You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
May 27, 2017, 08:55:06 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)  (Read 19531 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #425 on: December 09, 2015, 09:40:06 AM »
I apologize if it sounded like I was saying that hollow-points should be banned, I don't think that they should. I was being a bit over pedantic over an obscure firearms argument and unclear. Sorry.

Yea, no worries. Think you kind of misinterpreted the study tho :D

That report is about the argument that law enforcement should use lower caliber rounds or only use frangible rounds, etc. Basically the conclusion is that you shouldn't use a round that has low stopping power and lethality just because you're worried about over penetration because while you MIGHT hit someone, you are DEFINITELY already dealing with a lethal situation if you're having to use the gun in the first place.

Which is why the standard side arm of the FBI are Glock 22/23s chambered in .40 cal and they're all issued jacketed hollow points (unless taking the weapon on a plane in which case they switch to frangible).

Here's an idea about ammunition: Don't ban certain types - unless it is something clearly intended for military use. Let people have it if they want it so much. But restrict where and when they can use it. If you think you need exploding hollow-point kryptonite bullets to defend your home against intruders you can have them - as long as they stay in your home that you are intrested in defending. You want them to turn targets at a shooting range into toothpicks? You can have them - provided you store them either at the range or at your home, and in the latter case you carry them straight from your home to the range and back again. No detours, and you carry them separately, not already loaded into your gun.

Maybe that's the way to go about the whole topic: Identifying what should be legitimate uses for guns and then trying to find ways to ensure that those are the only uses people make of their guns. You won't get guns out of America. They are there to stay, be it for home defence, sports, or hunting. So maybe the law should focus on what people really need to go about those things and make sure they get what they need, neither less, but also not more.

This is my point though: it's irrelevant. What are you going to ban? Who gets to decide if its a legitimate use? No matter what they're still going to be out there.

Because in the end lets assume you managed to somehow remove every magazine in the US over 10 rounds. That's not going to stop spree killers. The ones that plan these kind of dedicated attacks (not the 'crime of passion' types, but from what we've seen those are pretty rare by comparison) are going to buy whats available and they're going to learn how to use them. It takes literally less than a second for someone practiced to reload a standard semi-automatic handgun.

Depending on the style of rifle, basically anything with a box magazine, you can be just as fast. Most of these spree killings do not involve people with massive 100 round magazines and none of them involve guys with machine guns movie style. But when they occasionally do it becomes a media firestorm as the blood sucking parasites on Fox, CNN, etc harp on minor details because they NEED outrage and fear.

The other thing is you're never going to get anything other than vitriolic backlash with bans. No matter how you try to pitch it, you're still telling a massive chunk of the population that are completely innocent, law abiding citizens: this thing that you own, that you've had for years, is too dangerous and the government has decided you're not allowed to have it. And that is never going to go well.

The restriction has to take place at the individual level. You have to make it an obtainable but not 'drive through at McDonalds' level goal to acquire firearms. A certain level of effort will stymie the ones that are just unstable but not dedicated and making the process touch enough people and go through some basic hoops you vastly increase the chance of someone along the way going 'wait a minute, I'm not sure about this guy.'
« Last Edit: December 09, 2015, 09:52:26 AM by Tairis »

Offline Caehlim

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #426 on: December 09, 2015, 10:06:03 AM »
Yea, no worries. Think you kind of misinterpreted the study tho :D

That report is about the argument that law enforcement should use lower caliber rounds or only use frangible rounds, etc. Basically the conclusion is that you shouldn't use a round that has low stopping power and lethality just because you're worried about over penetration because while you MIGHT hit someone, you are DEFINITELY already dealing with a lethal situation if you're having to use the gun in the first place.

Yes, I think you're right there. It was something I read a long time ago and I think I mixed in some of my own ideas in with what I remembered it saying. Honestly they're just police procedural minutia that I shouldn't have brought up in a gun control discussion anyway because it's so completely off topic. Sorry for the distraction.

Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #427 on: December 09, 2015, 10:06:43 AM »
I'm not sure what you believe you are arguing against...do you think cops should switch to using FMJ rounds?

No, I'm not.

The discussion I was responding to was the risk posed by the bullets to a bystander.  Tairis pointed out that FMJs can penetrate a person better, and hence may hit a bystander.  You pointed out that FMJs ricochet more, and hence may hit a bystander.  I was trying to show that one can hit bystander in ways other than penetrating the target or with a ricochet:  one can simply miss and the bullet proceeds to directly hit the bystander.  In that case, the increased lethality of a hollow point (and such bullets are more lethal than FMJs) isn't a benefit.  In other words, the risk to bystanders issue isn't so clear cut.


Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #428 on: December 09, 2015, 10:18:20 AM »
No, I'm not.

The discussion I was responding to was the risk posed by the bullets to a bystander.  Tairis pointed out that FMJs can penetrate a person better, and hence may hit a bystander.  You pointed out that FMJs ricochet more, and hence may hit a bystander.  I was trying to show that one can hit bystander in ways other than penetrating the target or with a ricochet:  one can simply miss and the bullet proceeds to directly hit the bystander.  In that case, the increased lethality of a hollow point (and such bullets are more lethal than FMJs) isn't a benefit.  In other words, the risk to bystanders issue isn't so clear cut.

In the end, it is, though. That's part of what the study that Caehlim linked is talking about: the danger to innocents in the event of a shoot out. The basic conclusion is that the individual that you are shooting is a 100% guaranteed danger and thus you need to deal with that danger rather than try to 'hedge your bets' against the possibility of a secondary danger.

Hollowpoints impart more of their force on the target, basically yes, they are going to do more damage to tissue... but they're not going through people, they're not going through walls (or when they do they've lost much more velocity). And if you hit a bystander center of mass with a FMJ their chances are not that much better to justify using FMJ instead to add risk to additional people. A hit to a major organ with either type of bullet is going to be extremely bad.

The simple fact of the matter is that it is very clear cut. It's why virtually every law enforcement agency in the world uses hollow point rounds. Because they've done the research and shown that its the superior type of round to use in the dangerous situations they encounter.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2015, 10:19:37 AM by Tairis »

Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #429 on: December 09, 2015, 11:11:58 AM »
The basic conclusion is that the individual that you are shooting is a 100% guaranteed danger and thus you need to deal with that danger rather than try to 'hedge your bets' against the possibility of a secondary danger.

The basic conclusion is unrealistic.  We can't assume everyone who fires a weapon knows what they are doing, or are doing so in a dangerous-to-them situation.  For example.

Second, we can't assume everyone who fires a weapon knows gun-kata.  Many people miss.  And when they miss, they hollow point poses a greater risk than the FMJ if it connects with an innocent bystander because, as you've noted, they are more lethal.

Third, the fact police and the FBI have access to something doesn't mean the civilians should get the same access.  Police officers and FBI agents have far better training than the average gun owner.  Again, see the Home Depot example above.


Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #430 on: December 09, 2015, 05:06:58 PM »
The basic conclusion is unrealistic.  We can't assume everyone who fires a weapon knows what they are doing, or are doing so in a dangerous-to-them situation.  For example.

Second, we can't assume everyone who fires a weapon knows gun-kata.  Many people miss.  And when they miss, they hollow point poses a greater risk than the FMJ if it connects with an innocent bystander because, as you've noted, they are more lethal.

Third, the fact police and the FBI have access to something doesn't mean the civilians should get the same access.  Police officers and FBI agents have far better training than the average gun owner.  Again, see the Home Depot example above.

Except for the fact that police officers miss too. Often, actually, and that is factored into the studies and decisions to use that kind of ammunition. Which is the basic conclusion you're saying is unrealistic. Even though that's the conclusion of the actual government agency that does this for a living.

Do you know what happens when you miss with a hollow point?

If you hit someone first, it's bad. They are going to be severely wounded. Of course if you hit someone with a FMJ round they're also going to be severely wounded. If a vital organ is struck the type of bullet isn't going to matter that much. The biggest difference is going to be when someone is hit in a non-immediately fatal area because yes, the hollow point is going to do more tissue damage.

But if you hit a car door first? The bullet deforms and dumps its kinetic energy. Still might hit someone inside but it's already going to have lost a significant portion of its force.

If you hit a wall? The bullet deforms and dumps its kinetic energy.

If you hit pavement or sidewalk on a low shot? The bullet will generally simply fall apart. Any ricochets are small chunks with vastly lower potential for fatal injury because so much mass has been lost.

Try the same with a FMJ .40 caliber round. On average an FMJ round will punch through three or more layers of drywall carrying enough of its initial velocity to be fatal the entire way. Except the bystanders you can see are at the least risk. You know where they are.

It's a far different story for the unfortunate person living in the apartment next door that gets killed because a round punched through a thin apartment wall or the person sitting in the car across the street, or even the person that was not even in your line of fire but, because you shot at close range that FMJ round was still traveling at 500 feet per second or more and ricocheted off the concrete wall behind them or off the pavement.

You're getting hung up on a single variable while ignoring all the others. As I said before, there is a very good reason that law enforcement uses the rounds they do.

Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #431 on: December 09, 2015, 05:40:02 PM »
You're getting hung up on a single variable while ignoring all the others. As I said before, there is a very good reason that law enforcement uses the rounds they do.

No, I don't think so.  Let's be clear here.  What I disagree with is the claim that hollow point bullets are safer than FMJs, as an absolute.  And I disagree with this not because of "one variable," but because of several.

We seem to agree that from the point a bullet leaves the muzzle until it strikes something, a hollow point is more dangerous than a FMJ bullet.  That's, after all, why police want to use hollow points, as you've noted and I agree with.

Now, I also agree that once a hollow point strikes something, it is less dangerous than the FMJ.

So a hollow point is safer in the sense it reduced ricochet and penetration damage--i.e., after it hits something.  It is not safer in the sense of directly striking a bystander directly--i.e., before it hits something.  This is why I won't accept the argument that a hollow point is safer as an absolute.  It is safer in some contexts, and not others. 

Another context is who's firing the bullet. 

You say the study assumes bullet will be fired only against an attacker, a legitimate threat.  But this is not how things really work in the world. 

Bullets are fired in circumstances other than against an attacker, a legitimate threat.  Idiots fire guns.  Criminals fire guns.  Well-intentioned people with bad aim fire guns.  Police fire guns.  Well-trained responsible gun owners fire guns.  Kids messing around fire guns.  Angry spouses and ex-lovers fire guns.  Terrorists fire guns.  Doped up morons fire guns.

In some of these cases, the fact the shooter is using hollow points does not increase the risk to bystanders.  But in others, it must assuredly does.  Thus, again, I cannot accept the argument that a hollow point is safer as an absolute.

Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #432 on: December 09, 2015, 06:36:04 PM »

Bullets are fired in circumstances other than against an attacker, a legitimate threat.  Idiots fire guns.  Criminals fire guns.  Well-intentioned people with bad aim fire guns.  Police fire guns.  Well-trained responsible gun owners fire guns.  Kids messing around fire guns.  Angry spouses and ex-lovers fire guns.  Terrorists fire guns.  Doped up morons fire guns.

In some of these cases, the fact the shooter is using hollow points does not increase the risk to bystanders.  But in others, it must assuredly does.  Thus, again, I cannot accept the argument that a hollow point is safer as an absolute.

So in your world you'd rather have the 'kid messing around with a gun' or the 'doped up moron' (who is probably spraying bullets wildly) firing rounds that are capable of going through an apartment building and killing someone on the other side?

Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #433 on: December 09, 2015, 06:46:22 PM »
No, I wouldn't.

Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #434 on: December 09, 2015, 07:10:23 PM »
No, I wouldn't.

Hence my point.

A hollow point is only more dangerous to the person it hits, in all other scenarios its the safer round. And regardless of whether it hits a bystander or the actual target, those people have to be in the same room. If you say 'civilians can't have hollow points' you're creating a scenario where someone is now not only a danger to the people in the immediate area of the shooting, but a danger to those that aren't even aware that is a shooting taking place because they're literally in another building.


Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #435 on: December 09, 2015, 07:31:18 PM »
Hence my point.

A hollow point is only more dangerous to the person it hits, in all other scenarios its the safer round. And regardless of whether it hits a bystander or the actual target, those people have to be in the same room. If you say 'civilians can't have hollow points' you're creating a scenario where someone is now not only a danger to the people in the immediate area of the shooting, but a danger to those that aren't even aware that is a shooting taking place because they're literally in another building.

No, not really.  I knew what you were trying to do.  You asked in my world if I wanted a specific thing.  You asked for a binary response.  I gave you one.  But you can't draw a broader conclusion from that binary response because it wasn't an exclusive question. 

I don't what them shooting bullets through walls.

And I don't want them shooting bullets that will blow craters through people's tissue either.


Look, you've basically said we're in agreement  "A hollow point is only more dangerous to the person it hits, in all other scenarios its the safer round."  In other words, a hollow point bullet is not always safer. 

If something can be more dangerous in a situation, then it can't always be safer.

I think we're starting to repeat what we're saying to each other.  So, how about it, Tairis.  Agree to disagree?

Offline Cassandra LeMay

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #436 on: December 10, 2015, 02:09:21 AM »
The Supreme Court has refused in a 7-2 decision (Thomas and Scalia dissenting) to hear a challenge against the weapons regulations of Highland Park, Illinois.

By declining to hear the challenge against the Sevent Circuit Court of Appeals ruling (pdf) SCOTUS allows a statute to stand that bans magazines with more than a 10 round capacity and "assault weapons" (in the Highland Park statute defined by a list of features, but also some by name like AK-47s and AR-15s).
« Last Edit: December 10, 2015, 02:12:35 AM by Cassandra LeMay »

Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #437 on: December 10, 2015, 08:59:46 AM »

I think we're starting to repeat what we're saying to each other.  So, how about it, Tairis.  Agree to disagree?

Since we seem to be going in circles, might as well.

Offline Cassandra LeMay

*dusts of the old topic*

Here might be as good a place as any to post this link: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-deaths/

Fivethrityeight has posted a number of articles on gun deaths. I haven't read all of them yet, but this being fivethirtyeight, I expect them to all be well-researched and focused on solid statistics. (Just click on the "menu" in the upper left for a list of articles.)

I don't want to get into a new round of discussions here, but I figured some of you might still be interested.

Offline Tairis

It's a good breakdown and shows just how different the overall picture is from what the media tends to focus on. Nice to see it spelled out without the usual heavy handed bias.

Offline Retribution

  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: First star to the right straight on till morning
  • Gender: Male
  • When I'm good I'm good when I'm bad I'm better
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
I am not through the whole article yet but well written from what I have seen and non bias. If someone approached me in this manner rather than our sound bite society of "guns bad!" I would be willing to listen. There are many vastly complicated issues out there concerning violence (I am counting suicide as violence though not sure if that fits) that no one solution can fix. Not to mention as stated in said article we do not really know what is causing a lot of the situations and a basic understanding would be a really great step.


Online Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
I am not through the whole article yet but well written from what I have seen and non bias. If someone approached me in this manner rather than our sound bite society of "guns bad!" I would be willing to listen. There are many vastly complicated issues out there concerning violence (I am counting suicide as violence though not sure if that fits) that no one solution can fix. Not to mention as stated in said article we do not really know what is causing a lot of the situations and a basic understanding would be a really great step.

I don't think suicide should really count as Gun violence though. The problem is the circumstances that cause the person to suicide. Not really the gun and its availability. Someone determined to kill themselves has an innumerable amount of ways to do it.

Online LisztesFerenc

I don't think suicide should really count as Gun violence though. The problem is the circumstances that cause the person to suicide. Not really the gun and its availability. Someone determined to kill themselves has an innumerable amount of ways to do it.

  That's simply not true. Suicide attempts are often unsuccessful, guns are the second most successful option (after jumping off a bridge). Studies from the WHO find that unsuccessful attempts rarely lead to a second attempt. So yes, suicide by gun is absolutely a negative effect of easy availability.

Online Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
  That's simply not true. Suicide attempts are often unsuccessful, guns are the second most successful option (after jumping off a bridge). Studies from the WHO find that unsuccessful attempts rarely lead to a second attempt. So yes, suicide by gun is absolutely a negative effect of easy availability.

Well..when you put it like that then, okay. :/

Online LisztesFerenc

Well..when you put it like that then, okay. :/

  Here's the statistics: https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/means-matter/means-matter/survival/

  Basically, for people who non-successfully attempted and required medical care as a result:
7% try again and eventually succeed
23% try again unsuccessfully
70% never tried again

Online Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Putting this here just in case it doesn't meet the standards of the News thread.


So, unsure 100% about the validity of this since it seems only the sites that lean to the right and are pro gun are reporting on this. But apparently Obama has put in some order that will require even smaller gunsmiths to register as manufacturers (even if they only do repairs and custom works for older weapons) and be required to pay for licenses that are so expensive it will put many of them out of business.  (Hurray! More unemployment!)

http://controversialtimes.com/news/breaking-obama-signs-new-gun-control-executive-order-puts-gunsmiths-out-of-business/


Like I said I cant really confirm the validity of it. It might be worse than what it is or it might be total bullshit made up by gunnuts. *throws up arms* at this point I don't care.

Optional momentary rant
Little by little I care less :P  *sarcasm mode activated* let the government be the only ones to have guns. Fuck it, I will be sure to thank my senators if I am raped :P because they kept me safe and totally care for my well being, not their bottom line.

I am half tempted to ask for jackbooted thugs to start oppressing everyone so I can sarcastically make comments at everyone for fun. :P

My right to guns may be taken away but my right to sarcasm will not be. (at least until the constitution and bill of rights are totally dismantled.)
« Last Edit: July 29, 2016, 10:41:31 PM by Lustful Bride »

Offline TheGlyphstone

Preeeeety sure that's BS. Or if it is true, Obama has nothing to do with it directly. The White House website has his most recent Executive Order - #13733, released a week ago, and I can't find a single mention of guns, manufacturers, or anything else that the link is screaming about. It's just some sort of clarification as to which government agencies/officials do things related to international trade, I think.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/07/22/executive-order-delegation-certain-authorities-and-assignment-certain


I'd wait until some actual gun-control law is passed, before getting outraged - so far the hardliner Republican block in the senate has successfully squashed anything remotely approaching gun control. But then, I'm not a nutsoid right-wing conspiracy theorist who waits with baited breath for Democratic stormtroopers to break down their door and 'take der guuuuns'.
« Last Edit: July 29, 2016, 10:54:35 PM by TheGlyphstone »

Online Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Preeeeety sure that's BS. Or if it is true, Obama has nothing to do with it directly. The White House website has his most recent Executive Order - #13733, released a week ago, and I can't find a single mention of guns, manufacturers, or anything else that the link is screaming about.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/07/22/executive-order-delegation-certain-authorities-and-assignment-certain

Which order are they talking about then because I keep seeing it plastered everywhere. Unless this is a case of making a mountain out of an anthill...which it probably is likely to be.

Edit: Yeah I'm gonna go with someone said one thing and then everyone else had a screaming fit and made it into something incomprehensible and sounding legit enough to make more people freak :P
« Last Edit: July 29, 2016, 10:57:03 PM by Lustful Bride »

Offline TheGlyphstone

I have no idea, which is why I'm pretty sure its BS. They specifically cite the EO released on July 22, and that is that one. Can you find any way to interpret it as putting gunsmiths out of business?


Now, to add to the above comments, I'm not impressed with said hardliners. But the comments being made by some of the Democrats aren't exactly impressing me either.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/politics/senate-gun-votes-congress/

"Republicans have decided to sell weapons to ISIS"? Really? That's the line you are going with, Sens. Warren and Murphy?
« Last Edit: July 29, 2016, 10:58:07 PM by TheGlyphstone »

Online Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
I have no idea, which is why I'm pretty sure its BS. They specifically cite the EO released on July 22, and that is that one. Can you find any way to interpret it as putting gunsmiths out of business?


Now, to add to the above comments, I'm not impressed with said hardliners. But the comments being made by some of the Democrats aren't exactly impressing me either.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/politics/senate-gun-votes-congress/

"Republicans are voting to sell weapons to ISIS"? Really? That's the line you are going with?

Ppfftttt hahahaha okay that last part made me laugh. Though usually its "The Americans are selling weapons to isis". But at this point I woudlnt put it past one of those stiffs on Capitol hill to do considering one of them was caught selling weapons to the Morro Islamist Liberation Front. (yes I swear to Jesus himself that their initials do spell out MILF and I am not making it up). You can look it up. Leeland Yee. Ironically he was anti gun :P

I love seeing Politicians get caught.

But seriously this si why I am so disillusioned with my government at times and as my father jokes. "If the Army staged a Coup id grab a beer and watch".

I think I spend too much time with him when hes pissed off at his bosses :P