Tywin et al.

Guns, The 2nd Amendment and the Legitimacy of Their Necessity

401 posts in this topic

Regarding magazine capacity, the would-be mass shooter in Seattle last year was tackled by a student security guard as he was reloading his shotgun, resulting in "only" one death and two wounded. So it can make a difference, even in statistically anomalous events like mass shooting. 

Link?

Because very, very few shotguns have magazines.  I doubt very much that the shooter you are talking about was using a shotgun with a magazine.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Link?

Because very, very few shotguns have magazines.  I doubt very much that the shooter you are talking about was using a shotgun with a magazine.

 

Sorry, I wasn't being clear. I don't know if the shotgun had a magazine or not. My point was that in terrible situations like this, time to reload can make a difference. 

ETA: article about it here. Pretty crazy. It's right by where I used to go running. 

Edited by alguien

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sorry, I wasn't being clear. I don't know if the shotgun had a magazine or not. My point was that in terrible situations like this, time to reload can make a difference. 

ETA: article about it here. Pretty crazy. It's right by where I used to go running. 

There's a really, really big difference between the time required to load a shotgun and the time required to reload a magazine fed weapon.

Ignoring for a second that in virtually all shootings less than ten rounds are fired, changing a magazine takes almost no time.  

There's just no reason to believe that limiting magazine size will accomplish anything.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The point is not everyone is a scared little boy hiding behind his guns. You want to own guns, I'm all for it.  I've said that many times.  You seem to think that gangbangers go around breaking into homes.  Most of the gang violence I see, it's all drive bys.  So why does it have to be a gangbanger?  Why can't it be some methed up redneck?  That's way more likely, in fact in my community it's the truth.  It doesn't change the fact that having a gun doesn't make our theoretical little old lady safer.  It just means she has a gun.  It doesn't mean she will actually fire it, it doesn't mean she is trained to use it properly.  The point is you think that it makes her safer and I think it makes no difference.  You can talk about force equalization and all that other bullshit, but it doesn't matter.  She is as safe as she feels. If that gun makes her feel safe more power to her.  Our points of view are so far apart that we will never agree on this.  I don't see people as potential victims of crime, you do.  You live your life in fear, I don't.  I do get the point, I just think it is stupid one.

I'm tired of assholes like you failing to understand that you, the responsible firearm owner, are the problem. You coddle and protect shitbags who shouldn't be allowed to have a stapler much less a deadly weapon.  You act like there is nothing we can do because it would inconvenience you, because that is really what it is, an inconvenience.  You refuse to accept responsibility for the gun owners who suck because it would mean you have to admit that there should be regulations on gun ownership.  Everyone is tired of gun owners in this country who want to own guns but not have any responsibility for the use of them.    

You need to understand that I have no problem with gun ownership.  I don't care if you want to stockpile weapons for the revolution.  I don't care how much ammo you have, and honestly I could care less about magazine restrictions.  I know those are just band aids that don't address the gaping chest wound that is unregulated ownership of firearms.  I know you won't ever agree with any proposal to restrict access because of 'freedom' and 'liberty'.  I know that your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is fundamentally different from mine.  I know that you truly believe that you need your guns to stand up to 'tyranny'.  I don't know what 'tyranny', but more power to you.  I know that many gun owners dismiss regulation because is it proposed by people who have no clue about firearms.  Instead of dismissing it and getting bogged down in pedantic debates about clips and magazines or 'assault rifles', how about you realize that these people are arguing in good faith and are tired of the norm of random gun violence.  How about you address my points? 

Ok. Message delivered loud and clear. But disagreed with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not thinking of it the right way. Imagine that the NRA can get millions of new members, millions of new gun owners. Millions more people that would have never been exposed to a gun now have gotten to play with one. They would pay for that so fast your head will spin. 

I agree with OAR's comments about the overall proposition above, especially regarding the likelihood of encountering weapons.   I don't think guns are something that everyone will encounter across the US, and making it universally mandatory will make guns seem familiar and normal to a lot of people who'd have otherwise never encounter one (which is basically what you say here).   I can see the sense in making safety training mandatory for entire families rather than just the gun-owner, and perhaps even so far as mandating this at the county level for particularly gun-dense regions or something, but I think universalizing lessons will be counter-productive in the long run.

That a ton of people would now be exposed to guns that otherwise wouldn't be has a lot to do with why I don't really see the sense in universalizing this (though I'm still not so certain the NRA would be footing the bill despite this).  Why make them seem normal and-- worse-- necessary to every American?   Despite what a lot of people seem to think, guns really aren't that useful or necessary to perhaps most of us.   Becoming much more honest about the contexts in which guns are useful and necessary, is, in my view, the direction we should be going with this, and I think a universal mandate would be doing the opposite (I recognize that guns are useful and probably necessary in certain regions and conditions, and am not for a universal ban exactly).

Edited by butterbumps!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At its most basic level, a gun is a force equalizer. Without guns, large, young men will almost always have an advantage over women, older people, and less physically powerful young men.

With a gun, the dominance of the physically powerful is removed, and anyone has a fair chance to defend the lives of themselves and their loved ones. The gun is ultimately empowering to the weak, and arguably a fundamental part of the triumph of civilization over brute force.

Indeed, how civilised we become with more killing devices about! Is this a serious opinion?

I feel infinitely safer and more civilised here in the UK without your widespread gun ownership obsession.

I have been punched just once in my life over here as an adult. It was by an unruly chap, rather stereotypically carrying a can of lager who had broken from his group of similarly recalcitrant folk attempting to provoke a reaction from one of ours. Two of us took one to the head but we just ignored it and carried on walking. I consider this the most sensible course of action.

I got into a conversation about this with an American once who responded by saying that it surely would have been better for me if I'd had a gun. I will never understand this way of thinking. In a land where I'd have been able to have a gun, it's entirely plausible that at least one amongst this group of ruffians would have had a gun too. Now, in a situation where both sides have guns the likelihood of the situation becoming fatal to someone becomes infinitely higher.

Now, our night out was somewhat ruined because two of us had splitting headaches for the rest of it, but for me that's a small price to pay set against the possibility of one of my friends getting shot because everyone has a basic right to carry a gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignoring for a second that in virtually all shootings less than ten rounds are fired, changing a magazine takes almost no time.  

There's just no reason to believe that limiting magazine size will accomplish anything.

 

Real life appears to disagree.  How many of the 6 dead and 13 injured would have been spared if the assassin only had a 7 round magazine?

From the Wiki article on the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Giffords. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting

Loughner proceeded to fire apparently randomly at other members of the crowd.[1][21] He reportedly used a 9×19mm Glock 19 semi-automatic pistol with a 33-round magazine.[22][23] A nearby store employee said he heard "15 to 20 gunshots".[24] Loughner stopped to reload, but dropped the loaded magazine from his pocket to the sidewalk, from where bystander Patricia Maisch grabbed it.[25] Another bystander clubbed the back of the assailant's head with a folding chair, injuring his elbow in the process, representing the fourteenth injury.[26] Loughner was tackled to the ground by Bill Badger, a 74-year-old retired United States Army Colonel [27] who had been shot himself. Loughner was further subdued by Maisch and bystanders Roger Sulzgeber and Joseph Zamudio. Zamudio was a CCW holder and had a weapon on his person, but arrived after the shooting had stopped and did not draw his firearm.[28] Thirty-one shell casings were found at the scene by investigators.[29]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeed, how civilised we become with more killing devices about! Is this a serious opinion?

I feel infinitely safer and more civilised here in the UK without your widespread gun ownership obsession.

I have been punched just once in my life over here as an adult. It was by an unruly chap, rather stereotypically carrying a can of lager who had broken from his group of similarly recalcitrant folk attempting to provoke a reaction from one of ours. Two of us took one to the head but we just ignored it and carried on walking. I consider this the most sensible course of action.

I got into a conversation about this with an American once who responded by saying that it surely would have been better for me if I'd had a gun. I will never understand this way of thinking. In a land where I'd have been able to have a gun, it's entirely plausible that at least one amongst this group of ruffians would have had a gun too. Now, in a situation where both sides have guns the likelihood of the situation becoming fatal to someone becomes infinitely higher.

Now, our night out was somewhat ruined because two of us had splitting headaches for the rest of it, but for me that's a small price to pay set against the possibility of one of my friends getting shot because everyone has a basic right to carry a gun.

Well, in reality, a responsible gun owner is the least likely person to act aggressively against another member of society, because he realises the consequences of violence will escalate quickly.

What you are missing, however, is that a blow from a fist against the head is not harmless drunken rowdiness. It is assault. And in fact, numerous people have died from a single blow to the head. Therefore, when confronted by someone who is intent on physically assaulting you, you are fully entitled to view it as life threatening, and to defend your life - with lethal force if necessary.

So in fact, a world full of responsible gun owners will be more peaceful, and include less interpersonal violence, as people are aware of the full consequences of conflict.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not thinking of it the right way. Imagine that the NRA can get millions of new members, millions of new gun owners. Millions more people that would have never been exposed to a gun now have gotten to play with one. They would pay for that so fast your head will spin. 

I hold no illusions that they would be all for it. I also hold no illusions that the fine leaders of the NRA would send a bill to the government for "service". They're not doing anything that ultimately costs their own money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Real life appears to disagree.  How many of the 6 dead and 13 injured would have been spared if the assassin only had a 7 round magazine?

From the Wiki article on the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Giffords. 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Tucson_shooting

There are probably millions of those glock magazines out there though.  So even outlawing them won't do anything, plus a magazine can be pretty easily fabricated or now, even printed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are probably millions of those glock magazines out there though.  So even outlawing them won't do anything, plus a magazine can be pretty easily fabricated or now, even printed.

So you pass a law with heavy prison sentences for people who traffic and make them.

This argument that Swordfish is pushing is utter crap. There have been numerous examples of mass shooters/school shooters being stopped by an individual or group of people when they stopped to reload. Far more than those who were stopped because a person was legally concealed and carrying and shot the bad guy.

Edited by Tywin et al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, in reality, a responsible gun owner is the least likely person to act aggressively against another member of society, because he realises the consequences of violence will escalate quickly.

What you are missing, however, is that a blow from a fist against the head is not harmless drunken rowdiness. It is assault. And in fact, numerous people have died from a single blow to the head. Therefore, when confronted by someone who is intent on physically assaulting you, you are fully entitled to view it as life threatening, and to defend your life - with lethal force if necessary.

So in fact, a world full of responsible gun owners will be more peaceful, and include less interpersonal violence, as people are aware of the full consequences of conflict.

In your opinion, not "in fact"; and I never said it was harmless, it seriously hurt!

Your desire for a world of what you call "responsible gun owners" is frankly a pipe dream. It seems odd to me that you would be so distrustful of your fellow man that you feel the need to carry a gun, yet somehow you trust your fellow man enough to responsibly carry a gun.

I maintain that I feel safer in an environment without guns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In your opinion, not "in fact"; and I never said it was harmless, it seriously hurt!

Your desire for a world of what you call "responsible gun owners" is frankly a pipe dream. It seems odd to me that you would be so distrustful of your fellow man that you feel the need to carry a gun, yet somehow you trust your fellow man enough to responsibly carry a gun.

I maintain that I feel safer in an environment without guns.

Note I said a world full of responsible gun owners. I freely admit that a lot of gun owners are not responsible. Those would include the type of people that get drunk in bars and then engage in violent altercations with other revellers, such as occurred to you in the example provided.

But the consequences for people who engage in irresponsible firearm use are already harsh. So a mechanism for controlling their behaviour is in place. If someone fires a gun at you without lawful cause, that is attempted murder. And should be dealt with accordingly by the law.

A responsible gun owner, on the other hand wants to keep his right to own guns, and will therefore not engage in behaviour that could risk him becoming a felon and thus losing his right to own a legal firearm.

So what am I saying? Simply that we should absolutely throw the book at irresponsible gun owners. But that responsible gun owners should not be punished along with them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note I said a world full of responsible gun owners. I freely admit that a lot of gun owners are not responsible. Those would include the type of people that get drunk in bars and then engage in violent altercations with other revellers, such as occurred to you in the example provided.

But the consequences for people who engage in irresponsible firearm use are already harsh. So a mechanism for controlling their behaviour is in place. If someone fires a gun at you without lawful cause, that is attempted murder. And should be dealt with accordingly by the law.

 

It's often successful murder, in fact!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you pass a law with heavy prison sentences for people who traffic and make them.

This argument that Swordfish is pushing is utter crap. There have been numerous examples of mass shooters/school shooters being stopped by an individual or group of people when they stopped to reload. Far more than those who were stopped because a person was legally concealed and carrying and shot the bad guy.

Fine, but you're never going to pass a law like that.  Anyone that wants one for a mass shooting can print one or modify an existing one to hold more rounds.  You could never confiscate them all, and even then it's not even immediately clear when looking at a magazine what it's capacity is.  I guess my point is it's simply to late for that... if there had been magazine restrictions a century ago, outlawing them might have some effect.  But it's not going to, there are simply too many ways around this and too many already out there.  

It just seems to me like barking up the wrong tree.  I think there are several other types of gun-control policy that would get more done without generating as much opposition as this would amongst the pro-gun crowd.

Edited by larrytheimp
to/too

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, in reality, a responsible gun owner is the least likely person to act aggressively against another member of society, because he realises the consequences of violence will escalate quickly.

What you are missing, however, is that a blow from a fist against the head is not harmless drunken rowdiness. It is assault. And in fact, numerous people have died from a single blow to the head. Therefore, when confronted by someone who is intent on physically assaulting you, you are fully entitled to view it as life threatening, and to defend your life - with lethal force if necessary.

So in fact, a world full of responsible gun owners will be more peaceful, and include less interpersonal violence, as people are aware of the full consequences of conflict.

 

There was a great documentry done by VICE last year. It highlighted how people today (men) are terrified of losing a fist fight so they'd rather just have a gun and shoot any would be potential threat.

Edited by Tywin et al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Far more than those who were stopped because a person was legally concealed and carrying and shot the bad guy.

Another disingenuous statement. For the statement to have any meaning, one would first need to know how many mass shooting incidents occurred where there was someone with a concealed handgun among the victims, who tried and failed to stop the shooter.

In short, you are using the absence of concealed carry handguns as proof that concealed carry handguns don't stop or cut short mass shootings. The fact that a state provides for concealed carry licenses does not automatically mean that people were exercising that right in the vicinity of the shooter, at the time of the shooting.

That would have to be established first, prior to you making the assertion that concealed carry is ineffective in stopping mass murderers. If anything, it proves the opposite, which is that more people should be encouraged to carry a handgun, thus increasing the chances that one or more of the potential victims have a means of fighting back.  

Edited by Free Northman Reborn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another disingenuous statement. For the statement to have any meaning, one would first need to know how many mass shooting incidents occurred where there was someone with a concealed handgun among the victims, who tried and failed to stop the shooter.

In short, you are using the absence of concealed carry handguns as proof that concealed carry handguns don't stop or cut short a mass shootings. The fact that a state provides for concealed carry licenses does not automatically mean that people were exercising that right in the vicinity of the shooter, at the time of the shooting.

That would have to be established first, prior to you making the assertion that concealed carry is ineffective in stopping mass murderers. If anything, it proves the opposite, which is that more people should be encouraged to carry a handgun, thus increasing the chances that one or more of the potential victims have a means of fighting back. 

Provide some evidence that they do. Fun fact, it never happens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fine, but you're never going to pass a law like that.  Anyone that wants one for a mass shooting can print one or modify an existing one to hold more rounds.  You could never confiscate them all, and even then it's not even immediately clear when looking at a magazine what it's capacity is.  I guess my point is it's simply to late for that... if there had been magazine restrictions a century ago, outlawing them might have some effect.  But it's not going to, there are simply too many ways around this and too many already out there.  

It just seems to me like barking up the wrong tree.  I think there are several other types of gun-control policy that would get more done without generating as much opposition as this would amongst the pro-gun crowd.

Talk to the Aussies.

Edited to add:

By that I mean we need to get rid of this mind set that nothing can be done. It'sd a self fulfilling prophecy.

Edited by Tywin et al.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talk to the Aussies.

Edited to add:

By that I mean we need to get rid of this mind set that nothing can be done. It'sd a self fulfilling prophecy.

Oh, I don't think nothing can be done.  I think there is plenty that can be done, but this is an unrealistic way to come at the problem- it's going to make the natives restless and also it's so easy to circumvent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.