No you don't get it dj, the self-defence isn't actually about using the weapons, it's about the Mutually Assured Destruction. You can say that since no nukes were fired in anger during the Cold War that mutually assured destruction worked well, of course you have to ignore all the proxy wars, and that nukes didn't stop Pakistan invading Kashmir nor India from fighting back, and if you want MAD then you really need to let Iran get nukes as well.djrbk wrote:QUOTE (djrbk @ Jan 11 2013, 07:39 PM) Self-defence = see statistics about gun murder/injury rates. It is something like .5% deaths are related to self defence. WRT tho a revolver would be an acceptable self defence weaponfor civilian s as it (typically) has a much slower reload time. Bolt action pistols do exist and can be enforced though. (Though I imagine revolvers to be much more preferable)
A little more about guns
Mutually Assured Destruction doesn't work with firearms, the winner is the first person to pull the trigger with an effective shot faster than his adversary can react. A revolver containing 6 rounds is more than adequate to accomplish such a thing. Handguns aren't really effective past 25 meters either, so the target has to be pretty deliberate and the level of threat is clearly visible (ie. gangster pulls a knife on you or something).
Nuclear weaponry is a different scale and is really only being used as a ridiculously over exaggerated example of personal protection and the appropriate scaled response to need to take down (your own) corrupt government as per the constitution of America.
To answer your bit about Iran/Pakistan/blah blah and their nukes - Doesn't America work that angle by having missile silos in bases across the globe in order to ensure that they have the fastest possible response/attack time over any other nation? The only way they can really improve on their timings I imagine is to have missile silos in low orbit (of which I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they already existed).
Nuclear weaponry is a different scale and is really only being used as a ridiculously over exaggerated example of personal protection and the appropriate scaled response to need to take down (your own) corrupt government as per the constitution of America.
To answer your bit about Iran/Pakistan/blah blah and their nukes - Doesn't America work that angle by having missile silos in bases across the globe in order to ensure that they have the fastest possible response/attack time over any other nation? The only way they can really improve on their timings I imagine is to have missile silos in low orbit (of which I wouldn't be terribly surprised if they already existed).
MAD = BNDlexaal wrote:QUOTE (lexaal @ Jan 11 2013, 09:08 PM) If at least one side is mad, MAD doesn't work.
The Escapist (Justin Emerson) @ Dec 21 2010, 02:33 PM:
The history of open-source Allegiance is paved with the bodies of dead code branches, forum flame wars, and personal vendettas. But a community remains because people still love the game.
What exactly makes an "Assault Rifle" (read - a regular rifle with a pistol grip and a detachable magazine) so much deadlier than the same rifle without the pistol grip? That is mostly what the old Assault Weapons ban did.
Bolt action and pump action weapons are less prone to jamming and misfires than a semi-automatic weapon is. And both are capable of respectable rates of fire in the hands of someone familiar with them. Pump action rifles exist as well.
Double action revolvers can be rapidly reloaded via speed loaders. What are you accomplishing here? Revolvers are also much more reliable than semi-automatic pistols.
Furthermore, if I took a military M16 and welded the gas tube shut. It would be a BOLT ACTION RIFLE and now fits your definition of an acceptable gun despite the fact that it is a military rifle. Essentially it would be a straight pull bolt-action rifle which would still be capable of a respectable rate of fire. And, to the horror of the anti-gun crowd, continues to look like a scary assault rifle.
Its not like its hard to manufacture a semi or fully auto weapon in shop class as it is. What is going to stop the crazy people of the world from continuing to be crazy!? Certainly not a law.
I am sorry but I find these distinctions to be incredibly arbitrary and, in the greater scope of things, completely ineffective in stopping mass shootings.
With that being the case, I don't feel we should let emotions and peoples irrational fear of firearms dictate law making, all it makes for is poorly written laws that do next to nothing to solve the problem.
Bolt action and pump action weapons are less prone to jamming and misfires than a semi-automatic weapon is. And both are capable of respectable rates of fire in the hands of someone familiar with them. Pump action rifles exist as well.
Double action revolvers can be rapidly reloaded via speed loaders. What are you accomplishing here? Revolvers are also much more reliable than semi-automatic pistols.
Furthermore, if I took a military M16 and welded the gas tube shut. It would be a BOLT ACTION RIFLE and now fits your definition of an acceptable gun despite the fact that it is a military rifle. Essentially it would be a straight pull bolt-action rifle which would still be capable of a respectable rate of fire. And, to the horror of the anti-gun crowd, continues to look like a scary assault rifle.
Its not like its hard to manufacture a semi or fully auto weapon in shop class as it is. What is going to stop the crazy people of the world from continuing to be crazy!? Certainly not a law.
I am sorry but I find these distinctions to be incredibly arbitrary and, in the greater scope of things, completely ineffective in stopping mass shootings.
With that being the case, I don't feel we should let emotions and peoples irrational fear of firearms dictate law making, all it makes for is poorly written laws that do next to nothing to solve the problem.
Last edited by Camaro on Sat Jan 12, 2013 1:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
The old assault weapon ban has stupid stuff about cosmetics. That doesn't mean that s better version couldn't be done. Limit civilian calibers, magazine sizes and such.
Rifles to bolt action 5 rounf magazine, fos instance.
If you must have conseal carry, go with revolvers, or limit pistol calibers and magazine sizes.
Nothing about pistol grips and black finish needed.
/edit apologies about the massive typofest. iPad typing there.
Rifles to bolt action 5 rounf magazine, fos instance.
If you must have conseal carry, go with revolvers, or limit pistol calibers and magazine sizes.
Nothing about pistol grips and black finish needed.
/edit apologies about the massive typofest. iPad typing there.
Last edited by Adept on Sun Jan 13, 2013 10:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
<bp|> Maybe when I grow up I can be a troll like PsycH
<bp|> or an obsessive compulsive paladin of law like Adept
-
germloucks
- Posts: 756
- Joined: Sat Feb 19, 2005 8:00 am
- Location: Seattle
Okay, the definition of assault rifle is ambiguous. That's why pro-gun groups like the NRA needs to get involved in gun control legislation so that the rules make sense.Camaro wrote:QUOTE (Camaro @ Jan 11 2013, 05:38 PM) What exactly makes an "Assault Rifle" (read - a regular rifle with a pistol grip and a detachable magazine) so much deadlier than the same rifle without the pistol grip? That is mostly what the old Assault Weapons ban did.
Bolt action and pump action weapons are less prone to jamming and misfires than a semi-automatic weapon is. And both are capable of respectable rates of fire in the hands of someone familiar with them. Pump action rifles exist as well.
Double action revolvers can be rapidly reloaded via speed loaders. What are you accomplishing here? Revolvers are also much more reliable than semi-automatic pistols.
Furthermore, if I took a military M16 and welded the gas tube shut. It would be a BOLT ACTION RIFLE and now fits your definition of an acceptable gun despite the fact that it is a military rifle. Essentially it would be a straight pull bolt-action rifle which would still be capable of a respectable rate of fire. And, to the horror of the anti-gun crowd, continues to look like a scary assault rifle.
Its not like its hard to manufacture a semi or fully auto weapon in shop class as it is. What is going to stop the crazy people of the world from continuing to be crazy!? Certainly not a law.
I am sorry but I find these distinctions to be incredibly arbitrary and, in the greater scope of things, completely ineffective in stopping mass shootings.
With that being the case, I don't feel we should let emotions and peoples irrational fear of firearms dictate law making, all it makes for is poorly written laws that do next to nothing to solve the problem.
Ah limiting calibers won't yield any results either. Why? Well hunting calibers are far more powerful than what the military uses in most instances (except for .50BMG which is already banned in a couple of states)... of course... .50BMG guns are so expensive and so heavy that I doubt anyone is going to use it in a crime that isn't a part of organized crime.Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Jan 13 2013, 02:31 AM) The old assault weapon ban has stupid stuff about cosmetics. That doesn't mean that s better version couldn't be done. Limit civilian calibers, magazine sizes and such.
7.62x53 NATO can certainly be used for hunting... but it isn't nearly as powerful as 30-06 which is a very common hunting round (and was military issue in WW2). Likewise 5.56x45 NATO and the Russian 7.62x39 (AKM) rounds are intermediate rounds suitable for small-medium size game such as deer. 7.62x39 is similar to the popular hunting round of the .30-30.
The only thing that constitutes a "bolt-action" is that it has no assisting mechanism to cycle the bolt. Given that if you put a stop to semi-automatics, most likely companies will just not install a gas system but otherwise leave the design the same... it wouldn't take too much work to get it into semi or full automatic configuration. Heck the Canadians even had a mechanism to convert the bolt action rifles (the bolt action you are thinking of, like you see in games) into automatic weapons. The people with the drive will do this... or more probably will just build their own home-made guns from scratch. Its not like its extremely hard to do.Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Jan 13 2013, 02:31 AM) Rifles to bolt action 5 rounf magazine, fos instance.
Likewise, bolt actions, due to their mechanisms, tend to be stronger than semi-automatics and thus that is why you frequently see the larger calibers in bolt-action rifles.
Lastly, magazines are pretty simple to build. Nothing to prevent someone who is planning on going on a shooting rampage from building "high capacity" magazines themselves.
Revolvers: There are already a lot of people who do prefer a revolver to a semi-automatic for their simplicity and reliability. Limiting magazine sizes will do next to nothing given that anyone with access to a metal shop can build a magazine. Criminals, by definition, do not follow the law. I am not sure what calibers you want to limit in the handgun realm? .50AE? .44 Magnum? I mean... the bigger rounds aren't really used in crimes... its the intermediate rounds like 9mm and .45ACP that are.Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Jan 13 2013, 02:31 AM) If you must have conseal carry, go with revolvers, or limit pistol calibers and magazine sizes.
But those are the only things that makes these guns scary.Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Jan 13 2013, 02:31 AM) Nothing about pistol grips and black finish needed.
So I am sorry Adept, but I don't see how your proposals are implementable in a rational manner... they just don't make sense when you take a deeper look at it.
Banning handguns may make more sense, but... I do believe that the Supreme Court has deemed that will never happen without a Constitutional Amendment. And then again, its not like its hard to build one from scratch.
Last edited by Camaro on Sun Jan 13, 2013 11:15 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Camaro. Some people will modify guns, but that is far removed from semi automatic high capacity rifles being widely available. Same for those 50+ round pistol magazines. You will not see many of them if they aren't legal commercislly.
And the school shooters aren't devious criminals who will build their own magaznes and convert a bolt action hunting rifle to an autoloader with a 30 round mag.
You talk about absolutes, but this isn't about that. It's perfectly possible to vastly reduce the availability of high power, high capacity weapons. It will not totally eliminate them, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't have a big effect.
High power rifle rounds are only really needed for bear and moose hunting. Register and apply for a special permit if you need to kill those. Handguns are more about mag capacity than caliber, you are right. A walther PPK is plenty deadly.
I suspect you guys will have to do something meaningful about the guns. The number of dead each year is bound to upset enough voters eventually. It remains to be seen if the dead school children were the last straw.
And the school shooters aren't devious criminals who will build their own magaznes and convert a bolt action hunting rifle to an autoloader with a 30 round mag.
You talk about absolutes, but this isn't about that. It's perfectly possible to vastly reduce the availability of high power, high capacity weapons. It will not totally eliminate them, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't have a big effect.
High power rifle rounds are only really needed for bear and moose hunting. Register and apply for a special permit if you need to kill those. Handguns are more about mag capacity than caliber, you are right. A walther PPK is plenty deadly.
I suspect you guys will have to do something meaningful about the guns. The number of dead each year is bound to upset enough voters eventually. It remains to be seen if the dead school children were the last straw.
<bp|> Maybe when I grow up I can be a troll like PsycH
<bp|> or an obsessive compulsive paladin of law like Adept
Some? I think a lot will modify their firearms, especially since a lot currently do. I never condone breaking the law, and I never would modify my magazines to have more than 10 rounds (in California 10 rounds is maximum for any magazine be it a handgun or longarm - tube fed rifles are an exception). But there are plenty of people who will break that law. Which is why I contend that implementing this law on the national level will do nothing.Adept wrote:QUOTE (Adept @ Jan 13 2013, 02:33 PM) Camaro. Some people will modify guns, but that is far removed from semi automatic high capacity rifles being widely available. Same for those 50+ round pistol magazines. You will not see many of them if they aren't legal commercislly.
And the school shooters aren't devious criminals who will build their own magaznes and convert a bolt action hunting rifle to an autoloader with a 30 round mag.
You talk about absolutes, but this isn't about that. It's perfectly possible to vastly reduce the availability of high power, high capacity weapons. It will not totally eliminate them, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't have a big effect.
High power rifle rounds are only really needed for bear and moose hunting. Register and apply for a special permit if you need to kill those. Handguns are more about mag capacity than caliber, you are right. A walther PPK is plenty deadly.
I suspect you guys will have to do something meaningful about the guns. The number of dead each year is bound to upset enough voters eventually. It remains to be seen if the dead school children were the last straw.
50+ round pistols are a novelty item at best. 7-18 rounds are far more common magazine sizes.
Once more, the 5.56x45 NATO round most commonly found in military assault rifles is an intermediate cartridge. Bearing only a fraction of the power of the rounds that preceded it and far less than your typical hunting rounds. Limiting that caliber seems rather pointless if you are allowing the higher powered rounds to exist. The primary benefit of the lower powered rounds like 5.56x45 is the reduced recoil at the expense of being a less powerful round.
What you propose will have minimal effects on violence and just takes away further rights from us law abiding citizens. I agree that these shootings are getting out of hand, but banning classes of firearms will do very little to solve that problem.