Tippmann Pneumatics Inc. Homepage
  FAQ FAQ  Forum Search   Register Register  Login Login

Near Future & Gun Control

 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 10>
Author
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 December 2012 at 2:39am
Originally posted by rednekk98 rednekk98 wrote:

While I'm at it, I might as well throw out "Stand your ground" laws, and other self-defense laws that allow you to shoot someone fleeing from you, anybody if they're on your property, or don't require you to retreat if reasonable. These are fairly new, and IMO, stupid.

Let's use the car analogy for Stand your ground type laws and say I'm driving on the highway, and somebody is driving like an ass, possibly drunk, texting, or experiencing road-rage. Can I attempt a pit-maneuver to get them off the road? Must I first call the police, give a warning via horn or flashing my high beams? They're clearly a threat to public safety if they drive poorly. What if they drive and leaning back in their seat and almost touch the white solid(and happen to be black)? Can I then start honking at them, flashing my lights, demand they pull over and then aggressively ram them if they honk back?


Would like to mention, many of these gun laws we are discussing, are state laws. Which to me, are fine. Don't like the laws, move to a different state. Now when we start talking federal laws, whole different ball game.

Good analogy. Obviously a viable threat would have to be established. If I see a possible threat, and can avoid it at any cost, I do. Should I be required to? No. If I believe the driver is a threat to me, and the only option I have is to pit them before they cause me harm. I should be able to defend myself at all costs.

Just as I avoid bad neighborhoods when it's dark. I try to avoid driving when the drunks are out. Just like if I think there is a potential threat on the horizon, I will call the cops. If those first 2 fail, then I should be able to defend myself at all cost.

Edit: According to AZ law. Let's say I do pit the suspected drunk persons vehicle. And they do turn out to be intoxicated. Know who is automatically to blame for the wreck, the drunk driver.


Edited by impulse418 - 18 December 2012 at 2:52am
Back to Top
BARREL BREAK View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Prettiest Princess in all the lands

Joined: 08 September 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10707
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BARREL BREAK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 December 2012 at 2:39am
 
Originally posted by impulse418 impulse418 wrote:

Would like to mention, many of these gun laws we are discussing, are state laws. Which to me, are fine. Don't like the laws, move to a different state. Now when we start talking federal laws, whole different ball game.
No it isn't. Move to a different country. 
Back to Top
rednekk98 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Dead man...

Joined: 02 July 2002
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 8925
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote rednekk98 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 December 2012 at 2:43am
Clearly. Teens are provably irrational, and we don't have the kind of public transportation Europe ha, so it's expensive. 16 year olds don't earn much money with gun use, but why not let them be allowed to start their own demolition businesses, but not worry about getting licenses or training, and just let 16 year olds buy dynamite an as much as they want without question?

EDIT: Kind of like you pit move response, will keep that in mind in the future.


Edited by rednekk98 - 18 December 2012 at 2:45am
Back to Top
DeTrevni View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
b-YOU-ick. Was that so hard?

Joined: 19 September 2005
Location: Houston, Texas
Status: Offline
Points: 11763
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote DeTrevni Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 December 2012 at 9:55am
Kinda related: I've always wanted a Colt 1911. Just their basic model would suffice. There are doubtlessly new firearm laws coming soon, and that makes me wonder if I should buy now. Kinda like investing. Prices will be high now, and availability will be low. But who knows what will happen in the future? What have you folks seen? Would y'all recommend grabbing one now if I have the chance, or wait until the paranoia dies down, if it even will?
Evil Elvis: "Detrevni is definally like a hillbilly hippy from hell"

Back to Top
Ceesman762 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Time for a C-Section!

Joined: 15 November 2007
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 4807
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Ceesman762 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 December 2012 at 11:55am
Get it now...^^^^
Innocence proves nothing
FUAC!!!!!


Back to Top
SSOK View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
The Savior of Christmas

Joined: 01 September 2005
Location: PRNJ
Status: Offline
Points: 5499
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SSOK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 December 2012 at 12:37pm
Detrev, you could buy a new Colt for around $1000,which isn't too bad of a price. Do it.
Back to Top
tallen702 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Swearing on Facebook

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: Under Your Bed
Status: Offline
Points: 10949
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tallen702 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 18 December 2012 at 1:01pm
I don't foresee 1911's going up in price or getting banned like I see double-stack firearms doing. You're going to see introduction of legislation banning high capacity magazines for pistols (over 10 rounds) and single stack 1911's don't fall into that category.

Mind you, all of that "hi-cap" banning thought is pointless. The 5 seconds it takes and average novice to drop and insert a mag into a repeater isn't going to give you an opening to restrain a shooter. Let alone someone who has practiced. What's more, even banning detachable mags aren't going to stop fast reloading. Revolvers with speed loaders are just as quick as handguns with mags. Case in point, the Rio de Janeiro School Shooting in Brazil. Perp used a .32 and a .38 revolver with speed loaders and a revolver bandolier (think Pancho Villa). He killed 12 and injured another 12. With my near 100-year-old bolt-action Steyr M95, I was reloading in under 3 seconds with the enbloc clip system. I can also easily get off a shot a second or better if I'm not taking the time to aim (which most mass shooting perpetrators don't do anyway). Let's not forget the venerable M1 Garand which is capable of rapid fire and doesn't require the motion of pulling a bolt.

It's all "feel good" legislation. Always has been, always will be.
<Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>
Back to Top
SSOK View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
The Savior of Christmas

Joined: 01 September 2005
Location: PRNJ
Status: Offline
Points: 5499
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote SSOK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 December 2012 at 2:22am
From the gist of it, the Internet is freaking out. CTD stopped selling, ARs are now impossible to get, etc. General contentious is that an AWB is looming and the end is neigh.

Surprisingly it seems like the general public doesn't hate guns though. I saw a poll on a liberal local PRNJ news website that indicated 70% of people didn't want new gun laws... Something interesting considering the demographics.
Back to Top
BARREL BREAK View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Prettiest Princess in all the lands

Joined: 08 September 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10707
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BARREL BREAK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 December 2012 at 2:52am
Originally posted by SSOK SSOK wrote:

From the gist of it, the Internet is freaking out. CTD stopped selling, ARs are now impossible to get, etc. General contentious is that an AWB is looming and the end is neigh.

Surprisingly it seems like the general public doesn't hate guns though. I saw a poll on a liberal local PRNJ news website that indicated 70% of people didn't want new gun laws... Something interesting considering the demographics.

This is a kneejerk response, people dislike the blanket idea, but support specific legislation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/

Back to Top
tallen702 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Swearing on Facebook

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: Under Your Bed
Status: Offline
Points: 10949
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tallen702 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 December 2012 at 9:19am
Originally posted by BARREL BREAK BARREL BREAK wrote:


This is a kneejerk response, people dislike the blanket idea, but support specific legislation. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/14/nine-facts-about-guns-and-mass-shootings-in-the-united-states/



Ehhhh, I'm one to distrust Mother Jones data gathering. Their graph showing the rates of "Mass Shootings" doesn't define what they consider a mass shooting. For instance, the media has been using that term for the Oregon incident where two were killed and 6 wounded. Yet there are often more deaths and injuries outside nightclubs in SE DC but they aren't reported as "Mass Shootings." Are they just going by media say-so? Have they any particular defining standard? We don't know because they haven't released how they gathered their data and what constitutes their plots on their graph.

<Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>
Back to Top
oldsoldier View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member

Frequent target of infantile obsessives

Joined: 10 June 2002
Status: Offline
Points: 6544
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote oldsoldier Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 December 2012 at 10:17am
My question in all this is how does the 'public' figure that banning by law a 'tool' of violence you will change the behavior of those intent on violence. You take one tool those intent on violence will just use another, the behavior is not changed.

We 'ban' by law many 'drugs' and has that changed the behavior of the drug abuser, and the criminal actions said abuser uses to aquire those drugs.

We have a society that actually thinks a 'sign' stating "Gun Free Zone" will change the behavior of an individual intent on violent behavior with a gun. where does an individual intent on a violent act with a gun feel safer to commit this act? A movie theater in a signed "Gun Free Zone" or a movie theater next to a unsigned but known 'cop' bar.
How does that 'sign' change the behavior of the criminal or mentally ill, it only reinforces the 'legal' behavior of those who already obey the law and "Gun Free Zone" sign.

Blunt force trauma, and sharp instument deaths also are the result of abusing a 'tool' by an individual displaying 'bad' behavior, what blunt objects and sharp 'tools' can we/do we ban to change that behavior.

Total idiocy, until we change the behavior, banning the tools solves nothing as the individual intent on violent behavior will just change tools. And how are we as a society and culture going to remove 300m guns from the public, without a total change in the culture against those who are more than willing to create more victims (government)rather than actually targeting those who will still continue thier criminal behavior after all the guns from the legal American gun owner (you know the far easier target in this equation) are confiscated and banned.
Back to Top
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 December 2012 at 10:45am
Facial recognition in schools, that alert school security of a prohibited possessor or known felon near or on school premises. We move to a cashless society. That way all of our purchases can be monitored by the government.

We finally need the government to have control over the internet.


Back to Top
BARREL BREAK View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Prettiest Princess in all the lands

Joined: 08 September 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10707
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BARREL BREAK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 December 2012 at 3:44pm
 I think OS should be more 'worried' about the 'banning' of 'superfluous scare-quotes.'
Back to Top
Tolgak View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Master of MSPaint and bri's Daddy

Joined: 12 July 2002
Location: BEHIND YOU!
Status: Offline
Points: 1239481
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote Tolgak Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 19 December 2012 at 10:10pm
Here's a point I made elsewhere on the interwebs that I think is worth repeating:

Rate of gun ownership in the US: http://www.gallup.com/poll/150353/self-reported-gun-ownership-highest-1993.aspx

47% of households keep a firearm. Read further to find that it's more specifically 1 in 3 people that own guns. That's about 100 million people, based on the survey. The number is likely higher since criminals would not admit they own firearms.

Gun crimes per year in the US: http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/guncrime.cfm

Levels out to be about 400,000 instances per year If each crime (not necessarily resulting in a firing of the weapon) were committed by a different person each time, it's less than half of one percent of owners. 99.5% of gun owners do not commit these crimes. It doesn't specify if all the crimes are aggressive or accidental, for example, the accidental exposure of a legally concealed weapon was once a crime in Florida.

Gun homicides in one year: http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm

Less than 10,000. That's .01% of gun owners.

If severe restrictions on guns are in order 1/3 of the US population will be punished for the actions of an incredible minority.

Regarding uses in self defense:

Pro-gun sites put it at 2.5 million instances per year and the anti-gun sites put it at 80,000 per year. This includes both. I see a bias towards restricting guns in this one.

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/files/Bullet-ins_Spring_2009.pdf

Even considering the low estimate, there are likely thousands of truly life threatening instances among all those crimes prevented by at least the exposure of a firearm.

Focus on the gun instead of the potential criminal will do nothing but mess with the investments of millions of people who do not deserve punishment.


Yes, we have had a relatively high amount of shootings in recent times. Those deaths, as tragic as they are, are a handful compared to all the causes of preventable death in this nation. Whenever we try to enact legislation to prevent those deaths, the populace throws temper tantrums about how their rights to smoke and eat are being ruined.

In any case, for any intent, people always find a way. To solve a problem with people, you have to focus on their behavior.  Put a grenade in the hands of a random person and tell him what it does and how to use it, chances are greater he would end up killing himself over an act of stupidity than he would throw it into a busy store. Put the grenade in the hand of a Class 3 FFL and chances are that even if he were to chose to detonate it, he would pull all the stops to make sure nobody would get hurt in the process.

We can prevent stupid people from getting guns. We can keep criminals from getting guns through all but illegitimate means, I'm all for both. But changing what's available to the responsible person only serves to upset a multi billion dollar industry without fixing the crime and stupidity problem.

Back to Top
stratoaxe View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
And my axe...

Joined: 21 May 2005
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 6831
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote stratoaxe Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 December 2012 at 12:45am
The thing is, gun control isn't guided by logic it's a pre-existing agenda.

Every diasaster they'll push it, only this time the severity of the attack has the gun lobby guilt tripped.
Back to Top
impulse418 View Drop Down
Gold Member
Gold Member
Avatar

Joined: 25 November 2010
Location: Phx, AZ
Status: Offline
Points: 1650
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (1) Thanks(1)   Quote impulse418 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 December 2012 at 1:21am
Back to Top
tallen702 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Strike 1 - Swearing on Facebook

Joined: 10 June 2002
Location: Under Your Bed
Status: Offline
Points: 10949
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote tallen702 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 December 2012 at 6:18am
My favorite question to ask no-guns folks is "Okay, you don't want me to have a rifle that fires multiple intermediate cartridges without re-loading, but a rifle that fires multiple 'full-strength' rounds without reloading is fine?"

Seriously. Hide behind a security door or in a closet with .223 and you just might be okay. Hide behind said door when I'm firing surplus x54r, and you aren't going to be okay no matter what.....
<Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.>
Back to Top
Tolgak View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Master of MSPaint and bri's Daddy

Joined: 12 July 2002
Location: BEHIND YOU!
Status: Offline
Points: 1239481
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote Tolgak Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 December 2012 at 9:36am
Originally posted by tallen702 tallen702 wrote:

My favorite question to ask no-guns folks is "Okay, you don't want me to have a rifle that fires multiple intermediate cartridges without re-loading, but a rifle that fires multiple 'full-strength' rounds without reloading is fine?"

Seriously. Hide behind a security door or in a closet with .223 and you just might be okay. Hide behind said door when I'm firing surplus x54r, and you aren't going to be okay no matter what.....

They would say neither, harrumph at you, and walk away.
Back to Top
BARREL BREAK View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Prettiest Princess in all the lands

Joined: 08 September 2003
Location: United States
Status: Offline
Points: 10707
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote BARREL BREAK Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 December 2012 at 3:27pm
Forget half-measures, I don't think civilians should be able to own guns. There's no reason to own a murder tool other than hunting or target shooting, and those are just hobbies.
Back to Top
agentwhale007 View Drop Down
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Avatar
Forum's Vladimir Lenin

Joined: 20 June 2002
Location: GNV FLA
Status: Offline
Points: 11696
Post Options Post Options   Thanks (0) Thanks(0)   Quote agentwhale007 Quote  Post ReplyReply Direct Link To This Post Posted: 20 December 2012 at 3:55pm
The people have initial responded to the shooting in Connecticut by rushing out and buying firearms just in case are not people I really want to be friends with, or really associate with. 
"So when Romney wins in a landslide, what will the liberal media do?"
This Ma**edited**hine Kills **edited**as**edited**ists.




Back to Top
 Post Reply Post Reply Page  <12345 10>
  Share Topic   

Forum Jump Forum Permissions View Drop Down

Forum Software by Web Wiz Forums® version 10.03

This page was generated in 0.156 seconds.