Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
Call the police. Yeah, there's a great option.
Does the amount of fear you allow fellow citizens to feel change if they are smaller? Handicapped? Female?
What if they are black? and the drunk guy is wearing a white hood?
I have zero desire to tell you how best to defend yourself and what the appropriate level of fear you should be feeling when faced with a threat. I'm merely asking for the same courtesy in return. Nothing more.
I don't submit to you the ability to tell me how scared I should be and it is not my responsibility to control or manage the actions of drunk, dangerous, belligerent or threatening people. That responsibility falls on the shoulders of the people acting that way. Plain and Simple.
Should I care if other people shoot themselves accidentally? Should you care if I shoot myself accidentally? I think not.
|
|
overwatch
climber
Arizona
|
|
Other than the dudes' aim I say nice job in South Carolina
guy too strong... what's up sparring not enough? why even mention that, you were discussing his near shooting incident while you were sparring?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
I've asked this question generally before, HD, and all I hear back are vague, hand-waving things like: "Stop the carnage." That sort of response is useless on so many levels!
So, I'll ask it of you specifically: What do you want? To your mind, what is the solution?
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
what is the solution?
Me! Me! I wanna answer for him! The ONLY possible solution is 1st Air Cav takes over
areas for door-to-door with mine sweeping of backyards for buried guns. Simple, right?
|
|
overwatch
climber
Arizona
|
|
some of them might do it
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Well over 200 people a day are killed/injured by guns in America.
Big deal. In a nation of 1/3 of a billion people, that's not even a drop in the proverbial bucket, where just about 2.5 million people die every year, almost 7,000 per day! Reduce that number by 200 per day, and, guess what? You've still got just about 7,000 people dying per day in this nation.
Yes, yes, every one of those "numbers" is a tragedy, thought of individually! The world is FULL of tragedy. But you are talking about national policy, and THAT must be based on perspective.
Somehow the frothy left got it into its hive-mind that "gun violence" is much, much worse than other violence and other causes of death. Ironically, the left's "solutions" invariably take the form of penalizing law-abiding citizens in ways that are not even causally-related to the "violence" they claim to care about, while there are SO many other causes of MUCH high amounts of suffering and death about which the left has nothing to say. Nor does the left take seriously that the majority of this "gun violence" occurs in FIVE cities and is primarily black-on-black violence.
Perspective is what's needed more than anything, and 200 per day of ANYTHING in this nation is pretty insignificant.
The left can't have it both ways. If "gun-violence" is SUCH this serious, pressing problem, then citizens should be afraid and definitely take intentional steps to protect themselves (like by bearing arms). But if, as is so often argued, the odds of a violent encounter are so low that it's ridiculous to carry a gun around all the time, well, then, there isn't this "pressing problem" with "an epidemic of gun violence."
Either way you cast it, 200 per day is not an "epidemic" unless its contagious, which "gun violence" is not in the relevant sense.
For an example of the problems inherent in getting clear on what should be the basis of another law based on actual proximate causes: Consider the Pulse shooting....
The perp used an "assault rifle," so, of course, the left wants to make "assault rifles" (broadly construed) illegal. But it wasn't the "assault" part that probably was most deadly.
Most AR-style weapons today are delivered with a 1/7 or a 1/9 twist. The FBI and other agencies such as the DOD ran studies trying to understand why today's AR-style weapons are not as "deadly" as they were in the Vietnam War era. Today they punch small holes and over-penetrate, leaving much smaller wound channels, as they do not dump most/all of their ballistic energy into a single body as intended. The question is: Why do today's AR-style weapons over-penetrate, striking multiple people, while doing significantly less damage per person than they did decades ago?
The answer is that Vietnam War era weapons were delivered with a 1/12 twist, and this makes all the difference!
The same bullet exiting a barrel with a 1/7 and a 1/12 twist behaves dramatically differently upon first contact. The 1/7 bullet is spinning much faster around its axis, so it is much more "gyroscopic" stable. It can travel farther more accurately than can the 1/12 bullet. When it hits a human being, the 1/7 bullet strongly resists yaw, so it tends to "drill" straight through and continue on with relatively little of its energy dumped into the first body. By contrast, the 1/12 bullet is much less accurate beyond about 250 yards, and it wants to start tumbling throughout its flight.
This tumbling action can be introduced with the slightest contact: a blade of grass, a light shirt, or jeans, for example, will all cause a 1/12 bullet to wobble dramatically and even start spinning end-over-end. The result is that a 1/12 bullet becomes much "wider" upon entering the body. It is no longer basically a .22 in diameter. It leaves wound channels much more horrific than much larger-caliber weapons. In the process, it dumps most of its ballistic energy in one body and usually doesn't exit the first body.
The horrific wound channels created by the AR-style weapons with the 1/12 twist were noted by the international community after Vietnam, which motivated the move to a tighter twist and the so-called "NATO" ammo. This was supposedly more "humane," as the round then punched small, straight holes (and could even be used as a "humane" sniper rifle, given its improved effective range).
However, ironically, in a crowded environment, such as Pulse, the very "humane" nature of the 1/7 or 1/9 ballistic properties certainly resulted in a much higher casualty rate, as a single round would over-penetrate and do damage to multiple people. Had the shooter been using an AR with a 1/12 twist (hard to find these days), it is very likely that there would have been even half as many casualties.
The point is that "high capacity" magazines were not the issue. His using an "assault rifle" (broadly defined) was not the issue. Had the perp used a barrel with a 1/12 twist and still had the same death toll, you might then talk about how many he was able to kill so many with a "one shot; one kill" rifle. But I believe that FBI analysis will ultimately conclude that he was getting "one shot; two kills" or even higher with some rounds. That crowded environment, coupled with over-penetration, is what made him "more efficient," NOT the fact that he was using an "assault rifle."
So, do you make ALL "assault rifles" illegal? Well, then you have to make a whole pile of long guns illegal, including legitimate hunting weapons, because they can have the same "look" and have the same (or even more deadly) properties. In point of fact, it was not the "assault" nature of the perp's weapon that was the biggest problem; it was almost certainly the twist of his barrel. All things being equal in that sick situation, swap out his 1/7 barrel for a 1/12 barrel, and that alone would likely have cut the death toll by half or more.
But nobody is talking about the twist of his barrel, because nobody wants to take seriously that the details matter in these cases! The left just wants to "do something," even if what is done is causally-unrelated to (or incorrectly/obliquely causally related to) the details of each case. Perhaps the law you really want is: "No civilian may own a barrel with tighter than 1/12 twist." Of course, that law would reduce the accuracy of hunting rifles. But at least it would reduce the carnage in those cases where a whack job uses a legitimate rifle in a horrific way.
Until we know all the facts of this case, including, as I say, the details that tell us about the actual proximate causes, we are groping blinding in our efforts to "do something". Let's first be confident that we know what we're really talking about before we start "doing something" that will turn out to have little/no effect on such incidents but will instead serve only to limit the freedoms of law-abiding citizens.
Or, we could gain some perspective and realize that 200 per day of anything in this nation is a pretty insignificant stat upon which to form national policy, unless it's the start of a zombie apocalypse or some other genuinely contagious disease. "Gun violence" is neither.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Where in the hell is Major Kong?
|
|
However, ironically, in a crowded environment, such as Pulse, the very "humane" nature of the 1/7 or 1/9 ballistic properties certainly resulted in a much higher casualty rate, as a single round would over-penetrate and do damage to multiple people. Had the shooter been using an AR with a 1/12 twist (hard to find these days), it is very likely that there would have been even half as many casualties.
So, it was a good thing he was using that rifle. What a lucky break!
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
the frothy left got it into its hive-mind
the left's "solutions" invariably take the form of penalizing law-abiding citizens
the left has nothing to say. Nor does the left take seriously
The left can't have it both ways.
the left wants
6 mentions of "the left" in one post.
You may have some good points in your post, but like a typical righty/libertarian you tell us what the "frothy left" thinks and wants. And of course you take extreme examples of the most far left views. And claim they want to penalize law abiding citizens (ridiculous).
In reality there is a spectrum of positions and views on most topics including gun control, but you pick the easiest target and make it a strawman to attack.
I'm a centrist gun owner, but I believe we could do a better job at gun control. Yes the devil is in the details, but when the NRA and the Republican congress won't even allow us to study the issue, or pass the least restrictive new laws, they come off as MORE extreme than "the left".
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Dang that wall-o-text up there just keeps growing :)
From now on, it's Pete's fault. I take no responsibility from here on out.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
In reality there is a spectrum of positions and views on most topics including gun control, but you pick the easiest target and make it a strawman to attack.
In reality, I'm responding to the likes of HD. I could have been more clear and talked about the "radical left" and mentioned Feinstein and so on. That's what I'm arguing against: "Do something," even if it bears zero causal relationship to the incidents that are used to justify the "something."
I'm a centrist gun owner, but I believe we could do a better job at gun control.
Absolutely, but exactly what? When the subject of universal background checks comes up, I'm quick to voice approval, as long as it doesn't turn into another list the feds are maintaining. I've had quite enough of federal invasion into my life, and I have zero confidence in the government's good will, integrity, or even sanity.
Yes the devil is in the details, but when the NRA and the Republican congress won't even allow us to study the issue, or pass the least restrictive new laws, they come off as MORE extreme than "the left".
I wouldn't go that far, but I generally agree. The problem with the "devil" that is statistics is that interpretation is everything (as we already see on this subject). So I'm pessimistic that the stats are going to "settle" anything.
My point about the barrel twist issue is that it's far too easy in the rush to "do something" to settle on "what happened" without taking the time to drill into what were significantly contributing causes. Rather than rush to ban "assault rifles" (whatever those are), the Pulse case makes a much stronger argument for banning sub-1/12 twist rifles.
Let's "study," but, then, let's really drill into the details and be careful and thoughtful about our responses rather than "do something."
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
LOL, DMT.
Well, I'm out of here for the weekend.
Have a good one, all. Don't blow off any precious fingers. ;-)
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
Wow... I'd never have expected a treatise on 5.56 ballistics here on the Taco...
Go figure.
I always thought the move to 1/7 was the shorter barrels on the M4 and the move to heavier 62 and 64(?) grain projectiles in the green-tip SS109 and orange-tip tracer rounds. The higher-rotation stabilized the heavier, and thus longer, new standard ammo.
|
|
Escopeta
Trad climber
Idaho
|
|
That and the fact that numerous match competitors were experimenting with the Sierra MK 69gr target projectiles for intermediate distance competitions.
Which are very long, VLD bullets that require a fast twist rate to stabilize.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
Dare I add some thoughts on the second amendment to this conversation?
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
A proper reading of the Second Amendment depends largely on the meanings of the term well regulated, and the word State. An honest definition of these words must be in the context of their usage in 1789.
The Oxford English Dictionary offers some examples of how the term "well regulated" was used around the time the Bill of Rights Rights was passed and ratified:
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
The phrase "well regulated" meant that something was operating properly, was calibrated, was performing as expected. This usage is different than today's, a definition of control and authority. In fact in the context of the amendment it means quite the opposite: The state needs a properly functioning militia to guarantee it's freedom, therefore the government shall not interfere with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
And of course the ownership and use of weapons for personal use, to put food on the table or defend one's self was not in question. The idea of denying a person such a basic survival tool would have been considered absurd. So the entire point of the second amendment is to ensure that the central government cannot disarm the public with the intent of interfering with a free state.
And there's that word State. Today we associate the word state with the nation. But in the amendment of course it refers to the state of Pennsylvania, or New York, or Massachusetts, etc.
Often we hear the argument that since the people cannot match the power of the government in an armed conflict, the clear intent of the amendment is irrelevant and therefore has no meaning. Of course this raises the question: would the commanders of an American military or police force engage in a fire fight with we the people? Would they obey a desperate President's illegal and immoral order to attack to kill large numbers of American citizens? Would they bring their tanks, warplanes, machine guns to bear on their fellow Americans? The importance of an armed citizenry does not depend on the probable outcome of a conflict. Rather it determines the nature of the conflict and in so doing serves as a line in the sand. One which I submit the military and police would find difficult to cross.
Lastly, does the amendment stand in the way of gun control laws? In the extreme the Supreme court says yes (D.C. vs. Heller) but the majority opinion on that case, written by the late Justice Scalia, leaves room for measures to regulate (in the modern sense) "dangerous and unusual weapons". The M-16, a full auto and highly regulated military weapon, is used as an example.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
Our best stabs at it fall short of "ideal", and when you throw partisan perspectives and wishful thinking into the mix .. (your points about the statistics) .. are basically useless.
That's why I prefer to talk about inalienable rights.
I care only what makes a government .. legitimate.
Lol! The reason that they're inalienable rights and legitimate government is because you convince yourself to believe that they are. But when other people convince themselves to believe their preferred implications of statistics, they're doing it all wrong.
Maybe if we tried thinking of them as "inalienable" rights and "legitimate" government we'd get closer to an "ideal" of understanding others?
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
The average citizen really has very little clue about how much danger walks about in our society.
-Cragman
Apparently a lot less "danger" than used to be, if you go by facts rather than the Fox New bogeyman under the bed.
-Coach37
Seriously, are you trying to insult him by suggesting that he's an average citizen?! Please don't upset his delusions of grandeur - he believes that he's extraordinary! compared to us "pathetic" average Joes.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
Inalienable rights are those which a government cannot grant or take away.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
Your personal interpretation of the 2nd is merely opinion. In fact I'm sure there were disagreements over what it meant even at the time is was written. That's how our system works. The courts help decide the meaning.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
e.g. Shall not be infringed. Does that mean you can have whatever you want wherever you want like biological weapons in sports stadiums? Or does it mean you can keep and bear specific types of arms on your own property? Of course the answer lies somewhere in the middle and the courts help us decide what the limits are.
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
Your personal interpretation of the 2nd is merely opinion.
Largely not. If you take the Oxford as a legitimate source then the meaning in context of the time is quite clear.
I am expressing my opinion in the second to last paragraph.
Does that mean you can have whatever you want wherever you want like biological weapons in sports stadiums? Or does it mean you can keep and bear specific types of arms on your own property? Of course the answer lies somewhere in the middle and the courts help us decide what the limits are.
Gee, I thought I was quite clear on that question in my post. Whatever, it's a favorite straw-man, we see it all the time.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
If you take the Oxford as a legitimate source
Sorry that's not how it works. Again your personal opinion has squat to do with how laws are judged constitutional no matter how much you want to believe it, unless of course you are on the SCOTUS. Some justices do better at interpreting the laws as they are written than others, but a lot of it does come down to opinion (there's often room for interpretation), otherwise we wouldn't see the court split due to ideology so often.
Hillary has an 80% chance of being elected and the SCOTUS will likely trend left as a result for the next generation. So don't be surprised if more restrictive guns laws are applied.
I just hope as MB1 does that any new laws actually help. However I don't see most of the proposed laws as designed for animosity towards legal gun owners, I think that most people really want laws that help keep the wrong weapons out of the wrong hands but allow legal owners that follow the rules the freedom to have what the want with reasonable restrictions.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!