we've moved past that, lets try to keep this discussion on target

[Edited on January 28, 2011 at 6:54 PM. Reason : please]

1/28/2011 6:54:47 PM

Quote :

"Clips are used in pistols, specifically revolvers."

As long as we're being pedantic, revolvers aren't pistols.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pistol

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pistol

1/28/2011 7:12:15 PM

we've moved past that, lets try to keep this discussion on target

1/28/2011 7:36:27 PM

re: shotgun vs pistol

Quote :

"I would make it much more difficult to rob someone, wouldn't it."

so, banning law abiding citizens from carrying handguns will reduce robbery?

[Edited on January 28, 2011 at 7:52 PM. Reason : .]

1/28/2011 7:51:30 PM

didn't you know? criminals, by definition, follow the law

1/28/2011 7:52:15 PM

guns don't kill people; dangerous minorities do.

1/28/2011 8:26:34 PM

Quote :

"And if it's true, that gun crime rose at the same rate as other crime, then you're still in trouble. Because the gun-folk are saying that gun control will usually lead to increases in all crime"

Crime fluctuates independent of gun control, if you want to prove that the rise was due to gun control, you should remove that fluctuation. I'm not saying your statement isn't true, honestly I don't know, I'm just trying to explain how you could prove the point you are trying to make.

Quote :

"For a targeted killing, a grenade is not the most useful item."

Tucson was not a targeted killing, several people were killed. I imagine explosives would have been extremely effective.

Quote :

"It can do the job, but a gun is much better, especially if you want to survive."

You don't even have to be in the area to use explosives.

Quote :

"so, banning law abiding citizens from carrying handguns will reduce robbery?"

I never said that. Only that it would be more difficult to rob someone with a shotgun than with a pistol. The OP asked what I would do if I were in control of gun control, that's what I would do.

1/29/2011 12:43:06 AM

If I were being robbed by a person wielding a handgun, I'd consider my fighting options. I that same person were wielding a shotgun, I'd go along with whatever they demanded.

1/29/2011 12:52:00 AM

If he had a shotgun you'd most likely be able to avoid the situation entirely.

1/29/2011 1:08:36 AM

Now you're just being dumb. If a person can sneak up on you with a pistol, then they can do the same with a shotgun.

1/29/2011 1:59:11 AM

Quote :

"If a person can sneak up on you with a pistol, then they can do the same with a shotgun."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shotgun#Types

Quote :

"Many countries establish a legal minimum barrel length that precludes easy concealment (this length is 18" (457 mm) in the U.S.). "

Meanwhile, you have entire licenses devoted to being able to legally conceal a pistol.

1/29/2011 4:05:11 AM

the visibility of long guns didn't stop two kids from taking over their high school and murdering 15 people and wounding 27 more.

1/29/2011 6:07:58 AM

^^ Because of course if someone is going to threaten you with a deadly weapon, they're going to be stopped by a law that says the barrel of their gun can't be shorter than so many inches.

1/29/2011 9:02:36 AM

Quote :

"You don't even have to be in the area to use explosives."

to use a hand grenade conventionally, yes, you do.

Quote :

"Tucson was not a targeted killing, several people were killed."

So, he didn't go there with the intent to kill one specific person? Wow, tell me about this new insight you have developed into the case!

1/29/2011 9:52:49 AM

Quote :

"I never said that. Only that it would be more difficult to rob someone with a shotgun than with a pistol. The OP asked what I would do if I were in control of gun control, that's what I would do."

but a law abiding citizen isn't doing this. do you expect criminals to turn in their pistols because of a law? once again, gun control only hurts those who obey the law.

1/29/2011 9:54:05 AM

Quote :

"If a person can sneak up on you with a pistol, then they can do the same with a shotgun."

Clearly if I outlawed pistols I would outlaw any gun over a certain size, making it fairly difficult to both conceal and use quickly.

Quote :

"the visibility of long guns didn't stop two kids from taking over their high school and murdering 15 people and wounding 27 more."

It's not going to bring about world peace.

Quote :

"to use a hand grenade conventionally"

Who said that the expolsives would be used "conventionally".

Quote :

"So, he didn't go there with the intent to kill one specific person?"

He went there with the intent of killing anyone he could, there was one specific person he put special effort in killing first, but a "targeted killing" would imply something more like an assassination where only one person was killed.

1/29/2011 10:09:21 AM

Quote :

"there was one specific person he put special effort in killing first"

so you are saying he first targeted a specific person?

Quote :

"Who said that the expolsives would be used "conventionally"."

Well, if you want to go absurd at this point, then why didn't he just build his own nuclear weapon? It certainly would have accomplished his goals. You are being pedantic at this point. The fact is, the laws "against hand grenades" didn't stop him from using a grenade. Convenience and usability of a gun did. Otherwise, why didn't he mix up some fertilizer and fuel oil? Hey, those are legal, right?

1/29/2011 10:21:52 AM

Quote :

"Clearly if I outlawed pistols I would outlaw any gun over a certain size, making it fairly difficult to both conceal and use quickly. "

Again, the assumption being that someone planning to commit (the perfectly legal act of) assault with a deadly weapon is going to be stopped by the fact that having a short barreled gun is illegal.

Quote :

"It's not going to bring about world peace. "

It's not going to bring about any peace. Killing, violence and crime are culture and societal issues, not tool issues.

Quote :

"He went there with the intent of killing anyone he could, there was one specific person he put special effort in killing first"

So you might say he "targeted" someone to "kill"

1/29/2011 10:27:16 AM

Quote :

"so you are saying he first targeted a specific person?"

I'm saying he killed a lot of people, and as to my original post, explosives would have been effective.

Quote :

"Well, if you want to go absurd at this point"

I don't think using improvised explosives would have been absurd, we have seen quite a few such attacks, and with explosives legalized, one could only assume we would see more.

1/29/2011 10:29:16 AM

so, again, since he could do it with legal things, why didn't he do so? Right, because he wanted to target a specific person

1/29/2011 4:50:05 PM

his pistol was illegal?

1/29/2011 5:09:52 PM

no. Kris is trying to say that no one uses grenades in crimes because they are illegal. Hell, killing people is illegal, but people still do it, lol.

1/29/2011 5:15:41 PM

Quote :

"so, again, since he could do it with legal things, why didn't he do so? "

He did do it with legal things, namely a handgun. He didn't do it with explosives because they are not easy to get or operate. For example, look at that guy who couldn't blow up that van in new york. If he had access to C4 or an RPG, he probably would have went with those, just like if the Tucson guy had access to a fully automatic assault rifle, he probably would have gone with that.

Quote :

"that no one uses grenades in crimes because they are illegal"

That's probably the main reason no one uses grenades or fully automatic weapons, or tanks or any of the other number of things.

1/29/2011 7:03:00 PM

keep believing that. remember, criminals always follow the law!

1/29/2011 7:07:27 PM

Way to dodge!

1/29/2011 7:20:14 PM

Was there anyone else in support of no limitations, or just aaronburro?

1/29/2011 7:24:06 PM

I am pretty much in support of no limitations.
There are a few exception like every rule though.

1/29/2011 8:36:40 PM

Gun access should be permitted on college campuses, at the very least.

1/29/2011 8:57:42 PM

i think i should be allowed to own any weapon our military has

1/29/2011 11:10:07 PM

a nuclear bomb in every household

1/30/2011 12:10:39 AM

Quote :

"That's probably the main reason no one uses grenades or fully automatic weapons, or tanks or any of the other number of things. "

It's a good thing those are all illegal and "no one" uses grenades:
http://www.nysun.com/new-york/police-search-for-motive-after-grenades-explode/13410/

Or automatic weapons (which BTW are not illegal):
http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/man-with-assault-weapon-makes-for-tense-moments-in-highland-park

Or sawed off shotguns:
http://www.freep.com/article/20110124/NEWS05/101240382/1007/news05/4-officers-shot-gunman-dead-horrifying-attack

And yes, even tanks:

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/tank-versus-towers/2007/07/14/1183833835452.html

in the commission of crimes

[Edited on January 30, 2011 at 12:35 AM. Reason : kjl]

1/30/2011 12:34:25 AM

Great anecdotal evidence. You do understand that they are a very low percentage of crimes, which was the point I was trying to make. Illegality has reduced their usage in the commission of crimes.

1/30/2011 1:30:44 AM

compared to a "high" of less than 10% of homicides involve guns

1/30/2011 8:33:42 AM

^^ Yes, we know that you attribute their lack of use (which is different from no one Mr. Pedant) to their legal status. What the rest of us are trying to get you to see is that their lack of use owes much more to their inefficiency for the crimes most criminals are attempting to commit.

As another example, before the AWB was signed into law, guns covered under the ban were used in something like ~1% of all gun crimes. After and during the ban, that number was still ~1%

1/30/2011 9:50:28 AM

Quote :

"their lack of use owes much more to their inefficiency for the crimes most criminals are attempting to commit"

Why would a select fire or suppressed weapon be less efficient that a normal semi-automatic?

1/30/2011 10:35:08 AM

Quote :

"Why would a select fire or suppressed weapon be less efficient that a normal semi-automatic?"

Muzzle climb and barrel length. There's also the fact that a suppressor doesn't actually make you silent, it merely cuts down on the amount of noise, but unless you use sub sonic ammunition people will still hear your shot quite well. (see here for a good example http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhgZYBRh0ZI). Suppressors, depending on design can also affect the performance of your gun, causing it to fail to cycle properly and mis-feed.

Also, why are you using perfectly legal products to support your position that making something illegal will reduce its use among criminals?

1/30/2011 1:07:21 PM

Sammy Gravano mentioned in his book that they almost never did hits with a suppressed weapon. He said that the extremely loud report of an unsuppressed weapon would make most people panic and run away from the scene, so they were less credible as a witness.

1/30/2011 2:32:07 PM

While it might not be effective for mob hits, the suppressor would be effective for other crimes. Regardless, selective fire would most definitely be useful for crimes. The fact that both of these are controlled yet are used substantially less on crimes proves that added laws do effect the availability for criminals as well as law abiding citizens.

1/30/2011 4:34:10 PM

^ Any evidence or even basic reasoning for your claims, or just the fact that you've watched one too many movies?

For the average criminal using a gun to hold up his local stop and rob, what does a suppressor or a select fire rifle do for him? How about for the mugger in the alley?

[Edited on January 30, 2011 at 4:49 PM. Reason : asdf]

1/30/2011 4:47:32 PM

The mugger in an alley or coming into your home can shoot you without raising as much suspicion. A selective fire rifle can help the spree killer, domestic terrorist, bank robber, etc. Who may face a shootout with police. It can also help the drug dealers, gangs, or mafioso that need to wage street warfare. As it is, we don't hear all that much about illegal weapons as the are harder and more expensive to obtain and come with additional sentencing if caught in possession.

1/30/2011 5:25:25 PM

you need to be more careful about how you use "illegal"

1/30/2011 5:49:22 PM

Ok, then, controlled

1/30/2011 7:54:11 PM

a suppressor makes a weapon harder to conceal and more likely to malfunction, so I doubt that would make it used in crimes even if it was more easily accessible. Besides single time use items are easy to throw together, so paying a lot of money for one isn't likely either for a small crime.

They sell/sold devices that help multiple rounds be fired at near full-auto speeds, so even if a fully automatic weapon was easier and cheaper to get a hold of, it would still probably not be used in any large way.

There are explosives that are very powerful that can be ordered on the internet and shipped to your home, so the explosives argument is out.

1/31/2011 10:54:38 AM

Quote :

"a suppressor makes a weapon harder to conceal and more likely to malfunction"

Just because you can point out small disadvantages does not mean that it would be enough to outweigh the much larger advantages.

Quote :

"They sell/sold devices that help multiple rounds be fired at near full-auto speeds"

The fact is that if you risked a shootout with police, an individual, or a rival criminal, selective fire weapons would be advantageous.

Quote :

"There are explosives that are very powerful that can be ordered on the internet and shipped to your home"

DOT class 1.1 and 1.2 are the kind of explosives we are talking about, and those are illegal to ship, so unless you're talking about fireworks or blasting agents, you're full of shit.

1/31/2011 6:05:56 PM

Quote :

"Just because you can point out small disadvantages does not mean that it would be enough to outweigh the much larger advantages."

Adding 3+ inches to the length of your barrel and throwing the center of balance off are not small disadvantages.

Quote :

"The fact is that if you risked a shootout with police, an individual, or a rival criminal, selective fire weapons would be advantageous. "

And yet, even the organizations that have access to these weapons favor smaller, more maneuverable and concealable weapons, in part because anything you can do to reduce your risk of a shootout with police or make it easier to get the fuck out of dodge when the shooting starts is infinitely preferable to better rates of fire.

1/31/2011 7:32:38 PM

ITT Kris has thick skull and refuses to listen to everyone while he knit-picks technicalities and talks about things he has no experience or understanding of.

1/31/2011 8:12:36 PM

i don't know that i would want select-fire in a shootout unless i had a ton of ammo and a second shooter

1/31/2011 8:39:14 PM

give me a shotgun full of buckshot anyday

1/31/2011 8:52:43 PM

Quote :

"Adding 3+ inches to the length of your barrel and throwing the center of balance off are not small disadvantages."

They are fairly small when considering the larger advantages of both reducing the sound and making the location of the shooter less distinguishable.

Quote :

"And yet, even the organizations that have access to these weapons favor smaller, more maneuverable and concealable weapons"

Then why do street criminals prefer semiautomatics to revolvers?

Quote :

"talks about things he has no experience or understanding of"

I think I've already taken down your "I know more about guns than you" argument.

Quote :

"i don't know that i would want select-fire in a shootout unless i had a ton of ammo and a second shooter"

Seems you don't understand the concept of select fire.

1/31/2011 8:58:46 PM

ok mr pedantic, how is this "i don't know that i would want to utilize the features of a select-fire in a shootout unless i had a ton of ammo and a second shooter"

[Edited on January 31, 2011 at 9:22 PM. Reason : this guy trolls harder than aaronburro]

1/31/2011 9:19:14 PM