Gun laws and gun violence--the reality

[Gun Nut]

Why is te fellow in the first picture wearing headphones. he wouldn't hear any trouble?

That is hearing protection. Gun shots are LOUD and can damage your hearing.
More likely, he wanted to protect himself from sonic assault (air horns and such).

Also, I note the position of the trigger and slide. The shotgun's breech is closed, but it is not cocked. This means he "dry fired" (or actually fired) the weapon after loading it. He must not have loaded his last round (his +1), or he expended it. The shotgun will need to be racked before it can be fired.

I can't comment on the rifle in the first picture, beyond noting it is being carried in a safe position. I am not experienced in that type of weapon to judge its status from that picture.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Why is te fellow in the first picture wearing headphones. he wouldn't hear any trouble?

That is hearing protection. Gun shots are LOUD and can damage your hearing.
More likely, he wanted to protect himself from sonic assault (air horns and such).

Also, I note the position of the trigger and slide. The shotgun's breech is closed, but it is not cocked. This means he "dry fired" (or actually fired) the weapon after loading it. He must not have loaded his last round (his +1), or he expended it. The shotgun will need to be racked before it can be fired.

I can't comment on the rifle in the first picture, beyond noting it is being carried in a safe position. I am not experienced in that type of weapon to judge its status from that picture.

Can you tell from any of the pictures whether or not those people are sociopathic killers that might--at a moment's notice--start opening fire into the crowd? If you were a police officer responding to a call, could you tell the difference between the "innocent" bystanders open-carrying and someone within that same crowd having just killed thirty people and now blending in with all of the other panicked open-carriers?

 

[Gun Nut]

Why is te fellow in the first picture wearing headphones. he wouldn't hear any trouble?

That is hearing protection. Gun shots are LOUD and can damage your hearing.
More likely, he wanted to protect himself from sonic assault (air horns and such).

Also, I note the position of the trigger and slide. The shotgun's breech is closed, but it is not cocked. This means he "dry fired" (or actually fired) the weapon after loading it. He must not have loaded his last round (his +1), or he expended it. The shotgun will need to be racked before it can be fired.

I can't comment on the rifle in the first picture, beyond noting it is being carried in a safe position. I am not experienced in that type of weapon to judge its status from that picture.

Can you tell from any of the pictures whether or not those people are sociopathic killers that might--at a moment's notice--start opening fire into the crowd? If you were a police officer responding to a call, could you tell the difference between the "innocent" bystanders open-carrying and someone within that same crowd having just killed thirty people and now blending in with all of the other panicked open-carriers?

Yes. But not beyond any doubt, of course.

The person in the first picture appears to be a news reporter. You can see he is holding a microphone that is attached by a beefy cable, apparently to the camera you can also see in the image. Getting a job at a news agency with an on-camera role is a pretty good cover for a psychopath trying to get into a crowd with a loaded weapon.

The person in the second picture is holding a "Don't tread on me" flag. Presumably he is a Libertarian. In my personal experience, those types are harmless hippies that like to test the boundaries of their constitutional rights.

But enough with the profiling.. they are both law abiding citizens as far as anyone can tell in those still images.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

If you don't secure your firearms when they are not in use, you are not a responsible gun owner.
If you think your firearm will protect you against foreign invasion (Red Dawn bullshit) or a tyrannical government (Cliven Bundy bullshit), you are irrational and most likely an irresponsible gun owner.
If you think cars are more dangerous than guns, you are not a rational gun owner.
If you think government has no right to keep a database of transactions and ownership of firearms (you know, like what they do with cars), you are not a rational gun owner.
If you have ever posted a photo of yourself on social media brandishing a firearm, you are most likely not a responsible gun owner. However, I'll conceed that it is possible you are just an insecure wanker who is responsible to own firearms.
If you feel you must own a firearm with greater killing capacity than what was used at the battle of Stalingrad, you are a dishonest, irresponsible gun owner.
If you do moronic shit like this:

or this:

you are not a responsible gun owner.

Or to put it another way, none of the suggestions for gun reform punish responsible, rational gun owners, so what are you talking about?

Why is te fellow in the first picture wearing headphones. he wouldn't hear any trouble?

Those look a lot like a pair of noise-protection headphones I have. The sophisticated ones for shooters "pass" sound normally (mic & speaker) and only cut out excessively loud sound.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Can you tell from any of the pictures whether or not those people are sociopathic killers that might--at a moment's notice--start opening fire into the crowd? If you were a police officer responding to a call, could you tell the difference between the "innocent" bystanders open-carrying and someone within that same crowd having just killed thirty people and now blending in with all of the other panicked open-carriers?

Yes. But not beyond any doubt, of course.

So, no.

The person in the first picture appears to be a news reporter. You can see he is holding a microphone that is attached by a beefy cable

Or, he could be recording his play-by-play "manifesto" in real-time as he's about to open fire.

The person in the second picture is holding a "Don't tread on me" flag. Presumably he is a Libertarian.

Or the flag represents something far more radical to him and the fact that he's wearing his noise-cancelling firing headphones proves he's about to maniacally wave that flag to get everyone's attention and then unsling that shotgun and start a rampage.

they are both law abiding citizens as far as anyone can tell in those still images.

Thus, so would someone like James Holmes or Stephen Paddock to any police officers that would normally otherwise see a weapon as a threat, but now can't thanks to dumbfucks like these other guys in the photos.

Recognize this guy?



Think anyone would stop him if he was in that crowd with his rifle slung?

 

[laughing dog]

I think civilian who feels the need to walk around a protest with a firearm slung over his/her shoulder has some serious psychological issues.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think civilian who feels the need to walk around a protest with a firearm slung over his/her shoulder has some serious psychological issues.

Depends on what the protest is about.

I have no problem with it at a gun rights protest, although it would be out of place almost everywhere else.

 

[laughing dog]

I think civilian who feels the need to walk around a protest with a firearm slung over his/her shoulder has some serious psychological issues.

Depends on what the protest is about.

I have no problem with it at a gun rights protest, although it would be out of place almost everywhere else.

I disagree - any civilian who feels the need to walk about a protest with a firearm slung over his shoulder has some serious psychological issues.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think civilian who feels the need to walk around a protest with a firearm slung over his/her shoulder has some serious psychological issues.

Depends on what the protest is about.

I have no problem with it at a gun rights protest, although it would be out of place almost everywhere else.

I disagree - any civilian who feels the need to walk about a protest with a firearm slung over his shoulder has some serious psychological issues.

Or maybe they're just chickenshit.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think civilian who feels the need to walk around a protest with a firearm slung over his/her shoulder has some serious psychological issues.

Depends on what the protest is about.

I have no problem with it at a gun rights protest, although it would be out of place almost everywhere else.

I disagree - any civilian who feels the need to walk about a protest with a firearm slung over his shoulder has some serious psychological issues.

Disagree--at a gun rights protest it's a symbol, not simply a gun.

Think of nurse-in protests when a woman is thrown out for nursing in a legal fashion.

 

[laughing dog]

I disagree - any civilian who feels the need to walk about a protest with a firearm slung over his shoulder has some serious psychological issues.

Disagree--at a gun rights protest it's a symbol, not simply a gun.

It is still a firearm. It is still a weapon. And it is still dangerous. And if you don't think part of the attraction is to intimidate people, you are naive.

You are entitled to your opinion. I am entitled to mine. In my opinion, any civilian who feels the need to walk around a protest with a firearm slung over his/her shoulder has some serious psychological issues.

Think of nurse-in protests when a woman is thrown out for nursing in a legal fashion.

I have no idea what you are posting about.

 

[Patooka]

Maybe I should put the photos in some sort of context. Fuckwit number 1 was at a March For Our Lives protest. Real classy. Fuckwit number 2 was at an Obama speech about health care in 2009. If you think that is reasonable, please do it at the next Trump rally and see what happens next.

 

[Patooka]

California synagogue shooting suspect identified as attack leaves one dead, three injured

San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore said the man entered the Congregation Chabad synagogue of Poway, about 37 kilometres north of downtown San Diego, and opened fire on worshippers with an AR-type assault weapon.

I'll say it again; semi automatic rifles, especially 0.223 calibre and larger, have no place in civilian life. But everyone is going to go to their respective corners and play out the same arguments like, if the gun control measure is not completely 100% effective, it should not be implemented, or I know one person who can responsibly own firearms, therefore the law should not change.

Here is my prediction; there will be no effort to address the pandemic of firearm related deaths in America until a person of colour, or a muslim shoots up an NRA convention. The depressing thing is I'm not even being facetious about this, things are that absurd.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

California synagogue shooting suspect identified as attack leaves one dead, three injured

San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore said the man entered the Congregation Chabad synagogue of Poway, about 37 kilometres north of downtown San Diego, and opened fire on worshippers with an AR-type assault weapon.

I'll say it again; semi automatic rifles, especially 0.223 calibre and larger, have no place in civilian life. But everyone is going to go to their respective corners and play out the same arguments like, if the gun control measure is not completely 100% effective, it should not be implemented, or I know one person who can responsibly own firearms, therefore the law should not change.

Here is my prediction; there will be no effort to address the pandemic of firearm related deaths in America until a person of colour, or a muslim shoots up an NRA convention. The depressing thing is I'm not even being facetious about this, things are that absurd.

Or if Democrats started to arm themselves in large numbers.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It is still a firearm. It is still a weapon. And it is still dangerous. And if you don't think part of the attraction is to intimidate people, you are naive.

A weapon carried on one's back poses basically zero threat to anyone. In this context it's a symbol of what they are protesting about, not a weapon.

Think of nurse-in protests when a woman is thrown out for nursing in a legal fashion.

I have no idea what you are posting about.

You've never heard of a nurse-in?!

http://www.bestforbabes.org/take-action/what-exactly-is-a-nurse-in/

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Maybe I should put the photos in some sort of context. Fuckwit number 1 was at a March For Our Lives protest. Real classy. Fuckwit number 2 was at an Obama speech about health care in 2009. If you think that is reasonable, please do it at the next Trump rally and see what happens next.

Please note that I said it was a symbol at a gun rights protest. In basically any other context it is meant as a threat. Showing examples of the latter is in no way a rebuttal of the former.

And note that this thread was about the fact that gun laws do basically nothing to the gun murder rate, despite that always being the main reason presented to enact them.

- - - Updated - - -

I'll say it again; semi automatic rifles, especially 0.223 calibre and larger, have no place in civilian life. But everyone is going to go to their respective corners and play out the same arguments like, if the gun control measure is not completely 100% effective, it should not be implemented, or I know one person who can responsibly own firearms, therefore the law should not change.

You're including an awful lot of hunting rifles with this brush.

 

[Patooka]

You're including an awful lot of hunting rifles with this brush.

I have family who live in rural NSW, where there is a feral pig problem. They are coping without semi automatics. And if you're using something like an Armalite for hunting, you are doing it wrong.

And yes, carrying a gun for the intent of symbolism at a protest is almost as fucking stupid as using a gun for the purpose of a can opener.

 

[laughing dog]

A weapon carried on one's back poses basically zero threat to anyone.

Nonsense. It can be taken off someone's back.

In this context it's a symbol of what they are protesting about, not a weapon.

It is counterfactual to claim a working firearm is not a weapon.

You've never heard of a nurse-in?!

http://www.bestforbabes.org/take-action/what-exactly-is-a-nurse-in/

I have heard of that. Your example makes little sense.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

A weapon carried on one's back poses basically zero threat to anyone.

So, when ISIS soldiers have their AKs slung, they pose basically zero threat to anyone? Exactly how many seconds does it take to unsling an Armalite?

In this context it's a symbol of what they are protesting about, not a weapon.

That's quite possibly the stupidest argument you've made yet in regard to guns, Loren. It is at all times a weapon, unless its firing pin has been removed and the barrel sealed.

 

[Gun Nut]

California synagogue shooting suspect identified as attack leaves one dead, three injured

San Diego County Sheriff Bill Gore said the man entered the Congregation Chabad synagogue of Poway, about 37 kilometres north of downtown San Diego, and opened fire on worshippers with an AR-type assault weapon.

I'll say it again; semi automatic rifles, especially 0.223 calibre and larger, have no place in civilian life. But everyone is going to go to their respective corners and play out the same arguments like, if the gun control measure is not completely 100% effective, it should not be implemented, or I know one person who can responsibly own firearms, therefore the law should not change.

Here is my prediction; there will be no effort to address the pandemic of firearm related deaths in America until a person of colour, or a muslim shoots up an NRA convention. The depressing thing is I'm not even being facetious about this, things are that absurd.

Like asking a coal executive to design the regulations on solar energy production... in this case, what a "caliber" is alludes to our would-be "legislator" making uselessly ridiculous laws that they themselves don't even understand.
"larger than .223" is almost every single bullet in existence... the smallest caliber cartridge one can reasonably find today is .22 caliber. 0.003 bigger caliber is microscopic. They are essentially the same size. What makes the .223 round different than the .22 is the amount of powder (power) behind the projectile.
I think what you mean to "ban" are "Magnum" rounds, or, rounds that have more gun powder in them than their historical standard. Another uselessly stupid idea, but at least follows your presumed logic better.
Like wanting to ban nuclear weapons, and designing the law such that it is illegal to manufacture microwave ovens anymore... or, noting that the heart is approximately 3 inches in from your breastbone, so all knives over 3 inches shall be banned... wait, what do you mean all the restaurants have to close because they can no longer prepare meals? I don't understand what that has to do with stabbings... ??