# Anti-gun stupidity continues...



## Grenadier (Jan 12, 2011)

Figures, that the anti-gunners would be dancing around in a bloodbath so soon...  This article also shows their flat-out ignorance.  

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10collins.html?_r=2&hp



> If Loughner had gone to the Safeway carrying a regular pistol, the kind most Americans think of when they think of the right to bear arms, Giffords would probably still have been shot and we would still be having that conversation about whether it was a sane idea to put her Congressional district in the cross hairs of a rifle on the Internet.
> 
> 
> But we might not have lost a federal judge, a 76-year-old church volunteer, two elderly women, Giffordss 30-year-old constituent services director and a 9-year-old girl who had recently been elected to the student council at her school and went to the event because she wanted to see how democracy worked.
> ...




So... A Glock pistol, that works just like any other handgun, suddenly becomes a supremely powerful item?  Doesn't Helmke know that any semiautomatic handgun can accomodate an extended length *magazine*?  

The stupidity of the gun-grabbers never ceases to amaze me...


----------



## Hudson69 (Jan 12, 2011)

Guns are tools it the operator who makes it dangerous to others.  If someone wants to hurt you or is crazy and wants to hurt a lot of people then there are ways to do that.  

This was a tragic event but no one, that I have seen, has pointed out that if someone else was armed this could have ended quicker with the shooter being put down like the mad dog is apparently is.

My .02 only.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 12, 2011)

Hudson69 said:


> Guns are tools it the operator who makes it dangerous to others.  If someone wants to hurt you or is crazy and wants to hurt a lot of people then there are ways to do that.
> 
> This was a tragic event but no one, that I have seen, has pointed out that if someone else was armed this could have ended quicker with the shooter being put down like the mad dog is apparently is.
> 
> My .02 only.



And for a change, I agree with you.

People who have a deep dislike or fear of guns and a desire to see stronger gun control laws often know little or nothing about them.  

In the past several days, I have heard the major news networks incorrectly identifying high-capacity magazines as 'clips'.  I have heard them identify semi-automatic pistols as 'automatic weapons' and even 'assault weapons'.  I have read pundits and politicians stating unequivocally that such pistols have "NO PURPOSE" except to commit crimes.  I have heard the emotionally-laden buzzwords such as 'spray' and 'hose' with reference to rapid pistol fire, which certainly gives an indiscriminate concept to the shooting.

I have also heard about how this guy 'slipped through' the gun laws and that therefore they do not work; there appears to be a complete (intentional?) lack of understanding of how the FBI Instant Background Check system works and why it is the way it is.  The man lacked a criminal conviction record as well as the type of mental instability resulting in detention that would have resulted in his being a 'hit' on the IBC.  The man also violated the law when he filled out the mandatory form 4473, which under penalty of perjury attests that he is an unlawful user of (among other things) marijuana.  That is the intent of the question; not to stop people who use marijuana from purchasing guns, but to ensure that if they do, they are committing a felony by so doing.  This law was apparently violated as well.  So the system worked as intended; it was not designed to be able to stop people from doing something terrible with the gun once they purchased it.

And finally, as you mentioned, it has not been mentioned that an armed citizen might well have been able to put a stop to this.  However, I doubt we'll see it bandied around much; some would argue that if someone had been armed and opened fire, it might have become a bloodbath.  Not that I think this would have happened, but I would expect to see this as an argument.

I often do Google News searches for instances of armed citizens defending themselves with guns from predators.  One in particular was just a few days ago; a woman killed an armed intruder into her home who fired shots at her; she returned fire and killed the man.

I have yet to hear a cogent response from an anti-gun person as to what they would prefer to have happened.  In their world, she would have been unarmed.  The criminal, of course, would still have a gun; criminals tend not to obey laws (surprise!).  Since the FBI says that most criminals get their guns illegally, there's no way to argue that the criminal also would have had a gun; so she just dies.  And that's better for us how?  No answer.


----------



## CoryKS (Jan 12, 2011)

> Loughners gun, a 9-millimeter Glock, is extremely easy to fire over and over, and it can carry a 30-bullet clip. It is not suited for hunting or personal protection, said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign. *What its good for is killing and injuring a lot of people quickly.*


 
Or the same guy, multiple times.  Which, in the hands of anyone else at the gathering, would qualify as "personal protection" IMO.


----------



## Steve (Jan 12, 2011)

Hudson69 said:


> Guns are tools it the operator who makes it dangerous to others.  If someone wants to hurt you or is crazy and wants to hurt a lot of people then there are ways to do that.
> 
> This was a tragic event but no one, that I have seen, has pointed out that if someone else was armed this could have ended quicker with the shooter being put down like the mad dog is apparently is.
> 
> My .02 only.


I don't know a lot about guns and I'm not in favor of banning them.  That said, this is a genuine question.  Didn't the heroes on that day take advantage of the pause to reload as an opportunity to jump the guy and pin him to the ground?  A 30 round magazine seems a little over the top.  Would any of you carry a semiautomatic pistol with an extended magazine for personal protection?


----------



## Steve (Jan 12, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> And finally, as you mentioned, it has not been mentioned that an armed citizen might well have been able to put a stop to this.  However, I doubt we'll see it bandied around much; some would argue that if someone had been armed and opened fire, it might have become a bloodbath.  Not that I think this would have happened, but I would expect to see this as an argument.


If we're playing around with hypotheticals, an armed citizen might also have overreacted and shot additional innocents in the confusion.  Or an armed citizen might have had the weapon taken from him or her and given the bad guy an additional loaded weapon with which to shoot more people.   Or an armed citizen might have been shot by the police having been mistaken for the shooter.  Any or all of these could also have happened.  Really hard to say what might have happened, but it's easy to be an armchair QB.

It's times like this that the people who oppose guns use the bad guy to their advantage, and the people who are pro-gun tend to forget that guns aren't illegal, so someone could have carried a weapon.  We don't know.  It's very possible that someone did have a gun, but froze or just plain forgot about it.  Ultimately, an armed person with an unknown amount of training and an unknown amount of experience is an x factor who could save the day or make things dramatically worse.


----------



## Grenadier (Jan 12, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> I don't know a lot about guns and I'm not in favor of banning them.  That said, this is a genuine question.  Didn't the heroes on that day take advantage of the pause to reload as an opportunity to jump the guy and pin him to the ground?  A 30 round magazine seems a little over the top.  Would any of you carry a semiautomatic pistol with an extended magazine for personal protection?



I routinely use extended magazines.  A Glock 26 subcompact pistol can have its magazine capacity increased by two rounds, simply by using one of the factory +2 extenders, giving it a 12+1 capacity, instead of a 10+1 capacity.  

For that matter, I know of a fair number of folks who buy special sleeve adapters that allow them to get a full handed grip on a Glock 26 when the adapter is fitted with a 15 round Glock 19 magazine, giving them a 15+1 capacity.  

There are also many who use full size pistol magazines in their compact Glocks, giving their compact Glock 19 a 17+1 capacity when using a Glock 17 magazine, or their Glock 23 a 15+1 capacity when using a Glock 22 magazine.  For that matter, the factory and distributors were selling refurbished compacts that came with two full size pistol magazines, back in the Assault Weapons Ban days.  

I also have a few 33 round magazines that I keep around, in case of an incident the likes of the 1992 Los Angeles riots occurring again.  While the chances are small that such a thing can occur, you never know when some repeat criminal loser high on PCP ends up causing another large scale event.  

Despite my having possession of such magazines (in addition to numerous 30 round AR-15 magazines), none of my firearms were ever used in crimes, much less any of the magazines.  

The magazine capacity isn't the issue.  If the gunman magically decided not to use a 31 / 33 round magazine in his weapon, he would simply have carried a second weapon instead.  

It's an operator issue, not an equipment one.  Even if someone waved a magic wand and said "presto, no more guns allowed in law-abiding people's hands," the criminal would still have found a way to obtain one illegally.  Failing that, he could have easily turned to deadlier methods (see the Bath School Massacre, where the deadliest school massacre of all time took place without guns being used).


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 12, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> I don't know a lot about guns and I'm not in favor of banning them.  That said, this is a genuine question.  Didn't the heroes on that day take advantage of the pause to reload as an opportunity to jump the guy and pin him to the ground?  A 30 round magazine seems a little over the top.  Would any of you carry a semiautomatic pistol with an extended magazine for personal protection?



These are reasonable questions, thanks.  Let me see if I can answer them.  It may sound like side-stepping, but I promise that's not my intent.  I'll try to explain why I'm giving the answers I am giving as I go...
_
1) Wasn't the guy tackled whilst reloading?  _

Yes, he was.  And it is more than reasonable to infer that had his magazine capacity been lower, he might have been tackled earlier.  That's logical.

However, the question that is being asked here isn't *just* about magazine capacity.  It's about restrictions on legal ownership, period.  If one decides, for example, that a 30-round magazine is 'too much' for civilian ownership, then what is 'enough'?  Who decides?  Why?  And what's to stop the NEXT shooting that occurs with a 10-round (or 5-round or 1-round) magazine to bring about the next call for smaller magazines?

So if I defend the right of citizens to own 30-round magazines, it is not that I think they have any particular use, nor any use that I would find compelling for myself, but that I see where such 'reasonable' restrictions end up and fear that.

_2) Isn't a 30-round magazine a little over the top?_

It depends very much on what value you put on legality.  If something is legal to own, it is legal to own.  How much or how large or any other value question is legitimate to ask, but not legitimate to demand that others adhere to.  I could as easily approach a guy eating a Big Mac in McDonalds and say _"Whoa there, big guy.  Don't you think you could eat a smaller burger instead?  Do you need all those french fries?  I think that apple pie is a little over the top, don't you?  How about that super-size Coke, I mean really?" _ 

Then we get into the issue that the big guy in McDonalds isn't killing people.  No, he's only costing us all money.  Lots and lots and lots of money - in aggregate, more die from heart disease - and by a lot - than die from being shot by loonies.  And the cost to society is huge, in money and in productivity and in lawsuits and so on and so forth.  But we don't get involved in personal choices like that.  Somehow, when it involves a gun, we feel as if we do have the right to get involved in deciding how much or how large of a legal item a person can have.

It's also true that this kind of argument immediately puts gun owners on the defensive to answer that exact question - why a 30-round magazine?  What's wrong with restricting high-capacity magazines?  What possible use would a law-abiding citizen have for a 30-round magazine?  The truth is that these kinds of questions are designed (not by you) to engage gun-owners in ever-smaller circles of justification for this or for that particular item or device.  I prefer a much more generic approach to such questions.  My answer is "what business is it of yours (not you personally) to tell me how much or how large of ANY legal item I may own?"  I do not hear anyone asking me why I need so many cameras, or lenses, or cars, or stuffed cats, and inferring that I have 'too many' and have 'no reason to have them'.  Only with guns do we hear that question.  The question itself is invalid for that reason.

I also note that the 30-round magazines were legal prior to the 'assault weapons ban' which expired in 2004.  Prior to that time, there was no particular issue with high-capacity magazines (there was a notable shootout with police in LA, but I think many would agree that the criminals in that case would have used whatever they could get; they had illegal fully-automatic weapons as well as high-capacity magazines).  And after 2004, we haven't had any episodes that I recall hearing about that involved high-capacity magazines; so here it is in 2011, nearly seven years later and we have one incident.  And yes, it's a huge incident, and yes, it's a tragedy.  But I think we'd have to agree that on balance, the overwhelming number of those 30-round magazines that have been presumably sold have NOT been used to commit atrocities.

_3) Would any of you carry a pistol with an extended-round magazine?_

No, I personally have no use for such things.  But as I mentioned earlier, I feel I must defend the right to own WHATEVER size magazine on the basic premise that an attack on gun rights is an attack on gun rights, period.

Many of us gun-owners remember the bans on 'Saturday Night Specials' of years ago; some of those laws still exist.  The idea was that cheap revolvers with short barrels were often used by criminals to commit crimes.  So the question was asked, _"What do decent law-abiding citizens want with a Saturday Night Special?"_  Many gun owners went along with this logic - after all, they did not personally have any use for a cheap short-nosed revolvers.  But they soon found out to their chagrin that a) this law also meant poor people could no longer afford inexpensive home defense weapons, and b) the 'gun grabbers' were not satisfied with banning Saturday Night Specials and quickly reneged on all public promises that they would not ask for more restrictions if they got this one.

So although I have no use for a 30-round magazine in a pistol, I defend the right of law-abiding citizens to own them; and I don't think anyone has to explain their reason for wanting to own them, any more than you or I have to explain why we want a Big Mac instead of a cheeseburger.  It's simply not a valid question to ask.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 12, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> If we're playing around with hypotheticals, an armed citizen might also have overreacted and shot additional innocents in the confusion.  Or an armed citizen might have had the weapon taken from him or her and given the bad guy an additional loaded weapon with which to shoot more people.   Or an armed citizen might have been shot by the police having been mistaken for the shooter.  Any or all of these could also have happened.  Really hard to say what might have happened, but it's easy to be an armchair QB.



Yes, that's true and that is why I do not make that automatic statement that having an armed citizen in the crowd would have resulted in a positive outcome.

The same logic, of course, also means that it is reasonable to say that we cannot predict that the 30-round magazine was a major factor in the number of people shot; if the man had not had a 30-round magazine, he might have successfully reloaded a second smaller magazine; he might have carried more than one gun; or his high-cap magazine might have jammed (it didn't, but high-cap mags are known for jamming - we gun owners know this).



> It's times like this that the people who oppose guns use the bad guy to their advantage, and the people who are pro-gun tend to forget that guns aren't illegal, so someone could have carried a weapon.  We don't know.  It's very possible that someone did have a gun, but froze or just plain forgot about it.  Ultimately, an armed person with an unknown amount of training and an unknown amount of experience is an x factor who could save the day or make things dramatically worse.



It is also possible that were more than one legally-armed citizen in the crowd who evaluated the situation, realized they would not be able to return fire without endangering other innocent citizens and deciding not to draw or fire.  There tends to be an assumption on the part of many non-gun owners that gun-owners are just itching to shoot someone.  I think this is an invalid assumption.  The fact that licensed concealed-carry gun owners commit a far, far, lower percentage of crimes with guns than the rest of the population I think lends credence to the notion that by and large, people who carry legally are smarter about guns than most of the rest of the population; they tend to know when a gun is and is NOT the solution to a given problem.

I own hammers.  I don't automatically think the best solution to every problem is to hit it with a hammer.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 12, 2011)

Interesting posts, Bill and Grenadier.  

I own guns, I'm not really in favor of gun control as it's understood beyond some obvious common sense controls, and I'm not in favor of banning extended magazines for all the reasons you both state.

This issue did get me thinking about dividing lines.  One commentator explored this issue, and got into the banning of "plastic" guns and AP rounds ("cop killer bullets") in the 80's.  Interestingly, the votes to ban both were overwhelming - Dick Cheney was only one of 4 "no" votes in the House on the plastic guns one.  Even the NRA eventually endorsed the ban.

Personally, I would tend to favor the ban on non-metallic guns for basic security reasons, and disfavor the AP round ban, although I'm not really committed on either.  Where would you both fall on these old bans?  What arguments would you use?  Where do you think the reasonable compromise line should be between "Nuclear Weapons for all!" and "Not even harsh words for all!"?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 12, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Interesting posts, Bill and Grenadier.
> 
> I own guns, I'm not really in favor of gun control as it's understood beyond some obvious common sense controls, and I'm not in favor of banning extended magazines for all the reasons you both state.
> 
> ...



Excellent questions.  My thanks to all for keeping this thread more-or-less civil!

I realize that there are all sorts of responses to the question you ask _'what is reasonable gun control'_ if I may paraphrase.

Personally, I accept that no right is absolute; but the usual and generally-accepted rationale for infringing on what would otherwise be a civil right is a direct, clear, and immediate deadly danger to others, or a direct infringement on the civil rights of others.

I suspect, but cannot prove, that the reason some types of gun regulations get bipartisan approval and others do not has more to do with the zeitgeist and political expediency than with the regulation in question.

With regard to plastic-framed guns; I am against banning them.  I do not believe that an immediate, clear, and direct threat has been shown.  The same for bullets which can penetrate body armor - the so-called _'cop killers'_ (By the way, what politician would be in favor of _'cop killer'_ anything?).  Words have power.  Label a thing and you've gone a long way towards shaping public opinion your way.

I can't say I have a strong opinion one way or another on things like fully-automatic weapons and silencers and short-barreled weapons.  Most of these things were banned due to public perception that they were commonly used by gangsters of the time (1930's) and that the criminals so armed were 'outgunning' the police.  Was there a problem amongst everyday citizens using 'machine guns'?  I don't know.  I don't think so, though.

The same could be said for those who purchased guns of all kinds directly through the mail.  Until the assassination of President Kennedy, which was committed by a man armed with a surplus rifle he purchased via mail-order.  Such sales were banned, but really, were they an issue prior to the assassination?  Did they stop people from trying to assassinate presidents?  Did the ban really make any difference?  The gun used was not known as a high-quality weapon, nor was it very difficult to find much better rifles for little money locally; it would appear to have been a matter of price or convenience for the assassin.  What did banning mail order weapons do?  What problem did it solve?

On the other hand, I am uncomfortable with the idea of legal hand grenades and rocket launchers; I admit it.  And yes, I realize that is contrary to my overall belief in infringing on civil liberties without a direct, immediate, and clear danger to others.  I will live with the fact that I harbor some hypocrisy in my beliefs on this matter.

My opinions on this issue are informed to a great extent by a book I read some years ago; _"Unintended Consequences,"_ by John Ross.


----------



## Grenadier (Jan 12, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> This issue did get me thinking about dividing lines.  One commentator explored this issue, and got into the banning of "plastic" guns and AP rounds ("cop killer bullets") in the 80's.  Interestingly, the votes to ban both were overwhelming - Dick Cheney was only one of 4 "no" votes in the House on the plastic guns one.  Even the NRA eventually endorsed the ban.



The ban on "cop killer bullets" would have banned almost every kind of centerfire rifle ammunition, since virtually any centerfire rifle ammunition will launch a bullet that can easily punch through soft body armor.  This includes virtually all centerfire cartridges that any hunter would use.  The gun-grabbers basically got caught in a lie, since they had asserted that they wouldn't interfere with hunting, sporting, etc.  

Furthermore, the infamous "KTW" bullet that used a bronze (and later, tungsten) core, that also had a teflon coating, was never issued to the general public.  If anything, I have yet to see a single incident of a police officer dying from a KTW bullet penetrating his vest...  If someone can find an example, I'll gladly stand corrected.  

This is why such an all-encompassing ban is silly, since too many people believe the hype, and don't look into the facts of the matter.  

As for the "plastic gun ban," that was a non-existent issue as well.  The anti-gun crowd got into a frenzy once they "heard" about a gun that was made out of plastic, which was the Glock pistol.  

As a result, the anti-gun crowd asserted that anyone could take one of these guns onto a plane, since they wouldn't be detectable by a metal detector.  

The reality?  

A Glock pistol has a carbon steel slide that gives it most of its weight.  There is no way that you can take a pound of carbon steel through a metal detector, period, as long as the detector is working.  The anti-gun crowd ignored this fact, and continued to assert the fallacies.  

Only the frame / receiver of a Glock pistol (or any polymer framed pistol) is made of a polymer material, and even if you tried to take it through a metal detector, the integrated steel parts in the frame have plenty of mass to trigger a metal detector.  

There is no way you can bring a Glock frame or slide, through a metal detector, plain and simple.  No way.  

Nobody makes a functional handgun that's made without metal.  There simply aren't any materials out there that can do the job of steel.  The barrel (which holds the chamber) has to be able to take tens of thousands of PSI or copper crush pressure units, and if you were to try to make a barrel out of polymers, it would simply rupture.  

Furthermore, the ammunition itself would easily trigger a metal detector.  If you tried to take a single 9 mm cartridge through, it would trigger the alarm.  Those who assert that you can manufacture bullets out of ceramic or other non-metallic materials should read a few materials science texts.  

As stated previously, a non-metal barrel wouldn't be able to contain the explosion that comes from the propellant.  Second, even if the barrel could withstand such pressures, a hard ceramic bullet is not going to be able to expand to properly seal the bore, resulting in a very dangerous situation for the shooter.  In addition to this, the frictional aspect, and many, many other factors, make this a moot issue.  

When it comes down to it, there are simply no substitutes for metal for various critical components.  

These days, there are many models of polymer framed pistols on the market, such as the Glock, the HK USP, the Sig  2xxx series, the Smith and Wesson M&P, the Ruger P95 and P97, the Ruger SR9, and so forth.  Any of these guns would have been banned under the "plastic gun" law, even though none  of them can do what the anti-gun crowd asserted that they could do.  



> Personally, I would tend to favor the ban on non-metallic guns for basic security reasons


At this point, I consider such bans to be similar to wanting to ban disintegration rays and lightsabers.  It simply isn't going to happen.  



> on these old bans?  What arguments would you use?  Where do you think the reasonable compromise line should be between "Nuclear Weapons for all!" and "Not even harsh words for all!"?


Again, those are non-issues.  Most people aren't going be able to legally afford a nuclear weapon.  Even if one could, what defensive use is it?  You would simply blow yourself up along with the home invader.  If someone had that much money, he could certainly invest it in other security issues, such as hiring a private army, etc.  

Criminals will find armaments regardless of what restrictions are in place.

My proposal is this: leave the law-abiding folks alone.  Lawful gun owners are much less likely to commit crimes, since they do not have felonies on their records, are not users illegal substances, are not members of subversive organizations, etc.  

If you want to nail someone, then punish those who commit the crimes.  They don't obey the laws anyways, so why punish the law-abiding folks?


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 12, 2011)

Grenadier said:


> If you want to nail someone, then punish those who commit the crimes.  They don't obey the laws anyways, so why punish the law-abiding folks?



Agreed.  One might as well argue that no one needs to own a car that exceeds the speed limit; what use could it possibly have?  Therefore ban it.  We don't do that, however.  What we do instead is punish those who speed, and let people own whatever type of car they wish to own.

I have heard people say _"What on earth would you want with a car like that?"_  I have not yet heard anyone say, _"I don't think you should be allowed to own a car that can go faster than the speed limit."_  But they feel free to state that people should not be allowed to own a gun that does not have a purpose they find acceptable.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 12, 2011)

Grenadier said:


> Again, those are non-issues.  Most people aren't going be able to legally afford a nuclear weapon.  Even if one could, what defensive use is it?  You would simply blow yourself up along with the home invader.  If someone had that much money, he could certainly invest it in other security issues, such as hiring a private army, etc.



Respectfully, I don't think you're really answering my questions or the overall thrust of the post.  I'm not really interested in the particulars of making a polymer gun, I'm more interested in your philosophical thoughts on gun control.  Saying "well, no one could afford a nuclear weapon, or if they could they could hire an army" dodges the question.  If you do not believe there should be any limits on what sort of weapon a person should own, please say so and state your rationale - that is more interesting to me.

Also saying that law-abiding owners aren't a problem also dodges the issue for several reasons.  First of all, the restrictions you presumably oppose define who is and who is not a law abiding gun owner.  It sort of becomes tautological.  Second, the rate may be small, but legally purchased guns are used to commit crimes.  With handguns it isn't really a concern, but as we go up the destruction scale we eventually reach a point where even one ill person with access to something really destructive can wreak havoc.  Plus, if large weapon systems were freely available, then clearly the "non-law abiding" people out there can purchase them too, with attendant collateral damage.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 12, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> On the other hand, I am uncomfortable with the idea of legal hand grenades and rocket launchers; I admit it.  And yes, I realize that is contrary to my overall belief in infringing on civil liberties without a direct, immediate, and clear danger to others.  I will live with the fact that I harbor some hypocrisy in my beliefs on this matter.



I agree with all of your points, particularly the historical reasons for banning certain things but not others, in a not-particularly-rational manner.  I remember the same sort of thinking when shuriken and nunchaku were banned in certain places.

I don't think having a line of reasonableness makes you a hypocrite, nor that every principle must be binary.  We can combine principled thinking with utilitarian analysis on harm.  It seems to me that eventually you will reach a point with certain weapons that even if the person owning them intends no harm, the potential for accidents, thefts or unforeseen problems leading to use of the weapon will have such a negative effect on surrounding people, that regulation becomes reasonable.  

Consider: I'm a researcher in a BSL4 microbiology lab.  Should it be legal for me to take home highly virulent strains of some disease, like smallpox say?  I intend no harm, and I only want to keep it in my freezer.  I present no immediate threat to anyone.  Yet, if by chance something were to happen, the results would be catastrophic.  It seems pretty reasonable to forbid me a weapon like that, even though the chances are small.  The downside is too big.  You could look at it as infringing on those around me, taking chances with their safety I have no right to take.

Of course, this is all in principle.  Defining exactly where this line should lie in practice is difficult, and subject to immense political pressures and irrational thinking.  I should state again so it's clear that I'm not in favor of most gun control, and I don't think any small arms currently available would fall past this line.  Probably not most of those banned either, such as fully automatic rifles.  Just not that big a problem, really.


----------



## Steve (Jan 12, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Yes, that's true and that is why I do not make that automatic statement that having an armed citizen in the crowd would have resulted in a positive outcome.


The only reason I posted a response is because you specifically implied that an armed citizen would have made a positive difference.  You also made it very clear that you think the media is intentionally burying this.  I was just pointing out that hypotheticals can go either way, that you're being a monday morning quarterback, and that the media is, in my opinion, correct to not post fiction.





> The same logic, of course, also means that it is reasonable to say that we cannot predict that the 30-round magazine was a major factor in the number of people shot; if the man had not had a 30-round magazine, he might have successfully reloaded a second smaller magazine; he might have carried more than one gun; or his high-cap magazine might have jammed (it didn't, but high-cap mags are known for jamming - we gun owners know this).


Exactly.  We could go back and forth indefinitely if we're creative enough, although I'd probably throw ninjas in pretty shortly.  I like ninjas in my make believe stories. 


> It is also possible that were more than one legally-armed citizen in the crowd who evaluated the situation, realized they would not be able to return fire without endangering other innocent citizens and deciding not to draw or fire.  There tends to be an assumption on the part of many non-gun owners that gun-owners are just itching to shoot someone.  I think this is an invalid assumption.  The fact that licensed concealed-carry gun owners commit a far, far, lower percentage of crimes with guns than the rest of the population I think lends credence to the notion that by and large, people who carry legally are smarter about guns than most of the rest of the population; they tend to know when a gun is and is NOT the solution to a given problem.


That was my second point.  How do we know how many armed citizens were there?  You're presuming that there were none because no one drew a weapon.  We really don't know.  Guns ARE legal.  It's not as though people in AZ aren't allowed to carry them legally.    





> I own hammers.  I don't automatically think the best solution to every problem is to hit it with a hammer.


I agree.


----------



## Steve (Jan 12, 2011)

Grenadier said:


> I routinely use extended magazines.  A Glock 26 subcompact pistol can have its magazine capacity increased by two rounds, simply by using one of the factory +2 extenders, giving it a 12+1 capacity, instead of a 10+1 capacity.
> 
> For that matter, I know of a fair number of folks who buy special sleeve adapters that allow them to get a full handed grip on a Glock 26 when the adapter is fitted with a 15 round Glock 19 magazine, giving them a 15+1 capacity.
> 
> ...


Good points and I think you answered my question pretty well.  Your point that resonates most is that he could simply have carried two guns.  I get that and it makes sense.


----------



## Steve (Jan 12, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> However, the question that is being asked here isn't *just* about magazine capacity.  It's about restrictions on legal ownership, period.  If one decides, for example, that a 30-round magazine is 'too much' for civilian ownership, then what is 'enough'?  Who decides?  Why?  And what's to stop the NEXT shooting that occurs with a 10-round (or 5-round or 1-round) magazine to bring about the next call for smaller magazines?
> 
> So if I defend the right of citizens to own 30-round magazines, it is  not that I think they have any particular use, nor any use that I would  find compelling for myself, but that I see where such 'reasonable'  restrictions end up and fear that.


Unless you're a strict libertarian, the question isn't whether we limit personal liberties or not.  It's what we limit and what we don't.  The rest is debate.  

Frankly, Grenadier's post makes sense.  I'm not sure I buy it completely, but I see where you guys are coming from.

Just want to add one more question.  When you guys refer to crime, are you including gun related injury and homocide?  Not necessarily murder, but all of the guns that are involved in accidental injury and death.  I'm not a cop, so I'm probably off base here.  But, when you shoot your hunting buddy or a kid shoots his friend with his dad's gun, is there a crime involved there?  I checked the CDC website and there are about 30k gun related homocides per year.  Didn't dig too deep, and I'm sure that many are accidental, which is why I'm asking.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 12, 2011)

A large percentage of "gun death" stats are suicides.


----------



## Carol (Jan 12, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> A large percentage of "gun death" stats are suicides.



That's actually something that get many in the anti-gun crowd fired up, with the implication that the suicide wouldn't happen if the gun wasn't around.  

Unfortunately the same sort of statistics lump all suicides together as mechanical acts, without regard to who was suffering from a mental illness.  I think this pains a disingenuous picture of suicide.   The "guns in the house = suicide" rationality IMO tends to underscore this depiction, which I do not like one bit.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 12, 2011)

Carol said:


> That's actually something that get many in the anti-gun crowd fired up, with the implication that the suicide wouldn't happen if the gun wasn't around.



I agree that the argument obviously isn't completely true, and may not be very true at all.  However, more than half of suicides are by gun.  There is a certain appealing simplicity and ease to suicide by gun that I can understand, when compared with cutting, or even pills if you don't know what you are doing (death by tylenol, for instance, is agonizing).  It's quite possible that if guns were not available, the suicide rate might go down, and the survival rate of suicide attempts might go up.  

This isn't an argument for gun control, ending suicide by ending gun ownership obviously won't work and probably shouldn't be done even if it did.  There probably IS some truth to it however.


----------



## WC_lun (Jan 12, 2011)

This is one of those subjects that is tricky for most Americans and has no clear cut easy answer.  For me, I dislike guns and the trajedy that I have seen around firearms.  Feeling that way, I do not have guns in my house.  My best friend is a gun enthusiast.  He is a resposable gun owner.  He is trained in thier use and from his military experience actually understands the destruction even a small caliber gun can inflict.  I can't think of a reason his right to own a gun should be curtailed, since he is a responsable owner.  From our discussions on the subject, the best common ground we can find is prosecute to the fullest anyone who commits a gun crime or allows injury to happen from negligence.  Maybe even go so far as severe sentences for people convicted of such things.  I'm not sure even that would have an effect.

The arguement that if there had been someone with a gun at the shooting, it probably would have turned out different rings hollow to me.  There is a reason that well trained LEOs don't go Dirty Harry on suspects, even when innocents are in danger.  To do so, even with well trained officers, puts more innocents at risk.  An untrained person runs more risk to hit an innocent than to end the situation.  In my opinion this thinking is akin to the fantasy wanna-be martial artist who believes the martial arts they made up in thier basement will defeat anyone who attacks them...except with an untrained gunmen, other people run the risk of paying a price for ignorance.

You will see a push for gun control after every major violent use of firearms.   In the mind of those who support gun control every instance like the Arizona shootings reinforce thier beliefs.  You can't really blame them in this.  However, if you support gun rights you can be a calming force by using common sense and logical arguements.  Most people who support some form of gun control don't want to take away everyone's guns, and most people who support gun ownership don't think every person should be armed with assault rifles.  There is some middle ground.

Kudos to everyone on this thread.  Intelligent conversation without attacks for alternate view points.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jan 13, 2011)

Grenadier said:


> As stated previously, a non-metal barrel wouldn't be able to contain the explosion that comes from the propellant.  Second, even if the barrel could withstand such pressures, a hard ceramic bullet is not going to be able to expand to properly seal the bore, resulting in a very dangerous situation for the shooter.  In addition to this, the frictional aspect, and many, many other factors, make this a moot issue.



While you are right to some degree, I bet the physical requirements are a lot lower if your only goal is to propel an object (bullet) at an unarmoured body part of your opponent (a head for example) over a short distance. Component tolerances were a lot looser for e.g. old muzzle loader guns, as was the strength of the barrel, and they were lethal enough.

I admit ignorance on this part, but having seen (on nat geo) the low grade materials with which people can make a zip gun using buckshot cartridges, I am willing to bet that you could construct something lethal containing no (ferro magnetic) metal at all. Sure it wouldn't be a reliable weapon, but if you can place a single shot at close distance, it would be all the gun you need.



Grenadier said:


> Again, those are non-issues.  Most people aren't going be able to legally afford a nuclear weapon.  Even if one could, what defensive use is it?  You would simply blow yourself up along with the home invader.  If someone had that much money, he could certainly invest it in other security issues, such as hiring a private army, etc.



Defensive, not at all. But it is an armament. You could argue for legal ownership under the 2nd amendment, and someone could use it to succeed where McVeigh failed. And succeed at a spectacular level at that. Plenty of people have enough money to buy one if it was not a crime to own one.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 13, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I agree that the argument obviously isn't completely true, and may not be very true at all.  However, more than half of suicides are by gun.  There is a certain appealing simplicity and ease to suicide by gun that I can understand, when compared with cutting, or even pills if you don't know what you are doing (death by tylenol, for instance, is agonizing).  It's quite possible that if guns were not available, the suicide rate might go down, and the survival rate of suicide attempts might go up.
> 
> This isn't an argument for gun control, ending suicide by ending gun ownership obviously won't work and probably shouldn't be done even if it did.  There probably IS some truth to it however.


My good friend and co-founder of my Western Martial Arts club committed suicide.  He used a gun to do it.  A common hunting style shotgun.

He bypassed a dozen kitchen knives, 8 swords, 3 bowie knives, 4 tomahawks, a spear, a pole ax (not to mention all of his handguns), lengths of rope and cord he could have tied to his basement floor joists, multiple electric sockets, and a bathroom medicine cabinet full of crap he could have OD'd on.

Japan, with extremely strict "gun control" laws beats out the U.S. in its ranking of nations' suicide rates by THIRTY FIVE places (Japan is number 5, the U.S. is number 40).

To suggest that there is any causative relationship between the method of suicide and the decision to do so is, frankly, farcical at best.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jan 13, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> An untrained person runs more risk to hit an innocent than to end the situation.


Your assumption that "civilians" who carry a firearm for self defense are "untrained" is invalid.  Most are trained, often through requirement of law.  Most, additionally, spend significant personal time practicing and gaining additional training, at personal cost to themselves.

The suggestion that LEO's are "highly trained" is not inaccurate but it is misleading in this context because you are specifically implying "highly trained" with firearms.  Firearms training for LEO's is actually a very small subset of most LEO training.  While many LEO's do have excellent firearms training and invest their personal time into their skills, there are also many who do not and only "practice" enough to re-qualify once a year.  Though there are, honestly, some LEO's with more skill and training than most "civilians" who carry a firearm for self defense, there are also a large number of "civilians" who carry a firearm for self defense who have more training and skill than many LEO's.

I frequently hear these arguments that "we can trust cops because they're highly trained but we can't trust Joe Civilian because he lacks the training, won't get the training, and is likely to shoot innocents or have his gun taken away."  

These statements are made in ignorance.

A "civilians" who carry a firearm for self defense is NOT more likely to "hit an innocent."  In fact, what scant statistics are available indicate that "civilian" self defense hit rates are actually higher on average than LEO hit rates.  This is probably because "civilian" self defense encounters look NOTHING like LEO firearms engagements and thus are not very comparable; certainly not comparable enough to suggest that a "civilian" is more likely to hit an innocent.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jan 13, 2011)

Grenadier said:


> This article also shows their flat-out ignorance.


They'd still say the same things.  It's not that the grabbers are "uninformed."  They've been presented with the facts.  They simply reject the facts in favor of their agenda.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 13, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> I agree that the argument obviously isn't completely true, and may not be very true at all.  However, more than half of suicides are by gun.  There is a certain appealing simplicity and ease to suicide by gun that I can understand, when compared with cutting, or even pills if you don't know what you are doing (death by tylenol, for instance, is agonizing).  It's quite possible that if guns were not available, the suicide rate might go down, and the survival rate of suicide attempts might go up.
> 
> This isn't an argument for gun control, ending suicide by ending gun ownership obviously won't work and probably shouldn't be done even if it did.  There probably IS some truth to it however.



I think it can be stated as axiomatic that if guns were not legally available, some deaths, particularly suicide deaths, would not occur.  I will not argue that a person who does not have access to a gun but wishes to commit suicide will automatically choose another option and commit suicide anyway, but I think it can be also said that some will.

I add to this only two elements.

The first is that guns are *also* used to protect citizens from armed intruders and from robbery on a nearly-daily basis in the USA (Google News).  One might find they prevent the suicide save lives, and then find more homeowners and shopkeepers dead at the hands of armed intruders (who will not be limited by gun control laws, I think we can all agree).

The second is that one must of course ask if it is appropriate to restrict civil liberties for all in order to preserve the lives of those intent on ending their own lives.  As tragic as that is, I am not sure it is reasonable to ask others to give up their rights so that the suicidal won't have a gun available to them.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 13, 2011)

Hudson69 said:


> This was a tragic event but no one, that I have seen, has pointed out that if someone else was armed this could have ended quicker with the shooter being put down like the mad dog is apparently is.


First, no most of the mainstream media would not suggest this.  It does not fit their agenda.

Second, I don't believe it is true and I am an ardent 2nd Amendment and self defense supporter.  Eye witnesses report that the shooter was firing for 20 seconds or less.  That's not a long time, particularly when you are behind in the OODA Loop, to then unholster and return fire at the appropriate target.

I hear a LOT of people saying exactly what you are, and, I would like to agree.  There's a chance that an armed individual could have prevented some of this tragedy.  If the hypothetical armed individual would have been minimum Condition Yellow, pre-identified the potential threat prior to his opening fire, and prepped himself, then, yeah, maybe.  But how likely is that, really?

To be honest, there were initial reports that someone in the crowd did return fire.  I immediately dismissed these reports.  The area has lots of echo points and no one returning fire would just dissapear into thin air.  The Police would have known immediately.  Further there's no evidence for it.  No spent shell casings from a second weapon, no bullets or bullet holes, etc.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## lklawson (Jan 13, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Would any of you carry a semiautomatic pistol with an extended magazine for personal protection?


I routinely carry a Kel Tec P11 with a 12(+1) round magazine and one spare.  Before that, I often carried an IMEZ IJ-70AH Makarov with a 12 round magazine and a spare.

I do carry other firearms sometimes with lower magazine capacities, but the "hi cap mags" are common.

A lot of folks I know in the shooting sports like the extended capacity magazines because it means they can spend more time practicing while at the range and less time having to refill an empty magazine.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 13, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> Just want to add one more question.  When you guys refer to crime, are you including gun related injury and homocide?  Not necessarily murder, but all of the guns that are involved in accidental injury and death.  I'm not a cop, so I'm probably off base here.  But, when you shoot your hunting buddy or a kid shoots his friend with his dad's gun, is there a crime involved there?  I checked the CDC website and there are about 30k gun related homocides per year.  Didn't dig too deep, and I'm sure that many are accidental, which is why I'm asking.



Yeah, that's a whole new can of worms.  Many dispute the CDC's statements regarding gun-related deaths.  At one point, they released some amazingly high figures related to 'juveniles killed by handguns' and some digging turned up the fact that they had considered anyone up to age 25 as 'children' and suicides as well as murders and accidental deaths into the total they came up with.  They never defended their report from critics; but I think everyone can agree that a 25-year-old may be immature, but in no sense is he or she a 'child'.  The numbers, once broken down, showed a preponderance of numbers beginning at age 21 and going up; if you took only the numbers of those under 21 and only the accidental deaths, the number dropped to 47.  I'll have to try to find that one, I may be mistaken on some of this.

This may be interesting; it's fairly recent. I think the CDC thing is about 10 years old.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Societ...more-crime-Not-in-2009-FBI-crime-report-shows.



> *More guns equal more crime? Not in 2009, FBI crime report shows. *
> 
> * FBI's latest crime report, for the first half of 2009, shows America  is a less violent place even though ownership of guns has surged.  Deterrent effect may have a role, but others see no correlation.
> *



...



> After several years of crime rates holding relatively steady, the FBI is reporting  that violent crimes  including gun crimes  dropped dramatically in  the first six months of 2009, with murder down 10 percent across the US  as a whole.
> 
> Concurrently, the FBI reports that gun sales  especially of  assault-style rifles and handguns, two main targets of gun-control  groups  are up at least 12 percent nationally since the election of  President Obama, a dramatic run on guns prompted in part by  so-far-unwarranted fears that Democrats in Congress and the White House  will curtail gun rights and carve apart the Second Amendment.
> 
> Pro-gun groups jumped at the FBI report,  saying it disproves a long-running theory posited by gun-control groups  and many in the mainstream media that gun ownership spawns crime and  violence. Anti-gunners have lost another one of their baseless  arguments, Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation, told the Examiner's Dave Workman.   		 		 Some gun-control groups have long sought to establish gun ownership as a  health issue, which would expose purchasers to the kind of regulation  now imposed on prescription drugs and alcohol. That view embodies the  idea that mere exposure to guns makes people more violent.



I'll try to dig up some vetted information that we can look at together.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 13, 2011)

WC_lun said:


> I can't think of a reason his right to own a gun should be curtailed, since he is a responsable owner.



I think that is a very good point.  Few of us would disagree with the notion that decent, law-abiding, responsible people are not a threat with or without guns.  Irresponsible people are threats.  The problem is that we can't magically tell who is and who is not a responsible citizen.

We do our best to separate the good from the bad.  The Form 4473 that all gun purchasers have to fill out if they purchase from a dealer makes it a felony for anyone to purchase a gun who fits a variety of categories.  Felony convictions, domestic abuse convictions, permanent restraining orders, persons fleeing from justice, drug and alcohol abusers, and so on.  But it does not look into a person's mind or consider their intent; it can't.

People manage to purchase guns legally who should not have them.  I don't see a cure for that without curbing the right of all people to purchase guns legally.



> The arguement that if there had been someone with a gun at the shooting, it probably would have turned out different rings hollow to me.  There is a reason that well trained LEOs don't go Dirty Harry on suspects, even when innocents are in danger.  To do so, even with well trained officers, puts more innocents at risk.  An untrained person runs more risk to hit an innocent than to end the situation.  In my opinion this thinking is akin to the fantasy wanna-be martial artist who believes the martial arts they made up in thier basement will defeat anyone who attacks them...except with an untrained gunmen, other people run the risk of paying a price for ignorance.



Armed citizens have intervened in criminal actions in the past in the USA, so it has happened.  I agree with you that it also possible that an armed citizen who might have been present may well have evaluated the situation and decided that they could not return fire without endangering other innocent people.



> You will see a push for gun control after every major violent use of firearms.   In the mind of those who support gun control every instance like the Arizona shootings reinforce thier beliefs.  You can't really blame them in this.  However, if you support gun rights you can be a calming force by using common sense and logical arguements.  Most people who support some form of gun control don't want to take away everyone's guns, and most people who support gun ownership don't think every person should be armed with assault rifles.  There is some middle ground.



Actually, there tends not to be a lot of middle ground.  The problem is always that 'reasonable controls' which are permitted are not enough the next time something tragic happens.  Then more 'reasonable controls' are demanded, and so on.  I am not saying the people who want the 'reasonable controls' have total bans at the top of their agenda (although some do), but they won't ever stop asking for more and more and more 'reasonable controls'.  There is no upper limit to the 'reasonable controls' that are asked for or demanded after every incident.  And there will never be an end to incidents.



> Kudos to everyone on this thread.  Intelligent conversation without attacks for alternate view points.



Agreed.


----------



## Grenadier (Jan 13, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Respectfully, I don't think you're really answering my questions or the overall thrust of the post.  I'm not really interested in the particulars of making a polymer gun, I'm more interested in your philosophical thoughts on gun control.  Saying "well, no one could afford a nuclear weapon, or if they could they could hire an army" dodges the question.  If you do not believe there should be any limits on what sort of weapon a person should own, please say so and state your rationale - that is more interesting to me.



The dismissal of that point of the argument still stands.  It's no different than asking if we should put neon-green unicorns on the endangered species list, since such a question is really not relevant to the issue.  

If someone wants to own a rocket launcher, and has the money to do so, then I'd bet dollars to dimes that he could certainly find any number of illegal arms dealers that could supply him with munitions smuggled from any number of nations.  

Or, if someone wants to own a fully functional, heavy machine gun, it would only take money, and an illegal arms dealer willing to sell (and there aren't any shortages).  

Or, if someone wants to own military grade explosives, it would only take money and the dealer.  

Just look at the drug lords in Jamaica...  The lawful ownership of firearms is strictly forbidden in that country, yet they have no problems equipping their gangs with fully automatic weapons, explosives, and other ordinance.  

You can say "well, they should outlaw explosives" or "you shouldn't be allowed to own grenades / bombs," but it really has no bearing on this situation.  Law-abiding folks either have no need or want for such ordinance, and even if they did possess it, they're not going to use it for something like self-defense.  Passing laws forbidding such things to law-abiding folks is a waste of paper (or electricity if we use PDF files instead), and a truly frivolous thing.  

People who want to break the law will find ways to get what they want.  The Bath School Massacre and the Oklahoma Federal Building massacre are two such events where two men hell-bent on breaking the law found ways to use commonly available materials as explosives.  



> Also saying that law-abiding owners aren't a problem also dodges the issue for several reasons.  First of all, the restrictions you presumably oppose define who is and who is not a law abiding gun owner.  It sort of becomes tautological.  Second, the rate may be small, but legally purchased guns are used to commit crimes.  With handguns it isn't really a concern, but as we go up the destruction scale we eventually reach a point where even one ill person with access to something really destructive can wreak havoc.



Again, it's a wasted effort.  Criminals will find ways to accomplish their tasks, and aren't affected by such laws.  Don't waste time passing useless laws that will have zero effect on crime.  



> Plus, if large weapon systems were freely available, then clearly the "non-law abiding" people out there can purchase them too, with attendant collateral damage.



Again, the criminal element already has its own ways of obtaining such things.  As I pointed out, the Jamaican drug lords and their gangs have absolutely no problem getting all of the explosive ordinance they want.  


This is why such questions that ask "should you be able to legally own a rocket launcher" are irrelevant, since it simply does not apply to the general populace, and that those who can afford to circumvent the laws can get what they want through illegal means.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 13, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> If we're playing around with hypotheticals, an armed citizen might also have overreacted and shot additional innocents in the confusion.


The best statistics we have indicates that this is exceptionally unlikely.  Armed "civilians" who carry a firearm for self defense are generally pretty good about shooting only who needs to be shot.



> Or an armed citizen might have had the weapon taken from him or her and given the bad guy an additional loaded weapon with which to shoot more people.


I don't want to be a wanker, but this is completely bogus.  "Civilians" who carry a firearm for self defense have been doing so for a very, very long time.  However, to this date, I have yet to find an example of where the defender's gun was "taken away and used against him."

At one point some internet personalty actually offered a bounty (several thousand dollars, ims) to the person who could submit a news story or police report documenting an incident where an armed "civilian" who carried a firearm for self defense had his gun "taken away and used against him."  No one ever claimed the bounty.



> Or an armed citizen might have been shot by the police having been mistaken for the shooter.


A possibility I suppose.  Before I worry over-much about that potentiality, I'd like someone to show me cases where this happened.  I've not heard of them, personally, but, then again, I haven't spent any time looking for such events.  The closest I've ever heard of was one instance of a "No Knock" raid gone horribly wrong.  LEO "no knocked" into the wrong house where the owner, believing himself to be the victim of a home invasion, presented his firearm.  Well let's just say that the police both out-numbered and out-gunned the owner and "bad things" predictably ensued.



> Any or all of these could also have happened.


And I could win the lottery.    Statistically, it's "unlikely" though.



> It's very possible that someone did have a gun, but froze or just plain forgot about it.


My point about the OODA Loop.



> Ultimately, an armed person with an unknown amount of training and an unknown amount of experience is an x factor who could save the day or make things dramatically worse.


Based on all available data, collected over a period of decades, I'd bet money against "make things dramatically worse."  Sure it could happen, but only on very, very rare occasions.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Grenadier (Jan 13, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> While you are right to some degree, I bet the physical requirements are a lot lower if your only goal is to propel an object (bullet) at an unarmoured body part of your opponent (a head for example) over a short distance. Component tolerances were a lot looser for e.g. old muzzle loader guns, as was the strength of the barrel, and they were lethal enough.


 
True, but even back then, the barrels and projectiles were still made of metal. 



> I admit ignorance on this part, but having seen (on nat geo) the low grade materials with which people can make a zip gun using buckshot cartridges, I am willing to bet that you could construct something lethal containing no (ferro magnetic) metal at all.


 
Metal detectors are not restricted to detecting ferromagnetic materials only. In a nutshell, any metal that is electrically conductive, will trip the sensor. Thus, non-magnetic materials such as lead projectiles (such as the ones in almost all bullets), copper jacketing (used to coat the lead), or even aluminum alloy jacketing (such as the ones used in Winchester's "Lubalox" alloy), will trip the sensor. 

Even a single, small, non-magnetic brass key that had fallen off my keychain, triggers the sensor.

The zip guns that are manufactured would have to use metal. Even if you did find a way to make one without metal, you'd still trip the detector by using a shotgun shell, since the lead in the buckshot would certainly trigger it, along with the metallic primer used in the hull. 



> Sure it wouldn't be a reliable weapon, but if you can place a single shot at close distance, it would be all the gun you need.


 
It would still be detected. 



> Defensive, not at all. But it is an armament. You could argue for legal ownership under the 2nd amendment, and someone could use it to succeed where McVeigh failed. And succeed at a spectacular level at that. Plenty of people have enough money to buy one if it was not a crime to own one.


 
The people who have the money, and are willing to break the laws, can easily find whatever armaments they want. See my example above, about the Jamaican drug lords.


----------



## Steve (Jan 13, 2011)

Carol said:


> That's actually something that get many in the anti-gun crowd fired up, with the implication that the suicide wouldn't happen if the gun wasn't around.
> 
> Unfortunately the same sort of statistics lump all suicides together as mechanical acts, without regard to who was suffering from a mental illness.  I think this pains a disingenuous picture of suicide.   The "guns in the house = suicide" rationality IMO tends to underscore this depiction, which I do not like one bit.


I've had three close friends commit suicide.  Two were many years ago in high school and one was a co-worker, my counterpart in Atlanta (gay but not openly so, muslim and living in Atlanta post 9/11).  

I've never heard that and frankly, it's a ridiculous line of thought.   As others have pointed out, there are plenty of ways to take one's life  that are simple and effective.  The reasons they took their lives had to do with clinical depression, stress and other reasons unrelated to guns. 

lklawson, I  appreciate your comments regarding the hypotheticals.  It sounds as though you understand my point completely.  They're ALL bogus.  When pro-gun people say, "An armed citizen would have killed that sumbitch," (or any variation of the above) it's JUST as bogus.  And insinuating that the other side isn't talking about these hypotheticals as though they're fact is misleading.  For example, "Of course, the anti-gun lobby won't talk about how the situation _might_ have been completely different had one of the bystanders been armed."  Yeah.  Okay.  It's dealing with fiction and not facts.  Once again, there could very well have been armed civilians on the scene and we just don't know.  

For the rest, this is a very interesting thread.  I'm learning a ton.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 13, 2011)

Homicide and Guns in the USA, 2007:

I went to the CDC and got into their data.  The most recent year for which data is available appears to be 2007, so I took only 2007.  I chose the 'leading cause of death' and pulled the data only for all races, all ages, all sexes, etc.  In other words, the broad spectrum.

I then drilled down to homicides; I did not include suicides. Homicide to the CDC does not mean only murder; it also refers to lawful killing.  Here are the numbers I found:

Ages 1-4: 398 deaths by homicide. 48 by firearm.
Ages 5-9: 133 deaths by homicide. 47 by firearm.
Ages 10-14: 213 deaths by homicide. 154 by firearm.
Ages 15-24: 5,551 deaths by homicide. 4,669 by firearm.
Ages 25-34: 4,758 deaths by homicide. 3,751 by firearm.
Ages 35-44: 3,052 deaths by homicide. 2,038 by firearm.
Ages 45-54: 2,140 deaths by homicide. 1,159 by firearm.
Ages 55-64: 980 deaths by homicide. 446 by firearm.
Ages 65+: Not in top 20 causes of death.

All Ages: 18,361 deaths by homicide. 12,632 by firearm.

For all ages, homicide is the 15th leading cause of death. Influenza is number 8, by way of reference.  Suicide is number 11 for all ages.  Number 1 is heart disease, number 2 is 'neoplasms' which I think means various kinds of cancer.

It is interesting to look at the data; I encourage others who are curious to make their own studies of this.

For example, if you just look at the numbers, you see the number of homicides, as well as the percentage of homicide by firearm, rising as age of the victim increases, up to age 24.  Then it begins to drop, but the numbers remain high.  However, if you look at the list of causes of death, you see a different story.  For ages up 34, the numbers and percentages roughly match, but after age 34, the percentage of homicides as a cause of death drop like a rock.  The number of homicides may not be that much lower between the groups 25-34 and 35-44, but the number of deaths increases dramatically; but now most are due to various kinds of disease, and suicide passes homicide as a leading cause of death.  It's really fascinating from a data perspective (not that death is a fun thing).  By age 45, homicide as a cause of death is not even in the top ten (it's number 13).  More people of that age die of diabetes - by a LOT!

Now, it can be said that in 2007, 12,632 people were killed (homicide) by firearm.  What this data does NOT show us is quite important, however.  It does not show us how many were killed by police or others in lawful shootings.  It does not show us how many were criminals shooting each other, or shooting innocent citizens.  It definitely does not give us any indication of how many were committed by people who purchased their guns legally and who therefore would presumably not have been able to kill a person with a gun if they simply didn't have one.

Many people have attempted to slice and dice data like this to make it mean many things; both pro and anti gun.  I won't attempt it; I haven't the necessary data.

But I can say with assurance that there is no way to legitimately state that 12,632 people *would not have been killed* in 2007 if guns were illegal.  All I can say that perhaps a percentage of them would not have been killed.  I do not know what that percentage is; I doubt anyone does.  And in a nation of over 300 million, although I realize each death is a tragedy, I do not see the justification for banning or even further restricting gun ownership.

Take a look at the numbers yourself.  The data is there, even if there are many things about it that we cannot know by looking at the raw data...it's still quite interesting.

http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/leadcaus10.html


----------



## lklawson (Jan 13, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> lklawson, I  appreciate your comments regarding the hypotheticals.  It sounds as though you understand my point completely.  They're ALL bogus.  When pro-gun people say, "An armed citizen would have killed that sumbitch," (or any variation of the above) it's JUST as bogus.  And insinuating that the other side isn't talking about these hypotheticals as though they're fact is misleading.  For example, "Of course, the anti-gun lobby won't talk about how the situation _might_ have been completely different had one of the bystanders been armed."  Yeah.  Okay.  It's dealing with fiction and not facts.  Once again, there could very well have been armed civilians on the scene and we just don't know.


Yes, I agree.  And I am adamantly "pro-gun."

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 13, 2011)

lklawson said:


> To suggest that there is any causative relationship between the method of suicide and the decision to do so is, frankly, farcical at best.



Have you ever spoken to someone who has attempted suicide?  Many are hesitant or stymied by method.  They want to die, they don't want to suffer.  Killing yourself with a sword is agonizing.  Generally speaking, killing yourself with a gun is not.  

Methods matter to potential suicide victims.  I wasn't claiming that a lack of guns would end suicide, but it is part of the equation.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 13, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I agree with you that it also possible that an armed citizen who might have been present may well have evaluated the situation and decided that they could not return fire without endangering other innocent people.



Interestingly, that's exactly what happened with the Loughner shooting, an armed civilian nearby came onto the scene and initially mistook the person who disarmed Loughner as the shooter.  Thankfully he kept his head on his shoulders, he did all the right things.

LINK


----------



## lklawson (Jan 13, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Have you ever spoken to someone who has attempted suicide?


Yes.

In addition, I am required to undergo annual Suicide Prevention training.



> I wasn't claiming that a lack of guns would end suicide, but it is part of the equation.


The entire nation of Japan disagrees with this statement, as does France, Sweeden, and a number of other nations who's suicide rate exceeds that of the U.S. but have restrictive firearms laws.  

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Grenadier (Jan 13, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Have you ever spoken to someone who has attempted suicide? Many are hesitant or stymied by method. They want to die, they don't want to suffer. Killing yourself with a sword is agonizing. Generally speaking, killing yourself with a gun is not.
> 
> Methods matter to potential suicide victims. I wasn't claiming that a lack of guns would end suicide, but it is part of the equation.


 
I'm going to have to strongly disagree.  People who want to kill themselves will find ways of doing so, regardless of whether or not firearms are available.  

For example, we can look at Denmark, which has strict limitations on firearms ownership by its civilians.  Despite this forbiddance, they have double the suicide rate of the United States of America, according to the 1996 FBI Uniform Crime Report and the 1996 UN Demographic Yearbook statistics.  France, with its strict gun control, also has a much higher suicide rate than the USA, as does Japan with its strict forbiddance.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 13, 2011)

lklawson said:


> The entire nation of Japan disagrees with this statement, as does France, Sweeden, and a number of other nations who's suicide rate exceeds that of the U.S. but have restrictive firearms laws.



Other factors are in play in those countries.  Japan, for instance, is a famously overworked place where failure is not tolerated and the social pressures are immense.

Again, I've spoken to people who attempted suicide, and method was a consideration.  Some people aren't desperate enough to disembowel themselves with a polearm (you really thought your friend might go with a polearm?).  It is simple logic.

It is also not an argument for gun control, as I've repeatedly stated.


----------



## lklawson (Jan 13, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Other factors are in play in those countries.  Japan, for instance, is a famously overworked place where failure is not tolerated and the social pressures are immense.


No offence, but that's not relevant to the claim.



> Again, I've spoken to people who attempted suicide, and method was a consideration.


No one "considers" it without considering how to accomplish it.



> (you really thought your friend might go with a polearm?).


No.  My point was that he had lots of "options" available and lack of a firearm would have been no deterrent at all.



> It is also not an argument for gun control, as I've repeatedly stated.


That's fine.  I didn't think we were arguing that, but rather whether or not removing accessibility to firearms really does lower suicide rates.  You argue that it does, I argue that it does not.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk


----------



## Steve (Jan 13, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Other factors are in play in those countries.  Japan, for instance, is a famously overworked place where failure is not tolerated and the social pressures are immense.
> 
> Again, I've spoken to people who attempted suicide, and method was a consideration.  Some people aren't desperate enough to disembowel themselves with a polearm (you really thought your friend might go with a polearm?).  It is simple logic.
> 
> It is also not an argument for gun control, as I've repeatedly stated.


Gender and race tend to play a role in the most common method of suicide, but there are many ways to kill oneself.  Drug overdose is a relatively painless way to die, for example.  Carbon monoxide poisoning, too.  Point is, if someone is past the point of deciding whether or not to commit suicide, they'll find a means to do so that works.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jan 13, 2011)

Grenadier said:


> The people who have the money, and are willing to break the laws, can easily find whatever armaments they want. See my example above, about the Jamaican drug lords.



Not that easily. If it were that easy to buy a nuke on the black market, one would have been detonated in a US city by now. It doesn't happen because all governments agree that nukes are bad (except in their own hands) and any sort of trade or sale only happens between governments. Otoh, if nukes were available on the free market for the right price, that problem would have been lifted.

Because it would mean you could buy one at nukes r us, and the government could not do anything until you were going to set it off, which would be too late.

This is less of a problem because the really important strategic targets are too big or well protected to take out by conventional means. Governments can provide adequate protection against that sort of thing. With nukes, that is not true. Assuming that you could buy and transport them, you could just put one in a small truck, drive to hoover dam, drive through the fence, and detonate it near the dam. Or you could drive it to NYC and detonate somewhere (anywhere) or near capitol hill, ....

The only way to prevent that would be to completely restrict movement, keep them on 24 hour surveillance, prevent  you from accessing the detonator to start a timed detonation, keep it out of inhabited areas yet within US borders...

I grant you that in a 2nd amendment discussion, you can argue either way for or against guns, gunships, RPGs, claymore mines, etc. What you cannot do is argue for unrestricted private ownership of nuclear weapons and at the same time argue that nothing bad would happen.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 13, 2011)

With regard to suicide...

Have I ever spoken to someone who has attempted suicide?  Does my mother count?  Then yes.  I am glad it did not work in her case.  FYI, our house was full of guns.  She chose pills and booze.

As far as method; my neighbor across the street where I used to live bought a huge horizontal style freezer.  She got into a sleeping bag, duct-taped her hands together and put duct tape over her mouth, crawled into the freezer, and closed the lid.  That's where her coworkers found her; in the freezer, in the garage of her house.  It looked like homicide, except for the fact that she bought the freezer the day before, bought the duct tape and sleeping bag that day, it was her 50th birthday, and her husband had called her from Florida to tell her he wanted a divorce.  Why she chose that route, I do not know.

I do not think anyone can extrapolate numbers with regard to suicide.  As I stated earlier, all anyone can do is guess.  I have no doubt that some people who commit suicide with a gun would not commit suicide if they did not have a gun; but what percentage of them would simply move on to another method?  I can't believe anyone can produce anything resembling hard data on that.  Anything anyone says is pure guesswork, as far as I know.


----------



## Grenadier (Jan 13, 2011)

The weapon is not the issue here.  The person is.  It doesn't matter what the potential for destruction is, whether it's a single shot firearm, or a fully automatic weapon that fires 800 rounds per minute.  

If you look at everyone who owns fully automatic weapons in the United States of America in accordance to NFA 34 / GCA 86, you will see that there has only been ONE incident where the weapon itself was used in the commission of a crime.  This was done by a rogue police officer, who could have easily used his duty weapons instead.  

You could forbid the ownership of NFA 34 / GCA 86 weapons, and it won't make a single dent in the use of fully automatic weapons by criminals, since they get theirs through illegal sources.  I strongly doubt that a criminal is going to bother filling out the Class III permit, getting the local chief law enforcement officer to vouch for them, etc., when they can simply go to the black market and buy them.    

This is why passing laws based on the "destructive power" of a weapon, is all but useless, since it doesn't affect those who would commit crimes with such weapons.  









Bruno@MT said:


> Not that easily. If it were that easy to buy a nuke on the black market, one would have been detonated in a US city by now.


 
The private ownership of nuclear weapons is irrelevant to the discussion.  

You can't use a nuclear weapon for criminal purposes, without destroying that which you want to have.  

If you actually have the means to obtain, store, and deliver a nuclear weapon to your intended destination, then you must have a lot of money to burn.  

Even then, it would simply be cheaper to hire a multitude of the best hit men.  There's a reason why governments don't drop nuclear bombs on suspected target locations, even though they have the means to do so.  




> I grant you that in a 2nd amendment discussion, you can argue either way for or against guns, gunships, RPGs, claymore mines, etc. What you cannot do is argue for unrestricted private ownership of nuclear weapons and at the same time argue that nothing bad would happen.


 
Again, private ownership of nuclear weapons is a non-issue, since it simply doesn't happen.  If we're going to go down that path, then maybe the debate should be about outlawing quantum singularity projectors in a separate thread.  Since that's not firearms-related, though...


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jan 13, 2011)

I don't know how different the coverage in different areas of our country was on the Giffords shooting, but one of the men who tackled and held down Loughner was armed with a firearm.
I was hoping the reporter would have asked him why he didn't pull it and use it, but the reporter simply shuffled past it quickly and barely even acknowledged it.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jan 13, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I was hoping the reporter would have asked him why he didn't pull it and use it, but the reporter simply shuffled past it quickly and barely even acknowledged it.



Look here.  Loughner was already disarmed by the time he got there, and he initially thought that the man who disarmed Loughner was the shooter since he was holding the gun.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Jan 13, 2011)

Empty Hands said:


> Look here. Loughner was already disarmed by the time he got there, and he initially thought that the man who disarmed Loughner was the shooter since he was holding the gun.


 
Thanks.
This was what I was hoping to hear, I got a short version that skipped over the fact that he was carrying a firearm, and what his response with it was. thanks for the link.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 17, 2011)

Alright I usually dont post in forums much anymore because I simply dont have the time to manage an argument. In the forum world it tends to be the person who can outlast the other in a drawn out thread rather then who makes the best argument that wins. So I can only hope that there are enough smart people who will see through the ad nauseum and make a sound decision on where they stand based on common sense.

Here are a few issues that I think need to be addressed:

*Should people be able to lawfully own nuclear bombs?*  I dont know why this happens, but for some ungodly reason with gun control debates some jack-a-lope always comes up with this question, or something like it. Well, then can people buy rocket launchers? How about tanks? When will it stop? NO OFFENSE TO ANYONE HERE WHO BROUGHT THIS UP, AS I AM JUST SPEAKING IN GENERALITIES AS TO WHAT USUALLY HAPPENS IN THESE DISCUSSIONS. This notion is generally brought up by someone more along the anti-gun side (who incidentally almost always claims to not be anti-gun) who wants to enter in a discussion about at what point it would be OK to regulate weapons ownership. This person is usually trying to fog up the discussion by introducing the idea that weapons regulation has to begin somewhere based on our societal judgments of what is reasonable for a person to own for hunting or self-defense. This logic, of course, ultimately leads to justifying rifle mags that can only hold 5 rounds, and laws against hi-cap or double stack mags, and so on. The slippery slope is quite ridicules. Implying that if we dont start the regulation somewhere, then your neighbor will build a nuke in his basement is akin to saying that if we let same-sex couples marry each other, then what will stop people from marrying children or livestock? Where will it end? Both arguments are retarded. Owning high cap mags or full auto rifles dont lead to people owning tanks or bombs any more then letting gays marry would lead to sexual abuse on children or livestock. That is how unrelated the two really are.

But, since some ding-dong always brings this up, despite that this is an unpractical discussion not rooted in reality, I guess well have to address it on a philosophical level. For starters, we need to remove the idea that reasonableness doesnt apply to only what one needs to minimally accomplish said task. If that was our standard, then not only would people only be limited to owning 6 round magazines, then everyone should be limited to only 1200 square feet of living space for a family of 4, all cars should have a speed governor set at 55 mph, food should be rationed, and clothing should be all the same in look and material, and so on. Because, we could argue, the housing crisis caused a financial dilemma in our country, and more people die from obesity related illness then guns so we need to get on that, and so on. Well, that whole notion sounds very communistic to me. If we dont apply unreasonable communist values to everything else, then why would we for gun ownership? 

So we need to remove this notion from our brains that we need to only allow ownership for what is necessary for self-defense or hunting in regards to firearms, and all else is on the table for regulations and restrictions. Besides the problems that this causes in regards to what is considered reasonable by lawmakers (who are not experts in self-defense or firearms related issues), this notion does not fit in with a country based on civil liberties and freedoms. We dont regulate what others can own based on what we think they need, period. In a society where we are interested in preserving civil liberties, we only regulate ownership in as much as it infringes on other peoples liberties, and we use reasonableness to strike the balance between the two.

With that logic, we should not prevent ownership on any armament in which the owner can reasonably control where that projectile will go. It is safe to say that any firearm that fires bullets is a highly controllable object in that it will not go somewhere unless it is pointed in that direction and fired. This is to include small and large calibers, high capacity magazines, single shot and full auto rifles, and whatever kind of bullet one can obtain with the exception of incendiary or explosive type rounds. Explosive type armaments (grenades, tank rounds, nukes) have a kill radius, and therefore cannot be as precisely controlled by the user. Furthermore, there are stability issues with explosives, where improper handling or storage can cause an unsafe detonation. You dont have this problem with bullets. With these safety issues, explosive type devices should be regulated and controlled, where as firearms should not be.

Once again, the problem with this topic is not only is it impractical, but gun control advocates like to use this topic to their advantage by starting off with the wrong assumption (that we should only allow ownership of what is minimally allowed for hunting and self-defense) instead of the right one which is that people should be allowed to own whatever they want until that ownership infringes on the rights of others. Now that we have cleared up this totally impractical philosophical issue and where a gun rights advocate can stand on the matter without tripping into a logical trap, lets come back to reality and address another, more practical part of the discussion.

*Is it unsafe to fire on an armed assailant in a crowded area?*

Of course it is, but which is the lesser of the two evils: allowing an armed assailant to continue to fire round after round into innocent bystanders with no opposition, or to fire on the assailant in order to stop his onslaught. Hands down, the safest solution is to fire on the assailant. That is generally safer for everyone rather then allowing the shooter to indiscriminately fire on innocent people in hopes that hell run out of bullets, or even then trying an unarmed solution like wrestling the person down or fighting him. Unarmed solutions are last resorts to armed attackers, not 1st lines of defense. This topic actually blew up on my facebook in regards to the Arizona tragedy with a couple of members here, so I will share my responses on this topic:

_Post 1: I have to disagree with you for a number of reasons. #1. When the attacker is being shot at, his focus changes from trying to shoot innocent unarmed people to trying to shoot at who is shooting him. And any one of those rounds from an armed citizen could be an incapacitating round on the attacker. So instead of 30 plus rounds being aimed and fired at innocent people until people could wrestle him down, an armed citizen could have ended it at 5 or 10 or 15 rounds. Even if a lot of misses are exchanged between shooter and armed citizen, that is still less rounds being directly aimed at innocent, unarmed people. And sure, bystanders could be shot in the process of defending. However, bystanders WHERE ALREADY BEING SHOT, but from purposefully aimed bullets rather then fratricide. If I had to choose the lesser of two evils, I'd rather have there be a gunfight in a crowd rather then a lone shooter firing 30 rounds into a crowd with no opposition. #2. You put too much weight into police training. Some LE are highly trained, but most are lucky to make it to the range 1-2 times a year. I know a lot of armed citizens who are better trained then most LE. However, level of training in regards to accuracy actually doesn't weigh in as heavy as you might think here. Most people with 1 session at the range can hit paper at 15 meters which is at a much further range then a civilian gunfight, and therefore will be capable of hitting an armed assailant in this scenario. Citizens don't need to be an expert marksman to take down an assailant any more then they needed to be MMA fighters to wrestle him down #3. It is far too presumptuous to assume that there would be more dead bodies if an armed citizen got involved. I haven't seen the footage of this incident yet because it was pulled for investigation. But we can view other incidents where shootings occur in crowds, and we can see that the general crowd behavior is to get low and move away from the shooter, making them less likely to be fatally hit unless someone is deliberately aiming at them. We also know that when armed assailants are being shot at, they tend to stop trying to shoot at others and try to shoot at who is shooting at them. With these dynamics, it is far more likely that innocent people are going to be fatally shot when the armed attacker is deliberately aiming at them as opposed to through possible fratricide as he and the armed citizen are shooting at each other. And considering that any one of the rounds from the armed citizen could shut the attacker down and stop the spree, I think it is much safer to go this route._

_Post 2: Not to belabor point, but people often believe things that simply arent true based on misconceptions of how they think things are going to go. I see it most often when observing violent crime and shootings. The belief that it would be worse if an armed person were to intervene and stop the shooter is based on an idea that armed citizens are untrained, and that stray bullets are going to fly around killing everything in sight. That just isnt what happens. The fact is that even with the most determined shooters, the hit ratio on any person is rather low in dynamic gun fights where the targets and shooter are moving. Even looking at this incident, out of 30 shots fired, 20 people were shot (a very high hit rate that isnt the norm), yet only 3 were killed and 1 in critical condition. Sure, dead is dead and even 1 dead is a tragedy, but that isnt the point. Out of 30 deliberate shots in a dense crowd with no interruption (no one shooting back or opposing him until his mag ran dry) only were 3 killed with 1 critically injured. 2/3rds hit rate, and a 10% kill rate, and shooting under really the most optimal conditions for creating a high body count. Usually, the hit rate is a lot less then 2/3. The point is that even with deliberately aimed fire, the kill rate is relatively low. And though it happens, the kill rate for stray bullets is far less. But the person who thinks it would be more dangerous to attempt to shoot the killer envisions this scenario where both the armed citizen and attacker are shooting at each other, missing each other shot after shot, with every stray picking off a bystander. This simply is not happening. Now as far as stats are concerned, from what I know to date no one has compiled data comparing criminals stopped by armed citizens vs. bystanders killed accidently by armed citizens. This is unfortunate because I am fairly certain that such stats would support my argument. That said, we can use the name 3 rule to see if our arguments reasonably holds weight. That rule is if I say something like, many crimes have been prevented by armed citizens, then I should be able to reasonably name 3 without having to spend a ton of time searching for examples, right? I mean, if I am making a claim as to how **** commonly works, then absent of actual hard numbers I should be able to name at least a few examples, right? Well, as it turns out, you will find countless examples if you simply type something like, armed citizen stops shooting into Google. Good luck finding any example of a bystander accidently killed by a well meaning armed citizen. I am not saying it doesnt happen, but I am saying that youll be hard pressed to find even 1 incident because that occurrence is statistically insignificant. I will prove my point in a few. After I post this, Ill post 3 stories of armed citizens thwarting criminals. Ill even look for some where the incident took place with many bystanders (who could have been shot by accident) present. I am guessing that this will take me less then 5 minutes. I can safely say (because I tried it) that you will not be able to do the same with stories of people accidently shot by well meaning armed citizens trying to stop a crime._[Note: I am not going to do the Google test here as I did on facebook, but you can do it yourself. You will find many stories where armed citizens save the day, and almost no incidents where armed citizens accidently shoot bystanders. You can go to thearmedcitizen.com and check where they update almost daily of crimes thwarted by regular armed citizens.]

*An armed citizen did respond:* It is important to note, as a final point, that one of the 4 1st responders in Arizona was an armed citizen. However, he came to the scene after two citizens had already started grappling with the shooter. He made the proper judgment call at that time to not shoot, and instead come to aid unarmed. This was the right choice, acting as a good example to the fact that weapons in the hands of citizens arent an invitation for accidents, poor judgment, or further casualties in the manner that anti-gun folks want you to believe. Yes, if that armed responder had been able to respond while the shooter was firing, it would have been better to shoot the assailant as the most effective means of stopping him. Since he came after 2 had already started to wrestle with the assailant, he made the most prudent choice. All four of these citizens need to be commended for their bravery that day, as they did the right thing.


----------



## jetboatdeath (Jan 17, 2011)

Great post and I agree on the most part..
Here are the parts I have concern with.



> with the exception of incendiary or  explosive type rounds. Explosive type armaments (grenades, tank rounds,  nukes) have a kill radius, and therefore cannot be as precisely  controlled by the user. Furthermore, there are stability issues with  explosives, where improper handling or storage can cause an unsafe  detonation.



The main body of this post starts off with your opinion that regulation of any firearm is bad, I can agree with that in it's entirety. However you go on to state the above quote. You yourself are calling for regulations, you seem to be up on your rights in relation to firearms so you should know that any regulatory "right" we give them will be abused as has been proven time and time again.

We already have regulations for explosives, if you want exploding rounds and have the license, so be it. 
We have regulations for tank owner ship, they have to be de-milled. 
Go buy a tank..check e-bay they always have some listed.

I say own what you want, until you use it to restrict, deny or alter someone's  rights what is the problem. We have to get over the notion that just because one person broke the law with a firearm not all people are going to.
As well as no number of laws are going to stop people from breaking them.
We don't restrict cars to 55 because 5000 people speed.
Why punish me because some jack *** in Arizona broke the law?


----------



## jetboatdeath (Jan 17, 2011)

> Would any of you carry a semiautomatic pistol with an extended magazine for personal protection?



No, but then again this guy was not concerned with personal protection..
However don't come back with the line then why do we need them. 
We don't need cars that go 100mph. But we want them...


----------



## KenpoTex (Jan 17, 2011)

The title of the thread sums the situation up nicely...

(and Cruentus did a great job of breaking it down).


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 17, 2011)

jetboatdeath,

We are basically in agreement. I am not calling for addition regulation of anything. All I am saying is that things that have a kill radius (explosives) fall into a different category then firarms that shoot bullets simply because the difficulty in controlling the effect makes ownership and use of them creep into the rights of others to be safe (still shouldn't make them unattainable, just restrictable unlike firearms). Gun control advocates always try to rope these two into the same category which is a logical trap, because as soon as you say, "That's not the same issue... you don't need explosives for self-defense," then they slide down the slope of "so we agree that if you don't need it for self-defense, then we should be able to restrict it for safety reasons..." See, now your trapped, as they then begin to justify gun control based on only what is "needed" for self-defense, you then find yourself in a difficult dilemma argueing against restrictions on mag capacity and 'assault rifle' bans and so forth. We both know that their reasoning is flawed... as it isn't an issue of what we should minimally be allowed to own, it is an issue of what we can own before we start to infringe on someone elses rights.


----------



## Cruentus (Jan 19, 2011)

Not to beat the thread to death... but someone asked a very good question (he is a member here; won't call him out unless he wants me to): So in the wake of he AZ events, are any changes appropriate or is this just the price we pay? 

I thought this question was great. The short answer is that there are many workable, practical solutions that the media and our government should be talking about, but instead the media and political discourse ends up being about stupid **** like whether or not the shooter was a liberal or a conservative, and whether or not high cap mags are to blame. I will copy the content of my FB page here for your to look at with all it's gramatical errors for you to enjoy. But the content is worth while, anyway, and relevent to the topic:


_This is the price we pay for living in the society we live in, and gun laws won't change that. However, there are some things that we can do, starting with how public officials handle security issues. When someone gets elected to public off...ice, they immediately become more at risk, even in low level positions like city council and school board. However, most even in higher level positions aren't getting regular security or security briefs. Hell, I'll bet the video's on homeland security that the lowest level privates in the army get contain more info on how to stay safe then what most elected officials will see. So we can start with as a homeland security measure these officials (even in twps and municipalities) have to get a once a year video brief at minimum. If they have staff, a member of their staff needs to be assigned duties as the safety and security liaison, and that person goes through some training (that could be done in 6-8 hours), and added to their normal duties, their job is to assess and arrange a secure environment for the official and the people attending meetings and events. They look at everything from "are there fire escapes in the parking garage they'll be on" to "what kind of security staff will be present." It is their job to work with the venues that they'll be at, and make sure that safety measures on in place. Gauranteed, most people have their head in the clowds (including political officials and their staff) with this stuff, but an elected official does not have the luxury of a regular citizen. Just as how simple awareness skills and mindset are 90% of the game for keeping yourself safe, simply having a staff person who is ASSIGNED the task of being aware would do wonders to make political venues safer. And the beauty of it is these tasks are not so burdensome that they couldn't do them along with other regular duties. In smaller, local positions like school board or city council, one member of the board or council would be a safety/security liaison for the group. Just like preventing accidents or natural disasters, there is no sure thing to stopping a shooter. But like having a fire safety plan or tornado plan, having more safety/security liaisons in place would do wonders. And this is what homeland security and congress should be talking about, and these are real solutions we could impliment right now. But instead they talk about arbitrary **** like magazine capacity, or politicized **** like whether Sarah Palin's rhetoric is to blame for a murderous rampage. More to follow..._

_&#8206;....continued.... Now Ultimatily, yes it would be better to have more armed guards or even non-uniformed armed personel to man meetings and events. It is a fact that these personel deter or even stop crime. We can look as near as the recen...t incident where an armed security guard had to shoot a gun weilding man at a school board meeting in florida. I know personally public officials who exercise their concealed carry rights. In a perfect world, that safety liaison staff member would also be trained, have a permit, and be expected to carry. But I also know that it isn't practical for us to expect that an armed guard will be paid to be at every event. It isn't practical either to expect that public officials or their staff would be forced to go through training and carry weapons either, even if in a perfect world they would. That is one trap that we who are gun rights activists need to be careful of. The anti-gun crowd tends to fall into these impractical ideals: they often believe that if they just keep regulating more and more, then someday automatic weapons, 'cop killer' bullets, high cap mags, and even guns themselves will be scarce and hard for criminals to get a hold of, making it all worth it. This, of course, is a fanciful idea that isn't rooted in reality. However, gun rights activists need to be careful as to not be guilty of our own sets of fanciful ideals: To think that they answer to every problem is that people just carry more guns. I mean, idealistically, in a better world it would be great if more law abiding people carried guns, took self-defense and defensive shooting classes, kept a 1st aid kit at home and in vehicles, paid bills on time, used turn signals while driving, and so on. But the reality that we need to accept is that some people will choose not to carry, and that's OK. And no matter how bad things get, most people will not be as safety/self-defense conscious as you or I, and that is not OK but that is a reality. We can make it a goal to help make people more safety conscious and more inclined to safely carry, but that isn't going to be the blanket solution to all our problems because we need to accept the reality that most won't do it. So instead of falling into the trap of saying "if we had more guns, then this wouldn't happen!" We need to look at the big picture and come up with more practical solultions like the one mentioned above... More to follow..._

_&#8206;...continued... last but not least, have you wondered why solutions like safety/security liaisons haven't been talked about in our government with seriousness, but other stupid ideas that won't help at all have? There are many reasons, but... one contributer is the lack of personal responsibility in our country that has developed over the years. No one wants to be responsible for themselves and where they live and do business in anymore. So the officials don't really say, "what can I do to make sure that this doesn't happen to me or my staff." They instead say, "What law can we make to restrict other people so that this is less likely to happen." One response requires personal responsability, the other puts the blame and responsibility on others. You see, because everyone now a days puts everything on someone else. The cops will make sure I'm safe, 9-11 is my 1st aid kit, someone else will take care of me. Then, when emergencies happen, it is much to most peoples dismay that they find that it is the regular, usually unprepared citizen that is the first responder. So from a broader perspective, if we start introducing personal responsability back into our culture, that will do wonders for the long term to reduce these types of shooting incidents. Because ultimiatily, the choice to carry a firearm or take a self-defense class is really one of taking personal responsibility for ones own safety._


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 21, 2011)

Grenadier said:


> Figures, that the anti-gunners would be dancing around in a bloodbath so soon... This article also shows their flat-out ignorance.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/10/opinion/10collins.html?_r=2&hp
> 
> ...


 


> Loughner&#8217;s gun, a 9-millimeter Glock, is extremely easy to fire over and over, and it can carry a 30-bullet clip. It is &#8220;not suited for hunting or personal protection,&#8221; said Paul Helmke, the president of the Brady Campaign. &#8220;What it&#8217;s good for is killing and injuring a lot of people quickly.&#8221;


 
Someone should tell Gail Collins and Paul Helmke, nitwits extraordinaire, that GIFFORDS OWNS A GLOCK 9mm!



> .S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords of the 8th Congressional District and 5th District Congressman Harry Mitchell, both Democrats, also objected to the ban. Giffords owns a Glock handgun and regards gun ownership as a constitutional right and an "Arizona tradition," said spokesman C.J. Karamargin.   http://findarticles.com/p/news-arti.../arizona-democrats-split-dc-gun/ai_n51710249/


 
Guess Giffords wasn't really interested in self-defense.....just 'killing and injuring a lot of people quickly'.   What a bunch of morons!


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 21, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> I don't know a lot about guns and I'm not in favor of banning them. That said, this is a genuine question. Didn't the heroes on that day take advantage of the pause to reload as an opportunity to jump the guy and pin him to the ground? A 30 round magazine seems a little over the top. Would any of you carry a semiautomatic pistol with an extended magazine for personal protection?


 
What do you consider an 'extended magazine'? 30 rounds? It's designed to hold a 15 and 17 round magazine, is that 'extended'?

A 30 round magazine is ridiculous, but not for the reason you think......it's ridiculous because you couldn't carry one concealed. If you want to make sure folks aren't walking around armed, make them ALL use 30 round magazines, as you cannot conceal it.

A 30 round magazine is a good choice for home defense, where conealment isn't an issue........it's not remotely more deadly than any other magazine, though, as magazine count isn't some magic thing.



The fact is that mass-shootings are a statistical anomaly.......the threat to a bad reaction to aspirin is a greater threat to the average American than being in a mass-shooting.........but if we are going to be concerned with mass-shootings, if you're relying on magazine changes to save your life, you're backing up the wrong tree!


----------

