SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - Gun Control thread (merged many)

SUBSIM Radio Room Forums (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/index.php)

- General Topics (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/forumdisplay.php?f=175)

- - Gun Control thread (merged many) (https://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=203106)

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie (Post 2052481)

Lovely conversation. How to maim and kill someone most efficiently with a given caliber of ammo.

Agreed but not a problem as long as civility is maintained.

Hey, if you look at history, there is one thing man kind does REALLY well throughout the ages, and that's coming up with new and more efficient ways to kill each other. I wonder when we'll have "Phase plasma rifles in a 40 watt range." :O: Give it a 100 years or so, i'm sure someone will come up with it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mookiemookie (Post 2052481)

Lovely conversation. How to maim and kill someone most efficiently with a given caliber of ammo.

Not pretty, I agree.
However, given that many reports issued by one side or another are slanted and based only on some study doesn't change the facts observed in the field by the people that depend on what they are given to defend themselves.

Given a home invasion HAS happened in my home?
And my step-son and a friend of his were transported to a distant hospital after that invasion?

I'm real interested in any attempts to change current Laws.
I'm also interested when information is posted as a fact that one has not observed up close and personnal.

Sure it may have been a 'study' by some group.
Most of those are under controlled situations so do not reflect 'real world' situations.

I tend to think that since the U.S. trooper is STILL issued a weapon from back in the Vietnam era using the same basic round?
It must do it's job pretty well.

Is it perfect? No way no how!
I'd not even consider it for home defense here as at that range a .22 is just as bad.
Unless I have a 30 round clip in it.
Spray and pray mind you!

More sign that the anti-gun hysteria is unfounded.

http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/...-crime-on-rise

Quote:

Data released Tuesday by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics showed that the raw number of gun murders decreased from 18,253 in 1993 to 11,101 in 2011, a 39 percent drop. Non-fatal gun crimes decreased from 1.5 million in 1993 to 467,300 in 2011, a 69 percent decline. A report accompanying Pew's poll notes the per capita incidence of gun crimes decreased even more dramatically than the raw numbers suggest because the U.S. population grew during the past 20 years.
Between 1993 and 2010 there was a 49 percent drop in the per capita gun-related homicide rate, according to Pew. From 1993 to 2011 there was a 75 percent drop in the rate of per capita victimization by violent crimes involving a firearm, Pew said.

"The gun homicide rate in 2010 was the lowest it had been since [the] CDC began publishing data in 1981," Pew notes. In 2010 there were 11,078 gun homicides in the U.S., while nearly two-thirds of the 31,672 recorded gun deaths - a total of 19,392 - were deemed suicides.
Pew's poll was conducted March 14-17 with 924 adult respondents. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.9 percentage points.

Quote:

Originally Posted by August (Post 2052866)

More sign that the anti-gun hysteria is unfounded.

http://www.usnews.com/news/newsgram/...-crime-on-rise

Quote:

A Pew Research Center poll released Tuesday shows that a majority of Americans believes gun crimes increased over the past 20 years, despite a sharp drop in both gun murders and non-fatal gun crimes since 1993.

You'd never know that reading the major news outlets. They hype up everything for the ratings or whatever agenda their owners want them to push. CNN is really bad at this. They gin up EVERY gun related story they can find.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ducimus (Post 2052885)

Nope, doesn't fit the pravda. Falling crime rates don't support increasing gun control.

Quote:

From 1993 to 2011

Doesn't that cover the years from 1994-2004?
I wonder what change in firearm legislation there was which covers the major portion of the time period in question?

Quote:

Nope, doesn't fit the pravda. Falling crime rates don't support increasing gun control.

Compared to gun nut pravda which sells daily scare stories about all the armed criminals you have to live in perpetual fear of.
Come to think of isn't that the flavour of pravda that harps on about violent crime increasing since 1993 as part of their make sure you grab more guns and cling to them agenda.:yep:

Holy crap, I just found one of the most well referenced articles on gun control ever. I'd repost it here, but this guy has so many references it would be an injustice to do so.

Pro-gun folks, this will probably be every argument you'd ever make. Anyone anti-gun should read this, if only to have a complete understanding of the debate.

I'll post some of it. It's a long read, but well presented, and thoroughly referenced throughout.

Snell: Waking the dragon — How Feinstein fiddled while America burned

Quote:

Along with bombs and bombers, guns seem to be all the media wants to talk about these days. Death is sexy to our miscreant media, especially when people are killed on purpose. And when that happens, it’s all the newspapers and news stations will print and broadcast, in turn making these events appear worse than they are in reality.

To understand this, one need only look at the difference in coverage between the Texas fertilizer plant explosion, which killed at least 14 confirmed people and injured 200 more at the time of writing this, versus the coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing, which only killed three and injured a hundred others. Texas was on TV for a day, tops, while we’re still hearing about Boston and will for many weeks to come.

Where the media really didn’t care too much about the Texas incident, once a kid was killed at a race, the Boston bombing is now a foil for everything from gun control to immigration in the wake of Sandy Hook, with both sides of the political spectrum using it against the other. What about Texas, you ask? Nothing but crickets chirping from the mainstream media at the moment. Recent studies have shown that people who consume large amounts of mass media often feel more insecure, are less informed, or can’t distinguish between news and what passes as news, what with all the opinion you’ll find in news today.

But when it comes to something as deadly serious as guns and crime, Americans can’t afford the media hyperbole, misinformation and disinformation.

We have a lot of liberal columnists working for the Daily. As a conservative, I’m fine with that; they’re the ones who apply for the job, and conservatives usually don’t. Free market, baby, deal with it. But many of our liberal columnists are my friends, with whom I have spent time outside of work, too. And they, along with everyone else it seems, have an opinion about guns, as you can see by glancing through the last few weeks of the Daily’s Opinion section.

It’s been an eye-opening experience for me. As assistant opinion editor and friend, my columnists are important to me both professionally and personally. It’s all the more clear to me now after doing this job that people often opine a whole lot about stuff they don’t have any personal experience with or expertise on. Like guns.

Every time a gun issue comes up in conversation around Daily people or during a Daily editorial board meeting, opinion editor Michael Belding almost always tells me, “you should write a column about that!” I hesitate in doing so and have so far resisted the urge mostly; I wrote three gun-related columns back in 2011 and early 2012, and that was enough to brand me the “gun guy” by some folks who use such terms as epithets.

The desire of others for me to write gun columns is reasonable, though, and I understand it. I’m as much of a “gun expert” as you’re likely to find around here, so having me write about guns in the paper is perfectly rational. I won’t bore you with my “gun resume,” but suffice it to say that prior to coming to Iowa State in 2011, I made a living with firearms in one way or another for several years of my life, and have a few pieces of paper laying around that say I know a bit about them, too.

Today, however, I’m going to break my silence on the gun issue and speak out once more — and for the last time. This is my final column for the Iowa State Daily.

Well you don't have to read far to see the bull.

Quote:

To understand this, one need only look at the difference in coverage between the Texas fertilizer plant explosion, which killed at least 14 confirmed people and injured 200 more at the time of writing this, versus the coverage of the Boston Marathon bombing, which only killed three and injured a hundred others. Texas was on TV for a day, tops, while we’re still hearing about Boston and will for many weeks to come.

Latest couple on Texas...why were there a lack of inspections, how can a company operate with only $1 million in public liability insurance, how can the storage have been so excessive, who zoned the plant, how common is this throughout texas and why is there such a lack of regulation and enforcement , who is picking up the bill for reconstruction, what criminal charges are due, does bankrupcy give indemnity, how many are still missing....not of course that the fertiliser plant makes it in the news as clearly all these questions only came up on the one day tops it was news:doh:

I don't know what media you use, but the ones I read/watch carried the Texas accident for many days.

But of course, the Boston MURDERS will have more coverage than a Texas ACCIDENT. Why would you think it would be otherwise?

Do you really think that an industrial accident would garner more national coverage than multiple murders and maiming committed using Improvised Explosive Devices involving a man-hunt where an entire city was essentially shut down?

That should take a backseat to an industrial accident that is still under investigation?

Not everything is a conspiracy. :nope:

Didn't ready past the part i quoted did you? Typical.

This paragraph towards the end of the article, might apply to you.

Quote:

We want the crime and killings to stop as much as you do, so to my fellow citizens who are anti-gun I say: So long as you deny our humanity, so long as you malign our dignity, intelligence and wisdom, so long as you seek to shade us under a cloud of evil that we do not partake in or support, so long as you tell us that because we own guns we are terrible people, you will prove yourselves absolutely right in that we won’t come to the table to talk with you.

EDIT:
As an aside, I don't agree with everything in that article, but a good portion of it, I think he is spot on.

Scrap yard owner fatally shoots trespasser in northeast Houston

Thought this would fit in here. Not sure what this phrase means:

Quote:

According to investigators, he is sensitive about trespassers having been a target in the past.

Do they mean, "he is sensitive about trespassers, him having been a target in the past. "

Or sensitive about the trespassers who have been a target in the past.?

Well, in any case, I think he means it when he says no trespassing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens (Post 2053036)

Scrap yard owner fatally shoots trespasser in northeast Houston

burglar tools = public service
McDonalds should contact this guy too, they might want to call him instead of just showing up though. :D

Quote:

Didn't ready past the part i quoted did you? Typical.

Epic fail.:woot:
The piece continues with some meadering rants, some outright lies, lots of misrepresentation, some links which don't support what he claims they show, a bit of pathetic nonsense about swimming pools, piles of blanket statements, all the typical meaningless buzz words doing the rounds, an unhealthy dose of victim complex together with a couple of godwins...
In short it is a typical piece that is all too common in that it is largely full of crap, no doubt someone can find typical pieces from the opposite camp that are also full of crap, but all that shows is both sides have people who are full of crap.
So in summary. It is not a well presented thoroughly referenced piece containing every arguement and does not show complete understanding at all...which someone claimed it was:hmm2:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neal Stevens (Post 2053036)

Scrap yard owner fatally shoots trespasser in northeast Houston

In my opinion, trespassing is not justification for shooting. Using lethal force should be a last resort, when every other option has been considered, when there is a direct and imminent threat to life or serious injury.