Q™
IPCT Contributor
Oh FuQ no! I thought we were done with this exercise in language presented as having a persuasive or impressive effect, but better described as lacking in meaningful content.
1000 yd hit with a 9mm revolver!
- Thread starter mat200
- Start date
fenderman
Staff member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2014
- Messages
- 36,901
- Reaction score
- 21,270
Its 100 percent ok...its a nothing number...why does it matter to you if a person committing suicide does it by way of gun or jumping off a bridge...at least with a gun, there wound be traffic delays for thousands of people.Okay (to various replies),
So the status quo in this country is okay.
Okay, maybe we don't have a massive amount of gun homicides in this country. Suicides or other.
Okay, maybe research into gun deaths isn't allowed ( due to legislation the NRA backed. Who needs data anyway?)
okay, maybe we have more guns in our country than we have people (chart below)
Okay, guns good. Color me skeptical.
Again, I'm seeking middle ground. The current situation is flawed. Sure, I own guns and will defend my family and home. But I am really frustrated by the two sides talking past each other. If we have the gumption to come to the table, and talk, we can improve the situation.
If we don't, my freedom to have guns will be infringed (I fear). We need reasonable people on both sides. In this thread, on a Camera forum, with smart and thoughtful people, I was hoping for a smart, thoughtful, and balanced dialogue.
Instead, after posting my personal views in this forum, I think I'll bow out. Which bugs me. I don't like to be shouted down by the "guns good" crowd.
YMMV,
Fastb
There is tons of research on gun, why would you lie about not being able to do the research...
Who cares if there are more guns than people, a law abiding gun owner can have 1 or 1000 guns, it wont matter, he wont kill anyone...
More importantly, the "Solutions" suggested by the left will do NOTHING...actually they will do something, they will cause law abiding citizens to die or suffer harm. Read the stats on how many crims are prevented annually by law abiding gun owners....
Did you not read my other post, make the argument to me, as to why we should not immediately do away with the fourth amendment... I could says 100k lives per year, likely much more....this notion that something must be dont because 50 people died by the hands of a lunatic, is ridiculous....over 700 people will die in Chicago alone this year, all by illegal gun owners, but no one is running to stop them...in fact the same folks protect the gangs and illegals...
Finally think logically, legal gun owners commit a tiny fraction of murders each year, roughly 2-300....all this over 2-300...the rest are ILLEGAL gun owners...soooo lets think about the best way to enforce the laws already on the books....but nooo...i wonder why..
bigredfish
Known around here
There are many very good and very smart folks on both sides of this discussion on this forum, many far smarter than me. So why is there this disconnect?
I think the differences in viewpoint can be boiled down to three things:
1) You can either formulate an opinion on gun control, or ANY issue A) based on the statistics, facts, and documented evidence OR B) based on feelings, what your peer group thinks, and what CNN/NYT/MSNBC and the Progressive Left wants you to feel to advance their cause. (Like Snopes, they ceased being objective years ago and no longer even try to hide their agendas. Fortunately they are becoming less and less relevant as a result) If you formulate your opinion based on "B", and particularly if you have little experience with a firearm, their is a built-in and very understandable Fear that can be difficult to overcome, and difficult to admit, especially while your peer group and CNN constantly reinforce that viewpoint.
2) Some folks get so heavily/emotionally invested in an viewpoint that no amount of data, fact, or common sense can sway them to change that opinion. Orthodoxies are very, very difficult for all of us to break from.
3) The 24 hour news cycle coupled with the Interwebs allows us to become aware of everything that happens the minute it happens no matter when or where. When I grew up in the 60's-70's, we didnt have either. Violent crime was rising dramatically (see FBI data) and was far worse than today, but we didn't hear about every single crime every single day and largely didnt know it. Now we get the vivid details 10X per day with all of the real human emotional anguish along with hours of commentary and hand wringing ad nauseam. "We must do something!" If we could only save but just one life...." Its no longer news reporting folks, it's sensationalized "content" to the mass media networks who will do and say whatever it takes to capture your attention and time.
Dont get me started on the herd mentality or IQ of the vocal minority on Facebook, who it seems in an instant can make the largest mountain out of the smallest mole hill with lightning efficiency regardless of pesky things like facts, truth, statistics or common sense. It is a sewer.
Anyway, that's my take YMMV.
By the way, how many of you outside of Central Florida, heard about the armed concealed carry civilian who stopped an active shooter yesterday in Rockledge Florida, saving who knows how many lives? ...... Didnt think so..... does.not.fit.the.agenda.
I think the differences in viewpoint can be boiled down to three things:
1) You can either formulate an opinion on gun control, or ANY issue A) based on the statistics, facts, and documented evidence OR B) based on feelings, what your peer group thinks, and what CNN/NYT/MSNBC and the Progressive Left wants you to feel to advance their cause. (Like Snopes, they ceased being objective years ago and no longer even try to hide their agendas. Fortunately they are becoming less and less relevant as a result) If you formulate your opinion based on "B", and particularly if you have little experience with a firearm, their is a built-in and very understandable Fear that can be difficult to overcome, and difficult to admit, especially while your peer group and CNN constantly reinforce that viewpoint.
2) Some folks get so heavily/emotionally invested in an viewpoint that no amount of data, fact, or common sense can sway them to change that opinion. Orthodoxies are very, very difficult for all of us to break from.
3) The 24 hour news cycle coupled with the Interwebs allows us to become aware of everything that happens the minute it happens no matter when or where. When I grew up in the 60's-70's, we didnt have either. Violent crime was rising dramatically (see FBI data) and was far worse than today, but we didn't hear about every single crime every single day and largely didnt know it. Now we get the vivid details 10X per day with all of the real human emotional anguish along with hours of commentary and hand wringing ad nauseam. "We must do something!" If we could only save but just one life...." Its no longer news reporting folks, it's sensationalized "content" to the mass media networks who will do and say whatever it takes to capture your attention and time.
Dont get me started on the herd mentality or IQ of the vocal minority on Facebook, who it seems in an instant can make the largest mountain out of the smallest mole hill with lightning efficiency regardless of pesky things like facts, truth, statistics or common sense. It is a sewer.
Anyway, that's my take YMMV.
By the way, how many of you outside of Central Florida, heard about the armed concealed carry civilian who stopped an active shooter yesterday in Rockledge Florida, saving who knows how many lives? ...... Didnt think so..... does.not.fit.the.agenda.
Q™
IPCT Contributor
I always thought Snopes.com did a pretty good job debunking myths @bigredfish. Please educate me by providing examples of instances where Snopes.com has proffered false facts.
bigredfish
Known around here
I don't think they proffer false facts, but I do think they frequently slant their opinions.
An example would be their roasting of the Harvard Law review quoted earlier in this thread, that the anti-gun crowd was salivating over, until they read it.
I have no reason to believe Snopes anymore than I do Facebook, Google, or you Q. But at least I can have a conversation with you, which places you ahead of the others
The Daily Mail Snopes Story And Fact Checking The Fact Checkers
An example would be their roasting of the Harvard Law review quoted earlier in this thread, that the anti-gun crowd was salivating over, until they read it.
I have no reason to believe Snopes anymore than I do Facebook, Google, or you Q. But at least I can have a conversation with you, which places you ahead of the others
The Daily Mail Snopes Story And Fact Checking The Fact Checkers
Q™
IPCT Contributor
FuQ me and my big mouth...now I gotta read that long fuQin' article
Q™
IPCT Contributor
Thanks for that article, but it didn’t provide specific examples of instances where Sonpes.com has ceased being objective and tried to promote their agenda. If Snopes.com has done this I need to know because I’ve relied on them in the past and I don’t appreciate being fooled. Please provide specific examples of instances where Snopes has done this.
Hey, now we got charts!
Want some pie with that?
Want some pie with that?
suddenstop
Getting the hang of it
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2017
- Messages
- 90
- Reaction score
- 36
Since this thread has been mostly confined to discussing ideas vs. personal attacks - I will wade in.
Most (but not all ) gun control legislation does nothing to prevent crime, yet impacts law abiding citizens negatively. I also agree with an earlier comment that both sides speak over each other instead of open minded debate.
I currently split residence between NH and CT. NH is the land of the free which I love, and CT is home of the broken government.
Specific examples.
In CT an adjustable stock makes a gun an "assault weapon". Even if the shortest and longest length is legal, it can't be adjustable it has to be fixed. So having an adjustable stock so I can shoot comfortably the same gun with me and my son is now a crime. Yes, you too can become a felon if you don't have a pin in your stock. A constitutional right was limited with no evidence whatsoever that it would have affected any crime in the past or future.
In CT a pistol grip makes the gun an "assault weapon". Yes, it's the shape of the grip and not any functional component. A constitutional right was diminished, with no evidence of any compelling state need.
In CT all sales private or commercial must go through an FFL (licensed dealer) and be subject to the same processing and background checks. I support this law and think it's needed. Shouldn't all transfers of firearms go through the same vetting process and laws. FFL dealers charge as little as $25 for a transfer, and processing the paperwork. I support this common sense law even for transfers between family members. The government is not involved in the transfer, local businesses are.
In CT we have magazine size restrictions, but the laws are convoluted and hard for average folks to understand. If you have a pre ban registered magazine, you can't load it fully. So put 10 rounds in that magazine and you are OK, but 11 and you are a criminal. Unless you are at a gun range - then it's OK. Convoluted laws that arbitrarily make good folks criminals - is a diminishing of liberty. To fully understand the scale of the problem, CT passed a law that bans a $10 device that has no markings or serial numbers, that is legal in most other states and sold over the counter. Does anyone not think that the Sandy Hook shooter who planned meticulously for years would not have driven an hour and bought larger magazines? Even though this particular law targets a functional aspect of the gun - in practice it is useless. Instead it makes law abiding citizens felons, gun ownership difficult, and has zero real world value.
In CT "assault weapons" and magazines had to be registered. There are pictures online, but there were long lines around the building and outside, and hours and hours of waiting. State police manpower and resources diverted from fighting crime, to maintaining a list of firearms that have adjustable stocks or pistol grips. Estimated civil disobedience is 50-60% (people not registering). Police resources were diverted to placing and maintaining a list, law abiding citizens were placed in long lines, and the entire process is folly - magazines have no serial numbers or identifying marks. You can legally drive about an hour and go buy one.
There are a lot of statistics showing x or y, but the one I believe shows the following. That the massive decline in violent crime was caused by the banning of leaded gasoline. I am not kidding here - it may sound crazy, but look it up.
I think the supreme court has gotten it pretty much right. Gun ownership is an individual constitutional right. That the state has a compelling reason to set limits on that right, but like free speech - any limit on that right has to be based on overwhelming need. We should also understand that liberty is preferable to safety.
Most (but not all ) gun control legislation does nothing to prevent crime, yet impacts law abiding citizens negatively. I also agree with an earlier comment that both sides speak over each other instead of open minded debate.
I currently split residence between NH and CT. NH is the land of the free which I love, and CT is home of the broken government.
Specific examples.
In CT an adjustable stock makes a gun an "assault weapon". Even if the shortest and longest length is legal, it can't be adjustable it has to be fixed. So having an adjustable stock so I can shoot comfortably the same gun with me and my son is now a crime. Yes, you too can become a felon if you don't have a pin in your stock. A constitutional right was limited with no evidence whatsoever that it would have affected any crime in the past or future.
In CT a pistol grip makes the gun an "assault weapon". Yes, it's the shape of the grip and not any functional component. A constitutional right was diminished, with no evidence of any compelling state need.
In CT all sales private or commercial must go through an FFL (licensed dealer) and be subject to the same processing and background checks. I support this law and think it's needed. Shouldn't all transfers of firearms go through the same vetting process and laws. FFL dealers charge as little as $25 for a transfer, and processing the paperwork. I support this common sense law even for transfers between family members. The government is not involved in the transfer, local businesses are.
In CT we have magazine size restrictions, but the laws are convoluted and hard for average folks to understand. If you have a pre ban registered magazine, you can't load it fully. So put 10 rounds in that magazine and you are OK, but 11 and you are a criminal. Unless you are at a gun range - then it's OK. Convoluted laws that arbitrarily make good folks criminals - is a diminishing of liberty. To fully understand the scale of the problem, CT passed a law that bans a $10 device that has no markings or serial numbers, that is legal in most other states and sold over the counter. Does anyone not think that the Sandy Hook shooter who planned meticulously for years would not have driven an hour and bought larger magazines? Even though this particular law targets a functional aspect of the gun - in practice it is useless. Instead it makes law abiding citizens felons, gun ownership difficult, and has zero real world value.
In CT "assault weapons" and magazines had to be registered. There are pictures online, but there were long lines around the building and outside, and hours and hours of waiting. State police manpower and resources diverted from fighting crime, to maintaining a list of firearms that have adjustable stocks or pistol grips. Estimated civil disobedience is 50-60% (people not registering). Police resources were diverted to placing and maintaining a list, law abiding citizens were placed in long lines, and the entire process is folly - magazines have no serial numbers or identifying marks. You can legally drive about an hour and go buy one.
There are a lot of statistics showing x or y, but the one I believe shows the following. That the massive decline in violent crime was caused by the banning of leaded gasoline. I am not kidding here - it may sound crazy, but look it up.
I think the supreme court has gotten it pretty much right. Gun ownership is an individual constitutional right. That the state has a compelling reason to set limits on that right, but like free speech - any limit on that right has to be based on overwhelming need. We should also understand that liberty is preferable to safety.
suddenstop
Getting the hang of it
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2017
- Messages
- 90
- Reaction score
- 36
Why suppressors are good.
At the gun range I am a member of in CT we are under constant lawsuits from neighbors. Many people would be OK if it was a nail gun putting up a house down the street, but hate even hearing gunfire. I'm not talking loud, I am talking even hearing it. Suppressors required on every gun at a range would be better for the neighbors of gun ranges, and better for the ranges themselves.
The hearing issue is real - guns are loud, guns with suppressors are still loud. There's waaaay too much TV bullshit clouding the debate. They don't go pew pew with a suppressor. With a .22 I can shoot with my son without hearing protection and we can talk and it's a very pleasant experience. With a .308 rifle and a suppressor - I still need hearing protection.
No statistics I have seen make suppressors more dangerous, or diminish capacity to solve crime. How is making the gun louder - better? Weigh that against the millions and millions of guns and owners and population that would be better served with suppressed weapons being mandatory. Maybe we should remove all mufflers from cars so that we can better catch hit and runs?
At the gun range I am a member of in CT we are under constant lawsuits from neighbors. Many people would be OK if it was a nail gun putting up a house down the street, but hate even hearing gunfire. I'm not talking loud, I am talking even hearing it. Suppressors required on every gun at a range would be better for the neighbors of gun ranges, and better for the ranges themselves.
The hearing issue is real - guns are loud, guns with suppressors are still loud. There's waaaay too much TV bullshit clouding the debate. They don't go pew pew with a suppressor. With a .22 I can shoot with my son without hearing protection and we can talk and it's a very pleasant experience. With a .308 rifle and a suppressor - I still need hearing protection.
No statistics I have seen make suppressors more dangerous, or diminish capacity to solve crime. How is making the gun louder - better? Weigh that against the millions and millions of guns and owners and population that would be better served with suppressed weapons being mandatory. Maybe we should remove all mufflers from cars so that we can better catch hit and runs?