Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(PJ Media)   Why gun microstamping won't work. But who cares about expensive regulations that lose jobs, jail innocent people, and can be thwarted with a $12 part, if we can look like we DID something   (pjmedia.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, semiautomatic firearms, PJM, shell casings, Remington Arms  
•       •       •

1974 clicks; posted to Politics » on 09 Oct 2012 at 11:35 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



322 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-10-09 02:07:20 PM  

forgotmydamnusername: dittybopper: LasersHurt: Yes. That's why I am not wholesale denying the idea because there are a few issues with it. It might be feasible with a little tinkering, maybe not. Unlike you, I don't pretend to know all and live in absolutes.

How would you tinker with it to make it work? I'm pretty damn familiar with guns, and outside of mandating that all new guns be made not user-serviceable (which would be a non-starter), I can't see how you could make this work. It would require quite a bit more than "tinkering".

Then too, it might just spur the development of caseless ammo, which would then have to be banned, of course.

Caseless ammo isn't happening. It can be done, it has been done. The problem is that the extracted brass is also removing heat from the weapon. If you want your auto pistol to either need a radiator and coolant, or become too hot to touch at the end of your trip to the range, then caseless is the way to go. I suppose why this isn't such an issue with muzzleloaders is because of the very low rate of fire.


Astartes Tested. Astartes Approved.
 
2012-10-09 02:10:05 PM  
 
2012-10-09 02:10:51 PM  

Heliodorus: It's as if outside factors cause people to kill others and guns aren't the problem.


/Not even going to waste time mentioning the UK and it's issues with stabbings.


Ah, yes. The ol' "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." line of crap.

You keep forgetting that there's a logical corollary for this age of repeating firearms and their offspring:
"Crazy farks with firearms kill LOTS* of people at a time."

/*Why California attempts to limit magazine capacity.
 
2012-10-09 02:11:20 PM  

manimal2878: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Your point was that it was absurd to expect firearm manufacturers to work with law enforcement to identify ways in which they might assist law enforcement in investigating criminal use of their products and then chose a very poorly considered counterexample.

Fine, address the ski mask then.


Is ski mask related crime a problem in your area?
 
2012-10-09 02:13:37 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Heliodorus: It's as if outside factors cause people to kill others and guns aren't the problem.


/Not even going to waste time mentioning the UK and it's issues with stabbings.

Ah, yes. The ol' "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." line of crap.

You keep forgetting that there's a logical corollary for this age of repeating firearms and their offspring:
"Crazy farks with firearms kill LOTS* of people at a time."

/*Why California attempts to limit magazine capacity.


Magazine capacity is a canard. There's a reason the US military doesn't issue 100-round mags.
 
2012-10-09 02:13:41 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: redmid17: Nothing is required of them if they are just sitting in your garage or being towed around the city.

Manufacturers are required to include visible license plate mount points in their design.

We're discussing a dialog between manufacturers, interest groups and government to solve a perceived problem in as close to an ideal way as possible for all parties. This is how rational adults do things. If you insist that nobody should have to do anything and so everyone should do nothing you will simply be left out of the decision.


That's a pretty creepy and authoritarian theory of government you have there.
 
2012-10-09 02:17:41 PM  

redmid17: Okay assuming that particular option is valid for guns, how are you going to get around the federal law prohibiting any kind of centralized database for gun ownership


Have each state maintain their own database and provide access to the federal government in the event of interstate investigation by agencies such as the FBI.

I'd suggest overturning the legislation to save money on administration costs but I know how paranoid firearm aficionados are.
 
2012-10-09 02:20:35 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: That's a pretty creepy and authoritarian theory of government you have there.


One where government works with business and the citizenry to craft effective legislation to address problems? Yeah, I know, it's pretty dystopian.
 
2012-10-09 02:22:24 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: redmid17: Okay assuming that particular option is valid for guns, how are you going to get around the federal law prohibiting any kind of centralized database for gun ownership

Have each state maintain their own database and provide access to the federal government in the event of interstate investigation by agencies such as the FBI.

I'd suggest overturning the legislation to save money on administration costs but I know how paranoid firearm aficionados are.


If the FBI can access at will I would call it "centralized" regardless of who actually owns the data.
 
2012-10-09 02:25:20 PM  

liam76: If the FBI can access at will I would call it "centralized" regardless of who actually owns the data.


You might want to read "in the event of interstate investigations by agencies such as the FBI" again and explain how that translates as "at will".
 
2012-10-09 02:26:19 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Holocaust Agnostic: That's a pretty creepy and authoritarian theory of government you have there.

One where government works with business and the citizenry to craft effective legislation to address problems? Yeah, I know, it's pretty dystopian.


One where the government decides that it needs more power to "address" something and that anyone who objects should be "left out of the process".
 
2012-10-09 02:27:57 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Holocaust Agnostic: That's a pretty creepy and authoritarian theory of government you have there.

One where government works with business and the citizenry to craft effective legislation to address problems? Yeah, I know, it's pretty dystopian.

One where the government decides that it needs more power to "address" something and that anyone who objects should be "left out of the process".


That's pretty much how things work now. What is your point?
 
2012-10-09 02:31:35 PM  

mrshowrules: manimal2878: mrshowrules: My position is that Conservatives should be proposing solutions to gun violence instead of Liberals. Their the ones that have a hard-on for guns.

I'm not a conservative, but this seems pretty simple.

Problem: don't want to get killed by a gun or a victim of gun violence

1. Don't commit crime
Also, don't be near crime, criminals or in your home during a home invasion

2. Don't join a gang.
Unless the gang is threatening to shoot you if you don't join

3. Don't go to the bad neighborhood
If you are poor and in a bad neighbourhood, stop being poor and move

4. Don't be in relationships with crazy gun owners
Also avoid movie theaters, schools, parks etc... etc...

That probably accounts for 99% of all gun crime.


Suicide. Most firearm deaths in the US are suicides.
Urban poverty and gangs are the major contributors to firearm violence.
So we need to bring manufacturing back home, bolster unions, fix education and healthcare, and institute programs that support and sustain families.
In other words, we need to prioritize and fix the social safety net and establish economic justice (which items were planks in the Republican Party platform until the reign of St. Ron (R-IP*). [ya_rlly.jpg]

/*Roasting - In Perdition
 
2012-10-09 02:37:36 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Holocaust Agnostic: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Holocaust Agnostic: That's a pretty creepy and authoritarian theory of government you have there.

One where government works with business and the citizenry to craft effective legislation to address problems? Yeah, I know, it's pretty dystopian.

One where the government decides that it needs more power to "address" something and that anyone who objects should be "left out of the process".

That's pretty much how things work now. What is your point?


That its a really stupid way for things to work. Ain't that difficult to grasp.
 
2012-10-09 02:39:54 PM  

Ricardo Klement: demaL-demaL-yeH: Heliodorus: It's as if outside factors cause people to kill others and guns aren't the problem.


/Not even going to waste time mentioning the UK and it's issues with stabbings.

Ah, yes. The ol' "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." line of crap.

You keep forgetting that there's a logical corollary for this age of repeating firearms and their offspring:
"Crazy farks with firearms kill LOTS* of people at a time."

/*Why California attempts to limit magazine capacity.

Magazine capacity is a canard. There's a reason the US military doesn't issue 100-round mags.*


Off the top of my head, there are at least three. Tow are mechanical - they're farking heavy and they tend to misfeed. The other reason is that breaking ammunition into smaller chunks tends to help the troops remember to not waste bullets.

/Feel free to contribute, dittyhawg.

// *What is "Crap You Shouldn't Pull Out of Your Fourth Point of Contact to Contradict a Veteran?", Alex.
 
2012-10-09 02:42:26 PM  

Holocaust Agnostic: That its a really stupid way for things to work. Ain't that difficult to grasp.


Which is why I am pointing out that a more collaborative relationship between government, industry and citizens might provide a better outcome.

You started drinking bleach earlier than usual today, didn't you? It's okay, you can be honest, we're all friends here.
 
2012-10-09 02:49:56 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Ricardo Klement: demaL-demaL-yeH: Heliodorus: It's as if outside factors cause people to kill others and guns aren't the problem.


/Not even going to waste time mentioning the UK and it's issues with stabbings.

Ah, yes. The ol' "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." line of crap.

You keep forgetting that there's a logical corollary for this age of repeating firearms and their offspring:
"Crazy farks with firearms kill LOTS* of people at a time."

/*Why California attempts to limit magazine capacity.

Magazine capacity is a canard. There's a reason the US military doesn't issue 100-round mags.*

Off the top of my head, there are at least three. Tow are mechanical - they're farking heavy and they tend to misfeed. The other reason is that breaking ammunition into smaller chunks tends to help the troops remember to not waste bullets.

/Feel free to contribute, dittyhawg.

// *What is "Crap You Shouldn't Pull Out of Your Fourth Point of Contact to Contradict a Veteran?", Alex.


The misfeed is a big issue. As a reminder not to waste ammo, yes, but it doesn't ACTUALLY prevent wasting ammo. With practice, you can swap mags in two seconds. I can do it. As far as weight goes, you're either carrying 100 rounds or you're not. And they carry plenty of ammo. So weight-wise, it only makes a slight difference in leverage, less than the SAW's box.

Ultimately, none of that has significant bearing on how much some gun nut expends. In Aurora, he might have been deadlier with smaller mags. (Still waiting on a reconstruction - I'm genuinely interested in when he jammed.) Frankly, I prefer the 20-round mags. They're just right for swapping quickly, and it's easy to keep track of rounds so that I can swap when there's still a round in the receiver.

So, really, except for that tool who shot-up the White House (and didn't kill even one person), the magazine cap issue is pretty irrelevant to gun crime.
 
2012-10-09 02:51:24 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: liam76: If the FBI can access at will I would call it "centralized" regardless of who actually owns the data.

You might want to read "in the event of interstate investigations by agencies such as the FBI" again and explain how that translates as "at will".


You don't need a court order signed by a Judge to start an investigation.
 
2012-10-09 02:58:37 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Holocaust Agnostic: That its a really stupid way for things to work. Ain't that difficult to grasp.

Which is why I am pointing out that a more collaborative relationship between government, industry and citizens might provide a better outcome.

You started drinking bleach earlier than usual today, didn't you? It's okay, you can be honest, we're all friends here.


"Yes its a stupid way for thing to function, that's why I like it functioning that way"

Right, I'm the bleach drinker here.
 
2012-10-09 03:10:58 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Magazine capacity is a canard. There's a reason the US military doesn't issue 100-round mags.*

Off the top of my head, there are at least three. Tow are mechanical - they're farking heavy and they tend to misfeed. The other reason is that breaking ammunition into smaller chunks tends to help the troops remember to not waste bullets.

/Feel free to contribute, dittyhawg.


Generally, they don't even issue 30 rounders. I remember getting only 20 round magazines issued to me.

And yes, a full 100 round magazine does turn a gun that would weigh about 8 lbs with a full 20 round mag into one weighing at least 11 or 12 lbs. Makes it harder to swing and slower on target.

The real killer is reliability, though. All else being equal, the bigger the magazine, the less reliable it tends to be. This is especially true of magazines that just have stamped feed lips, like the kind used in Stoner-designed firearms. The Soviets overcame that somewhat by using feed lips machined out of solid steel instead of just stamped.
 
2012-10-09 03:11:54 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: /Feel free to contribute, dittyhawg.


BTW, it makes my leg tingle when someone calls me a hawg.
 
2012-10-09 03:14:28 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Heliodorus: It's as if outside factors cause people to kill others and guns aren't the problem.


/Not even going to waste time mentioning the UK and it's issues with stabbings.

Ah, yes. The ol' "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." line of crap.

You keep forgetting that there's a logical corollary for this age of repeating firearms and their offspring:
"Crazy farks with firearms kill LOTS* of people at a time."


Guns are not efficient methods for killing loads of people, magazine capacity notwithstanding. In the absence of a gun, for whatever reason, a nutball murderer will still kill people. They will kill a lot of people.

When it comes to a single nutjob perpetrator, the best bets for racking up massive kill counts are: A crash, a fire, a bomb.

These three methods are the most effective ways a lone nut can kill lots of people, all at once. You can rack up the triple digits pretty easily this way. For example:

The Our Lady of the Angels School fire, which killed 95. The suspected arsonist was never tried.

Or maybe the the work of Jin Ruchao, who killed 108 people in Shijiazhuan with his ill-synced bomb attack? (4 bombs that went off at once)

Or Zhang Pilin, who killed 112 by downing China Northern Airlines Flight 6136 all by himself? (Passenger, not a pilot)

Or good old American Robert Dale Segee, who killed nearly 200 in a fire in Hartford? The circus grounds were so burnt the authorities still aren't sure how many he murdered.

We could talk about Kim Dae-han, a 56 year old half-paralyzed man that killed 198 Koreans in the Daegu subway fire? He didn't need a gun.

Gameel Al-Batouti went a little crazy and killed 217 when he crashed EgyptAir Flight 990 into the ocean. Not a gun in sight - though he was the pilot.

Adilson Marcelino Alves killed over 300 in, you guessed it - another act of circus related arson. What is it about circuses and fire?

Hell, a drunk chinaman by the name of Li Xianliang managed to kill 17 people with a tractor! More than our boy in Arizona with his scary gun.

William Unek managed to whack 21 folks to death with an axe in an orgy of violence, which goes to show a dedicated killer will succeed even without machinery.

(I'd have included McVeigh, but he had accomplices)

Guns aren't the problem. Nutball murderers are. 'Gun Control' won't keep them from killing people, the best case is that it will change their method - at great cost, financially, socially, and to liberty.

I might even argue that the presence of firearms lowers the bodycounts of nutball murderers. A gun is very psychologically attractive, as its direct approach favors their narcissistic empowerment. Thus the gun is selected over other, indirect methods like arson. These indirect methods are more effective at racking up bodycounts, but generally less desirable to the non-rational nutball.

Thus the presence of arms causes the nutball to self-select a method that is sub-optimal for mass killings, resulting in lower bodycounts.
 
2012-10-09 03:16:05 PM  

manimal2878: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Exactly, have law enforcement lay out a number of features that would assist them in identifying criminals

Why? That's absurd. Should car manufacturers have to make it easier to identify cars? The can be used to commit crimes or be the getaway vehicle after a crime. Should ski masks have to have an identifier system built in so that they can be identified if they are used in a stick up?

The whole concept is stupid.


Carmakers do have features to make it easier to identify cars, specifically for law enforcement purposes. They have apparatus to attach license plates, and lighting to make sure the license plates are illuminated at night. They also have VIN numbers stamped in numerous places so even if license plates are removed the vehicle can still be tracked.

Guns have serial numbers for similar reasons.

There are too many other things that substitute for ski masks to make it worthwhile to have such a system.
 
2012-10-09 03:16:53 PM  

Fark It: Gonz: Dittybopper, I don't mean "tell me why this law WON'T work." I mean "what WILL work?", and how do we implement it?

End the drug war. Improve NICS reporting.


I would be okay with this.
 
2012-10-09 03:19:56 PM  

redmid17: Each gun already has a unique serial number assigned to it.


Not every gun. It wasn't required before 1968.

For example, prior to 1967 Remington Nylon 66 rifles were produced without serial numbers

Also, if you make your own gun (for example, you buy a frame casting and finish it yourself), it doesn't have to be serial numbered until you decide to sell it. I know a guy who has built up several nice 1911s from crude castings, none of which has a serial number on it, and it's perfectly legal.
 
2012-10-09 03:22:12 PM  

GoldSpider: CPennypacker: Yup totally relevant

If people like you had your way back then, America would still be part of the British Empire.

Now grace us with your predictable retort about the British invading us today, and show us how proud you are of deliberately missing the point.


What a CPennypacker might look like...
a1.ec-videos.myspacecdn.com 


And you are just trolling the shiat out of this thread, CPennypacker. Well done.
 
2012-10-09 03:23:25 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: Holocaust Agnostic: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Holocaust Agnostic: That's a pretty creepy and authoritarian theory of government you have there.

One where government works with business and the citizenry to craft effective legislation to address problems? Yeah, I know, it's pretty dystopian.

One where the government decides that it needs more power to "address" something and that anyone who objects should be "left out of the process".

That's pretty much how things work now. What is your point?


That its wrong and gets you no traction when your stated goal is considered to be harmful at worst and simply wasteful at best.
Lets frame it for you:
Monkeyhouse: I posit that guns are evil and cause crime. Therefore we need gun control!
Gun Owner: Um, I disagree. I don't believe you have evidence to support your initial statement and thus the conclusion is..
Monkeyhouse: If you won't voluntarily restrict yourselves to prevent a problem I can't prove you cause then you'll just have no say in how I restrict you!

Or, in a simpler way:
Monkeyhouse: The drought is caused by you, Neighbor. Only your blood spilled on the ground will make the crops grow! Choose the method of your sacrifice!
Neighbor: Please, Monkey, maybe its the weather killing our crops! You don't need to kill me!
Monkeyhouse: If you won't choose, I'll select the gruesome sacrifice method! If you won't advance your own idea you can't complain if I choose the most painful torture imaginable! MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!
 
2012-10-09 03:43:12 PM  

Ricardo Klement:
Ah, yes. The ol' "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." line of crap.

You keep forgetting that there's a logical corollary for this age of repeating firearms and their offspring:
"Crazy farks with firearms kill LOTS* of people at a time."
/*Why California attempts to limit magazine capacity.

Magazine capacity is a canard. There's a reason the US military doesn't issue 100-round mags.*

Off the top of my head, there are at least three. Tow are mechanical - they're farking heavy and they tend to misfeed. The other reason is that breaking ammunition into smaller chunks tends to help the troops remember to not waste bullets.
/Feel free to contribute, dittyhawg.
// *What is "Crap You Shouldn't Pull Out of Your Fourth Point of Contact to Contradict a Veteran?", Alex.

The misfeed is a big issue. As a reminder not to waste ammo, yes, but it doesn't ACTUALLY prevent wasting ammo. With practice, you can swap mags in two seconds. I can do it. As far as weight goes, you're either carrying 100 rounds or you're not. And they carry plenty of ammo. So weight-wise, it only makes a slight difference in leverage, less than the SAW's box.
Ultimately, none of that has significant bearing on how much some gun nut expends. In Aurora, he might have been deadlier with smaller mags. (Still waiting on a reconstruction - I'm genuinely interested in when he jammed.) Frankly, I prefer the 20-round mags. They're just right for swapping quickly, and it's easy to keep track of rounds so that I can swap when there's still a round in the receiver.
So, really, except for that tool who shot-up the White House (and didn't kill even one person), the magazine cap issue is pretty irrelevant to gun crime.


SAW is belt-fed, but can use standard magazines in a pinch.
The magazine wells are not designed for the mass of the ammunition/magazines, not to mention that monstro magazines get in the way of fire-and-maneuver (why I didn't accept issue of thirty-round magazines). And don't try to tell us that there is no practical difference between carrying the weight in ammo pouches on your FLC vest and carrying more than a kilo extra mass on the weapon.

Keeping firearms out of the hands of crazy farks and attempting to reduce the damage that can be done per reload seem to me to be good goals. What's your suggestion for a better approach?
 
2012-10-09 03:46:49 PM  
You know who stands to gain, if this is made a law? The guy who designed this
 
2012-10-09 03:48:35 PM  

dittybopper: demaL-demaL-yeH: /Feel free to contribute, dittyhawg.

BTW, it makes my leg tingle when someone calls me a hawg.


If you don't pee on the electric fence, the tingling stops.

/BTW, I'm not mean. Otherwise, 'something something what you eat.'
//We both remember the original 'face'book.
 
2012-10-09 03:49:53 PM  

BayouOtter: That its wrong and gets you no traction when your stated goal is considered to be harmful at worst and simply wasteful at best.
Lets frame it for you:
Monkeyhouse: I posit that guns are evil and cause crime. Therefore we need gun control!
Gun Owner: Um, I disagree. I don't believe you have evidence to support your initial statement and thus the conclusion is..
Monkeyhouse: If you won't voluntarily restrict yourselves to prevent a problem I can't prove you cause then you'll just have no say in how I restrict you!


LOLWUT? I never claimed that guns cause crime or any such nonsense.

I honestly don't give a fark about gun control anymore. Statistically, owning a firearm vastly increases the chance that you or a family member will die by firearm but that's not my problem. People with guns shoot each other and themselves and I'm okay with that. I similarly accept that the second amendment means that we have a bloodbath somewhere in the nation every few months or so over and above the baseline rates of people getting shot by other people.

Having said that, there are some people who do think that gun violence is something that we can curb in the US and will attempt to pass legislation to either directly curb it or to provide law enforcement with additional tools to identify criminals who use guns. Now, you can pretend that this isn't the case, dig your heels in and say 'no new laws' but that's not very effective. A better strategy is to get out in front of an issue and help craft legislation that avoids the more egregious attempts to limit gun violence.

Firearm legislation doesn't affect me since I don't own, nor do I plan on owning, firearms. For those of you with a vested interest in the issue, however, you might want to be a little more proactive and address the common perception that you're more interested in your guns than the people who are killed each year in gun violence.
 
2012-10-09 03:51:37 PM  

Mayhem of the Black Underclass: You know who stands to gain, if this is made a law? The guy who designed this


Expired five years ago.
 
2012-10-09 03:53:56 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: BayouOtter: That its wrong and gets you no traction when your stated goal is considered to be harmful at worst and simply wasteful at best.
Lets frame it for you:
Monkeyhouse: I posit that guns are evil and cause crime. Therefore we need gun control!
Gun Owner: Um, I disagree. I don't believe you have evidence to support your initial statement and thus the conclusion is..
Monkeyhouse: If you won't voluntarily restrict yourselves to prevent a problem I can't prove you cause then you'll just have no say in how I restrict you!

LOLWUT? I never claimed that guns cause crime or any such nonsense.

I honestly don't give a fark about gun control anymore. Statistically, owning a firearm vastly increases the chance that you or a family member will die by firearm but that's not my problem. People with guns shoot each other and themselves and I'm okay with that. I similarly accept that the second amendment means that we have a bloodbath somewhere in the nation every few months or so over and above the baseline rates of people getting shot by other people.

Having said that, there are some people who do think that gun violence is something that we can curb in the US and will attempt to pass legislation to either directly curb it or to provide law enforcement with additional tools to identify criminals who use guns. Now, you can pretend that this isn't the case, dig your heels in and say 'no new laws' but that's not very effective. A better strategy is to get out in front of an issue and help craft legislation that avoids the more egregious attempts to limit gun violence.

Firearm legislation doesn't affect me since I don't own, nor do I plan on owning, firearms. For those of you with a vested interest in the issue, however, you might want to be a little more proactive and address the common perception that you're more interested in your guns than the people who are killed each year in gun violence.


That statistic you're quoting has been shat upon many times, for so many reasons I don't even want to begin listing them here.
 
2012-10-09 03:54:06 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: dittybopper: demaL-demaL-yeH: /Feel free to contribute, dittyhawg.

BTW, it makes my leg tingle when someone calls me a hawg.

If you don't pee on the electric fence, the tingling stops.

/BTW, I'm not mean. Otherwise, 'something something what you eat.'
//We both remember the original 'face'book.


Heh.
 
2012-10-09 04:02:19 PM  
Will this apply to drone ordinance?
 
2012-10-09 04:05:00 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Mayhem of the Black Underclass: You know who stands to gain, if this is made a law? The guy who designed this

Expired five years ago.


Actually, his patent is still in force, at least as of 4 months ago, so he would make money on it. Because of a quirk in the California law that requires the technique be unencumbered by a patent before it can be required for guns sold in California, the California gun rights group CalGuns paid the $555 fee to renew the patent because it was cheaper than fighting it in the courts.
 
2012-10-09 04:14:27 PM  

BayouOtter: demaL-demaL-yeH: Heliodorus: It's as if outside factors cause people to kill others and guns aren't the problem.


/Not even going to waste time mentioning the UK and it's issues with stabbings.

Ah, yes. The ol' "Guns don't kill people. People kill people." line of crap.

You keep forgetting that there's a logical corollary for this age of repeating firearms and their offspring:
"Crazy farks with firearms kill LOTS* of people at a time."


Guns are not efficient methods for killing loads of people, magazine capacity notwithstanding. In the absence of a gun, for whatever reason, a nutball murderer will still kill people. They will kill a lot of people.

When it comes to a single nutjob perpetrator, the best bets for racking up massive kill counts are: A crash, a fire, a bomb.

These three methods are the most effective ways a lone nut can kill lots of people, all at once. You can rack up the triple digits pretty easily this way. For example:
/---LIST OF EXAMPLES ---/ ...


A radio is the single most effective weapon with which I have proficiency. I can use it to direct air strikes and artillery, blind and pin the enemy in place, and even severely impair or eliminate their ability to use indirect fire. That said, I guaran-damn-tee that firearms are extremely effective weapons for killing large numbers of people up close and personal.

Crazy farks are, by definition, not the most rational of planners. For your future reference: Please don't facilitate the effectiveness of potential mayhem wreaked by fark sociopaths by doing their homework for them.

I'll leave stepping into the minds of murderers to you. However, I'd observe that the crazy farks seem to want to wreak mayhem in person. Firearms are preferred weapons because pretty much any idiot can use them. They're loud, scary, and tend to get the victims to bunch up at bottlenecks.
Keeping shiat-simple-to-use flight-inducing close-to-medium range personal weapons out of their crazy fark hands is a VERY GOOD IDEA (TM).
Getting crazy farks the medical treatment they need is an EXTREMELY GOOD IDEA(TM).
 
2012-10-09 04:33:16 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: And don't try to tell us that there is no practical difference between carrying the weight in ammo pouches on your FLC vest and carrying more than a kilo extra mass on the weapon.


Yet another reason why it's a canard for the public, too. So far, there's really nothing about a high-cap mag that makes it anything but worse: reliability, "wastes" ammo (ie, inaccuracy), weight on the gun... just why does a shooter actually WANT the damn thing? Because it looks cool and scary and that's it. No one who knows what they're doing would prefer a 100-round mag on a semi-auto firearm.

Keeping firearms out of the hands of crazy farks and attempting to reduce the damage that can be done per reload seem to me to be good goals. What's your suggestion for a better approach?

Reload time is insignificant, or people whose job it is to be in a firefight would make it a higher priority.

And even if I didn't have a better plan (see earlier posts for alternative gun controls I endorse), that doesn't justify a worse one.
 
2012-10-09 04:33:49 PM  

redmid17: That statistic you're quoting has been shat upon many times, for so many reasons I don't even want to begin listing them here.


Fine, whatever, gun ownership doesn't increase the chances that a firearm will be used in a suicide attempt or domestic dispute. I'll just take your expert opinion over Harvard's work on the subject.
 
2012-10-09 04:44:35 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: redmid17: That statistic you're quoting has been shat upon many times, for so many reasons I don't even want to begin listing them here.

Fine, whatever, gun ownership doesn't increase the chances that a firearm will be used in a suicide attempt or domestic dispute. I'll just take your expert opinion over Harvard's work on the subject.


Link us, please.
 
2012-10-09 04:48:37 PM  

BayouOtter: Monkeyhouse Zendo: redmid17: That statistic you're quoting has been shat upon many times, for so many reasons I don't even want to begin listing them here.

Fine, whatever, gun ownership doesn't increase the chances that a firearm will be used in a suicide attempt or domestic dispute. I'll just take your expert opinion over Harvard's work on the subject.

Link us, please.


lmgtfy.com
 
2012-10-09 05:00:51 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: BayouOtter: Monkeyhouse Zendo: redmid17: That statistic you're quoting has been shat upon many times, for so many reasons I don't even want to begin listing them here.

Fine, whatever, gun ownership doesn't increase the chances that a firearm will be used in a suicide attempt or domestic dispute. I'll just take your expert opinion over Harvard's work on the subject.

Link us, please.

lmgtfy.com


Right. I'm not doing your research for you. Link to your citation.
 
2012-10-09 05:02:54 PM  

Ricardo Klement: demaL-demaL-yeH: And don't try to tell us that there is no practical difference between carrying the weight in ammo pouches on your FLC vest and carrying more than a kilo extra mass on the weapon.

Yet another reason why it's a canard for the public, too. So far, there's really nothing about a high-cap mag that makes it anything but worse: reliability, "wastes" ammo (ie, inaccuracy), weight on the gun... just why does a shooter actually WANT the damn thing? Because it looks cool and scary and that's it. No one who knows what they're doing would prefer a 100-round mag on a semi-auto firearm.

Keeping firearms out of the hands of crazy farks and attempting to reduce the damage that can be done per reload seem to me to be good goals. What's your suggestion for a better approach?

Reload time is insignificant, or people whose job it is to be in a firefight would make it a higher priority.

And even if I didn't have a better plan (see earlier posts for alternative gun controls I endorse), that doesn't justify a worse one.


Hmm. You seem to be basing your argument against limiting rounds per magazine on sustained rate of fire, while I'm addressing cyclic rate of fire. Crazy farks seem to go for maximum cyclic rate of fire: Their window of engagement is limited to the time it takes the crowd to clear the bottlenecks and get away.
An honest observer would readily concede that three-to-five round maximum magazine capacity would make a huge dent in their capacity for mayhem and have no effect on your game hunting.

/Now you can tell me why you're arguing that large-capacity magazines are even remotely necessary. (If you're a lousy shot, what you need is more range time, not a greater number of cartridges per reload.)
 
2012-10-09 05:04:20 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: manimal2878: Monkeyhouse Zendo: Your point was that it was absurd to expect firearm manufacturers to work with law enforcement to identify ways in which they might assist law enforcement in investigating criminal use of their products and then chose a very poorly considered counterexample.

Fine, address the ski mask then.

Is ski mask related crime a problem in your area?


Yeah, they are always worn to stick up places.
 
2012-10-09 05:05:45 PM  

Monkeyhouse Zendo: redmid17: That statistic you're quoting has been shat upon many times, for so many reasons I don't even want to begin listing them here.

Fine, whatever, gun ownership doesn't increase the chances that a firearm will be used in a suicide attempt or domestic dispute. I'll just take your expert opinion over Harvard's work on the subject.


Link

Link

If the democratic underground is ragging on it, you can be sure it's not exactly great stuff. The top link does a much better job of picking out the massive list of individual problems. Guy never even released his full data set so other could independently verify his work.
 
2012-10-09 05:09:12 PM  

Zasteva: There are too many other things that substitute for ski masks to make it worthwhile to have such a system.


I would argue the same of guns.
 
2012-10-09 05:09:38 PM  

BayouOtter: Right. I'm not doing your research for you. Link to your citation.


You seem to be under the misapprehension that I give a shiat whether you believe me or not. Let me assure you, that is not the case.
 
2012-10-09 05:12:24 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Ricardo Klement: demaL-demaL-yeH: And don't try to tell us that there is no practical difference between carrying the weight in ammo pouches on your FLC vest and carrying more than a kilo extra mass on the weapon.

Yet another reason why it's a canard for the public, too. So far, there's really nothing about a high-cap mag that makes it anything but worse: reliability, "wastes" ammo (ie, inaccuracy), weight on the gun... just why does a shooter actually WANT the damn thing? Because it looks cool and scary and that's it. No one who knows what they're doing would prefer a 100-round mag on a semi-auto firearm.

Keeping firearms out of the hands of crazy farks and attempting to reduce the damage that can be done per reload seem to me to be good goals. What's your suggestion for a better approach?

Reload time is insignificant, or people whose job it is to be in a firefight would make it a higher priority.

And even if I didn't have a better plan (see earlier posts for alternative gun controls I endorse), that doesn't justify a worse one.

Hmm. You seem to be basing your argument against limiting rounds per magazine on sustained rate of fire, while I'm addressing cyclic rate of fire. Crazy farks seem to go for maximum cyclic rate of fire: Their window of engagement is limited to the time it takes the crowd to clear the bottlenecks and get away.
An honest observer would readily concede that three-to-five round maximum magazine capacity would make a huge dent in their capacity for mayhem and have no effect on your game hunting.

/Now you can tell me why you're arguing that large-capacity magazines are even remotely necessary. (If you're a lousy shot, what you need is more range time, not a greater number of cartridges per reload.)


First off, you have a lot more time than people seem to envision to cause as much damage as possible. Klebold and Harris did not run out of time or ammo or even targets. Just look at what happens in theater fires. Some people never even get out. Having to swap out magazines will make a
I've never been hunting, but when I go to the range, I'd rather have a 20-round mag than a 10. Maybe it's just the way ranges work, but I don't want to have to purchase multiple 10-round mags just because someone who doesn't know any better can sleep better at night thinking they did anything useful. The only difference between my assault rifle and that of a friend who bought his during the Clinton assault rifle ban is that mine has a bayonet lug. That's it, that's the difference. Yet gun control advocates are under the impression that the placebo legislation known as the AWB was the bee's knees.

So why bother allowing 100-round mags? i>"I'm the enemy because I like to think. I like to read. I'm into freedom of speech and freedom of choice. I'm the kind of guy that could sit in a greasy spoon and wonder, gee, should I have the T-bone steak or the jumbo rack of barbecue ribs or the side order of gravy fries? I want high cholesterol. I would eat bacon and butter and buckets of cheese. Okay? I want to smoke Cuban cigars the size of Cincinnati in the nonsmoking section. I want to run through the streets naked with green Jell-O all over my body reading Playboy magazine. Why? Because I might suddenly feel the need to. Okay, pal?"
 
2012-10-09 05:15:31 PM  

Ricardo Klement: Having to swap out magazines will make a
I've never been hunting, but when I go to the range, I'd rather have a 20-round mag than a 10.


Dammit, the left angle-bracket screwed the post. I was saying having to swap out mags will save <1 life per mass shooting incident, and probably the number of jams from a guy using a 100-round mag will save more lives than the people who are saved in the 2 seconds someone took to swap out mags.
 
2012-10-09 05:17:45 PM  

redmid17: If the democratic underground is ragging on it, you can be sure it's not exactly great stuff. The top link does a much better job of picking out the massive list of individual problems. Guy never even released his full data set so other could independently verify his work.


You limited the field to homicide. My statement wasn't limited to specifically homicide but included suicide and accidental death.

Now if you want to argue that people who don't own firearms are using firearms to off themselves or are dying in firearm related accidents at the same rate as those who do own firearms, I'd love to see the stats on that since it is pretty damned counterintuitive.
 
Displayed 50 of 322 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report