New Gun thread, for Dox

Post Reply New Topic

If by russia you mean the state of Georgia - then yes.

Look, you're not going to get anywhere with me demanding absolute answers to questions that don't have them, and using meaningless terms like "firepower". Elephants have been brought down with .22s, and people have taken multiple .50 AE rounds and lived, this isn't something that can be easily quantified; I might get lucky and take out a cougar with a .22lr to the eye, or I might empty a cylinder of .44 magnums into it and still get mauled to death. There's a lot of debate even amongst gun people and ballistic researchers as to "stopping power", with one camp favoring large diameter, slow projectiles on the theory that they more efficiently transfer energy into a target because they cut a large wound channel and are less likely to over-penetrate, taking excess energy with them, and the other favoring small, fast projectiles on the theory that the greater energy (calculated as mass x velocity squared, giving greater value to speed) leads to greater stopping power regardless of over-penetration.

Incidentally, a 30-06 has more muzzle energy than any handgun, as do most rifles and shotguns, and since rifles and shotguns are very seldom used in crime, we can rule out the whole "power" thing from the argument.

As to magazine size, under stress it's easy to miss, and the more opportunities you have to fire that life saving shot, the better.

Hello social bigotry, nice to meet you.

Funny that you're so afraid of a group that's statistically more law abiding than the police.

Don't forget statistically less likely to be involved in an accidental shooting, as well as less likely to shoot an innocent bystander in a confrontation.

http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/fi ... er-100000/
gun deaths per 100K
Alaska 20.4
Nevada 14.5
California 7.7

'Bigotry' implies prejudice sans information.

Really? You'd be okay with multiple branches of the government being controlled by people that repeatedly proclaimed their desire to do something you abhor, even attempted to do it multiple times, and were only held in check by the opposition party? Your posts regarding anti-abortion Republicans seem to undermine your credibility on this one.

Also "gonna take yer" style condescension will get you nowhere, plus it shows me who you really are, to say nothing of depriving you of the moral high ground when it comes to tone here.

Misinformation doesn't count.

Dox, are you really comparing the 'right' to have any weapon you want, at any time, without a background check, to the right to vote? Really?

Accepting that regardless, No, I wouldn't be comfortable with it... but if someone was pushing fliers saying, 'President Santorum is going to take away your birth control and your right to vote!! !! !!' I would take it with a grain of salt unless anti-woman bigots also filled the House, the Senate, and the Supreme Court.

Don't talk to me about fear mongering when you're afraid of weapons that are rarely used in crime, and concealed carriers who are less dangerous than the police.



I don't think anyone should be deprived of their rights without due process; I thought you did too.

The specific issue is irrelevant, which you know because you pointed out the exact same thing in another thread. Playing dumb for rhetorical purposes again?



Remember that I used Obama's own words, along with the words of Feinstein and other gun control democrats to make my argument, not some hysterical flyer. Let's also not forget that Democrats currently control the Executive branch and half of the Legislative, and are only narrowly in minority in the Judicial. All it would take would be for one of the conservative justices to croak while Obama's in office for them to take the court. Again, your bigotry is showing in that you're making assumptions about my political awareness that are belied by what I've actually said.

Neither do guns. The intended purpose of a gun is to reliably and repeatedly propel a lump of lead in a linear fashion and not blow up in the process; what that lump of lead is directed at is the choice of the person holding the gun, and not something that the manufacturer has any control over. When guns malfunction, they're subject to the same product liability that any other product is, what you seem to want is some sort of "special" liability for people misusing the product, as if people could sue Boeing when a flight goes down due to operator error. The whole thing was back door gun control in the first place, a transparent attempt by liberal mayors to bankrupt the industry by forcing it to shoulder enormous legal costs, which prompted the legislation preempting said lawsuits.

You've repeatedly used loaded and meaningless language like "killing power" to rail against guns that are statistically irrelevant to crime, which implies that it's something other than facts that are motivating you.

As to the second, I've never said you want to ban all guns, rather that you want to ban some, mostly based on said insignificant factors.

I do not find that even remotely comforting. What I translate that as, is 'CCWs are declared not guilty of shooting innocent people more often than the cops are.'

http://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/united-states (note that if you want to challenge this, please challenge the numbers and not the site)
The vast majority of people deliberately killed by guns in the US each year are suicides, not defensive uses. The second highest number of people deliberately killed by guns are murders, not defensive uses. Accidental deaths and defensive deaths are at least on the same order of magnitude as each other.
The site doesn't split non-fatal deliberate injuries into justified and not justified, but it's probably safe to assume that the ratios, in terms of orders of magnitude, are not too far off.

Even so, Dox, as I have said before I-don't-know-how-many-times now, I don't want to take away your right to CC unless you've been convicted of a violent crime or are mentally unstable.

Honey, that's not an ad-hominem. Ad Hominems, I remind you, are 'don't listen to him, he's a booger-head.' Or in this case, an ad hominem would be, 'Don't listen to him, he's a gun nut.' Which you will note that I have never done.

What I said was that your sample size is 1 for many of your arguments, which is not a statistically relevant sample size; it was in response to you accusing me of arguing too much form anecdote.

It doesn't prove that preventing attempts are more important; it proves that both factors are important. Hell, even if it did prove such a thing, the two are not mutually exclusive.

Are those numbers incorrect?