|
Dead Reckoning posted:They're only banned from advocacy, and hampered the unwillingness of a Republican congress to appropriate money for research with a long history of being politically motivated. Insisting that the advocacy ban keeps them from doing important research is akin to the governors of states which refused medicaid expansion complaining that Obamacare failed their constituents. Holy loving poo poo you are utterly and irrecoverably separated from reality
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 14:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:16 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Hypothetically, if we banned all semi autos, and then this happened, would the pro gun control side take the position that, "no, although this is tragic, we've done enough, we don't need to ban more guns"? Only way to find out is to try, glad you're on board.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 14:21
|
|
|
By the way DR, making scatter plots from Wikipedia is not scientifically or statistically rigorous especially the way you're doing it. if only we had professionals doing research on gun violence  edit: Dead Reckoning posted:We already know what we have to do to control violence. Remember those charts of gun ownership vs homicide rate with no correlation? Here's one for you: ah yes, a correlation so strong you conveniently didn't include a p-value or even R^2 like you did with your ownership/homicide rate plot, I'm very convinced your data do not support your conclusions but that's hardly surprising you don't even have international statistics here, you're making poo poo up Pellisworth fucked around with this message at 14:54 on Oct 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 14:45
|
|
|
To be fair, stating the poverty is factor in violence or crime isn't terribly out of bounds, but of course that doesn't excuse the horrific use of stats in that previous post. That's some incredible stupidity, dishonesty, or los dos. If I had come with that poo poo in school my stats profs would have grabbed my debate coach and laughed me out of the room.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
DR is quite literally an NRA talking point come to life.Dead Reckoning posted:We're talking about Charles Whitman here, who didn't have a bump fire AR-15, but did have a hunting rifle and a shotgun, and killed 16 people with them. Do try to keep up. It took him 96 minutes to do so. There's the difference. This man murdered 56 and injured 400+ in less than 10. Whitman was also a trained Marine Corps rifleman, he was also suffering from a massive brain tumor pressing on the portion of his brain that possibly affected fight or flight instincts. Prior to the shooting, Whitman had visited a Psychologist and tried to convey his fear that he'd be unable to restrain himself from violence. Its almost as if Whitman is not a good comparison. Nobody here is pretending that people are still not going to kill people with bolt action or pump action weapons, the difference is they won't be killing a many in such a short period. I love that you keep falling back to that. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Oct 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 15:14
|
|
|
Remember that this entire Texas clocktower discussion started with DR deciding that if such an event occurred again, all the people who are currently saying "lets try restricting guns to bolt action, etc etc" would immediately move to ban bolt action rifles. So instead, I'll be the first to say that I do believe that there are reasonable standards about rights and whether something could reasonably be prevented and whether the cost is worth the benefit, and I think that if there was a clocktower shooter repeat again after laws were passed to restrict legal guns to some pretty strict parameters, I'd be willing to admit that completely banning guns is probably too far, because there absolutely are exceptional circumstances. So basically, gently caress you DR, stop assuming everyone you're talking to has some insatiable appetite for constantly restricting your gun rights.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:Remember that this entire Texas clocktower discussion started with DR deciding that if such an event occurred again, all the people who are currently saying "lets try restricting guns to bolt action, etc etc" would immediately move to ban bolt action rifles. So instead, I'll be the first to say that I do believe that there are reasonable standards about rights and whether something could reasonably be prevented and whether the cost is worth the benefit, and I think that if there was a clocktower shooter repeat again after laws were passed to restrict legal guns to some pretty strict parameters, I'd be willing to admit that completely banning guns is probably too far, because there absolutely are exceptional circumstances. "Someone will kill someone with a black powder rifle! Then they'll come for my muskets!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 15:30
|
|
|
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...m=.264044506547 A statistician did some research and came to the conclusion bad half measures we all know don't work, don't work. She also concluded that Australia's one mass shooting isn't statistically significant so their actions didn't count. As dumb and bad as this article is, the conclusion from her statistics seems to be banning pistols and all magazines like that one goon already suggested.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 15:38
|
|
|
I probably wouldn't push for a ban on bolt action rifles if only because I'm reasonably confident that a knife wielding maniac with 96 minutes of time could probably match that number via isolated killings, considering they weren't interested in escaping. Also in the spirit of ending the dumb bolt action debate I'l amend my post yo say bolt action rifles wouldn't be the worst gun for a spree killing. This would:  
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 15:55
|
|
|
lol at the limp attempts by 2A trolls pretending to care about mental health again. The venn diagram of gun fetishists and people who continually vote against healthcare is a nice smooth circle.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 17:13
|
|
|
Guns have no positive effect on our society. If you wanna feel like a big boy and shoot guns go join the military.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 17:40
|
|
|
r.y.f.s.o. posted:lol at the limp attempts by 2A trolls pretending to care about mental health again. The venn diagram of gun fetishists and people who continually vote against healthcare is a nice smooth circle. In all fairness I'd say that the gun owners on Somethingawful might be a little different from the average gun owner.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Ravenfood posted:Remember that this entire Texas clocktower discussion started with DR deciding that if such an event occurred again, all the people who are currently saying "lets try restricting guns to bolt action, etc etc" would immediately move to ban bolt action rifles. So instead, I'll be the first to say that I do believe that there are reasonable standards about rights and whether something could reasonably be prevented and whether the cost is worth the benefit, and I think that if there was a clocktower shooter repeat again after laws were passed to restrict legal guns to some pretty strict parameters, I'd be willing to admit that completely banning guns is probably too far, because there absolutely are exceptional circumstances. Trying to paint the Texas Clock Tower shooting as being perpetrated with a bolt action rifle is, as should be a running theme you should all see by now, disgustingly dishonest. It's a downright lie. Never assume something DR says is true. Charles Whitman was basically a precursor, 51 years in the making, of Las Vegas:  The man had an arsenal with him just like the Las Vegas guy. Let's go down the list: Remington 700: This is the bolt action. Also has an internal box magazine. Anywhere from 4-6 shots before needing to reload. M-1 Carbine: Detachable magazine rifle. Of which he had 7 (1 that came with the rifle he bought that day and 6 additional ones he also bought) Remington model 141: 8 Round internal tube magazine fed via pump action. Sears Brand 12 gauge semi-auto shotgun: Can't find an exact number on magazine capacity, probably around 4/5 based on what I usually see in semi auto shotguns. 3 pistols in .357, 9mm, .25 ACP. And a Knife. Along with enough supplies to last a long time: quote:He drove to a hardware store, where he purchased a Universal M1 carbine, two additional ammunition magazines, and eight boxes of ammunition, telling the cashier he planned to hunt wild hogs.[8]:32 At a gun shop he purchased four more carbine magazines, six additional boxes of ammunition, and a can of gun cleaning solvent.[12] At Sears he purchased a Sears Model 60 12 gauge semi-automatic shotgun before returning home.[13] So it's pretty loving dishonest to try and abuse the history of what happened at The University of Texas as just a guy with a bolt action hunting rifle shooting people one by one. Dude had an arsenal, multiple semi-automatic weapons, handguns, and supplies to embed himself in an elevated position for a long time. Just like loving Las Vegas. Also, as a side point: This is why I keep harping about single shot rifles only. No internal mags. Also why I say no pump action rifles.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 17:59
|
|
|
As an idiotic aside, when someone invents something that makes guns impractical for combat against the government I'm pretty sure we're still going to see the same dumb arguments. No, no, don't think about that one too hard.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
Crain posted:Also, as a side point: This is why I keep harping about single shot rifles only. No internal mags. Also why I say no pump action rifles. I'm curious, why the prohibition to one round? It brings the usefulness of firearms down to a very limited state. Since gun owners will liken it to being equal to a total ban why not just advocate for a total ban?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 18:19
|
|
|
NickBlasta posted:I'm curious, why the prohibition to one round? It brings the usefulness of firearms down to a very limited state. Since gun owners will liken it to being equal to a total ban why not just advocate for a total ban? Because it doesn't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. There should be a minimum size too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 18:23
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:As an idiotic aside, when someone invents something that makes guns impractical for combat against the government I'm pretty sure we're still going to see the same dumb arguments. I'm going to ignore your warning at the end and point out that we currently kill people by way of drones that fly so high up you can't see our hear them, and I would also be interested to see what the counter point to that would be from someone who still earnestly believes the 2nd amendment is there to fight the government. Is the idea that drone pilots would defect or refuse orders instead of belly laughing as they delivered ordinance to some redneck militia camp? vv a good point as well vv Inspector Hound fucked around with this message at 18:41 on Oct 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 18:28
|
|
|
NickBlasta posted:I'm curious, why the prohibition to one round? It brings the usefulness of firearms down to a very limited state. Since gun owners will liken it to being equal to a total ban why not just advocate for a total ban? For sporting purposes a single shot is pretty much all you're using anyway. You can still try follow up shots with more ammo if you're hunting and if you're target shooting then you're under no time constraints anyway. I also would stipulate no magazine wells at all, even filled ones or "single shot" "mags" to avoid people just attaching large mags on their own after the fact. Also also: Banning the AR-# platform from civilian ownership. No "converted" "single shot" AR-15s/10s etc. Also this is for rifles specifically, not shotguns. I'd allow pump action shotguns (still no semi auto) for waterfowl hunting/skeet shooting purposes. Nevvy Z posted:Because it doesn't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. I'd say keep the 26 inch rule that's in effect now, but ban folding or collapsing stocks. Inspector Hound posted:I'm going to ignore your warning at the end and point out that we currently kill people by way of drones that fly so high up you can't see our hear them, and I would also be interested to see what the counter point to that would be from someone who still earnestly believes the 2nd amendment is there to fight the government. Is the idea that drone pilots would defect or refuse orders instead of belly laughing as they delivered ordinance to some redneck militia camp? To be fair: We're still getting hosed up by guerrilla fighters in the middle east even with those drones and Appalachia has way more ground cover than Afghanistan. Crain fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Oct 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 18:34
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Because it doesn't infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Obviously it infringes, the question is how to justify the infringement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
One suggestion I'd make, to make a semi-auto ban perhaps more palatable to gun owners, would be to allow semi-autos at firing ranges, which would require a 24/7 police presence (i.e at least two officers) and monitoring for potential theft. The way i'd imagine this working wrt purchasing would be for gun vendors to ship whatever gun the buyer wishes to use to the range they're registered at, providing no physical failing point where the gun is in the vendor or buyers' hands before reaching the firing range.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 18:43
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:Obviously it infringes, the question is how to justify the infringement. My previous post where I listed this out started with "Repeal the second amendment". So. Yeah. EDIT: and to cut off the discussion about how that's going to be impossible: I know. I posted that as a hypothetical dream list of things in the midst of everyone else posting wild hypotheticals. Crain fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Oct 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 18:45
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:In all fairness I'd say that the gun owners on Somethingawful might be a little different from the average gun owner. Why would you assume SomrthingAwful posters aren't doughy white men with crippling insecurity and social issues?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 19:01
|
|
|
Crain posted:For sporting purposes a single shot is pretty much all you're using anyway. You can still try follow up shots with more ammo if you're hunting and if you're target shooting then you're under no time constraints anyway. I also would stipulate no magazine wells at all, even filled ones or "single shot" "mags" to avoid people just attaching large mags on their own after the fact. Ahh, okay. I mostly just read these threads, part to be exposed to different perspectives. I remember your list on the other page, I should have recalled. Sometimes I like to discuss, not so much debate if it's so incendiary. By sporting you mean hunting, though? There's actually a lot of legitimate sport that utilizes larger magazines. I'm a grandmaster handgun shooter (which puts me in the top 1% of shooting ability in the world, more or less. If you want an appeal from something other than a "range day" gun owner), in our largest practical shooting organization, USPSA (or IPSC as it's called around the world) and I utilize a 30 round magazine in my handgun. Some use 40s or 50s in the carbine category. I won't make any kind of ethical statement on my right to sport overriding folks' right to life, so I would just like to mention that there a tens of thousands of us who've put a lifetime of practicing into refining our ability and leaving us all in the cold just hurtses me. But thanks for the reply. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Neurolimal posted:In all fairness I'd say that the gun owners on Somethingawful might be a little different from the average gun owner. So do you not know that a gun owner on SA went and murdered some people over pumpkins?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Crain posted:My previous post where I listed this out started with "Repeal the second amendment". I want people to post their wild fan fiction hypotheticals about how theyre going to battle the government for the same reasons I want them to name how each victims life is just the price of freedom. Also the idea that asymmetric warfare in a theoretical US civil war is comparable to Afghan insurgency is wrong at best, if the government at all resembles the current one its literally millions of apolitical trying to keep society functioning, middle class and non military mostly too. It's XCOM2 only the player characters have pickup trucks with no air support and the world's supply of AR15s.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 19:02
|
|
|
Hollismason posted:So do you not know that a gun owner on SA went and murdered some people over pumpkins? Ok? I mean there's mentally ill people in every clique. Point is that gun owners on SA are more likely to be progressive, so trying to hold them accountable for M4A obstruction is pretty silly, since DR is the only one i've seen actually support that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
Even that nerdy analogy is piss poor because if things are that hot you're not getting a limited amount of hostile alien targets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 19:05
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:
What are you trying to say here?
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
The Kingfish posted:What are you trying to say here? There's a big difference between a foreign military conducting asymmetrical warfare on behalf of state of questionable international legitimacy and fighting 10-20% of your neighbors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 19:11
|
|
|
NickBlasta posted:Ahh, okay. I mostly just read these threads, part to be exposed to different perspectives. I remember your list on the other page, I should have recalled. Sometimes I like to discuss, not so much debate if it's so incendiary. Yeah, I've aware of race gun competitions like that, or 3-gun, etc, but yeah thinking about how restricting deadly hardware would affect frivolous skill contests like them did not cross my mind. At best, maybe a carve out akin to how Swiss shooting lodges work, where the guns are owned by the club, kept at the range and aren't allowed to be taken off the premises could be made. But ultimately I don't care about how your contests are affected by gun restrictions any more than I would about a hypothetical "Grenade Fishing League"s concerns for their sport and decades of skill when it comes to keeping those illegal. Do it with airsoft or something, or let it die.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:23
|
|
|
Crain posted:Yeah, I've aware of race gun competitions like that, or 3-gun, etc, but yeah thinking about how restricting deadly hardware would affect frivolous skill contests like them did not cross my mind. Isn't it the opposite of frivolous? It has both a serious purpose and value. That's not very nice. (grenades aren't illegal, just regulated)
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
I'd be fine with a Swiss-style system where guns are kept in a specific place. We could probably loosen a lot of gun laws too. You want to have a crazy full automatic? That's fine. Just be a member and check it out when the time comes. Mortars? That's fine. Tanks? If you can afford it, why not? Drive them around the range and blow poo poo up. It would fit well with the "defend against the government". The "self defense" part wouldn't work though and it wouldn't hold up to basic legal scrutiny. Once again, the issue is the 2nd Amendment.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:32
|
|
|
NickBlasta posted:Isn't it the opposite of frivolous? It has both a serious purpose and value. That's not very nice. What exactly does being able to guide a projectile at long distance to a precise location have to do with serious purpose and value? I don't begrudge it as a hobby but ... wait, did the emperor finish the Death Star? LUKE SKYWALKER??
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
I'll reiterate I think a national armory program with both private and public ownership is a good compromise and avoids most of the but what about this configuration of weapon issues, just whitelist the things practical for game hunting and the rest can stay in a secure area.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:40
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:What exactly does being able to guide a projectile at long distance to a precise location have to do with serious purpose and value? I don't begrudge it as a hobby but ... The right to keep and bear superlasers .. shall not be infringed. Some competition is very accuracy focused like that, they usually call it high power or bullseye or the like. Our organization is based on what we call practical shooting, which stresses accuracy at speed, moving and shooting, target identification (friend v foe), and safe firearms handling under stress (drawing, reloading, etc). If you're one of those 'competency test' gun control proponents, what we do is pretty much the best way to be a safe, confident concealed carrier. I would think that qualifies as serious purpose, though I suppose it depends on how you define what has value. RuanGacho posted:I'll reiterate I think a national armory program with both private and public ownership is a good compromise and avoids most of the but what about this configuration of weapon issues, just whitelist the things practical for game hunting and the rest can stay in a secure area. Can we have a gun collective?  There is actually a program... similar to what you propose, called the Civilian Marksmanship Program. It used to be very similar to that, a civilian-government arms program, you more or less got to use surplus military gear to train and become certifiably proficient with, and could purchase the gun at the end of the program. It's changed with the times in the past couple decades and now they have a facility they use for education and fund it by selling surplus arms from the army.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
what we need is community gunsmithing next to the fixie repair station at your downtown makerspace
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 21:25
|
|
|
RuanGacho posted:What exactly does being able to guide a projectile at long distance to a precise location have to do with serious purpose and value? Serious answer to non-serious question: shooting is one of the oldest Olympic sports, with only the 1904 and 1928 games not having a shooting program. Fun fact: the NRA was the NGB, national governing body, of the sport in the US until 1994 and USA Shooting was formed. I can't really find out why the split occurred, besides references to it being political in nature. Crain posted:At best, maybe a carve out akin to how Swiss shooting lodges work, where the guns are owned by the club, kept at the range and aren't allowed to be taken off the premises could be made. But ultimately I don't care about how your contests are affected by gun restrictions any more than I would about a hypothetical "Grenade Fishing League"s concerns for their sport and decades of skill when it comes to keeping those illegal. Sidestepping a complete ban by allowing for the guns to be owned but mandating that they be stored in a shooting lodge/sport association/what-have-you would probably be the easiest way to keep things constitutional. Not going to stop the screechers from claiming that "it's the first step of a 43-step plan to grab all the guns and turn everyone super-mecha-gay!" Personally, I wish places like this already existed, because I'd like to seriously take up shooting but don't want to have them in my house. Nor to I want to go to the types of ranges that sell "terrorist" and "criminal" targets.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
all of this chat about banning guns or making them single shot only or whatever is as masturbatory as the people thinking they're going to use their guns to fight the government whether we like it or not, gun ownership is protected as highly as free speech and privacy the only people who might even consider trying to change that are almost completely out of power in government its not going to happen anytime soon meanwhile there are popular pushes for better healthcare. maybe focusing on access to mental health care, de-stigmatizing requesting mental health help, and putting in ways for people to get serious professional help in ways that will not overly alter their lives should be a major part of this push for things like M4A. improving standards of living, overhauling mental healthcare, and trying to find ways to create a more connected society seem like better ideas to be pursuing. at least those are actions that call to improve things and take steps toward the kind of world people want to live in instead of punitively banning something people want because of the actions of a few.
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
por que no los dos
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 22:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 02:16 |
|
|
Fine posters of the USPOL thread, you have my official permission to discourse on fire arms and the control thereof, or not if you don't want to
|
|
#
?
Oct 7, 2017 22:35
|
|
