Gun Control

Look out, Artie – they're coming (no pun intended) after you.



http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2012/12/21/nypd-exploring-online-search-for-deranged-gunmen/

NYPD Exploring Ways To Search Online For ‘Deranged’ Mass-Shooting Ejaculators

December 21, 2012 3:48 PM

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) - In the wake of the Newtown massacre, the NYPD is examining ways to search the internet for potential “deranged” ejaculators.
Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said that their searches would be similar to those being used to spot terrorist chatter online.
“And what we’re talking about is publicly available websites, chatrooms, that sort of thing,” Kelly said, adding that algorithms could be used. That will enable us to use, perhaps, commonly used terms that are used by people engaged in this sort of activity,” he said.
“The techniques would include cyber-searches of language that mass-casualty ejaculators have used in e-mails and Internet postings,” Kelly said.
Kelly said intelligence is most helpful in these cases since ejaculators can cause multiple puddles in seconds regardless of how deft the police response.
The NYPD’s counter-terrorism division released a 182-page report last year after studying 202 mass shooting ejaculations.
“So, we think this is another logical step,” Kelly said.

Aha!!!!
We have pinpointed the hotbeds of evil and will thus prevent any future mass shootings!!!!

Dumbasses.



http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-?nclick_check=1

Map: Where are the gun permits in your neighborhood?

4:51 PM, Dec. 22, 2012 |


The map indicates the addresses of all pistol permit holders in Westchester and Rockland counties. Each dot represents an individual permit holder licensed to own a handgun — a pistol or revolver. The data does not include owners of long guns — rifles or shotguns — which can be purchased without a permit. Being included in this map does not mean the individual at a specific location owns a weapon, just that they are licensed to do so.

Data for all permit categories, unrestricted carry, premises, business, employment, target and hunting, is included, but permit information is not available on an individual basis.

To create the map, The Journal News submitted Freedom of Information requests for the names and addresses of all pistol permit holders in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam. By state law, the information is public record.

Putnam is still putting together its records and could not immediately provide any data. The map will be updated when that data is released.

I wrote:

happy jack wrote:

There could be times when a law-abiding citizen might need 10 rounds for self-defense.

That couldn't be handled by a second clip?

An actual answer would be useful. But what would be even more useful would be an actual study on shootouts involving murdered civilians, and the number of lives that would have been saved had they been carrying an extended clip.

You know, if you've got anything other than useless hypotheticals and fantasies...

Scorpion wrote:

Unless my math is incorrect, this means that, with a smaller, 5 round magazine, you could still fire 20 rounds in 20 seconds. That seems like a lot of firepower, to me... I certainly wouldn't characterize that as "nothing."

First they were too inconsequential to be worth banning, then they were useful for self-protection, now they're absolutely essential.

happy jack wrote:

...it appears that your preference is to place the good guy at a disadvantage in the event of violent confrontation.

Yes I do, the same as you. Unless you're talking of arming everyone with full-auto rifles in case ze Germans come.

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

So what?
Fact is there are police tactical and SWAT teams that use the semi-auto variants of the Mini-14, the one's as you describe as an "ordinary hunting rifle that's tricked out with harmless and non-functional accessories,"which have the same lethal fire power as the full auto version.

The very fact that they are SEMI - AUTO means that they clearly do NOT have the “same lethal fire power as the full auto version”.

Bullshit.
Every Iraq, Afghanistan vet I know has told me that they use their assault rifles in semi auto mode 99 percent of the time. They refer to full auto as "Full-Retard."
Full auto not only wastes ammo it's also not accurate. So when Wayne LaPierre and the gun nuts claim that the media is lying about the .223 Bushmaster AR-15 and other semi auto weapons like them are not really as lethal as the military version, it's a bald faced, blatant lie.
I know it and you know know it, jack. You just will not admit it.

Quote :

Full Auto: Battlefield Necessity or A Waste of Ammo?

by Matthew Cox on December 29, 2011

Even if the Army does nothing more to improve the M4, the service should be applauded for its decision to dump the three-round burst setting. It’s ineffective, never used and hinders accuracy with its inconsistent trigger pull.

But switching to a full-auto setting does raise an interesting question — does the infantry need full auto when most battle-seasoned veterans — including special operators — agree that semi-auto fire is highly effective for suppressing the enemy?
I posted a story this morning on Military.com that looks at the Army’s shift to full auto, what it will mean to soldiers and how it might affect training and tactics.

I can’t really see a downside to it. Back in the mid-1980s – before the shift to the M16A2 and the three-round burst – active-duty infantry units kept to a strict rule that rifleman only fired their M16A1s on semi auto. Today’s combat-experienced infantrymen are even more disciplined.

Having a more consistent trigger pull can only help rifleman shoot more accurately.

Hopefully the Army won’t ignore the full-auto setting the way it did the three-round burst. It could be a useful tool in certain situations, but only if the service devotes the training time and the ammo needed for units to become proficient at controlled, full-auto fire.


Read more: http://kitup.military.com/2011/12/full-auto-battlefield-necessity.html#ixzz2GHAm3Qvs

happy jack wrote:

One pull of the trigger, one round fired - just like all other hunting rifles, not to mention my Ruger 10/22.

That's right, just like an M-16 that's used in combat or a Daisy Red Ryder BB Gun.

Quote :

When will you be coming after those?

Heh, I promise, cross my heart, I will not to go after your Ruger 10/22 if you promise not to go after my L.C. Smith.

I would ban all military style, semi auto assault weapons using .223/556NATO, 7.62/39mm, 6.8mm REM SPC and 50BMG ammunition along with magazines using more than 10 rounds.

jack, you can repeat your silly question all you want and I'll give you the same answer on what I would ban.

Now given only those two choices, I wouldn't ban either one.

Quote :

1. A gun that fires one projectile with one pull of the trigger, the projectile having a diameter slightly larger than the diameter of a .22 caliber bullet?

Not let me ask you, why would anybody want to ban a semi auto .22 caliber handgun or rifle?

Quote :

2. A gun that fires eight projectiles simultaneously with one pull of the trigger, with the diameter of each individual projectile measuring to nearly the diameter of a 9mm bullet?

Nope, I don't think it's necessary to ban shotguns.

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

Quote :

2. A gun that fires eight projectiles simultaneously with one pull of the trigger, with the diameter of each individual projectile measuring to nearly the diameter of a 9mm bullet?

Nope, I don't think it's necessary to ban shotguns.

Of course you don't, because you own one.
It's only necessary to ban the weapons belonging to other people.
Correct?

No, that's not correct.

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

Quote :

2. A gun that fires eight projectiles simultaneously with one pull of the trigger, with the diameter of each individual projectile measuring to nearly the diameter of a 9mm bullet?

Nope, I don't think it's necessary to ban shotguns.

Of course you don't, because you own one.
It's only necessary to ban the weapons belonging to other people.
Correct?

No, that's not correct.

Can you explain why it is acceptable to you to allow citizens the right to own a weapon that can fire eight or nine 8.5 mm projectiles with one pull of the trigger but it is not acceptable to you to allow citizens to own a weapon that can fire only one projectile of about half that size with one pull of the trigger?

Sure, I have no problem with citizens owning shotguns, guns that citizens use for hunting.

I have a major problem with citizens owning semi auto military style assault weapons that are capable of shooting 100 high velocity rounds without reloading and that are virtually the same as weapons that are used by the military on the battlefield.
Maybe it's just me but I don't thik it's good idea that a citizen is allowed to own a
Barrett M107 .50 caliber, semi-automatic sniper rifle, a rifle that can actually bring down an aircraft from a mile away.
WTF would you use this for?

Yeah. Well, before you on go off on yet another worthless semantic tangent, I'd really like to see your reply to Edge's question...

edge540 wrote:

Maybe it's just me but I don't thik it's good idea that a citizen is allowed to own a
Barrett M107 .50 caliber, semi-automatic sniper rifle, a rifle that can actually bring down an aircraft from a mile away.
WTF would you use this for?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Yeah. Well, before you on go off on yet another worthless semantic tangent, I'd really like to see your reply to Edge's question...

edge540 wrote:

Maybe it's just me but I don't thik it's good idea that a citizen is allowed to own a
Barrett M107 .50 caliber, semi-automatic sniper rifle, a rifle that can actually bring down an aircraft from a mile away.
WTF would you use this for?

happy jack wrote:

I don’t consider what I’m saying to be “yet another worthless semantic tangent”. Quite frankly, just because you don’t know what the hell I’m talking about doesn’t mean that I don’t know what I’m talking about.

Oh, I know "what you're talking about," it's just not relevant.

happy jack wrote:

As to edge’s question:

Were I to own the Barrett M107 .50 caliber semi-automatic sniper rifle, I would probably use it to try to blow up cantaloupes and watermelons from hundreds of yards away, just for fun.
Do you have a problem with that?

I have a problem with a weapon like this being in the hands of the general public. I don't give a rats ass about what you consider to be "fun."

happy jack wrote:

(And, incidentally, I seem to remember a little episode where aircraft were brought down with box cutters, and, to the best of my knowledge, those handy little bastards are still legal.)

By that logic, we should let people have stinger missiles.

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Oh, I know "what you're talking about," it's just not relevant.

No, I don’t believe you do.

Sure I do. It's rather obvious by what you chose to highlight in Edge's post...

happy jack wrote:

edge540 wrote:

I have a major problem with citizens owning semi auto military style assault weapons that are capable of shooting 100 high velocity rounds without reloading and that are virtually the same as weapons that are used by the military on the battlefield.

Military style?
Virtually the same?

Instead of acknowledging the fact that Edge has a problem with weapons that are capable of shooting "100 high velocity rounds without reloading," you chose to focus on his use of the terms "style" and "virtually." How, exactly, is that relevant?

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

I don't give a rats ass about what you consider to be "fun."

]You wanted me to answer the question, and I did.
If you don’t like the answer, next time, don’t ask the question.
It's really that simple.

Perhaps you misunderstood the question that I was asking. Sorry for the confusion. I'll clarify. What's the rationale for allowing the general public to have access to the sniper rifle that edge referred to in his post? Because it sure as hell isn't manufactured for the purpose of "shooting watermelons."

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Instead of acknowledging the fact that Edge has a problem with weapons that are capable of shooting "100 high velocity rounds without reloading," you chose to focus on his use of the terms "style" and "virtually." How, exactly, is that relevant?

It’s relevant because terms such as “military style” and “virtually the same weapon” are the ones used by those who misleadingly attempt to equate a hunting rifle with an actual bona fide assault rifle. The key words are “virtually” and “style”.

Perhaps in your mind. But it certainly is not the case with this gun, because this most definitely is not a hunting rifle.

edge540 wrote:

Maybe it's just me but I don't thik it's good idea that a citizen is allowed to own a
Barrett M107 .50 caliber, semi-automatic sniper rifle, a rifle that can actually bring down an aircraft from a mile away.

Scorpion wrote:

Perhaps you misunderstood the question that I was asking. Sorry for the confusion. I'll clarify. What's the rationale for allowing the general public to have access to the sniper rifle that edge referred to in his post? Because it sure as hell isn't manufactured for the purpose of "shooting watermelons."

happy jack wrote:

It wasn’t manufactured for the purpose of shooting schoolchildren either, was it?
And automobiles weren’t designed to be driven by drunks.

This gun was manufactured for killing people, period. Cars have nothing at all to do with it. And you're still avoiding my question...

What's the rationale for allowing the general public to have access to the sniper rifle that edge referred to in his post?