Gun nuts, what's next?

[bigbadberry3]

I was rereading the thread and ran across Greg's comment about magazine capacity. Not being a gun nut, I'm no expert. All I know is what I see in movies and they seem to swap those clips pretty quickly. What does it take, a second or two? And a semi-auto fires 2-3 rounds per second, maybe?

Is there really any significant difference between getting off 9 or 15 rounds before a 2 second reload? 9 rounds would take 3-4 seconds to empty, 15 rounds would take 5-7 seconds. You could fire 18 rounds in two clips in 8-12 seconds or one 15 round clip in 5-7 seconds. Is that a really big deal to anyone?

I suspect an examination of crimes would show that in almost zero cases, would a smaller clip have made a difference. It'd just be one more restriction on guns with little or no effect on violent assault.

The clip in the AZ shooting held 31 rounds. The shooter was taken down when he was attempting to change clips.

[96Qowner]

Ok, so you limit the clip to 9 rounds. That'll take an extra what, 10 seconds changing clips?

In this case, he must not have been very agile at changing clips. Can we count on all of the bad guys to fumble with the clips to give enough time to tackle him? Will the good guys who use the weapon to defend themselves be better at it? Could a bad guy just bring an extra gun or two, if he doesn't want to take time changing clips?

Seems like a bit of a stretch to me. I doubt if it really matters how big the clip is.

[bigbadberry3]

Ok, so you limit the clip to 9 rounds. That'll take an extra what, 10 seconds changing clips?

In this case, he must not have been very agile at changing clips. Can we count on all of the bad guys to fumble with the clips to give enough time to tackle him? Will the good guys who use the weapon to defend themselves be better at it? Could a bad guy just bring an extra gun or two, if he doesn't want to take time changing clips?

Seems like a bit of a stretch to me. I doubt if it really matters how big the clip is.

I've already stated adding more guns to a situation does not solve a problem as suddenly everyone is pointing a gun at everyone and figuring who is good and who is bad is a split second decision before more bullets fly.

So if this guy had 5 rounds in one clip, he would have shot 5 people maximum before having to change the clip not 31 bullets to spray. I'll take 3 seconds over no seconds any day of the week.

[stebo0728]

The clip in the AZ shooting held 31 rounds. The shooter was taken down when he was attempting to change clips.

Please educate me as to how a law limiting gun clip size would have ABSOLUTELY kept that 31 round clip out of this guys hands. Sure outlawing them means fewer stores, or different levels of stores carry the larger illegal ones, heck maybe no stores at all carry them anymore. Yes that would add a layer of difficulty to a criminal in acquiring them, and perhaps would have kept said clip away from this guy, BUT YOU DONT KNOW THAT. What if the guy with the black market back alley gun shop that sold him the GUN illegally also just happened to have the same clip anyway even though it was illegal, what then? What has your law accomplished?

[bigbadberry3]

The clip in the AZ shooting held 31 rounds. The shooter was taken down when he was attempting to change clips.

Please educate me as to how a law limiting gun clip size would have ABSOLUTELY kept that 31 round clip out of this guys hands. Sure outlawing them means fewer stores, or different levels of stores carry the larger illegal ones, heck maybe no stores at all carry them anymore. Yes that would add a layer of difficulty to a criminal in acquiring them, and perhaps would have kept said clip away from this guy, BUT YOU DONT KNOW THAT. What if the guy with the black market back alley gun shop that sold him the GUN illegally also just happened to have the same clip anyway even though it was illegal, what then? What has your law accomplished?

I don't know anything that COULD HAVE happened and NEITHER DO YOU.

What if there was a law that had limited him to having a smaller clip? Who's to say that he would have gone and purchased an illegal clip? He bought all the weapons and ammo used legally from what I've read so.....

[stebo0728]

In order to accept that line of thinking, you have to accept vigilantism. It's implied in your reasoning, you're just not saying it explicitly. You kind of hint at it when you say "equipped or allowed to defend themselves or you from attack." Simply being in public is usually enough to avoid violent crime, and the violent crime that it doesn't avoid wouldn't usually be stopped by an armed populace - in fact, it'd probably be made worse.

Sorry I didnt mean to pussyfoot there. If defending ones self when no other defense is available equates to vigilantism, then sign me up. Lets explore a bit though, take a language lesson.
Vigilantism comes from the root word vigilant. Vigilant means "Keeping careful watch for possible danger or difficulties". Vigilant, or vigilance is a positive character trait.

Back to my original statement: "equipped or allowed to defend themselves or you from attack". If you have a problem with that, I dont particularly care to share a bus, railcar, or plane with you, or shop in the same convenience store as you. Heres where the line draws for vigilance. We are a system of law, and law provides to every man certain rights, rights that arent already inalienable by our creator (sorry if you dont like the terminology, its in our documents). These rights include the right to a fair trial by jury of peers. When an individual decides to become that jury, sentencing judge, and executioner all in one, there is where we have a problem. BUT what about the right to defend ourselves, free of fear of legal consequence? Take not that right from us.

So yes, I am all for vigilantism, as long as it stays with in the confines of legality I described above. Furthermore, many cities, or other jurisdictions have "good Samaritan laws" that punish for NOT helping someone in danger if it could be proved you had the ability to do so.

But since you were so apt to noodle vigilantism out of my argument (not that I was trying to hide it mind you), let me noodle something out of yours. Im sick to death of this narrative the left has adopted, wherin the government does all things right, does all things the best, and should be left to do all things exclusively, for the betterment of mankind. That my friend, is the steamiest load of horse crap I've ever seen. The government only has business doing what the private sector, what we ourselves CANT do. And believe me, there are many things the government have taken from us that we can do just fine. Now Im not saying get rid of the cops and just let us defend ourselves, but the notion that ONLY the government be allowed to defend us is just simply ASININE. If a guy has a gun to your back, and doesnt see me, and I have one and can take him out, Im taking him out whether you like it or not, for your own good, you can thank me later, your tell me to go to hell, either way I dont care, but Im not standing idly by and watching you gunned down for that cheap fake gold watch the burglar thinks is real. Keep in mind im trained, and I will only shoot if i KNOW i will hit my target, and the perp WILL go down, not you.

You're right, but the purpose of the laws isn't to catch bootleggers, it's to give cops the authority to do anything when they do catch them. That's what I'm talking about.

Cant even remember why we are arguing on this point, current laws exist, if they are broken, punishment ensues, end of story.

I'm not okay with government condoning collateral damage. If you take the law into your own hands and you accidentally kill an innocent, my position is that you've committed manslaughter and should be punished for it.

I believe that happens now no? Part of gun training is not warning that harming someone unless in defense, whether intention or unintentional, will result in trouble? But I can tell you this, if I am struck but a bullet from someone attempting to take out a mad man, and they do so in the process, and lives are saved, im not pressing charges, and if the state/feds do anyway, im helping with his legal defense, and testifying FOR him in the trial, and if im killed I like to think my family feels the same way.

Well, let me know when you plan on starting that lynch mob, Stebo, and I'll be sure to call the cops to stop you.

You miss the point. Just like anyone else rational, I prefer the law be enforced by law enforcement, after all there is a very good reason we employ them and train them, but the fact that we do does not stem from a position that the law is not OURS to take should it be necessary. Citizens arrest anyone? Again go back to my larger response above differentiating when this behavior is appropriate, and when its crossed a line.

Bah, that's crap. Let children behave like children, but force adults to behave like adults. And I didn't buy the "society of men raised by women" thing when Brad Pitt said it, either.

We're a society of men who have grown up without a pressing need to club dinner over the head first.

Not sure exactly which portion of that you are labeling crap, or all of it? Im going to assume you meant all of it, in which case, again I will stress, I love debating with you, but I really just dont care to live anywhere around anyone with attitudes like this, where the only thing we do when victimized is cry out for government assistance, meanwhile just keep getting buttraped and murdered until the cops get there? Sorry but thats not for me. I may not have a firearm in my home, for reasons equivalent to AZ's, but that doesnt mean I dont know where a nice lump forming softball bat is, and some rather sharp kitchen knives, point is, they aint gettin me without a fight, and if they are in my home, I aint goin for the knee either.

EDIT - You also need to understand the real life results of either having or not having gun restrictions. Gun restrictions ONLY limit law abiding citizens, they DO NOT limit criminals. Furthermore, outright bans create "safe zones" for criminals, places they KNOW they can find easy prey without worrying about being killed by someone defending themselves. The whole purpose for NOT limiting gun posession, is to eliminate these "safe zones" altogether. Look at some statistics, I'll find you some if you ask nicely, where different municipalities make changes to their gun policies. The theme is that, tight control = higher crime, looser control = lower crime. Now I know given your inability to understand this same principle with taxation rates and revenues, that you might not get it, but still it has to be said.

[stebo0728]

I don't know anything that COULD HAVE happened and NEITHER DO YOU.

What if there was a law that had limited him to having a smaller clip? Who's to say that he would have gone and purchased an illegal clip? He bought all the weapons and ammo used legally from what I've read so.....

We are saying the same thing here, im just saying that this law is really not that necessary is it will most likely not affect illegally armed persons. It wont really affect legally armed persons either I dont think, as I dont think legally armed people carry around 31 round clips, they may have them in their collection, but probably not in their holster. But passing a law in a rash manor due to a current event is not very prudent.

[AZhitman]

I think we're onto some good stuff here - I can't keep up (because I don't know much about guns, and as such, I don't know much about gun laws).

But I WILL say this. stebo mentioned something: "The law IS in our own hands."

And as much as I respect Isaac, I gotta point out that the response was short-sighted: "Well, let me know when you plan on starting that lynch mob, Stebo, and I'll be sure to call the cops to stop you."

See, you assume something here, and it kinda pisses me off that you didn't think far enough ahead.

Let's say you live in a rural area. Police are 30 minutes away. What do you advocate a citizen do in that 30 minutes, in the event a crime is being committed against their person or property? How about areas with no 911 service? (they exist). What about instances where there's NO way to call for help? Hell, *I* live in a suburban community of newer homes, yet our response times are painfully slow.

The law IS in the citizens' hands. You WILL run across cases where a person has to make a decision to act, and you'll have to apply a "reasonable person" assessment to their actions.

Law enforcement is a tool and a service to the community... NOT the end-all, be-all of problem-solving, peace-maintaining, fairness-enforcing.

Guess this all comes down to a fundamental disagreement about the primary function and role of government, so I suppose I shouldn't be too harsh.

Let's hope you don't hamstring them to some idiotic, unrealistic expectation that they "should have waited for trained officers to respond".

[Cold_Zero]

Aside from occasional domestic disputes involving firearms and a nasty public shooting in 2001, there is very very little firearms-related crime in Switzerland.


Why wouldn't this work here? (I mean the whole bit, compulsory service and all).

Obviously, in Switzerland, you can choose to go career military also, staying active duty and never entering the reserve.

Hash,
Two things.
In certain Cantons there are storage limitations of ammunition and service rifles in private homes. So not all cantons allow their military to take home their SIG Sauers and/or the ammunition, they have to be stored at local armories. But for the most part there are over 610,000 fully automatic SIG Sauers in the populations’ hand.
Also, I suspect that the size of the population has a lot to do with their low crime rate. Switzerland only has 7+ million people living in the country where as the United States has over 300 million. Whether is it a matter of statistically having less chances of crime being perpetrated or the smaller populations of poor /destitute people I am not sure. I have a friend in Denmark and they had all of 1 murder in the country last year or so he says and Denmark fits the same bill as Switzerland. Except for taking home their service rifles; yes they do have universal conscription.
All,
What will be interesting to see about the Tucson shooting is if the FBI will dig up information that the parents of the shooter, the school of the shooter, the city of Tucson or the state of Arizona failed to properly report the shooters criminal and mental health record. I have been hearing reports that his parents worked with the city's Board of Supervisors to keep certain criminal activity off his record. Everyone seems happy now to come forward and talk about this guy's mental state. We saw the same thing with the Virginia Tech shooter, that people failed to do their civic duty to report his mental issues to the authorities and he was able to buy fire arms. Not because there were not ENOUGH or the right laws were on the book, but because the reporting system failed.
SOOOOO instead of blaming the people or the reporting process that should have reported these people earlier, we want to blame the firearms or the extended clips/magazines. Then propose sweeping legislation to fix the problem so that NO ONE is held accountable. Or heaven forbid hold criminals accountable for their actions. "We must reject the idea that every time a law's broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions." ---Ronald Reagan No you must hold law abiding citizens guilty of someone else's transgression and ban the items that they hold dear.
We have a fundamental problem in this country where we react to a tragedy like this, pass unfunded ‘feel good’ legislation so we can act like we are ‘fighting crime.’ Politicians pat themselves on the back and claim they fought crime, all the while more cops are not put on the street and no new jails are built from said legislation.

But let's get serious people, during the last Assault Weapons ban and the ban on extended magazines/clips, at NO TIME was it EVER illegal to buy, possess or use pre-ban so called "Assault Weapons" (whatever that means) or extended/high capacity magazines/clips. The only thing the ban did, was drive up the price, made manufactures and dealers more money, drove people to buy up all the pre-ban inventory and caused manufactures to pump out more product. If the anti gun lobby were smart, they would shut their lips about bans and legislation and let the current trend of gun ownership and hunting to fall by itself (as it has been in this country). I really think they would reach their goals faster. When President Obama was elected there was a huge run on anything related to firearms. Weapons and ammo were hard to find. Obama has been very good for the industry.

Here is a quick question, why did violent crime rates fall in the wake of the lapse of the Assault Weapons Ban in 2004?

[Cold_Zero]

^ Since when has Switzerland needed a military? I kid.

When was the last time Switzerland was invaded by a foreign army?

[Cold_Zero]

So, here's your chance. What are you willing to give up, change, add, etc. to the current gun ownership laws to protect me, my family and other citizens of this country from similar tragedies?

Where is it written anywhere that I must protect you from tragedy? That comment kind of wreaks of an entitlement mentality. I'm sorry, I think the laws in this Land are respectable and we need to enforce the laws that we do have, instead of drawing up new ones. But we need to have a healthy respect that s*** is always going to happen and the government or your fellow man is not going to bail your a** out. Sometimes you have to pull yourself up from your bootstraps and take care of yourself.

I respect your right to own guns, what about my right to be free from injury from guns? What should be done?

My firearms and those of my friends have killed zero people and injured no one. You have more to fear from Ted Kennedy's 67 Olds than my firearms. It should also be pointed out that Timothy McVey and the 9-11 Highjackers killed more people without firearms than any mass shooting in this country. I would even go as far as to reach that in this country, the Government has killed more people at the hands of firearms inside this country than any individual. I am referring to the BATF in Waco and the US Army in the Indian Territories.

[bobotech]

The police are NOT obligated by law to protect you, they are only there to mop up the mess. Just remember that. Police react to events after they usually happen, not during or before.

I want to be prepared to the before and during.

[AZhitman]

^ .... both of which reinforce my statement that the police are not the end-all, be-all. They're not omniscient, they're not omnipotent, and they're not omnipresent.

As such, we are FREE to defend our safety and our property as well as that of others within the scope of the law.

Part of YOUR responsibility as a citizen of this great country is to be vigilant, be alert, and be prepared... so that someone like me doesn't HAVE to bail your pansy a$$ out of a sticky situation (and so that someone like Cold_Zero or repo_man doesn't have to bail MY pansy a$$ out ).

[IBCoupe]

Sorry I didnt mean to pussyfoot there. If defending ones self when no other defense is available equates to vigilantism, then sign me up. Lets explore a bit though, take a language lesson.
Vigilantism comes from the root word vigilant. Vigilant means "Keeping careful watch for possible danger or difficulties". Vigilant, or vigilance is a positive character trait.

Just because a word comes from a root you happen to like doesn't make that word good public policy.

Back to my original statement: "equipped or allowed to defend themselves or you from attack". If you have a problem with that, I dont particularly care to share a bus, railcar, or plane with you, or shop in the same convenience store as you. Heres where the line draws for vigilance. We are a system of law, and law provides to every man certain rights, rights that arent already inalienable by our creator (sorry if you dont like the terminology, its in our documents). These rights include the right to a fair trial by jury of peers. When an individual decides to become that jury, sentencing judge, and executioner all in one, there is where we have a problem. BUT what about the right to defend ourselves, free of fear of legal consequence? Take not that right from us.

You have a right to defend yourself, but I'm going to come after you for the one kid you accidentally kill. And re: "don't like the terminology," you're not playing with an Art History stoner. If there's something I have ever written that makes you think that was an appropriate jab to make, go ahead and point it out.

You go ahead and show me where "free of legal consequence" is in the law, too, and I'll concede that point. You do not have an absolute right to defend yourself. We place all kinds of limits in all kinds of settings.

So yes, I am all for vigilantism, as long as it stays with in the confines of legality I described above. Furthermore, many cities, or other jurisdictions have "good Samaritan laws" that punish for NOT helping someone in danger if it could be proved you had the ability to do so.

No they don't; not any enforceable ones in the United States without a special kind of relationship between the victim (like parent/child, for example). You must be thinking of Germany or France, with stricter gun control laws than ours alongside "good Samaritan" statutes and common law.

Im sick to death of this narrative the left has adopted, wherin the government does all things right, does all things the best, and should be left to do all things exclusively, for the betterment of mankind. That my friend, is the steamiest load of horse crap I've ever seen. The government only has business doing what the private sector, what we ourselves CANT do. And believe me, there are many things the government have taken from us that we can do just fine. Now Im not saying get rid of the cops and just let us defend ourselves, but the notion that ONLY the government be allowed to defend us is just simply ASININE. If a guy has a gun to your back, and doesnt see me, and I have one and can take him out, Im taking him out whether you like it or not, for your own good, you can thank me later, your tell me to go to hell, either way I dont care, but Im not standing idly by and watching you gunned down for that cheap fake gold watch the burglar thinks is real. Keep in mind im trained, and I will only shoot if i KNOW i will hit my target, and the perp WILL go down, not you.

Well, that was a cute little rant, but I'm fair certain that you will only shoot if you believe you know you will hit your target. My concern is about when you "know" that you couldn't have possibly have just hit that little girl in the head with your bullet, because she wasn't your target.

Nevermind the fact that I'm not talking about taking your guns away; I'm talking about making it easier to get criminals off the street before they actually get to the violent parts of their crimes. And if I can do this without pissing Greg off too much: the kid bought his gun legally. Until he had pulled the trigger, he had committed no crime. There was absolutely a failure somewhere.

Cant even remember why we are arguing on this point, current laws exist, if they are broken, punishment ensues, end of story.

Problem is, and that was the point of my initial post, that punishment doesn't ensue because the NRA has the ATF in a choke-hold.

I believe that happens now no? Part of gun training is not warning that harming someone unless in defense, whether intention or unintentional, will result in trouble? But I can tell you this, if I am struck but a bullet from someone attempting to take out a mad man, and they do so in the process, and lives are saved, im not pressing charges, and if the state/feds do anyway, im helping with his legal defense, and testifying FOR him in the trial, and if im killed I like to think my family feels the same way.

And that's entirely your prerogative. Equal protection means that the government can't take those kinds of ideological sides in its blanket policy.

You miss the point. Just like anyone else rational, I prefer the law be enforced by law enforcement, after all there is a very good reason we employ them and train them, but the fact that we do does not stem from a position that the law is not OURS to take should it be necessary. Citizens arrest anyone? Again go back to my larger response above differentiating when this behavior is appropriate, and when its crossed a line.

Except in North Carolina, Stebo, that's an explicitly granted thing. And if you get it wrong, you've committed an act of kidnapping. The statesman that encourages citzen's arrest has a field of idiots as his constituency. There's a difference between acknowledging the propriety of a thing in certain situations and arguing for it as a policy matter - when you object to a policy initiative because the law is meant to be taken into our own hands, you take on the latter form. Nobody's arguing to take away your right to perform a citizen's arrest or to defend your life, we're just arguing that those rights aren't in the way of real, sensible gun law reform.

Not sure exactly which portion of that you are labeling crap, or all of it? Im going to assume you meant all of it, in which case, again I will stress, I love debating with you, but I really just dont care to live anywhere around anyone with attitudes like this, where the only thing we do when victimized is cry out for government assistance, meanwhile just keep getting buttraped and murdered until the cops get there? Sorry but thats not for me. I may not have a firearm in my home, for reasons equivalent to AZ's, but that doesnt mean I dont know where a nice lump forming softball bat is, and some rather sharp kitchen knives, point is, they aint gettin me without a fight, and if they are in my home, I aint goin for the knee either.

See above.

The theme is that, tight control = higher crime, looser control = lower crime. Now I know given your inability to understand this same principle with taxation rates and revenues, that you might not get it, but still it has to be said.

Those are tricks of statistics. You're gonna show me Phoenix, AZ and compare it to Minden, NE. The per-capita crime rate is high in the former and low in the latter, but what your website won't show me is that Phoenix AZ has a population of 1.6 million and a population density of 2.8k/sq mi, where Minden has a population of 2,900 and a density of 1.8k/squ mi. But that's not the real problem. Do you know how I know your statistics are bunk before you even present them? Because it requires an assumption about crime and policy that makes no sense. No city official says, "You know, we've had one shooting in five years. What we need are draconian gun control ordinances."

And as for taxes: that I disagree with you doesn't mean that I don't understand you.

EDITED to clean it up. Got a bit too angry.

[IBCoupe]

Law enforcement is a tool and a service to the community... NOT the end-all, be-all of problem-solving, peace-maintaining, fairness-enforcing.

Which is why you'll never see me arguing against letting people exercise those rights. But I'm not gonna be in favor of putting up a perimeter fence around it just to avoid pissing off rural America. My point is: if you're going to go ahead and take the law into your own hands, you best do it carefully, because I'm not gonna go easy on you if you f*** up.

[heliochrome85]

not even haiti had such destruction.

[IBCoupe]

As per my EDIT comment, I hope that Tariq's comment still makes sense from a "logic" standpoint.

[heliochrome85]

sometimes all the logic in the world doesn't make a damn bit of difference. also, its about time you blew your stack. im misty eyed here thinking of my first blow up here. now its just old hat.

[IBCoupe]

Leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I made a point of making the cussing superfluous to my arguments, but I still didn't like it. It feels better when the arguments stand by themselves.

[heliochrome85]

oh sure, but ultimately, its comforting that you arent looking at these issues on a purely intellectual level. that you get an emotional response indicates that you are actually interested in the topic, rather than hearing the sound of your own voice. any idiot can pontificate.

[IBCoupe]

See, but what bothers me is when good policy gets held up by bad thinking. Not the fact that we've got bad policy; that's just convenient timing for the cameras.

[szh]

that's just convenient timing for the cameras.

That is all politicians can do nowadays.

Given the limited capacity of our media to report anything meaningfully long enough to be more than a sound-bite.

Or the inability of the vast number of apathetic citizens in our country to comprehend what they should or should not understand.

Z

[AZhitman]

Law enforcement is a tool and a service to the community... NOT the end-all, be-all of problem-solving, peace-maintaining, fairness-enforcing.

Which is why you'll never see me arguing against letting people exercise those rights. But I'm not gonna be in favor of putting up a perimeter fence around it just to avoid pissing off rural America. My point is: if you're going to go ahead and take the law into your own hands, you best do it carefully, because I'm not gonna go easy on you if you f*** up.

Fine by me.

My absolute adoration for extreme accountability begins with me. See, if I put myself at the head of the list of people to be held accountable, I don't feel bad about stepping on the necks of others who f*** up.

[IBCoupe]

That's a good plan, Greg, and if I'm understanding you right, I do my best to behave that way, too. That's why I went back and cleaned up my post.

[dusred]

Splain!

Owning a gun is a very serious responsibility. If you don't have the 'cool' it takes to properly use a weapon I agree you shouldn't own one. You apparently feel like you wouldn't be able tell who the bad guy is and if this is the case don't own one.