Mass Killing Theater

[doctor712]

Handgun, nice and constitutional. Armor piercing bullets, did I miss that phrase in the 2nd amendment Blade?

D712

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[doctor712]

Jul 28, 1868:
14th Amendment adopted
Following its ratification by the necessary three-quarters of U.S. states, the 14th Amendment, guaranteeing to African Americans citizenship and all its privileges, is officially adopted into the U.S. Constitution.

You left out the due process clause Blade. 14th amendment. Come on!

D712

 

[doctor712]

A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor and bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.

Thomas Jefferson

Excellent quote, as we are FREE TO REGULATE our own issues. So, now let's regulate.
last time i checked, the gun industry is regulate-able.

d712

 

[doctor712]

For those who would like to go machine gun shopping ...

Here's an Uzi for $9000.
Here's a Thompson M1 submachine gun for $18,000.
Heer's a M16 that'll get bid up past $20,000.
Here's a Steyr AUG for $15,000.
Here's a 1914 BSA Aircraft .303 Lewis Gun for $32,500 ... more of a collector's item though.
Here's a nice MP5 that'll go for a hell of a lot more than its current $18,500 bid.


Gun control wasn't meant to apply to rich people. The wealthy can have whatever they want. Keep pretending it's about safety ... it's really about control.

More PGG nonsense. I'm sure this is what is charged by JOE GUN DEALER on the street corner if it's what PGG stumbled across while on the internet. KILLERS don't need UZIs, they can convert their AR-15s into 100 round drum killing machines, and correct me if i'm wrong, FULLY AUTOMATIC MACHINE GUNS.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKLD5yVl0PM

POINT: YOU CANNOT DO THAT TO A GLOCK 19 or a .38. WE NEED TO MAKE ANY AND ALL WEAPONS THAT CAN BE CONVERTED TO FULLY AUTO...GO AWAY.

D712

 

[doctor712]

I don't CARE what you call it, it can do too much damage in TOO short a time frame, especially if it's converted to AUTOMATIC (aka. Pgg's machine gun). Call it a lollipop, candy apple or sack of almonds, the name is irrelevant, it should be considered COMPLETELY ILLEGAL. 50 states. Check back with me in 30 years to see how the experiment worked out.

d712

 

[doctor712]

for now, a nice chunk of replies, i'll get to the rest of it all when i land and get settled in my new home state tonight. but PLEASE O PLEASE, keep a close eye on our 2nd amendment loving assault/insane/overkill/non-intended by the constitution/5000rpm/'everything but nuclear weapons' (quote PGG) gun owners and how they are only in it for themselves, and not for better streets in their beloved USA. wanna CCW with a glock? please get one. be safe. an AK-47? are you kidding, what a crock. madison would turn over in his grave. i think. only, PGG can tell you what he really thinks.

d712

 

[BLADEMDA]

for now, a nice chunk of replies, i'll get to the rest of it all when i land and get settled in my new home state tonight. but PLEASE O PLEASE, keep a close eye on our 2nd amendment loving assault/insane/overkill/non-intended by the constitution/5000rpm/'everything but nuclear weapons' (quote PGG) gun owners and how they are only in it for themselves, and not for better streets in their beloved USA. wanna CCW with a glock? please get one. be safe. an AK-47? are you kidding, what a crock. madison would turn over in his grave. i think. only, PGG can tell you what he really thinks.

d712

Well, these issues are why we vote in elections. Elections have consequences. I'll support the NRA And those candidates which agree with them.

Automatic Weapons are illegal now. Why Is an AR weapon which can be used for hunting an assault weapon? Any rife can be an assault weapon.

On a personal note I own AR rifles. Would I be distraught if they became illegal? Or if the liberals banned my 30 round clips? No. Even if I was forced to sell Eric Holder my AR15s I wouldn't be distraught. I would however vote for those politicians who would restore my gun rights.

Again, we can debate this issue day and night but this issue is decided by our elected representatives. So, you are stuck wth AK-47s and AR15s for the foreseeable future.


By the way I won't buy any of those crappy 100 round drums as they are unreliable. 30 round clips are very reliable and what I own for my ARs.

 

[BLADEMDA]

You left out the due process clause Blade. 14th amendment. Come on!

D712

My apology sir. You are indeed correct here.



Its Due Process Clause prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness. This clause has been used to make most of the Bill of Rights applicable to the states, as well as to recognize substantive and procedural rights.
Its Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction. This clause was the basis for Brown v. Board of Education (1954), the Supreme Court decision which precipitated the dismantling of racial segregation in United States education. In Reed v. Reed (1971), the Supreme Court ruled that laws arbitrarily requiring sex discrimination violated the Equal Protection Clause.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Handgun, nice and constitutional. Armor piercing bullets, did I miss that phrase in the 2nd amendment Blade?

D712

Where did I say Armor piercing bullets should be legal? I oppose the sake of weapons of mass destruction to the general public. This includes grenades, machine guns, plastic explosives, anthrax and armor piercing rounds.

We disagree on the AR15 as I see it as just another rifle while you view it as an assault weapon.
Ever fired a Ruger mini 14? Look it up. Why is it the mini 14 is a hunting rifle while my AR should be banned? Both fire the .223 round that Holmes used in the massacre.

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14/index.html

 

[BLADEMDA]

Ammunition that is not marketed as armor piercing may still be capable of penetrating some levels of body armor.
Ammunition that is marketed as armor piercing may nevertheless be unable to penetrate some levels of body armor.
There are several levels of body armor available and in use, and a given cartridge may penetrate some levels but not others.
Barrel length has a significant effect on the velocity of a cartridge, and the results of penetration testing should be evaluated in terms of the barrel length (or velocity) that was used.
Ammunition that is marketed as armor piercing may not be classified under Federal law as armor piercing, regardless of whether it is able to penetrate body armor or not.
Nearly all centerfire rifle ammunition is able to penetrate most levels of body armor, regardless of its construction or classification.
In the United States, armor piercing handgun ammunition is illegal for civilians. However, what constitutes an armor piercing bullet (as defined by Federal law and the ATF) is often not what you might think. Specifically, the SS190 ammunition made by FN, which is voluntarily restricted to military and police sales, does not fit the Federal definition of armor piercing, regardless of how it is marketed.

Federal Law
Though armor piercing rifle ammunition is legal, Federal law does ban armor piercing ammunition for handguns [18 U.S.C. Section 922(a)(7)]. Essentially, it outlaws the manufacture, import or sale to civilians. A more careful reading is called for, but possession does not appear to be illegal.

The Federal definition of armor piercing ammunition [18 U.S.C. Section 921(a)(17)(B)] is important. It has nothing to do with testing of a cartridge's actual ability to penetrate body armor. The law classifies ammunition as being armor piercing based solely on its construction:

(i) a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium; or

(ii) a full jacketed projectile larger than .22 caliber designed and intended for use in a handgun and whose jacket has a weight of more than 25 percent of the total weight of the projectile.

The SS190 cartridge, which has a steel penetrator and an aluminum core, does not fit this definition. A 5.7x28mm cartridge loaded with an FMJ bullet also does not fit this definition. A strict reading of Federal law indicates that neither the SS190 nor FMJ handloads are illegal for civilians.

 

[doctor712]

PGG AND BLADE,

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun-control-legislation/

A. FRIGGING. MEN. From a HIGHLY
CONSERVATIVE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.

WHAT A STATEMENT.

D712

 

[BLADEMDA]

PGG AND BLADE,

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun-control-legislation/

A. FRIGGING. MEN. From a HIGHLY
CONSERVATIVE SUPREME COURT JUSTICE.

WHAT A STATEMENT.

D712

I watched the entire interview on TV today. Scalia is saying that Congress and States have the power to regulate firearms. I understand that point. He is not saying all gun control is legal but that reasonable regulation is. I doubt this Court would overturn an assault weapons ban. Still, you need to get the Congress to pass such a law. Good luck.

By the way, did you know the Ruger Mini AR14 is not included in the assault weapon category? Did you also know that a Ruger Mini 14 could easily have been used by Holmes in that massacre instead of an AR15? Finally, two 30 round clips taped together are much more reliable than any 100 round drum.

An assault weapons ban won't prevent maniacs from committing murder

 

[doctor712]

Where did I say Armor piercing bullets should be legal? I oppose the sake of weapons of mass destruction to the general public. This includes grenades, machine guns, plastic explosives, anthrax and armor piercing rounds.

We disagree on the AR15 as I see it as just another rifle while you view it as an assault weapon.
Ever fired a Ruger mini 14? Look it up. Why is it the mini 14 is a hunting rifle while my AR should be banned? Both fire the .223 round that Holmes used in the massacre.

http://www.ruger.com/products/mini14/index.html

You didn't. It was me just seeing that image of the woman with the 357 or 44 and made a comment about armor piercing bullets, my bad. To me it's not the round Holmes used, it was the method and manner of delivering that round. It's a means to an end that disturbs me.

D712

 

[doctor712]

I watched the entire interview on TV today. Scalia is saying that Congress and States have the power to regulate firearms.

Good for Scalia!

I understand that point. He is not saying all gun control is legal but that reasonable regulation is.

That's all I've been saying for a week now...

By the way, did you know the Ruger Mini AR14 is not included in the assault weapon category? Did you also know that a Ruger Mini 14 could easily have been used by Holmes in that massacre instead of an AR15?

I'm not terribly familiar with AR14 or any assault rifles. If it's COMPATIBLE with a 30-100 round drum -- outlaw it is what I say.

An assault weapons ban won't prevent maniacs from committing murder

It's preventative medicine. Do you send people home to ignore their meds, eat Pastrami sandwiches and ignore LDL? Do you not stent a 75% occluded LAD? These are things we didn't know could help 50-75 years ago, yes? But now that we do, we try --- well, you and other doctors try -- to use the BEST medicine you can to prevent John Doe from dropping dead at a young age. You do what you can do. Same thing with guns, you do what you can do to prevent bad things from happening. You cannot prevent all MIs or massacres. But you can "regulate within reason." As Scalia said.

I just think it's AMAZING that Scalia, a sitting Justice, gave an interview (a rarity for the Court as we all know) and broke from his conservative brethren at this important time. Coincidence? I think not. The Court is as sick of this tragedy and movement by the NRA as we all are.

D712

 

[doctor712]

As a sidetrack to this thread, I'm loving that I only need to put 85 Octane in the XC90
at 6,000ft altitude here in Colorado. : ) Ya don't see that at Sea Level.

#Dalton's Law in effect. Take that Florida!

D712

 

[deleted103644]

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/27/time-to-face-facts-on-gun-control/

 

[proman]

As a sidetrack to this thread, I'm loving that I only need to put 85 Octane in the XC90
at 6,000ft altitude here in Colorado. : ) Ya don't see that at Sea Level.

#Dalton's Law in effect. Take that Florida!

D712

Enjoy your 18% less horsepower

 

[doctor712]

Why 18%?? losing horsepower doesn't add up to me...
Curiously,
D712

 

[doctor712]

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/27/time-to-face-facts-on-gun-control/

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/dam/assets/120727080249-gps-firearms-map-c1-main.jpg[/QUOTE]

Thanks for posting this johnnyfm. That certainly begs asking whether this is part of our gun homicide rates in US. (answer= um YEAH)

D712

 

[deleted103644]

Thanks for posting this johnnyfm. That certainly begs asking whether this is part of our gun homicide rates in US. (answer= um YEAH)

D712

Yeah, Fareed Zakaria is one of the smartest guys on the news these days - I should really make more of an effort to watch him.

 

[proman]

Why 18%?? losing horsepower doesn't add up to me...
Curiously,
D712

You lose about 3% per 1,000 feet of elevation. Lower partial pressure of oxygen due to decreased barometric pressure. It's why there's lower octane gas, you can't burn the higher octane efficiently. Turbo engines are less affected but NA engines hurt. Direct injection engines are less affected than carbureted.

 

[doctor712]

You lose about 3% per 1,000 feet of elevation. Lower partial pressure of oxygen due to decreased barometric pressure. It's why there's lower octane gas, you can't burn the higher octane efficiently. Turbo engines are less affected but NA engines hurt. Direct injection engines are less affected than carbureted.

I didn't know the 3% per 1000, only the 1 octane number per thousand (in good direction). Well, that's too bad.

D712

 

[yappy]

Doctor712. You are so misinformed when it comes to firearms it's not even funny. The rigor of your arguments is weak. They all hinge on the idea of criminals obeying the law. Access to firearms is not a static pursuit. What ever restrictions you prop up only the non-criminal would follow it. This is a tired argument but it's pertinent to every post you've made. It's like the proposed measures that were defeated to stop on-line piracy. We can all agree that it would be great to do; however, the practicality of it occurring is zero. When it counts gun laws will fail every time because they're ineffective at stopping someone from doing something crazy.

Risk is just apart of life. No government will eliminate that risk for you.

 

[pgg]

This would be an interesting and useful map if, and only if, it tracked violent crime and/or deaths during crimes, and not just gun deaths.

In areas with strict gun control, criminals don't just spontaneously reform their wayward ways and become born-again good citizens. They're the same violent sociopaths they always were, and they still commit violent crimes.

Typically what a complete, objective review of the data shows is that less gun control results in less violent crime overall.

Yeah, Fareed Zakaria is one of the smartest guys on the news these days - I should really make more of an effort to watch him.

Yeah, I don't always agree with him, but he thinks and argues well. He's worth watching and reading.

 

[deleted103644]

This would be an interesting and useful map if, and only if, it tracked violent crime and/or deaths during crimes, and not just gun deaths.

In areas with strict gun control, criminals don't just spontaneously reform their wayward ways and become born-again good citizens. They're the same violent sociopaths they always were, and they still commit violent crimes.

Typically what a complete, objective review of the data shows is that less gun control results in less violent crime overall.

No one is saying restricting guns decreases the number of psychopaths. It just makes them much less efficient.

I think the overall violence statistic is debatable, and between the US and other developed countries there's no question we are far more violent.

Yeah, I don't always agree with him, but he thinks and argues well. He's worth watching and reading.

Yeah, and that's sadly quite rare on cable news.

 

[doctor712]

Doctor712. You are so misinformed when it comes to firearms it's not even funny. The rigor of your arguments is weak. They all hinge on the idea of criminals obeying the law. Access to firearms is not a static pursuit. What ever restrictions you prop up only the non-criminal would follow it. This is a tired argument but it's pertinent to every post you've made. It's like the proposed measures that were defeated to stop on-line piracy. We can all agree that it would be great to do; however, the practicality of it occurring is zero. When it counts gun laws will fail every time because they're ineffective at stopping someone from doing something crazy.

Risk is just apart of life. No government will eliminate that risk for you.

Thank you for your thoughts.

D712

 

[pgg]

No one is saying restricting guns decreases the number of psychopaths. It just makes them much less efficient.

That seems to be an intuitive conclusion, but is it true? There's a guy in Norway who'd disagree. Not only did he get his hands on a gun and shoot 179 people (killing 69) ... but he also planted a bomb that killed 8 and wounded 209 (though most of those wounded apparently weren't hurt badly).

This is in a country where self-defense isn't even a sufficient reason to get a permit to own a gun.

Crazy people will find a way. They're crazy, not stupid.

I think the overall violence statistic is debatable, and between the US and other developed countries there's no question we are far more violent.

It is hard to make sense of the statistics, because the quality of the data is so poor. It's not like any of the "studies" can have controls. It's just a bunch of retrospective observational crap with so many confounding variables as to make firm conclusions all but impossible.

We're talking data quality that would get laughed out of any respectable medical journal.

Add to that agenda-driven interpretations of "gun violence" that includes suicides and that whole "lies, damn lies, and statistics" thing is beautifully illustrated. Both sides are guilty of cherry-picking data.

BUT - the general trend is that areas where citizens are less encumbered by restrictive gun laws, the safer they are. Nationwide, our country's violent crime rate has been on an impressive and consistent decline, despite the image portrayed by the media ... all while the federal AWB expired and a DRAMATIC shift toward more permissive carry laws occurred.

Correlation ain't causation ... but both trends (declining violent crime, and deregulation of our rights to keep and bear arms) are encouraging.


I've mentioned this before, and I know you disagree, but I feel compelled to state it again, because it matters. The incidence of violent crime isn't the ONLY thing we should be looking at. There are other benefits to having an armed society. They are a small issue today, despite freeper *****s chanting about "2nd Amendment remedies" ... There may come a time, hopefully not in my lifetime or my kids' lifetimes, when our descendants will be extremely glad that there are roughly 90 guns per 100 people.


And again, some perspective is in order.

There are 30,000 - 40,000 traffic fatalities in the US per year. That's an acceptable price to pay for the benefits of automobiles. Just about everybody agrees death-by-driving is an acceptable risk, and that doesn't make them foolish, insensitive, or callous. Even though we acknowledge that our risk of death-by-driving is most likely to come at the hands of another person whose behavior we can't control.

50,000 - 100,000 preventable deaths annually due to medical errors.

There are far fewer gun deaths in the US each year. Far, far fewer if you exclude suicides. Almost all of the criminal firearm homicides are committed with handguns. An extraordinarily small % are from so-called "assault" weapons that get lots of press. Every one of these deaths is tragic, but no more or less tragic than a felony DUI manslaughter. That's an acceptable price to pay for the benefits of civilian firearm ownership.


Just like the right's "War On Drugs" is a ridiculous failure, the left's "War On Guns" is too. Both sides would be better served with more rational approaches to reducing violent crime and drug use. A bonus for abandoning both would be less infringement of everyone's civil rights.

But that won't happen, because there's $ to be made and votes to be had being tough on crime and filling prison with nonviolent drug offenders, and there's $ to be made and votes to be had being tough on crime and promising to crack down on scaaaaary guns.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Released: July 30, 2012
Views on Gun Laws Unchanged After Aurora Shooting

Overview

There has been no significant change in public views on the issue of gun control and gun rights following the July 20th shooting at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado. Currently, 47% say it is more important to control gun ownership, while 46% say it is more important to protect the rights of Americans to own guns. That is virtually unchanged from a survey earlier this year in April, when 45% prioritized gun control and 49% gun rights.
Other recent major shootings also had little effect on public opinion about gun laws. There was no significant change in the balance of opinion about gun rights and gun control after the January, 2011 shooting in Tucson, Arizona in which Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords was injured. Nor was there a spike in support for gun control following the shooting at Virginia Tech University in April, 2007.
The latest national survey by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press, conducted July 26-29, 2012 among 1,010 adults, shows that relatively few Americans view the shooting in Aurora as a sign of broader social problems. Two-thirds (67%) say that shootings like this one are just the isolated acts of troubled individuals. Only about a quarter (24%) say shootings like this reflect broader problems in American society. This is similar to the public reaction after the Tucson shooting in early 2011, which 58% thought of as the isolated act of a troubled individual and 31% connected to broader social problems. Americans were more likely to see broader problems behind the Virginia Tech shooting five years ago – at that time, 46% thought the event reflected broader societal problems.
Public opinion about gun control and gun rights has been divided since early 2009. Prior to that, going back to the first Pew Research Center polling on this issue in 1993, majorities consistently rated controlling gun ownership as a higher priority than protecting the rights of Americans to own guns.
The issue remains a highly partisan one: Republicans prioritize gun rights by a 71% to 26% margin, while Democrats prioritize gun control by a 72% to 21% margin. Independents are split, with 50% saying the priority should be protecting the right of Americans to own guns, while 43% say it should be controlling gun ownership.
The issue also continues to divide along racial and gender lines. Whites tend to see the protection of gun rights as the higher priority (by a 56% to 38% margin), while blacks overwhelmingly back gun control (by a 73% to 23% margin). Men prioritize gun rights (57% to 38%), while women prioritize gun control (56% to 37%).

 

[BLADEMDA]

If we finally want to deal seriously with multiple-victim public shootings, it is about time that we acknowledge a common feature of these attacks: With just a single exception, the attack in Tucson last year, every public shooting in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed since at least 1950 has occurred in a place where citizens are not allowed to carry their own firearms. The Cinemark movie theater in Aurora, like others run by the chain around the country, displayed warning signs that it was prohibited to carry guns into the theater.
All the public mass shootings in Europe fit this rule. Take Switzerland, which has very liberal concealed carry laws.
The country also has had several big public mass shootings over the last decade, but there again all of their attacks have taken place in the few areas where guns are banned.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/07/30/new-gun-laws-will-do-nothing-to-stop-mass-shooting-attacks/#ixzz22CmgjMD3

 

[doctor712]

Guns stats...

Blade, Who did the PEW INSTITUTE poll for these numbers?

You're a news junkie, I'm convinced, so, following SCALIA and legislative members asking for new gun laws, I'm certain that you have felt the outpouring of those asking for a close look at gun laws -- it's not working...

D712

 

[BLADEMDA]

About the Survey

The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted July 26-29, 2012 among a national sample of 1,010 adults 18 years of age or older living in the continental United States (609 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 401 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 190 who had no landline telephone). The survey was conducted by interviewers at Princeton Data Source under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International. A combination of landline and cell phone random digit dial samples were used; both samples were provided by Survey Sampling International. Interviews were conducted in English. Respondents in the landline sample were selected by randomly asking for the youngest adult male or female who is now at home. Interviews in the cell sample were conducted with the person who answered the phone, if that person was an adult 18 years of age or older. For detailed information about our survey methodology, see: http://people-press.org/methodology/.
The combined landline and cell phone sample are weighted using an iterative technique that matches gender, age, education, race, Hispanic origin and region to parameters from the March 2011 Census Bureau's Current Population Survey and population density to parameters from the Decennial Census. The sample also is weighted to match current patterns of telephone status, based on extrapolations from the 2011 National Health Interview Survey. The weighting procedure also accounts for the fact that respondents with both landline and cell phones have a greater probability of being included in the combined sample and adjusts for household size within the landline sample. Sampling errors and statistical tests of significance take into account the effect of weighting. The following table shows the sample sizes and the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence for different groups in the survey:

Sample sizes and sampling errors for other subgroups are available upon request.
In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.

 

[doctor712]

That seems to be an intuitive conclusion, but is it true? There's a guy in Norway who'd disagree. Not only did he get his hands on a gun and shoot 179 people (killing 69) ... but he also planted a bomb that killed 8 and wounded 209 (though most of those wounded apparently weren't hurt badly).

This is in a country where self-defense isn't even a sufficient reason to get a permit to own a gun.

Crazy people will find a way. They're crazy, not stupid.

Thanks for pointing that case out PGG. N=1.

Moving on...

D712

It is hard to make sense of the statistics, because the quality of the data is so poor.

Unless you or Blade post it or quote it...

It's not like any of the "studies" can have controls.

Agreed, so let's use some common sense.
PGG meet CONSERVATIVE Justice Scalia, CONSERVATIVE Justice Scalia, meet conservative anesthesiologist PGG.

It's just a bunch of retrospective observational crap with so many confounding variables as to make firm conclusions all but impossible. We're talking data quality that would get laughed out of any respectable medical journal.

See above quote.

Add to that agenda-driven interpretations

You wanna talk AGENDA DRIVEN...please see the NRA.

BUT - the general trend is that areas where citizens are less encumbered by restrictive gun laws, the safer they are.

WHAT TREND? The trend of data that would get laughed out of respectable medical journals? Data published by agenda driven NRA?
Control-less data? Poor data quality TRENDS?

Sheesh. PGG is officially crowned CONTRADICTORY CHAMPION of this THREAD.

Nationwide, our country's violent crime rate

Case in point, RATES come from DATA. POOR DATA. Right PGG?

There may come a time, hopefully not in my lifetime or my kids' lifetimes, when our descendants will be extremely glad that there are roughly 90 guns per 100 people.

DING DING DING DING DING. THE REAL REASON AS WE HAVE DISCUSSED BEFORE, PGG'S FEAR OF THE UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT.


And again, some perspective is in order.

There are 30,000 - 40,000 traffic fatalities in the US per year.

But - within reason - we LEGISLATE and REGULATE: 150MPH - not safe. SEATBELTS: needed. GUNS: same SITUATION IS NEEDED.
You see people arguing for 200MPH as a SPEED LIMIT because the DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE provides for "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness"?????????? PGG - this is how you sound. FYI.

50,000 - 100,000 preventable deaths annually due to medical errors.

Regulations there too. Sheesh, you're not much of a debater are you, Pgg?

There are far fewer gun deaths in the US each year. Far, far fewer if you exclude suicides. Almost all of the criminal firearm homicides are committed with handguns. An extraordinarily small % are from so-called "assault" weapons that get lots of press. Every one of these deaths is tragic, but no more or less tragic than a felony DUI manslaughter. That's an acceptable price to pay for the benefits of civilian firearm ownership.

Slight of hand hogwash. Drink drink drink.

A bonus for abandoning both would be less infringement of everyone's civil rights.

CALLING YOU OUT on talking CIVIL RIGHTS and anything INFRINGEMENT after conceding our CHATTY CHAT without so much as REPLYING TO ONE OF MY COMMENTS. ASIDE FROM BACKING DOWN AND PSYCHOANALYZING ME, ALL THE WHILE CONTINUING THE DEBATE WITH OTHERS. WOW.

D712

 

[BLADEMDA]

Blade, Who did the PEW INSTITUTE poll for these numbers?

You're a news junkie, I'm convinced, so, following SCALIA and legislative members asking for new gun laws, I'm certain that you have felt the outpouring of those asking for a close look at gun laws -- it's not working...

D712

We have enough gun laws on the books. Look, I'm a pistol guy more than a AK-47/AR-15 type of dude. I've got a friend with 4 AK 47s/ 6 AR 15s, a .50 caliber rifle, etc. I know many more with serious firepower that can take out a tractor trailer. These guys are all Physicians and Law abiding individuals.

If they want to own a Legal automatic machine gun (which they do) then let them. It is their money and their way of blowing off steam. They pay all the necessary taxes and fill out all the forms.

Current laws are restrictive enough and we don't need an outright ban on rifles.

Looks like I need to buy a few more rifles this year just in case Obama gets re-elected.

 

[doctor712]

About the Survey

The analysis in this report is based on telephone interviews conducted July 26-29, 2012 among a national sample of 1,010 adults 18 years of age or older living in the continental United States (609 respondents were interviewed on a landline telephone, and 401 were interviewed on a cell phone, including 190 who had no landline telephone). The survey was conducted by interviewers at Princeton Data Source under the direction of Princeton Survey Research Associates International. A combination of landline and cell phone random digit dial samples were used; both samples were provided by Survey Sampling International. Interviews were conducted in English. Respondents in the landline sample were selected by randomly asking for the youngest adult male or female who is now at home. Interviews in the cell sample were conducted with the person who answered the phone, if that person was an adult 18 years of age or older. For detailed information about our survey methodology, see: http://people-press.org/methodology/.
The combined landline and cell phone sample are weighted using an iterative technique that matches gender, age, education, race, Hispanic origin and region to parameters from the March 2011 Census Bureau’s Current Population Survey and population density to parameters from the Decennial Census. The sample also is weighted to match current patterns of telephone status, based on extrapolations from the 2011 National Health Interview Survey. The weighting procedure also accounts for the fact that respondents with both landline and cell phones have a greater probability of being included in the combined sample and adjusts for household size within the landline sample. Sampling errors and statistical tests of significance take into account the effect of weighting. The following table shows the sample sizes and the error attributable to sampling that would be expected at the 95% level of confidence for different groups in the survey:

Sample sizes and sampling errors for other subgroups are available upon request.
In addition to sampling error, one should bear in mind that question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of opinion polls.

Thanks for putting this up here Blade, I'd have to dig deeper to see if these were truly random calls. Nevertheless, pick up a paper or flip on NBC and the debate has begun.

D712

 

[BLADEMDA]

It's not what you are selling but rather how you sell it. The public can be fooled rather easily.

 

[BLADEMDA]

 

[BLADEMDA]

Senior Citizen Shoots Armed Robbers at Internet Cafe

Read more: http://www.gunsandammo.com/2012/07/18/senior-citizen-shoots-armed-robbers-at-internet-cafe/#ixzz22D2DjoXH



http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YVLJ7WgIVQ0

Watch the video. He shot both of them with a .380 round. Neither of the would be robbers died so this senior citizen was lucky the criminals decided to run away. A much better round is the 9mm fired through the small Ruger LCP

 

[BLADEMDA]

http://www.gunsandammo.com/2011/05/26/video-380-auto-vs-9mm-for-defense/

9mm is the way to go for Concealed Carry but the gun is heavier and larger than a .380 pistol.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Ruger LC9 9mm.

 

[BLADEMDA]

http://video.foxnews.com/v/1763946193001/

Deadly shootout after routine traffic stop

 

[BLADEMDA]

Dealing With An Active Shooter

http://www.handgunsmag.com/2012/07/30/dealing-with-an-active-shooter/

If you know the bad guy is a serious criminal or a killer (which you must assume) then DO NOT ENGAGE in any conversation. Once the decision is made to draw your pistol take the shot when it presents itself ASAP.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkqnAh_5ODw&feature=fvwrel (watch the Video D712)

 

[yappy]

Good stuff Blade. If by any chance you find yourself without a firearm or you're disarmed use these techniques:

Begins @ 1:50

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQVaTEPOsTA[/YOUTUBE]

Dealing With An Active Shooter

http://www.handgunsmag.com/2012/07/30/dealing-with-an-active-shooter/

If you know the bad guy is a serious criminal or a killer (which you must assume) then DO NOT ENGAGE in any conversation. Once the decision is made to draw your pistol take the shot when it presents itself ASAP.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vkqnAh_5ODw&feature=fvwrel (watch the Video D712)

 

[doctor712]

We have enough gun laws on the books. Look, I'm a pistol guy more than a AK-47/AR-15 type of dude. I've got a friend with 4 AK 47s/ 6 AR 15s, a .50 caliber rifle, etc. I know many more with serious firepower that can take out a tractor trailer. These guys are all Physicians and Law abiding individuals.

If they want to own a Legal automatic machine gun (which they do) then let them. It is their money and their way of blowing off steam. They pay all the necessary taxes and fill out all the forms.

Current laws are restrictive enough and we don't need an outright ban on rifles.

Looks like I need to buy a few more rifles this year just in case Obama gets re-elected.

I disagree, but well spoken and I respect your opinion.

I don't think changes will come around because of Obama. Maybe Scalia and Court will see a case, who knows.

D712

 

[doctor712]

Ruger LC9 9mm.

Blade, I didn't know Ruger made a 9mm version of the LC9, I checked the website too, maybe I missed it. If it's the EXACT same size as the .380 that I was holding in the photo above, then that's the CCW for me. CORRECTION: LCP is .380, LC9 is yours. LC9 is 2X as heavy and I'd rather not use that when jogging. Hmm. .380 when jogging I think.

For all you MIL people, I went onto USAFA today for a little tour and hike, BEAUTIFUL GROUNDS, really. At the gate, I was asked, "do you have any firearms on you or in the car?" I would imagine it's 1000% illegal to enter a Mil installation with firearms, or do you just need to declare it? Didn't really feel like asking the Guard this question. But for hikes up in Stanley Canyon (when it reopens), I'd like to generally always have CCW in case I run into an unfriendly animal. (another post altogether). But perhaps some of the Mil peeps can point out rule?

D712

 

[doctor712]

Good stuff Blade. If by any chance you find yourself without a firearm or you're disarmed use these techniques:

Begins @ 1:50

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQVaTEPOsTA[/YOUTUBE]

Saw that video years ago. EXCELLENT. GO BAS!

 

[pgg]

Looks like I need to buy a few more rifles this year just in case Obama gets re-elected.

I don't think that's necessary. By all means, buy some rifles if you feel like shooting them, but panic buying is silly. I buy 1000s of bullets at a time because I reload, and shoot 1000s at a time with friends and family, not because I fear bans.

Non-shooters see things like "6000 rounds ordered mail-order" and simply don't understand or comprehend that many, many normal recreational shooters will go through 500-1000 or more in a single day at the range. That might be a month or two supply.


The irony is that it's other gun owners who fear bans, who panic buy ... that clear out stocks and make it hard or sometimes impossible to buy ammunition, reloading components, or guns. It also jacks up the prices. During the Great Obamascare in 2008 I was looking for a Colt 6920, a super common AR15 rifle. It took me a few weeks to find one in stock. In Alaska. I had it shipped to my dealer in Virginia and paid a premium for it. Around the same time, .380 handgun ammunition just couldn't be found anywhere, at any price.

These days I keep enough ammo and reloading components to supply my recreational shooting for 5 or 6 months. It's panic buying that is likely to put a dent in my shooting, not de facto bans.

The real ceiling to what I have on hand is local fire code, which puts limits on quantities of smokeless powder that can be stored in a residence.


Anyway - my point is that it might make sense for you to buy a couple rifles now before ObamaScare II really kicks off, but only because price and in-stock availability aren't going to get any better. We're already seeing stock problems like we did before the last election.


Federal gun control on any scale is poison to the Democratic party and they know it. I think it's extraordinarily unlikely that anything resembling the 1994-2004 AWB will get passed again in our lifetimes.

At the state level, it's a slightly different issue. Some states have demographics that are relatively supportive of gun control. But for the most part, those states already have fairly strict gun control (e.g., California). I don't really think there's much room for more gun control to get passed in those states. Again using CA as an example, State Sen Yee's recent attempt with SB249 has generated a tremendous amount of backlash, and that's just a small/incremental modification to an existing law. There's already a 10-round magazine limit in CA. There's already a (silly) so-called "safe" handgun roster that limits which handguns can be purchased. There's already a waiting period. There's already a 1-gun-in-30-days law that limits how often you can buy a gun. There's already a total ban on NFA-regulated firearms. There's just nowhere further California can reasonably go.


The only real path open for changes in gun control in the US right now is the court system. Of course, the courts only hear challenges to existing laws, so this avenue favors those who seek to get gun control laws overturned.

If Obama gets a second term, he could slow the tide of winning 2A cases via judicial appointees. But there is no plausible path to significant federal gun control through the legislature.


The next 2-5 years of cases will be interesting to watch. At some point we're going to get a scrutiny ruling from SCOTUS on 2nd Amendment rights. I personally think we'll get the correct ruling - strict. Which of course wouldn't eliminate or preclude all gun control, but it will set the bar for "reasonable" at an appropriate level. We have a lot of unreasonable gun control in the US right now. I think much of it is going to go away in the next 10-20 years.


Anyway - go buy some guns, and post pics.

 

[pgg]

Speaking of pics, this is another reason I reload:


From yesterday, 100 yard target, 0.67" five shot group out of a 20" AR10. Typical result - always under 1", had one as small as 0.45" when I was working up the load.

Lapua brass, CCI large rifle BR2 primers, 43.1 grains Varget, 178 gr A-Max bullet seated 2.174" at the ogive. Cost per round - about 30 cents, not counting the 60 cent brass, which is reusable about 10 times. So maybe $.36/round.

The cheapest surplus military .308 ammo will be $.40-50/round in bulk, but won't shoot better than 4-5" at 100 yards.

150 gr FMJ Remington ammo from Wal-Mart, about $.90/round ($36 for a box of 40) - the best it'll do is 2-3" groups.

168 gr Federal Gold Medal Match ammo, over $1/round - the best it'll do is about 1-1.5" groups.


I'm going to spend some time on the 1000 yard range next week.

 

[BLADEMDA]

Speaking of pics, this is another reason I reload:


From yesterday, 100 yard target, 0.67" five shot group out of a 20" AR10. Typical result - always under 1", had one as small as 0.45" when I was working up the load.

Lapua brass, CCI large rifle BR2 primers, 43.1 grains Varget, 178 gr A-Max bullet seated 2.174" at the ogive. Cost per round - about 30 cents, not counting the 60 cent brass, which is reusable about 10 times. So maybe $.36/round.

The cheapest surplus military .308 ammo will be $.40-50/round in bulk, but won't shoot better than 4-5" at 100 yards.

150 gr FMJ Remington ammo from Wal-Mart, about $.90/round ($36 for a box of 40) - the best it'll do is 2-3" groups.

168 gr Federal Gold Medal Match ammo, over $1/round - the best it'll do is about 1-1.5" groups.


I'm going to spend some time on the 1000 yard range next week.

Nice shooting. But since I'm not a sniper 1.5 inch accuracy for me at 100 yards is fine. However, I do undersand the need for accuracy when hunting game at 1500 feet. Please post how accurate you are with your ammo at 500 yards. Plus, when the world erupts into social chaos you can make your own ammo.

 

[pgg]

Nice shooting. But since I'm not a sniper 1.5 inch accuracy for me at 100 yards is fine. However, I do undersand the need for accuracy when hunting game at 1500 feet. Please post how accurate you are with your ammo at 500 yards. Plus, when the world erupts into social chaos you can make your own ammo.

This was commercial Federal Gold Medal Match at 500 ... the orange is 8" but a couple fell outside that, of 10 shots 8 hit paper.

The range I use has steel silhouettes and gongs at 500 and 1000. The 1000 is across a gully so I don't plan on hiking out there. I'll shoot my handloads at some paper at 500 next time I'm out there.

I can't claim sniper credentials or need but I do like chasing accuracy, especially at distance when the wind interferes.

 

[doctor712]

1) awful new about the Sikh temple killings.

2) he killed 8 I believe. After shooting 15.
He was killed by a police officer responding.

3) would u like to know why 80 werent killed?
And 150 shot? And why he was assumingly "easy" to kill???
Answer: he used a hand gun and not one of PGG's "protect America"
Assault rifles/machine guns/100 round drums.

4) read the comments above about the movie shooting.
Everyone said a glock wouldn't have helped in the theater.
Why? Armor and HIS WEAPON. HIS LEGAL WEAPON.

Gun control won't keep killers from killing. It'll just allow
Them to kill LESS AND LESS QUICKLY.

THINK ABOUT NUMBER 3 long and hard.

so let's fix the problem.

Prayers to those in that Sikh temple.

D712