Let's get political. Gun Debate!
Posted by Gravity Fed
john vanlandingham John Vanlandingham Ultra Moderator Location: Ford Asylum, Sleezattle, WA Join Date: 12/20/2005 Age: Fossilized Posts: 14,152 Rally Car: Saab 96 V4 |
Well original;ly before little boys up past their beddy bye time tried to derail this, it was about MASS murders by gun wielding psychopaths
Soft targets like what burglers want isn't this subject. Like many have said, they're losers who often will flee at the sound of a 12ga being racked. As for the Fantasy boy shit about "Armed citizens stopping......" Maybe just some research? maybe? http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/mass-shootings-investigation We used a conservative set of criteria to build a comprehensive rundown of high-profile attacks in public places—at schools, workplaces, government buildings, shopping malls—though they represent only a small fraction of the nation's overall gun violence. The FBI defines a mass murderer as someone who kills four or more people in a single incident, usually in one location. (As opposed to spree or serial killers, who strike multiple times.) We excluded cases involving armed robberies or gang violence; dropping the number of fatalities by just one, or including those motives, would add many, many more cases. (More about our criteria here.) There was one case in our data set in which an armed civilian played a role. Back in 1982, a man opened fire at a welding shop in Miami, killing eight and wounding three others before fleeing on a bicycle. A civilian who worked nearby pursued the assailant in a car, shooting and killing him a few blocks away (in addition to ramming him with the car). Florida authorities, led by then-state attorney Janet Reno, concluded that the vigilante had used force justifiably, and speculated that he may have prevented additional killings. But even if we were to count that case as a successful armed intervention by a civilian, it would account for just 1.6 percent of the mass shootings in the last 30 years. More broadly, attempts by armed civilians to stop shooting rampages are rare—and successful ones even rarer. There were two school shootings in the late 1990s, in Mississippi and Pennsylvania, in which bystanders with guns ultimately subdued the teen perpetrators, but in both cases it was after the shooting had subsided. Other cases led to tragic results. In 2005, as a rampage unfolded inside a shopping mall in Tacoma, Washington, a civilian named Brendan McKown confronted the assailant with a licensed handgun he was carrying. The assailant pumped several bullets into McKown and wounded six people before eventually surrendering to police after a hostage standoff. (A comatose McKown eventually recovered after weeks in the hospital.) In Tyler, Texas, that same year, a civilian named Mark Wilson fired his licensed handgun at a man on a rampage at the county courthouse. Wilson—who was a firearms instructor—was shot dead by the body-armored assailant, who wielded an AK-47. (None of these cases were included in our mass shootings data set because fewer than four victims died in each.) Appeals to heroism on this subject abound. So does misleading information. Gun rights die-hards frequently credit the end of a rampage in 2002 at the Appalachian School of Law in Virginia to armed "students" who intervened—while failing to disclose that those students were also current and former law enforcement officers, and that the killer, according to police investigators, was out of ammo by the time they got to him. Little less exciting when a little info comes out. John Vanlandingham Sleezattle, WA, USA Vive le Prole-le-ralliat www.rallyrace.net/jvab CALL +1 206 431-9696 Remember! Pacific Standard Time is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time. |
john vanlandingham John Vanlandingham Ultra Moderator Location: Ford Asylum, Sleezattle, WA Join Date: 12/20/2005 Age: Fossilized Posts: 14,152 Rally Car: Saab 96 V4 |
more from say investigation:
There is no evidence indicating that arming Americans further will help prevent mass shootings or reduce the carnage, says Dr. Stephen Hargarten, a leading expert on emergency medicine and gun violence at the Medical College of Wisconsin. To the contrary, there appears to be a relationship between the proliferation of firearms and a rise in mass shootings: By our count, there have been two per year on average since 1982. Yet 25 of the 62 cases we examined have occurred since 2006. This year alone there have already been seven mass shootings—and a record number of casualties, with more than 140 people injured and killed. Armed civilians attempting to intervene are actually more likely to increase the bloodshed, says Hargarten, "given that civilian shooters are less likely to hit their targets than police in these circumstances." A chaotic scene in August at the Empire State Building put this starkly into perspective when New York City police officers confronting a gunman wounded nine innocent bystanders And presumably they had some training in both firearms and experience in stressful situation.. John Vanlandingham Sleezattle, WA, USA Vive le Prole-le-ralliat www.rallyrace.net/jvab CALL +1 206 431-9696 Remember! Pacific Standard Time is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time. |
|
Jay Jay Woodward Mega Moderator Location: Snohomish, WA Join Date: 12/21/2005 Age: Possibly Wise Posts: 893 Rally Car: '90 Mazdog Frankenprotege |
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/it-true-armed-civilians-have-never-stopped-mass-shooting_690808.html?page=1
Hmm. That mother jones "study" is about the most biased cherrypicked agitprop ever. Since I can recall recent cases where armed bystanders were admitted by the press to have stopped criminals, I thought I'd try and find something on the subject from a site where *every single sideball and link* was not about how evil guns are, one that showed, you know, some amount of objectivity. Mother Jones makes Fox News look objective. "In the wake of the slaughters this summer at a Colorado movie theater and a Sikh temple in Wisconsin, we set out to track mass shootings in the United States over the last 30 years. We identified and analyzed 62 of them, and one striking pattern in the data is this: In not a single case was the killing stopped by a civilian using a gun." There are a couple of major problems here with arguing that armed civilians don't stop mass shootings. One is that when armed civilians are present, they often stop mass shootings before they can become mass shootings. One of the criteria Mother Jones used to define mass shootings is that "the shooter took the lives of at least four people." So then, consider the following: – Mayan Palace Theater, San Antonio, Texas, this week: Jesus Manuel Garcia shoots at a movie theater, a police car and bystanders from the nearby China Garden restaurant; as he enters the movie theater, guns blazing, an armed off-duty cop shoots Garcia four times, stopping the attack. Total dead: Zero. – Winnemucca, Nev., 2008: Ernesto Villagomez opens fire in a crowded restaurant; concealed carry permit-holder shoots him dead. Total dead: Two. (I’m excluding the shooters’ deaths in these examples.) – Appalachian School of Law, 2002: Crazed immigrant shoots the dean and a professor, then begins shooting students; as he goes for more ammunition, two armed students point their guns at him, allowing a third to tackle him. Total dead: Three. – Santee, Calif., 2001: Student begins shooting his classmates — as well as the “trained campus supervisorâ€; an off-duty cop who happened to be bringing his daughter to school that day points his gun at the shooter, holding him until more police arrive. Total dead: Two. – Pearl High School, Mississippi, 1997: After shooting several people at his high school, student heads for the junior high school; assistant principal Joel Myrick retrieves a .45 pistol from his car and points it at the gunman’s head, ending the murder spree. Total dead: Two. – Edinboro, Pa., 1998: A student shoots up a junior high school dance being held at a restaurant; restaurant owner pulls out his shotgun and stops the gunman. Total dead: One." John, I'm not gonna argue with you on this anymore, it's a pointless waste of time. Go ahead and feel good about finding the incorrect date on my last cut and paste if you want, you're right, China didn't really get the ball rolling with thier genocide till the cultural revolution, when Mao "political power comes from the barrel of a gun" Zedong was able to go nationwide. Whatever. Cuz next you said Finland woulda been better off letting Stalin have his way, and that guns don't work well for defense. We're never gonna agree on this, and it's a pattern here that anyone who disagrees with you gets insulted and belittled and I don't have time for that either. Besides, your straw man, shoot the messenger, hostile, violent (shoot the fucker on sight, remember?) completely inflexible approach here does more to discredit your position than anything I can type to respond. But thanks anyway, this exchange may make me go ahead and join the NRA or GOA or somesuch, something I haven't ever done. Jay Woodward Snohomish, WA '90 Mazdog Frankenprotege Chronologically, 46... |
john vanlandingham John Vanlandingham Ultra Moderator Location: Ford Asylum, Sleezattle, WA Join Date: 12/20/2005 Age: Fossilized Posts: 14,152 Rally Car: Saab 96 V4 |
What the fuck do you know about the endless, empty-headed derailing, lazy prattle from that littler yapping chihuahua affectionately know as little Timmy? Actually I am always extremely polite to little Timmy.. Extremely.. John Vanlandingham Sleezattle, WA, USA Vive le Prole-le-ralliat www.rallyrace.net/jvab CALL +1 206 431-9696 Remember! Pacific Standard Time is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time. |
heymagic Banned Infallible Moderator Location: La la land Join Date: 01/25/2006 Age: Fossilized Posts: 3,740 Rally Car: Not a Volvo |
http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/stats.html
According to the National Self Defense Survey conducted by Florida State University criminologists in 1994, the rate of Defensive Gun Uses can be projected nationwide to approximately 2.5 million per year -- one Defensive Gun Use every 13 seconds. Among 15.7% of gun defenders interviewed nationwide during The National Self Defense Survey, the defender believed that someone "almost certainly" would have died had the gun not been used for protection -- a life saved by a privately held gun about once every 1.3 minutes. (In another 14.2% cases, the defender believed someone "probably" would have died if the gun hadn't been used in defense.) In 83.5% of these successful gun defenses, the attacker either threatened or used force first -- disproving the myth that having a gun available for defense wouldn't make any difference. In 91.7% of these incidents the defensive use of a gun did not wound or kill the criminal attacker (and the gun defense wouldn't be called "newsworthy" by newspaper or TV news editors). In 64.2% of these gun-defense cases, the police learned of the defense, which means that the media could also find out and report on them if they chose to. In 73.4% of these gun-defense incidents, the attacker was a stranger to the intended victim. (Defenses against a family member or intimate were rare -- well under 10%.) This disproves the myth that a gun kept for defense will most likely be used against a family member or someone you love. In over half of these gun defense incidents, the defender was facing two or more attackers -- and three or more attackers in over a quarter of these cases. (No means of defense other than a firearm -- martial arts, pepper spray, or stun guns -- gives a potential victim a decent chance of getting away uninjured when facing multiple attackers.) In 79.7% of these gun defenses, the defender used a concealable handgun. A quarter of the gun defenses occured in places away from the defender's home. Source: "Armed Resistance to Crime: The Prevalence and Nature of Self-Defense with a Gun," by Gary Kleck and Marc Gertz, in The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, Northwestern University School of Law, Volume 86, Number 1, Fall, 1995 I'll bet there isn't a sad story, statistic or argument that can't be countered with another such item. Funny thing is JVs article brings all these 'facts' to the mass murder side of the article then they blatantly speculate that armed civilians are more likely to cause more damage. That speculation alone makes the whole article a worthless piece of journalism. There is a whole bunch of published stuff denying the halocaust also. http://theweek.com/article/index/93693/denying-the-holocaust . The written word many times isn't much more than someones biased view of something. I doubt most people own a firearm to defend a theater. I think a lot of people own guns to defend their home. Plenty of people have been killed at home by robbers when the home owner was not armed. Happened to one of my customers a few years back. Shooting random targets in a mall, church, school or any other gathering area is a fairly easy task, especially with an large capacity weapon. You just point in the general direction and shoot. Defending a mall or school is a bit harder as the defender has to be armed, in a position to shoot, have the grits to shoot, likely with a much smaller weapon, and many times the perp has body armor and they have to hit a very specific target, something the first shooter doesn't care about. I'll bet , statistically, 99.9% of the gun owners in the world will never commit or attempt a mass murder. I'll bet 99.9% off all the unarmed people in the world will never be involved in a mass shooting, even less will die in one. If having a gun at my home reduces, even a small amount, my chances of being killed during a robbery then I'm all for that. Wasn't that long ago that someone was squirting lighter fluid into ticket kiosks and tossing matches. There were a couple of guys setting man traps in the woods not long ago. Crazy people can always find a way to disrupt the lives of 'normal' people. There never will be a blanket policy or law to defend against these attacks since most people can't co prehend the acts to start with. Not terribly hard to set a fire, drive a car thru a crowd even a train can be derailed with a bit of steel and some ingenuity. Blanket laws restricting the rights of the 99.9% population who will never be involved seems a bit fool hardy. So does picking on Timm...but while we're there...Motel 6 has stains on the sheets older than Timm. And to stay on thread somewhat...I have ammo older than Timm. (this message was typed with my glasses on) |
fiasco Andrew Steere Elite Moderator Location: South Central Nude Hamster Join Date: 12/29/2005 Age: Possibly Wise Posts: 2,008 Rally Car: too rich for my blood, share a LeMons car |
The problem with all these sources from Faux News to Mama Jones is the data is skewed to their agenda, whether they like it or not. I say we pay Grant TEN MEEEEEEEEELLLION DOLLARS to figure out the real story.
Filter out the shouting, and reality is probably somewhere in the middle between Fox and MSNBC. Andrew Steere Lyndeborough, NH KB1PJY |
NoCoast Grant Hughes Junior Moderator Location: Whitefish, MT Join Date: 01/11/2006 Age: Midlife Crisis Posts: 6,818 Rally Car: BMW |
I doubt anyone on here would advocate a full gun ban.
I think any level headed person would agree that these mass shootings would have a lower potential death toll if there were restrictions on how many shots the shooter had access to in a short amount of time. If there is anything that my teenage years of watching JCVD and Seagal and other action movies it is that a person is very vulnerable when reloading. Restricting access now doesn't ELIMINATE what is already out there, but it will reduce future access. I don't think it is the best solution, but I do think defining then reducing or limiting sales of high capacity is the best option. I don't currently own any firearms but I keep thinking about buying a shotgun. As was pointed out, the cocking sound in unmistakeable and in itself would send most would be robbers running. We went camping last January and a friend brought his shotgun. He keeps it next to his bed for home security. Turned out the firing pin was fucked up and the gun wouldn't actually shoot. He's since fixed it though. We're going camping in a few weeks, but this time in a area that would make for amazing stage rallying. Snow rallying all day, beer, bonfires, and guns. Yeah! Grant Hughes |
frumby Jason Hynd Senior Moderator Location: Oak Harbor, WA Join Date: 03/16/2007 Age: Midlife Crisis Posts: 333 Rally Car: XR4TI a slow build! |
Grant, you're right, smaller magazines might make a difference, and are hard to argue against. My shotgun holds five, if you count the one in the chamber (and it's most assuradly not chambered at home, so four).
Gun advocates on the right side are very worried that any restrictions are 'the first step' in a road that leads to effectively banning guns. They are correct that many liberals want to ban guns. I don't think it's necessarily always the gun they hate so much, as it is the whole 'uncivilized' image. I think that sometimes they need to get ahold of themselves and understand that we live in a world that can be very cruel, no matter how you sugar coat it. The most 'civilized' of people perpetrate evil every day. We'll never get away from that. The concern there is that the law abiding citizens will adhere to the ban, and the criminals will still have guns as they do now. No one needs a 30 round clip. We're all horrified by the recent shootings, but every analytical person knows that tradgedies happen every day, and that as spectacular as these things are, we are MUCH more likely to die in a traffic accident or something else. Is the fact that Adam Lanza went on a murdering rampage more terrible than the poor child that dies a painful death of leukemia? Or that little girl that gets crushed in a car accident? Since we're on the subject of guns, the topic has to be broader than mass shootings. 80 people killed in one year in a country of over 300,000,000 just isn't statistically significant. All gun deaths, now we're talking about something. If you look at that more significant number we'd probably see that availability of 30rd clips didn't make much difference (if restricted to single shot weapons it probably would have). Also, accidental deaths. Gun safety is fairly simple, but it's the simple things that get you killed. My wife is very safety conscious, but I noticed that she paused after several rounds (out of the .22 rifle) the other day. She lowered the muzzle to the ground, but finger was still on the trigger. Obviously a safety hazard, and easy to fix. But a gun safety class made mandatory might be something (although, how would it be administered, and how much would it cost). Grant, I recommend a 20ga youth shotgun. I have 12ga, and my wife has a 20ga youth for shooting trap. Hers has a shorter barrel, cheaper ammo etc. Fun to shoot, can be very safe. Daunting to someone breaking and entering. Birdshot at 10 yards or less will stop anyone. The .22 rifle is great target practice. Five cents a round. I'm laughing at the guys shooting .45 pistols. Ammo is more than 10 times as pricey! |
NoCoast Grant Hughes Junior Moderator Location: Whitefish, MT Join Date: 01/11/2006 Age: Midlife Crisis Posts: 6,818 Rally Car: BMW |
I'm on the hunt for a set of XC skis soon so I can start doing biathalons. The facility here has guns you can use once you take the USBA safety course. So a 22 rifle will be in my future. Amazing that a 22 can be as high as $4k used!
I remember once a few years ago when we went out to fire a friends AK. He had 10 rounds total because ammo was so expensive. Our camping trip we were firing a .30-06. Fun to shoot but seemed so silly to be shooting at a beer can. Grant Hughes |
john vanlandingham John Vanlandingham Ultra Moderator Location: Ford Asylum, Sleezattle, WA Join Date: 12/20/2005 Age: Fossilized Posts: 14,152 Rally Car: Saab 96 V4 |
Price: $195.00
Price per round: $0.195 Backorder - Wolf 7.62x39mm 123 Grain FMJ 1,000 rounds - $195/$206 after coupon + $19.99 S/H One coupon per order - Apply coupon SH805 for free shipping over $75, SPGGUNS12 for $25 off $185, SGEBATES12 for $20 off $150. Item number 67116 (price $220/231 for FMJ), add to cart and apply coupon SPGGUNS12 for $25 off. Steel cases, polymer coated for better function, longer storage life. Non-corrosive, non-reloadable, Berdan-primed. Full metal jacket, standard or boattail bullet. Order yours quick! John Vanlandingham Sleezattle, WA, USA Vive le Prole-le-ralliat www.rallyrace.net/jvab CALL +1 206 431-9696 Remember! Pacific Standard Time is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time. |
Well I have to argue that magazine point somewhat. What if you have multiple intruders and every shot ain't perfect? What if you're up against a pissed off bear in your house in the middle of the night that you've hit several times but it isn't down yet? Shotguns: some believe the racking sound is a deterent. Most self defense weapons experts say that's just movie stuff. Some meth'd up nutto isn't gonna pay attention let alone necessarily hear that shotgun being racked. Someone (I thought it was you) pointed out that an intruder can grab a shotgun/rifle and a pistol is easier to control who is holding it. When things go bump in the night I grab a phone, flashlight, and a pistol. My AR primarily is used with .22LR that in bulk cost 3 cents/round. Good quality 5.56 was about .25 - 30 cents per round in bulk before things went crazy two weeks ago. Laugh all you want at my .45s. All my non-defense ammo I reload myself. Less than 16 - 20 cents per round. Defense ammo is $1 - $2 per round depending on the ammo. |
heymagic Banned Infallible Moderator Location: La la land Join Date: 01/25/2006 Age: Fossilized Posts: 3,740 Rally Car: Not a Volvo |
Well for most of our (US) history the police and much of the military defended themselves with anywhere from 1 to 6 rounds. The old .38 S&W was common police carry until just a few years ago. The exception was the .45cal Thompson, which in reality is about a 6 rd weapon as even trained people can't seem to hold one on target for long.
I just can't see needing a 30 rd or even 20 , .223 or .308 or AK to shoot bears or intruders. I doubt most (non-gang related) fire fights last more than 6ish rounds from one gun. Intruders aren't usually looking for trouble, just easy loot. Having someone actually shoot at them usually resets the process. I really don't want anyone in a populated area blasting off 30 hi-power rounds at burglars. Sheet rock isn't made of kevlar. Home protection is one thing, but where do you stop? The case for 30rd clips could be made for grenade launchers. |
NoCoast Grant Hughes Junior Moderator Location: Whitefish, MT Join Date: 01/11/2006 Age: Midlife Crisis Posts: 6,818 Rally Car: BMW |
What if you have 30 intruders and only a 20 round magazine! Oh my!!! Your what if's are pretty far out there. There's probably 1/100th as many accounts of a bear attack inside a house as there are mass murders. I would hope that a home owner wouldn't rely on the sound alone but would also yell out that he's armed and tell the intruder to leave as well. It's also a hell of alot easier to actually HIT something with a shotgun than a pistol. You think you are a bad ass on the range but I bet with some adrenalin secreting and hugely elevated heart rate and said meth'd out nutter coming you'd better hit him with that first shot of the 45 cause you probably won't hit anything but the walls on the next shots. Just remember, slow breathing and trigger on exhale... Grant Hughes |
JohnLane John Lane Mod Moderator Location: Lynden Washington Join Date: 01/14/2006 Age: Possibly Wise Posts: 725 Rally Car: The Fire Breathing Monster |
|
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.
Rally Anarchy © 2014 Corvus Digital –
Part of the AutoShrine Network –
Problems? Send an email to the Webmaster