Gun Control... Or lack thereof

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sun Nov 01, 2015 5:57 pm

Ok.
Apparently I though I had posted a reply and for some reason, it didn't show up.
So, before commenting on what people have said here, let's look at two funny "infographics" and see the stories they tell.

First one.
Looks typically over dramatic with a complete anti-gun bent. Not in the content, for the vast majority of it is neutral and doesn't say anything useful for either sides, but in the context and how it's delivered. As once can observe, the colour theme largely belongs to the realms of threat and danger. They're not happy colours at all. Plus one big wtf statistic about abused women is dumped into it, given a large piece of screen estate. We're not given any more information about that, like how this exactly relates to gun control laws for example, state by state. The gun-related numbers simply state the obvious, that where there are more guns, homicides tend to be more likely caused by guns. Duh.
The document also throws in numbers about suicides by gun shots, which is just plain irrelevant. Just as much as non-lethal wounds.
More than anything, it completely evades the question of who gets shot really, and by whom. In other terms, the question of self defense and crime-deterring acts is completely left aside.

The damned thing isn't even sourced save for one general link.

And now, the second one.
This one paints an entirely different picture, doesn't it?
For one, it's 100% relevant to the topic and doesn't try to use blatant red herrings painted in a negative way to dishonestly tilt the overall question towards an anti-gun position. It doesn't even use a rather emotionally-driven colour set, contrary to the first one.
It is simply far more honest. And actually well source too.

Overall, what remains to be understood is that no matter how much you want to control guns, antisocial outlaws won't care that much. Meaning that anyone decent, honest and aiming at a fair and respectful life yet accepting checks for gun controls will be at a disadvantage. Against criminals just as much as against the police or the army as a matter of fact. It's even worse the stricter the control gets because it doesn't impact the outlwas much but impedes civilian protection, meaning that conscious citizens leaving in a hostile environment would be entitled to ignore the law in order to favour their own protection, thus becoming "positive" outlaws from a moral standpoint, but a plain outlaw from the state's or federation's point of view.

I quite pity the people who react to mass shootings by selling their weapons, sometimes as a sign of protest against the wanton violence. It's absolutely silly and irresponsible. These people were certainly not the ones who'd be shooting innocents. Morons.
You know, there was an episode which plot went along those very same lines in Arrow's 2nd season. In reaction to some acts of violence within the streets, a local charity event was organized in Starling City and all weapons were bought by the Arrow dude under his civilian ID.
You even get some local crime lord black dude who gets driven through that event whilst standing on the back of a pickup alongside henchmen, they all own automatic rifles and start shooting but nevermind! Keep selling those precious guns because it's a well known fact that criminals only care about fair play.
That's the same season wherein the "green" hero lost his balls, stopped killing bad guys and got the Batman treatment.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sun Nov 01, 2015 6:17 pm

If anything, you just need to look at the links given by Sothis to see how the control laws in Europe are stupid beyond measure!

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2015/0 ... -gun-laws/
Interventions like this one are typical too. If a leftist-sounding person cannot ignore that the laws are retarded (the more leftist the government gets, the more they are in general), then we see the same person backpedal through history and still blame the conservative side (kings, princes, emperors, etc.).
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2011/0 ... -gun-laws/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/other_s ... 162498.stm

Saying that crimes committed and eventually enhanced by use of firearms is a bad thing, one shouldn't actually look at the reasons why there's crime in a given area first, and what kind of people are generally responsible of it.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sun Nov 01, 2015 7:51 pm

At least we may all agree on some form of safety training.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Nov 04, 2015 12:12 am

Cocytus wrote:The left loves to delude itself that it's the party of the "little guys" fighting against big moneyed interests, but the truth is the left has plenty of money of its own.
Maybe we shouldn't look at what the syndicates hold too? :3
The unfortunate reality is that the overall rate of gun violence and the specific incidents of mass shootings aren't causally related, and legislation designed to address one isn't going to affect the other, so we really need to craft targeted laws rather than default to the broad brush, back-patting proposals we regularly cough up every time this happens.
Absolutely! It's a complete fallacy.
But the emotional aspect of it is so strong that it really calls for some of the most primitive reaction.
It's really best summed up as gun drama will happen less often if we strictly regulate and reduce gun ownership.
Let's take the last one, the Roof case (...).
What kinds of firearms were used there? Handguns? I don't recall correctly. But if it were true, then short of a complete ban, what kind of legislation would simply and theoretically prevent that kind of dramatic events?
The limit to reach looks nuts.
Eliminating the private sale loophole should help the overall rate of gun violence, however slightly. We could also put resources into buyback programs targeted at particularly violent areas, like Chicago or Baltimore. Revenues from such programs can be used to fund public improvements, especially if such improvements are touted to those communities and tied to specific milestones.
You mean giving money in exchange of those many weapons? So you'd be looking at neutering gangs, for example?
What are the chances of that happening, really?
The gun, you have it and its power remains. But once it's gone, you're naked. However, its mercantile value is so limited that you could make as much money by selling dope in a short time.
What kind of pundit would return his gun for a small lump of money? That's equivalent to losing prestige, abdicating in front of the state, sucking at its tits.
But mass shootings are carried out by seriously disturbed people who often plan well in advance, and planning entails circumvention of laws. The truth is that the one thing that could do the most is virtually impossible: wide-ranging confiscation. I have no doubt the left would have a civil war on its hands, one that it can't win. Absent that, perhaps we should crack open medical databases and feed that into the NICS system, so we attach extra scrutiny to anyone who's been on antidepressants within a given timeframe. Also, put some goddamn security in our schools. I cannot fathom the left's opposition to this.
Yeah, so technically, the people who are depressed, likely because of a shitty life due to a ruined economy the government is certainly not willing to repair, are those who shouldn't have the right to own a gun. OTOH, happy people should have one because their wealthy and happy way of life should never be disturbed.
... oh, well, this does sound like pro-middle class privilege. I wonder why the left would be against that... and everything else! :)

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Nov 04, 2015 12:27 am

2046 wrote:Dylann Roof was claimed to be a right-winger in no time in regards to Charleston, when in fact he explicitly hated America and patriotism per his manifesto and was consumed by racism more than politics. (Racism is hardly a right-wing phenomenon, despite media efforts to portray it as such.)
Heck, his pals whom he spent lots of time with, and who understood nothing of the events, where a far cry from the KKK family portrait.

Still, the left is massively championing antiracism. Blatant racism within the left was more prevalent decades ago. Politicians on the left side still are for a large part, few have honestly been drinking the kool aid, but the plebe follows leftist doctrines which exclude such behaviours.
The people following what media say, if media say racism is on the right, then now it is.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Nov 04, 2015 12:28 am

Sothis wrote:
2046 wrote:That's a flimsy, shallow argument, based on a tiny survey. I could make the similarly flimsy case that Sweden's stricter gun laws are related to its high rape rates, for instance. You could also make the same exact case as you made against baseball bats.
Drawing upon rape as a comparison to gun crime is somewhat misleading. My page compares rates of gun ownership and rates of gun-related homicides, between three countries, and the sources I use are far from the only sources to reach my conclusions. I would be interested in a more thorough argument as to why my argument and the sources are flimsy.

There is a link between gun ownership and homicide, and this is a conclusion I do not reach from one source alone.

http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/ ... statistics

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-inf ... er-million

I can expand this to include other countries as well, should you wish.
But it's a massive generalization.
For one, nothing is said about whom gets shot and why. How many honest people saved their lives by shooting down bad people?
Also, how much of those totals own it to zones of total mayhem where bad people shoot bad people on a daily basis?
For example, shouldn't intergang shootings be moved to their own subcategory? What about self defenses from people with no relation to any criminal activity?
What if poverty was actually fueling the fires, and therefore regulating weapons was just a way to cast a big smokescreen?

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Nov 04, 2015 12:53 am

Cocytus wrote:
Sothis wrote:In terms of mental health evaluations, surely most medical professionals will be exactly that - professional. I seriously doubt anything even remotely close to a significant percentage of them will be motivated by political agendas.
I'm not so sure myself. Many people in the West have this peculiar conviction that scientists are somehow superior to the rest of us when it comes to avoiding cognitive bias, often expressed as "scientists are logical, rational people who love to be proven wrong and discover things, so if they don't believe in X, X can't be true."
Case in point.
:|
And even if I could trust that scientists would not be motivated by political agendas, evaluation requests can be submitted in most states by any individual. Given the social-justice insanity sweeping through the political left, it is not difficult to imagine that liberals would take advantage of relaxed standards for involuntary commitment to submit requests for anyone who "triggered" them, to use the current parlance. I'm not furtive about discussing firearms in public, both because I enjoy technical discussion and because I try to promote safe practices even to people who don't own them. I find it all to easy to imagine a leftist, hopped up on their rage-fueled self righteousness, submitting such an application upon overhearing my conversations. This is part of how the left destroys free speech, which they will justify by saying "hey, your free speech isn't being taken away, you're just suffering consequences for it." Yeah, that means it's being taken away. I could use the same logic to justify any criminal activity. "Hey, your right to fuck children isn't being taken away, you're just suffering consequences for it."
The harassment is a good deterrent already.
Then time comes for the punches.
There's a perception among gun owners (and I certainly share it) that the left is never satisfied with anything it achieves, and if you give them an inch, they'll take a mile.
Would come as a surprise that during the last century, many communist governments, no matter how long they lasted, had a tendency to go for harshest regulations of firearm ownership. The general left of today is just a barely softened version of that in some ways.
Other "lefts" just don't know what to be.
The point is that the mass shooting solutions are much harder problems, and the simplistic narratives pushed by the media (of all stripes) do not inspire thoughtful discussion.
But it will always be easier to cause destruction with more firepower delivered at a higher rate, over longer ranges. The advantage of guns vs swords...
Throughout all of this we need to be aware of a realistic goal. We're never going to prevent every incident of violence, just like we're never going to prevent every single border crossing. So what, given the unique conditions that exist in the United States, constitutes an "acceptable" level of gun violence?
Anything where the majority of gun use, even if leading to homicide, happened for self defense, by preferably good people.
As we'll see, the real problem isn't much of gun regulation but social strife and economical terror.
Would a decent screening system, not too cumbersome, mandatory and to be renewed every n years, work?

The thing with mass shootings is that they're the manifestation of something deeper than simply having an easier access to weapons.
There are countries where acts of generalized violence on that scale are very scarce. Including country with tough regulations but where people still can own firearms like multiple handguns, enough to generate carnage if you're willing to. But nothing like that happens, nor assaults committed against groups of people with blades.

For some reason, as an occidental country, the USA is brewing loonies and guns seem to be a convenient scapegoat.

Darth Spock
Bridge Officer
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm
Location: A Beta Quadrant far far away

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Darth Spock » Sun Nov 08, 2015 9:39 pm

I think everything's pretty well been said already, but I figured I'd add my observations too.
First off, I love the heading of the OP linked blog, "You Americans and your Guns." No way that shows bias or is likely to polarize readers right out of the gate. But hey, it grabs attention, right? Personally, I think gun control laws are a lot like locks, they work best on the honest and the lazy. Still, after first seeing this post I thought I'd update my aged knowledge on the subject, and did a little digging of my own. By and large, my prior opinions remain unchanged.

I'd say the idea that the number of guns in the U.S. is directly responsible for the comparatively high firearm deaths, and especially the idea that slapping some new gun laws would solve the problem, is horribly oversimplified. To start off, the number of guns in the U.S., which looking at the link in the OP blog post implies that virtually everyone in the U.S. has a gun, is not really the most accurate indication of gun ownership. The number of actual gun owners is not nearly so high, and apparently on the decline.
LINK
LINK

Personally, the number of gun nuts, sorry, firearm enthusiasts, with a dozen odd weapons locked away in their collection doesn't really bother me. But it can affect the statistical analysis of just how many guns are floating around in the public. It also isn't the only factor involved.

Also worth considering in the very same interactive map comparing gun violence across different nations, is that the number of per capita homicides by means other than firearms in the U.S. are roughly double that of the U.K., Australia and Canada, and over 3 times as prevalent as in France. A surplus of firearms in an already more homicide prone environment is not ideal to be sure, but it goes to show that the number of guns is not the sole factor in the number firearm homicides.
It might also be useful to consider individual states, as opposed to the U.S. only as a whole. I thought the information on this wikipedia page was rather interesting. Seeing the gun related deaths compared to the level of gun ownership broken down to individual states here, indicates that the overall number of guns is not directly proportionate to the number of gun related homicides. But I had difficulty confirming its reliability, so I opted not to take the lazy way out and kept digging, especially in light of its apparent contradiction to a similar graph put up by the site motherjones.com. One problem with that site's information is that it includes all gun deaths, including suicides. Any life saved is worth consideration, but it's hard to construct an argument around gun control averting violent crimes when so many of the victim's die by their own hand. So, I went looking for additional sources. This site provides what appears to be a reliable, unbiased estimation of the average percentage of firearm ownership per state. Coupled with incomplete, but official homicide information from the FBI:
2010 LINK
2013 LINK (More recent, but less complete.)

Rounding this information out with population data from the U.S. census in order to estimate the firearm homicide rate per 100,000, it seems that the above wiki page isn't far off.
It seems others have arrived at this conclusion as well. During follow up searches, I found THIS article covering the same thing, and with the same basic results. It even has a nice scatter graph that is a lot prettier than the quikies I threw together for myself. A simliar article can be found HERE.

So I think it's safe to say that the idea that reducing the number of legally acquired firearms would have a proportionate affect on homicides is overly optimistic. Firearm deaths can't be completely eliminated, and it is difficult to tell how many killings would still occur, but by different means.

Having said that, I do agree that fewer guns in private hands would undoubtedly result in fewer deaths each year. Most of the averted deaths would come from a reduction in suicides. Again, no death is trivial, but including suicides in an analysis of violent homicides doesn't provide an accurate picture. So, sticking with murders only, I do still believe that if you could effectively remove a large number of firearms from private possession, the total homicide rate probably would decline.
I base this conclusion in part on the fatal efficiency provided by firearms. Of course, legality won't deter deranged mass-murderers or hardcore criminals, but most homicides do not appear to be the result felonious activities. Based on the data provided by the FBI website regarding 2010 homicides, particularly the information in data table 11, roughly 2000 firearm homicides were purportedly the result of "arguments." It's terribly vague, but I can imagine circumstances where flared tempers and poor impulse control mixed with ready access to a firearm have deadly results. The absence of firearms won't eliminate these volatile situations, but alternatives like knives, bats, shovels, fists etc. lack the lethality of a gun in what mostly sound like non-premeditated homicides. Exactly how many of those deaths could be prevented then? A few hundred? A thousand? More? Your guess is as good as mine, but likely a significant number, if only a fraction of total homicides. If you can effectively remove these guns. All these guns. From all these specific situations. That's a big if. Also, as has already been noted, simply reducing the overall number of guns in the country won't do it. The easiest guns to eliminate would also be among the least likely to be used in a homicide. Considering the 270,000,000 (now more) firearms estimated to be in the U.S. in the OP linked interactive map, statistically only 1 out of nearly 30,000 of those guns will be used in a persons murder. That is an impossibly massive number of weapons compared to a fraction of total homicides that may be prevented in a best case scenario. And of course this doesn't consider the positive uses of guns others have mentioned either. It is equally hard to determine just how many crimes are deterred by would-be victims being able to defend themselves with legal firearms, which would in turn offset at least a portion of any homicide reduction seen as well.

Still, considering the extremely disproportionate level of gun homicides compared other "developed" nations, why doesn't "someone" do "something?" Surely if these (immature) Americans would get over their (irrational obsession with) guns, things would start getting better, right? So why exactly isn't this obvious to everyone? Well, I can't speak for an entire population, but lets look closer at this "epidemic." For starters, outside of the sensationalism of mass shootings in the media (which make up a very small portion of gun deaths), one of the most glaring indicators of a problem is the numerical comparison on the U.S. to other nations. But a printed statistic doesn't stir passion, and when you look at the numbers closely, consider that, using the OP linked interactive map's gun homicide rate of 2.97 per 100,000, that comes to a 0.00297% rate of death by firearm attack, or less than 1 in 30,000. Without the comparison, that doesn't feel as big, does it? Three times as many people are killed in car wrecks, yet people aren't particularly afraid of automobiles. Or even looking at the information HERE and HERE, even including the much larger number of non-fatal gunshot wounds suffered by victims, people in the U.S. are several times more likely to end up in the Emergency Room due to slipping in the tub/shower than being wounded by a firearm attack. Most people don't put all that much thought into the "most dangerous room in the house."

So what am I saying, that these deaths are insignificant, and that the current firearm homicide rate is acceptable? Absolutely not. My point is that without the publicity generated by the media, gun deaths have a relatively low impact on the 300+ million people living in the U.S. Furthermore, when the issue is carefully considered, the majority of "solutions" are largely ineffectual, being mostly symbolic, and by extension, political.

Still, what about Australia? Surely the frequently quoted 59% drop in firearm homicides since the 1996 change in guns laws should be obvious to everyone. But I found a few problems with that too. First, the gun control laws there have not eliminated gun crimes, especially among criminals and in escalating gang wars. LINK. A new wave of firearm restrictions seem likely. Here is a quote from this LINK:



But this is apparently America's fault. LINK:
"American pop culture blamed for rise in NSW gun licences"



Still, the homicide rate in Australia is definitely lower than during the nineties. Nevertheless, homicides were already on the decline, and comparatively low to begin with, making for a small sample size less than ideal for drawing statistical conclusions from. Additionally, after an initial lag following the 1996/1997 gun ban, the homicide rate has since shown steady decline, despite the fact that the Australian population has been steadily rebuilding its gun supply, almost completely replacing the number of guns destroyed.

That is wonderful news to be sure, but just how much of this is the result of Australian gun policies? A similar trend has occurred in the U.S. in roughly the same time frame, in spite of an ever increasing number of guns. Detailed information is readily available, but I believe the charts linked below do a good job of quickly illustrating the situation.
1993 - 2012 homicide rate in U.S.
1989/90 - 2011/12 homicide rate in Australia
Incomplete chart, but shows U.S. and Australian homicide rates together on same graph
Another graph showing similar U.S. and Australian gun death rate trends, even including firearm suicides

In fact, this trend is occurring in most developed nations.
LINK
LINK
LINK
LINK

In summary, I would say that on the pro side, tighter gun control and fewer guns could reduce the number of gun deaths in the U.S. Most of the decrease would be from suicides, although a very aggressive reduction in firearms could contribute to a slight decrease in overall homicides.
On the con side, looking at the evidence, even the best gun control policies would only have a fractional effect on total homicides, and would undoubtedly be impossible to actually achieve, both in a practical manner, and in light of opposition from a large portion of a democratic society being opposed to such laws and mass disarmament, along with infringements on the legitimate use of firearms, including genuine self defense.

At least that's my two cents worth.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Wed Nov 11, 2015 7:42 pm

Wow, Darth Spock, that's a lot of stuff to read. You can fell the passion for the topic and the appetite for substantiated arguments.
I wish all debates happened that way! :)
I'll resume my reading of your post later on. For the moment I must comment on single point, which I think you were a bit hasty on.
The absence of firearms won't eliminate these volatile situations, but alternatives like knives, bats, shovels, fists etc. lack the lethality of a gun in what mostly sound like non-premeditated homicides. Exactly how many of those deaths could be prevented then? A few hundred? A thousand? More? Your guess is as good as mine, but likely a significant number, if only a fraction of total homicides.
(While not ignoring the rest of the paragraph this is taken from...)
It's absolutely clear that guns provide a far greater lethal power to its users. However, the disputes we might be talking of could be happening in close quarters, like inside a house; other events might happen in the open with the people committing the violent act after going back inside their property for grabbing a gun and returning, all pissed off.
In the cases of indoor, close range shootings, it's possible that the use of objects other than firearms would still prove absolutely lethal in the hands of enraged people. I'm thinking of knives and bats for example. If you're in a mental state wherein you're effectively ready to pull the trigger and shoot someone down, take a life, you might just as well smash someone to pulp, crack some skulls too.
Also, the reduction of firearms would also mean a reduction of the power of deterrence against the criminals who will not be bothered by such limitations.

Cocytus
Jedi Knight
Posts: 435
Joined: Sat Jan 12, 2008 6:04 am

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Cocytus » Thu Nov 26, 2015 2:24 am

I passed another background check this weekend. AR-15 prices are through the floor. Do I need another AR-15? Probably not, but last time I checked it wasn't called the Bill of Needs. YEEHAAWW

User avatar
2046
Starship Captain
Posts: 2040
Joined: Sat Sep 02, 2006 9:14 pm
Contact:

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by 2046 » Mon Nov 30, 2015 4:57 am

Cocytus wrote:I passed another background check this weekend. AR-15 prices are through the floor. Do I need another AR-15? Probably not, but last time I checked it wasn't called the Bill of Needs. YEEHAAWW
This thread has now been won, and in rather epic fashion, I should say.

User avatar
Moff Tarquin
Bridge Officer
Posts: 88
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2016 7:51 pm

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Moff Tarquin » Thu Jan 21, 2016 3:10 am

My position on gun control is fairly tentative, because my knowledge of the relevant data is limited to the following facts:

1) the point of the second amendment is to give us a well armed militia - which, in order to be even remotely threatening to any invading force, would need to be armed with accurate, semi-automatic rifles with relatively large magazines.

2) Fewer than 400 people per year are killed by any kind of rifle in America - compared to over 10,000 total gun-related homicides annually. You're more likely to be killed by a knife than an assault rifle here.

3) Handguns, by contrast, kill thousands of people every year (more than half of whom are impoverished African Americans).

4) For some reason, though, we only hear about the 100 or so mass-shootings that occur each year. The media doesn't tell us anything about the thousands of random black people killed in drug deals, gang violence, and plain-old wrong-place-wrong-time - evidently, only the random black people who get killed by police deserve any air time. So it looks like black lives only matter when a cop pulls the trigger.

So my position is more or less as follows: assault weapons don't need to be restricted any more than they already are - though I'd gladly allow background checks to be more extensive for them, so long as other guns are treated at least as stringently. If you want to restrict anything, restrict handguns. They're the weapons causing the biggest problems among the poorest segment of the population.

User avatar
Praeothmin
Jedi Master
Posts: 3920
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 10:24 pm
Location: Quebec City

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Praeothmin » Fri Jan 22, 2016 10:40 pm

On a totally unrelated note, I've fired close to 100 rounds of 45 acp ammo with a Colt 1911 Kimber, and now understand why people like handguns so much...
It was glorious...




And I suck at it...



Had trouble hitting small water bottles on the ground at less than 30 feet...



Too much recoil anticipation...



But I'm doing it again for sure...



Oh yeah, on the subject:
Ban all guns!
There! ;)

sonofccn
Starship Captain
Posts: 1657
Joined: Mon Aug 28, 2006 4:23 pm
Location: Sol system, Earth,USA

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by sonofccn » Mon Jan 25, 2016 6:11 pm

Praeothmin wrote:On a totally unrelated note, I've fired close to 100 rounds of 45 acp ammo with a Colt 1911 Kimber, and now understand why people like handguns so much...
It was glorious...




And I suck at it...



Had trouble hitting small water bottles on the ground at less than 30 feet...



Too much recoil anticipation...



But I'm doing it again for sure...



Oh yeah, on the subject:
Ban all guns!
There! ;)
You've taken your first step into a larger world...

Seriously through glad you enjoyed yourself. Cheers, Preao.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Gun Control... Or lack thereof

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Mon Feb 15, 2016 12:12 am

Oh, a few days ago some magazine (I'll get the link later on, it's ... elsewhere), there's a "new" study from... well, 2007, coming from some University in the USA, that pretty much nails down the anti and pro arguments regarding violence and firearm property.
In favour of the later.
As we see and as per the Second Amendment, the moment citizens reject their right, if not their responsibility to own firearms, they find themselves with two enemies : criminals on one side, and the government on the other, both who sure as hell won't give up their weapons.

Post Reply