|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Fucking Guns
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
How does a shotgun help, in your condo, over having two three shot tasers ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
How does a shotgun help, in your condo, over having two three shot tasers ?
The taser doesn't always stop folks.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Nor do guns.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Given that the police practice regularly,
This statement just isn't true. Most police do not practice regularly - most police officers shoot twice a year to re-qualify (and the standard required to qualify in many departments is very low). Many departments don't even practice with their regular carry ammunition, and few departments drill in any kind of realistic scenario.
What the fuck is wrong with you people?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
I can't imagine what it must be like fearing armed intrusion to the extent that I'd be tooled up and prepared to shoot.
I had a fair few break-ins when I lived in a run-down area - one of them as I lay in bed - but the intruder fled as soon as they realised there was someone in.
That was pretty scarey at the time.
I was also mugged once but managed to hold onto my wallet when I realised that they weren't going to offer serious violence.
I appreciate that this makes me fortunate and isn't the reality that many people live in day to day. Someone's normal is someome else's abnormal.
In this instance, I'm glad my normal is normal ... but I don't know what to say to those for whom my normal is abnormal.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Thing
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Thing
As if facts will ever trump fantasy.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
The fantasy ? Clobbering the home invader round the head with a specialty item from njoy ?
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Wrong kind of toys.
They enjoy having around a magnum whilst stroking their snub nose.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Bloody hell, waving around. Besides, no room for toys with their heads in the way.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Fucking Siri suggestions.
I read this, so fuck you gun-loving bastards, you read it as well.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Nor do guns.
A shotgun at the distance under consideration would.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I can't imagine what it must be like fearing armed intrusion to the extent that I'd be tooled up and prepared to shoot.
I had a fair few break-ins when I lived in a run-down area - one of them as I lay in bed - but the intruder fled as soon as they realised there was someone in.
It's not a big fear and they would have to come toward our bedroom and pose a threat to my wife and me before I'd do something like shoot someone. I've never heard of any of the homes hear being burglarized and doubt that someone would select ours if any were since we towards the middle of the complex.
To read some of the comments here, it seems there are folks who really think there are folks who fantasize about having a bloody mess in their home.
[ 15. October 2015, 00:47: Message edited by: Mere Nick ]
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
A link in that article leads to this study on attitudes to gun ownership and mental health. I find some parts of the gun ownership section (I've not read the mental health bit yet) interesting.
First there is in many of the questions a clear difference between NRA members and other gun owners. For example in questions about banning the sale of military style assault weapons with multiple round magazines <20% of NRA members supported this, whereas 45-50% of all gun owners did - and >75% of non-gun owners. For requiring a law-enforcement issued license only 38% of NRA members support this compared to 59% of all gun owners, and 84% of non-gun owners. On every question NRA members were less supportive than other gun owners. With only 18% of the gun owners in that survey belonging to the NRA, it appears that claims by the NRA that they represent gun owners are bunkum, with the majority of gun owners having different views to the NRA on gun control issues.
Second, I note the level of support for several relatively easily implemented policies. Almost 70% support on banning sale of military style assault weapons with multiple round magazines (with slightly lower support at around 55% for banning ownership of these weapons - which is a step that would require some form of "taking away our guns" step). Requiring licenses issued by law-enforcement agencies supported by 77% of respondents, with restrictions on provision of licenses to people who have been convicted of multiple crimes, violent crime, domestic violence supported by over 75%. Legal requirement to have guns locked away when not in use supported by 67%.
Assuming those figures are correct then legislation that includes one or more of the following would have overwhelming popular support from the American public - including those who already own guns
- banning assault weapons,
- law-enforcement issued licensing,
- restrictions on issuing licenses to convicted criminals and people who have been violent,
- and mandatory secure storage
If so, and that study is more than a year old so this isn't new information on what the people of the US want, why hasn't this already happened? Even more interestingly, why aren't these included in the platforms for those campaigning for the Presidency as there would appear to be votes to be had there?
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
Alan,
What do mean when you use the term "assault weapon"?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
I take it that it is legal to shoot and kill American intruders to your house. Is it in UK, Australia, NZ, continental Europe? It is certainly not legal in Canada. You may only use force proportionate to the threat. Scaring the intruder is preferrable. I don't recall hearing of anyone shooting in such a situation. Of course legal storage of guns means locked up unloaded separate from bullets, which means no one expects armed intruders or homeowners here.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I take it that it is legal to shoot and kill American intruders to your house.
Well, it depends. Here is our law.
Here is an opinion piece from a former NYPD detective and NRA pistol instructor that helps to put it in layman's terms.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
ldjjd
Shipmate
# 17390
|
Posted
It seems that burglars themselves agree that the best defense against home intruders is a dog inside with a good, strong bark.
Posts: 294 | Registered: Oct 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Alan,
What do mean when you use the term "assault weapon"?
In the post above, I'm using the term from the NEJM article. It may not be as clearly defined as you'd like. They use the phrase "military style, semi-automatic assault weapons that are capable of shooting more than 10 rounds of ammunition without reloading", so the 69% of respondents saying they wanting a ban on the sale of assault weapons (and the 56% who favoured a ban on ownership) were responding to a question phrased with that definition.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Nor do guns.
A shotgun at the distance under consideration would.
A shotgun would if you have time to aim the gun and fire it and the proposed target doesn't do anything too bothersome while you're coping with the adrenalin surging through you at the time. Like, I don't know... you can ask them to stand still?
This is all assuming you have the gun to hand of course.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I take it that it is legal to shoot and kill American intruders to your house. Is it in UK,
It appears that in the US it is only legal to shoot someone actually breaking in, or where there is a threat to your life.
I can only comment about the UK, and that in light mostly of some relatively recent gun law research (for this thread and another recent example where we had to consider legal implications of something said here). In the UK, to obtain a license for a gun you need to justify why you need the gun - self defence, or defence of property (except from animal pests), is not recognised as a legitimate reason to own a gun. It is also a criminal offence to use a gun to inflict harm on someone else, or as an act of intimidation (so that also includes unloaded or non-functional guns). However, if you happen to have a gun and there is reasonable cause to consider your life to be in danger then a case for self-defence can be made - you will probably go to court and have to show that either the intruder was armed with a lethal weapon (gun, knife etc) or that you had very good reason to suspect he was, and that you had good reason to assume he was going to use the weapon on you or someone else. You would go through the same procedure if you picked up a kitchen knife to defend yourself or hit someone with the cricket bat you left in the hallway.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Nor do guns.
A shotgun at the distance under consideration would.
A shotgun would if you have time to aim the gun and fire it and the proposed target doesn't do anything too bothersome while you're coping with the adrenalin surging through you at the time. Like, I don't know... you can ask them to stand still?
This is all assuming you have the gun to hand of course.
I don't see why a taser gun would be any more accurate or more likely to be in my hand.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It appears that in the US it is only legal to shoot someone actually breaking in, or where there is a threat to your life.
Not quite. In states with "stand your ground" laws, all you have to do is "feel" threatened to have the right to shoot. Of course if you shoot someone the courts will sort it out later, but the important thing is that you feel threatened.
[ 15. October 2015, 03:06: Message edited by: mousethief ]
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
Alan,
What do mean when you use the term "assault weapon"?
In the post above, I'm using the term from the NEJM article. It may not be as clearly defined as you'd like. They use the phrase "military style, semi-automatic assault weapons that are capable of shooting more than 10 rounds of ammunition without reloading", so the 69% of respondents saying they wanting a ban on the sale of assault weapons (and the 56% who favoured a ban on ownership) were responding to a question phrased with that definition.
Ok. The difference between a semi-automatic assault weapon and a semi-automatic rifle is one is called an assault weapon and the other is called a rifle. Either one fires one bullet each time the trigger is pulled. They just look different. As I understand it, automatic weapons are against the law throughout the country but people often think assault rifles, which can be fired automatically or burst, are what is meant by the term "assault weapon".
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It appears that in the US it is only legal to shoot someone actually breaking in, or where there is a threat to your life.
Not quite. In states with "stand your ground" laws, all you have to do is "feel" threatened to have the right to shoot. Of course if you shoot someone the courts will sort it out later, but the important thing is that you feel threatened.
I was just following the links Mere Nick provided, which at least for North Carolina in the opinion piece in laymans terms, said that merely being in your house wasn't justification for shooting someone - "The law presumes there is an intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence, and you have a right to shoot them while they are in the process of breaking in, if you fear you will lose your life.", "You must be able to state that you feared for your life and the facts must back up that statement".
Sorry, my post seems to have gained an "or" somewhere in there which confuses things a bit. And, probably "justifiable assumption of threat to your life" would be better. A really poorly composed paragraph all around on my part. But, in my defence the main point of my post was the summary of UK law - which basically seems to be the same except we wouldn't have a loaded gun handy in all but a very few cases.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It appears that in the US it is only legal to shoot someone actually breaking in, or where there is a threat to your life.
Not quite. In states with "stand your ground" laws, all you have to do is "feel" threatened to have the right to shoot. Of course if you shoot someone the courts will sort it out later, but the important thing is that you feel threatened.
Here in North Carolina you have to reasonably believe such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm. So, threatened, but what would reasonably be a serious threat.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In states with "stand your ground" laws, all you have to do is "feel" threatened to have the right to shoot. Of course if you shoot someone the courts will sort it out later, but the important thing is that you feel threatened.
Even if the person "threatening" you is carrying nothing but a box of Skittles.
![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
In states with "stand your ground" laws, all you have to do is "feel" threatened to have the right to shoot. Of course if you shoot someone the courts will sort it out later, but the important thing is that you feel threatened.
Even if the person "threatening" you is carrying nothing but a box of Skittles.
HE WAS BLACK! Are you mad?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
The difference between a semi-automatic assault weapon and a semi-automatic rifle is one is called an assault weapon and the other is called a rifle. Either one fires one bullet each time the trigger is pulled. They just look different. As I understand it, automatic weapons are against the law throughout the country but people often think assault rifles, which can be fired automatically or burst, are what is meant by the term "assault weapon".
Surely "assault weapon" is a generic term covering a variety of weapons with some common features - an "assault rifle" would be one example of that class of weapons, not a different class altogether. And, the article clearly said "semi-automatic" not "automatic".
I would say the main characteristic of concern is the magazine with 10 or more rounds. There are very few, if any, cases where I can see that as necessary. For example, if you're hunting you would want to hit the target with the first shot - if you miss the deer (or whatever) will have gone, along with practically every other critter in the vicinity. It will be some time before the prey calm down and stop being jittery enough to hunt again, certainly long enough to reload. I can see how you might want to be able to get off a quick second shot if your first injures the animal and you want to finish the job as quickly as possible.
So, what is the justification people have for having weapons that have large magazines? Other than paranoid delusions about Communist invasions, alien attack, zombie rampages or deciding to instigate an armed rebellion against the government.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I was just following the links Mere Nick provided, which at least for North Carolina in the opinion piece in laymans terms, said that merely being in your house wasn't justification for shooting someone - "The law presumes there is an intent to commit an unlawful act involving force or violence, and you have a right to shoot them while they are in the process of breaking in, if you fear you will lose your life.", "You must be able to state that you feared for your life and the facts must back up that statement".
Sorry, my post seems to have gained an "or" somewhere in there which confuses things a bit. And, probably "justifiable assumption of threat to your life" would be better. A really poorly composed paragraph all around on my part. But, in my defence the main point of my post was the summary of UK law - which basically seems to be the same except we wouldn't have a loaded gun handy in all but a very few cases.
I think what I was providing was information for is the Castle Doctrine, not the Stand Your Ground stuff.
From what I've provided, I wouldn't feel it a life threatening matter unless someone decided to come down the hall to our bedroom. If I shoot down the hallway, the blast would not be directed toward a neighboring condo but toward a hill across the street. I doubt a jury would convict me for shooting an intruder anywhere in my home, but that's not good enough for me. I don't want to shoot someone over mere stuff but I will if my wife or I are threatened. So, it comes down to what are the odds of someone coming to our 225 home condo complex, going towards the middle of it, breaking into our particular unit and coming down our hallway? Very low, I calculate.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, what is the justification people have for having weapons that have large magazines? Other than paranoid delusions about Communist invasions, alien attack, zombie rampages or deciding to instigate an armed rebellion against the government.
I'd rather have a magazine that is too big than too small if I was defending the family from intruders. The shotgun holds a dozen.
In the event of the zombie apocalypse, which will no doubt come, Michonne has convinced me of the advantages of a katana sword.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
In the event of the zombie apocalypse, which will no doubt come, Michonne has convinced me of the advantages of a katana sword.
Let the reader understand.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
In the event of the zombie apocalypse, which will no doubt come, Michonne has convinced me of the advantages of a katana sword.
Let the reader understand.
Michonne
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'd rather have a magazine that is too big than too small if I was defending the family from intruders. The shotgun holds a dozen.
Not in this state it don't. 3 cartridges max.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
In the post above, I'm using the term from the NEJM article. It may not be as clearly defined as you'd like. They use the phrase "military style, semi-automatic assault weapons that are capable of shooting more than 10 rounds of ammunition without reloading", so the 69% of respondents saying they wanting a ban on the sale of assault weapons (and the 56% who favoured a ban on ownership) were responding to a question phrased with that definition.
There used to be a federal ban on the production of new "assault weapons". In that 1994 law, a "semiautomatic assault weapon" was one with two or more of a particular set of features. New magazines couldn't hold more than ten rounds, but old ones were grandfathered in - and there were a lot of old ones. A lot of the features were basically cosmetic. Basically, it was a gun that looked a bit scary.
Which means that manufacturers just needed to tweak their designs a bit to get functionally similar weapons to pass the law. Very few people are fixing bayonets to defend their homes (or chase down Bambi), so the absence of a bayonet mount is unlikely to trouble anyone.
It may be that mass shooters are excited by "scary military-looking" weapons, so a ban on guns with a particular appearance might have an effect on the number of mass shootings. The data isn't significant enough to really say either way. I don't think the 1994 law accomplished much else.
The law expired in 2004, and was not renewed.
[ 15. October 2015, 04:56: Message edited by: Leorning Cniht ]
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
In the event of the zombie apocalypse, which will no doubt come, Michonne has convinced me of the advantages of a katana sword.
Let the reader understand.
Michonne
I hope you didn't think I didn't understand.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Doublethink.:
Nor do guns.
A shotgun at the distance under consideration would.
A shotgun would if you have time to aim the gun and fire it and the proposed target doesn't do anything too bothersome while you're coping with the adrenalin surging through you at the time. Like, I don't know... you can ask them to stand still?
This is all assuming you have the gun to hand of course.
I don't see why a taser gun would be any more accurate or more likely to be in my hand.
I'm not suggesting it would.
And to ask that is to ask the wrong question. The correct question is: why have a gun - an item that is more likely to cause death or serious injury to your or your family when it won't be any better for the purpose of protection?
As far as I'm concerned, the point isn't that a taser would be more effective than a gun at the intended purpose. The point is that it would be just as effective but with fewer bad side-effects.
I'm constantly amazed at the ability of gun proponents to focus on the benefits of guns while not mentioning the downsides, when all the evidence is that in real life the downsides are massively more likely to occur. You know all those toddlers who've managed to shoot someone (including themselves) this year? It would be damn interesting to find out whether the guns they found were "for protection" and whether any of the guns they found had ever actually been used for protection.
[ 15. October 2015, 05:59: Message edited by: orfeo ]
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I'm constantly amazed at the ability of gun proponents to focus on the benefits of guns while not mentioning the downsides, when all the evidence is that in real life the downsides are massively more likely to occur.
It's easy to convince yourself that all these downsides are because some other guy was stupid, and that you're not going to be that stupid. And there's a fair amount of truth in that.
Another example: Condoms are 85% effective at preventing pregnancy in practice, and 98% effective when used correctly. This doesn't mean that the average person has a 15% chance of failure - it means that many people will come close to 98% effectiveness, and then there's a bunch of screwups. If you know you're not a screwup, you should feel confident that you would achieve an effectiveness in the high nineties.
The catch is that most screwups think that they're normal.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The catch is that most screwups think that they're normal.
Reasonably certain that almost everyone thinks they're 'above average'. Which is clearly nonsense.
If cops can't hit a barn door when the perp isn't even shooting back, the vast majority of civilians are going to be worse than that.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
The catch is that most screwups think that they're normal.
Reasonably certain that almost everyone thinks they're 'above average'. Which is clearly nonsense.
If cops can't hit a barn door when the perp isn't even shooting back, the vast majority of civilians are going to be worse than that.
Actually, I think it's that they can't hit a barn door when the 'perp' is a stationary paper cut out at 10 yards, with time to steady their aim.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Fucking Siri suggestions.
I read this, so fuck you gun-loving bastards, you read it as well.
Guns don't kill people.
Babies kill people.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Reasonably certain that almost everyone thinks they're 'above average'. Which is clearly nonsense.
Some years ago an Australian car insurance company did a survey of its customers.
70% of them rated themselves as above average drivers.
The view of the company was that it was the people who rated themselves highly that were a concern, because as a matter of logic a substantial number of them were overestimating their driving skills.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
... I've never heard of any of the homes hear being burglarized and doubt that someone would select ours if any were since we towards the middle of the complex.
To read some of the comments here, it seems there are folks who really think there are folks who fantasize about having a bloody mess in their home.
So you've decided to keep a gun in your house so you can risk the lives of your friends, family and neighbours to prevent something that has never happened and you believe isn't likely to happen. That's beyond fantasy, that's fucking delusional. Send me all your moneys now - I found a great deal on insurance against wildebeest stampedes for you.
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...
The view of the company was that it was the people who rated themselves highly that were a concern, because as a matter of logic a substantial number of them were overestimating their driving skills.
There's actually been some social science research on this phenomenon, and it's not just the math, it's human nature. People who think they're good at something are often overestimating their abilities; and those who think they aren't very good at something are often underestimating. It's ego vs. reality. "Trust me, I know what I'm doing" usually leads to horrible "accidents".
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I'd rather have a magazine that is too big than too small if I was defending the family from intruders. The shotgun holds a dozen.
Not in this state it don't. 3 cartridges max.
Really? What state is that? I've done a little digging and can't find anything about it anywhere in the country.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
North East Quine
Curious beastie
# 13049
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Reasonably certain that almost everyone thinks they're 'above average'. Which is clearly nonsense.
Some years ago an Australian car insurance company did a survey of its customers.
70% of them rated themselves as above average drivers.
If my insurance company asked me to rate my driving I'd rate myself as above average because I would be concerned that if I rated myself below average theyd put my premiums up!
Posts: 6414 | From: North East Scotland | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
In the event of the zombie apocalypse, which will no doubt come, Michonne has convinced me of the advantages of a katana sword.
Let the reader understand.
Michonne
I hope you didn't think I didn't understand.
I didn't know if you did or didn't, and so what if you didn't?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
No biggie, just a point of pride for me.
Although, returning to "Walking Dead" this season with this thread in mind has left a bad taste-- what is that show but an apologia for " frontier justice," when you come down to it? Some humans are not human anymore, and those who are human humans are justified in eridicating them.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
I don't see why a taser gun would be any more accurate or more likely to be in my hand.
I'm not suggesting it would.
And to ask that is to ask the wrong question. The correct question is: why have a gun - an item that is more likely to cause death or serious injury to your or your family when it won't be any better for the purpose of protection?
As far as I'm concerned, the point isn't that a taser would be more effective than a gun at the intended purpose. The point is that it would be just as effective but with fewer bad side-effects.
No, a taser would not be as effective in all cases. It does happen that some folks, for what ever reason, are not all that fazed by them. I don't know if it is because of certain drugs, adrenaline, or what. It would seem unlikely that a home invader would be willing to allow us to experiment. If it was a 100% certainty that a taser would work, fine. Better than a bloody mess and property damage.
quote:
I'm constantly amazed at the ability of gun proponents to focus on the benefits of guns while not mentioning the downsides, when all the evidence is that in real life the downsides are massively more likely to occur.
There's no reason the mention the downsides because everyone knows them. Do you ever drive a car? Must you always add that people die in car wrecks?
I'm not really a gun proponent. I'm a proponent of the idea that you, orfeo, are more qualified than anyone else, the only one qualified, to make such a decision about such things in your life. If you want one, fine. If not, fine. It's your choice and your responsibility. It appears you don't have any guns. You do have a credibility that is completely lacking in any of our politicians who have armed guards yet try to lecture the rest of us. The can sod off.
I believe it is impossible to calculate how many times guns have been used for protection. Should it be just how many times a gun was used? Shown? How many times would be burglars never even approached a property in the first place because of the thought folks might be armed?
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
No biggie, just a point of pride for me.
Although, returning to "Walking Dead" this season with this thread in mind has left a bad taste-- what is that show but an apologia for " frontier justice," when you come down to it? Some humans are not human anymore, and those who are human humans are justified in eridicating them.
Oh? I thought it was to promote the idea that women who are good at baking cookies, killing people and blowing shit up are great to have around unless they want to show you some flowers.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
