|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
jar writes: What the hell is an armor piercing bullet... It's a bullet that can pierce body armor, and given that it's the AFT that wants to ban it, I'd further guess that it can pierce the type of body armor that ATF agents wear. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
CatSci writes: The issue is public safety.
Are you saying that the ATF framework in question was designed for public safety? Because they say that it is to protect the lives of law enforcement. You know, the public doesn't wear body armor... That comment was part of reply to Petro's over-the-top response about Nazis, camps and ovens. It was an attempt to return the focus to a core issue of the gun debate, public safety. So no, that's not what I was saying.
But the way they define armor piercing bullets:
quote: Obviously if this is point "(i)" then there must be an "(ii)", so there was no point in carefully chopping off the "or" that followed this clause if you weren't going to chop off the "(i)" too. There are evidently a couple ways they define armor piercing bullets. I of course lack the knowledge to assess how well M855 fits within this definition:
quote: But these details are not why I posted that article, which was to highlight the power of the gun lobby. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
CatSci writes: The M855 wasn't designed or intended for use in a handgun so it doesn't meet that definition from the get-go,... I lack your familiarity with guns and ammunition, but according to the original article I cited (ATF director steps down after bullet ban controversy) it was about ammunition for handguns:
The ATF argued that banning 5.56mm armor-piercing bullets that can be used in handguns would protect police officers... And this is from the same document we've been quoting from, the ATF Framework in Question:
quote: So I guess it does meet the ATF definition of an armor piercing bullet.
which was to highlight the power of the gun lobby Its a good thing they have that power, otherwise the ATF would be trying to pass framework that doesn't even do what they think it does. Somebody's got to make sure that they're even making sense. Apparently they were making sense, but the gun lobby forced the ATF director to step down anyway. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
CatSci writes: So I guess it does meet the ATF definition of an armor piercing bullet.
It really doesn't. Part (ii) is about bullets that are designed and intended to be used in a handgun, which the M855 is not. The paragraphs at the top of page 4 immediately after the definition address this, mentioning a specific bill and describing Congressional intent. I hear your metal content concerns, but the article expends a lot of space discussing it. They're making an argument that given other factors that the metal content definition shouldn't be an obstacle to banning this ammunition category. If to you this makes the ATF incompetent then I have no problem living with that. I've never had any particular views of my own concerning the competence of the ATF, and my original point was about something completely different, the power of the gun lobby. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
This appeared in the news today. The deputy accidentally fired his gun instead of his tasar:
And then of course there's the murder of Walter Scott in South Carolina. Here's the most recent item of news about it:
I wonder if those responsible for firearm deaths, intentional or not, are increasingly charged and possibly convicted of manslaughter and murder if it will begin to change attitudes among the pro-gun crowd. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
9 Killed in Biker Shootout at Restaurant
From the article:
"The interior of the restaurant was littered with bullet casings, knives, a club, bodies and pools of blood" I think more guns is the answer. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
mikechell writes: 3) At this moment, starting next month (7/15/2015), the American Government is starting a military joint exercise called "Jade-Helm-15". In several States, they have closed Walmart Stores and are using the space to amass military equipment. The premise of the exercise is to prepare the military for "urban set up and combat." There are currently trains of box cars with shackles on the inside, traveling across America. Nothing like a conspiracy theorist in full kemmer. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
mikechell writes: So, I've never been one to credit conspiracy theories and I am sorry for temporarily giving this one credence.
Considering the number of entitlement programs ... and the constant drive to over-tax the very people who pay the most taxes already ... I will only trust the government when it starts reducing it's workforce and stops spending more than it takes in. Right now ... there is PLENTY to rail against in big government. Yes there is - good topics for other threads. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
Jon writes: When you went to pick up supper, did you really weigh the risks that you were more likely to die in a car accident than you were to die from not eating supper tonight? The above misses the mark of being analogous to the statement about gun risks by quite a bit. These two statements are both accurate and analogous:
Statistics are good, but it is pretty ridiculous to think we can all live our lives by themor, indeed, that we do. The better one weighs relative risks and benefits based upon the information at hand, including statistics, the safer and better off one will be. It's worth mentioning again that over 50,000 people used to die in vehicle related accidents every year in the US, but now despite a greater population and many, many more miles driven per person, less than 30,000 people die every year. This is primarily due to improved vehicle safety features, primarily in automobiles. Guns could be made safer, too. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
mikechell writes: "But it turns out that a car in the family is more likely to hurt and kill the people who belong in the car than it is to hurt and kill criminals." A car's intended purpose is not to hurt or kill criminals, nor anyone else. In other words, a car's purpose is not personal protection. Please see my Message 3480.
Cars, or rather, the people who drive cars while drunk, eating, texting and talking on a phone, are more likely to kill you than a responsible gun owner. How are you defining the term "responsible gun owner"? Responsible gun owners would want strong guns laws that keep guns out of the hands of irresponsible gun owners, they'd want safer guns, and they'd want effective answers to the problem of how one keeps a gun available for protection while making misuse and theft very unlikely. How many "responsible gun owners" are there exactly? Based on the discussion here I'd guess the answer is "a very tiny percentage of gun owners," so given the lack of responsible gun owners I'd have to agree with your statement that it is more likely for people to be killed by a motor vehicle driven by an irresponsible operator than by a gun wielded by a "responsible gun owner." Also based on the discussion here it seems that to a gun nut the definition of a responsible gun owner is "me!" And the definition of an irresponsible gun owner is anyone who makes the news injuring or killing someone or ones. --Percy Edited by Percy, : Grammar.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4
|
Hi Jon,
I'm not sure why you think you have an effective argument there. You can decide to ignore the statistics, but the statistics clearly say that owning a gun increases your risk of being a gun victim. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Jon writes: I'm saying that if ignoring consequences is wrong, then we are all guilty of being wrong in pretty much everything we do. I think what you're trying to say is that everyone accepts a degree of risk, but that's not the same thing as ignoring consequences. What actually takes place is a balancing of risks and benefits. Concerning guns, the purchase of a gun is hopefully being made while balancing the risk of injury and death to you, your friends and loved ones against the benefit of providing protection. Those deciding to purchase a gun believe the risk/benefit balance favors improved safety. That's what the gun advocates in this thread have been arguing. This is the first I'm aware of someone arguing that gun owners know guns diminish safety but want them anyway. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Jon writes: Supposing our risk of dying in a car accident is 1% per trip... The statistics you're using for your example are off by a very large amount. The fatality rate for vehicles in the US is one per 100 million vehicle miles. If the round trip drive to dinner is around 10 miles then the risk of being killed is around 0.00001%, not 1%. While riding in a car is probably most people's activity of greatest risk, it's still a very, very small one. For comparison, in the US the odds of being struck by lightening in any given year are about the same as driving to dinner ten times. You go on to say:
That would make a drive for only one day's worth of food (or worse, only one meal) a statistically foolish thing. Yet we all get in the car Saturday night and head on down to the restaurant. Even you and I do it, though we know the risks and are perfectly capable of avoiding them. But the risk of dying while driving to dinner is far, far less than you thought, and it isn't an example of people foolishly ignoring serious consequences of perceptible probability.
Gun owners perhaps know guns statistically diminish safety... There's been no indication of that in this thread. All the arguments from the gun advocates have been about how gun possession makes them safer. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Jon writes: The risk involved in dying from not eating a single meal is zero. The risk involved in driving a car to a restaurant is greater than zero. Aside from the fact that you're doing a statistical apples to oranges comparison (starvation requires an accumulation of missed meals that increases the risk of death exponentially, while driving a car has nothing analogous - the fact that you drove yesterday has no impact on the risk of death from driving today), this wasn't even your argument. You weren't arguing that the risk of starving to death from missing one meal is less than being killed while driving to dinner, something that no one would dispute (ignoring that some people are diabetic or have other health issues). You were arguing something different, that people were foolishly ignoring dangerous risks by driving to dinner, and that that was an example of the same thing gun advocates do when they ignore risks they probably understand by purchasing a gun. But driving to dinner is not risky, and gun advocates have not exhibited any indication of accepting that guns decrease safety. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22508 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
Just to correct some erroneous information posted above, on average approximately 90 people are killed in motor vehicle related accidents each day in the US.
--Percy
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024