[Gun Talk] Gun control legislation signed in NYC, Info on MA GC bill

*Disclaimer* Wall of text inbound, if you have an allergy to such things please refrain from going any further, you have been warned.

Clarification: I am not accusing you Crombie of wishing to ban firearms, or support an AWB. There needs to be context here IMO to put things in perspective.

Crombie, so lets take something like a sword, if I went out and stabbed or sliced someone up with that sword, do you blame the sword for the act, or do you blame me, the person wielding the sword for committing the crime?

Many people like to argue that "Well, a pencil, fork, bat etc." were not designed to kill, okay fair enough. But in the case of knives with blades longer than the palm of your hands, daggers for example, and as I mentioned before, the Sword are all instruments, tools that were designed to kill.

There are stabbings every day, just as many of those that survive a stabbing from a knife/dagger die from it too. So when you argue that, do you believe that we should ban knives and daggers too? Do we limit the types of knives or what have you because certain ones are "More dangerous" than others? What makes the other knives less dangerous in the hands of a determined criminal that wants to end your life? They can use a steak knife and it would be arguably just as effective.

In the end, it's an instrument a tool, and that tool if left alone has no morales, no will, no aspirations of its own. Without the motivation, determination and will of a human being, that knife will never harm someone else. The same applies for a gun, sure, it's intended purpose is to kill, however it will not aim itself at a deer or another human on its own. A knife or a dagger can be used in a lawful manner, to defend yourself in the event that someone tries to inflict harm on you, or to cut a length of rope, it's a tool. An AR15 can be used to defend, assault, or hunt game if you so desire (and yes, there are AR15' out there specifically designed for hunting small game such as rabbits among other varmints).

In regards to the comments about organized crime in the major cities, then arguably, if eliminating guns is the answer, why is their crime rate so high? Why do they have the highest deaths in the country?

Lets take Mexico for example, the population is forbidden to have a means to defend themselves, crime is rampant and the Cartels operate nearly unopposed.

Here in America, we have more firearms in citizens hands than in any other country, so of course our crime rate involving firearms will be higher than others, but when you compare violent crime alone, the UK, Australia as well as a number of other countries with heavy firearms laws have much higher death rates due to violent crime than we do.

It's statistically proven that when you disarm the population, violent crime dramatically increases, so no matter what you do, by taking away firearms from those who would use them in a lawful manner ultimately causes more damage in the long run, it may lower gun related crimes, but it will not lower crime in of itself. It also opens doors for an oppressive government to function without fear of retaliation from those whom they wish to subjugate.

Again, Iraq, Korea etc. are good examples of this.

If you don't believe me, please refer to the linked PDF regarding a study that was carried out by a group of Italian researchers and the image below


http://www2.dse.unibo.it/zanella/papers/crime-EP.pdf

Going outside of the box here a little, let me ask you a question, if North Korea or Syria were to gain the ability to develop nuclear warheads that could reach America, and the UN was pushing for the US to disarm our nuclear missiles and dispose of them, what would you want the US to do? Would you support this, knowing that there are countries that would gladly use them if they had no fear of retaliation from the US or any of our allies due to them not having nuclear warheads either?

If you say "No, I would want the US to keep our nukes" in order for us to maintain our national defense against foreign threats then why would you want to disarm us, the law abiding, from criminals who are using the exact same guns we are, except many of which are

1. Illegally obtained
2. If automatic in nature, were illegally modified or purchased and unregistered

and are more than willing to use them against those who would follow and or uphold the law?

The Adli Corporation wrote:

Duck wrote:Or better yet, have you ever tried to shoot 5 people from 20 yards with a watering can?

A MAN CAN DREAM!

Bwahahahaha

http://news.yahoo.com/fontana-calif-schools-high-powered-rifles-184934771.html

While cringe worthy that they consider an AR15 a "High Powered Rifle" and the term "Assault weapons" kind of grinds my gears along with all the other politically charged BS terminology that the anti' have spoon fed the populace, this is pretty cool. In California no less, color me shocked.

Thanks for the article Green, twas a really interesting read.

You dont consider an AR-15 a high powered rifle?

What exactly is it then?

What would be a high powered rifle? A 50 cal?

High powered? I would probably consider it really low on the power list myself. It's less powerful than most normal hunting rifles/rounds. It fires 5.56/.223 which is about as small as it gets for rifles.

There aren't all that many rifle rounds that are less powerful. I can think of a few .223 rounds that have less punch, but below that it drops to the lowly .22

Fair enough

You made a valid point

meh.

Artimise Flare wrote:While cringe worthy that they consider an AR15 a "High Powered Rifle" and the term "Assault weapons" kind of grinds my gears along with all the other politically charged BS terminology that the anti' have spoon fed the populace, this is pretty cool. In California no less, color me shocked.

Thanks for the article Green, twas a really interesting read.

Yeah high powered rifle...not really...and the assualt weapon bugs me too...maybe its the military drilling proper terminology into my brain...but hey.

Also zillah thats a hollowpoint round...not a normal .223/5.56 (5.56 has more gun powder if I remember thats the only difference...I only shoot military issued Rifles and Guns)

Metalzoic wrote:High powered? I would probably consider it really low on the power list myself. It's less powerful than most normal hunting rifles/rounds. It fires 5.56/.223 which is about as small as it gets for rifles.

There aren't all that many rifle rounds that are less powerful. I can think of a few .223 rounds that have less punch, but below that it drops to the lowly .22

Not true at all....

A .22 normally shoots at like 1,000 feet per second, whereas a 5.56 is closer to 3,000 fps. energy increases exponentially with speed, so a 5.56 should have around 9 times as much energy as a .22, plus a little more on top since the bullet weighs more.

Aha

Zillah wrote:Aha

so its the lowest power rifle...according to that chart

Yes, but 11 times more powerful than a .22.

Still powerful enough to rip a massive whole in your body from a long way away

massive hole in the body...yeahhhh.

again the term high powered rifle is still not appropriate

In the civilian realm, I would consider any round capable of delivering a certainly fatal blow high powered.

A 5.56 isnt "high powered" relative to other rifle rounds, but that doesnt mean to say its in any way docile....

Zillah wrote:In the civilian realm, I would consider any round capable of delivering a certainly fatal blow high powered.

A 5.56 isnt "high powered" relative to other rifle rounds, but that doesnt mean to say its in any way docile....

.22lr could deliver a fatal wound...its a matter of where you hit ....again no round is docile....they are projectiles.... but right training makes things less dangerous while be handled....

I just don't like the theme of evil and danger which is thrown on firearms by the media.....


But again .......






























zombies everywhere

No, the .223/5.56 doesn't cause massive holes, it does its damage by tumbling and through sheer velocity.

When the 5.56 hits flesh it tends to shatter or tumble inside the victim, on top of the immediate destruction of the tissue upon entry, the high velocity causes what is called "Hydrostatic shock" what this means is that it displaces the liquids within the body forcing a ripple like effect outwards from the point of entry, this causes hemorrhaging and internal bleeding as blood veins and local tissue is also destroyed by the process.

however, there have been numerous cases where enemy personnel have taken a round to the gut and kept on fighting, when you compare the 5.56 round to other cartridges such as the 7.62x39 (The infamous round used by the AK47) it causes immediate trauma due to the kinetic force of the round on top an obviously increase in mass. Like the 5.56 round, it tends to tumble in its target and destroys tissue as it passes through, it also of course leaves a sizable exit wound, but also note that the 7.62x39 round travels at a slower speed, and is less accurate at longer ranges due to the lower velocity among and destabilization of the projectile among other factors such as it being heavier than the 5.56 cartridge.

"High power" cartridges if that's what you want to call them is typically reserved for full power rifle cartridges such as the 7.62x51 NATO and up. Everything lower is an intermediate or pistol cartridge.

Rifles such as the FN FAL, M14, HK G3 SCAR-H would all be considered "High power" rifles or "Battle rifles" to be precise since they use full power rifle cartridges.

Don't get me wring though, the 5.56/.223 Remington is a very potent cartridge, however, it's far from what is considered "high power". Even the formidable 7.62x39 round is considered an intermediate round.

Ultimately, it boils down to shot placement, you can empty and entire magazine of 5.56 into someone and may not kill them if you fail to hit any vitals, however a well placed .22LR can easily kill someone in one shot, in fact .22LR is the most used round if I recall correctly in homicides both intentional and accidental (By intentional I mean suicide or gang wars and the like)

Note: There is a difference between commercial .223 and 5.56x45 ammunition, typically military ammunition such as the 5.56 have less case capacity, meaning less powder, however, the powder also burns hotter if I recall causing a difference in chamber pressure. This difference in chamber pressure can lead to dangerous complications if the rifle is not designed to handle it, so while it's safe to fire commercial .223 ammunition out of a rifle designed to fire 5.56 ammunition, the same cannot be applied to rifles designed to fire .223 ammunition as the change in pressure can potentially have the power to blow the rifle apart when firing.

This also applies to the differences between .308 Winchester and 7.62x51 NATO ammunition as well.

<3 Art for all his gun knowledge and helping me remember the difference in .223 and 5.56

Glad to be of service Lemon lol.

If ya got questions I'll do my best to answer them, and if I cannot answer them, will at least try to point you in the right direction to find an answer.

Zillah wrote:A 5.56 isn't "high powered" relative to other rifle rounds, but that doesnt mean to say its in any way docile....

You're mixing things together. The question wasn't "is it docile?" (any bullet can kill you) The question is "is it a high powered rifle round" which it isn't.

Me mentioning the .22 was only to show you that that the .223/5.56 round is at the low end of the power list.

Your argument is like saying a Yugo is a high powered vehicle simply because it can go fast enough to run you over, when the reality is that it is actually a very low powered vehicle.

so... how powerful is a watering can?

Well depends, are we talking about sporter watering cans with the broad shower head spigots or the "high powered assault" water cans that can deliver an un-dispersed stream of water? Remember the greater its capacity the more damage it can do, anything more that 2 liters can be very dangerous, heaven forbid someone gets their hands on a 1 or even 2 gallon watering can. That amount of water might just drown the poor maraju- I mean carrot patch in your backyard.

There are just so many factors here, we need to be careful about who we allow to have such "dangerous weapons", if it means we can save just one plant its worth it.

/sarcasm

i think we have a 5 gallon watering can, with a detachable shower spigot.




am i... going to jail?

Better get that thing registered or disposed of man, remember ignorance of the law is no excuse!

Stop vegetation and insect violence!
Think of the butterflies and lady bugs!

.308 and 7.62x51 are the reverse,I thought it was weird and confused me at first....the commercial .308 is hotter than the regular nato 7.62x51

True, forgot to mention that lol. Thanks for adding that Jr. xD

Again that analogy is totally asinine to me

Sym, may I ask you to elaborate exactly what you think makes it asinine? More to the point, what do you define as a tool. What function and or purpose does a tool usually seek to fill.

A tool is something made for labor or work

A tool is designed to do something of value

A gun is designed to kill

A gun is a tool of killing

Pretty simple IMO

A knife can be used to murder, but the knifes sole purpose is not to take a life. A guns is

*Warning*

Big wall of text coming, if you have an aversion, reading disability or allergy to such things and or suffer from migraines inflicted by such an overload of information, please refrain from proceeding

*Warning*

Intriguing, so both of us can agree that a firearm is a tool. Something to make whatever you achieve to accomplish easier, to expedite the process, to make the process more efficient.

We can agree that both can be used to take life, both can be used or abused. So why is there this double standard with firearms only, why do we consider the knife to be less worthy than the rifle when it comes to the capacity to kill? A tool is a tool, whether it is to hammer in a nail or to take down a deer, you are utilizing a device to help you efficiently complete a task, and you, ultimately have the power to decide how to use that tool.

The comparison here and the point that many are trying to make, is that blaming an inanimate object is ridiculous, regardless of its intended purpose, it is man that inflicts the horrors upon each other, not the knife, not the sword, not the hammer nor the rifle.

"A good carpenter never blames his tools" why? Because it's not the carpenters tools fault if he/she screws up on a job because he is in direct control of his tools, he has nothing else to blame other than him/herself.

What makes a being stabbed by a knife much more palatable than being shot? Why is it more acceptable that someone being stabbed or beaten to death is better than someone being shot to death. Why is it we segregate only firearms when there are other items that can cause harm and end life?

Is there some kind of hierarchy here, something that makes the deaths of those at the hands wielding one tool more worse than that of those who were killed by something else? In the end, a death is a death, it matters not tool was used to accomplish it.

We can all agree that someone tragically losing their life for any reason is terrible and is even more so if it was avoidable.

Murder is a crime, simple as that, regardless of what you use to commit the act. The law certainly doesn't segregate that.

In regards to crime

Apparently crime is higher in New York, Chicago and LA is because they have organized crime and gangs.

So exactly how is it that firearms are a problem, wouldn't it make more sense to say that those cities have a gang problem or an organized crime problem? Clearly both groups are notorious for not caring about the law, so how does disarming those who want to keep the most effective means to defend themselves, that being a firearm, solve this problem of the criminals committing crimes with firearms? If they have no problems holding someone at gun point and killing them, they obviously will not follow any laws that would forbid them from having "high capacity" magazines or "Military style assault weapons".

Why is it okay for a police officer to carry a firearm to defend himself against those same criminals he is charged to bring to justice and not me? Is my life not any more valuable than his or our soldiers serving in our armed forces? What makes his/her family more worthy of having such a right to fight for their right to live and prosper?

So many anti' preach about saving a life, the irony is, those weapons they want to take away, is saving lives each and every day, be it on the streets of Phoenix or New York to the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Just gotta say, this made me laugh hard

Spoiler:

Dude Im not gonna read all that right now

I read the first paragraph or so

I still dont see how you dont see the distinction between a gun and a knife

Really confuses the hell out of me

But we have already agreed to disagree on this sooooo

I can say the same, I'm trying to see your logic, I really am. Two different mind sets, two different ways to interpret something.

It's healthy to debate IMO, I have no animosity against you, I just feel that this is something worth debating about. I like hearing what other folks think, how they interpret something, it allows me to find holes in my argument and learn how to strengthen my position if possible.

trying to understand or being able to look at a situation from those that you don't agree with makes you wiser in the end I believe.

Also perhaps it's also because I've come to enjoy debating, at least on this topic, maybe I'm just weird.

The line to me is the fact that a gun is a TOOL for murder

There is no other purpose of a gun

Hell even when you go to the range 90% of the targets are people ( well the ranges in my area at least )

You have to understand Im not anti gun. Not even close. I own a weapon, and used to own more than one.

I just see a distinction between a gun and a knife

You can use anything as a tool for killing, but not everything is made for the sole purpose of killing people

Thats my logic, and I see a difference.

Hmm interesting, for me, I don't see it that way. In the end, view either as a means to an end, their intended function means little if the actions that follow while someone is using said tool ends with the same or similar results.

Hence why I think many people who compare a gun to a knife and states that since you can kill with either one, you may as well ban both since those that would want to ban one of them is only eliminating one potential aggravator to the problem.

Also, I know you're not anti gun Sym, but some of your arguments and replies are the same as what I hear a lot from anti gun folks, so since both of us usually are able to have a civilized debate, I take my chances to try and understand why those who share your thoughts believe in them. Understanding your opposition is something that is very important when you are trying to argue a point IMO.

in regards to the practice targets, what else are you going to shoot at if you're practicing for self defense? (Not saying all practice in this manner mind you nor everyone uses these targets to practice self defense) if the hostile that is most likely to assault you is a human, then why would you use a target that looks like a deer to practice against when you need to be able to instinctively be able to react and shoot accurately at the targets vitals. You're not shooting for accuracy to compete in a tournament, you're practicing for, god forbid, in case you are in a situation in which you must use lethal force to defend yourself or your loved ones.

Artimise Flare wrote:Hmm interesting, for me, I don't see it that way. In the end, view either as a means to an end, their intended function means little if the actions that follow while someone is using said tool ends with the same or similar results.

Hence why I think many people who compare a gun to a knife and states that since you can kill with either one, you may as well ban both since those that would want to ban one of them is only eliminating one potential aggravator to the problem.

Also, I know you're not anti gun Sym, but some of your arguments and replies are the same as what I hear a lot from anti gun folks, so since both of us usually are able to have a civilized debate, I take my chances to try and understand why those who share your thoughts believe in them. Understanding your opposition is something that is very important when you are trying to argue a point IMO.

Word

Fair enough

My main concern is the violence that is happening in this country. Something needs to be done about it, but I dont know what the answer to that is.

I just personally feel with the amount of violent people in this nation, "assault weapons" should be much harder to get ahold of. Im against banning them, totally. But they should become much harder to obtain legally for un trained(military) civilians. Especially those with unstable mental disorders.

But its much deeper than that. Its not gonna stop the crime, but it may save a few lives in the process.

Well i don't know how else you take out a wild animal when it's coming at you if you don't have a gun.

chunckylover53 wrote:Well i don't know how else you take out a wild animal when it's coming at you if you don't have a gun.

Sharp sticks

Duh

Sym wrote:My main concern is the violence that is happening in this country. Something needs to be done about it, but I dont know what the answer to that is.

I just personally feel with the amount of violent people in this nation, "assault weapons" should be much harder to get ahold of.

personally i think everyone should take the heat directed at Firearms and point it towards finding out why the hell America has so many batshit insane murderers.




just a thought...

I feel you there, the way we're heading as a race let alone a nation is truly appalling.

However, I stress, that further legislation will accomplish nothing, at least in regards to restrictions on firearms. What I think needs to happen is greater funding on research and diagnosis of those who may be mentally ill.

better communication between law enforcement and those in the medical field.

better education for our youth, promotion to succeed and make something of your life, we are sick as a nation and a race, morals seem to be almost nonexistent nowadays. The ultimate weapon we have against those who would commit violence is to instill a sense of noble morality into them, and since you can't legislate morality, the only thing you can do is to try and do your part to contribute to changing society.

It's not something people want to hear I know, it appears like we're fighting against the tide, and our contributions may appear insignificant in the greater scheme of things. It will take every one of us in this generation to make an impact, and every person you change for the better, be it your friends or family is yet another small win for us who want a better tomorrow for our kids and grand kids.

There are ways to address this that will not infringe upon or god give civil rights, and I believe that there is enough good in many of us that we can ultimately make a significant change if we are willing to put forth the effort to do so.

The Adli Corporation wrote:

Sym wrote:My main concern is the violence that is happening in this country. Something needs to be done about it, but I dont know what the answer to that is.

I just personally feel with the amount of violent people in this nation, "assault weapons" should be much harder to get ahold of.

personally i think everyone should take the heat directed at Firearms and point it towards finding out why the hell America has so many batshit insane murderers.




just a thought...

This is pretty much exactly what I said already in this thread.

Alot of the gun crimes are gang related though, man.

We have gang problems in our large cities here. Its a big cause of the murders.

Sym wrote:This is pretty much exactly what I said already in this thread.

Alot of the gun crimes are gang related though, man.

We have gang problems in our large cities here. Its a big cause of the murders.

that is what we have been saying in this thread...

a lot of the gun murders are gang related. IE committed by criminals. who, by definition WONT FOLLOW these new laws? yeah. the criminals, the ones who are using the guns to kill in the first place. ergo the restrictions wont really hurt them since fuck the law, right?

A lot of home invasions up here are most likely gang stuff because later you find out they have a TON of drugs in their house.. That doesn't just happen.

Shit a guy around the corner from my house just got busted he had a couple million dollars worth of heroin and a bunch of loaded Uzis.

Thank you Adli

The Adli Corporation wrote:

Sym wrote:This is pretty much exactly what I said already in this thread.

Alot of the gun crimes are gang related though, man.

We have gang problems in our large cities here. Its a big cause of the murders.

that is what we have been saying in this thread...

a lot of the gun murders are gang related. IE committed by criminals. who, by definition WONT FOLLOW these new laws? yeah. the criminals, the ones who are using the guns to kill in the first place. ergo the restrictions wont really hurt them since fuck the law, right?

Yes this is possible, of course

Im more worried about the nut jobs who go to malls or fucking grade schools and shoot people up. Its pretty damn easy to avoid gang violence if your not an idiot.
A little more difficult to stop a psycho in a mall with an AR 15 when you are with your kids.

Cleaning up the gang problem is a whole separate issue, one of which has nothing to do with guns.

Sym wrote:Im more worried about the nut jobs who go to malls or fucking grade schools and shoot people up. Its pretty damn easy to avoid gang violence if your not an idiot.

A little more difficult to stop a psycho in a mall with an AR 15 when you are with your kids.

A) you have to be batshit fucking insane to go on a mall shooting. its not a gun issue, its a mental health issue.

B) if you Conceal Carry, then you can shoot the whackjob.

Cleaning up the gang problem is a whole separate issue, one of which has nothing to do with guns.

exactly, so why are they focusing on guns instead of the gangs?

They're sadly a wild card that you'll never truly be able to stop. You can only mitigate them, which is why I advocate more research for better diagnosis and treatment for such people.

Many people with said disabilities are treatable, it's just that our current system has failed miserably at providing them with quality treatment. If it's not the exorbitant prices for treatment from the private sector, it's the lack of funding to provide said healthcare from a universal healthcare program.

There is no simple answer for these complex problems, it'll take time, a very very very long time to fix these social problems. However, we being Americans, and being so used to getting our way quickly don't like that, we want a solution now, not later.

I think this accurately represents why the pro-gun folks are so baffled by the anti' way of thinking and how they blame guns for all the woes that result from some whack job or scumbag abusing a firearms power.

SIgh

Im done with this thread, never to return

Peace

Well, not to really take sides, though I am on one, I admit, we have only had around 1 or 2 murders where I live in the last 20 years or so, and most households own at least 1, if not 2 firearms; I know that that is more than the normal for urban areas, and the crime rates there are much higher.