catbarf on 21/1/2018 at 17:08
Quote Posted by Tocky
Sure if somebody is behind cover you can't tell when they are changing clips but in most cases the mass shooters are out in the open roaming around picking targets. I'm not going to convince you. There will always be the but it doesn't help enough thing. Do people go tharn? I hate to use a Watership Down word but it fits. That scared to immobility thing is what you are saying keeps folks from rushing in or firing at that point right? Sure. Maybe even for most but not all. Limiting capacity would not save everybody but it might save some so why not? Who is it going to hurt? Bubba dip drool can't look as cool on his youtube video?
And no I don't mean limiting anything for law enforcement. They SHOULD have better armament than the general public. They DO face situations that require it. Sure they would have to enforce another law and confiscate the work arounds which should ALSO be against the law but we have to do something. Hell, when I got my Colt it was back in the days before the NRA was against every safety precaution and mine has the feature that your hand must be around the grip for it to fire. Now we have the ability to make all guns person specific but the NRA won't allow it. We have the ability to make bullets more traceable. We have the ability to do a lot of things rednecks get up in arms about because it might infringe on their right to fight a government takeover or some other loony shit. Obama might yet invade Texas you know.
Seven shots is enough for the general public. Not all of us spray and hope. No idiot on PCP will be able to get back up after a 45 round to the chest unless he has a vest. And for that matter make those illegal to the general public too. Only law enforcement and others in regular danger need them. Will there be abuses? Of course. Enforce those too. Particularly when it involves gun sellers. Making those who have guns in their own homes "secure" guns in a safe makes no sense though. What intruder gives you time to get your key? Make guns less kid friendly. The spring in my slide is so stiff it's hard for me to pull and I never keep one in the chamber. One can still be in it in a second. There are plenty of things that can be done but won't because no snowflake is going to tell Bubba what to do. Nope. He leaves that to the NRA.
(
https://www.policeone.com/police-heroes/articles/6199620-Why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/) Fourteen hits of .45, six center mass, target not incapacitated. No PCP involved. The idea that all you need is one shot of .45 to the chest is thoroughly debunked myth. The idea that all you need is to just aim well (in an incredibly stressful life or death situation) is debunked myth. These lessons have been learned in blood, and frankly all you're offering is persistent and pernicious disproved hypothesis. Same goes for thought experiments regarding mass shootings- I counted shots and tried to rush a shooter while he reloaded. He was a graphic designer with minimal firearm experience. It took a month for my ribs to heal. We've tested this. I don't know what else to tell you.
Anyways, the fact that people recognize the need for proper weaponry for law enforcement, but then don't apply the same reasoning to civilians, is what really gets my goat. A single shooter in a traffic stop isn't any more or less threatening than a single shooter in a home invasion. If a beat cop, not a SWAT officer, needs a 17rd magazine for his Glock, that is fundamentally incompatible with the claim that nobody needs more than ten rounds for self-defense. When the argument is so inconsistent it comes across as deceptive and insincere rather than merely misguided.
As far as safes, with biometric safes being so readily available, safely securing a weapon while still retaining ease of access has never been easier. It's not the risk of kids getting access that is so worrisome (although that is a very real issue) as criminals arming themselves through theft when the family isn't home. The number of weapons stolen from cars is shockingly irresponsible.
And yeah, fuck the NRA's partisan fearmongering.
catbarf on 21/1/2018 at 17:28
Quote Posted by Starker
In a lot of those countries, people don't usually carry their guns with them. They use them for hunting or home defence or sport. Most people walk around unarmed in Europe, for example. Unless they are a security guard or something like that.
But even within the US, there are huge differences regionally. I've been places in Texas and New Hampshire where you can have a respectful interaction with police with a handgun strapped to your hip, and places in Massachusetts and NYC where you're treated as a potential shooter right off the bat.
I agree that widespread ownership of handguns leads to more suspicious policing- that much is inevitable. It's brushing off incidents like the one you linked as the inevitable result of people being armed that I think is unreasonable, like there's no room for police to be respectful and rational even with the risk that a suspect might be armed. We can agree that the ridiculous game of Twister those cops imposed was completely unjustified, right?
Starker on 21/1/2018 at 19:37
True, US is a big place. And there are more dangerous places in Europe too. Like the Balkans, for example.
Tocky on 22/1/2018 at 00:25
Quote Posted by catbarf
(
https://www.policeone.com/police-heroes/articles/6199620-Why-one-cop-carries-145-rounds-of-ammo-on-the-job/) Fourteen hits of .45, six center mass, target not incapacitated. No PCP involved. The idea that all you need is one shot of .45 to the chest is thoroughly debunked myth. The idea that all you need is to just aim well (in an incredibly stressful life or death situation) is debunked myth. These lessons have been learned in blood, and frankly all you're offering is persistent and pernicious disproved hypothesis. Same goes for thought experiments regarding mass shootings- I counted shots and tried to rush a shooter while he reloaded. He was a graphic designer with minimal firearm experience. It took a month for my ribs to heal. We've tested this. I don't know what else to tell you.
Hey thanks for proving my point. If the shooter had a higher capacity clip then he would not have had to go back to the car and may have killed the officer. I never said the officer should be limited. Most get taken down with a few well placed shots and YOU KNOW THIS. The instance you cited is exceedingly rare. Can it happen that a person lives without getting hit direct in the heart? Sure. Most won't. You know that. Citing the exception just proves the rule. And as for your rushing a clip reloader well sure it won't always work because distance makes a difference doesn't it? Ten feet yeah. Thirty feet no. Common sense still applies. How about when he stops to reload and you put a bullet in his forehead. Reckon he will bruise your ribs then?
Quote Posted by catbarf
Anyways, the fact that people recognize the need for proper weaponry for law enforcement, but then don't apply the same reasoning to civilians, is what really gets my goat. A single shooter in a traffic stop isn't any more or less threatening than a single shooter in a home invasion. If a beat cop, not a SWAT officer, needs a 17rd magazine for his Glock, that is fundamentally incompatible with the claim that nobody needs more than ten rounds for self-defense. When the argument is so inconsistent it comes across as deceptive and insincere rather than merely misguided.
I guess I'll just have to get your goat then. I prefer the officer to have a greater advantage than the average Joe. The average Joe is so far far removed from ever being in a Schwartzenager style gun battle either inside his home or out that the odds of him ever needing large capacity clips is just ridiculous. Why in the world shouldn't the officer have the advantage? HE is much more likely to need it. But sure if you want to dig around and find a Schwartzenager style gun battle that happened this one time atop the Nakatomi tower then go for it. It just does not happen often. Not anywhere near as often as police need the general public to be less well equipped than they are. Also not anywhere near as often as we have mass shootings these days.
catbarf on 22/1/2018 at 03:43
Quote Posted by Tocky
Hey thanks for proving my point. If the shooter had a higher capacity clip then he would not have had to go back to the car and may have killed the officer. I never said the officer should be limited. Most get taken down with a few well placed shots and YOU KNOW THIS. The instance you cited is exceedingly rare. Can it happen that a person lives without getting hit direct in the heart? Sure. Most won't. You know that. Citing the exception just proves the rule.
Now you're moving the goalposts from 'No idiot on PCP will be able to get back up after a 45 round to the chest' to '
most get taken down by
a few well-placed shots'. I'd be happy to post more links about how incredibly common it is for people to survive multiple torso shots. I can find you plenty. Any competent instructor will tell you that stopping power is a myth, that the only thing that will immediately incapacitate a threat is destruction of the central nervous system, and that the only way to reliably do that in a high-stress situation is to both practice shot placement and carry as much ammunition as the profile of your weapon will allow. And yes, people often live even after getting hit directly in the heart- at least long enough to potentially kill you too.
Again, you're using thought experiments to argue against decades of collective wisdom drawn from hard-won institutional experience, including a non-negligible number of police officers and federal agents killed due to inadequate equipment. Not at Waco or North Hollywood, but traffic stops and warrant executions where a six-round revolver or seven-round 1911 proved insufficient against even just one guy, self-defense situations directly comparable to those faced by ordinary citizens.
Quote Posted by Tocky
And as for your rushing a clip reloader well sure it won't always work because distance makes a difference doesn't it? Ten feet yeah. Thirty feet no. Common sense still applies. How about when he stops to reload and you put a bullet in his forehead. Reckon he will bruise your ribs then?
Rest assured that the former military personnel I trained with had the wisdom to try rushing the shooter from a short distance. The problem is in (a) recognizing when the shooter is out of ammunition, which is virtually impossible when you can't see them and are stressed and deafened, (b) getting out of the cover you've taken quickly, and (c) completing both of these and closing the distance before he finishes reloading. The same applies to escaping from a dead-end situation. It overwhelmingly doesn't work, despite plenty of tries and a non-life-or-death context where fear was not a factor.
For the response teams who were armed, it makes a difference, like I said before. But you're talking about raising the survival rate for civilian targets in mass shootings. Magazine capacity limits don't do that. And we haven't even mentioned the tendency of mass shooters to use multiple weapons.
Quote Posted by Tocky
I guess I'll just have to get your goat then. I prefer the officer to have a greater advantage than the average Joe. The average Joe is so far far removed from ever being in a Schwartzenager style gun battle either inside his home or out that the odds of him ever needing large capacity clips is just ridiculous. Why in the world shouldn't the officer have the advantage? HE is much more likely to need it. But sure if you want to dig around and find a Schwartzenager style gun battle that happened this one time atop the Nakatomi tower then go for it. It just does not happen often. Not anywhere near as often as police need the general public to be less well equipped than they are. Also not anywhere near as often as we have mass shootings these days.
How often are beat cops getting in Schwarzenegger-style gun battles, again? If the only reason you'd ever need a high-capacity magazine is to engage in a mass shootout or fight an army, things regular police officers aren't trained or expected to do anyways, you haven't justified why regular cops would ever need or benefit from them.
If the justification for capacity limits were simply 'this will make civilians less able to defend themselves, but we think it's a worthwhile tradeoff for the public good' then at least it would be rational and consistent and we could discuss it. But instead, it's dressed up in a false premise to imply that there's no room for debate.
Tocky on 22/1/2018 at 04:00
LOL. There isn't any room for debate with you for sure. Thought experiment and false premise indeed. You didn't actually listen to a thing I said. So sure, arm every yee haw Billy Bob with limitless capacity firearms and cry havoc then. LOL. I'm done.
ffox on 22/1/2018 at 11:07
This thread is becoming ridiculous. It's turned into a discussion on how best to kill people with firearms!
Quote Posted by xStevieNx
~13,000 people die a year from firearm related deaths. 1.3 MILLION people die a year in car accidents, but almost everyone drives a car daily, because it is their right to drive a car just as it is to own a gun.
According to Wikipedia, in the USA only ~10% more people die in (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_motor_vehicle_deaths_in_U.S._by_year) car accidents than those (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States) killed by guns (about 34,000 per year).
Your 1.3 MILLION is the worldwide figure. Where does ~13,000 come from? False statistics do not help your case.
Here are some more stats with verifiable links:
(
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries/) CBS News reports that Americans are 10 times more likely to be killed by guns than people in other developed countries.
Quote Posted by xStevieNx
And as for the gun deaths, well America is the largest first world country that allows you to have a gun so naturally it would have the most gun deaths.
Here are the figures per 100,000 population from (
http://progresoweekly.us/gun-madness-usa/) Progreso Weekly:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]2452[/ATTACH]
Trance on 22/1/2018 at 12:46
PigLick, why did you delete your post from last night? You were speaking the truth.
catbarf on 22/1/2018 at 13:35
Quote Posted by ffox
Your 1.3 MILLION is the worldwide figure. Where does ~13,000 come from? False statistics do not help your case.
I missed that before- it looks like he's comparing the worldwide traffic fatality rate to the US non-justifiable homicide rate, which excludes the greater number of suicide deaths. IIRC the auto fatality rate recently dropped below the firearm death rate, due to improvements in vehicle safety.
N'Al on 22/1/2018 at 19:51
Did xStevieNx post those misleading stats deliberately or cause she didn't know any better, is the question. For lack of anything to the contrary I'm going to give her the benefit of the doubt.
Still, it does illustrate something that I just don't get in this matter:
There hardly ever seem to be any self-proclaimed responsible gun owners putting forward actual policy suggestions on how to tackle this problem (catbarf is a refreshing exception). Instead, it's always all about false equivalences and "It's not me, it's all the other guys!"
ffox's chart says it all; the fact that there's a problem is undeniable. To me, in a situation like this, the responsible thing would be to man up and work towards changing this culture. But all we get is bitching and moaning.