From my cold, dead. hands! Except in Detroit and Chicago - Page 233 - Politics and Economics

I'm not, I'm discussing weapons casualties, not just mass killings. Nobody is suggesting we make our world less net safe overall in an effort to only stop a few mass killing, are they?

Because correlation != causation. Because we can come up with a reason the killer picked his spot in most of the mass killings, and it wasn't because of any weapons quarantine policy. Because the gun-nuts are willfully conflating areas where a weapons monopoly is attempted with a weapons free zone. Because there is no statistical control regarding the number of weapons free zones -vs- weapons monopoly zones -vs- free for all carry zones. Because it implies that weapons quarantine areas are somehow inherently unsafe by themselves, it implies more weapons => less weapons casualties.

And what can we take away from these situations? Well one thing we can take away is that it is net safer inside these weapons quarantine areas. That in fact, these weapons quarantine areas are a sign of relative safety... the exact opposite of 'killing zone' meme which attempts to paint weapons quarantine zones as a sign of a relative lack of safety.

It's not a matter of what I 'want'. There are plenty of schools right now with armed guards and metal detectors. Most large urban school districts have their own police department, and do project an armed presence on campus. My question is why?

Let's look at some possible scenarios...

(a) A factory/school/church has an epidemic of weapons casualties. If the manager/principle/pastor is only given the choices of (1) establishing a weapons monopoly policy, or (2) encouraging customers, students, worshipers, employees, visitors and vendors to carry weapons in an unorganized manner, which do they overwhelming choose?

(b) A factory/school/church doesn't have an epidemic of weapons casualties, but would still like to improve their net safety. If the manager/principle/pastor is only given the choices of (1) establishing a weapons free zone, passively enforced, or (2) encouraging customers, students, worshipers, employees, visitors and vendors to carry weapons in an unorganized manner, which do they overwhelming choose?

Earlier RedBean speculated that very few, or perhaps none, of the F500 companies allow their non-security employees to carry weapons at work. Very, very, very few schools allow non-security employees to carry weapons on campus. And I'm just gonna guess that the vast majority of churches that actually have a specific weapons policy also have some sort of a quarantine.

Almost to the point of being unanimous, trained professionals in the security business advice some sort of quarantine, and almost to the point of being unanimous, the responsible decision makers choose some sort of quarantine.

And... they would all, all of them, have to be flat out wrong, and basically stupid to evil, if we believe in the gun-nut 'killing zone' meme. On the other hand... if we assume the security profession in general, and the vast, vast majority of responsible decision makers in particular, are not flat out wrong, or stupid, or evil then... the 'killing zone' meme is a buncha crap.

We are talking about 2 different things. Like I said most Mass Killings happen in these gun free zones, the ones with no security, armored protection, etc. That's not a bunch of crap, its true. Gun violence and violence in general is different.

Companies, organizations have a lot of liability in this sue happy culture we live in. If a employee shoots someone they face a lot of opposition and possibility of being sued. If dude comes in and shoots a bunch of people they don't face anything. One mistake could cost them their business or millions.

12-27-2012 , 03:22 PM

#5802

gusmahler

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 29,443

Quote:

Originally Posted by General Tsao

btw anyone know why barrel shrouds were banned? did the government want gun owners to burn themselves or wat

Thinking seems to be that the hot barrel makes the gun harder to use, therefore less likely to be used.

Threaded barrel ban seems to be redundant since silencers are already heavily regulated.

Don't know the thinking of pistol grips for rifles. Allegedly, pistol grips make it easier to hip fire. But 1) you can hip fire without a pistol grip also; 2) who hip fires anyway? It's incredibly inaccurate.

12-27-2012 , 03:23 PM

#5803

General Tsao

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 30,586

Quote:

Originally Posted by gusmahler

gus,

they look scary. that is all there is too it.

honestly pistol grips make the rifle more ergonomic, but ultimately doesn't matter that much.

the threaded barrel ban relates more to flash hiders than it does silencers.

12-27-2012 , 03:24 PM

#5804

Hendricks433

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 4,938

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperSwag

I never said I wanted to ban anything. I just asked what gun folks think should be done in the wake of Sandy Hook and it seems like you want nothing done. Because of some irrational fear that government is going to take all your guns you seem to not want to agree to anything.

You guys also act like you've always had assault weapons when really you've had them for less than ten years. So if the government takes something away that probably shouldn't have been legal in the first place then it really isn't that big of a deal.

Thats exactly what their attempting to do in the recent bill proposal a few posts above. Much more than Assault Weapons.

They allow grandfathering but once there are a couple more mass shootings theyll go for confiscation. Yea, I'm just paranoid and irrational though.

12-27-2012 , 03:26 PM

#5805

[Phill]

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 52,717

Grandfathering is a terrible inclusion and should be removed.

12-27-2012 , 03:26 PM

#5806

Hendricks433

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 4,938

Quote:

Originally Posted by General Tsao

Most silencers connect to the flash hider/compensator.

Pistol grips being banned is lol.

12-27-2012 , 03:27 PM

#5807

will1530

self-banned

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 5,773

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Phill]

That is completely impossible to know. We know he was tackled by at least one teacher and if he had to reload three times as often it makes tackling him when effectively disarmed three times as likely.

Keep in mind the Gabby Giffords shooter was stopped only when he had to reload his gun after he exhausted his 33 round magazine.

Trying to claim limiting magazine sizes would have no effect is just pathetically and obviously wrong it makes me wonder if you guys are even trying to have an honest discussion or if you are just married to the outcome of nothing changing facts be damned.

lol Philllaaaam. So one guy somewhere was tackled? That's your entire argument? How hard do you think it is to carry 4 pistols with 10 round mags? How many times do you think someone will be available and willing to tackle an armed gunman in that one to two seconds he's using to reload? It's feel good legislation and it's stupid. It also doesn't matter because my high capacity magazines will be grandfathered in.

12-27-2012 , 03:29 PM

#5808

General Tsao

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 30,586

reloading definitely gives more opportunity to rush the gunman. gunman may even fail to seat the mag correctly leading to a jam, he may drop the mag in the heat of the moment, etc, so it's not even the time for a regular reload, it adds a certain % for failure to get the gun up and running again.

12-27-2012 , 03:30 PM

#5809

General Tsao

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 30,586

gun advocates are being dishonest itt. same for the ones who were like "lol AR-15s aren't even good for killing people, i'd rather have a slingshot tbh".

12-27-2012 , 03:31 PM

#5810

Dyenimator

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 23,131

Benholio's post is great

12-27-2012 , 03:31 PM

#5811

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Phill]

That is completely impossible to know.

Trying to claim limiting magazine sizes would have no effect is just pathetically and obviously wrong.

Phil ladies and gents

12-27-2012 , 03:32 PM

#5812

[Phill]

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 52,717

We know for a fact that there is an increased chance a killer can be stopped by passing this law limiting magazine capacities...and your objection is...?

Also, again, grandfathering in these things is stupid and makes the ban less effective so dont do it.

12-27-2012 , 03:34 PM

#5813

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Phill]

My objection is that you said something obviously ******ed.

12-27-2012 , 03:37 PM

#5814

will1530

self-banned

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 5,773

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Phill]

Sure, and that small chance of a killer being stopped isn't worth me not being able to go out and buy a new magazine. Mind you, I can easily fix my magazines if they wear out, but it's much more convenient to just buy a new one. I also know what you would like, and I frankly don't give a damn. I'm only concerned with what can possibly become law, and what can pass this legislature is lol useless.

12-27-2012 , 03:37 PM

#5815

[Phill]

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 52,717

I wasnt directing that question at you ikes. I know better than to not engage you when you are in one liner mode.

12-27-2012 , 03:38 PM

#5816

Dyenimator

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 23,131

It's not. If I drive 100 mph for 10 seconds, stop for 1, then drive 100 mph for another 10 seconds... I haven't gone as far as the guy going dead on for 21s.

12-27-2012 , 03:39 PM

#5817

[Phill]

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Jun 2004 Posts: 52,717

Quote:

Originally Posted by will1530

For the record I think the most important gun control bill(s) will come in 2015 after the Dems retake the House and hold the Senate.

And yay for keeping mass murderers as efficient as possible so you can buy a new magazine, seems like an awesome moral position to take.

12-27-2012 , 03:42 PM

#5818

will1530

self-banned

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 5,773

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Phill]

Dude, your right. I honestly do not give a **** about the tiny amount of victims of mass murders. We're talking about a hundred of so people a year. they're not worth mine (and millions of others) convenience. Also, gerrymandering for the win. Obama and co. lost big in 2010 so Repubs have very little chance of loosing the house. Even if they do (and it won't be this midterm) it will be filled with conservative Democrats beholden to the evil NRA.

12-27-2012 , 03:47 PM

#5819

ikestoys

banned

Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 94,424

Midterms aren't usually when sitting presidents make big gains in congress.

12-27-2012 , 03:49 PM

#5820

Hendricks433

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 4,938

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Phill]

There are all sorts of things that could possibly increased the shooter being stopped but it isnt worth limiting the freedom on millions of people for something that could possibly do something. You have the Arizona shooter who got tackled when he reloaded, on the other hand VT shooter killed more than any other mass shooting with 2 handguns, 10 and 15 round magazines.

12-27-2012 , 03:52 PM

#5821

SuperSwag

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: May 2012 Posts: 5,775

Quote:

Originally Posted by will1530

12-27-2012 , 03:54 PM

#5822

Hendricks433

Pooh-Bah

Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 4,938

Quote:

Originally Posted by [Phill]

If magazine size is so good for mass shooters why arent they using the 100 round drums?

There are so many things we could spend time and energy on to save the 5-10 lives a year you want to worry about. That's tons of variance too, each killer could easily have killed more or less based on a number of different circumstances.

12-27-2012 , 03:55 PM

#5823

Dyenimator

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Dec 2005 Posts: 23,131

Lol, limiting the freedom. Please. In your life, how many times has mag size been an issue?

12-27-2012 , 03:57 PM

#5824

General Tsao

Carpal \'Tunnel

Join Date: Feb 2007 Posts: 30,586

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hendricks433

100 round drums are less affordable and more prone to jams

i think the aurora movie theater shooter had a high cap mag like that and it jammed on him

12-27-2012 , 04:01 PM

#5825

will1530

self-banned

Join Date: May 2009 Posts: 5,773

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dyenimator

Lol, limiting the freedom. Please. In your life, how many times has mag size been an issue?

Everytime I go shooting?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SuperSwag

Seriously. There are literally millions of assault weapons in this country. Millions and millions more handguns with high capacity magazines. You guys are talking about effecting millions of people. For what? A hundred or so people? Get bent. Life isn't sacred and it's not priceless. What you're advocating is stupid, pointless, and completely arbitrary. All in the hopes of making you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

Page 233 of 1110

First

33 133 183 213 223 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 243 253 283 333 433 733

Last

...

Page 233 of 1110

First

33 133 183 213 223 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 243 253 283 333 433 733

Last