Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 1/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 106 of 310 (669084)
07-26-2012 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by crashfrog
07-26-2012 7:48 PM


However, your statement does not answer the question of why we should differentiate between fully automatic and semi-automatic weapons in the 2nd Ammendment.
Because there's a public safety interest in doing so, and merely differentiating between different types of weapons does not infringe the Second Amendment. Why would it?
My point exactly. I have been alluding to this entire thread. I think we were just speaking past each other. So the question is should we or should we not restrict semi-automatic weapons in any way. I am kind of wavering on this issue.
I definately think they should be more regulated in that the gun-show loopholes should be closed and all gun ownership should require background checks and registrations. To me I do not think that in any way restricts your right to own guns, but just to reduce the chance they fall into the wrong hands.
I never said that it wasn't. In all honesty, DA, I don't see why you even bothered to post. What do you think you actually contradicted me about?
It just seemed to me that you were preaching to me about how I should contact the JCOS about how we are not using shotguns and other non-machine gun weaponry. Maybe I just missed your point. This thread and the preceding one have led down a long and windy path.
Besides I enjoyed posting pictures of the Navy firing weaponry. Sorry a little service envy as it seems everyone only equates the Army and Marines with small caliber weapons and forgets about the Navy
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2012 7:48 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2012 9:09 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 107 of 310 (669086)
07-26-2012 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by crashfrog
07-26-2012 7:56 PM


Why should I be concerned if someone is carrying a concealed submachine gun in a movie theater if they have no intent to use it? If they intend to use it there, that's already against the law. How is the public safety served by restricting the rights of gun owners who won't ever commit mass murder with their firearms?
We are taught in the military about the 3 sides of the deadly force triangle : opportunity, capability and intent. In force protection cases we use this to determine whether we should use deadly force in a situation (this was adopted from law enforcement sources). In the case above all that is missing is the 'intent'. Both capability and opportunity already exist. However, with more powerful weaponry, the capacity to kill many more people than with a non-machine gun exists. Therefore, public safety outweighs the neccessity for a person to carry a machine gun. Again the rights of one person do not outweigh the rights (the right to live) of anyone else. Just a point to ponder.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2012 7:56 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2012 9:20 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 108 of 310 (669087)
07-26-2012 8:17 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by DevilsAdvocate
07-26-2012 8:00 PM


Re: on automatic firearms
Lots of Israelis I hear carry at all times.
But the issue is not so much about guns as it is about US society and culture IMHO. As I mentioned over in Message 164 of the Colorado thread, when I was growing up guns were near ubiquitous and not just out in the boonies. Just about every family I knew had a gun rack in the den or shotgun by the door, kids often went out hunting often alone or in pairs, seeing an '94 or Marlin in the gun rack of a pickup sitting with doors unlocked and windows open was far more common than seeing a pickup with one, seeing someone wearing a holster and a S&W 1917 or even a Colt slabside wouldn't even rate notice. But there weren't that many shootings and if you touched someones gun without permission you should expect a slap alongside the head from the nearest adult, related or unrelated.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-26-2012 8:00 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 109 of 310 (669089)
07-26-2012 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by crashfrog
07-26-2012 1:57 PM


Re: Inclusive
Oni, there's no "training" for that. The training that police and military personnel get is how to shoot what you're aiming at, how to keep the gun clean, under what circumstances you can be armed etc. That's all the training my wife received that had to do with firearms. There's no point in the training where they say "ok, these are the guys you need to shoot; these are the guys who look like they need to be shot but shouldn't be." There's no training for that - you have to use your own inherent judgement. There's no training in the world that will tell you whether the unfamiliar shadow in your living room is your son or an armed robber - that's something you have to determine yourself in that situation.
That is not actually true in the Navy, at least. We recieve deadly force training as part of our force protection training. Nearly every duty day (about once a week) we go over some form of force protection training. But you are correct in that you can't train for every possible scenario. We do train in the different types of situations we can possibly encounter, low flying aircraft, approaching boats with weapons embarked, mobs on the pier, etc. We are trained on when deadly force triggers are reached.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2012 1:57 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 110 of 310 (669094)
07-26-2012 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by DevilsAdvocate
07-26-2012 8:02 PM


So the question is should we or should we not restrict semi-automatic weapons in any way. I am kind of wavering on this issue.
Frankly, I don't see that the continuum of guns ranges all that much in danger or deadliness. Even the meager .22 LR is a widely-known go-to caliber for Mafia hitmen (they say) since the round, if it penetrates the skull, typically bounces around within the cranium instead of exiting, resulting in a nearly-certain fatal injury.
There's not any sort of gun that it's "safe" to be shot with, with the possible exception of:
But aside from the triple-candy gun, I just don't see an obvious disparity where we say this gun is fine for widespread ownership, but this other gun is out of bounds. If you can own a gun, if you've met the requirements for legal gun ownership, then I can't see that it matters which guns or what kind of guns you can own. The potential to kill of all firearms is comparable - if a gun (loaded or not) is pointed at any part of someone's body, you should always assume that the likely outcome of firing that gun is a death. (That's why responsible gun owners don't point guns at things they don't intend to kill.)
Now, that said, I'm totally down with magazine restrictions. I don't see that an AR-15 loaded with only seven rounds at a time is more dangerous than any other weapon loaded with only seven rounds at a time. I can't see a personal defense, hunting, or target-shooting scenario where you need to fire more than seven rounds, unless it's your profession to be in protracted gun shootouts. I'm completely down with mandatory ballistics fingerprints and firing-pin microengraving, even though those haven't actually demonstrated any usefulness in solving gun crimes. In my ideal world, the government would have a record of every single instance where a round was fired from your weapon, where it was fired, and where that round ended up.
It just seemed to me that you were preaching to me about how I should contact the JCOS about how we are not using shotguns and other non-machine gun weaponry.
Sawed-offs is what I was talking about, and that was just my cheeky way of saying that the US Armed Forces doesn't seem to have much use for cut-down Remingtons or whatever. That was the finding of the Supreme Court in US vs. Miller, and I think it upholds my interpretation of the Second Amendment - that it's about private citizens being able to muster into an orderly, effective militia if need be.
Sorry a little service envy as it seems everyone only equates the Army and Marines with small caliber weapons and forgets about the Navy
I hear you. Of course, the SEAL's get a lot of press, don't they? SEAL Team 6, Bin Laden, those Somalian pirates a year back? That was a hell of a coordinated shot, wasn't it? Three pirates at, like, 400 yards or something, from the deck of one pitching ship into another? Damnedest shooting I ever heard about.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-26-2012 8:02 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 111 of 310 (669095)
07-26-2012 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by DevilsAdvocate
07-26-2012 7:41 PM


NOTE: can someone respond with a link on how to put quotes in the blue boxes? When I use the word quote in brackets it will not apply a name, and I like how the other quotes look.
{Quote help info sent via private message. - Adminnemooseus}
quote:
You are correct, I mispoke. An automatic rifle is a machine gun and a semi-automatic rifle is not.
Not a problem, just making sure, I am no expert here, though I try.
quote:
I believe the original gatling gun was semi-automatic as it required a human to hand crank it. However, modern military gatling guns are fully automatic as they do not require manual actions to refire once the trigger is pulled.
The original yes, and also it is irrelevant in this case because it was made before 1899 and is not covered by the NFA, you could own one as a purely historical piece, just as you can own 18th century canons if you can afford it.
Modern ones like a mini-gun are in a grey area. A definition for fully automatic is one pull of the trigger multiple bullets down the barrel. Gatlin and Mini-guns have a rotating barrel so you never get more than one bullet on the same trigger pull on each barrel. It is basically one bullet then the next barrel and one bullet, and then the next barrel, and on and on. Technically its not fully automatic; the gray area is the mechanical device pulling the trigger, and the belt fed ammunition.
quote:
Agreed. "Assault Weapon" is an ambiguous term. And no I am not an anti-gunner. Just a realist. I believe in the right to bear arms but am concerned about how much and what type of 'arms' we need to bear.
I am not trying to pin anything specifically on you, the anti-crowd knows who they are, and I am not pointing any fingers.
quote:
Agreed. However we did have a law that restricted large capacity magazine and the like. I also believe that we need to close loop-holes in gun registration and background checks.
Do to popular demand (we are sort of a democracy), that law has expired. What do you mean by loop-holes? There is no gun registration unless you are an FFL or have full auto firearms.
quote:
I do though advocate a restrictions on high-capacity magazines and the like. The whole gun regulation is issue is chalk full of problems that need to be fixed.
I must disagree, but I already have a bunch or high cap magazines (I bought them a month after Obama got elected). You keep mentioning regulation, but this is the USA not Canada or Austrailia, I am not sure what you mean by registration.
Registration leads to confiscation.
quote:
Both. A) Again, it is a subjective matter to determine what 'arms' should the average citizen be able to "keep and bear'. B) Should they be able to carry a concealed sub-machine gun in a movie theater or the like. C) Where do we draw the line?
A) Arms = firearms. All of them.
B) Yes.
C) At explosives and non-firearms (C4 and grenades)
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Quote help message in red.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-26-2012 7:41 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(2)
Message 112 of 310 (669096)
07-26-2012 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 107 by DevilsAdvocate
07-26-2012 8:15 PM


Therefore, public safety outweighs the neccessity for a person to carry a machine gun. Again the rights of one person do not outweigh the rights (the right to live) of anyone else.
No, of course not, but having specified that the weapon is being carried by someone who doesn't intend to fire it, I don't see how the right to life of anyone else in the theater is being infringed. And if someone does intend to kill a theater full of people then the means by which he's chosen to do that is largely immaterial.
I think what a lot of people want to do is chase down a rabbit hole where we equate capability with intent, but I think that's a mistake, and that's what leads us to the absurdity that even a completely naked human being has the capability to kill, by the use of nothing more than one's hands or feet, and therefore if capability is the same as intent, all human beings have the intent to kill at all times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-26-2012 8:15 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-27-2012 1:01 AM crashfrog has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


(1)
Message 113 of 310 (669106)
07-27-2012 1:01 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by crashfrog
07-26-2012 9:20 PM


No, of course not, but having specified that the weapon is being carried by someone who doesn't intend to fire it, I don't see how the right to life of anyone else in the theater is being infringed. And if someone does intend to kill a theater full of people then the means by which he's chosen to do that is largely immaterial.
I think what a lot of people want to do is chase down a rabbit hole where we equate capability with intent, but I think that's a mistake, and that's what leads us to the absurdity that even a completely naked human being has the capability to kill, by the use of nothing more than one's hands or feet, and therefore if capability is the same as intent, all human beings have the intent to kill at all times.
I am not equating capability to intent. I specifically dilleneated in my last post the three sides: capability, intent and opportunity. What I am saying is there is a greater capacity (not intent) to do harm to more people with a machine gun than with a pistol in one incident. The issue here is increased ability to cause more harm at one whak so to speak. If thousands are carrying machine guns or submachine guns (both are fully automatic, just difference in size) than there is an increased chance that a mass shooting can take place, simply by the increased capacity to do harm (shooting hundreds of rds per minute vice 20-30 at the most with a manual or semi-auto).

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by crashfrog, posted 07-26-2012 9:20 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2012 7:25 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied
 Message 118 by Jon, posted 07-27-2012 9:53 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 114 of 310 (669119)
07-27-2012 7:25 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by DevilsAdvocate
07-27-2012 1:01 AM


I am not equating capability to intent.
I didn't mean you, specifically. Sorry, I guess I could have been more clear.
What I am saying is there is a greater capacity (not intent) to do harm to more people with a machine gun than with a pistol in one incident.
Is there? Stipulate that both weapons are loaded to the same capacity - you need at least one round per person you wish to harm - and I don't see that either weapon is much more dangerous than the other. Jared Lee Loughner killed six in Arizona with nothing but a Glock handgun - loaded with 33 rounds. They took him down as he reloaded, so forcing mass murderers to reload more often seems like a winning legal strategy. And I don't think the Second Amendment protects high-capacity magazines, as I've said.
I don't see how seven rounds in a submachine gun is inherently more dangerous than seven rounds in a handgun. A "hundred rounds per minute" is a rate, not a capacity, and if your weapon holds only seven rounds by law, it's an entirely theoretical one.
All of this is, again, mostly to agree with you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-27-2012 1:01 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-27-2012 7:49 AM crashfrog has replied

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3101 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 115 of 310 (669123)
07-27-2012 7:49 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by crashfrog
07-27-2012 7:25 AM


Is there? Stipulate that both weapons are loaded to the same capacity - you need at least one round per person you wish to harm - and I don't see that either weapon is much more dangerous than the other. Jared Lee Loughner killed six in Arizona with nothing but a Glock handgun - loaded with 33 rounds. They took him down as he reloaded, so forcing mass murderers to reload more often seems like a winning legal strategy. And I don't think the Second Amendment protects high-capacity magazines, as I've said.
And if Jare Lee Loughner was shooting a fully automatic machine gun in a stadium. How much easier and faster would it be for him to take out say 50 people than it would for a manual firearm or even a semi-automatic before someone or a group of people could 'possibly' take him out so to speak.
I don't see how seven rounds in a submachine gun is inherently more dangerous than seven rounds in a handgun.
Only because there is an increased speed of successively firing rounds out of the chamber thus making it more difficult for someone to overcome that person.
A "hundred rounds per minute" is a rate, not a capacity, and if your weapon holds only seven rounds by law, it's an entirely theoretical one.
Agreed. When I said having a greater 'capacity', I meant a greater 'capacity' to hurt more people in one incident not the actual round capacity of the gun.
All of this is, again, mostly to agree with you.
Agreed.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2012 7:25 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 116 by Artemis Entreri, posted 07-27-2012 8:47 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied
 Message 119 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2012 10:46 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
Artemis Entreri 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4228 days)
Posts: 1194
From: Northern Virginia
Joined: 07-08-2008


Message 116 of 310 (669130)
07-27-2012 8:47 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by DevilsAdvocate
07-27-2012 7:49 AM


DevilsAdvocate writes:
Only because there is an increased speed of successively firing rounds out of the chamber thus making it more difficult for someone to overcome that person.
Except that firing bullets from a handgun is faster than firing them from a rifle. You have a false premise. Rate of Fire is greatly affected by the length of the bolt of the firearm. Firearms with shorter bolts fire faster than those with longer bolts.
The AR-15 (automatic version/assault rifle) vs. 9mm Glock (handgun) vs. the Mac-10 (submachine gun)
Some AR-15s (earlier ones I think) were fully automatic, their cyclic rate of fire is/was 800 rounds per minute. (source AR-15 style rifle - Wikipedia)
A common mass produced stamped sub-machine gun like the Mac-10 has a cyclic automatic fire rate of 1090 — 1145 rounds per minute. (source MAC-10 - Wikipedia)
A 9mm Glock specifically the G18 model (the fully automatic glock) has a cyclic rate of fire that is 1100 — 1300 rounds per minute. (source http://remtek.com/arms/glock/model/9/18/)
For visual comparison
MAC-10
Glock18
NOTE: this is not really against Devilsadvocate, I have read more than once and I am not sure who all the authors are, that for some reason rifles (like the AR-15) are extra dangerous and have more damage potential due to rate of fire (ROF), when in reality the guns with the highest ROF are handguns, and submachine guns. It is really quite simple what will take longer to move something that is 2inches long or something that is 4inches long? This forum seems to be populated with mostly scientists, yet on this issue they seem to be throwing the "facts" out of the window, in favor of thier passions and faith in gun control.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-27-2012 7:49 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 310 (669134)
07-27-2012 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by ringo
07-26-2012 3:01 PM


Re: Inclusive
As I understand it, political dissatisfaction became a CIvil War because of state-controlled militias seizing arms from Federal arsenals; it had little to do with privately owned weapons.
Did I ever say otherwise?
My point was that people might have reason for concern about the "armed overthrow of the government" justification for a right to bear arms.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by ringo, posted 07-26-2012 3:01 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by ringo, posted 07-27-2012 12:14 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 122 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2012 12:25 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 118 of 310 (669136)
07-27-2012 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by DevilsAdvocate
07-27-2012 1:01 AM


What I am saying is there is a greater capacity (not intent) to do harm to more people with a machine gun than with a pistol in one incident.
What is the capacity of a stationary car to do harm?
Does a stationary train have a greater capacity to do harm?
If the weapon is not being used, isn't its capacity to do harm zero?
How does 'capacity' relate to your three-pronged analysis of 'capability', 'intent' and 'opportunity'?

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-27-2012 1:01 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 119 of 310 (669138)
07-27-2012 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by DevilsAdvocate
07-27-2012 7:49 AM


And if Jare Lee Loughner was shooting a fully automatic machine gun in a stadium.
Loaded with 33 rounds? I don't see how he would have posed any more of a danger than with the Glock 19.
How much easier and faster would it be for him to take out say 50 people than it would for a manual firearm or even a semi-automatic before someone or a group of people could 'possibly' take him out so to speak.
I don't see how even the most powerful automatic weapon would have allowed him to shoot 50 people with 33 rounds.
Only because there is an increased speed of successively firing rounds out of the chamber thus making it more difficult for someone to overcome that person.
I don't follow your math on that. Shootings of this type, when they're stopped by intervention, usually stop when the shooter is vulnerable due to reloading, not mid-barrage. So the theoretical rate of fire of the weapon doesn't seem relevant. It's the length of the sustained barrage that seems to matter, and reducing rounds carried per magazine is a way to make sure those barrages are of a very minimum length.
When I said having a greater 'capacity', I meant a greater 'capacity' to hurt more people in one incident not the actual round capacity of the gun.
Since it takes at least one round per person hurt, clearly "actual round capacity of the gun" is synonymous with the capacity to hurt more people.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-27-2012 7:49 AM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


(1)
Message 120 of 310 (669143)
07-27-2012 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by NoNukes
07-27-2012 9:33 AM


Re: Inclusive
NoNukes writes:
My point was that people might have reason for concern about the "armed overthrow of the government" justification for a right to bear arms.
As far as I'm concerned, people do have an inherent right to overthrow their government, if necessary, as per Declaration of Independence. As I understand it, the Constitution simply codifies that inherent right into law.
If it was intended to guarantee a hunter's right to own the tools of his trade, that would be too Marxist for most Americans.
If it was intended to help Americans protect themselves from each other, it's a sign of a sick society - but then a healthy society might be too socialist too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by NoNukes, posted 07-27-2012 9:33 AM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 121 by NoNukes, posted 07-27-2012 12:19 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024