15 Jan 11
Originally posted by whodeyYes, breaking any law is a "threat" to society. That doesn't mean extraordinary measures like infiltrating organizations are advisable or a proper or efficient use of law enforcement personnel.
Why not? I mean, if they are breaking the law by having unlawful weapons are they not a "threat" to society? Would you not want to quell this threat?
15 Jan 11
Originally posted by MelanerpesWhich is what the left does in trying to ban firearms ... they can talk all they want about limiting the capacity of the mags, but that's not what the left is about. The left is about banning guns, period.
This is the anecdotal argument approach you hear on informercials declaring that powder from the guaguamana plant in the mountains of Mongolia will make you feel 30 years younger.
Each side of the issue can amass a large number of stories to "prove" their point. But in a nation of 300mill+ people, you can use this method to "prove" pretty much ANY point.
Sure would have been nice if someone could have fired 15-30 rounds into Loughner the minute he started unloading.
What are the pro-ban arguments from the AZ shooting, if not anecdotal?
15 Jan 11
Originally posted by no1marauder"Yes, breaking any law is a "threat" to society..." (my emphasis)
Yes, breaking any law is a "threat" to society. That doesn't mean extraordinary measures like infiltrating organizations are advisable or a proper or efficient use of law enforcement personnel.
So then presumably breaking any of the "laws" listed below would have been,
if they have now been abolished
or is a threat to society:
- It is unlawful to lend your vacuum cleaner to your next-door neighbor in Denver.
- In New Mexico, females are strictly forbidden to appear unshaven in public.
- In Iowa, kisses may last for as much as, but no more than, five minutes.
- It is illegal to transport an ice cream cone in your pocket in Kentucky.
- In Owensboro, Kentucky, it is illegal for a woman to buy a new hat without her husband trying it on first.
- In Seattle, goldfish can ride the city buses in bowls only if they keep still.
more can be found here:
http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/steroid-laws/120-stupid-laws-america-236949.html
😛
15 Jan 11
Originally posted by AgergThanks for the nitpicking.
"Yes, breaking [b]any law is a "threat" to society..." (my emphasis)
So then presumably breaking any of the "laws" listed below would have been, [hidden]if they have now been abolished[/hidden] or is a threat to society:
- It is unlawful to lend your vacuum cleaner to your next-door neighbor in Denver.
- In New Mexico, females are strictly fo ...[text shortened]... tp://www.elitefitness.com/forum/steroid-laws/120-stupid-laws-america-236949.html[/i]
😛[/b]
15 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by TheBloopDo you see a "pro-ban" argument in this thread, you hysterical marionette?
Which is what the left does in trying to ban firearms ... they can talk all they want about limiting the capacity of the mags, but that's not what the left is about. The left is about banning guns, period.
Sure would have been nice if someone could have fired 15-30 rounds into Loughner the minute he started unloading.
What are the pro-ban arguments from the AZ shooting, if not anecdotal?
A determined killer desiring to mass murder has the advantage over some bystander. Several persons at the scene did have guns besides Loughner; one almost fired on another armed bystander.
EDIT: Here's Joe Zamudio's story:
But before we embrace Zamudio's brave intervention as proof of the value of being armed, let's hear the whole story. "I came out of that store, I clicked the safety off, and I was ready," he explained on Fox and Friends. "I had my hand on my gun. I had it in my jacket pocket here. And I came around the corner like this." Zamudio demonstrated how his shooting hand was wrapped around the weapon, poised to draw and fire. As he rounded the corner, he saw a man holding a gun. "And that's who I at first thought was the shooter," Zamudio recalled. "I told him to 'Drop it, drop it!' "
But the man with the gun wasn't the shooter. He had wrested the gun away from the shooter. "Had you shot that guy, it would have been a big, fat mess," the interviewer pointed out.
Zamudio agreed:
I was very lucky. Honestly, it was a matter of seconds. Two, maybe three seconds between when I came through the doorway and when I was laying on top of [the
real shooter], holding him down. So, I mean, in that short amount of time I made a lot of really big decisions really fast. … I was really lucky.
When Zamudio was asked what kind of weapons training he'd had, he answered: "My father raised me around guns … so I'm really comfortable with them. But I've never been in the military or had any professional training. I just reacted."
The Arizona Daily Star, based on its interview with Zamudio, adds two details to the story. First, upon seeing the man with the gun, Zamudio "grabbed his arm and shoved him into a wall" before realizing he wasn't the shooter. And second, one reason why Zamudio didn't pull out his own weapon was that "he didn't want to be confused as a second gunman."
This is a much more dangerous picture than has generally been reported. Zamudio had released his safety and was poised to fire when he saw what he thought was the killer still holding his weapon. Zamudio had a split second to decide whether to shoot. He was sufficiently convinced of the killer's identity to shove the man into a wall. But Zamudio didn't use his gun. That's how close he came to killing an innocent man. He was, as he acknowledges, "very lucky."
That's what happens when you run with a firearm to a scene of bloody havoc. In the chaos and pressure of the moment, you can shoot the wrong person. Or, by drawing your weapon, you can become the wrong person—a hero mistaken for a second gunman by another would-be hero with a gun. Bang, you're dead. Or worse, bang bang bang bang bang: a firefight among several armed, confused, and innocent people in a crowd. It happens even among trained soldiers. Among civilians, the risk is that much greater.
We're enormously lucky that Zamudio, without formal training, made the right split-second decisions. We can't count on that the next time some nut job starts shooting.
http://www.slate.com/id/2280794/
15 Jan 11
4 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderWhy shouldn't guns and their usage be heavily regulated for civilians!? If they're not used for shooting at non-living objects (like targets on a shooting range) then guns mainly serve 3 purposes
I'd prefer to stay focused on Rep. McCarthy's sensible proposal rather than on a proposal for an intrusive regulatory regime which has zero chance of acceptance in the US.
1) as an ornament
2) Shooting animals
3) Shooting humans
neglecting other uses such as fancy paper weights, door stops, etc...
In case (1) you don't need bullets. In case (2) then presumably the general populace would only deem this activity acceptable if it was necessary for the acquisition/production of food, driving away pests or driving away threats to other humans/property; and with the exception of the latter we'd assume in this case they wouldn't be using easily concealable weapons. As far as the latter is concerned if you're shooting animals in the presence of other civilians we can expect the authorities would be notified and the event documented.
This leaves case (3) - shooting at humans. Arguably the only reasonable excuse for shooting at another person with the intent to scare, wound, or kill is in self defence of your self or another person. In this case, we would again, expect the authorities to be aware of this activity. In the proposal of mine you shot down (no pun intended), the exception in case (2) and the acceptable usage of a firearm in case (3) is dealt with in favour of the person using the gun.
In the same way that car usage is regulated (with respect to speed limits, the requirement for insurance, etc...) guns (especially when not on a shooting range) are dangerous pieces of equipment if not handled responsibly and should also be regulated. Moreover since it is only the bullets that make a gun dangerous (unless you hit someone over the head with one) it should be these items for which, as a priority, their availability is restricted.
With the proposal you are championing, firstly if someone goes out and uses their gun on someone for no good reason and gets away with it there is nothing stopping them from getting more ammunition so to do it again; and secondly, as has been pointed out by others, a solution to only having only 15 round magazines is to carry a spare gun. Thirdly, given that Loughner is said to have killed 6 people and wounded 14 others with 30 bullets in one magazine, we can assume with 15 bullets he'd only have killed 3 people and wounded 7 others. This is still a bloodbath!
15 Jan 11
Originally posted by AgergStart another thread if you want to rant in favor of an extensive regulatory regime of firearms in the US. It's off-topic here.
Why shouldn't guns and their usage be heavily regulated for civilians!? If they're not used for shooting at non-living objects (like targets on a shooting range) then guns serve 3 purposes
1) as an ornament
2) Shooting animals
3) Shooting humans
In case (1) you don't need bullets. In case (2) then presumably the general populace would only deem this act ...[text shortened]... 5 bullets he'd only have killed 3 people and wounded 7 others. This is still a bloodbath!
15 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWell "on topic" was:
Start another thread if you want to rant in favor of an extensive regulatory regime of firearms in the US. It's off-topic here.
With the proposal you are championing, firstly if someone goes out and uses their gun on someone for no good reason and gets away with it there is nothing stopping them from getting more ammunition so to do it again; and secondly, as has been pointed out by others, a solution to only having only 15 round magazines is to carry a spare gun. Thirdly, given that Loughner is said to have killed 6 people and wounded 14 others with 30 bullets in one magazine, we can assume with 15 bullets he'd only have killed 3 people and wounded 7 others. This is still a bloodbath!
Perhaps you'd respond to that since I don't see how such a bill really would avert a great number of similar attrocities.
15 Jan 11
Originally posted by AgergI don't regard any of those objections as particularly serious or as being made in a serious way. Yes, if people "get away" with murder they can get more tools to murder. Carrying a second gun is problematic; very few people can fire accurately with both hands (despite the prevalence of such a practice in movies and video games) so you'd still lose time changing guns (giving others the chance to disarm you), it's twice as expensive to buy a second gun and rather few people carry with them "spare" handguns plus the proposal is a ten round limit. Yes, there still would have been some killed but a few lives saved is hardly something to be sneered at.
Well "on topic" was:
With the proposal you are championing, firstly if someone goes out and uses their gun on someone for no good reason and gets away with it there is nothing stopping them from getting more ammunition so to do it again; and secondly, as has been pointed out by others, a solution to only having only 15 round magazines is to carry a spare gu ...[text shortened]... 3 people and wounded 7 others. This is still a bloodbath!
Perhaps you'd respond to that.
There is required a balance between what is recognized (properly in my view) as a right to self-defense using proper tools and means and the necessity to guard the public safety against deadly devices which are completely unnecessary to effectuate such an important right. The proposal strikes a fair balance and should be politically possible as well unless most Republicans in Congress are as unreasonable as people like MacSwain, the Bloop, whodey, etc. etc. etc.
15 Jan 11
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderAs regards being handicapped if you shoot with two guns I acknowledge your point; but to the determined, inventive, and resourceful bloodthirsty killer,
I don't regard any of those objections as particularly serious or as being made in a serious way. Yes, if people "get away" with murder they can get more tools to murder. Carrying a second gun is problematic; very few people can fire accurately with both hands (despite the prevalence of such a practice in movies and video games) so you'd still lose time n Congress are as unreasonable as people like MacSwain, the Bloop, whodey, etc. etc. etc.
(with enough money to purchase a second gun)
another solution, assuming right handedness, is to simply use some weak adhesive (or something along those lines) and attach the second gun to his/her inner left armor any other convenient location on the body
for quick and easy access (I'm still assuming using two hands to shoot one gun here).
I don't sneer at the reduction in killing potential your proposal might offer and yes, killing 2 people and wounding 4 (rounding down) with 10 bullets is certainly better than killing 6 and wounding 14. That said it doesn't strike me as 2 people dying as opposed to 6 being only a third as bad - as if 2 people dying is unimportant in comparison (not that I argue you actually think this is the case btw).
Another point is that supposing this proposal goes through, to the great annoyance of those who like things just the way they are; in the future if another (possibly more effective) proposal is put on the table in the wake of some other slaughter, then the resistance to this new proposal might be greater given the gun supporters' freedoms have already been restricted by McCarthy's proposal.
15 Jan 11
Originally posted by AgergThe ten round limit was the law in the US from 1994-2004; I don't recall any crazed killer being as inventive as you.
As regards being handicapped if you shoot with two guns I acknowledge your point; but to the determined, inventive, and resourceful bloodthirsty killer,[hidden](with enough money to purchase a second gun)[/hidden]another solution, assuming right handedness, is to simply use some weak adhesive (or something along those lines) and attach the second gun to his/he ...[text shortened]... ter given the gun supporters' freedoms have already been restricted by McCarthy's proposal.
Your last paragraph is too cynical for me; I'd prefer something to be done rather than nothing even granting the possibility that the something might discourage "better" somethings in the future. Speculative possibilities don't seem to me a good reason to not take measures which are likely to reduce the lethality of such incidents in the future.
15 Jan 11
Originally posted by TheBloopNo, no, that would be barbaric according to the left. What the left wants is for LAW abiding citizens to not carry fire arms.
[
Sure would have been nice if someone could have fired 15-30 rounds into Loughner the minute he started unloading.
15 Jan 11
Originally posted by AgergWhy do you attack the establishment? Big Brother loves you. :'(
"Yes, breaking [b]any law is a "threat" to society..." (my emphasis)
So then presumably breaking any of the "laws" listed below would have been, [hidden]if they have now been abolished[/hidden] or is a threat to society:
- It is unlawful to lend your vacuum cleaner to your next-door neighbor in Denver.
- In New Mexico, females are strictly fo ...[text shortened]... tp://www.elitefitness.com/forum/steroid-laws/120-stupid-laws-america-236949.html[/i]
😛[/b]
15 Jan 11
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderThey should let them go just like they should leave alone those who choose not to buy health insurance. However, that is not what is going to happen, is it?
I doubt many people will wind up in prison for such an offense; the bill doesn't ban possession. Of course, we could release a bunch of non-violent drug felons to make room.
Of course, prison is a revolving door now days, you are right about that. I think it is enough just to be able to put it on their records so that no one wants to hire them. Then they can be set free to collect welfare from Big Brother, adding to the statist utopia.