If only there had been more good guys with guns

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(05-26-2017, 12:42 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No worries, I'll live. 



Sure, but why do they kill better, because they throw more lead down range.  I'll happily amend my statement to automatic weapons are designed to suppress and their lethality is caused by high firing rate, i.e. more rounds at the target increase the odds of one hitting the target.  My point about suppression is in addition to the obvious lethality of more rounds on target, which every firearm shares.  Of course, this only further reinforces my point, that automatic weapons are not viable options for civilian defense purposes.  For purposes of further discussion, you could point out to other posters why the standard infantry rifle does not have a full auto capability.


 
Sure you do, it's not to figure out.


I'll apologize for the insinuation, you did not imply that.  Merely pointing out to others who may be reading that 2A proponents vary in opinion as much as any group.

The standard rifle/carbine issued to infantrymen is no longer automatic due to economic considerations.

We've established the rate of fire factors into the lethality of a firearm. That's one of the reasons why the Army uses 30 round mags. Less magazine changes means higher rate of fire. You've stated an AR-15 is an excellent home defense weapon. We agree a higher rate of fire increases the lethality of a weapon. So why do you believe a semiauto AR-15 is suitable for civilian use , but not an automatic AR-15? Mechanically and design wise, only the sear is different. Functionally, only the rate of fire is different. But, I can't purchase an automatic AR-15 without a Class III license. But, I can buy a semiauto AR-15 at a gun show with no background check or record of the transaction.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-27-2017, 03:50 PM)xxlt Wrote: Interesting. Try to look at that from the other side. I see what you are saying about being a responsible gun owner and protecting your right to be such.

Consider a scenario like the one twenty year old you faced, but it is your twenty year old co-worker's neighbor who is not responsible or trained as you were. Gun on trigger he opens the blind, and points the gun. Then the dog behind him farts, he jumps and fires a round. Your coworker was walking out to his car just as this round fired. Your coworker startles, shooter fails to identify the target, just points at your neighbors driveway and empties the magazine. Good news, you coworker hit the driveway uninjured. Bad news, his vehicle is full of bullet holes. It seems like the same policies that defend the rights of 20 year old you defend the rights of this 20 year old nitwit. Not good. There has to be a better way.

Sure, be responsible with the lethal tool you purchased or allowed someone to use.  

Quote:As far as restricting our rights for no damn good reason, I imagine you aren't a fan of the "war on drugs." Are you? I am not. I know scores of people who use responsibly and see no reason to infringe on their rights because some people can't use responsibly. If everyone has a right to all the guns he or she wants - whether responsible with them or not, they should certainly have a right to all the drugs they want, imo. In fact, I would rather people exercise the right to get messed up than the right to bear arms.

No, never been a fan of the "war on drugs".  Personally, I think outside of heroin and methamphetamine most drugs should be legal for purchase by those over 21.  You will run into issues such as being able to test for people under the influence who are driving and the penalties for providing an underage person with marijuana or cocaine should be significantly more severe than the current punishment for doing so with alcohol.  I won't even get into how the black market for drugs fuels organized crime, which is obviously a huge problem.  BTW, the exact same thing would happen with firearms if they were made illegal, or quasi-illegal as many are in California.  Prohibition does not generally work and merely creates a criminal market for the prohibited item.

I'm very consistent in this regard, I'm not a fan of the government telling adults what they can and cannot do if it does not cause harm to someone else.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-27-2017, 06:06 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: The standard rifle/carbine issued to infantrymen is no longer automatic due to economic considerations.

We've established the rate of fire factors into the lethality of a firearm. That's one of the reasons why the Army uses 30 round mags. Less magazine changes means higher rate of fire. You've stated an AR-15 is an excellent home defense weapon.

No, while we did have a debate about the use of M855 as a home defense round I did not state that the AR is an excellent home defense option.  Personally, I would not use it in preference to other options I own.  Personally, I use my Benelli M4 as my long gun of choice for that purpose.

Quote:We agree a higher rate of fire increases the lethality of a weapon. So why do you believe a semiauto AR-15 is suitable for civilian use , but not an automatic AR-15?

 
I did explain this, but I have no problem reiterating.  Automatic fire is inherently less accurate than a three round burst and definitely semi-auto.  That coupled with the inevitable adrenaline dump your normal person will get in such circumstances makes for a lot of rounds off target.  More rounds off target means more rounds potentially hitting people, pets or property that are not the target.

Quote:Mechanically and design wise, only the sear is different. Functionally, only the rate of fire is different. But, I can't purchase an automatic AR-15 without a Class III license. But, I can buy a semiauto AR-15 at a gun show with no background check or record of the transaction.

I didn't write the NFA or the firearm owners protection act so you'd have to ask the people who did.  Additionally, I don't know that the gun show "loophole" is an issue of substance.  I don't recall hearing about many gun show purchases being used in crimes and I'd be willing to bet heavy money that if such instances occurred the anti's would have plastered all over the news.

[xxlt]

(05-27-2017, 06:23 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Sure, be responsible with the lethal tool you purchased or allowed someone to use.  


No, never been a fan of the "war on drugs".  Personally, I think outside of heroin and methamphetamine most drugs should be legal for purchase by those over 21.  You will run into issues such as being able to test for people under the influence who are driving and the penalties for providing an underage person with marijuana or cocaine should be significantly more severe than the current punishment for doing so with alcohol.  I won't even get into how the black market for drugs fuels organized crime, which is obviously a huge problem.  BTW, the exact same thing would happen with firearms if they were made illegal, or quasi-illegal as many are in California.  Prohibition does not generally work and merely creates a criminal market for the prohibited item.

I'm very consistent in this regard, I'm not a fan of the government telling adults what they can and cannot do if it does not cause harm to someone else.

But that's the point - people aren't responsible and the consequences for being reckless with a firearm are pretty minimal. Would you support stronger penalties for people who handled their firearm tools irresponsibly?

Agree on prohibition.

Do you think the current hoops an adult has to jump through to buy a gun or get a concealed carry permit are adequate?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-28-2017, 02:15 PM)xxlt Wrote: But that's the point - people aren't responsible and the consequences for being reckless with a firearm are pretty minimal. Would you support stronger penalties for people who handled their firearm tools irresponsibly?

If you negligently kill someone with a firearm you're going to face negligent homicide, or involuntary manslaughter charges.  That's rather severe.  You get more of a slap on the wrist if you kill someone driving your car irresponsibly.

Quote:Agree on prohibition.

I'm honestly glad to hear it.

Quote:Do you think the current hoops an adult has to jump through to buy a gun or get a concealed carry permit are adequate?

Depends on the state.  CA is the poster child for going way too far.  Utah may be too permissive.  However, given the choice I'm better with less restrictions on a law abiding citizen's rights than the opposite.  Ironically, the CA state legislature is proposing to reduce the prison sentence for crimes committed with a firearm, while at the same time they've criminalized regular law abiding gun owners.  Doesn't make much sense does it?

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-california-senate-supports-lifting-1495128128-htmlstory.html

[xxlt]

(05-29-2017, 07:50 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: If you negligently kill someone with a firearm you're going to face negligent homicide, or involuntary manslaughter charges.  That's rather severe.  You get more of a slap on the wrist if you kill someone driving your car irresponsibly.




I'm honestly glad to hear it.



Depends on the state.  CA is the poster child for going way too far.  Utah may be too permissive.  However, given the choice I'm better with less restrictions on a law abiding citizen's rights than the opposite.  Ironically, the CA state legislature is proposing to reduce the prison sentence for crimes committed with a firearm, while at the same time they've criminalized regular law abiding gun owners.  Doesn't make much sense does it?

http://www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca-essential-politics-updates-california-senate-supports-lifting-1495128128-htmlstory.html

Mandatory minimums are generally a bad idea. So, eliminating the 10 year automatic enhancement and/or giving judicial discretion to enhance a sentence seems like a positive step to me. I missed the part where they are criminalizing regular gun owners.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-30-2017, 09:06 AM)xxlt Wrote: Mandatory minimums are generally a bad idea. So, eliminating the 10 year automatic enhancement and/or giving judicial discretion to enhance a sentence seems like a positive step to me. I missed the part where they are criminalizing regular gun owners.

I've brought it up directly with you in the past, links and all.  I understand the reasoning behind eliminating mandatory minimums, just don't whine about a Brock Turner type sentence in the future.  Regardless, the fact remains that the CA legislature has made lowering sentences for criminals who use firearms during the commission of their crimes a priority while criminalizing legal gun ownership.  Quite the message being sent there.

[xxlt]

(05-30-2017, 11:14 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I've brought it up directly with you in the past, links and all.  I understand the reasoning behind eliminating mandatory minimums, just don't whine about a Brock Turner type sentence in the future.  Regardless, the fact remains that the CA legislature has made lowering sentences for criminals who use firearms during the commission of their crimes a priority while criminalizing legal gun ownership.  Quite the message being sent there.

Okey dokey.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-30-2017, 08:50 PM)xxlt Wrote: Okey dokey.

I apologize for expecting you to use either your memory or the internet to verify this information.  I will, once again, provide the easily accessible information to you.

http://www.sacbee.com/news/state/california/article123844534.html

http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/op-ed/ben-boychuk/article123594949.html

https://www.firearmspolicy.org/10_things_every_california_gun_owner_needs_to_know_on_january_1_2017


[/url]

Quote:AB 1135 (Levine): Bans common and constitutionally-protected firearms that have magazine locking devices (like the “Bullet Button”). Sister bill to SB 880.

This outlaws the bullet button "loophole" that was (not)exploited by the San Bernardino muslim terrorists.  The used AR's that didn't have a bullet button, i.e. rifles already illegal under state law.  This horrific crime required the outlawing of the bullet button because they weren't used in this crime.  Sense was made.

Quote:SB 880 (Hall): Bans common and constitutionally-protected firearms that have magazine locking devices. Sister bill to AB 1135.

Pretty much the same BS as above.  Please note that this requires you to register all semi-automatic rifles that meet the criteria.  They then become non-transferable, to anyone for any reason, and upon your death need to be rendered inoperable or moved out of state.  This is not confiscation according to you and those who think like you for some reason.

Quote:AB 1511 (Santiago): Criminalizes loaning of firearms between personally known, law-abiding adults, including family members, sportspersons, and competitors.

Want to loan your rifle to a friend to test out at the range?  Wait a moment mister, that is now a crime!  Most people know that the vast majority of firearms related crime is committed with firearms loaned to friends, making this law a necessity!

Quote:AB 1695 (Bonta): Makes a non-violent misdemeanor a prohibiting offense.

Makes falsely reporting the theft of a firearm a crime.  On its face this is innocuous until one factors the reasoning behind it.  Want to prevent your firearm from being stolen from you by the government? Don't report it as stolen or you are in the trouble!

Quote:SB 1235 (de Leon): New restrictions on ammunition purchases and sellers; creates a DOJ database of ammunition owners.

Want to buy ammunition?  Be prepared for a background check to do it in CA!  This means no more on-line ammunition purchases and makes it a crime to bring ammunition into the state or to loan any amount of ammunition to someone else.  This makes CA gun owners captive to an ammunition market that will, without a doubt, raise prices to accommodate the increased costs of selling ammunition.  Want to do something about the increased coast?  Too bad, it's against the law loser!  This will clearly impact gun crime as all criminals will abide by this law.  Can you name one law that will prevent a single gun related crime in this list?  Nope.  The intent is to criminalize and marginalize legal gun owners.

Quote:SB 1446 (Hancock): Statewide confiscatory ban on all lawfully-possessed standard-capacity ammunition feeding devices that hold more than 10 round; exemption for retired police

Remember that standard capacity magazine (10+ rounds) that CA allowed you to grandfather in and promised to allow you to keep?  Guess what, we lied!  Now you have to turn in your previously legally owned property or be branded a criminal.  I know you don't think this is confiscation, it's just being forced to turn in your lawfully purchased property.  This will also affect gun related crime because criminals will absolutely follow this law.

Quote:[url=http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB857]AB 857 (Cooper) requires that serial numbers be placed on un-serialized firearms (in some cases going back at least 50 years) and on all new owner-assembled (“home-built)” firearms.

Pretty self explanatory.


All of this, plus Proposition 63, written by complete asshat Gavin "I got all my money from the Getty Family" Newsom criminalizes legal gun owners while the CA legislature makes penalties for gun related criminal activity less severe.  Sounds about right.

I'll leave you with this about my favorite meat puppet, and likely (Cthulhu help us) next CA governor Gavin Newsom.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZbAsD0lEpuA

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-27-2017, 03:12 PM)xxlt Wrote: Thanks. Of course, that isn't the truth about guns. It is part of the truth. I thank you for sharing it, and I am glad that the tenders of that site tell that part of the truth.

Here is the rest of the truth: http://smartgunlaws.org/gun-deaths-and-injuries-statistics/

Again, to be clear, even though the website is called "smart gun laws" I am not arguing for legislative remedies, repealing the 2nd amendment, or confiscating guns. I am arguing for math. Math like guns kill more people in the US every two years on average than were killed during the entire Vietnam War. Maybe they save that many too, or ten times that many, I just don't think that is the case.

You are absolutely arguing for legislative remedies.  If not, then what are you arguing for?

Quote:More than 3 deaths an hour via homicide, suicide, or unintentional shooting seems like a lot to me.

Around 2/3'rds of gun related deaths are suicides.  Japan and Korea, both of which have insanely strict gun laws, have a much higher suicide rate.  Clearly guns are not needed to have a high suicide rate.  Including suicides in gun "violence" statistics is disingenuous in the extreme.

Quote:And it seems avoidable, particularly since this is not a problem in the vast majority of the rest of the world.

I think you meant the vast majority of the western world, because otherwise your statement would be false.  Of course no other western country has the right to own a firearm enshrined in their founding document.  Problematic isn't it?

Quote:Now, maybe the rest of the world is just full of better people, and because Americans are such a-holes we are stuck with 3 (or more) dying per hour here for all time because we are terrible. I would rather not believe that. I am not sure we are superior, but I hope we aren't inferior to citizens around the globe. We should be able to solve this problem.

Stop being disingenuous and state what you want.  Do you want guns to be outlawed?  Do you want guns confiscated?  Be honest with what you want that you think will fix this problem.

[xxlt]

(05-31-2017, 12:06 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You are absolutely arguing for legislative remedies.  If not, then what are you arguing for?



Around 2/3'rds of gun related deaths are suicides.  Japan and Korea, both of which have insanely strict gun laws, have a much higher suicide rate.  Clearly guns are not needed to have a high suicide rate.  Including suicides in gun "violence" statistics is disingenuous in the extreme.



I think you meant the vast majority of the western world, because otherwise your statement would be false.  Of course no other western country has the right to own a firearm enshrined in their founding document.  Problematic isn't it?


Stop being disingenuous and state what you want.  Do you want guns to be outlawed?  Do you want guns confiscated?  Be honest with what you want that you think will fix this problem.

There's clearly no point in discussing this further with you. As you indicated in this post and post 49, your psychic powers have already told you everything you need to know about me. You've essentially called me a liar and an idiot, while stating my "real" positions since you know the "real" truth about all of "us." And again, you're the guy who cries about being painted with a broad brush. Charming.

I now realize extending this discussion with you has only served to keep you from worshiping at the gun altar for a few extra minutes each day and cut you to the core because someone has dared to tug at the curtain concealing the men who promote the big lie about guns. For this I apologize. And you know what, it is clear to me that you belong at that altar like an eagle belongs on a dollar. Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain. And pay no attention to me, or to anyone else. You know what all of "us" are really up to! I won't distract you from the altar again. Fire away.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-31-2017, 10:26 AM)xxlt Wrote: There's clearly no point in discussing this further with you. As you indicated in this post and post 49, your psychic powers have already told you everything you need to know about me. You've essentially called me a liar and an idiot, while stating my "real" positions since you know the "real" truth about all of "us." And again, you're the guy who cries about being painted with a broad brush. Charming.

I now realize extending this discussion with you has only served to keep you from worshiping at the gun altar for a few extra minutes each day and cut you to the core because someone has dared to tug at the curtain concealing the men who promote the big lie about guns. For this I apologize. And you know what, it is clear to me that you belong at that altar like an eagle belongs on a dollar. Pay no attention to the men behind the curtain. And pay no attention to me, or to anyone else. You know what all of "us" are really up to! I won't distract you from the altar again. Fire away.

This is a very odd, and angry response to what I thought was a civil conversation.  You constantly berate me for my "worship" of guns yet you have advanced no gun control laws or ideas that you think would have an impact on gun related crime.  You also completely ignored the list of inane CA gun laws I listed, at your request btw, and how they impact law abiding gun owners, and only law abiding gun owners.  if, by this post, you are indicating that you have no ability to engage in further rational discussion on this topic, or to answer the questions I have put to you, than I cordially bid you good day.

[xxlt]

(06-03-2017, 11:35 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is a very odd, and angry response to what I thought was a civil conversation.  You constantly berate me for my "worship" of guns yet you have advanced no gun control laws or ideas that you think would have an impact on gun related crime.  You also completely ignored the list of inane CA gun laws I listed, at your request btw, and how they impact law abiding gun owners, and only law abiding gun owners.  if, by this post, you are indicating that you have no ability to engage in further rational discussion on this topic, or to answer the questions I have put to you, than I cordially bid you good day.