Gun Control

Posts : 3520

happy jack wrote:: So, over a span encompassing about 20 years, 34 people died in shootings that you are trying to somehow equate to the Connecticut incident (and even those numbers are highly skewed by the single Texas Tower incident).

Do you seriously consider that to be an epidemic, or even a trend?

I didn't claim it to be anything. You made the claim that "things like this didn't happen", which clearly wasn't true.

Now, if you're using that as an attempt to argue that availability of guns don't matter, I don't see how you can do so with any degree of certainty without know the answer to this:

Quote :: What were the particulars of gun ownership during those times? What types, how many, where could you get them, etc....

Posts : 1165

Quote :: "I am trying to show you how utterly useless a ban on high-capacity magazines would ultimately be."

Well fact is, no it would not, Travis.
Jered Lee Loughner used a 33 round clip when he killed 6 people and shot Gabby Giffords in the head in Tucson last year. After he emptied the clip he stopped to reload and dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk. You see, that's when he was subdued by the bystanders he was was trying to kill. It's obvious to anyone with a functioning brain that is not located below their belt that less people would have been killed and injured if Mr. Loughner had been using a standard 10 round magazine, Travis.
So the claim that a ban on high-capacity magazines would ultimately, utterly useless, is not only ridiculous, it's fucking ignorant.

Posts : 2141

Wow - You two really don't like each other, do you? Personally, I have zero experience firing a gun with any type of magazine, so I thought that Jack's theoretical "play-by-play" was chilling, but illuminating.

I do think it's a bit ridiculous to portray jack as some kind of homicidal lunatic, Artie. If you truly want an honest discussion, then you have to expect your "opponent" to put forth ideas that you don't like. There's no reason to portray a person as a potential child killer just because they disagree with you.

Posts : 9728

Scorpion wrote:: Wow - You two really don't like each other, do you? Personally, I have zero experience firing a gun with any type of magazine, so I thought that Jack's theoretical "play-by-play" was chilling, but illuminating.

I do think it's a bit ridiculous to portray jack as some kind of homicidal lunatic, Artie. If you truly want an honest discussion, then you have to expect your "opponent" to put forth ideas that you don't like. There's no reason to portray a person as a potential child killer just because they disagree with you.

Really Scorpion? Do you know him personally? None of us do,AFAIK. Can you guarantee that he would never snap and act on those fantasies?

What I do know is that he posted a well thought out scenario and plan of a massacre that obviously he's spent a lot of time fantasizing about. He also,by his own admission,has frequently practiced on how many rounds he can fire,and the time it takes to reload,the time in which LE would respond, and has ready access to guns and magazines of mass destruction. To sum it up,he has a plan and a means to carry it out. That is extremely disturbing to say the least and I'm sure that law enforcement and mental health professionals would agree with me.

How many times after a tragedy have we heard. "Well he/she would say some crazy things,but none of us took them seriously".

Posts : 3520

Artie60438 wrote:: Really Scorpion? Do you know him personally? None of us do,AFAIK. Can you guarantee that he would never snap and act on those fantasies?

Seriously, d00d... You're reaching.

happy jack != Moby Grape

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Wow - You two really don't like each other, do you? Personally, I have zero experience firing a gun with any type of magazine, so I thought that Jack's theoretical "play-by-play" was chilling, but illuminating.

I do think it's a bit ridiculous to portray jack as some kind of homicidal lunatic, Artie. If you truly want an honest discussion, then you have to expect your "opponent" to put forth ideas that you don't like. There's no reason to portray a person as a potential child killer just because they disagree with you.

Really Scorpion? Do you know him personally? None of us do,AFAIK. Can you guarantee that he would never snap and act on those fantasies?

What I do know is that he posted a well thought out scenario and plan of a massacre that obviously he's spent a lot of time fantasizing about. He also,by his own admission,has frequently practiced on how many rounds he can fire,and the time it takes to reload,the time in which LE would respond, and has ready access to guns and magazines of mass destruction. To sum it up,he has a plan and a means to carry it out. That is extremely disturbing to say the least and I'm sure that law enforcement and mental health professionals would agree with me.

How many times after a tragedy have we heard. "Well he/she would say some crazy things,but none of us took them seriously".

Apparently, someone is about to snap.
Glad it ain't me.
Say "Hi!" to the nice men in the white coats, Artie.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: Wow - You two really don't like each other, do you? Personally, I have zero experience firing a gun with any type of magazine, so I thought that Jack's theoretical "play-by-play" was chilling, but illuminating.

I do think it's a bit ridiculous to portray jack as some kind of homicidal lunatic, Artie. If you truly want an honest discussion, then you have to expect your "opponent" to put forth ideas that you don't like. There's no reason to portray a person as a potential child killer just because they disagree with you.

That’s the thing, Scorpion; if you’re not into guns or shooting as a diversion, then there’s no reason you should be expected to know about magazines and their capabilities. But don’t take my word for it – check around and you’ll see that the scenario and timeline that I laid out (and that our resident lying pussyboy attempted to twist and exploit) is quite feasible, and I was using pretty conservative numbers, too.
My main objection to the attempt to ban such magazines is not for the reason you might think. Although I like to use them for the sake of convenience at the range, if they were banned I wouldn’t lose a whole lot of sleep over it (plus, they tend to misfeed ammunition a whole lot more often than smaller-capacity clips, so reliability is also an issue). My primary objection is that a ban on high-capacity magazines would not even come close to being the cure-all some people seem to think it would be, and would do nothing but provide a false sense of security. It would be a case of people, people who don’t know what they are doing in the first place, doing something just so they can say they did something. The sheer ignorance of some of these legislators on the topic of firearms, the ones who would be responsible for making such decisions, can be astounding. I have heard shotguns referred to as rifles, shotgun shells referred to as bullets, and even a proposal to limit the magazine capacity of revolvers (????). These are not the people who should be making any decisions on firearm legislation, at least not until they invest the time and effort to educate themselves on the subject. They are the ones who have taken ordinary hunting rifles that are tricked out with harmless and non-functional accessories and have redefined them as ‘assault weapons’. You can attach as much crap as you want to a hunting rifle, and it may look scary, but at the end of the day it still will fire only one round per trigger pull; to call it an assault weapon is a joke. Any soldier or tactical officer or agent preparing for an actual assault would not be carrying one of those as his primary weapon, at least not if he hopes to increase his odds of survival.

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Wow - You two really don't like each other, do you? Personally, I have zero experience firing a gun with any type of magazine, so I thought that Jack's theoretical "play-by-play" was chilling, but illuminating.

I do think it's a bit ridiculous to portray jack as some kind of homicidal lunatic, Artie. If you truly want an honest discussion, then you have to expect your "opponent" to put forth ideas that you don't like. There's no reason to portray a person as a potential child killer just because they disagree with you.

Really Scorpion? Do you know him personally? None of us do,AFAIK. Can you guarantee that he would never snap and act on those fantasies?

What I do know is that he posted a well thought out scenario and plan of a massacre that obviously he's spent a lot of time fantasizing about. He also,by his own admission,has frequently practiced on how many rounds he can fire,and the time it takes to reload,the time in which LE would respond, and has ready access to guns and magazines of mass destruction. To sum it up,he has a plan and a means to carry it out. That is extremely disturbing to say the least and I'm sure that law enforcement and mental health professionals would agree with me.

How many times after a tragedy have we heard. "Well he/she would say some crazy things,but none of us took them seriously".

[b]Apparently, someone is about to snap.
Glad it ain't me.
Say "Hi!" to the nice men in the white coats, Artie.

No one will be knocking on my door since I'm not the one posting twisted fantasies of massacres complete with time-lines. cyclops

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Wow - You two really don't like each other, do you? Personally, I have zero experience firing a gun with any type of magazine, so I thought that Jack's theoretical "play-by-play" was chilling, but illuminating.

I do think it's a bit ridiculous to portray jack as some kind of homicidal lunatic, Artie. If you truly want an honest discussion, then you have to expect your "opponent" to put forth ideas that you don't like. There's no reason to portray a person as a potential child killer just because they disagree with you.

Really Scorpion? Do you know him personally? None of us do,AFAIK. Can you guarantee that he would never snap and act on those fantasies?

What I do know is that he posted a well thought out scenario and plan of a massacre that obviously he's spent a lot of time fantasizing about. He also,by his own admission,has frequently practiced on how many rounds he can fire,and the time it takes to reload,the time in which LE would respond, and has ready access to guns and magazines of mass destruction. To sum it up,he has a plan and a means to carry it out. That is extremely disturbing to say the least and I'm sure that law enforcement and mental health professionals would agree with me.

How many times after a tragedy have we heard. "Well he/she would say some crazy things,but none of us took them seriously".

[b]Apparently, someone is about to snap.
Glad it ain't me.
Say "Hi!" to the nice men in the white coats, Artie.

No one will be knocking on my door since I'm not the one posting twisted fantasies of massacres complete with time-lines. cyclops

No one will be knocking on your door because nobody likes you.

Posts : 6988

Heretic wrote:

Now, if you're using that as an attempt to argue that availability of guns don't matter, I don't see how you can do so with any degree of certainty without know the answer to this:

Quote :: What were the particulars of gun ownership during those times? What types, how many, where could you get them, etc....

That is something I haven’t had time to look into at any length, but I will when I can. My first impression, though, is that guns couldn’t have been too difficult to obtain because, if I remember correctly, part of the impetus for the 1968 Gun Control Act was the fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was able to get the gun he used to shoot JFK through the mail.

Posts : 1165

happy jack wrote:: Any soldier or tactical officer or agent preparing for an actual assault would not be carrying one of those as his primary weapon, at least not if he hopes to increase his odds of survival.

That's bullshit.

The Ruger Mini-14, the "ordinary hunting rifle" thats "tricked out with harmless and non-functional accessories" is used or has been used by:

Quote :: Australia: Previously used in the 1980s/1990s by the New South Wales Department of Corrective Services.

France: Used since the 1980s by the Compagnies Républicaines de Sécurité (CRS) of the French national police, the Administration Pénitentiaire (department of corrections) and formerly the GIGN as the Mousqueton AMD.

Honduras

United Kingdom: The Surrey Constabulary Firearms Support Team (now known as the Tactical Firearms Unit) was armed with Mini-14s in the 1980s modified with Choate stocks. A few examples were seen on the news used by Police during the Hungerford Massacre. The AC-556 was used by the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

Bermuda: Used by the Bermuda Regiment.

United States: Mini-14s were prominently used by the New York City Police Department Emergency Service Unit with the rifles eventually being replaced by the M4 carbine. The NYPD's Organized Crime Control Bureau is armed with the Mini-14s. The Mini-14 is the main rifle used by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the North Carolina Department of Correction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Wow - You two really don't like each other, do you? Personally, I have zero experience firing a gun with any type of magazine, so I thought that Jack's theoretical "play-by-play" was chilling, but illuminating.

I do think it's a bit ridiculous to portray jack as some kind of homicidal lunatic, Artie. If you truly want an honest discussion, then you have to expect your "opponent" to put forth ideas that you don't like. There's no reason to portray a person as a potential child killer just because they disagree with you.

That’s the thing, Scorpion; if you’re not into guns or shooting as a diversion, then there’s no reason you should be expected to know about magazines and their capabilities. But don’t take my word for it – check around and you’ll see that the scenario and timeline that I laid out (and that our resident lying pussyboy attempted to twist and exploit) is quite feasible, and I was using pretty conservative numbers, too.

My main objection to the attempt to ban such magazines is not for the reason you might think. Although I like to use them for the sake of convenience at the range, if they were banned I wouldn’t lose a whole lot of sleep over it (plus, they tend to misfeed ammunition a whole lot more often than smaller-capacity clips, so reliability is also an issue). My primary objection is that a ban on high-capacity magazines would not even come close to being the cure-all some people seem to think it would be, and would do nothing but provide a false sense of security. It would be a case of people, people who don’t know what they are doing in the first place, doing something just so they can say they did something.

So is it necessary to even allow a 10 shot magazine? If it will save lives, why not consider an even lower limit on the size of magazines? I know it wouldn't be popular, but doesn't the idea deserve consideration?

Posts : 6988

edge540 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: Any soldier or tactical officer or agent preparing for an actual assault would not be carrying one of those as his primary weapon, at least not if he hopes to increase his odds of survival.

That's bullshit.

The Ruger Mini-14, the "ordinary hunting rifle" thats "tricked out with harmless and non-functional accessories" is used or has been used by:

Quote :: Australia: Previously used in the 1980s/1990s by the New South Wales Department of Corrective Services.

France: Used since the 1980s by the Compagnies Républicaines de Sécurité (CRS) of the French national police, the Administration Pénitentiaire (department of corrections) and formerly the GIGN as the Mousqueton AMD.

Honduras

United Kingdom: The Surrey Constabulary Firearms Support Team (now known as the Tactical Firearms Unit) was armed with Mini-14s in the 1980s modified with Choate stocks. A few examples were seen on the news used by Police during the Hungerford Massacre. The AC-556 was used by the Royal Ulster Constabulary.

Bermuda: Used by the Bermuda Regiment.

United States: Mini-14s were prominently used by the New York City Police Department Emergency Service Unit with the rifles eventually being replaced by the M4 carbine. The NYPD's Organized Crime Control Bureau is armed with the Mini-14s. The Mini-14 is the main rifle used by the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and the North Carolina Department of Correction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruger_Mini-14

Could they possibly be using one of these?

Ruger offered a selective fire variant of the Mini-14, the AC-556, to police and military customers. AC-556 models have a slightly longer receiver (shared with early production "series 180" models) to allow for full automatic operation.

At any rate, the Ruger Mini 14 that you or I would be able to legally purchase is nothing more than, as I said, an "ordinary hunting rifle" that's "tricked out with harmless and non-functional accessories".
One pull of the trigger, one round fired, period.
No different than my Ruger 10/22.
Are you telling me that my 10/22 is an assault rifle?

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:: But don’t take my word for it – check around and you’ll see that the scenario and timeline that I laid out (and that our resident lying pussyboy attempted to twist and exploit) is quite feasible, and I was using pretty conservative numbers, too.

Once again you're reminding us of exactly how feasible your plan is,so exactly how am I twisting or exploiting your very own words? Btw,where do you keep your guns?

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: So is it necessary to even allow a 10 shot magazine? If it will save lives, why not consider an even lower limit on the size of magazines? I know it wouldn't be popular, but doesn't the idea deserve consideration?

Yes, the idea does deserve consideration.
And next, we might consider a magazine that holds a negative 5 rounds!!!!
sigh

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:: But don’t take my word for it – check around and you’ll see that the scenario and timeline that I laid out (and that our resident lying pussyboy attempted to twist and exploit) is quite feasible, and I was using pretty conservative numbers, too.

Once again you're reminding us of exactly how feasible your plan is,so exactly how am I twisting or exploiting your very own words? Btw,where do you keep your guns?

You are twisting my words by taking what I presented as a purely hypothetical situation, i.e., a demonstration of how effective mere 10 round magazines could be, and asserting that I have some sort of evil plan.
You know that, I know that, and anyone following this exchange would know that.

Artie60438 wrote:: Getting excited?

Artie60438 wrote:: Almost there?

Artie60438 wrote:: Yeah,you finally ejaculated.

A question for you (or for your therapist):

Why, when the topic is something as horrific and distasteful as mass murder, does your mind immediately spring to thoughts of ejaculation?

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: So is it necessary to even allow a 10 shot magazine? If it will save lives, why not consider an even lower limit on the size of magazines? I know it wouldn't be popular, but doesn't the idea deserve consideration?

Yes, the idea does deserve consideration.
And next, we might consider a magazine that holds a negative 5 rounds!!!!]
sigh

I see. I guess that means you don't support my proposal at all? Why not? It's more than just a "feel good" measure, isn't it? And it has the added advantage of not affecting anyone's Second Amendment rights, doesn't it?

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: So is it necessary to even allow a 10 shot magazine? If it will save lives, why not consider an even lower limit on the size of magazines? I know it wouldn't be popular, but doesn't the idea deserve consideration?

Yes, the idea does deserve consideration.
And next, we might consider a magazine that holds a negative 5 rounds!!!!]
sigh

I see. I guess that means you don't support my proposal at all? Why not? It's more than just a "feel good" measure, isn't it? And it has the added advantage of not affecting anyone's Second Amendment rights, doesn't it?

In terms of realpolitik, it's totally unrealistic. And anyway, can you imagine how many 10 round magazines are already in circulation? Do you suggest door-to-door confiscation?

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:: Btw,where do you keep your guns?

In a place where I, my wife, or my children have easy access.
Why do you ask?

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: So is it necessary to even allow a 10 shot magazine? If it will save lives, why not consider an even lower limit on the size of magazines? I know it wouldn't be popular, but doesn't the idea deserve consideration?

Yes, the idea does deserve consideration.
And next, we might consider a magazine that holds a negative 5 rounds!!!!]
sigh

I see. I guess that means you don't support my proposal at all? Why not? It's more than just a "feel good" measure, isn't it? And it has the added advantage of not affecting anyone's Second Amendment rights, doesn't it?

In terms of realpolitik, it's totally unrealistic. And anyway, can you imagine how many 10 round magazines are already in circulation? Do you suggest door-to-door confiscation?

Oh. I thought that we were discussing what might actually work.

It doesn't matter how many magazines are already out there. I'm guessing it would be far cheaper to buy those back than it would if the politicians decided to buy a bunch of guns back. If the 10 round magazines were made illegal, there would be no need for "confiscation." People wouldn't be able to use them, so a lot of them would get turned in.

And why is it "totally unrealistic?" There's nothing in the Constitution that prevents it. Just because it's not been considered doesn't make it unworthy of discussion. My real question is whether you would support such a measure. If not, then why not?

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: Btw,where do you keep your guns?

[b]In a place where I, my wife, or my children have easy access.
Why do you ask?

So then if someone should break in when you were not home they would have easy access too,right?

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: So is it necessary to even allow a 10 shot magazine? If it will save lives, why not consider an even lower limit on the size of magazines? I know it wouldn't be popular, but doesn't the idea deserve consideration?

Yes, the idea does deserve consideration.
And next, we might consider a magazine that holds a negative 5 rounds!!!!]
sigh

I see. I guess that means you don't support my proposal at all? Why not? It's more than just a "feel good" measure, isn't it? And it has the added advantage of not affecting anyone's Second Amendment rights, doesn't it?

In terms of realpolitik, it's totally unrealistic. And anyway, can you imagine how many 10 round magazines are already in circulation? Do you suggest door-to-door confiscation?

Oh. I thought that we were discussing what might actually work.

It doesn't matter how many magazines are already out there. I'm guessing it would be far cheaper to buy those back than it would if the politicians decided to buy a bunch of guns back. If the 10 round magazines were made illegal, there would be no need for "confiscation." People wouldn't be able to use them, so a lot of them would get turned in.

And why is it "totally unrealistic?" There's nothing in the Constitution that prevents it. Just because it's not been considered doesn't make it unworthy of discussion. My real question is whether you would support such a measure. If not, then why not?

Well, first you would have to assume that the Gestapo would have some way of knowing who has such magazines, and how many they are in possession of. Unlike guns, there has never been, at least to my knowledge, any registration of magazines.
Second, you would have to assume that people would be willing to sell the magazines to the government. If they didn’t step forward voluntarily, did you plan on house to house searches and confiscations?
And thirdly, what makes you think that just because the magazines were made illegal that people wouldn’t be able to use them? Someone who would never for a second consider shooting up a school might turn his magazines in. However, someone who would consider shooting up a school would laugh his ass off at you for even proposing such a thing.

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: Btw,where do you keep your guns?

[b]In a place where I, my wife, or my children have easy access.
Why do you ask?

So then if someone should break in when you were not home they would have easy access too,right?

Wrong.

Posts : 9728

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: Btw,where do you keep your guns?

[b]In a place where I, my wife, or my children have easy access.
Why do you ask?

So then if someone should break in when you were not home they would have easy access too,right?

Wrong.

Explain

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:: Btw,where do you keep your guns?

[b]In a place where I, my wife, or my children have easy access.
Why do you ask?

So then if someone should break in when you were not home they would have easy access too,right?

Wrong.

Explain

Of course.
Should someone break into my house when I am not home, they would not have easy access to my guns.

» Gun Control
» Why is the Gun Control thread locked?
» White House Control of the Internet
» Time for Hammond Animal Control to be Euthanized