Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Not one of those companies has announced that they have voluntarily stopped shipping legal guns to California, they have said that "they will".
Joe Biden said today that the US will hunt down and bring ISIS to justice, that doesn't make it happen.
The only guns they have stopped selling are those they are no longer permitted to sell. That's not a boycott, they made a business decision not to make new guns that comply with the law, but they continue to sell guns that are exempt from that law.
Find any reputable link that shows Ruger or S&W have voluntarily stopped shipping guns that they are legally allowed to sell in California, and I'll buy you a beer next time I'm in your neck of the woods.
TE
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Has everyone already forgotten Newtown?
No, but let's get clear about what has really happened in these mass shootings since about 1950 and honestly assess if ANY of the proposed gun-control laws would have had any effect.
Per a well-researched article by Michael Martin in the latest issue of Concealed Carry....
Magazine Capacity
For a moderately (not even well) trained shooter, here are the effective rounds per minute possible with various magazines, holding the semi-auto weapon type constant throughout testing:
Magazine Capacity | Reloads Per Minute | Rounds Per Minute
--------------------------------------------------
5 rounds 11 55
10 rounds 7.5 75
30 rounds 3.3 100
Now, look at the big-name mass shootings:
Shooter | Dead | Rounds Fired | Time | Round Per Minute
------------------------------------------------------------------
Seung-Hui Cho 30 174 11 min 15
Adam Lanza 26 154 9 min 17
Eric Harris... 13 188 47 min 4
Jeff Weise 7 45 9 min 5
James Holmes 12 70 9 min 8
Nidal Malik Hasan 13 214 10 min 21
James Holmes even used large-cap, 100-round magazines, and his rate of fire was not higher to reflect his essentially unlimited capacity to just keep firing!
"Having these baseline numbers, the 'it's the magazine' crowd would have a strong argument if it could be demonstrated that mass shooters who used 30-round magazines had achieved a rate of fire of 100 rounds per minute or more, but unfortunately for them, the facts don't support their argument."
Of course, it might be argued instead that the rate of fire in these incidents was not purely a function of rounds/time, because the shooters were doing much more than merely firing, swapping mags, and firing more. They walked around. They stalked their prey. And so on.
However, it is extremely telling what magazine evidence was actually recovered from the sites of these shootings.
Adam Lanza, for example, entered Sandy Hook with 10 30-round magazines! Three of them were entirely unused, and four others were left with 10, 11, 13, and 14 rounds remaining. This means that he was dropping most magazines long before they were even close to used up. The mag-capacity was not relevant either to his rate of fire nor to his decisions to fire or drop mags and reload. This same effect has been repeatedly observed. Mass shooters are not thinking about nor employing their magazine capacity once the shooting starts.
In fact, the rate of fire that is typical in these shootings is FAR below what can trivially be achieved (and usually was) during the Civil War with the Henry Rifle, a lever-action, low-capacity weapon 150 years old!
Magazine capacity was literally and demonstrably irrelevant in all of the above six mass shootings.
Time Is The Killer!
"The large number of victims killed during school shootings is not occurring because of magazine capacity or a high rate of fire, it is occurring because these shooters have each had 5 to 9 minutes or more of uninterrupted time to commit their murders before police are able to commit to an interior response."
"In the 'gun-free zones' of our nation's schools, these shooters don't just believe, they know that a counter-attack will only come from the outside, and they'll get a loud and dramatic warning of the upcoming counter-attack as they hear sirens approaching from all directions. Those sirens tell them that they have at least another four minutes or more to kill any remaining victims before police will enter the building."
From the time the shooting starts, until the time police are called, until the time police gather outside, until police formulate an entry plan, and until the time police actually execute the entry plan, these mass shooters have many minutes in which to execute their victims. It is these many minutes, rather than magazine capacity, that is the problem and that radically increases the death toll!
Gun-Free Zones
"With just one single exception (the attack on congresswoman Gabby Giffords in Tucson in 2011) every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns."
"James Holmes... had at least seven movie-theaters to choose from, all within a 20 minute drive of his home and all that were showing The Dark Knight Rises. The Century Theater that Holmes settled on wasn't the closest, but it happened to be the only theater that posted 'NO GUNS' signs, while the other six theaters had no such declaration. Those 'NO GUNS' signs let Holmes know that he'd get the 5 to 9 minutes he needed."
There is not a single incident in United States history in which a gunman has fought his way past security or any effective resistance in order to gain access to victims. In every case, these mass shooters choose soft targets in gun-free zones. Malls, schools, and "NO GUNS" theaters. EVERY case has been in soft-target, gun free zones where the shooters KNOW that they will have uninterrupted access to victims for MANY minutes before an effective OUTSIDE force can be mustered to stop them.
"Signs, school policies, state statutes, glass doors, unlocked doors, and unarmed staff do not create hardened targets. What they create instead is the perfect environment for these deranged individuals to successfully carry out their plans. If we change the environment, we stand a chance of changing their plans."
So, if you really want to "remember Newtown," then LEARN what is there to be learned, and stop aiming at entirely the wrong target.
Edit: Sorry, but the taco's AI strips spaces, etc., and screws up the tabular columns.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Jonnyrig, I can see and understand what's going on in California, and don't have an opinion one way or another on the new law, or Ruger's response. However, Ron claims that Ruger has stopped shipping ALL guns to CA as a result of the new law, which is clearly not true. As I've said before, we're entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.
TE
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Madbolter, in your research, did you ever come across the following minor historical figures: Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, John F Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt, or Ronald Reagan?
All were being protected by the best trained and best armed force possible. All were shot, most were killed.
As for the High Capacity /Assault rifle issue, I agree that it's a red herring and far from the most serious issue in this debate, but it doesn't make it a minor issue. Your wonderful report carefully parses its words to exclude the most common type of mass shootings, those of family members, by a family member. There are many hundreds of those every year, don't they count unless they suit your hypothesis?
TE
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Madbolter, in your research, did you ever come across the following minor historical figures: Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, John F Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt, or Ronald Reagan?
This is the problem with "debating" the issue. Every time an "anti-gunner" offers an anti-gun argument and proposes legislation to "solve" the perceived "problem," the "gun nuts" show that the argument isn't persuasive, much less compelling. Then the "anti-gunner" just moves the target.
The picture above, to which I was responding, asked the question: "Does anyone remember Newtown?" The argument underlying that question, which has been touted countless times, is that magazine sizes, etc. are the issues that we should "remember" as we pass legislation to "keep incidents like Newtown from happening again."
The problem is that the legislation arguments to "prevent more Newtowns" cannot have the desired effect. That is demonstrated, as I and others have done.
But, then, people like you just change up the argument!
It's like arguing with Jehovah's Witnesses. It's always a moving target.
There can be no "debate" in such a context.
All were being protected by the best trained and best armed force possible. All were shot, most were killed.
Irrelevant, unless you are (as you CLAIM you are not) trying to eliminate all gun ownership.
A TINY proportion of gun owners will misuse the tool. Just as a TINY proportion of car owners, cell phone owners, knife owners, etc. will misuse their tools.
The POINT is that the MASS murders that prompts cartoons like the "remember Newtown" one above are ALL committed against soft targets in gun-free zones. "Gun free zones" are only gun free until the nut job shows up! Your response is irrelevant to THAT point.
As for the High Capacity /Assault rifle issue, I agree that it's a red herring and far from the most serious issue in this debate, but it doesn't make it a minor issue.
It's an irrelevant issue. It doesn't even get so far as to qualify as "minor." Magazine sizes have no, nada, ZERO effect on the efficacy of victimization once a nut job decides to rampage. We have tons of statistical evidence to demonstrate that fact.
As argued above, TIME and "gun-free" combine to make these soft-target zones appealing to nut jobs. Weapon type and magazine size are literally irrelevant in the statistics of death that follow.
Your own examples show that weapon type and magazine type are irrelevant even in those sorts of cases.
Your wonderful report carefully parses its words to exclude the most common type of mass shootings,
Sorry, but now YOU are the one "parsing" the verbiage to twist the clear meanings. The sorts of shootings you are referring to are NOT "mass shootings." They are individual-on-individual shootings... nothing MASS about them.
There are many hundreds of those every year, don't they count unless they suit your hypothesis?
You seem VERY confused about what my "hypothesis" actually is, despite the fact that it is very clearly and cogently argued.
MY hypothesis is that proposed gun control laws DO not and WILL not keep more Newtowns from happening. Period. Don't change up my focused argument.
If you want to CHANGE the subject and switch up the "hypothesis," then at least be clear about what you are doing. Otherwise, you are simply arguing past me.
If you want to talk about the "epidemic of gun violence," then you seem to be arguing numbers. There is some point in your mind beyond which it is "too much."
Then we're back to the "reduce" argument that we've argued all before. And I will sum up the same way: In a nation of 1/3 of a billion people from all over the planet, THE mixed salad of nations, and a nation that enjoys unprecedented individual freedoms, there literally IS NO "epidemic of gun violence." And as a nation, with limited resources to engage in various "wars on..." this or that perceived "problem," we MUST allocate our resources where they will have the most effect relative to the magnitude of the "problem" we are trying to prevent. And we should employ the data that we do have to determine what sorts of responses will actually be efficacious.
You don't prevent more Newtowns, which are employed (as in the cartoon above) to motivate all sorts of legislative efforts that can and will have demonstrably ZERO effect on the very sorts of incidents that are employed to justify the legislation. THAT is my point, and don't try to change it up into something else.
YOU (and some others) somehow (and I honestly don't know why) are fixated on this "gun violence problem," which is in fact literally a drop in the bucket compared to other FAR more pressing problems (including ones that cause truly MASSIVE amounts of suffering and unnecessary death). So, if you are playing a numbers game, then the numbers are not persuasive, much less compelling.
There is something about the fact that it's "intentional murder" that has your panties in a bunch. But, again, we can't go after everything that causes needless trauma and death. So, rather than to fixate on what is statistically-speaking a non-issue, it is far better to devote our resources where they can actually solve a statistically-significant problem.
People with guns kill other people. People with knives kill other people. People texting while driving kill other people. Drunk drivers kill other people. People that smoke around their kids kill them. People that make their kids morbidly obese before they are teenagers kill them. It goes on and on.
It is all KILLING... not just passive "dying." YOU want to impose certain rules on everybody to solve a statistically-insignificant "problem," but MANY others simply do not agree that there IS this "problem of gun violence" at current rates, certainly not to the level demanding federal legislation. If you want to legislate away as much needless KILLING as possible, then you are fixated on entirely the wrong issue.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Your claim is supported by the following:
with just one single exception (the attack on congresswoman Gabby Giffords in Tucson in 2011) every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.
Firstly, it conveniently omits the most common type of mass murders.
Secondly, it omits mass murders in inconvenient places like military bases and police stations.
Lastly, it's simply not true, unless the spin on the word "public" is to exclude the very example of Sandy Hook Elementary.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/
I've even excluded the examples that occurred in schools, universities, peoples home or places of work (where weapons may have been permitted).
23 killed - October 16, 1991 - In Killeen, Texas, 35-year-old George Hennard crashes his pickup truck through the wall of a Lubys Cafeteria. After exiting the truck, Hennard shoots and kills 23 people.
21 killed - July 18, 1984 - In San Ysidro, California, 41-year-old James Huberty, armed with a long-barreled Uzi, a pump-action shotgun and a handgun shoots and kills 21 adults and children at a local McDonalds.
13 killed - September 5, 1949 - In Camden, New Jersey, 28-year-old Howard Unruh, a veteran of World War II, shoots and kills 13 people as he walks down Camden's 32nd Street. His weapon of choice is a German-crafted Luger pistol.
8 killed - December 5, 2007 - In Omaha, Nebraska, 19-year-old Robert Hawkins goes to an area mall and kills eight shoppers before killing himself.
Facts - you don't get to make them up.
MY hypothesis is that proposed gun control laws DO not and WILL not keep more Newtowns from happening.
Proposed gun control laws cannot possibly stop more Newtons until they become law, so I will accept the first point, proposed laws DO NOT stop anything.
If your second point is that proposed laws have to stop ALL mass murders from ever happening, then I will accept that point too, but no law of any type has ever been required to meet that standard.
If your hypothesis is that enactment of proposed laws will not prevent some future mass shooting from happening, it's absurd. Universal Background checks will prevent some madman from buying a gun, it won't prevent them all.
TE
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
madbolter posted No, but let's get clear about what has really happened in these mass shootings since about 1950 and honestly assess if ANY of the proposed gun-control laws would have had any effect.
The "proposed gun laws" are proposed because that's what people think can get passed by congress. Then they get watered down to sh#t and made fun of for being ineffective by the same people who watered them down. They are the Bradley Fighting Vehicle of regulations.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
"The "proposed gun laws" are proposed because that's what people think can get passed by congress."
And you wonder why they aren't so popular.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
There is something about the fact that it's "intentional murder" that has your panties in a bunch. But, again, we can't go after everything that causes needless trauma and death. So, rather than to fixate on what is statistically-speaking a non-issue, it is far better to devote our resources where they can actually solve a statistically-significant problem.
Since I'm bored again today, can you name any of those other issues where death or injury could be reduced by legislation, or one where you'd be happy to pay the corresponding tax increase to pay for the remediation of the problem? We can't regulate disease out of existence, so let's limit the challenge to mechanisms of death or injury for people under 40, which kill 1000 and injure 10,000 people each year, yet are less regulated than guns in their design, sale, use or disposal and where the manufacturers are immune from product liability lawsuits?
TE
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
The gov't should ban all vehicles as well.
Compared to guns of any/all kind, those things kill tens times more people in this country per annum.
Next item after vehicles, cigarettes.
Next item....
If we include suicides, guns kill more people than cars each year, if we exclude suicide, which aren't my concern, cars kill less than three times as many people as guns. However, almost half of all car deaths are the driver responsible, and 94% are other persons voluntarily engaged in the same dangerous activity. If 94% of gun deaths occurred at shooting ranges, this thread wouldn't exist.
The design, sale and public use of cars are regulated far more than guns, and are not protected from product liability lawsuits.
Cigarettes, like suicide, not my concern, but second hand smoke is regulated so you can't smoke where your smoke endangers the health of others.
Junk food? Not my problem.
Pharmaceuticals? Regulated to the sky, and not protected from product liability lawsuits.
Next...
TE
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
The simple fact is the government is not here to help us.... once you grasp that fact it becomes a lot more clear that even more absurd legislation is not the answer to our ills...
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
A few more years of these idiot texter/drivers and you will have more than rear view cameras mandated by legislation in new cars.
It won't take much to make tamper resistant black boxes on cars, and then you will see a lot more personal responsibility come into play.
1984, but in this case I welcome it.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Having children in the car is more distracting than texting while driving. Can't wait 'til they ban that.
Best idea on this thread yet!
TE
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Better yet ban bad parenting.
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
Chief, take your 19,392 gun suicides, 11,078 gun murders, and 606 accidental gun deaths and you get 31,076 gun deaths in 2010. Your figure of 32,999 motor vehicle deaths is a long way from ten times higher than 31,076, which was your original claim.
Your claim and my counter-claim both said cars, not all motor vehicles so if we exclude deaths caused by motorcycles (4,502), my claim stands, and I could still remove deaths caused by heavy trucks and buses. This validates both of my claims, that guns kill more people than cars, and that even excluding suicides, cars kill less than three times as many as guns.
Feel free to pick a hole in any of that.
TE
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
I'll buy that, my bad, but your original claim of 10x deaths by vehicles vs. guns was way off, even if we exclude suicides, and my claim was actually slightly understated. Additionally, I have always supported much stricter DUI laws, texting/driving laws and much harder driving tests, and would refuse to vote for any politician who tried to ease current restrictions.
TE
|
|
TradEddie
Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
|
|
It's not a free country, never has been, and freedom doesn't mean being permitted to endanger others. Do you believe that 33 states should allow the private sale of guns to felons as long as they are strangers to the seller?
Background checks don't require additional enforcement to be effective, and they facilitate the enforcement of existing laws. I don't want to imprison more felons and madmen after they use a gun, I want to stop more from getting guns, and stop more people from selling guns to them. That's how the most efficient laws work.
Repealing the 2005 law protecting gun makers from product liability lawsuits would also cost nothing. Every other industry has to care about the safety of their products, why not guns?
TE
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
23 killed - October 16, 1991 - In Killeen, Texas, 35-year-old George Hennard crashes his pickup truck through the wall of a Lubys Cafeteria. After exiting the truck, Hennard shoots and kills 23 people.
Gun-free zone. Texas bans all open carry of handguns statewide, which is why there are now rifle-carrying protests statewide. As I argued, Hennard knew that ANYWHERE he crashed his truck would be a soft-target, gun-free killing field.
21 killed - July 18, 1984 - In San Ysidro, California, 41-year-old James Huberty, armed with a long-barreled Uzi, a pump-action shotgun and a handgun shoots and kills 21 adults and children at a local McDonalds.
Gun-free zone. As in Texas, California has long disallowed citizens being armed. In fact, California has long been one of the most difficult states in which to get a CCW permit. So, just as with Hennard, Huberty KNEW that he would face no armed resistance from INSIDE his killing field. Just as with all of the mass shootings, this nut job knew that resistance would come from OUTSIDE, and then only after significant warning (sirens, etc.).
13 killed - September 5, 1949 - In Camden, New Jersey, 28-year-old Howard Unruh, a veteran of World War II, shoots and kills 13 people as he walks down Camden's 32nd Street. His weapon of choice is a German-crafted Luger pistol.
Are you kidding, TE? Seriously... get SERIOUS!
New Jersey is (and has long been) one of the most anti-gun states in the Union! Almost nobody there is legally armed in public places! It's virtually impossible to get a CCW permit, and open carry is banned. The whole frigging STATE is a "gun-free zone." So, same points as above.
8 killed - December 5, 2007 - In Omaha, Nebraska, 19-year-old Robert Hawkins goes to an area mall and kills eight shoppers before killing himself.
Gun-free zone. Virtually all malls are explicitly gun-free zones. Remember the recent Portland, Oregon shooting in the mall? Gun-free zone.
In supposed gun-free zones, only the nut jobs have guns.
Facts - you don't get to make them up.
True... but YOU sure try anyway.
Not one of your examples even touches my argument and that of the article I cited. In short: The mass-killing fields are what they are because the nut jobs KNOW that they will face no INSIDE resistance, they know that they will have TIME to do lots and lots of killing, they know that they will face only (eventual) OUTSIDE resistance, and they know that they will get MANY minutes of warning as the spree is about to wind down.
Your examples HELPED make those points. Thank you.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
I don't want to imprison more felons and madmen after they use a gun, I want to stop more from getting guns, and stop more people from selling guns to them.
I'm with you until you start talking pre-crime enforcement. Did you never watch Minority Report?
This nation was NOT founded on the idea that law enforcement should engage itself with pre-crime enforcement. We DO penalize criminals AFTER the act. That's one of the most fundamental principles of freedom!
That's how the most efficient laws work.
NO! That's how "efficient" pre-crime, police-state laws work. I do NOT want to live in a pre-crime police state! I want to live in the state the founders designed, which was a libertarian state. In such a state of freedom, there WILL be prices to pay. Our founders thought that "the people" would NEVER be willing to "give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety."
Yet, here we are talking about doing EXACTLY that... and all motivated by drop-in-the-bucket statistics and a twisted pre-crime notion of "law enforcement."
Look, as I've said before, you want state-managed (NOT fed-managed) background checks, no problem. Have all you want. I don't give a rip, because they are insignificant and irrelevant. (BTW, you can SAY that they would keep "some" nut jobs from getting a gun, but you have no basis to say that. ALL of the nut jobs that we actually know of that had any trouble getting a gun just found other means.)
But I won't sit idly by while you and others like you try to empower the FEDS to make this nation into more and more of a pre-crime police state! Keep it in the hands of the states, and you've got no argument from me. Try to put it in the hands of the FEDS, and you've got a fight on your hands.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!