Trigger-happy Atlanta mom shoots intruder in the face 5 times


Off-Topic Discussions

451 to 500 of 836 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

Kryzbyn wrote:
He's saying it is a ban, in all but name.

If it were a ban, private citizens would not be allowed to own or carry firearms.

Are you really trying this, too?


I want you guys to keep in mind that you are sort of feverishly arguing in favor of something that is not only demonstrably false, but would be worthless to your argument even if it were true! The idea that restrictive gun laws caused the situation we see in Mexico today is laughable.

Sczarni

Random questions to Scott Betts:

Should the President, Mayor, Governor, or other elected official of the land be afforded armed protection?

If so, why?

Corollary: Should a private citizen, not elected to any office of power, be afforded armed protection?

Does the police provide ready-access armed protection for the common citizen?

What alternative for personal protection should (by your estimation or whatever expert's you prefer) be available to the private citizen?


psionichamster wrote:
Random questions to Scott Betts:

I'm not sure you're using the word "random" appropriately, here.

Quote:

Should the President, Mayor, Governor, or other elected official of the land be afforded armed protection?

If so, why?

Certain elected officials ought to be afforded protection, yes. We have a strong, vested, societal interest in ensuring the safety of those in particularly influential positions, whose injury or death could have a potentially destabilizing effect.

Quote:
Corollary: Should a private citizen, not elected to any office of power, be afforded armed protection?

What do you mean by "afforded"? Should we grant the the armed protection of a Secret Service detail? No, that would be kind of excessive, don't you think? While we have some societal interest in ensuring the safety of every citizen, that interest is not so great as to justify everyone receiving a bodyguard.

If you mean to ask whether we ought to provide our citizens the ability to defend themselves with firearms, the answer is "Possibly."

Quote:
Does the police provide ready-access armed protection for the common citizen?

Sometimes. Other times the police provide other services, including professional investigation into incidents of violence, as well as the arrest and hand-off to the justice system for prosecution of the offenders.

Quote:
What alternative for personal protection should (by your estimation or whatever expert's you prefer) be available to the private citizen?

You seem to be asking questions from the belief that I am in favor of banning guns. I'm not. I believe that there are plenty of alternative options for personal defense that are not firearms, though firearms are certainly an option (though, as has been explained many times in this thread, not a particularly effective or safe one).

Liberty's Edge

I did not read this whole thread. But one thing I found out today is in this case, the mother was talking to 911 for 10 minutes before she started to shoot, no police were there yet. 10 minutes on 911 and the police were not there yet? The intruder would not leave, she has no idea if police would even come at that point. I would have shoot, too.


Out of curiosity, does anyone know how long we have to wait before it's "respectful" to talk about gun control after this?


CapeCodRPGer wrote:
I did not read this whole thread. But one thing I found out today is in this case, the mother was talking to 911 for 10 minutes before she started to shoot, no police were there yet. 10 minutes on 911 and the police were not there yet? The intruder would not leave, she has no idea if police would even come at that point. I would have shoot, too.

No, she wasn't.

The entire 911 recording was 10 minutes long. There's no indication of how long the dispatcher remained on the line with the victim's husband after the shooting took place, and no indication I've seen of how long it took after the call was placed for the shooting to begin. In addition, the victim herself was never talking to a 911 dispatcher; she called her husband, who then called 911 on another line and relayed messages between them.

Additionally, it's now clear that a) the intruder tried another house first but simply left when he discovered the homeowner was present, and b) the intruder pleaded with the victim to stop shooting after he was hit, but she kept firing anyway.

In other words, it looks like the most likely scenario was that the intruder was looking for a house to rob, found one he thought was empty, broke in - unarmed - and was startled when he was shot in the face. He probably decided that was more than he bargained for after the first bullet or two, pleaded for the victim to stop shooting, and was hit another four or five times.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16

Scott Betts wrote:
I want you guys to keep in mind that you are sort of feverishly arguing in favor of something that is not only demonstrably false, but would be worthless to your argument even if it were true!

I disagree with several aspects of your argument. (I'm sure everyone is shocked by that...) You correctly claim that guns aren't completely banned in Mexico, but you make far too much of the inaccuracies in Perfect Tommy's posts. Whether 1 in 15,000, 1 in 2,700, or 1 in a million can arm themselves legally, it is clear that Mexico's government has effectively prevented the law-abiding populace from being able to defend themselves in a meaningful way.

Scott Betts wrote:
I haven't seen any evidence for that (costly bribes needed to get a gun permit). The closest you've come to showing that is the NPR report, which didn't make any explicit mention of bribes, and didn't break down its costs. On the other hand, we have pretty clear evidence that huge sums of money are not a legal requirement to own a firearm.

Some arguments demand more proof than others. When you indicate that you haven't seen proof that "la mordida" significantly drives up the cost of legally acquiring a gun, you're either being wilfully argumentative or ignorant of the ubiquity of "mordida" in all aspects of Mexican government.

A brief review of available documentation online did not find anything to support bribe expenses of hundreds or thousands of dollars as Perfect Tommy had contended. According to some of my friends who visit Mexico regularly and various sources on the Internet, the bribes needed to work with Mexican officials vary greatly, based primarily on where you are from. Many mexicans assume that "Gringos" must be rich, so they'll hit up a foreigner for a lot more money than a local resident.

Scott Betts wrote:
The idea that restrictive gun laws caused the situation we see in Mexico today is laughable.

While you argue that Mexico's strict firearms laws haven't been proven to have any relation to the country's appalling crime rate and its corrupt, ineffective government, Mexico's sad situation strongly argues to me that strict gun laws are not the "anti-violence" panacea that the gun control lobby envisions. Furthermore, the purpose of the US Constitution's Second Amendment clearly includes the citizens' right to self-defense from a corrupt, capricious, or tyrannical government: A definition that admirably suits Mexico's comically corrupt regime.

Scott Betts wrote:
This thread (and the others here in recent memory) is something of a case study in the power of conservative firearms advocates' bullcrap rumor mill. I long ago lost track of how many falsehoods passed off as fact I've had to track down refutations for.

Strangely, I feel exactly the same way about the blatant lies and manipulations of the gun-control nuts. There's a lot of crap out there on the Internet.

Liberty's Edge

Still, mom home alone with young kids. Intruder comes in, she hides, intruder finds them, she points gun telling him to leave. She shoots. She was threatened in her own home, she had every right to defend herself and her kids. If it was me I would not have waited to see if the intruder had a mental condition or anything like that. He invaded someone's home, he deserved what he got.


Scott Betts wrote:
Kryzbyn wrote:
He's saying it is a ban, in all but name.

If it were a ban, private citizens would not be allowed to own or carry firearms.

Are you really trying this, too?

No, no I agree. It isn't an actual ban. See my post about points of view.

I'm not trying to equivalate mexico's laws to ours either, or as a possible future for us. It was a seperate point, merely to say "yes it's not technicly accurate, but I'd hope you can understand what he means"...

No more, no less.


I did some looking into actual crime statistics (sourced from the Uniform Crime Report on the FBI's website and from the British Home Office website), and what I found was very interesting.

First, I discovered a mystery worthy of the greatest minds in political science. In 1992, the violent crime rate in America (per 100,000) was 757, with a murder rate of 9 (also per 100,000). In 2011, it was 386 per 100,000, and a murder rate of just under 5 (4.7) per 100,000. That's a 50% drop in violent crime, and a close to 54% drop in murder rates in just under 20 years, during both Democratic and Republican administrations, and not only is it not being reported on, not one single president or presidential candidate has ever tried to take credit for it.

The FBI's UCR also shows that out of all the murders committed with firearms, less than three percent involved rifles of any kind...including the AR-15.

I went to the British Home Office website because Mexico is a poor example of how strict gun control makes a nation less violent. According to the British Home Office (which does not keep statistics for Northern Ireland or Scotland, as they keep their own stats), in 2011 England and Wales had a violent crime rate of 1361 per 100,000 people, and a murder rate of 1 per 100,000.

So while, yes, their homicide rates are lower, England is overall 3.5 times more violent than the United States. The statistics reveal quite a number of very interesting facts, actually. Believe it or not, crime is really not much of a mystery here in the United States. The data available on the subject is widely available, and reasonably trustworthy, as the FBI simply compiles the data without suggesting or attempting to recommend policy. It's simply a pity that nobody in the media, government, or public wants to actually look at it.


When you break into property that belongs to someone else, you are implicitly accepting the risk that you might get shot in the face.


Elbel=l wrote:
So while, yes, their homicide rates are lower, England is overall 3.5 times more violent than the United States

Or at least for reported crimes. Is there any chance that a fist fight that might go unremarked in the us gets reported there?


@Elbe-el: Are you familiar with the studies linking lead-based paint and violent crime? The US banned lead paint in 1978-1989 while it took the UK until 1988 (from my cursory search, I fully accept I could be misinformed) to implement a similar ban.

Could this account for a statistical lag/swing of a decade or so?

Just throwing out a pet theory...

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16

There are some differences between the reporting standards of different nations, which can cause some confusion. England, for example, does class some non-injurious assaults as violent crimes, where the US would rate the same assault as non-violent.

(Even accounting for discrepancies in reporting standards, Great Britain and several other European nations do have an overall higher rate of violent crime than the US does. Their rates for gun crimes and overall murder rates are lower, but other violent crimes more than make up the difference.)

Sovereign Court

Sir_Wulf wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
The idea that restrictive gun laws caused the situation we see in Mexico today is laughable.
While you argue that Mexico's strict firearms laws haven't been proven to have any relation to the country's appalling crime rate and its corrupt, ineffective government, Mexico's sad situation strongly argues to me that strict gun laws are not the "anti-violence" panacea that the gun control lobby envisions. Furthermore, the purpose of the US Constitution's Second Amendment clearly includes the citizens' right to self-defense from a corrupt, capricious, or tyrannical government: A definition that admirably suits Mexico's comically corrupt regime.

Keep in mind who Mexico is living next to. Imagine trying to quit smoking while having a roommate that was a chain smoker. Some of Canada's gun crime is from guns smuggled across the border.

Sir_Wulf wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
This thread (and the others here in recent memory) is something of a case study in the power of conservative firearms advocates' bullcrap rumor mill. I long ago lost track of how many falsehoods passed off as fact I've had to track down refutations for.
Strangely, I feel exactly the same way about the blatant lies and manipulations of the gun-control nuts. There's a lot of crap out there on the Internet.

And I feel strongly about both sides. I believe in gun control but I sure as heck don't approve of falsehoods and exaggerations being thrown into the debate by either side. Why can't we have a debate where both sides try to listen and understand where the other side is coming from? Maybe we can find a consensus that both sides can live with.

Sovereign Court

Sir_Wulf wrote:

There are some differences between the reporting standards of different nations, which can cause some confusion. England, for example, does class some non-injurious assaults as violent crimes, where the US would rate the same assault as non-violent.

(Even accounting for discrepancies in reporting standards, Great Britain and several other European nations do have an overall higher rate of violent crime than the US does. Their rates for gun crimes and overall murder rates are lower, but other violent crimes more than make up the difference.)

Another thing that might be worth noting is that taverns and bars might be much more prevalent in the UK, it certainly seemed that way when I visited. It certainly would interesting to see how all that violent crime in the UK breaks down as. Perhaps we're talking about a large portion of that violent crime being drunken brawling or soccer hooliganism. I wouldn't expect it to be a huge trade off but it would be interesting to see.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Soccer!

Now we've found the culprit for sure!


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Scott Betts wrote:
Perfect Tommy wrote:
There is one base where an approved citizen is allowed to buy a gun. *One*.
That's a shame. If they could own two, they might be able to repel an intruder with the gun in their hands and the gun in their feet!

I'm not completely certain but based on earlier comments, I think the "One." refers to the number of bases where you can buy a gun, not the number of guns.


Sir_Wulf wrote:
I disagree with several aspects of your argument. (I'm sure everyone is shocked by that...) You correctly claim that guns aren't completely banned in Mexico, but you make far too much of the inaccuracies in Perfect Tommy's posts. Whether 1 in 15,000, 1 in 2,700, or 1 in a million can arm themselves legally,

That isn't even what the figure represents. That's the rate at which firearms are registered. It does not reflect overall gun ownership. In fact, Mexican civilian gun ownership is 15 per 100 persons, placing the country 42nd in the world.

Quote:
it is clear that Mexico's government has effectively prevented the law-abiding populace from being able to defend themselves in a meaningful way.

Two things are clear: it is not easy or straightforward to legally get ahold of a firearm in Mexico, and it is also quite possible to legally get ahold of a firearm in Mexico if you truly believe you need it.

Quote:
Some arguments demand more proof than others. When you indicate that you haven't seen proof that "la mordida" significantly drives up the cost of legally acquiring a gun, you're either being wilfully argumentative or ignorant of the ubiquity of "mordida" in all aspects of Mexican government.

I actually previously acknowledged that government corruption probably plays a role in registering to own a firearm.

Quote:
A brief review of available documentation online did not find anything to support bribe expenses of hundreds or thousands of dollars as Perfect Tommy had contended. According to some of my friends who visit Mexico regularly and various sources on the Internet, the bribes needed to work with Mexican officials vary greatly, based primarily on where you are from. Many mexicans assume that "Gringos" must be rich, so they'll hit up a foreigner for a lot more money than a local resident.

That's exactly correct. Remember, officials who expect bribes want the money; they don't have a problem giving you what you ask for, but they want their cut. They don't "ask" for more than they believe you are willing to part with.

Quote:
While you argue that Mexico's strict firearms laws haven't been proven to have any relation to the country's appalling crime rate and its corrupt, ineffective government, Mexico's sad situation strongly argues to me that strict gun laws are not the "anti-violence" panacea that the gun control lobby envisions.

It doesn't argue for anything. There are too many extraneous factors that impact criminality without being directly linked to firearms legislation to draw any conclusions from Mexico. There are, however, dozens of other modern, developed nations with restrictive firearms laws and low levels of violent crime. In fact, there is a body of literature indicating a correlation between firearms legislation and lower levels of violence.

Quote:
Furthermore, the purpose of the US Constitution's Second Amendment clearly includes the citizens' right to self-defense from a corrupt, capricious, or tyrannical government: A definition that admirably suits Mexico's comically corrupt regime.

That's wishful thinking by gun rights advocates. If push ever came to shootout, your ability to maintain a personal arsenal of small arms will mean literally nothing to a corrupt, dictatorial United States government. It will never happen in the first place - and your duty as a citizen is to take an active role in your government well before it reaches that point, because by then it will already be too late - and the belief that citizens with AR-15s will successfully mount a resistance against the United States military is utter fantasy.

The 2nd Amendment is no longer useful for opposing government tyranny, and has not been for some time. You have other weapons to combat that particular problem, now.

Quote:
Strangely, I feel exactly the same way about the blatant lies and manipulations of the gun-control nuts. There's a lot of crap out there on the Internet.

Yes, there is. The difference is that I see very little of that crap coming from the left and a ton coming from the right. And when we see it coming from our end, it's usually us doing the debunking and self-policing. When it comes from conservatives, it's also usually us doing the debunking.


mordion wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
Perfect Tommy wrote:
There is one base where an approved citizen is allowed to buy a gun. *One*.
That's a shame. If they could own two, they might be able to repel an intruder with the gun in their hands and the gun in their feet!
I'm not completely certain but based on earlier comments, I think the "One." refers to the number of bases where you can buy a gun, not the number of guns.

That makes way more sense.

Sovereign Court

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Soccer!

Now we've found the culprit for sure!

Remember Soccer doesn't curb stomp you, soccer hooligans do.


The reason for the decline in violent crime was suggested, with quite a bit of merit, to be a consequence of Roe vs Wade. The basic idea is that the peak in violence was 1995. Since then, it has been falling, and nobody knows why. About twenty years before that, american women got the right to demand abortions. Women know if they will be able to provide a reasonable upbringing for children, and many of those who could not chose not to have children. Twenty years on, there were a large number of people who had not been born, quite a few of those would have been precisely the ones the crime statistics would have focused on, who would have been establishing their criminal careers. Various other suggestions have been made, of course, mostly police using new shiny methods, but no such explanation has held up under any kind of scrutiny.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sissyl wrote:
The reason for the decline in violent crime was suggested, with quite a bit of merit, to be a consequence of Roe vs Wade. The basic idea is that the peak in violence was 1995. Since then, it has been falling, and nobody knows why. About twenty years before that, american women got the right to demand abortions. Women know if they will be able to provide a reasonable upbringing for children, and many of those who could not chose not to have children. Twenty years on, there were a large number of people who had not been born, quite a few of those would have been precisely the ones the crime statistics would have focused on. Various other suggestions have been made, of course, mostly police using new shiny methods, but no such explanation has held up under any kind of scrutiny.

Before anyone assumes that this is a stupid/racist/whatever argument, I'll point out that it is supported by some pretty popular theories of criminality. It may very well be the case that increasing one's ability to choose the circumstances under which they have children decreases the likelihood that those children eventually become criminals.

Sovereign Court

Interesting theory Sissyl, but I've heard of this lead paint argument that meatrace suggested as well, and of the two theories it seems to me more plausible. I'm sure there are other valid theories out there, and who's to say which is right, or even if we have multiple forces at work here. Right now we simply don't know for sure. It's a trend most of us would love to see continue though. Neither side in this debate wants a violent society, perhaps the gun manufacturers and gun stores do, I mean arguably they're making money hand over fist with every mass shooting and every gun control rumor, but most people want our societies to become more peaceful.


Like most things, there's no simple answer. I'm pretty sure it's a confluence of innumerable factors, but two not insignificant contributors are the ban on lead-based paint and Roe v. Wade.

Dark Archive

Here's an interesting article refuting the crime reduction/abortion data that was used in freakonomics.

I think the biggest problem is that the creator of the theory (Levitt) didn't lay out the math correctly, going on a per crime basis vs. incorporating a per capita (and thus increasing) headcount.


There was another school shooting in California. Kid used a shotgun, guess we should put those on the assault weapon banning list.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
pres man wrote:
There was another school shooting in California. Kid used a shotgun, guess we should put those on the assault weapon banning list.

Given that he was unsuccessful in killing anyone (yet; one student is in critical condition), I'd argue that this is an example of what happens when someone decides to go nuts with a weapon that is not explicitly designed to facilitate the killing of as many targets as you care to engage in as efficient a manner as possible.

Additionally, reports are indicating that an armed sheriff's deputy was on the campus. It's not clear whether this made any difference; that remains to be seen as more details emerge.


Auxmaulous wrote:

Here's an interesting article refuting the crime reduction/abortion data that was used in freakonomics.

I think the biggest problem is that the creator of the theory (Levitt) didn't lay out the math correctly, going on a per crime basis vs. incorporating a per capita (and thus increasing) headcount.

Here is Levitt defending his conclusions and explaining why Foote and Goetz were wrong.

The main attack dog in this fight seems to be a feller by the name of Steve Sailer, who has some pretty wackadoo right wing theories of his own. But I digress.

Grand Lodge

Scott Betts wrote:
I'd argue that this is an example of what happens when someone decides to go nuts with a weapon that is not explicitly designed to facilitate the killing of as many targets as you care to engage in as efficient a manner as possible.

Charles Whitman did a pretty good job of this back in 1966. And yeah, he had an M1 carbine, but "standard" magazines for those only hold 15 rounds...

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 16

Scott Betts wrote:
It doesn't argue for anything. There are too many extraneous factors that impact criminality without being directly linked to firearms legislation to draw any conclusions from Mexico. There are, however, dozens of other modern, developed nations with restrictive firearms laws and low levels of violent crime. In fact, there is a body of literature indicating a correlation between firearms legislation and lower levels of violence.

There is plenty of literature suggesting correlations between limitations on gun ownership and gun violence, but I've also seen plenty of literature that associates gun restrictions with higher levels of criminal behavior.

One widely-debated book on the subject was More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott. His conclusion that legalizing "concealed carry" deters violent crime has been argued in literally dozens of articles. From what I've seen, there seem to be comparable numbers of articles supporting his claim and claiming no relationship between concealed carry and violent crime rates. I have not seen any robust analyses that found a relationship between legalized concealed carry and increased violent crime behavior. (One study did claim that theft and shoplifting increased in the wake of concealed carry: It seems to me to be a statistical outlier.)

Scott Betts, what websites would you recommend for someone who wanted to learn more regarding this issue? While I find GunCite to be an interesting reference, no one would ever accuse it of being impartial.

Dark Archive

Yeah, I read that also - seems like they are falling all over themselves to defend their numbers - and based on the way they tabulated them. The link you posted was more or less "c'mon - we don't have the numbers but you should believe us" request.

I think citing Romania as a control (to point to one example) is an incredibly bad way to conduct any kind of test of numbers.

But everyone is going to walk away with the conclusion they want or are looking for. The whole study does start to touch on the issue of eugenics and race - when you look at the numbers of who (race) commits a crime in society, and the racial breakdowns of abortions. I don't know if that is the road people really want to go down if we start promoting abortion (amonst certain demographics) as a tool for pre-crime control.


I think the whole John Lott thing has been picked clean at this point, but it continues to be a popular conservative myth.

I'm too lazy to dig up the dirt at the moment, so just google John Lott criticism.

Just as an aside, I had a debate class this past semester and our first in class team debate was about gun control. Our side (pro-gun control) was expecting Lott to be trotted out and we did our due diligence in researching ways to shut those arguments down. No one brought up Lott. Like, every argument came down to "2nd amendment! Semper Fi!". This is in an upper-level comm B university course. We trounced them up and down with logic as well as rhetoric. It wasn't even a fight. The teams were chosen at random...


Auxmaulous wrote:

Yeah, I read that also - seems like they are falling all over themselves to defend their numbers - and based on the way they tabulated them. The link you posted was more or less "c'mon - we don't have the numbers but you should believe us" request.

That's really not at all what I got out of it. It was a rather lengthy rebuttal and went into depth about their methods.

The Exchange

http://jpfo.org/ has some fun stuff
especially http://jpfo.org/filegen-a-m/deathgc.htm#chart


pres man wrote:
There was another school shooting in California. Kid used a shotgun, guess we should put those on the assault weapon banning list.

No, it means you really need to listen to the people calling for a balance between a fire arms ban and the current level of lethality that anyone is allowed to pick up at walmart.

This demonstrates exactly what we've been saying all along: slow down the rate of fire and you lower the body count. You do this with virtually zero loss for hunting, home defense, or target shooting.

The pro any gun sign has done a horrible job of justifying why we need those guns in particular. The argument always becomes a strawman about something else, the fear of a slippery slope, or some ludicris argument that, despite previously placing guns in a de facto ban, more types of guns cannot be banned.


Digitalelf wrote:
Scott Betts wrote:
I'd argue that this is an example of what happens when someone decides to go nuts with a weapon that is not explicitly designed to facilitate the killing of as many targets as you care to engage in as efficient a manner as possible.
Charles Whitman did a pretty good job of this back in 1966. And yeah, he had an M1 carbine, but "standard" magazines for those only hold 15 rounds...

The M1 carbine (formally the United States Carbine, Caliber .30, M1) is a lightweight, easy to use semi-automatic carbine that became a standard firearm for the U.S. military during World War II, the Korean War and the Vietnam War,- wiki.

How on earth, when the facts clearly line up to show that this is a point against you, do you come to the conclusion that this is a point for you?

You can hem and haw about what you want to call a military grade weapon, but when its the standard firearm for the military it takes some gold medal level mental gymnastics to say that its not a military grade weapon.

Grand Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
You can hem and haw about what you want to call a military grade weapon, but when its the standard firearm for the military it takes some gold medal level mental gymnastics to say that its not a military grade weapon.

I'm not saying an M1 carbine isn't a military firearm, what I was saying is that an M1 is not the most efficient weapon he could have chosen to "facilitate the killing of as many targets as you care to engage in as efficient a manner as possible" because as a light-weight firearm, a carbine (of any caliber) simply does not have that long of a range. What's more, the .30 carbine round that is used by the M1 carbine is little more than a glorified handgun round (in fact, there are a number of handguns that use the .30 carbine round). The majority of Whitman's shots were at ranges that made using an M1, even in the hands of a marine, impractical (hence the scoped hunting rifles he used)...

Further, since a lot of the pro gun control crowd here has been arguing that we should limit "high capacity" magazines, 15 rounds hardly qualifies as being "high capacity" when compared to the 30 or more round magazines available on the market today.

So like I originally said, Charles Whitman, despite not having the technology we have today at his disposal, made pretty good use of the "low tech" equipment he did have at his disposal...


Digital elf wrote:
Further, since a lot of the pro gun control crowd here has been arguing that we should limit "high capacity" magazines, 15 rounds hardly qualifies as being "high capacity" when compared to the 30 or more round magazines on the market today.

YES.. because it is effectively a ZERO, no, nadda, zip, zero zilch, downside ban. We loose absolutely nothing of any worthy by banning it. We gain time for people to run while these nutjobs are reloading.

In terms of a cost benefit analysis this is a no brainer.

Quote:
I'm not saying an M1 carbine isn't a military firearm, what I was saying is that an M1 is not the most efficient weapon he could have chosen because as a light-weight firearm, a carbine (of any caliber) simply does not have that long of a range.

I believe that , being a marine, the m1 is what he would have trained on and been the most accurate with, yes?

Grand Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
YES.. because it is effectively a ZERO, no, nadda, zip, zero zilch, downside ban. We loose absolutely nothing of any worthy by banning it. We gain time for people to run while these nutjobs are reloading. In terms of a cost benefit analysis this is a no brainer.

My point was, he used these low capacity magazines to great effect with little to no problem.

Personally, if it would make the anti-gun people leave semi-automatic firearms alone otherwise, I would have no problem with limiting magazine size to 10 or 15 rounds...

BigNorseWolf wrote:
I believe that , being a marine, the m1 is what he would have trained on and been the most accurate with, yes?

No, marines in the late 1950's and early 1960's trained with the M14 rifle (which is a much bigger and much heavier firearm, and also uses a much bigger round than the M1 carbine)...


BigNorseWolf wrote:

I believe that , being a marine, the m1 is what he would have trained on and been the most accurate with, yes?

No. Standard issue rifles for the Marines at that time was the M14.

And remember: When the average police response time is nine minutes, the average response time for a .357 JHP round is 1500 feet per second.


Digital Elf wrote:
Personally, if it would make the anti-gun people leave semi-automatic firearms alone otherwise, I would have no problem with limiting magazine size to 10 or 15 rounds...

They fire too quickly. The cost of having them around just doesn't seem worth any possible use of the things.

Grand Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:

They fire too quickly. The cost of having them around just doesn't seem worth any possible use of the things.

And there's my point...

I don't want a ban on high capacity magazines because banning high capacity magazines is not enough for the pro gun control people.


Doug's Workshop wrote:


No. Standard issue rifles for the Marines at that time was the M14.

His tour of duty was from 1959 to 1960 meaning he was trained before that. The m1 was in use from 1942–1973 and the m14 was introduced sometime in 1959 (according to wiki). I can see if i can find it one way or the other (probably both) , but i'm thinking his choice of weapon wasn't a coincidence.

Quote:
And remember: When the average police response time is nine minutes, the average response time for a .357 JHP round is 1500 feet per second.

At this point in the discussion i think we've seen all the slogans we need to.


Digitalelf wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

They fire too quickly. The cost of having them around just doesn't seem worth any possible use of the things.

And there's my point...

I don't want a ban on high capacity magazines because banning high capacity magazines would not be enough for the pro gun control people.

So you're going to fight on a point of agreement so you don't have to fight on a point of contention?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Digitalelf wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

They fire too quickly. The cost of having them around just doesn't seem worth any possible use of the things.

And there's my point...

I don't want a ban on high capacity magazines because banning high capacity magazines would not be enough for the pro gun control people.

So you're going to fight on a point of agreement so you don't have to fight on a point of contention?

I think it is more of being willing to compromise as long as the other side is also willing to. If they are not, then why bother?

I don't think he feels it is necessary to limit magazine size, but if that would be enough, then he'd be ok with it. If not, well he never thought it was necessary anyway, so forget it.

Grand Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
So you're going to fight on a point of agreement so you don't have to fight on a point of contention?

I said I'd have no problem with a ban on high capacity magazines provided that semi-autos were otherwise left alone. That does not mean I want a ban on high capacity magazines, but such a ban would be a good compromise IMO...


pres man wrote:


I don't think he feels it is necessary to limit magazine size, but if that would be enough, then he'd be ok with it. If not, well he never thought it was necessary anyway, so forget it.

"No guns" is a possibility as well.

I'm just not seeing any genuine argument for why the line needs to be drawn at semi automatics rather than at machine guns.


Digitalelf wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
So you're going to fight on a point of agreement so you don't have to fight on a point of contention?
I said I'd have no problem with a ban on high capacity magazines provided that semi-autos were otherwise left alone. That does not mean I want a ban on high capacity magazines, but such a ban would be a good compromise IMO...

Golden mean fallacy. Just because its a compromise doesn't mean its the right idea.

What do people need 5 bullets a second for? You're telling me there's no way to slow that down a bit?

451 to 500 of 836 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Off-Topic Discussions / Trigger-happy Atlanta mom shoots intruder in the face 5 times All Messageboards