Gun Control

[One Brow]

And if the shooter simply takes a dozen pre-loaded clips with him?

In a dozen different guns, presumably? How many guns can you realistically strap on? Even then, you are limited to, say, 120 bullets. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that you can currently get that many bullets in four magazines, reducing the cost and increasing the convenience.

All of these measures being recommended are not going to stop the types of crimes that have been perpetrated. They are knee jerk reactions to horrific crimes.

I agree they won't stop these crimes. All you can hope for is to reduce the amount of damage a perpetrator can engender.

 

[SaltyDawg]

I can see your point about rapid fire increasing recoil. Do we have any knowledge of whther these school shooters used a rapid-fire mode anyhow, and how it affected the casualties?

There is no rapid fire mode. He was referring to simply pulling the trigger faster.

In a dozen different guns, presumably? How many guns can you realistically strap on? Even then, you are limited to, say, 120 bullets. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that you can currently get that many bullets in four magazines, reducing the cost and increasing the convenience.

No, he was taking about a shooter carrying 1 gun, but having a bunch of pre loaded clips in his pocket. So when he runs out of bullets, he simply changes the clip (which took less than 1 second in that video GF posted).

 

[Stoked]

In a dozen different guns, presumably? How many guns can you realistically strap on? Even then, you are limited to, say, 120 bullets. I could be wrong, but my understanding is that you can currently get that many bullets in four magazines, reducing the cost and increasing the convenience.



I agree they won't stop these crimes. All you can hope for is to reduce the amount of damage a perpetrator can engender.

I am by no means a firearms expert but I can chage a clip in under 5 seconds. I can manage around 3 seconds. So you have 3 seconds to go from hiding/cowering/running to disarming me.

Just in my house alone I have to firearms loaded with one in the chamber and a second fully loaded clip next to them. Locked up but when I grab my gun I am taking my 2nd clip. That gives me 31 bullets for one gun and 21 for the other.

 

[One Brow]

There is no rapid fire mode. He was referring to simply pulling the trigger faster.

Correction noted. Thank you.

No, he was taking about a shooter carrying 1 gun, but having a bunch of pre loaded clips in his pocket. So when he runs out of bullets, he simply changes the clip (which took less than 1 second in that video GF posted).

Yes, that's why I mentioned the push for legislation that would require it taking more time to change clips. If you change that 1 second to 30 seconds while reducing the bullet count as well, you can reduce the amount of damage that can be done.

 

[Gameface]

Correction noted. Thank you.



Yes, that's why I mentioned the push for legislation that would require it taking more time to change clips. If you change that 1 second to 30 seconds while reducing the bullet count as well, you can reduce the amount of damage that can be done.

You also reduce the effectiveness of that weapon for self defense, the reason we have the right to firearms in the first place.

 

[TheSilencer1313]

You also reduce the effectiveness of that weapon for self defense, the reason we have the right to firearms in the first place.

Not to mention passing legislation does nothing to change what non-law abiding citizens do anyway.

 

[Scat]

Thank you, glad to see the violent crime rate go down during the Clinton administration, source please.

assault weapon ban didn't do much of anything. The rate was dropping before and after the ban.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

The data speaks for itself, I don't need an interpretation of the data. All it shows is that the violent crime rate went down after 1992, feel free to interpret it any way you feel fit.

Aside from the assault weapon ban, guess what else happened in the early 90's? More and more states began issuing concealed carry permits. Here's a fun little history of states that put CC into action.

Interesting that violent crime rates dropped so dramatically during this same time period starting in 1992. It is also interesting that the states which still do not issue CC permits all have some of the highest rates of gun related crime.

 

[One Brow]

You also reduce the effectiveness of that weapon for self defense, the reason we have the right to firearms in the first place.

The situations where you need more than ten bullets for self-defense are much rarer than those where such limitations would reduce damage.

 

[One Brow]

It is also interesting that the states which still do not issue CC permits all have some of the highest rates of gun related crime.

Those states, containing large urban centers, have always had some of the highest rates of gun-related deaths. For example, even though it's law changed little, Illinois saw a huge drop in crime rates, including gun-related crimes rates, just like every other state.
.
Violent crimes are committed by young men, for the most part., expecially those born to women who felt they were not ready to have children. As the population has aged and women have more ways to avoid/terminate pregnancies, crime has gone down
.
Also, it's very aqmusing to hear the same group of people say that, one the one hand, criminals without guns will still be capable of massive attacks, but on the other hand, people without guns can't defend themselves.

 

[Gameface]

The situations where you need more than ten bullets for self-defense are much rarer than those where such limitations would reduce damage.

This isn't a matter of statistics. A person has the right to defend their self and therefore the means to do so. Psychos going on killing sprees have nothing to do with my right to self defense.

 

[One Brow]

This isn't a matter of statistics. A person has the right to defend their self and therefore the means to do so. Psychos going on killing sprees have nothing to do with my right to self defense.

Everyone agrees the right to self defense has limitations and trade-offs. It's not a trump card that wins an argument simply by pulling it out.

 

[fishonjazz]

This isn't a matter of statistics. A person has the right to defend their self and therefore the means to do so. Psychos going on killing sprees have nothing to do with my right to self defense.

So according to this post, it sounds like civilians should be able to purchase tanks, stealth bombers, rocket launchers, grenades, flamethrowes, land mines..... i mean you never know what you are going to need when the time comes that you may have to protect yourself right?

 

[SaltyDawg]

Also, it's very aqmusing to hear the same group of people say that, one the one hand, criminals without guns will still be capable of massive attacks, but on the other hand, people without guns can't defend themselves.

And that seems to be v the main point that gun control enthusiasts just can't comprehend.

Restrictive laws only affect people that don't break the law. It's already illegal to go on a mass shooting spree, and most of the people doing it got their guns illegally.

So yes, restricting guns will absolutely limit the right of self defense for law abiding citizens. It will not necessarily hinder a criminal's ability to go on a mass killing spree. They'd have to respect and follow the law in order for it to affect them.

 

[SaltyDawg]

So according to this post, it sounds like civilians should be able to purchase tanks, stealth bombers, rocket launchers, grenades, flamethrowes, land mines..... i mean you never know what you are going to need when the time comes that you may have to protect yourself right?

Sure, why not?

 

[Gameface]

Everyone agrees the right to self defense has limitations and trade-offs. It's not a trump card that wins an argument simply by pulling it out.

Sure, but to say something should be banned because it's only useful in rare situations isn't very convincing, imo. You are aware that more people are killed by lightning every year than in mass shootings, right?

 

[One Brow]

And that seems to be v the main point that gun control enthusiasts just can't comprehend.

Thank you for taking a contradiciton and saying it was your main point. I did laugh.

Restrictive laws only affect people that don't break the law. It's already illegal to go on a mass shooting spree, and most of the people doing it got their guns illegally.

Restrictive laws can also be used to squeeze off supply chains, or affect purchasing decisions. If the only gun you can buy legally buy has a 10-round magazine and requires 30 seconds for an expert to change the clip, then when you steal guns, you'll be stealing a gun that has a 10-round magazine and requires 30 seconds to change the clip.

So yes, restricting guns will absolutely limit the right of self defense for law abiding citizens. It will not necessarily hinder a criminal's ability to go on a mass killing spree. They'd have to respect and follow the law in order for it to affect them.

At a minimum, all the guns used at Sandy Hook were legally acquired. Which shooting sprees featured black-market guns, that had not been legally purchased?

 

[One Brow]

Sure, but to say something should be banned because it's only useful in rare situations isn't very convincing, imo. You are aware that more people are killed by lightning every year than in mass shootings, right?

I agree. When you have time to discuss it in more detail (said in recognition that you do have a life), I'd be interested in any evidence you had that the utility of a 30-round clip (i.e., the frequency of occasions where having 30 rounds easily available, as opposed to 6 or 10, is a life-or-death situation) outweighs the harm caused by people taking advantage of such clips. Mass shootings are more common that riots, for example.

 

[SaltyDawg]

At a minimum, all the guns used at Sandy Hook were legally acquired. Which shooting sprees featured black-market guns, that had not been legally purchased?

No they weren't, nor was the shooter even legal to buy them (not considering any background issues, he was too young). He stole them, and used them to kill the legal owner.

 

[One Brow]

No they weren't, nor was the shooter even legal to buy them (not considering any background issues, he was too young). He stole them.

That was my point. Thgey were legally acquired by his mother, and he stole them. If his mother had only been able to buy guns with reduced ammunition loads and that were difficult to reload, the shooter would have been able to fire fewer bullets. They were not black-market guns. Limiting the types of legal guns will, eventually, limit the capabilities of such shooters.

 

[Qman]

Restrictive laws can also be used to squeeze off supply chains, or affect purchasing decisions. If the only gun you can buy legally buy has a 10-round magazine and requires 30 seconds for an expert to change the clip, then when you steal guns, you'll be stealing a gun that has a 10-round magazine and requires 30 seconds to change the clip.

Two points on the 30 round magazines- first there are literally thousands that are legally owned. I can't see the them being taken out of circulation. Cutting off the 'supply chain' would take decades if it is even possible. For example I am sure that police weapons will maintain the 30 round mags. If someone really wants one they could steal that.

2nd a magazine is fairly simple to make. So I believe we would be creating a black market for 30 round mags. Additionally how can you tell a pre-ban mag from an old one?

I would estimate it would take me at most 3 seconds to change a 10 round magazine in any circumstances. If I practiced it would take much less than that probably about 1 second. What are you talking about -taking an expert 30 seconds to change? Do you mean 30 seconds to load an empty magazine?

If we are talking about pistols I would just carry multiple pistols and skip the reloading.