Aurora Colorado Violence

So what improvements do you propose? CS is right to refer to your position on this as "vacuous", since so far you've called for the law to be made "tougher" and "stronger" without giving any indication of what actual policy you would change.Your position, so far, has all the content of a politician's promise to be "tough on crime." Ok, but what would you actually do? James Holmes didn't have an "arsenal", he owned a total of four firearms. He also had booby trapped his home with explosives, something he definitely wasn't "allowed" to do, so you'd have to explain exactly how any further laws would have helped in this instance if you're going to use the Aurora shooting to justify new laws.

I am glad that so many Americans are arming themselves.
Keep up the good work.It can only end well.

People who know nothing about guns wrote the Assault Weapos Ban. Its based on aesthetics like the grip, stock, and magazine and that's stupid. What does your experience and opinion about guns have to do with how stupid the Assault Weapons Ban was? I already did in the message you replied to:

quote:

---

Calling a gun an "assault weapon" based on aesthetics like the grip, stock, and magazine is completely retarded.
You can put a pistol grip, folding stock, and banana mag on a .22 and there'd be no good reason to call it an "assault weapon".

---

Okay, so how do you stop that and what is the justification? Are you sure? In what state?

Hi Panda,It can be difficult for someone who hasn't grown up with guns and the freedom to own them to understand the mentality of many Americans when it pertains to gun ownership. I grew up hunting and it was a right of passage as a boy to get a bb gun, then as a young man to receive my first real gun. I was taught well and consider myself to be a responsible owner.I own several weapons that have been passed down through the years from father to son, some guns for hunting and a couple for cheap target practice. I have a couple just because I can. I keep all of them in a gun safe unloaded, except for 1 shotgun for home defense as well as a 45 auto for the same purpose, I have no kids and my only concern would be having them stole. When I go out for any period of time then they get locked up with the others.Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

I don't see it as them asking the vicitims' families how they should proceed, I see it as them considering the wishes of the families as part of their objective assessment of the situation. None. And he should be put to death as quickly and painlessly as possible.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : spalling

No, you've just repeatedly used it as such and I am calling you out on it. I asked you to point out where in message 64 you indicated your usage because I read it and found nothing. Please rectify this misunderstanding. I'm sending you to Afghanistan. You get to choose between a "rifle" and a "handgun". You're telling me you will choose a handgun? Because most people judge danger by the potential to harm. And if you don't understand how a higher caliber round is more dangerous than a smaller one, you shouldn't even be in this conversation. But keep saying that handguns are more dangerous than landmines. Hell, handguns are more dangerous than TNT or C4. Edited by hooah212002, : No reason given.

I've heard quite the variety of figures - I'm guessing nobody knows the real number - what's your source for this particular figure? ^* Here is a random news report

quote:

---

On a per-capita basis, Yemen had the second most heavily armed citizenry behind the United States, with 61 guns per 100 people, followed by Finland with 56, Switzerland with 46, Iraq with 39 and Serbia with 38.

​

France, Canada, Sweden, Austria and Germany were next, each with about 30 guns per 100 people, while many poorer countries often associated with violence ranked much lower. Nigeria, for instance, had just one gun per 100 people.

---

For comparison, Karp, Aaron. 2007. ‘Completing the Count: Civilian firearms.’ Small Arms Survey 2007: Guns and the City, suggests the UK is 6.72 firearms per 100 people.

---

^*Actually - I just saw the 88.8 figure on the source I just linked to, so I'm guessing that's your source!Edited by Modulous, : added footnote

The potentail to harm is not necessarily determined by the caliber. And its not by the caliber alone.A .22 caliber rifle is a puny little thing with almost no power.And AR-15 shoots a .223 caliber bullet. That's only 0.003 inches bigger.But take a look at the actual rounds: The .223 has a lot more gunpowder and actually the bullet is much bigger, its just that its a lot longer rather than being a larger diameter. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

Well, I don't know what to do about that. I can't link to specific sentences within posts. Copying and pasting the material would be pointless - if you couldn't read or understand it the first time, repetition won't have any effect. I told you what post is was. If you don't want to read it - not my problem. Why would I chose the most dangerous weapon? Why wouldn't I choose the weapon that was the most reliable, versatile, and accurate? Oh, I see. You think "caliber" means "size." I didn't even once say that handguns are more dangerous than landmines.

Caliber is a poor way to judge how powerful or dangerous a bullet is. Which would you think was the more powerful and dangerous round, a .17 Remington Fireball or a .22 Winchester Magnum with the same weight bullets?.22 WMR 30 gr (1.9 g) HP 2,200 ft/s (670 m/s) 322 ftlbf.17 RF 30 gr (1.9 g) HP 3,569 ft/s (1,088 m/s) 849 ftlbf Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.

So is a .22 pistol more dangerous (all other things equal) than a Barrett M82A1? Because, like crash says, handguns are more dangerous than rifles.

I did read that post and you did not make yourself clear. If you want to be misinterpreted, then sure, it's not your problem. So every handgun is more "reliable, versatile, and accurate" than every rifle? Not explicitly. But neither did you explicitly say how you were using the word dangerous. I extrapolated your usage of the word dangerous, I used your definition of it, to say "handguns are more dangerous than landmines" because more people are killed in the US by handguns than landmines.

In close quarters yes.I think that is part of the problem we are having here, some guns and rounds are better in certain circumstances, a shotgun is great for clearing rooms if it doesn't matter what gets hit. What may be more dangerous in one environment may not hold true in another. A man with a glock 40 is a lot less of a threat at 100 yrds then a man with a nice .22 rifle.

PRECISELY the point I am making. The only point, actually. It is dishonest and inaccurate to blatantly say "handguns are more dangerous than rifles". However, crash has continued this mantra with no qualifiers, hence my hyperbole about landmines and RPG's and shit.

More dangerous how? And to what?Crash seems to be talking about danger to society via death, which is fair in a discussion about what kind of gun laws should be enacted. He's calling handguns more dangerous than rifles because more people are killed each year by handguns than rifles. If you want to enact a law that protects people from being killed by guns, then handguns would be better to focus on than rifles. Handguns are more dangerous to society in the US than landmines are, even tho an individual landmine can be more dangerous than an individual gun, because more people are killed by handguns. If you want to enact a law that prevents death, then tightening the regs on landmines would be a lot worse at that than tightening them on handguns.Somebody was saying that the AR-15 should be outlawed because its so dangerous, and CF was countering that by pointing out that handguns are more dangerous to society because more people are killed by them. So if you want to outlaw something for being dangerous, you don't need to be looking at the AR-15. Regardless of the fact that an individual AR-15 can be more dangerous than an individual handgun.Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.