#NRAlogic

[Harrekin]

to the bolded: yes, but it is not hard to troll the living shit out of fact-free morons clinging to their guns and bibles, which is the majority of what i do.

if everyone is just walking around with 10 or 15 round pistols, that puts us on much more level ground. just the simple act of having to reload more often mitigates the mass murders. this is demonstrable.

i've said it over and over again, and you are right to say it too: we will never stop all of these mass murders. but there is no need to make sure that every mass murder has an easy go of getting his/her mass murder tools. background checks, mag capacity, bans on military style weapons, and even simple laws about locking your goddamn weapons up when they are not in use would help.

no one needs to lose any essential rights to hunting/self defense in order for us to put a crimp in the plans of mass murderers.

If you want to go down that route, I suppose you have empirical evidence that smaller magazines would have reduced body count in mass murders? Don't give me any of that anecdotal "evidence" that is "demonstrable", give me data to crunch.

Also, please define "military style".

Is it those "scary looking" guns? Or is it based on caliber? Availability of a select fire mode (which you need a Federal License for)? Is it ergonomic features like stock style? Presence of a "threaded barrel" (which are easy as fuck to have threaded yourself if you know a metal-worker anyways)?

Should Americans all sell their cars because they don't "need" to move around as efficiently (due to their ambulatory providers, read: legs) and it could save far more lives than even somehow magically making all the guns disappear.

 

[UncleBuck]

To be fair, I truly can't blame you for trolling some of them. Hell, even I get tempted to troll some of the crazier ones. I can agree with your sentiment, but I don't think your route is going to provide a real solution. That's a much more in-depth discussion, though.

you said yourself that there is no real solution, mass murders are gonna happen. i mean, i suppose we could put metal detectors in every door and window of every home, and your door won't open unless you pass the metal detector. of course, if we did that, you would not need a gun in the home for self defense (which is actually statistically more likely to cause self mutilation (or mutilation of other non intruders)).

the polls have universal backgrounds checks at 90%, a registry at 70%, high capacity bans at 65%, and military style weapon ban at 50% or more.

i am for the background checks and high capacity ban, a registry is a bit too big brother for me although i would like national coordination with respect to background checks, and the military style weapon ban wouldn't make any real difference, although i so no need for them and so would not mind if they got banned.

i am also for enforcement of current rules that the NRA has lobbied to make unenforceable, and am glad to see many gun safety super PACs popping up to help balance things out.

and for fuck sake, just lock those things up when you go out. the oregon mall shooter took out almost as many people as the bombs today did, and he would have not killed those people if his buddy had simply locked up his AR15. there should be heavy penalties if your legal firearm gets into the wrong hands via your negligence.*

adam lanza's firepower was deterred by background checks, and would have been all but crippled had his mom locked up her guns. the kid was too autistic to have much luck buying all those guns without the background check system we already have. god forbid we require that to happen for each and every sale.

 

[UncleBuck]

If you want to go down that route, I suppose you have empirical evidence that smaller magazines would have reduced body count in mass murders? Don't give me any of that anecdotal "evidence" that is "demonstrable", give me data to crunch.

have you ever seen deadliest warrior?

they run a complex algorithm to evaluate the deadliness of a warrior. do you honestly think that being able to fire less bullets at a time before reloading makes someone more deadly, statistically speaking?

you wanted data to crunch, i gave you people that crunch data and how they do it.

higher capacity mags equal greater killing power. 10-15 is plenty for civilian use, 30-100 is military style armament.

Also, please define "military style".

what kind of arms does a civilian need? what kind of arms does a soldier need?

there ya go.

there is plenty of overlap, so it is not a precise definition. but there is also a lot of non-overlap, i.e. weapons that no soldier would bother to carry but which serve the civilian purpose, as well as weapons that any soldier should carry but which go beyond the reasonable purpose for civilian use.

 

[Trolling]

at least four people have been shot by toddlers since last weekend.

where are the armed, law abiding toddlers to stop this?

I love the irony in this thread....


Also, irresponsable parents and accidents doesn't compare to terrorism....

 

[Harrekin]

have you ever seen deadliest warrior?

they run a complex algorithm to evaluate the deadliness of a warrior. do you honestly think that being able to fire less bullets at a time before reloading makes someone more deadly, statistically speaking?

you wanted data to crunch, i gave you people that crunch data and how they do it.

higher capacity mags equal greater killing power. 10-15 is plenty for civilian use, 30-100 is military style armament.



what kind of arms does a civilian need? what kind of arms does a soldier need?

there ya go.

there is plenty of overlap, so it is not a precise definition. but there is also a lot of non-overlap, i.e. weapons that no soldier would bother to carry but which serve the civilian purpose, as well as weapons that any soldier should carry but which go beyond the reasonable purpose for civilian use.

Dude, if soldiers needed raw firepower they'd all have M60's with backpacks full of ammo and Deadliest Warrior...seriously? Next cite Mythbusters as experts on physics.

Where does your data that 10-15 is "plenty" for civilian use come from? How long do you think it takes to change a mag with another one taped to it? If high capacity magazines are banned, would you support a restriction on the amount of magazines a person may carry on their person or more extremely, how many they could own? Restrictions on how many rounds of ammunition a person can buy/own?

How do you enforce the use of gun safes and/or punish people for non-compliance without a registry of serial numbers? What if the mass shooter merely files off the serial number?

Honestly bro, we have one of the most insane systems of registration, restriction, licensing and list of banned firearms probably in the world.

Guess what? There've always been murders here and shootings are actually at a record high here regardless of these regulations (and most of the guns used were full auto or a shotgun anyways, so either already restricted or still legal today, thus the handgun ban and all the licensing helped none whatsoever)

I guess criminals feel no compulsion to obey the law for some reason...

Btw, if you can come up with a credible solution and answer all the questions above (and more Iv just currently forgotten) I'm sure there's a Nobel Peace Prize and a fat dollar prize waiting for you for humanitarian reasons.

 

[UncleBuck]

I love the irony in this thread....


Also, irresponsable parents and accidents doesn't compare to terrorism....

you are correct.

irresponsible parents and accidents are way more deadly than terrorists.

we all have a tale about accidents or bad parents, terrorist tales are much rarer.

 

[Trolling]

you are correct.

irresponsible parents and accidents are way more deadly than terrorists.

we all have a tale about accidents or bad parents, terrorist tales are much rarer.

Depends how you look at deadly. Bombs can kill more people and those were like gernade size, not to mention 2 didn't go off

 

[Trolling]

And once the gov gets stricter and stricter on gun control, more and more bombs will evolve anyway.

 

[UncleBuck]

Depends how you look at deadly. Bombs can kill more people and those were like gernade size, not to mention 2 didn't go off

besides OKC, which was the AR15 of bomb jobs, bomb attacks have been far less deadly.

negligent parents and simple accidents have a way higher body count.

 

[Harrekin]

And once the gov gets stricter and stricter on gun control, more and more bombs will evolve anyway.

Alot of pipe-bomb producers getting arrested here recently, one guy had something like 14 pipe bombs ready for sale.

That's the sort of thing gun restrictions cause, at least with armed civilians they get somewhat of a parity to a criminal gunman, as opposed being completely helpless.

 

[fb360]

have you ever seen deadliest warrior?

they run a complex algorithm to evaluate the deadliness of a warrior. do you honestly think that being able to fire less bullets at a time before reloading makes someone more deadly, statistically speaking?

you wanted data to crunch, i gave you people that crunch data and how they do it.

higher capacity mags equal greater killing power. 10-15 is plenty for civilian use, 30-100 is military style armament.

LOLO!

First off:
Max's "algorithm" is not complicated lol. In fact, you failed to mention, or are ignorant of the fact that half of it is "perception". i.e. oh hey this dude sliced through a horse neck, that way more badass than slicing through a pig body (same diameter, same flesh quality).

Secondly:
He even states his algorithm is biased, and hence needs 1000 trials to kill any bias that was given to a single entity. He also goes as far as to replicate soldiers (sometimes has teams of 5), such that there is also a "team factor" (essentially a constant alpha; where 0 < alpha < 1; a magnitude)

Thirdly:
They even go on to say their choices were based upon "presumed training", aka an assumption. For instance, in the Green Beret vs. Spetznaz episode, they clearly describe how the assumed Spetnaz training led to the win; how they "looked" like stone cold killers. You can't put people through multiple obstacles only once, and then replicate that data multiple times; that's blatantly shitty statistics. The correct fashion is to have them run the course multiple times, and then use that population to get your averages; the exact opposite of what they do. There is so much noise in that type of analysis; one mistake can provide dramatically different results.


And now we get to the meat:
What are you talking about, 30-100round mags provide greater killing power? No they don't. They provide the exact same killing power as a 1 round or 10 round mag. The difference is in how many times you can replicate that killing power. So now were at the real question. How and why would someone need the ability to kill 30 individuals, instead of 10. The answer to that question lies very obviously in the 2nd amendment. Moreover, you want to restrict many individuals right to give themselves adequate protection, to stop the few who are mentally unstable and commit these crimes, without any attention to your "laws" and "restrictions". Only a dumbass would continue trying to fix a minute part of a problem, instead of the reason.

And you don't know statistics, so stick to growing and trolling. booya

 

[deprave]

sorry I thought I did answer...Yes it made a difference if it saved ONE life...Did having the ban cause a death ????

it didn't save one life, why would it?

 

[deprave]

wow you can't be this dense..How long did it take Jeffrey to kill those 18 people ???? You can NOT legally own the HK 416 lower part, which is the part registered as a machine gun... only upper is legit , so I call you on that guarantee to own the illegal part. Hope you speak German. Once again people please stop talking firearms if you know nothing about them

Sorry I didn't google your shitty HK gun, its a moot point because my point still stands that I am sure I can get one if it was illegal and if I wanted to....like it matters regardless, there are deadlier weapons which are perfectly legal. Serial killers kill just as many people via a plastic bag, more people where killed

In 2001, approximately 3,300 persons died from unintentional drowning in recreational water settings (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6119a4.htm)



http://bjs.gov/content/pub/ascii/fidc9397.txt (DOJ) - 78,620 firearm deaths between 1993-1997 - at the bottom of the pack of these 78,620 firearm deaths we have rifle deaths at 5% just behind suicides at 6%.


MY CALULATIONS BASED ON THIS:

AVG PER YEAR RIFLE DEATHS 982.25
AVG PER YEAR SUICIDE BY FIREARM: 982.75

Based on the US Population of 313,914,040 that means that every 2 years less than 0.000005% of the population is being killed by Rifles! Some HUGE PROBLEM WE ARE FACING HERE! THESE ASSAULT RIFLES! BETTER MAKE IT TOP AGENDA! LETS SAVE THE BABY SEALS!




There are approximately 80,000 deaths attributable to excessive alcohol use each year in the United States (http://www.cdc.gov/alcohol/fact-sheets/alcohol-use.htm)
About 600,000 people die of heart disease in the United States every year (http://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm)


Poisoning: poisoning&#8212;takes nearly 5,000 lives each year.

Home fires and burns claim more than 3,000 lives a year

Falling is the leading cause of home injury deaths; it claims nearly 6,000 lives(http://money.usnews.com/money/blogs/the-home-front/2009/08/31/the-top-5-causes-of-accidental-home-injury-deathsand-how-to-prevent-them)



lead singer of spinal tap David St. Hubbins claims that &#8220;dozens of people spontaneously combust each year, he claimsit&#8217;s just not really widely reported.

 

[Harrekin]

Sorry I didn't google your shitty HK gun, its a moot point because my point still stands that I am sure I can get one if it was illegal and if I wanted to....like it matters regardless, there are deadlier weapons which are perfectly legal. If I was a serial killer I could get just as many people via a plastic bag.

That's a weird MO you have there.

Could you not just use a knife like everyone else?

 

[kpmarine]

you said yourself that there is no real solution, mass murders are gonna happen. i mean, i suppose we could put metal detectors in every door and window of every home, and your door won't open unless you pass the metal detector. of course, if we did that, you would not need a gun in the home for self defense (which is actually statistically more likely to cause self mutilation (or mutilation of other non intruders)).

the polls have universal backgrounds checks at 90%, a registry at 70%, high capacity bans at 65%, and military style weapon ban at 50% or more.

i am for the background checks and high capacity ban, a registry is a bit too big brother for me although i would like national coordination with respect to background checks, and the military style weapon ban wouldn't make any real difference, although i so no need for them and so would not mind if they got banned.

i am also for enforcement of current rules that the NRA has lobbied to make unenforceable, and am glad to see many gun safety super PACs popping up to help balance things out.

and for fuck sake, just lock those things up when you go out. the oregon mall shooter took out almost as many people as the bombs today did, and he would have not killed those people if his buddy had simply locked up his AR15. there should be heavy penalties if your legal firearm gets into the wrong hands via your negligence.*

adam lanza's firepower was deterred by background checks, and would have been all but crippled had his mom locked up her guns. the kid was too autistic to have much luck buying all those guns without the background check system we already have. god forbid we require that to happen for each and every sale.

I'm all for universal background checks; there are some people we can all agree should not own guns. I'm for consequences for making an implement that makes killing easier more accessible to a murderer (Which would be anything that is clearly designed to be a weapon.). I lock my guns up. If you're not in custody of your firearm; that's a reasonable expectation, and a negligent oversight if you don't. Part of my issue came up with your "level playing field" comment. There isn't one if all these public buildings have a prohibition on carrying weapons. I understand that there's a time and a place for everything. Surely we can spare some money to place a few armed cops at all of these gun free zones? I mean, If you're going to require a person to be defenseless; the least you can do is provide them with some form of defense.

You haven't said you're for complete disarmament. I think most of what we disagree on is the finer points. i.e. What construes a "military style" weapon, and why it's so much deadlier than your conventional handgun in a classroom setting. I think a lot of our differences may lie in a difference in weapons familiarity. Give anyone some time in a decent weapons handling course; they could double the numbers of any school shooting. It's not just the gun, it's how you use it. That's why the Virginia Tech shooter managed to murder so many people. He managed to shoot many of his victims in the head.

An ugly truth is that a bullet to your brain housing group is generally a pretty surefire way to kill someone, that only takes one bullet. If nobody is around to guarantee that you may catch a bullet in return; what's stopping you? We can both agree that a crazy person will try to find a way. What's going to deter him more? An armed defense; or having to spend an extra $1000 dollars on a rifle, when he's already expecting to die? Suicide by cop would be preferable to "Suspect shot after killing spree.", in my opinion. It seems to me that most of our issues like these would be better addressed by a police presence in important places. Schools would be a good start.

 

[UncleBuck]

LOLO!

First off:
Max's "algorithm" is not complicated lol. In fact, you failed to mention, or are ignorant of the fact that half of it is "perception". i.e. oh hey this dude sliced through a horse neck, that way more badass than slicing through a pig body (same diameter, same flesh quality).

Secondly:
He even states his algorithm is biased, and hence needs 1000 trials to kill any bias that was given to a single entity. He also goes as far as to replicate soldiers (sometimes has teams of 5), such that there is also a "team factor" (essentially a constant alpha; where 0 < alpha < 1; a magnitude)

Thirdly:
They even go on to say their choices were based upon "presumed training", aka an assumption. For instance, in the Green Beret vs. Spetznaz episode, they clearly describe how the assumed Spetnaz training led to the win; how they "looked" like stone cold killers. You can't put people through multiple obstacles only once, and then replicate that data multiple times; that's blatantly shitty statistics. The correct fashion is to have them run the course multiple times, and then use that population to get your averages; the exact opposite of what they do. There is so much noise in that type of analysis; one mistake can provide dramatically different results.


And now we get to the meat:
What are you talking about, 30-100round mags provide greater killing power? No they don't. They provide the exact same killing power as a 1 round or 10 round mag. The difference is in how many times you can replicate that killing power. So now were at the real question. How and why would someone need the ability to kill 30 individuals, instead of 10. The answer to that question lies very obviously in the 2nd amendment. Moreover, you want to restrict many individuals right to give themselves adequate protection, to stop the few who are mentally unstable and commit these crimes, without any attention to your "laws" and "restrictions". Only a dumbass would continue trying to fix a minute part of a problem, instead of the reason.

And you don't know statistics, so stick to growing and trolling. booya

i can hit a killer flop shot about 4 times out of 10. if i get 10 goes at it, i can usually hit about 4 killer flop shots up to kick in range.

but if you give me 30 flop shots, i will hit about 12 killer shots to tap in range.

nice critique of deadliest warrior, but you still have not answered the question: do higher capacity mags (ceterus parabus) give greater killing power, equal killing power, or less skilling power?

 

[UncleBuck]

You haven't said you're for complete disarmament.

well, yeah. because i'm definitely not.*

I think most of what we disagree on is the finer points. i.e. What construes a "military style" weapon, and why it's so much deadlier than your conventional handgun in a classroom setting. I think a lot of our differences may lie in a difference in weapons familiarity. Give anyone some time in a decent weapons handling course; they could double the numbers of any school shooting. It's not just the gun, it's how you use it. That's why the Virginia Tech shooter managed to murder so many people. He managed to shoot many of his victims in the head.

An ugly truth is that a bullet to your brain housing group is generally a pretty surefire way to kill someone, that only takes one bullet. If nobody is around to guarantee that you may catch a bullet in return; what's stopping you? We can both agree that a crazy person will try to find a way. What's going to deter him more? An armed defense; or having to spend an extra $1000 dollars on a rifle, when he's already expecting to die? Suicide by cop would be preferable to "Suspect shot after killing spree.", in my opinion. It seems to me that most of our issues like these would be better addressed by a police presence in important places. Schools would be a good start.

the armed police presence idea is too big brother for me.*

can we both agree on magazine capacity? i think 10-15 is enough for reasonable civilian purposes. what do you honestly think about this?

 

[fb360]

i can hit a killer flop shot about 4 times out of 10. if i get 10 goes at it, i can usually hit about 4 killer flop shots up to kick in range.

but if you give me 30 flop shots, i will hit about 12 killer shots to tap in range.

nice critique of deadliest warrior, but you still have not answered the question: do higher capacity mags (ceterus parabus) give greater killing power, equal killing power, or less skilling power?

I have answered that question:
It depends, but the "DC" answer is that the killing power is equal. (i.e. If I only have to kill 1 person, a 30r clip vs a 10rclip wont matter, the job will be done)
They are equal, because each and every bullet has the same killing power. Each individual bullet can make a kill (it doesn't take 2). But, as I mentioned a 30r clip has a better chance of replicating kills than a 10r clip (obviously given the same accuracy).

I've watched every episode of all of those shows, and can say they do provide good education, but as with anything in life, it needs to be taken with a grain of salt, if you can determine why.

As I mentioned before, we are now into the "Meat". You make good points Bucky. You really do, if we were all to abide by your rules. But guess what? These assholes committing these crimes are NOT abiding by the "rules", and hence, what is more favorable to protect yourself against one of these mad men: a 10r clip, or a 30r clip? I ask you that. If you were trapped in a school with one of these assholes, what would you rather have?

 

[ginwilly]

So an armed person in schools is too big brother so we need to limit what people can purchase legally, monitor who purchases what, and tell everyone what they need and don't need. That's better. Not big brotherly at all.

 

[kpmarine]

well, yeah. because i'm definitely not.*



the armed police presence idea is too big brother for me.*

can we both agree on magazine capacity? i think 10-15 is enough for reasonable civilian purposes. what do you honestly think about this?

That first part you quoted was to squelch the inevitable "You want to take all our guns!!" response. We both know you've never said, or even implied, such a thing; that I have seen, at least. I just wanted to openly throw that out there in a hope it might help this conversation, beyond ourselves, in a generally constructive direction. I'm not saying an armed presence EVERYWHERE, just in places where the state and federal gov. has final say; like public schools and other "gun free" zones. The places where "big brother" already has the final say in safety concerns. I'm not saying we should compel private property owners to allow a police guard at their Denny's. How is that too "big brother" for you?

I don't think we can agree on magazine capacities; due to a premise I believe to be flawed on your end. Like I pointed out, Virginia tech was a massacre where the shooter only had magazines with 15 rounds or less. I feel that more bullets do not solely equal more lethality. You're talking about reducing deaths, but it doesn't seem to be an efficient means. Adding a cumulative total of a minute or so to a person's delay in killing people seems to be less effective than having people on site to stop it sooner. Or possibly to be enough of an intimidation to prevent it from occurring in the first place.