Tocky on 21/1/2018 at 02:46
So according to you all reasonableness comes from the gun owners? Magazine capacity does cause a pause to reload even when two clips are taped. I'm sure there are those in Vegas who would have loved a few second pause while they ran for their lives. I don't care what some ass in a video did with his clips after much practice and cutting out all the times he failed or dropped them. In a real situation that pause can save lives and it's not like it is unprecedented. Dove hunters have long been forced to plug their guns to limit rounds fired at one go. If we do that for birds then why not humans?
Gun crime is caused with guns. Affect one and you affect the other. After every nut shoots some place up republicans say to blame it on mental illness and then VOTE TO DEFUND mental illness treatment. You don't think there is a disconnect there? Mentally ill folks can go to a gun show and pick up any gun they want that day. We can't end that because that might step on toes though right?
Nah. Not as all on the democrats as you would make out, catbarf. The number of guns and gun deaths are growing. So increase the number of guns to solve it right? We can't possibly do anything else under the current climate can we? We can't even get bump stocks outlawed though a great majority agree they serve no reasonable purpose. Yee haw murica because that is what we have become. It's not like when I was a kid and most guns were hunting guns or snake killing side arms.
We need those assault weapons because they just look so darn cool right? Okay. Limiting them or eliminating them would do little. We have become a nation of grown little boys who would rather be able to play with guns than keep folks alive. It's only a few it would save anyway right? They would just make catapults if you banned guns. Handguns are indeed what deal the vast majority of death. So some restrictions on them? Oh no. MORE of them! A gun in the hands of every trigger happy Chuck Norris wannabe. That will make us safe. Funny I don't feel safe seeing Bubba dip drool packing in the grocery but what choice do we have at this point?
What exactly do you consider a sensible gun legislation? You haven't stated it.
catbarf on 21/1/2018 at 05:27
Quote Posted by Tocky
So according to you all reasonableness comes from the gun owners?
Quote Posted by Tocky
After every nut shoots some place up republicans say to blame it on mental illness and then VOTE TO DEFUND mental illness treatment. You don't think there is a disconnect there?
Quote Posted by Tocky
Nah. Not as all on the democrats as you would make out, catbarf.
Slow your roll mate. I didn't say any of those things.
Quote Posted by Tocky
Magazine capacity does cause a pause to reload even when two clips are taped. I'm sure there are those in Vegas who would have loved a few second pause while they ran for their lives. I don't care what some ass in a video did with his clips after much practice and cutting out all the times he failed or dropped them. In a real situation that pause can save lives and it's not like it is unprecedented. Dove hunters have long been forced to plug their guns to limit rounds fired at one go. If we do that for birds then why not humans?
Birds have a much easier time escaping the lethal range of a shotgun than unarmed people in a mass shooting have of escaping a rifle-wielding assailant. I'm basing this on the professional opinions of law enforcement and military personnel I've worked with and my own experience in a former job (involving security response/active shooter training), but if you'd like to see a video of a sheriff's office doing scenario-based testing of their own (gaffs and all) I'd be happy to share. Limited magazine capacity didn't diminish the lethality of Virginia Tech, nor Columbine, nor San Bernardino. Maybe it would have had an impact on the Vegas shooting- but magazine capacity limits are also extraordinarily difficult to enforce, easy to loophole (see: Canada), actively circumvented by the considerable ingenuity of the American gun industry, and of much more consequence to law-abiding citizens. It fails the 'reasonableness' test in having minimal impact at best, while expending considerable political capital and negatively impacting law-abiding people.
If magazine capacity bills didn't always exclude law enforcement, you'd see much more concerted and vocal opposition to them, as they have a lot more impact on anyone carrying to defend themselves than anyone looking to shoot a bunch of unarmed and cornered targets.
Quote Posted by Tocky
What exactly do you consider a sensible gun legislation? You haven't stated it.
Off the top of my head:
-The overwhelmingly most common source of firearms used in crime is straw purchase. Currently the DoJ lacks the resources to prosecute straw purchase, making it an easy way for gangs to acquire guns, and the people who illegally buy firearms for felons suffer no punishment. Earmark additional funding to straw purchase law enforcement, and assign straw purchasers liability for crimes committed with the weapons they purchase.
-The second most common source of firearms is law-breaking FFL holders (sellers), but the ATF only has the resources to investigate each FFL on average once every 27 years. Earmark additional funding to FFL auditing.
-Revise HIPAA's interaction with the NICS to ensure that mental health records are being ingested into the background check system.
-Increase liability on stolen firearms, especially if they were not adequately secured when stolen. Too many unsecured guns wind up on the street through theft.
-Allow background checks for non-FFLs, then mandate background checks on all sales. Senator Coburn had a pretty good proposal a few years ago, based on the Swiss model.
-Subject handgun sales to ATF investigation similar to that on Form 1 applications, to provide a little more scrutiny on their sale and transfer.
Only the last one steps on gun owners' toes, but if you threw them a bone like removing suppressors from the NFA it'd be an easy sell.
And while we're at it:
-Address suicide, the #1 social cause of gun deaths, and gang violence, the #2 cause, in some meaningful capacity.
-Republicans specifically: Stop paying lip service to mental health while actively gutting mental healthcare support, stop condemning gang violence while simultaneously undermining social programs, it's all complete bullshit and it's only making things worse.
Gun crime is overwhelmingly a social problem, or rather a collection of social problems united by a common means of expression, and needs to be treated as such. Arguing over whether you really
need an AR-15 is partisan shitflinging that isn't getting us anywhere.
Tocky on 21/1/2018 at 07:54
Calling bullshit on the capacity thing. I don't give a damn what any law enforcement or military biased organization says it is just a fact that having to change clips costs time and in that time some can get away. Or fire back if you want. As far as getting around enforcement goes that is like saying there should be no law against bank robbery because those who are going to do so will anyway. Considerable political capital? Nah. Minimal impact? Lives. Lives are not minimal impact. If you fire a gun you know this to be true. How anyone can deny that is insane to me.
The negatively impacting law abiding citizens is the most ludicrous. How many folks do you think will attack you? It's just one lone nut every damn time. My seven in my 45 auto is all I need guaranteed. I won't need a fifty round clip. How many times does an army attack exactly? Give me one time. So that one is bullshit. Anyone who needs more is just spraying bullets and is a danger to bystanders. A lot more impact on anyone carrying to defend themselves? Absolute bullshit. Obvious bullshit even. It will affect the lone shooter way the hell more. Think. Don't repeat the NRA bullshit. Think. It's the lone nut trying to kill the most that it will affect. He has multiple targets. YOU do not. It's just the one. Seven or even six is enough.
I'll address the rest later if I give enough of a shit. This was just the most glaring.
Starker on 21/1/2018 at 08:56
Mental health is such a bullshit scapegoat. The kid with OCD is not going to flip out and start murdering people all of a sudden and neither is the guy with an anxiety disorder. The vast majority of people with mental health issues are not any more violent than the next "sane" guy. In fact, they are far, far more likely to be the victims of violence rather than the perpetrators.
Just in case: this wasn't directed at anyone particular.
catbarf on 21/1/2018 at 13:49
Quote Posted by Tocky
Calling bullshit on the capacity thing. I don't give a damn what any law enforcement or military biased organization says it is just a fact that having to change clips costs time and in that time some can get away. Or fire back if you want. As far as getting around enforcement goes that is like saying there should be no law against bank robbery because those who are going to do so will anyway. Considerable political capital? Nah. Minimal impact? Lives. Lives are not minimal impact. If you fire a gun you know this to be true. How anyone can deny that is insane to me.
Like I said, real-world experience- I did active shooter response training (using simunitions) for federal law enforcement officers, and we experimented with a variety of conditions. Even in simulations, with participants knowing that the attacker was limited to ten-round magazines and not facing the consequence of dying if they screw up, it was impossible to recognize that a shooter was reloading and either make a run for it or attack the shooter before he was able to reload. The idea that a shooter reloading allows people to get away makes sense logically but isn't borne out in reality, where the overwhelming majority of mass shootings occur in situations where victims are trapped in enclosed spaces and play out before law enforcement can respond. Nobody used the shooter's need to reload to escape at Virginia Tech (where the shooter only had 10-round magazines), and nobody was firing back. I completely agree that magazine capacity makes a huge difference when people are shooting back at you, but in mass shootings that's virtually never the case.
The Department of Justice wrote a report on the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban and concluded that its restrictions on magazines were entirely ineffective, but the AWB is often cited as a contributing factor to Democrats losing control of Congress in the late-90s. In Canada, gun owners following the letter of the law have gotten around the five-round limit on rifles by using pistol magazines, limited to ten, and then using pistol magazines intended for high-caliber rounds to hold high numbers of rifle rounds. In the US, there are a bewildering variety of products providing workarounds and exploiting loopholes for markets with capacity limits. Those are the legal options; illegally drilling out the blocking rivets on a pinned magazine takes literally thirty seconds on a cheap drill press and was done extensively by even street criminals during the Assault Weapons Ban.
I am not saying any law which cannot be enforced 100% of the time shouldn't exist. But this is one that can't be enforced any time it matters, and even if successfully enforced makes minimal impact at best, and even then only on the tiny minority of gun deaths that are due to mass shootings, while creating enormous opposition every time it comes up. It does not provide societal benefit proportional to its political cost, and there are other ways to address much more significant contributing factors to gun deaths that could provide considerably better ROI. Frankly, I think magazine capacity limits are the perfect example of white America not really giving a shit about the gun violence problem in any way that doesn't personally threaten them, content to let kids in Chicago kill each other with handguns while we quibble over just how marginally we can reduce the effectiveness of a mass shooter. The shocking number of overall deaths is little more than a talking point for legislation that does next to nothing to curb it.
Quote Posted by Tocky
The negatively impacting law abiding citizens is the most ludicrous. How many folks do you think will attack you? It's just one lone nut every damn time. My seven in my 45 auto is all I need guaranteed. I won't need a fifty round clip. How many times does an army attack exactly? Give me one time. So that one is bullshit. Anyone who needs more is just spraying bullets and is a danger to bystanders. A lot more impact on anyone carrying to defend themselves? Absolute bullshit. Obvious bullshit even. It will affect the lone shooter way the hell more. Think. Don't repeat the NRA bullshit. Think. It's the lone nut trying to kill the most that it will affect. He has multiple targets. YOU do not. It's just the one. Seven or even six is enough.
Just curious, do you believe that cops should be limited to the same capacity limits? Not to accuse you specifically, but the 'nobody needs a hi-cap' argument always comes across as a little disingenuous when police are given explicit exceptions, like a private citizen isn't going to 'fight an army' but a beat cop is.
Anyways, I can give you plenty of examples of people, especially on drugs, continuing to fight with 10+ gunshot wounds, or stats on the atrocious accuracy rates of even trained professionals in a high-stress situation (let alone a homeowner groggily stumbling out of bed, in the dark, to the sound of glass breaking at 2AM), but you seem to have made up your mind that seven shots is good enough for a typical criminal encounter. That used to be the conventional wisdom, but professionals have gradually learned through experience that it's not true, and nowadays you'll be hard-pressed to find any police department that still issues six-shot revolvers, or any self-defense instructor who recommends their use.
Starker on 21/1/2018 at 14:49
When you hear about people like Daniel Shaver, you do wonder whether the police needs all that equipment, especially with things like "you're fucked" engraved into it.
That's the problem with a society where anyone could be armed -- the police will assume everyone is ready to open fire at a moment's notice.
catbarf on 21/1/2018 at 15:36
Quote Posted by Starker
That's the problem with a society where anyone could be armed -- the police will assume everyone is ready to open fire at a moment's notice.
Firearm ownership isn't a justification for bad policing, when there are plenty of countries that have widespread ownership of firearms but not the completely dysfunctional relationship between police and the public that we do. Even within our country, America has always been armed, but our relationship to the police hasn't always been this way.
I'll be the first to say that police don't need anti-materiel rifles or armored personnel carriers, but that problem has little to do with public gun ownership.
Tocky on 21/1/2018 at 15:51
Sure if somebody is behind cover you can't tell when they are changing clips but in most cases the mass shooters are out in the open roaming around picking targets. I'm not going to convince you. There will always be the but it doesn't help enough thing. Do people go tharn? I hate to use a Watership Down word but it fits. That scared to immobility thing is what you are saying keeps folks from rushing in or firing at that point right? Sure. Maybe even for most but not all. Limiting capacity would not save everybody but it might save some so why not? Who is it going to hurt? Bubba dip drool can't look as cool on his youtube video?
And no I don't mean limiting anything for law enforcement. They SHOULD have better armament than the general public. They DO face situations that require it. Sure they would have to enforce another law and confiscate the work arounds which should ALSO be against the law but we have to do something. Hell, when I got my Colt it was back in the days before the NRA was against every safety precaution and mine has the feature that your hand must be around the grip for it to fire. Now we have the ability to make all guns person specific but the NRA won't allow it. We have the ability to make bullets more traceable. We have the ability to do a lot of things rednecks get up in arms about because it might infringe on their right to fight a government takeover or some other loony shit. Obama might yet invade Texas you know.
Seven shots is enough for the general public. Not all of us spray and hope. No idiot on PCP will be able to get back up after a 45 round to the chest unless he has a vest. And for that matter make those illegal to the general public too. Only law enforcement and others in regular danger need them. Will there be abuses? Of course. Enforce those too. Particularly when it involves gun sellers. Making those who have guns in their own homes "secure" guns in a safe makes no sense though. What intruder gives you time to get your key? Make guns less kid friendly. The spring in my slide is so stiff it's hard for me to pull and I never keep one in the chamber. One can still be in it in a second. There are plenty of things that can be done but won't because no snowflake is going to tell Bubba what to do. Nope. He leaves that to the NRA.
ffox on 21/1/2018 at 16:07
I have to disagree with your dismissal of mental problems as a cause. A person who loses it momentarily is far more likely to kill someone if he has easy access to a gun. Someone who is seriously disturbed can kill a lot of people with one gun, and many more if he has access to several weapons, particularly assault rifles or sub-machine guns.
Two attacks in the UK by mentally disturbed persons :
(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunblane_massacre) The Dunblane massacre; the attacker was armed with four legally-held handguns — two 9mm Browning HP pistols and two Smith & Wesson M19 .357 Magnum revolvers. A total of 32 people sustained gunshot wounds over a 3–4-minute period, 17 of whom were fatally wounded.
(
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolverhampton_machete_attack) The Wolverhampton machete attack, no guns involved. The attacker was armed with a large machete. Three children and four adults were injured.
The Dunblane case was the main reason for the current restrictions on guns in the UK.
Most of the arguments in this thread seem to accept that easy access to guns is a good thing, and are concerned with the best way to cope with it. Unfortunately you are in a no-win situation.
Starker on 21/1/2018 at 16:38
Quote Posted by catbarf
Firearm ownership isn't a justification for bad policing, when there are plenty of countries that have widespread ownership of firearms but not the completely dysfunctional relationship between police and the public that we do.
In a lot of those countries, people don't usually carry their guns with them. They use them for hunting or home defence or sport. Most people walk around unarmed in Europe, for example. Unless they are a security guard or something like that.
Quote Posted by ffox
I have to disagree with your dismissal of mental problems as a cause.
I'm not saying that people with mental problems are harmless, necessarily. There are certainly people who have violent psychotic episodes, but those are the exception, not the rule. Statistically, people with a mental illness are less likely to go on a shooting spree, not more.