Absolutely not. He literally helped identify numerous gun owners who aren’t stable enough to own firearms and are a serious risk to the public.
16 Likes
Generally not, in most states, especially outside of a medical situation. The laws making it illegal are used to force people into psychiatric treatment, generally.
1 Like
Clusterfucked thread is a clusterfuck; it blows my mind how some people never get tired of arguing the exact same points while nothing changes.
11 Likes
It’s hard to research anything when you can’t get any funding.
11 Likes
- The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. ( available in t-shirt form. ) 1
- There exists in this country, sadly, a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells and sows violence against its own people. ( ie. video games. ) 2
- If we truly cherish our kids more than our money or our celebrities, we must give them the greatest level of protection possible and the security that is only available with a properly trained — armed — good guy. 3
- From my cold dead hands. 4
wait? which caricature are we talking about? do you mean that one that at every turn says that reasonable gun laws mean we are “coming for your guns.”
ban the sale of some, institute buy backs, tax, license, insure, educate, regulate. lock down advertising – just like cigarettes. mandate the collection of statistics at all levels of government.
it’s too bad that some people can’t even acknowledge what’s actually being asked for. that’s the “actual issue”.
something has to change. so let’s try it out. give everything sunset timelines if need be. but, let’s start doing reasonable things, as opposed to sticking our heads in the sand.
i know, i know. first they come for your guns, then they hide your bathroom slippers, cancel your netflix, and give your dog treats before dinner. it’s a slippery slope. watch out.
10 Likes
Umm, your original post said (bold for emphasis):
…Yeah.
In fact, an AR-15 is chambered, by default, for .223 rounds, almost EXACTLY the same caliber as a .22. The only real difference is the cartridge, especially when using the military (M-16) version, which can have significantly more powder (mostly for range, actually; the lethality doesn’t go up nearly as fast, for a given load). Once again, .22 LR ammo is considered to be quite deadly by most gun experts, especially when using handloaded, “overcharged” ammo. It’s a high-velocity, accurate round, and does hideous things to targets, due to how the bullet “tumbles” on impact.
Interesting demo:
(It’s 14 minutes long, so you may want to skip to the conclusion at the end =) )
Remember, that’s at 300m (with hollowpoints; ball ammo would penetrate more)! Please feel free to look up “hydrostatic shock”, as well.
Pring’s guns are likely to be resold due to an Arizona state law forcing local police departments to resell turned-in firearms, instead of destroying them.
God damn, America.
5 Likes
Inorite? That’s the most disturbing bit about the whole story, in my opinion.
As a corollary, I refuse to (re)visit Texas, Kansas, Oklahoma, Arizona, Louisiana, Arkansas, and a few other states for similar reasons. Yee-HAH, 'Murica!
That’s completely disingenuous. It wasnt propaganda. It was (an attempt at) research.
What is the reason the ATF has to use paper records, by law, to record gun sales? Purely to impede its administrative ability.
8 Likes
Um… Most businesses in the US are required to keep all records in hardcopy for 7 years. the government is known for retaining data from the time it was incepted. You see where I’m going with this…?
To be specific, you are quite correct re: the CDC, but, not so much re: paper records for gun sales. Why?
- You can’t hack pieces of paper remotely.
- Paper works w/o power or machines, say after a disaster, for example.
- Just about every business in the US retains most records as hardcopy for at least 7 years, by US law.
- The US Gov’t., in contrast, is notorious for never, ever, EVER deleting records.
Remember: These are the records of our civilization. You sure you’re OK with the government not retaining all records, pretty much forever, in the safest (most stable) form(s) possible? I’m sure that would make all sorts of tasks (cough census, anyone?) a bit more difficult and a LOT less useful, as an easy example. Wanna try “format-shifting” 1000-year-old magnetic or optical storage, vs. printed text, as a future researcher…?! LOL
Focus your argument, Don Quixote, that’s just a windmill; our society is nowhere near “paperless” enough to use solely electronic means =) .
Nope! I’m going with “It’s accepted US business and official records practice, to record ALL transactions, especially those regarding direct wealth transfer, for at least 7 years, and in the case of the government, forever, so choose another approach.” Assumption fail.
You can stop trying to place words in my mouth; I’m better at doing so for myself than you are =).
By the by, I SUPPORT keeping these records, silly, both in electronic and paper forms. You’re battin’ .001, “Champ”; go for another windmill instead.
The only real similarity between the rim-fired .22LR and the center-fired .223 is the diameter of the bullet itself, as your first statement suggests. It is a stretch to suggest these calibers are otherwise comparable. One only needs to see the calibers side-by-side to understand there’s a dramatic difference.
Yes, the interwebz are full of hobbyists out there who trick out their Ruger 10/22s like a suburban teenager would their Honda CRX (and to whom gunmakers have no qualms with marketing a militarized-looking gun, such as the popular AR-15 platform) or enthusiasts who create videos such as the one you linked to but, objectively, the mass of the .22LR and .223 bullets and the velocity at which they exit the muzzle are dramatically different, which explains the difference in range and potential damage between the calibers.
Has the .22LR caliber ever been lethal? Sure, and I wouldn’t want to be shot with one. No gun, no matter the caliber, should be treated with anything less than great care. I had no intention of commenting as arguing the difference in calibers was never the point of the article, but the opinions regarding comparability of the calibers in your post are hyperbolic. FWIW, the Israeli Defense Force has used the Ruger .22LR as a “less than lethal” caliber.
On topic, I can’t help wonder what the point of the AZ gun collection program is if the police turn right around and sell the damn things, putting them back into circulation. If past or potential criminals turn the guns in without penalty and that pulls guns out of circulation for potential ill use, why isn’t that the satisfying extent of the program? How is it justified to allow the police to resell them and not recognized as potentially self-defeating…?
1 Like
2 Likes
Here’s something to consider. There are about 70 million firearms owners in the US who claim “self defence” as a reason for owning them. Collectively, they shoot and kill about 2,000 criminals per year (police kill about 1,000). It means that the average “self-defence” firearm owner would wait 35,000 years before getting to kill a criminal.
5 Likes
What I found interesting about that article is that the shooter, having slready managed to shoot himself, was effectively subdued before the usher went to get his gun. The usher having a gun wasn’t what stopped the shooter.
8 Likes
Not all amendments are created equal. See:18th. Also; 2nd.
2 Likes
not myth. FANTASY.
Sounds like one you have.
3 Likes
yes.
but from your argument you might misunderstand what the myth is…
the myth isn’t if anyone has ever stopped a crime using a gun. the myth is that civilians having guns has a positive effect/impact on the number of crimes being stopped, crime rates, or the safety of civilians. it does not on any of those three counts. Not only is it not a general deterrent to crime, it in fact has the opposite effect and has been shown to increase violent crime rates. Not only does it not increase civilian safety, in reality the negative impact of accidental shootings far outweighs the statistically negligible number of crimes stopped by civilians with guns.
it is stupid for many other reasons though…
civilians aren’t trained in talking people down and should not be using lethal force on untried “criminals”. in most civilized societies taking the law into your own hands in considered a really bad thing for good reasons. the very idea of “law by gun” is revolting to most but it is the sick fantasy of people making these arguments.
there isn’t any way for other civilians or the police to differentiate between “good” and “bad” active shooters. how do you know you are stopping a bad guy? lots of people are going to get shot, hurt, or killed needlessly in the sort of crazy scenarios these people think are realistic.
no you won’t, give me a break.
even if that wasn’t wrong, one can’t cherry pick data that contradicts the larger set. seriously?
that’s the kind of bullshit that circulates facebook, not here where people will actually think about what is being claimed.
11 Likes
Paging Archduke Franz Ferdinand…
Last I checked, most people are harmed by their own guns, so getting them out of his home is not a bad plan. He’s also reducing the chance of them going walkies and being used illicitly…or at least, he would be, except Arizona has this dickhead law whereby surrendered guns have to be sold to the public, not destroyed, so that the number of firearms in the state can increase but never decrease. Why don’t they just go the whole hog and say that anyone surrendering a firearm has to shoot themselves in the goddamn balls before the police can accept the weapons?
7 Likes
An organisation renowned for the care they take for the people they’re shooting at.
4 Likes
