10 round clip controversy

[sgtmac_46]

OK, you feel Clip has a more sinister message, I disagree with that, but no problem.

Here's a thought: maybe there's a perception that the general public is more familiar with the term clip. Start talking about "magazines" and the dumbasses start saying things like, "what? magazines? Ya mean like Hustler!!?? What's THAT got to do with bullets?"

maybe it's just term-recognition on a larger scale.

Well, i don't know that 'clip' is sinister.........but it's sure inaccurate as hell, and paints anyone who uses the term as unknowledgeable about the subject matter to follow.

If the argument starts off with someone displaying a lack of understanding of even the basic nomenclature, how much of an intelligent conversation can follow?

 

[sgtmac_46]

I can't quite agree. There is every chance that they continue misusing the term "clip" because they simply reject your claim that it is a misuse based on the plain and simple fact that using the term "clip" to mean "detachable ammunition store & feeder" is commonly understood by pretty much everyone.

In other words, the evidence of their direct personal experience contradicts your single claim and thus they feel you are "wrong" and your claims can be rejected.

This alone makes it dangerous to beat this particular horse. If they can easily dismiss your argument about something as concrete as a term because what you are saying contradicts common understanding they may wonder what else you are saying should be dismissed.

Peace favor your sword,
Kirk

That's why I try not to make much of it beyond simply correcting the term, and moving along.

But someone using the term 'clip' demonstrates that their knowledge of firearms is pretty much limited to what they saw on TV, movies and the occassional hip-hop album......and that, in and of itself, is telling as to what direction the conversation is going to go.

 

[Steve]

Not to be flip... but the idea that weed smokers are the reason that 3 time life conviction felons get put back on the streets is laughable. It's not about who they are putting IN its about who they are letting OUT.

LOL. Not THE reason. Someday I'll learn that you guys don't appreciate examples.

Do you agree that we have unnecessary, unenforcable laws that are applied arbitrarily and clog up our legal system? That's certainly my opinion. Less is more, IMO.

OK, let's put it like this then, "More than 52 Million gun owners didn't kill anyone yesterday."

And more than 265 million car owners did the same.

This was a lawfully owned gun: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/19/california.high.school.shooting/

Injuries are about 30 times more likely than deaths, and statistically, an unintentional gun related injury occurs about 50 times each day while there are two unintentional deaths. Currently, the families of the victims would need to sue for damages and hope that they could get some compensation for medical bills, lost wages and loss of life, hoping the owner of the gun had some means to pay. If the lawful owner of the weapon carried insurance, that wouldn't be necessary.

 

[sgtmac_46]

LOL. Not THE reason. Someday I'll learn that you guys don't appreciate examples.

Do you agree that we have unnecessary, unenforcable laws that are applied arbitrarily and clog up our legal system? That's certainly my opinion. Less is more, IMO. And more than 265 million car owners did the same.

This was a lawfully owned gun: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/19/california.high.school.shooting/

Injuries are about 30 times more likely than deaths, and statistically, an unintentional gun related injury occurs about 50 times each day while there are two unintentional deaths. Currently, the families of the victims would need to sue for damages and hope that they could get some compensation for medical bills, lost wages and loss of life, hoping the owner of the gun had some means to pay. If the lawful owner of the weapon carried insurance, that wouldn't be necessary.

That gun was not lawfully owned by that 17 year old kid.


As for those statistics, they are bogus......the vast majority of deaths involving firearms in the US involve criminals involved in some criminal activity, usually perpetrated by other criminals. The vast majority of injuries are, likewise, criminals involved in some level of criminal activity.

The statistics many folks try to foist, such as the 'thousands of children accidentally killed by firearms' are, likewise, bogus statistics provided by such groups as Brady and HCI........they derive those statistics by including every gang member blow the age of 19 that gets shot, by the police, by another gang member, etc, as a 'child' to give the illusion that is how many kids find mommy or daddies gun and shoot themselves or some other child.....it's a lie.

The real statistics of those types of 'accidents' account for approximately 100 child accidental deaths a year........each one tragic, as any child death is, but when taken in context, and compared to the number of children of the same age group killed in backyard swimming pools a year, which is approximately 1500, it really shows folks have a misplaced sense of concern.

 

[Steve]

That gun was not lawfully owned by that 17 year old kid.

It was lawfully owned by his dad. Right?

As for those statistics, they are bogus......the vast majority of deaths involving firearms in the US involve criminals involved in some criminal activity, usually perpetrated by other criminals. The vast majority of injuries are, likewise, criminals involved in some level of criminal activity.

That's true. As I said earlier, according to the CDC, there are about 18k unintentional injuries and only about 600 deaths per year. The number of injuries triples and the number of deaths jumps to 30,000 if you include ALL firearm related incidents. I'm not trying to mislead anyone.

The statistics many folks try to foist, such as the 'thousands of children accidentally killed by firearms' are, likewise, bogus statistics provided by such groups as Brady and HCI........they derive those statistics by including every gang member blow the age of 19 that gets shot, by the police, by another gang member, etc, as a 'child' to give the illusion that is how many kids find mommy or daddies gun and shoot themselves or some other child.....it's a lie.

Dude. Seriously. I'm getting the numbers from the CDC. I'm specifically only using the number of unintentional injuries and deaths, although I'm sure that some of the intentional incidents used lawfully owned weapons as well.

The real statistics of those types of 'accidents' account for approximately 100 child accidental deaths a year........each one tragic, as any child death is, but when taken in context, and compared to the number of children of the same age group killed in backyard swimming pools a year, which is approximately 1500, it really shows folks have a misplaced sense of concern.

Once again, just so it's very clear. I got the statistics from the CDC. I'm using the most real statistics I know to use. If you have statistics that are "more real", post a link.

 

[Archangel M]

Ahhh the CDC. The "bible" of gun grabbers everywhere. What did Twain say about statistics?


http://www.tincher.to/deaths.htm

Note that the CDC child gun death figures are typically half of the figures that the gun control lobby publishes. The difference is in the definition of a child. The gun control lobby counts young adults that are 18 or 19 years old as children, but they do not count 20 year olds as children. You can choose from one of two possible reasons, depending on your level of cynicism: 1. The standard CDC age groups used to go from 0-19, 20-39, etc and the gun control lobby couldn't figure out how to select a custom age group. 2. Counting 18 and 19 year olds as children doubles the number of so-called child gun deaths, and more child gun deaths means more support for gun control.

In 1999 there were 1776 gun deaths in the 0 through 17 age group and 3385 gun deaths in the 0 through 19 age group. By subtraction we find that there were a whopping 1609 gun deaths in just the 18 through 19 age group. Historically the 18 through 24 age group is the highest crime-committing group. At age 18 part-time drug dealers leave school and become full-time drug dealers. Despite the propaganda from the gun control lobby, criminals in general and drug dealers in particular are the group of so-called children most likely to be shot by their fellow criminals. You can verify this by reading the local gun death news stories in any city newspaper. School shootings are so rare that every one gets national television coverage, but drug dealers are shot so often that they are barely mentioned in their local newspaper.

Older people's gun deaths are most likely to be suicides. Suicides typically make up 56.5% of all gun deaths according to the Bureau Of Justice Statistics. In fact, drugs and suicides account for more than 2 out of every 3 gun deaths in the USA.

 

[Archangel M]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113094,00.html

The 5,732 also includes deaths that result from gang activity in which the guns are usually illegal. These deaths would not have been prevented by gun control any more than gang members’ drug use is prevented by drug laws.

The honest question for anti-gun advocates is, how many children’s deaths were "caused" by a lack of gun control?

The easiest way to reduce both suicides and gang deaths from swelling that answer is to eliminate teenagers from the data; both suicide and gang membership are overwhelmingly teen rather than "child" phenomena.

(Moreover, "child" traditionally refers to someone who is pre-pubescent, pre-teen. That’s the image invoked by MMM’s references to "children" and to "playgrounds.")

Changing the age parameters on the CDC site to register the gun deaths of children between <1 and 12 years old renders the number, 223 for 2001. Multiplied by four, this becomes 892 or about 6 percent of MMM&#8217;s asserted figure. Anti-gun advocates should be stating that, between 2000 and 2004, the gun deaths of 892 children could have been avoided through gun control or prohibition. With valid statistics that are properly used, real debate could then begin.

The figure of 14,000 child gun deaths closes off the possibility of honest debate. Indeed, the only way to arrive at that number at the CDC site is to include suicides and gang-related deaths, and to define a child as "anyone under the age of 21." In short, MMM has padded the statistics.

 

[Archangel M]

Then theres the old saw of "a gun in the home increases the chances of being killed by that gun".

Well...yeah. Doesn't car ownership increase the chances of death by car accident? A pool by drowning? A knife by stabbing? It's circular reasoning. Of course a gun in the home increases the odds of being injured/killed by that gun. A fireplace increases the odds of death by fire too. So what?

Oh and more on the CDC:

Does Politics Influence the CDC?
Examples Suggest Partisanship May Sometimes Affect Health Policy

"I think CDC is designed and structured to be a public health agency that really focuses on science as the basis for its policy and decision making," he said. "Unfortunately, particularly over the last six years, we've seen more and more intrusion of politics on some of their scientific decision making."

Dr. James Mason, who ran the CDC from 1983 to 1989, acknowledges that politics has always been a force to be reckoned with at the agency but that "should come as no surprise."

Mason points out that the CDC is under the Department of Health and Human Services, whose secretary must be confirmed by the Senate.

"Of course you are going to have some political oversight and political influence," he said. "It's inherent and necessary."

The CDC was recently pressured to insert two pro-abstinence speakers at a national sexually-transmitted-disease-prevention conference in Florida. It also removed panelists who would have discussed links between abstinence-only programs and rising STD rates. Im betting some people around here would decry that as "conservative" politicians interfering with public health policy. Yet at the same time Id wager that they accept their gun statistics as being clean of any political influence.

 

[sgtmac_46]

It was lawfully owned by his dad. Right?

It was a crime to be possessed by the son, right? [/quote] He didn't own the gun, he stole the gun........so if THAT is your definition of 'legally' possessed or owned, EVERY gun is 'legally owned'......by someone somewhere, if not by the person who currently is possessing it.

That's true. As I said earlier, according to the CDC, there are about 18k unintentional injuries and only about 600 deaths per year. The number of injuries triples and the number of deaths jumps to 30,000 if you include ALL firearm related incidents.

Sure, if you include suicides, which I personally think are an individual choice, folks shot and killed by law abiding citizens and police in justified shootings, and criminals shooting criminals, which account for the majority of homicides involving firearms.

I'm not trying to mislead anyone. Dude. Seriously. I'm getting the numbers from the CDC. I'm specifically only using the number of unintentional injuries and deaths, although I'm sure that some of the intentional incidents used lawfully owned weapons as well. Once again, just so it's very clear. I got the statistics from the CDC. I'm using the most real statistics I know to use. If you have statistics that are "more real", post a link.

I'm not saying you are trying to mislead anyone.......some very much are, however. The nebulous definition of 'child' used is intentionally misleading at it's source.......an 18 year old gang banger shot by the police should not be called a 'child', for example.




At the end of the day, most folks that 'accidentally' get injured with a firearm are the folks in possession of it.......there should be no insurance on injuring yourself.

Most of the rest of the folks who are injured, are injured on purpose, and there is no insurance against that.

The analogy about cars is designed solely to suggest folks should have insurance for guns, which solely is a tool to make firearm ownership more and more expensive, and less and less attractive for the average american, in essence, a backdoor gun ban. Moreover, what are we insuring against? Murder? Won't be covered. Accidentally shooting ourself? Shouldn't be covered.

So we're left with insurance against a few hundred incidents a year? Sure, it's an insurance company wetdream, and a gungrabber fantasy, but as for any practical purpose beyond that, there is none!

 

[Bruno@MT]

Well, i don't know that 'clip' is sinister.........but it's sure inaccurate as hell, and paints anyone who uses the term as unknowledgeable about the subject matter to follow.

If the argument starts off with someone displaying a lack of understanding of even the basic nomenclature, how much of an intelligent conversation can follow?

I don't disagree with you, but arguing about clip vs magazine is besides the matter. I used the word clip because I know it's commonly used. While that does color me as someone who is not a subject matter expert, it in no way invalidates my opinion on gun control OR magazine capacity. Personally I don't think it will make one bit of difference in gun crime but that is beside the point.

Lack of understanding would be for example that I don't understand how a handgun operates. for example, I could fail to understand the difference between revolver and pistol, single action vs double action, semi vs full auto, and various other things. Those would be things that indeed indicate that I am starting off the discussion on the wrong premises. Calling a magazine a clip does no such thing, since I am referring to 'a device of some sorts' that allows a given number of bullets to be loaded into a gun.

 

[Steve]

It was a crime to be possessed by the son, right?

He didn't own the gun, he stole the gun........so if THAT is your definition of 'legally' possessed or owned, EVERY gun is 'legally owned'......by someone somewhere, if not by the person who currently is possessing it.

Honestly, I had read that he was given the gun as a gift. I would say my definition of legally owned and yours are probably very similar.

Sure, if you include suicides, which I personally think are an individual choice, folks shot and killed by law abiding citizens and police in justified shootings, and criminals shooting criminals, which account for the majority of homicides involving firearms.

No. Not suicides. Not children. You guys are frustrating because you're not reading. You're knee jerk reacting. Unintentional (meaning accidental) deaths AND injuries. While this wouldn't include the AZ shooting, it would include Cheney shooting a hunting partner in the face. It wouldn't include a suicide, but it would include a kid being shot by his friend while showing off his dad's gun. If there is a way to be more specific, I don't know it.

I'm not saying you are trying to mislead anyone.......some very much are, however. The nebulous definition of 'child' used is intentionally misleading at it's source.......an 18 year old gang banger shot by the police should not be called a 'child', for example.

It's difficult to avoid misleading someone who is determined to be misled. The only people talking specifically about children right now are you and archangel. The stats I put out have nothing to do with anyone's definition of children.

At the end of the day, most folks that 'accidentally' get injured with a firearm are the folks in possession of it.......there should be no insurance on injuring yourself.

I haven't seen anything to show whether this is true or not. Some? Undoubtedly. Most? I don't think you know that.

Most of the rest of the folks who are injured, are injured on purpose, and there is no insurance against that.

Over 29,000 of the ~30,000 deaths each year by firearm are intentional according to the CDC. And about 2/3rds of the injuries. But that leaves over 600 deaths and over 18,000 injuries. So, yeah. Almost every fatality and most deaths are on purpose. I've never said otherwise.

I'm talking about the average of 2 deaths per day and 30 or so injuries that are unintentional.

The analogy about cars is designed solely to suggest folks should have insurance for guns, which solely is a tool to make firearm ownership more and more expensive, and less and less attractive for the average american, in essence, a backdoor gun ban. Moreover, what are we insuring against? Murder? Won't be covered. Accidentally shooting ourself? Shouldn't be covered.

I've never heard anyone else suggest liability insurance for firearms, so on one hand I can't at all guess about what their motivation is, but implying that it's part of a grand scheme is cheap. I can assure you that I have no gun control designs. My brother collects them. I thoroughly enjoy joining him at the range.

So we're left with insurance against a few hundred incidents a year? Sure, it's an insurance company wetdream, and a gungrabber fantasy, but as for any practical purpose beyond that, there is none!

LOL. Once again, you're making stuff up. I'd welcome some evidence. Seriously. This is an idea I've had and it seems like a good idea to me. I'd change my mind, though, if you guys had any kind of compelling arguments that it's a bad idea. So far, though, you guys seem to be stuck on conspiracy theories which are irrelevant and making things up.

 

[Archangel M]

The "child definition" is but one example of how statistics can be "tweaked" for political purposes. Seeing that little game with what a "child" is. Leaves me wondering what they consider an "accident" to be.

 

[Steve]

What are the real numbers, then? Post them. And a link to the source too, please.

 

[Archangel M]

Incidence Rate: approx 1 in 9,420 or 0.01%
Read more at http://www.wrongdiagnosis.com/f/firearm_injury/stats.htm?ktrack=kcplink

We are seriously discussing yet another law for something that effects .01% of the population??

 

[Steve]

We are seriously discussing yet another law for something that effects .01% of the population??

That's actually higher than the stats I'd posted. And yeah. According to this site, 79 per day. That seems pretty high to me. Again, unitentional.

It's not an apples/apples comparison, although looking at the numbers it appears that they got their numbers from the CDC as well. It looks like it's just counting fatalities, and not limiting fatalities to accidental death.

 

[Bruno@MT]

That's actually higher than the stats I'd posted. And yeah. According to this site, 79 per day. That seems pretty high to me. Again, unitentional.
.

The same could be argued for the speed limits. But ultimately, there is always going to be less killings, the further the speed limit decreases. That doesn't mean it should be done. No matter what you do, there is always going to be a risk of injury or death. A meteorite can kill you outdoors, but you are not wearing a kevlar helmet for going to the grocery store.

In this specific case, going from 17 to 10 bullet magazines is unlikely to have any effect at all. I mean, even if a person is going to go on a ashooting rampage with 10 bullet magazines in his handgun, he'll just pack more of them.

How long does it take to reload a pistol? 5 second? Probably less. Even less than less if the shooter doesn't empty his magazine, and replaced reloads with 1 bullet still in the chamber.
So the point of the 10 bullet law is... ?

 

[Archangel M]

The same could be argued for the speed limits. But ultimately, there is always going to be less killings, the further the speed limit decreases.

Exactly. So if we want to eliminate speed related deaths lets just set a nationwide speed limit of 10 MPH.

 

[Bruno@MT]

Exactly. So if we want to eliminate speed related deaths lets just set a nationwide speed limit of 10 MPH.

Actually a kid nearby got killed under a car driving through the city center. She was in church but felt sick, or had tooth ache or something like that. So she left church to go to her grandmothers house which was right in front of the church across the street. She darted from between 2 parked cars in a low light area, right underneath a car which was not even doing 20 mph. Noone's fault really. Or at least, none who could do anything about it except the kid, and kids do as kids do. The only way to prevent people from being run over is to make all cars stand still.

With the gun control debate it is similar (imo). I agree that some limitations are required to keep the country form turning into a wild west where stray bullets and ricochets kill people on a daily basis. Imo (again) full automatic assault rifles like miniguns have no place in a crowded city, because the risk to other people is too big. And if people can legally own them, then bad guys wil also own them and the violence problem is bad enough already that adding miniguns is not going to do much good in a place which suffers from gang warfare. Sure, you could argue that allowing citizens to arm themselves would work as a deterrent, but once the bullets start flying, there will be a massacre of inocent bystanders.

That is what I call the low hanging fruit of gun control. Reasonable restrictions with measurable impact.

But things like the 10 bullet magazine limitation will have zero positive impact, even IF bad people would abide by that limitation (which they won't). The only people who would be impacted are the well meaning people who do abide by the law.

 

[sgtmac_46]

That's actually higher than the stats I'd posted. And yeah. According to this site, 79 per day. That seems pretty high to me. Again, unitentional.

It's not an apples/apples comparison, although looking at the numbers it appears that they got their numbers from the CDC as well. It looks like it's just counting fatalities, and not limiting fatalities to accidental death.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/levittpoolsvsguns.php


The reality is that the 'gun' risk in America is overplayed for political reasons, and that vastly more mundane risks are what threaten Americans every day.........yet we fixate on guns because when those deaths do occur, they are sensational.

But what it reveals about those who fixate on them, is that those people utilize poor risk assessment.........for example, a parents terrified response to learn that the neighbor, who's child their child plays with, has a gun in the house.......despite the fact that their own swimming pool is 100 times more likely to kill their child or the neighbors child than a gun in the home. Poor risk assessment.

 

[sgtmac_46]

That's actually higher than the stats I'd posted. And yeah. According to this site, 79 per day. That seems pretty high to me. Again, unitentional.

It's not an apples/apples comparison, although looking at the numbers it appears that they got their numbers from the CDC as well. It looks like it's just counting fatalities, and not limiting fatalities to accidental death.

As I said, nearly all but a handful of gun related unintentional injuries are self-inflicted.........that's a self-correcting problem.

What we see in the US is a media driven perception of gun violence not supported by reality........with more guns in circulation than ever, and more diverse gun ownership than in the history of the country, with a growing number of women beginning to purchase and carry guns for self-defense........the homicide rate has been on a decline for 30 years.

America does not have a gun problem.