From Backwoods Home Magazine: 2nd Amendment, the Bill of Rights...long read, but worth it

[PleaseBlitz]

No, but unless you can guarantee that it will never happen, that doesn't mean much. I understand the probability is low. The probability of my house getting destroyed is low too, but I still insure it.

Well, unfortunately, the probability that people will use guns with high capacity magazines to kill lots of people has gotten much higher in the past decade, so a balance has to be found.

[Predicto]

Let me use the Predictotarian response.

You don't expect me to take that liberally slanted paper serious do you?

What is this I don't even

I feel Iike I am watching a mental breakdown happen in real time. How long have you been harboring this resentment toward me?

[sacase]

Was I asking you?

Public message board

[Predicto]

Sigh......false....stick to law. A 5.56mm/.223 is a high velocity round that fragments. Once it passes through an interior wall the chance of wounding go down a lot. Exterior wall are thicker and would lower the wound potential even more. You have far more to worry about from a heavier hand gun round than a 5.56mm. In fact double ought buckshot is more dangerous than your evil AR-15. While I agree that a shotty is better, its more due to the point and shoot aspect under stress.

Fair enough. You seem to know what you are talking about and it is certainly not my area of expertise. I was just going with what a cop friend of mine once told me.

[sacase]

Well, unfortunately, the probability that people will use guns with high capacity magazines to kill lots of people has gotten much higher in the past decade, so a balance has to be found.

Than probability is infinitesimally small. Hardly worth mentioning.

[wshngtn1]

What is the probability that you will get hit by a drunk driver? Are you willing to make drunk driving legal?

You lost me.

[ZoEd]

Wouldn't it be easier for a bystander to stop or slow down a shooter that needs to reload more often?

In the Oregon mall shooting, the shooter's AR-15 jammed, and a bystander with a gun confronted him during that time.

http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html

Even if reloading takes a few seconds, wouldn't that few seconds be very valuable for someone (a bystander, security guard, or policeman) trying to intervene?

Flawed reasoning, of course, but expected from someone who obviously is on the side of the fence that finds these weapons evil.

A jammed gun is a mechanical malfunction, like flooding your car by pumping the gas too much. It takes time to clear a jammed weapon, even by an experienced shooter. It could merely be a bad round requiring a simple recharge of the charging handle or a double feed where two rounds try to go into the chamber at the same time which requires a person to drop the mag, lock the bolt to the rear and physically try to remove the jammed rounds; one or two seconds or possibly a minute or more, just depends. A simple reload, either on an AR15 or slide action pistol can be done in the blink of an eye. Not to mention the fact if the speed in which a weapon is shot is the obstacle everyone seems to be bent out of shape about, unless you're very experienced shooter and even then, the faster you shoot the less accurate you are. More rounds doesn't automatically equate to more deadly. The M4 doesn't even have full auto anymore, its three shot burst because of the accuracy lost by muzzle climb and the increased likelihood of malfunction. It's not as simple as people tend to believe, especially for novice shooters. Then again the mediots know much more about shooting an AR15 than I do.

[sacase]

Fair enough. You seem to know what you are talking about and it is certainly not my area of expertise. I was just going with what a cop friend of mine once told me.

He was blowing smoke up your 4th point of contact. Many swat teams are switching to a 5.56mm carbine due to the lower chance of collateral damage. Many currently use a 9mm submachine gun.

---------- Post added January-18th-2013 at 09:56 PM ----------

Flawed reasoning, of course, but expected from someone who obviously is on the side of the fence that finds these weapons evil.

A jammed gun is a mechanical malfunction, like flooding your car by pumping the gas too much. It takes time to clear a jammed weapon, even by an experienced shooter. It could merely be a bad round requiring a simple recharge of the charging handle or a double feed where two rounds try to go into the chamber at the same time which requires a person to drop the mag, lock the bolt to the rear and physically try to remove the jammed rounds; one or two seconds or possibly a minute or more, just depends. A simple reload, either on an AR15 or slide action pistol can be done in the blink of an eye. Not to mention the fact if the speed in which a weapon is shot is the obstacle everyone seems to be bent out of shape about, unless you're very experienced shooter and even then, the faster you shoot the less accurate you are. More rounds doesn't automatically equate to more deadly. The M4 doesn't even have full auto anymore, its three shot burst because of the accuracy lost by muzzle climb and the increased likelihood of malfunction. It's not as simple as people tend to believe, especially for novice shooters. Then again the mediots know much more about shooting an AR15 than I do.

Only time I ever heard of using burst in combat was when suppressing fire was needed and the crew served weapon was unavailible because of a barrel change or malfunction.

[ZoEd]

You're right that any government administration is prone to inefficiencies. Ultimately, the government is run by people, and people are fallible. But the fallibility of man is also the same reason we need laws, and we need a government to enforce them. It is always a balance between how much you trust your fellow citizens and how much you trust your government.

On balance, I think that mandating car insurance provides benefits for society overall that are worth the hassle of occasionally dealing with incompetent DMV workers.

I think that regulating magazine sizes and requiring universal background checks provides benefits for society overall that are worth the hassle of buying new magazines and occasionally dealing with faulty government databases.

Is it really a knee-jerk response if we're just trying to re-enact a law that was first passed in 1994? Or was letting the Assault Weapons Ban expire a knee-jerk response to the NRA's successful lobbying efforts in the 2000-04 elections?

Personally I'm completely okay with regulating magazine sizes, but fail to see how it will accomplish anything for the reasons I've already mentioned. Never had a problem with background checks, had several of them, but I can see where some folks are leery of how the gov't will use and apply them, even then I don't think that will fix the problem. These are band-aide fixes that wreak of political posturing and when it comes to someones right to bare arms I don't feel like it should be left up to politicians who don't have anything to lose and everything to gain.

---------- Post added January-18th-2013 at 08:23 PM ----------

I know it pisses you off when I say anything now, but I have to ask you what you mean here. How is the "government" different from "the democratic process?"

Just like Colorado and Washington legalizing weed, a state decision determined by their votes, waiting for the big bad government to come in and put an end to it, to save them from themselves of course. Why should a resident of Wyoming or North Dakota, both very pro gun and notoriously safe when it comes to violent crime, murder and gun violence, be subjected to the same restrictions and NY, Ill and other states where the violence is high? This should be a state decision, period! Washington should have no say so in it unless its necessary.

---------- Post added January-18th-2013 at 08:37 PM ----------

But 800-HP cars aren't stolen for the purpose of committing crimes and killing other people. And we do actually have restrictions on emissions, undercarriage clearance, lights, etc. that are "cosmetic" to the car but make it safer for the public. And of course you have to register your car. I don't think that the assault weapons ban is asking for much more from gun owners than is required of car owners. There is a line beyond which we don't allow people to buy cars of a certain weight or size or type, and we are just arguing about where the proper line is for guns between individual rights and public safety.

I am not sure if you have been reading this thread, but the last 3 pages have been a discussion of the amount of time it takes to reload.

Maybe you're the one that skipped class today?

http://blogs.inlandsocal.com/iguide/ferris-bueller.jpg

Didn't skip class, was busy educating young adults in the carpentry and electrician trades, with extra emphasis put on respect, accountability, professionalism and work ethic. I was only able to post and read from my phone and couldn't keep up with the speed of the thread. Sorry, my bad. Guess I'll have to look for one of them gov't jobs like I used to have where I could sit on my ass and post on ES all day. Lol

[brandymac27]

Than probability is infinitesimally small. Hardly worth mentioning.

Tell that to the relatives and friends of all the people who lost their lives in Newtown, VA Tech, Columbine, etc.

[ZoEd]

What you quoted is one of the most mind blowing things I've ever read on this site.... Which ncludes all threads by China.

Don't be shy TSF! Call me out, don't hide behind veiled insults, it's okay the mods won't ban one of the GOB's!

[Elessar78]

Than probability is infinitesimally small. Hardly worth mentioning.

So are terrorist attacks. Why the **** do we stand in security lines and take off our shoes before we get on a plane and not carry any liquid over six ounces? That's rarer than the mass murder at the hands of assault rifles and have killed far less people?

[brandymac27]

Don't be shy TSF! Call me out, don't hide behind veiled insults, it's okay the mods won't ban one of the GOB's!

He doesn't agree with you. It's ok. No reason to get so defensive. BTW, what do you mean by "GOB's"? Good Ole Boys? Who do you classify as a GOB, b/c I'd beg to differ with you.

[Redskins Diehard]

Tell that to the relatives and friends of all the people who lost their lives in Newtown, VA Tech, Columbine, etc.

Columbine may not be a good example for you. In fact....it could be a really bad one. If you are making an argument about high capacity magazines and "assault weapons". Columbine took place at the halfway mark of the 1994 assault weapon ban. Under that ban "high capacity" magazines were illegal. The most "prolific" shooter used 10 round magazines...13 of them. I think what should be told to the relatives of Columbine victims is why we are recommending the same set of ineffective laws that were in place when that tragedy happened.

In Va Tech the perpetrator was able to inflict similar casualties as the other 2 incidents combined without the use of a single "assault weapon". No flash suppressor. No bayonet lug. No need to discuss the merits of "Semi", "Burst", or "Auto".

What we need to tell the victims of Newtown, Tech, and Columbine etc is that we can't be bothered to actually learn and understand what is happening. We need to latch on to the proposals "our side" is making and support them no matter how effective, or ineffective, they may be.

By all means, pass an assault weapons ban. And you have done virtually nothing to prevent a recurrence of any of those.

(*Disclaimer- I do not own, and have no intention of ever purchasing an AR15 or any version of it. I've had enough trigger time with one)

---------- Post added January-18th-2013 at 10:43 PM ----------

Didn't skip class, was busy educating young adults in the carpentry and electrician trades, with extra emphasis put on respect, accountability, professionalism and work ethic. I was only able to post and read from my phone and couldn't keep up with the speed of the thread. Sorry, my bad. Guess I'll have to look for one of them gov't jobs like I used to have where I could sit on my ass and post on ES all day. Lol

I always wondered what my Air Force brethren were doing when I we were out on patrol

---------- Post added January-18th-2013 at 10:47 PM ----------

So are terrorist attacks. Why the **** do we stand in security lines and take off our shoes before we get on a plane and not carry any liquid over six ounces? That's rarer than the mass murder at the hands of assault rifles and have killed far less people?

Your contention is that more people in this country have been killed in "mass murder involving assault rifles" than terrorist attacks? I'd be interested in seeing the data that backs that claim up.

But the logic is top notch. We have annoying security regulations to prevent one rare event. Why shouldn't we have annoying security regulations to prevent another? Are you making an argument for gun control? Or against the TSA? Or are you even sure at this point?

[Jumbo]

Don't be shy TSF! Call me out, don't hide behind veiled insults, it's okay the mods won't ban one of the GOB's!

All the PMs and in-thread exchanges we have had over the years, and this is the thinking you've devolved to?

I'm been repeatedly left with a "wtf?" reaction by how often you venture into odd behaviors this last year or so--and I mean "odd" odd, not rule-breaking. A milder example being your unnecessary trotting out of self-praising job activity and other similar comments in recent months that sound like some persecution complex, or you're "not appreciated", or something going on, along with general irritability.

But whatever all that's been about, there also are, and have been, increasing instances of you wandering close enough to the unmerited personalized attacks beyond the topical content to make me think "gee, he's going to end up with a rule violation, too."

And now I have to read dumassery like this (red highlight) from you. :mad:Jesus, you even gave it an exclamation point.

Well, you might want to start getting your **** together, amigo.

Just for the record (not that it matters), I think some of your actual topical points (not all of them) are perfectly worthy pieces of the larger discussion.

And I don't even know any mods that consider TSF (sorry tsf) one of the GOBs. :pfft:

I don't think we have more than a couple of guys that staff might think of as "GOBs" not that it would mean they're "ban-shielded."

And given I have banned guys I really like (and actually would top any list of GOBs--like Die Hard and Art, for example) as quickly as guys I think very little of when it was called for, it's insulting to me and is actually a rule violation in and of itself.

Fact is, I have actually been accused of seeming to give YOU too much slack in times past (like in one of the "southern history argument" threads).

BTW, TSF's remark is hardly a "veiled insult"---it was an obvious and easily allowable castigation based on your comment, and it's a fairly common "type" of jab here. Both of you are taking it to what I would call a more "grade school" level ("go ahead--call me out"), but folks do a lot of that here too, and a certain amount is allowed within the rules. Only you actually violated a rule with the "redded" part.

I don't even have the will to engage in some of the discussion that I normally would at times, on clip changing (it is quick enough with some deliberate practice, but not "lighting quick" at all for most shooters) and effectiveness of proposed legislation etc. But sacase (who also knows his firearms--we have at least several guys here like that--RedskinsDiehard, zoony, you etc) covered the 5.56mm/.223 angle properly. And Predicto demonstrated typical good grace in accepting that enlightenment. Wish that was more common here.

Anyway, I just got home from Lincoln (excellent) and given the nature his times and of his demise, I don't think I want to read any more tonight about shootings, states rights, politicians, the constitution, and other (too) related issues this evening as seen through the keyboards.

Carry on.

At your own risk. :evilg:

[brandymac27]

RD, my response was more to the comment he made about how these things happen so infrequently they're barely worth mentioning. I don't know all the details behind every mass shooting, especially when it comes to what type(s) of weapons were used.

All I can do is speak from how I personally feel about these shootings and the victims. Newtown hits a little close to home for me. I am from CT, and most of my family still lives (or lived there). My cousin and her family (including her 5 year old daughter and 2 year old twins) moved to Chicago a little over a year ago. If she hadn't have moved to Chicago, her daughter (my 2nd cousin) would have attended that school. Not only that, but I have family members who know some of the children's families that were killed. I guarantee they think this issue isn't something "hardly worth mentioning" as the poster I quoted posted.

My stance is that there's no need for any kind of assault weapons period, and there should be very strict policies in place that allow for thorough background checks and even mental evaluations before anyone can purchase any kind of firearm. People can say that "guns don't kill people, people do", but without the guns, I have a feeling that a lot of these innocent victim's lives would have been spared. At a minimum, to carry out something so heinous, they would have had to either use hand guns, which would make it harder IMPO to harm as many people and give innocent bystanders a chance to intervene, or scrap the idea altogether.

[MartinC]

.and I think the probability of 4 intruders is just a tad bit higher than your wild scenarios.

So what do you estimate the probability is that your home will be 'invaded" by 4 armed intruders? My gut tells me that is a VERY rare occurrence and a somewhat flimsy pretext on which to base a defence of the right to bear arms.

[THEREALTOR1]

So what do you estimate the probability is that your home will be 'invaded" by 4 armed intruders? My gut tells me that is a VERY rare occurrence and a somewhat flimsy pretext on which to base a defence of the right to bear arms.

Martin, how often does some wackjob steal a gun and kill 10,20,30 people with it? Because that's something that happens rarily, everyone should drop all this talk about gun legislation, right? If someone feels that a 30 round clip is what they want to protect their home, their spouse, their children... are their lives any less important than the lives this proposed legislation is supposedly going to save?

What seems to get missed alot, and what I tried to point out with a post I made yesterday, is that there's a disconnect between guns on private property and guns outside of an individuals private property. Maybe that's something that should be discussed more in all of this. As people look for ways to link these mass shooting's together, one very evident component is that they all occur in public places. While many people who wish to not see their rights to own firearms be restricted whatsoever, usually take their perspective from a "private property" viewpoint.

[AsburySkinsFan]

What seems to get missed alot, and what I tried to point out with a post I made yesterday, is that there's a disconnect between guns on private property and guns outside of an individuals private property. Maybe that's something that should be discussed more in all of this. As people look for ways to link these mass shooting's together, one very evident component is that they all occur in public places. While many people who wish to not see their rights to own firearms be restricted whatsoever, usually take their perspective from a "private property" viewpoint.

What's more is that there is precedent even in the old West of banning guns within town limits, I don't know how this would be enforced today but it does have precedence. I'd also question Concealed carry laws, if they really are about protection then shouldn't they be in view to ward off criminals?

[MartinC]

What seems to get missed alot, and what I tried to point out with a post I made yesterday, is that there's a disconnect between guns on private property and guns outside of an individuals private property. Maybe that's something that should be discussed more in all of this..

I think that's a very fair point and is a direction of debate and action which would have more impact than focusing on things like magazine size.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

Don't be shy TSF! Call me out, don't hide behind veiled insults, it's okay the mods won't ban one of the GOB's!

What is a GOB?

And yes, what you wrote was ridiculous and made no sense whatsoever.

[Redskins Diehard]

RD, my response was more to the comment he made about how these things happen so infrequently they're barely worth mentioning. I don't know all the details behind every mass shooting, especially when it comes to what type(s) of weapons were used.

All I can do is speak from how I personally feel about these shootings and the victims. Newtown hits a little close to home for me. I am from CT, and most of my family still lives (or lived there). My cousin and her family (including her 5 year old daughter and 2 year old twins) moved to Chicago a little over a year ago. If she hadn't have moved to Chicago, her daughter (my 2nd cousin) would have attended that school. Not only that, but I have family members who know some of the children's families that were killed. I guarantee they think this issue isn't something "hardly worth mentioning" as the poster I quoted posted.

My stance is that there's no need for any kind of assault weapons period, and there should be very strict policies in place that allow for thorough background checks and even mental evaluations before anyone can purchase any kind of firearm. People can say that "guns don't kill people, people do", but without the guns, I have a feeling that a lot of these innocent victim's lives would have been spared. At a minimum, to carry out something so heinous, they would have had to either use hand guns, which would make it harder IMPO to harm as many people and give innocent bystanders a chance to intervene, or scrap the idea altogether.

My stance has been that people are not willing to learn and understand. Sorry, but the discussion of assault weapons is nothing more than a distraction. You think the fewer innocent victims would be killed with handguns? The most deadly of these incidents was carried out with handguns. Not only is it more deadly, but it is more likely that someone could stop the shooter in a college setting than in a elementary school. Ft. Hood....carried out with handguns. Columbine carried out 5 years into the last assault weapon ban.

We NEED to know everything we can about these shootings to prevent them. We need to know the weapons that are "preferred". We need to know what restrictions would need to be placed on these weapons to have a measurable impact. We need to know about the shooters themselves. The warning signs if there are any. Saying "lets ban assault weapons because there is no need for them" accomplishes NOTHING which is my problem with it. "Ban high capacity magazines" to limit damage? REQUIRE drum magazines. Make them easier to acquire than a 10, or 30 round magazine. They are far more likely to malfunction(the 100 round drum magazine in Aurora fired fewer than 30 rounds before a malfunction).

Instead of learning and understanding we have the same teams debating this issue as would be debating the debt ceiling or taxes on the top 2%. Tells me that the issue isn't really what is important. And that is sad to me.

[MartinC]

Instead of learning and understanding we have the same teams debating this issue as would be debating the debt ceiling or taxes on the top 2%. Tells me that the issue isn't really what is important. And that is sad to me.

I think it's certainly the case that this debate like so many others gets split along party/voting lines with people talking at each other rather than communicating and on a topic like this that really is sad.

[wshngtn1]

So what do you estimate the probability is that your home will be 'invaded" by 4 armed intruders? My gut tells me that is a VERY rare occurrence and a somewhat flimsy pretext on which to base a defence of the right to bear arms.

What did you estimate the probability was that a crazy gunman would walk into Sandy Hook elementary school on Decemner 14th? My gut tells me that is a VERY rare occurrence and a somewhat flimsy pretext to base restricting ones rights to protect themselves.

[MartinC]

What did you estimate the probability was that a crazy gunman would walk into Sandy Hook elementary school on Decemner 14th? My gut tells me that is a VERY rare occurrence and a somewhat flimsy pretext to base restricting ones rights to protect themselves.

The thing is I can point to several REAL occasions when crazy gunmen HAVE walked into schools or public places and murdered innocent people. Thankfully it is rare, but it's a very REAL threat. I can also point to over 10000 homicides a year using guns in the US when in the UK the equivalent number is around 200 adjusted for population.

Can you find me any examples when 4 armed intruders have broken into domestic premises?

Sarcasm aside what I am getting at, as I'm sure you know, is there is an asymmetry in an argument which say the prevalence of guns in the US in private hands is justified by a largely theoretical self defence compared to the argument that same prevalence is causing (at least in some part) the very real deaths of thousands of Americans every year.

There is a case for the self defence but IMO it's a much weaker one than the argument gun control is needed because of the real threat and consequences of misuse of these weapons.