Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't know what you're smoking, but there's nothing in that statement that implies I said people would be sitting around waiting to be shot. The shooter is going around the classroom picking off people, who are trying to hide under tables, chairs, trying to run away, and whatnot. When I said "react" I was referring to potentially pulling out their gun and returning fire. My next sentence was:
Yes, it does....people are going to react, not sit there and say, hey dude, what's that...
Quote:
This was very predictable. What your gun magazine doesn't tell you is how many people are not shot because they don't have a weapon on them.
I'm sure you just laughed.
Yes, very predictable, you have no come back for it because it proves your narrative wrong, completely...
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
Laugh away, I know it happens from personal experience.
In 1986 I was working at this convenience store in Charlotte, NC here (back then it was a Fast Fare). One day there were two guys who were hanging out around the store on and off for much of my shift (which was a late afternoon-to-closing shift). They were mostly playing on the video game machines and I didn't think much of them. At one point at night they were the only two in the store besides myself. I went to the back room to get some cleaning materials, and when I came back, I went back to the cashier's area and saw that somebody had picked the safe (they did it in only about a minute). I turned around and the two of them were standing there, with a gun pointed at me. It is clear that, at that point, the absolute stupidest thing I could have done would have been to try to grab a gun from somewhere, if I had had one, to try to defend myself. They told me to open the cash register and give them the money, which I did. One of them then escorted me to the back cleaning room, locked the door (which was pretty silly, I could open it from inside even if it was locked) and left. I waited maybe 30 seconds or so to let them get some distance from me and the store, and then I called 911.
Cool story bro....So, your one story negates the thousands of stories of people who WERE saved with a gun.......that is laughable....
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
You see, the problem with the macho-Rambo gun crowd is they think the only way to fight fire is with more fire. They read the stories in their gun magazines and think that the answer to fighting gun crime is to pull out their own gun and fight back. It sounds really noble and all that, but what never seems to occur to them is that often times, not resisting at all will lead to less violence. So for every story you can show me where somebody fends off some burglar with a gun, you can be sure there is at least one other instance where somebody didn't get shot because they didn't have a gun. Sometimes, fighting fire with water actually works better.
This is the same BS talk over and over from 'macho-Rambo gun" wild wild west, blah blah blah never says anything different....I don't know anyone who speaks of what you say...maybe you can provide some links?
BTW, it happens everyday, people get robbed that don't have a gun, but as long as it's less violence, you're good with it....
The Founding Fathers could not have foreseen that firearms would become more efficient over time and they certainly could not foresee the rise of deranged criminals that seek to murder and destroy their fellow humans. Of course they had crime and murderers in their time but those people were dealt with in a way that would be deemed inhumane by the human rights and liberals of today.
The FF had no idea what the Second Amendment would do to America when criminals flourished just like how they had no idea how the First Amendment would be subverted and bent to allow hate groups to legally have their say and not to mention the garbage that is all over the internet and protected.
The FF would be shocked by the cruelty and stupidity of mankind today.
The same can be said about computers, yet the 1st amendment applies to that. Besides, they had multi shot weapons back then. And just think for a moment. We don't have phasers or pulse weapons yet but we imagine them coming into fruition. Why can't the same be applied to the FFs?
I don't know what you're smoking, but there's nothing in that statement that implies I said people would be sitting around waiting to be shot. The shooter is going around the classroom picking off people, who are trying to hide under tables, chairs, trying to run away, and whatnot. When I said "react" I was referring to potentially pulling out their gun and returning fire. My next sentence was:
This was very predictable. What your gun magazine doesn't tell you is how many people are not shot because they don't have a weapon on them.
I'm sure you just laughed.
Laugh away, I know it happens from personal experience.
In 1986 I was working at this convenience store in Charlotte, NC here (back then it was a Fast Fare). One day there were two guys who were hanging out around the store on and off for much of my shift (which was a late afternoon-to-closing shift). They were mostly playing on the video game machines and I didn't think much of them. At one point at night they were the only two in the store besides myself. I went to the back room to get some cleaning materials, and when I came back, I went back to the cashier's area and saw that somebody had picked the safe (they did it in only about a minute). I turned around and the two of them were standing there, with a gun pointed at me. It is clear that, at that point, the absolute stupidest thing I could have done would have been to try to grab a gun from somewhere, if I had had one, to try to defend myself. They told me to open the cash register and give them the money, which I did. One of them then escorted me to the back cleaning room, locked the door (which was pretty silly, I could open it from inside even if it was locked) and left. I waited maybe 30 seconds or so to let them get some distance from me and the store, and then I called 911.
You see, the problem with the macho-Rambo gun crowd is they think the only way to fight fire is with more fire. They read the stories in their gun magazines and think that the answer to fighting gun crime is to pull out their own gun and fight back. It sounds really noble and all that, but what never seems to occur to them is that often times, not resisting at all will lead to less violence. So for every story you can show me where somebody fends off some burglar with a gun, you can be sure there is at least one other instance where somebody didn't get shot because they didn't have a gun. Sometimes, fighting fire with water actually works better.
Sounds like the first stupid move was by you. You turned your back to get "cleaning supplies". I worked a night shift at 7/11 and the LAST thing I did was leave the floor to go to the back and if I had to I cleared out the store and locked the door. Actually, that was policy so your Manager dropped the ball too.
You are correct there are many different variables that can determine the lethality of any specific firearm. My point of highlighting the mortality rate concerning people shot with different guns was to establish that not all guns are equally lethal.
But all guns are potentially lethal. Anything that fires a high velocity projectile can be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno
Pistols have another factor that increases its lethality vs other platforms. Commonality. Semi-Auto pistols are one of the more common guns found in America. The more common a weapon is the more likely it is going to be used for criminal purposes. The inverse is also true. Automatic weapons are extremely uncommon and thus rarely ever used in crime.
Whether a criminal chooses to use it or not is no measure of lethality. It's a measure of market preference.
Handguns may statistically rank up more human death, but that's based on sheer volume of use, not anything specific to a handgun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno
Speaking of volume of fire. I looked at the 2017 Las Vegas massacre that killed 58 people and injured another 422 (injuries only from gunshots). If we combine the number killed with the number injured we arrive with a total 480 people shot in a 10 minute span. The 58 killed out of 422 comes out to 12% mortality for all those struck by bullets. A rather low figure. The lethality comes through when you assess the sheer volume of people shot. This is where the true lethality of semi-auto rifles comes through. While a larger caliber bolt action rifle would be far deadlier if struck, there would be no way such a large volume of people could have been hit with a bolt action rifle. Thus bullet volume is the most important metric when assessing the lethality of a firearm in the context of a spree shooting.
On a per round basis, fast semiauto and automatic fire are at the bottom of the list. Volume of fire is good for suppression and the aforementioned low casualty rate. It is still not an indicator of the lethality of the platform, but simply a measure of probability. If I throw 50 bullets towards a crowd, I have a lower chance of hitting something than if I throw 500 or 5,000 bullets at a crowd. Volume of fire increases probability, but even then, only for people who are bad shots. Aimed, controlled fire will always be more lethal. And Firing into a crowd of 500+ people, were he to have taken his time with a properly ranged and tested rifle, his mortality rate would have been higher.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno
Its interesting to note that during WW2 all of the major players in the war came to understand this very notion. More bullet volume = more death. Hence the massive shift during the war and after the war to smaller caliber, larger firer rate and mag sized weapons.
What was understood is that marksmen are harder to come by than crates of ammo, so the average grunt they grab off the street got the task of fire volume, and each squad's DM (designated marksman) got tasked with actual killing. Automatic fire is for suppression, not killing. Semiauto fire is and always has been the preferred mode of shooting for actually scoring kills and making supplies last.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno
Whats frighting is if we access the growing number of AR-15's being owned we essentially have the worst of both worlds. A weapon capable of immense carnage along with a far greater commonality. It should be of little surprise then that the recent string of deadly shootings have been far deadlier then those in the past.
AR-15s have been around since the 60s. Fully automatic versions made before 1986 are perfectly legal. The weapon platform hasn't hanged since the world fell in love with semiauto varmint guns. Ammo is cheap, the weapon is friendly to beginners and bad shots, and they don't cost that much. But that doesn't make that weapon platform more or less deadly specifically, it simply makes it more common.
And statistically, rifles of ANY kind are the least common weapon used for homicide, behind handguns, knives, blunt weapons and even bare hands. That's an easily verifiable fact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno
You are correct, a hit from a high powered rifle like .308Win for example does extrodinary amounts of tissue damage and if struck has a high mortality rate. Yet people are not really concerned with bolt action rifles due to the fact that they are hardly ever used for crime. They are not practical in short range situations (where most shootings occur), are hard to conceal, and are not able to produce a high volume of firepower. Not to mention they are not nearly as common amongst the general firearm owning public as other weapons.
So lethality is not your concern, commonality is. If a weapon becomes popular, it is now a special sort of danger? We should ban things based on popularity?
I don't know what you're smoking, but there's nothing in that statement that implies I said people would be sitting around waiting to be shot. The shooter is going around the classroom picking off people, who are trying to hide under tables, chairs, trying to run away, and whatnot. When I said "react" I was referring to potentially pulling out their gun and returning fire. My next sentence was:
This was very predictable. What your gun magazine doesn't tell you is how many people are not shot because they don't have a weapon on them.
I'm sure you just laughed.
Laugh away, I know it happens from personal experience.
In 1986 I was working at this convenience store in Charlotte, NC here (back then it was a Fast Fare). One day there were two guys who were hanging out around the store on and off for much of my shift (which was a late afternoon-to-closing shift). They were mostly playing on the video game machines and I didn't think much of them. At one point at night they were the only two in the store besides myself. I went to the back room to get some cleaning materials, and when I came back, I went back to the cashier's area and saw that somebody had picked the safe (they did it in only about a minute). I turned around and the two of them were standing there, with a gun pointed at me. It is clear that, at that point, the absolute stupidest thing I could have done would have been to try to grab a gun from somewhere, if I had had one, to try to defend myself. They told me to open the cash register and give them the money, which I did. One of them then escorted me to the back cleaning room, locked the door (which was pretty silly, I could open it from inside even if it was locked) and left. I waited maybe 30 seconds or so to let them get some distance from me and the store, and then I called 911.
You see, the problem with the macho-Rambo gun crowd is they think the only way to fight fire is with more fire. They read the stories in their gun magazines and think that the answer to fighting gun crime is to pull out their own gun and fight back. It sounds really noble and all that, but what never seems to occur to them is that often times, not resisting at all will lead to less violence. So for every story you can show me where somebody fends off some burglar with a gun, you can be sure there is at least one other instance where somebody didn't get shot because they didn't have a gun. Sometimes, fighting fire with water actually works better.
Only morons (there are morons gun owners) and dishonest people think that way. Sometimes guns are very useful; other times, not so much, particularly when the user doesn't know how or when to or doesn't have the opportunity to deploy the said firearm. However, just because of your one encounter where you didn't have the opportunity to deploy your firearm, it does not mean nobody has the opportunity in any situation.
Go take a look at this. This channel has hundreds of real life videos to show when and how self defense can be useful.
Only morons (there are morons gun owners) and dishonest people think that way. Sometimes guns are very useful; other times, not so much, particularly when the user doesn't know how or when to or doesn't have the opportunity to deploy the said firearm. However, just because of your one encounter where you didn't have the opportunity to deploy your firearm, it does not mean nobody has the opportunity in any situation.
Go take a look at this. This channel has hundreds of real life videos to show when and how self defense can be useful.
Since knives are so deadly, one does not need an actual gun to defend oneself. All one needs is a knife. Or a chair to hit somebody over the head. Or whatever other potentially harmful object one can grab. I'm sure your typical classroom, and your typical home, are filled with such things.
BTW I'm still awaiting to hear from you how unarmed civilians in 1989 in eastern Europe managed to overthrow several tyrannical governments without being armed.
It shows that in the United States, shootings that involved a semiautomatic rifle resulted in nearly twice as many deaths compared with shootings carried out with only regular handguns, shotguns or rifles. I don't see mention of semiautomatic handguns in the study.
Thoughts? Should semi-automatic firearms be regulated as tightly as fully automatic firearms?
Especially, when no one is there to return fire.
Arm up people and walk through life with your chin up.
Even a revolver is a semi-auto.
Since knives are so deadly, one does not need an actual gun to defend oneself. All one needs is a knife. Or a chair to hit somebody over the head. Or whatever other potentially harmful object one can grab. I'm sure your typical classroom, and your typical home, are filled with such things.
BTW I'm still awaiting to hear from you how unarmed civilians in 1989 in eastern Europe managed to overthrow several tyrannical governments without being armed.
Natural individual rights are not based on need, they are based on existence itself.
There is no societal justification required for me to retain my natural individual right to life, therefore no justification is needed to retain my natural individual right to self-defense, therefore no justification is needed to retain my natural individual right to keep and bear arms.
There is no societal justification required for me to retain my natural individual right to create/trade for and own property (to have property rights), therefore no justification is needed to retain my natural individual right to own arms and ammunition.
There is no societal justification of "need" in the following codified protection of my natural right to keep and bear arms - "the right of the people to keep an bear arms shall not be infringed."
So whether a need exists in your eyes or not, that does not change my natural individual right to purchase, keep and bear arms. My natural rights are not based on what you believe I need or don't.
The privilege of citizen 21 years of age who are non-felons and mentally stable, may keep but never bear, the small arms the government decides are acceptable to the citizens use for sporting only. This may be altered when emotions run high, or the government is threatened.
Minor quibble - no, revolvers are not semiautomatic. Firing the weapon does not employ/divert energy from the fired round to eject the spent casing and load the next round into the firing chamber. A revolver has multiple chambers that are preloaded, and a revolver shooting turns the wheel to the next preloaded chamber. So technically, that is not semiautomatic.
Sorry, minor quibble, but important because if you leave it to anti-gun zealots, they'll go after freaking revolvers ad bolt actions too, under some "well, it's mostly kinda sorta semiauto, so ban it!!" nonsense.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
