes worthless.

[PhaelixWW]

you see that´s a different topic you´re discussing? the police not enforcing the laws doesn´t make restrictions worthless

It was meant to imply that law enforcement considers it worthless. Not even law enforcement officers in general are worried about the supposed "danger" that high capacity magazines represent.

[Mayhem]

That's the point: skilled shooters don't "mess up." They can reload a weapon in 2 seconds and fire continuously.

... it´s as if you´re simply forgetting what was written on the last page

- - - Updated - - -

If it isnt being enforced the restriction is worthless. What good is a law if nobody follows it and law enforcement isnt enforcing it? It becomes worthless.

uhm... then the problem is law enforcement? no?

It was meant to imply that law enforcement considers it worthless. Not even law enforcement officers in general are worried about the supposed "danger" that high capacity magazines represent.

now, that´s a world i would want to live in, where law enforcement decides which laws should be enforced, on the other hand judging by the stuff i´ve seen and heard about american police, i´m not surprised that this is probably common

[Tinykong]

... it´s as if you´re simply forgetting what was written on the last page

You're going to have to define what it takes to be a "skilled" magazine re-loader. I'd say someone's mastered it after doing it a couple of times. It's not complicated.

[Alex1996P]

Most people who want gun control are either ignorant, or truly just dont care and dont want people owning guns. These gun control advocates dont even know what theyre talking about. Im sorry, but its true. Dont make the majority suffer for the minority. Cars, knives and other things kill people via another person.

I could kill someone by water boarding but I don do it... Do I??

EDIT: The argument of cops and military having guns is silly. Alot of police qualifications require shooting at a standing target from 25 yards with a certain amount of rounds. Thats not even close to gun fighting. Infantry and SOF guys are the ones who have true training.

Alot of civilians can operate guns far better than a cop. There has been a huge surge in ownership and training for firearms. I dont blame them with all the stuff happening in the world. Atleast they dont want their hand to be held in life like the majority of Americans.