07-14-2014 07:46 AM
4,617 ... 5455565758 ...
tools
  1. Markster1's Avatar
    It's a real shame that our society has absolutely no measures to prevent unnecessary loss of life, isn't it?

    Government can only do so much to reasonably reel in the stupidity of its people in a civil society.
    You're looking for a perfect utopian society and there isn't one.
    02-26-2013 08:04 PM
  2. Markster1's Avatar
    Your referring to a shooting in which 14 people were killed by an ex Marine as justification that bolt action rifles are as deadly as assault rifles in a shooting where 26 people were killed by a kid? Hm, I wonder which weapon is easier to operate.

    Lol. Please, get real. When you come back to the land of reality, then maybe you'll have a shade of credibility. Until then, your comment is just ridiculous.

    Sent from my SPH-D600 using Android Central Forums
    Your comments are insulting as you intended. Don't come back until you can talk like a man not a bully please.
    02-26-2013 08:09 PM
  3. crackberrytraitor's Avatar
    This accounts only for the number of incidents, not the number of killed/wounded per incident. Got that laying around anywhere?
    If you had actually read the study linked by mother Jones, you would see that a spree killing is qualified as 7 or more killed and no association to organized crime, drugs, etc.

    Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums
    02-26-2013 08:12 PM
  4. Markster1's Avatar
    This accounts only for the number of incidents, not the number of killed/wounded per incident. Got that laying around anywhere?
    Constantly changing the criteria when the results don't fit your profile/expectation.
    02-26-2013 08:15 PM
  5. crackberrytraitor's Avatar
    Please, again, would someone like to present me with any data that shows that "assault rifles" are any more dangerous than handguns? That they have a higher rate of fire perhaps? No? That's because they don't

    Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums
    02-26-2013 08:17 PM
  6. Live2ride883's Avatar
    In your haste, you overlooked the issue of the much higher number of killings per incident when using assault weapons and high-capacity clips. Oopsie!
    Here's the difference between a clip and a magazine, its important, and it's a fact.

    Firearms, ammo, weapons, gear reviews, 2nd Amendment issues, etc...: Clip vs. Magazine: A Lesson in Firearm Terminology
    02-26-2013 08:17 PM
  7. Markster1's Avatar
    Yippee Ki-yay ...
    Got a blind eye to one side.
    02-26-2013 08:21 PM
  8. crackberrytraitor's Avatar
    As I said, no contradiction.

    Why must your choices be the only ones? A choice of extremes? Do better, please.

    The issue is the means by which mass deaths have occurred, not the means by which they may occur. If any other manufactured product had the capacity to kill in mass - and that capacity was being realized at an escalating pace - it would be irresponsible for government not to step in and make changes which protect the public at a higher degree. It matters not if the mass, intended deaths occur at the end of a firearm or a teaspoon.
    Are you serious right now? You think that because people are "suddenly realizing" that guns can kill people that they should be banned? I'm sorry, but you don't just get to rewrite the constitution like that.

    "Those who trade their freedom for immediate security deserve neither."
    -Thomas Jefferson


    Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums
    02-26-2013 08:21 PM
  9. Markster1's Avatar
    If a federal law limited the size of magazines to 7 rounds, I guess they would have to.

    Except for those criminals who are also gun smiths. Those guys are super dangerous.

    Sent from my LS670 using Android Central Forums
    This is why I don't take you serious.
    02-26-2013 08:21 PM
  10. droidmyme's Avatar
    This is why I don't take you serious.
    Why, because I made a light hearted joke? Ok, so in the parallel universe you inhabit, no jokes are allowed. Got it

    Sent from my LS670 using Android Central Forums
    Aquila likes this.
    02-26-2013 08:24 PM
  11. crackberrytraitor's Avatar
    Ah! Finally, thank you. If you had actually bothered to link your sources the FIRST time, maybe I wouldn't have ended up having to repeat myself so much. Could've saved us both time.

    I'm happy to take a look at the facts. Let's look at those facts, then, shall we?

    According to this particular study, Mother Earth News examines data from 62 mass shootings in the USA, from 1982-2011. (Six of these shootings were, using the FBI's terminology, defined as sprees, ie shootings which took place in multiple locations.)

    Notice how Mother Earth studies 62 shootings, but lists 142 total weapons used? That's because if a mass shooter was armed with multiple weapons, Mother Earth News counted ALL those weapons as "used in a mass shooting" - indiscriminately of how many people the particular weapons actually killed.

    That's a key point of this study you have failed to mention. The absolute number of weapons does not discriminate between the amount of people each weapon killed.

    What does this tell us? Well, in the case of Sandy Hook, although though Adam Lanza fired over 150 rounds from his Bushmaster, killing 26 people with it, his 2 semiautomatic pistols were counted on the same scale as the assault rifle - pistols he fired once to kill himself. See the holes in the chart you've provided?

    You're taking a chart looking at absolute numbers and used it to back up an argument against banning assault rifles, when a weighted chart would have be far more appropriate. That's a pretty weak argument to stand on.

    Sent from my LS670 using Android Central Forums
    I actually did indeed read that the primary weapon was a handgun or shotgun in the majority of incidents. Please give me some time to adequately read the government study it was based on, I drank quite a bit of alcohol between my last post and this one and would like to post my findings in a way that is at least vaguely comprehensible.

    BTW, by your definition, the Sandy Hook shooting wasn't a spree kill. The standard consideration (perhaps not by the FBI" is 7 or more kills, not associated with organised crime.

    And I'd still like an answer? Why should semi-auto assault weapons be banned when they have the same rate of fire as a handgun? How are they more dangerous? In fact, wouldn't a handgun with a large clip be lighter and more efficient?



    Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums
    02-26-2013 08:30 PM
  12. Kevin OQuinn's Avatar
    If a federal law limited the size of magazines to 7 rounds, I guess they would have to.

    Except for those criminals who are also gun smiths. Those guys are super dangerous.

    Sent from my LS670 using Android Central Forums
    No, they wouldn't have to. They're criminals because they don't follow the law. There will always be ways for those determined enough to get things that they aren't supposed to have.
    02-26-2013 08:31 PM
  13. Markster1's Avatar
    Why, because I made a light hearted joke? Ok, so in the parallel universe you inhabit, no jokes are allowed. Got it

    Sent from my LS670 using Android Central Forums
    So answer the question.
    02-26-2013 08:31 PM
  14. Aquila's Avatar
    There you go again. You can't really refute the facts at hand, so what do you do?

    Same thing any gun nut does when faced with facts: try to change the subject to gun tech and then claim "you don't know what you're talking about."

    Trust me, I've seen this tactic a hundred times before. I'm not mad at you, just disappointed.

    Sent from my LS670 using Android Central Forums
    This article also rests on it's repeated assumption of future confiscation. We've yet to see a law passed that calls for a ban and/or confiscation of all legally purchased weapons. Why is it the assumption that legislation of that sort would pass?

    Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
    02-26-2013 08:37 PM
  15. droidmyme's Avatar
    I actually did indeed read that the primary weapon was a handgun or shotgun in the majority of incidents. Please give me some time to adequately read the government study it was based on, I drank quite a bit of alcohol between my last post and this one and would like to post my findings in a way that is at least vaguely comprehensible.

    BTW, by your definition, the Sandy Hook shooting wasn't a spree kill. The standard consideration (perhaps not by the FBI" is 7 or more kills, not associated with organised crime.

    And I'd still like an answer? Why should semi-auto assault weapons be banned when they have the same rate of fire as a handgun? How are they more dangerous? In fact, wouldn't a handgun with a large clip be lighter and more efficient?



    Sent from my One X using Android Central Forums
    How are assault rifles more dangerous than handguns. You want me to answer that question for you. No offense, but you really must have been drinking if that isn't clear.

    Ok, an assault rifle has a high capacity magazine, up to 30 rounds. A handgun usually has a clip of up to 13 rounds. There's one reason why an assault rifle is more dangerous.

    Assault rifle bullets are typically higher powered than a handgun ammunition and travels faster than a handgun bullet. There's a second reason.

    An assault rifle has a longer barrel and is more accurate at longer distances than a handgun. There's 3 reasons why.

    As for your statement that a handgun should be more dangerous because it's lighter and more efficient, why don't you tell that to the Army? Let's send all the troops to battle with super effective pistols.

    Sent from my SPH-D600 using Android Central Forums
    02-26-2013 08:39 PM
  16. backbeat's Avatar
    You're looking for a perfect utopian society and there isn't one.
    Wrong. Just a reasonable expectation that we live up to our highest ideals in the most pragmatic of ways. A more perfect Union, in fact.
    02-26-2013 09:12 PM
  17. backbeat's Avatar
    Are you serious right now? You think that because people are "suddenly realizing" that guns can kill people that they should be banned? I'm sorry, but you don't just get to rewrite the constitution like that.
    You are suddenly unable to defend your life or property? No one has come near the idea of "rewriting the Constitution".
    02-26-2013 09:15 PM
  18. backbeat's Avatar
    If you had actually read the study linked by mother Jones, you would see that a spree killing is qualified as 7 or more killed and no association to organized crime, drugs, etc.
    I did not ask how the study defined "killing spree". I asked what the average number of deaths were per incident. But since the study is fatally flawed due to its inclusion of every firearm being listed as "used" in each incident, it matters not. Thanks anyway.
    02-26-2013 09:22 PM
  19. backbeat's Avatar
    No, they wouldn't have to. They're criminals because they don't follow the law. There will always be ways for those determined enough to get things that they aren't supposed to have.
    Just like those who commit to breaking laws they unilaterally perceive as unconstitutional in the name of false-patriotism.
    02-26-2013 09:26 PM
  20. ItnStln's Avatar
    Here is one reason why criminals/felons will not register their weapons in NY, or any other state. The Fifth Amendment, Self-Incrimination, and Gun Registration

    The other reason is of course that they are criminals.
    Pretty soon criminals will be the only one with guns...

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
    02-26-2013 09:32 PM
  21. Mooncatt's Avatar
    Never mind. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what you mean by assault rifles.
    Perhaps it will be more clear pointing out a few things from this recent post...

    Ok, an assault rifle has a high capacity magazine, up to 30 rounds. A handgun usually has a clip of up to 13 rounds. There's one reason why an assault rifle is more dangerous.
    Yes, it may have a larger magazine, but that isn't what makes it more dangerous, as they can be quickly changed enough that a handgun can be just as devastating to the usual unarmed targets of these shootings. What makes assault rifles more lethal is the ability to fire more than one round with a single trigger pull.

    Assault rifle bullets are typically higher powered than a handgun ammunition and travels faster than a handgun bullet. There's a second reason.
    An assault rifle round is relatively middle of the road in power if not low powered (the term I saw called it intermediary), so that doesn't come into play. Besides, power doesn't mean much when going after unarmed and unprotected victims. It's the ability of an assault rifle to fire more than one shot with a trigger pull that makes it more lethal.

    An assault rifle has a longer barrel and is more accurate at longer distances than a handgun. There's 3 reasons why.
    So? Regular rifles have longer barrels too. Besides, the handgun can be concealed to let you get closer to your target without raising alarm. This particular issue is a wash in my opinion. It's the ability to fire more than one shot with a trigger pull that makes assault rifles more lethal.

    As for your statement that a handgun should be more dangerous because it's lighter and more efficient, why don't you tell that to the Army? Let's send all the troops to battle with super effective pistols.
    The army isn't going after unarmed civilians. They have to be prepared for armed resistance, so the point is moot. They need the ability to rapid fire their guns, where they... Fire more than one shot with a single trigger pull.

    See the point yet?

    My guess is you're thinking guns like the AR-15 are assault rifles, but they aren't. They are called assault weapons in the legislations. You only get one shot per trigger pull. Those are the ones up for debate, and their definition pretty much boils down to "they look scary." They share cosmetic features with assault rifles, but they don't add any more lethality to the gun.

    If you really mean assault rifles in the proper text, they have been banned from public ownership already.

    If this doesn't clear it up, you're on your own.
    crackberrytraitor likes this.
    02-26-2013 09:34 PM
  22. ItnStln's Avatar
    Worst School Massacre in US history: Bath, Michigan School Massacre. 1927. Murder accomplished with explosives. 44 victims (equal to the Columbine and Virginia Tech massacres combined).

    Worst Domestic Terrorist Attack in US History: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building bombing. 4/19/95. Murder accomplished with a rental truck full of fertilizer based explosives. 168 dead (including many children in an onsite day care).

    Worst Foreign based Terrorist Attack in US History: September 11, 2001 attacks on NYC, PA, Pentagon. Murder accomplished with box cutters and commerical airliners. 3,000 people dead.

    no guns needed

    These are facts even if they are inconvenient.

    I don't care what kind of phone you have, that's not how I judge someone's worth or intelligence.
    I read somewhere that school shootings account for less than one percent of shooting deaths.

    Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 2
    02-26-2013 09:44 PM
  23. Markster1's Avatar
    How are assault rifles more dangerous than handguns. No offense, but you really must have been drinking if that isn't clear.

    Ok, an assault rifle has a high capacity magazine, up to 30 rounds. A handgun usually has a clip of up to 13 rounds. There's one reason why an assault rifle is more dangerous.

    Assault rifle bullets are typically higher powered than a handgun ammunition. There's a second reason.
    1: The very popular Glock 17 9mm has a standard mag that holds 17 rounds. You can use an optional 33 rd mag for it.

    2: The Ar15 fires a .223. Half the ammunition in handguns are more powerful.

    Know your facts first before you post, it just muddies the water. Thanks
    crackberrytraitor and metz65 like this.
    02-26-2013 09:46 PM
  24. droidmyme's Avatar
    Originally Posted by droidmyme
    Never mind. I'm still trying to figure out exactly what you mean by assault rifles.
    Perhaps it will be more clear pointing out a few things from this recent post...

    Originally Posted by droidmyme
    Ok, an assault rifle has a high capacity magazine, up to 30 rounds. A handgun usually has a clip of up to 13 rounds. There's one reason why an assault rifle is more dangerous.
    Yes, it may have a larger magazine, but that isn't what makes it more dangerous, as they can be quickly changed enough that a handgun can be just as devastating to the usual unarmed targets of these shootings. What makes assault rifles more lethal is the ability to fire more than one round with a single trigger pull.

    Assault rifle bullets are typically higher powered than a handgun ammunition and travels faster than a handgun bullet. There's a second reason.
    An assault rifle round is relatively middle of the road in power if not low powered (the term I saw called it intermediary), so that doesn't come into play. Besides, power doesn't mean much when going after unarmed and unprotected victims. It's the ability of an assault rifle to fire more than one shot with a trigger pull that makes it more lethal.

    An assault rifle has a longer barrel and is more accurate at longer distances than a handgun. There's 3 reasons why.
    So? Regular rifles have longer barrels too. Besides, the handgun can be concealed to let you get closer to your target without raising alarm. This particular issue is a wash in my opinion. It's the ability to fire more than one shot with a trigger pull that makes assault rifles more lethal.

    As for your statement that a handgun should be more dangerous because it's lighter and more efficient, why don't you tell that to the Army? Let's send all the troops to battle with super effective pistols.
    The army isn't going after unarmed civilians. They have to be prepared for armed resistance, so the point is moot. They need the ability to rapid fire their guns, where they... Fire more than one shot with a single trigger pull.

    See the point yet?

    My guess is you're thinking guns like the AR-15 are assault rifles, but they aren't. They are called assault weapons in the legislations. You only get one shot per trigger pull. Those are the ones up for debate, and their definition pretty much boils down to "they look scary." They share cosmetic features with assault rifles, but they don't add any more lethality to the gun.

    If you really mean assault rifles in the proper text, they have been banned from public ownership already.

    If this doesn't clear it up, you're on your own.
    Ok, I see what you're saying. You're saying an assault rifle is more powerful than a handgun because of automatic fire. I see your point, but I'd have to say there are other factors that make it more powerful as well.


    Sent from my SPH-D600 using Android Central Forums
    02-26-2013 10:15 PM
  25. droidmyme's Avatar
    1: The very popular Glock 17 9mm has a standard mag that holds 17 rounds. You can use an optional 33 rd mag for it.

    2: The Ar15 fires a .223. Half the ammunition in handguns are more powerful.

    Know your facts first before you post, it just muddies the water. Thanks
    A Glock which holds 17 9mm rounds vs an AR which holds 30 .223 rounds. I'd say the Ar15 is still significantly more powerful.

    Sent from my SPH-D600 using Android Central Forums
    02-26-2013 10:25 PM
4,617 ... 5455565758 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Larva Cartoon - FREE and FUNNY Application
    By liontyping in forum Android Apps
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 11-21-2014, 11:03 AM
  2. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 10-25-2013, 07:33 AM
  3. POI information and Gallery
    By robjulo in forum Samsung Galaxy S4
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 11:00 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 08-24-2013, 04:28 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD