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.

(WTOP)   So just what the heck is an "assault weapon," anyway? A clip? A magazine? Here's your handy-dandy gun glossary so you can sound infromed for the next flamewar   (wtop.com ) divider line 694
    More: Interesting, assault weapons, flame wars, semiautomatic firearms, design change, private ownership, target shooting, Uzi  
•       •       •

10291 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jan 2013 at 9:53 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-01-25 02:06:51 PM  

FlashHarry:

say you're in a bank with 30 other people and an armed madman has started firing at people. would you rather he had 7-round, 20-round, or 30-round magazines? the more often he has to reload, the more chances that somebody will take him out, just as jared loughner was taken out in tucson.


Lemme get this straight: You're expecting the mass murderer to obey the 7-round limit?
 
2013-01-25 02:06:58 PM  

FlashHarry: StoPPeRmobile: CPennypacker: But I thought reloading takes 0 seconds. It doesn't even matter, right? Oh, but it matters now, got it. You have to power to warp time in order to justify your crappy arguments.

This guy is close to warping time.

how many mass shooters have that kind of training?


So, we should require licensing an/or banning of that kind of training?
 
2013-01-25 02:07:15 PM  

FlashHarry: a) THEY'RE POLICE. THAT'S THEIR JOB.
b) when have we had a hurricane that necessitated the killing of more than ten people at a time (between magazine changes) by civilians? did that even happen during katrina?


When was the last time anything, anywhere necessitated the police killing 10 or more people at one time?
 
2013-01-25 02:07:57 PM  

pedrop357: CPennypacker: And again, if the time it takes to reload is insignificant in the context of a mass shooting where the shooter may be facing a dozen or more unarmed people, why is it signficant if far less people are invading your home? You can't have it both ways. Pick one bad argument and stick to it, because they contradict each other.

No, they don't. Nearly all mass shooters shot and reloaded all they wanted, very few in the last 15 years involved anyone stopping them while reloading. They also brought multiple guns and multiple magazines and didn't have to lug it all around very far, nor did they worry about packing it all out.

It's unreasonable to expect an average person to carry multiple guns and magazines to try and work around an arbitrary magazine limit.


How many bulltes do you need to shoot when you're just walking around? Jeez
 
2013-01-25 02:08:21 PM  

pedrop357: CPennypacker: And again, if the time it takes to reload is insignificant in the context of a mass shooting where the shooter may be facing a dozen or more unarmed people, why is it signficant if far less people are invading your home? You can't have it both ways. Pick one bad argument and stick to it, because they contradict each other.

No, they don't. Nearly all mass shooters shot and reloaded all they wanted, very few in the last 15 years involved anyone stopping them while reloading. They also brought multiple guns and multiple magazines and didn't have to lug it all around very far, nor did they worry about packing it all out.

It's unreasonable to expect an average person to carry multiple guns and magazines to try and work around an arbitrary magazine limit.


It's great for the criminal. The criminal just has to wait for you to reload and BLAM!.
 
2013-01-25 02:08:48 PM  

Oblio13: FlashHarry:

say you're in a bank with 30 other people and an armed madman has started firing at people. would you rather he had 7-round, 20-round, or 30-round magazines? the more often he has to reload, the more chances that somebody will take him out, just as jared loughner was taken out in tucson.

Lemme get this straight: You're expecting the mass murderer to obey the 7-round limit?


That, and he thinks everybody dies after being shot once, and that only the police should be able to possess things that (in his words) are for killing 10 or people at a time.
 
2013-01-25 02:09:54 PM  

CPennypacker: Like limiting magazine size won't make a difference because it takes 0 seconds to reload, but we can't limit magazine size because x bullets in the magazine may not be enough to defend your home from murdering rapist zombie looters.

Or banning guns won't do anything because the maniacs will just use knives or hammers, which are just as deadly, but don't ban guns because I need them to defend myself, even though I have a knife and a hammer.


I bet the number of times someone needed more than 10 rounds to defend his home is probably fewer than the times someone was able to intervene during a magazine swap.  But the cannibalizing of arguments works both ways.  "You're going to be too scared to shoot back," and, "You can just tackle the guy with the gun when he swaps magazines," seem pretty contradictory in premise.

Banning all guns will do something.  Banning a small subset of guns won't.  Banning high-capacity magazines will probably never do anything for a variety of reasons.  Maybe a ban 30 years ago would, by now, matter.  But between the glut of mags and 3-D printing in the relatively near future, magazine bans are simply unlikely to matter much.

I'd rather people not ban something that is only responsible for 3% of murders (if that) and then declare victory.  It's insulting.
 
2013-01-25 02:10:10 PM  

Thunderpipes: CPennypacker: Thunderpipes: Oblio13: vygramul: ...Still waiting for Aurora theater shooting report...

I got to hear a law enforcement analysis of it. What disturbed me most is that no one "attacked the attacker". He was wearing a fogged-up gas mask with no peripheral vision. There were many people to his sides and rear within touching distance. Several described being hit by his ejected brass. Yet not one made an attempt at active resistance, even when he was fumbling with things. The universal reactions were to run or cower. He executed people at will until he got tired of it and went outside and gave up. Have Americans really become this conditioned to behave like victims?

This. People are scaredy piss-pants that someone can fire for minutes and minutes? Throw a coat at him. Jump on him. School shooting? Why can't the teachers throw a chair or something? Just that would probably be enough to make the shooter panic.

Yes, Americans are pussies now, big time. They probably think the shooter is a bully, and they must wait to call the principal, police, or their mommies.

More hero fantasy bullshiat. Lets see how you two react when you're in a dark, crowded theater and some maniac bursts in armed to the teeth and starts mowing people down. I'm sure you'd be the first ones to jump on him.

Damn right I would. Ya, I might poop myself, but unless he gets me first, and if I am anywhere near? Hell ya. Sure not going to let him shoot people for 5-10 minutes.

Now think about this. How many kids today, grow up getting into fights at all? I have a step son in 3rd grade right now, I have never even once heard of any incident at all. Of course people today will cower. That is what they are taught. Want to prevent mass murders? Teach people to instantly attack shooters with anything around them. Obviously would not work well in Sandy Hook, but the theater shooting was just terrible.


You sure would, you're in internet badass. If only you were there.
 
2013-01-25 02:10:26 PM  

CPennypacker: How many bulltes do you need to shoot when you're just walking around? Jeez


Ahhh, the old "why do you need that?" line.

How about letting me carry the 16 my magazine holds instead of artificially limiting me to 10 in the same form factor. I hope I never know if those 'extra' 6 make a difference.
 
2013-01-25 02:10:49 PM  

arentol: Holocaust Agnostic: ph0rk: Ivandrago: Did you even read the rest of my post? There are "normal" people who own guns.

Yes, but the political stage requires more than "normal" people with guns; it requires a "normal people" gun lobby.

You point out what is currently proposed and will not work. What, please tell us, will work that has not been proposed?

Closing the private sales loophole. Reasonable rules about storage. Proper mental health reporting to nics. A gun license.

There is no private sales loophole. But we can close up what you believe to be a loophole as soon as we start regulating the sale of anything else that can be used to kill or harm someone relatively easily. Kitchen knives, Chainsaws, baseball bats, cars, tire irons, lawn mowers, etc. In order to sell such things to someone you will have to have them fill out a form and put that information into an internet site (or call it in) and find out if the person is safe to sell to or not. You will have to pay $5 for each such check. Then you will have to keep the paperwork for the rest of your life. To purchase such items and have them shipped across state lines you will have to go through a registered agent who will charge you $30 or so to process the paperwork.

Same thing for storage of the dangerous items mentioned above. All such items will have to be securely locked away in a safe and things that make them more dangerous, like gas for a chainsaw, will have to be locked in a separate safe.

Also, I am all for a gun license. We shouid do it at the same time we pass some other important licensing laws, like licenses to:

Let you say what you want. Without it you would go to prison for saying anything someone else doesn't like.
Let you refuse a voluntary search of your home and person. Without it the police could strip search you and your family anytime they like.
Let you have due process of law and a speedy trial by a jury of your peers. Without it a judge could find you guilty of a crime at any time ...


Posts dont get much dumber than this.
 
2013-01-25 02:11:22 PM  

vygramul: CPennypacker: Like limiting magazine size won't make a difference because it takes 0 seconds to reload, but we can't limit magazine size because x bullets in the magazine may not be enough to defend your home from murdering rapist zombie looters.

Or banning guns won't do anything because the maniacs will just use knives or hammers, which are just as deadly, but don't ban guns because I need them to defend myself, even though I have a knife and a hammer.

I bet the number of times someone needed more than 10 rounds to defend his home is probably fewer than the times someone was able to intervene during a magazine swap.  But the cannibalizing of arguments works both ways.  "You're going to be too scared to shoot back," and, "You can just tackle the guy with the gun when he swaps magazines," seem pretty contradictory in premise.

Banning all guns will do something.  Banning a small subset of guns won't.  Banning high-capacity magazines will probably never do anything for a variety of reasons.  Maybe a ban 30 years ago would, by now, matter.  But between the glut of mags and 3-D printing in the relatively near future, magazine bans are simply unlikely to matter much.

I'd rather people not ban something that is only responsible for 3% of murders (if that) and then declare victory.  It's insulting.


I'm OK with reducing murders 3% if the only cost is that you have to reload two more times at the range.
 
2013-01-25 02:11:42 PM  

Oblio13: Lemme get this straight: You're expecting the mass murderer to obey the 7-round limit?


if the guns were obtained legally - as seems to be the case with most mass shootings - then, yes, i would expect the mass murderer to use whatever was obtainable legally. if only 10-round magazines were available, i would imagine he (and it's always a he) would use 10-round magazines.

obviously a 10-round limit passed today wouldn't get rid of the high-capacity mags floating around, but it would be a start.
 
2013-01-25 02:11:42 PM  

syrynxx: A "high-capacity" magazine is also a misleading, artificial term.  The Glock 17 is issued with a 17-round magazine.  That is not a high-capacity magazine, it is standard-capacity.  The M-16 and AR-15 most commonly use a 30-round magazine.  That is not a high-capacity magazine, it is standard-capacity.


world.guns.ru
100 rounds. Standard.
 
2013-01-25 02:12:18 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: djh0101010: StoPPeRmobile: Closing the private sales loophole. Reasonable rules about storage. Proper mental health reporting to nics. A gun license.

I want a voting license. It's reasonable. How can you be against something that is reasonable?

Close the voting loophole!


Hell, we can't even get a law to stick in Wisconsin that people have to show an ID to register or vote. You need to show a picture ID to get a bus pass, but all you need to vote is to walk in and claim to be someone who lives in the district.

It's ridiculous. It's why Americans aren't safer. Close the voting loophole.


You mean registration?

I keep asking what youre talking about, you keep dodging it. You already have to register to vote. Do you have to register to buy a gun?

Now shut up
 
2013-01-25 02:12:38 PM  

FlashHarry: ... THEY'RE POLICE. THAT'S THEIR JOB...


There are long, long moments between when a crime occurs and the police can arrive to save you, even assuming that there's a way to summon them and that they don't choke on their donuts or wet themselves. During the critical phase of violence, you are on your own.
 
2013-01-25 02:13:11 PM  

CPennypacker: I'm OK with reducing murders 3% if the only cost is that you have to reload two more times at the range.


Magazine capacity is barely a factor in mas shootings that account for 1% of homicides, and probably minimal or nothing all for the more day-to-day shootings no one seems to care about.

The 3% number undoubtedly comes from the percentage of ALL rifles used in homicides.
 
2013-01-25 02:13:20 PM  

pedrop357: FlashHarry: a) THEY'RE POLICE. THAT'S THEIR JOB.
b) when have we had a hurricane that necessitated the killing of more than ten people at a time (between magazine changes) by civilians? did that even happen during katrina?

When was the last time anything, anywhere necessitated the police killing 10 or more people at one time?


The hostage crisis last week.
 
2013-01-25 02:13:31 PM  

CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: And again, if the time it takes to reload is insignificant in the context of a mass shooting where the shooter may be facing a dozen or more unarmed people, why is it signficant if far less people are invading your home? You can't have it both ways. Pick one bad argument and stick to it, because they contradict each other.

No, they don't. Nearly all mass shooters shot and reloaded all they wanted, very few in the last 15 years involved anyone stopping them while reloading. They also brought multiple guns and multiple magazines and didn't have to lug it all around very far, nor did they worry about packing it all out.

It's unreasonable to expect an average person to carry multiple guns and magazines to try and work around an arbitrary magazine limit.

How many bulltes do you need to shoot when you're just walking around? Jeez


So a limit on capacity for conceal carried weapons? OK, that should be withing the regulatory power of the states.
 
2013-01-25 02:14:09 PM  

Oblio13: vygramul: ...Still waiting for Aurora theater shooting report...

I got to hear a law enforcement analysis of it. What disturbed me most is that no one "attacked the attacker". He was wearing a fogged-up gas mask with no peripheral vision. There were many people to his sides and rear within touching distance. Several described being hit by his ejected brass. Yet not one made an attempt at active resistance, even when he was fumbling with things. The universal reactions were to run or cower. He executed people at will until he got tired of it and went outside and gave up. Have Americans really become this conditioned to behave like victims?


I am not going to judge someone in that situation - I just can't.  I've never been in combat, but I've been told by plenty of people who have that you simply don't know how you're going to react the first time.  It's a scary, confusing situation with a lot of chaos and frequently someone whose safety you're responsible for.

I'm not going to judge them.
 
2013-01-25 02:14:39 PM  

CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: And again, if the time it takes to reload is insignificant in the context of a mass shooting where the shooter may be facing a dozen or more unarmed people, why is it signficant if far less people are invading your home? You can't have it both ways. Pick one bad argument and stick to it, because they contradict each other.

No, they don't. Nearly all mass shooters shot and reloaded all they wanted, very few in the last 15 years involved anyone stopping them while reloading. They also brought multiple guns and multiple magazines and didn't have to lug it all around very far, nor did they worry about packing it all out.

It's unreasonable to expect an average person to carry multiple guns and magazines to try and work around an arbitrary magazine limit.

How many bulltes do you need to shoot when you're just walking around? Jeez


Ask some rich people with armed security.

/but but thats different
 
2013-01-25 02:15:28 PM  

Oblio13: FlashHarry: ... THEY'RE POLICE. THAT'S THEIR JOB...

There are long, long moments between when a crime occurs and the police can arrive to save you, even assuming that there's a way to summon them and that they don't choke on their donuts or wet themselves. During the critical phase of violence, you are on your own.


He moved the goalposts.

he went from "there's a HUGE difference between a hurricane and a hurricane that necessitates the killing of more than 10 people at a time."

To 'it's their job' when I said to tell that to the police.

Apparently job of the police is to kill 10 or more people a time. But i guess we're all paranoid for wanting to be sufficiently armed against such stuff.
 
2013-01-25 02:15:33 PM  

pedrop357: Oblio13: I got to hear a law enforcement analysis of it. What disturbed me most is that no one "attacked the attacker". He was wearing a fogged-up gas mask with no peripheral vision. There were many people to his sides and rear within touching distance. Several described being hit by his ejected brass. Yet not one made an attempt at active resistance, even when he was fumbling with things. The universal reactions were to run or cower. He executed people at will until he got tired of it and went outside and gave up. Have Americans really become this conditioned to behave like victims?

I think the fight or flight response veers strongly towards flight when you're not armed and you realize he is. It seems like a heck of a threshold to convince yourself to cross.


It definitely is, but if you are in the same room as an active shooter, active resistance against them, even *UNARMED* active resistance, is better than passive behavior.

Even the government says that's the best option when you've run out of other options.

There is some actual evidence that "civilian" resistance to active shooters results in fewer deaths overall.
 
2013-01-25 02:16:54 PM  

CPennypacker:
How many bulltes do you need to shoot when you're just walking around? Jeez


In some of my walkabouts, I'll shoot 200 to 300 rounds. What is your point?
 
2013-01-25 02:16:59 PM  

Oblio13: FlashHarry: ... THEY'RE POLICE. THAT'S THEIR JOB...

There are long, long moments between when a crime occurs and the police can arrive to save you, even assuming that there's a way to summon them and that they don't choke on their donuts or wet themselves. During the critical phase of violence, you are on your own.


but you can defend yourself with a shotgun, a 10-round semi-auto handgun or whatever. you don't need an AR15 with a 30-round clip.

nobody is talking about taking ALL guns. hell, i'm not even talking about banning "assault weapons," as it has been pointed out to me on many a fark thread that they're really just regular hunting rifles dressed up so people can run around playing army. i'm saying that you can have a 10-round magazine that LOOKS like a 30-round magazine, so you can still pretend to be a green beret at the shooting range.
 
2013-01-25 02:18:28 PM  

FlashHarry: but you can defend yourself with a shotgun, a 10-round semi-auto handgun or whatever. you don't need an AR15 with a 30-round clip.

nobody is talking about taking ALL guns. hell, i'm not even talking about banning "assault weapons," as it has been pointed out to me on many a fark thread that they're really just regular hunting rifles dressed up so people can run around playing army. i'm saying that you can have a 10-round magazine that LOOKS like a 30-round magazine, so you can still pretend to be a green beret at the shooting range.



Who are you to decide what people need in every circumstance?
 
2013-01-25 02:19:00 PM  

vygramul: Oblio13: vygramul: ...Still waiting for Aurora theater shooting report...

I got to hear a law enforcement analysis of it. What disturbed me most is that no one "attacked the attacker". He was wearing a fogged-up gas mask with no peripheral vision. There were many people to his sides and rear within touching distance. Several described being hit by his ejected brass. Yet not one made an attempt at active resistance, even when he was fumbling with things. The universal reactions were to run or cower. He executed people at will until he got tired of it and went outside and gave up. Have Americans really become this conditioned to behave like victims?

I am not going to judge someone in that situation - I just can't.  I've never been in combat, but I've been told by plenty of people who have that you simply don't know how you're going to react the first time.  It's a scary, confusing situation with a lot of chaos and frequently someone whose safety you're responsible for.

I'm not going to judge them.


Indeed not. Some judgement perhaps can be cast on the society that produced them though. And also produced their killer, for that matter.
 
2013-01-25 02:19:08 PM  

pedrop357: he went from "there's a HUGE difference between a hurricane and a hurricane that necessitates the killing of more than 10 people at a time."

To 'it's their job' when I said to tell that to the police.

Apparently job of the police is to kill 10 or more people a time. But i guess we're all paranoid for wanting to be sufficiently armed against such stuff.


the police could conceivably be in a situation (a gang shootout, for instance) that would require them to have a high-capacity weapon. the chance that YOU would ever be in that situation is next to ZERO.

again - i don't want to ban guns. i don't want to ban "assault weapons." i just don't see why civilians need more than 10 rounds in a magazine.
 
2013-01-25 02:19:22 PM  

pedrop357: CPennypacker: How many bulltes do you need to shoot when you're just walking around? Jeez

Ahhh, the old "why do you need that?" line.

How about letting me carry the 16 my magazine holds instead of artificially limiting me to 10 in the same form factor. I hope I never know if those 'extra' 6 make a difference.


Personally, I don't think we need guns at all, but I don't think we should take them all away or that that will necassarily fix anything. But if limiting magazine size will result in even one less massacre death and your only response is, "hurr, I hope I never know if those extra 6 make a difference," I'll err on the side of saving the life. Because at the end of the day, you still get to carry a gun.
 
2013-01-25 02:19:55 PM  

FlashHarry: but you can defend yourself with a shotgun, a 10-round semi-auto handgun or whatever. you don't need an AR15 with a 30-round clip.


That would work well for thing within a couple yards. The AR woudl be more suited for targets at a further distance (over 50 yards or so).
 
2013-01-25 02:20:23 PM  

StoPPeRmobile: CPennypacker: pedrop357: CPennypacker: And again, if the time it takes to reload is insignificant in the context of a mass shooting where the shooter may be facing a dozen or more unarmed people, why is it signficant if far less people are invading your home? You can't have it both ways. Pick one bad argument and stick to it, because they contradict each other.

No, they don't. Nearly all mass shooters shot and reloaded all they wanted, very few in the last 15 years involved anyone stopping them while reloading. They also brought multiple guns and multiple magazines and didn't have to lug it all around very far, nor did they worry about packing it all out.

It's unreasonable to expect an average person to carry multiple guns and magazines to try and work around an arbitrary magazine limit.

How many bulltes do you need to shoot when you're just walking around? Jeez

Ask some rich people with armed security.

/but but thats different


What do I care about some rich guy's armed security detail?
 
2013-01-25 02:20:33 PM  

pedrop357: Who are you to decide what people need in every circumstance?


i'm not making any decision. that's for the government. i'm merely stating my position on the issue. this is fark. we do that here. try to keep up.
 
2013-01-25 02:20:35 PM  

FlashHarry: but you can defend yourself with a shotgun, a 10-round semi-auto handgun or whatever. you don't need an AR15 with a 30-round clip.


Can my any of my clip fed shotguns have a 30 rd mag?
 
2013-01-25 02:20:53 PM  

FlashHarry: the police could conceivably be in a situation (a gang shootout, for instance) that would require them to have a high-capacity weapon. the chance that YOU would ever be in that situation is next to ZERO.

again - i don't want to ban guns. i don't want to ban "assault weapons." i just don't see why civilians need more than 10 rounds in a magazine.


I do see why. They face the same threats the police do before the police do. Gang shootouts are surprisingly rare.

Not everyone is stopped with one shot. Not every attack is one-on-one.
 
2013-01-25 02:21:31 PM  

HeadLever: FlashHarry: but you can defend yourself with a shotgun, a 10-round semi-auto handgun or whatever. you don't need an AR15 with a 30-round clip.

That would work well for thing within a couple yards. The AR woudl be more suited for targets at a further distance (over 50 yards or so).


when are you shooting humans at greater than 50 yards? and even if you are, why can't you use a bolt-action .30-06?
 
2013-01-25 02:21:33 PM  

CPennypacker: Personally, I don't think we need guns at all, but I don't think we should take them all away or that that will necassarily fix anything. But if limiting magazine size will result in even one less massacre death and your only response is, "hurr, I hope I never know if those extra 6 make a difference," I'll err on the side of saving the life. Because at the end of the day, you still get to carry a gun.


How convenient for you to suggest that decision be made for everyone.
 
2013-01-25 02:21:50 PM  

FlashHarry: i would imagine he (and it's always a he)


No it isn't
 
2013-01-25 02:22:45 PM  

FlashHarry: when are you shooting humans at greater than 50 yards? and even if you are, why can't you use a bolt-action .30-06?


Probably because they have an AR? Why do I have to use something else when the thing I have will work just fine?
 
2013-01-25 02:23:07 PM  

pedrop357: CPennypacker: Personally, I don't think we need guns at all, but I don't think we should take them all away or that that will necassarily fix anything. But if limiting magazine size will result in even one less massacre death and your only response is, "hurr, I hope I never know if those extra 6 make a difference," I'll err on the side of saving the life. Because at the end of the day, you still get to carry a gun.

How convenient for you to suggest that decision be made for everyone.


Isn't that what a regulation is?
 
2013-01-25 02:23:32 PM  

FlashHarry: when are you shooting humans at greater than 50 yards? Why can't you use a bolt-action .30-06


Ask Lon Horiuchi
 
2013-01-25 02:23:38 PM  

pedrop357: Oblio13: I got to hear a law enforcement analysis of it. What disturbed me most is that no one "attacked the attacker". He was wearing a fogged-up gas mask with no peripheral vision. There were many people to his sides and rear within touching distance. Several described being hit by his ejected brass. Yet not one made an attempt at active resistance, even when he was fumbling with things. The universal reactions were to run or cower. He executed people at will until he got tired of it and went outside and gave up. Have Americans really become this conditioned to behave like victims?

I think the fight or flight response veers strongly towards flight when you're not armed and you realize he is. It seems like a heck of a threshold to convince yourself to cross.


Indeed, and that's the best option IF you have a way out and IF there's no one you mind leaving behind. The initial reactions to extreme violence are panic and confusion. But there comes a point when people understand what's going on and they are capable of making conscious decisions. The same briefing covered Columbine, and there, too, no one made any attempt to resist. People cowered under desks in puddles of urine and waited for the barrel to be put to their heads. No one can know how they'd react until they've been there, but I was unpleasantly surprised that there wasn't at least some jock who threw a chair.
 
2013-01-25 02:23:56 PM  

pedrop357: I do see why. They face the same threats the police do before the police do. Gang shootouts are surprisingly rare.


no they don't. not by a long-shot. where in the united states do civilians face the same threats the police do on a regular basis?

and as for gang shootouts, i live in omaha. we have gang drive-bys in north omaha on a fairly regular basis. our gang task force wears body armor and carries assault weapons. as well they should. and that's in li'l ol' omaha. i imagine that in los angeles or chicago, this would be even more necessary.
 
2013-01-25 02:24:24 PM  

CPennypacker: Isn't that what a regulation is?


Sure, but I'm questioning your position that it's OK to limit the self defense options of everyone everywhere simply to maybe save one life in a mass shooting.

If that's the standard, how about we allow concealed carriers to carry in schools like they do everywhere else, if it'll save a single life?
 
2013-01-25 02:25:15 PM  

dittybopper: FlashHarry: i would imagine he (and it's always a he)

No it isn't


you found one girl who did it 34 years ago. i stand corrected.
 
2013-01-25 02:25:56 PM  

pedrop357: If that's the standard, how about we allow concealed carriers to carry in schools like they do everywhere else, if it'll save a single life?


because it's likely to cost more lives than it saves.
 
2013-01-25 02:26:18 PM  

FlashHarry: HeadLever: FlashHarry: but you can defend yourself with a shotgun, a 10-round semi-auto handgun or whatever. you don't need an AR15 with a 30-round clip.

That would work well for thing within a couple yards. The AR woudl be more suited for targets at a further distance (over 50 yards or so).

when are you shooting humans at greater than 50 yards? and even if you are, why can't you use a bolt-action .30-06?


Riots, civil unrest, that sort of thing.
 
2013-01-25 02:26:55 PM  

vygramul: CPennypacker: Like limiting magazine size won't make a difference because it takes 0 seconds to reload, but we can't limit magazine size because x bullets in the magazine may not be enough to defend your home from murdering rapist zombie looters.

Or banning guns won't do anything because the maniacs will just use knives or hammers, which are just as deadly, but don't ban guns because I need them to defend myself, even though I have a knife and a hammer.

I bet the number of times someone needed more than 10 rounds to defend his home is probably fewer than the times someone was able to intervene during a magazine swap.  But the cannibalizing of arguments works both ways.  "You're going to be too scared to shoot back," and, "You can just tackle the guy with the gun when he swaps magazines," seem pretty contradictory in premise.

Banning all guns will do something.  Banning a small subset of guns won't.  Banning high-capacity magazines will probably never do anything for a variety of reasons.  Maybe a ban 30 years ago would, by now, matter.  But between the glut of mags and 3-D printing in the relatively near future, magazine bans are simply unlikely to matter much.

I'd rather people not ban something that is only responsible for 3% of murders (if that) and then declare victory.  It's insulting.


I wonder how many hundreds of thousands of guns are hidden or buried in the country.
 
2013-01-25 02:27:07 PM  

FlashHarry: pedrop357: If that's the standard, how about we allow concealed carriers to carry in schools like they do everywhere else, if it'll save a single life?

because it's likely to cost more lives than it saves.


Hasn't cost any lives in NH, UT, AL, OR, or MS. Nor at universities in CO, CT, ME
 
2013-01-25 02:27:09 PM  

pedrop357: FlashHarry: when are you shooting humans at greater than 50 yards? and even if you are, why can't you use a bolt-action .30-06?

Probably because they have an AR? Why do I have to use something else when the thing I have will work just fine?


i'm saying that you don't need an AR. that was my point. try to keep up.
 
2013-01-25 02:28:03 PM  

CPennypacker: vygramul: CPennypacker: Like limiting magazine size won't make a difference because it takes 0 seconds to reload, but we can't limit magazine size because x bullets in the magazine may not be enough to defend your home from murdering rapist zombie looters.

Or banning guns won't do anything because the maniacs will just use knives or hammers, which are just as deadly, but don't ban guns because I need them to defend myself, even though I have a knife and a hammer.

I bet the number of times someone needed more than 10 rounds to defend his home is probably fewer than the times someone was able to intervene during a magazine swap.  But the cannibalizing of arguments works both ways.  "You're going to be too scared to shoot back," and, "You can just tackle the guy with the gun when he swaps magazines," seem pretty contradictory in premise.

Banning all guns will do something.  Banning a small subset of guns won't.  Banning high-capacity magazines will probably never do anything for a variety of reasons.  Maybe a ban 30 years ago would, by now, matter.  But between the glut of mags and 3-D printing in the relatively near future, magazine bans are simply unlikely to matter much.

I'd rather people not ban something that is only responsible for 3% of murders (if that) and then declare victory.  It's insulting.

I'm OK with reducing murders 3% if the only cost is that you have to reload two more times at the range.


If it would reduce murders 3%, sure.  Notice that the 1998 shooting with a 50-round magazine happened during the AWB when high-cap mags were banned?  It's like banning Coke but not Pepsi.  You probably won't have a measurable impact at all.  In fact, it might be counter-productive because you might set up an incentive to use more useful weapons.  An assault rifle might be less effective for shootings than a pair of handguns.  after all, despite this being the 50th anniversary of civilian access to the AR-15, of the top-11 deadliest shootings, the AR was only responsible for the majority of deaths in exactly one - and it ranks third.

Society has a legitimate interest in deciding if the original calculation about weapons in society holds true.  I'm not sure it does, and so the answer isn't to have a ban so weak that it leaves too many effective alternatives in place while expending all political capital on it.
 
2013-01-25 02:28:16 PM  

pedrop357: CPennypacker: Isn't that what a regulation is?

Sure, but I'm questioning your position that it's OK to limit the self defense options of everyone everywhere simply to maybe save one life in a mass shooting.

If that's the standard, how about we allow concealed carriers to carry in schools like they do everywhere else, if it'll save a single life?


You could get attacked by a MiG29, I guess we shouldn't limit civilian access to Surface to Air missiles either.

And before we allow concealed carry in school maybe we should assess the risk vs reward there.
 
Displayed 50 of 694 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
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