Gun laws and gun violence--the reality

[Koyaanisqatsi]

the smallest caliber cartridge one can reasonably find today is .22 caliber.

Which should be the largest caliber a civilian can purchase or own or use, etc. No more than that is needed for either self defense or hunting for food, which should be the only type of hunting allowed.

 

[Gun Nut]

the smallest caliber cartridge one can reasonably find today is .22 caliber.

Which should be the largest caliber a civilian can purchase or own or use, etc. No more than that is needed for either self defense or hunting for food, which should be the only type of hunting allowed.

then same can be said for knives... who needs more than 1 inch of a blade to cut something (except maniacal murdering psychopaths)... quarter inch can cut... toenail clippers are too long... smaller than that should suffice for any cutting need.

In the 1700's it took weeks to get from one place to another on horseback... now we have these automobiles that travel 50 times faster... Who needs that!!!?? (Well, if I don't then nobody must) It's dangerous moving that fast. Maximum speed of any car used for any purpose (because cars can be used for purposes other than they are designed for) should be no more than 30 miles per hour... that is much faster than your average quarter horse.

Calculators do math great... all anyone should ever need. Computers do math WAY too fast... so fast they can be used to defeat all kinds of security and encryption of data... also known to be used to manipulate social media and cause all kinds of political problems... the x86 architecture is too fast and too dangerous... a texas instruments hand calculator is all anyone should need, as far as I comprehend.. therefore a law limiting computer speed to adding machine power makes perfect sense to me.

 

[ZiprHead]

the smallest caliber cartridge one can reasonably find today is .22 caliber.

Which should be the largest caliber a civilian can purchase or own or use, etc. No more than that is needed for either self defense or hunting for food, which should be the only type of hunting allowed.

A .22 isn't going to take down a deer and would give a bear a mild sting.

 

[Gun Nut]

the smallest caliber cartridge one can reasonably find today is .22 caliber.

Which should be the largest caliber a civilian can purchase or own or use, etc. No more than that is needed for either self defense or hunting for food, which should be the only type of hunting allowed.

A .22 isn't going to take down a deer and would give a bear a mild sting.

The majority of anti-gun folks that have ideas about how to solve their personal idea of the "gun problem" have no idea what the fuck they are talking about, and don't seem to really care.

Carbon bad. Ban all carbon everywhere in every manner. Charcoal is the root of all evil.
Yelling bad. Ban all decibels greater than 3....
Voting is compromised. Ban all democratic processes.

 

[Patooka]

the smallest caliber cartridge one can reasonably find today is .22 caliber.

Which should be the largest caliber a civilian can purchase or own or use, etc. No more than that is needed for either self defense or hunting for food, which should be the only type of hunting allowed.

A .22 isn't going to take down a deer and would give a bear a mild sting.

I haven't fired a semi automatic since 1998 and I have killed feral pigs since then. I guess I'm a fucking ninja. Or maybe read my post about semi autos. Just saying.

 

[Gun Nut]

A .22 isn't going to take down a deer and would give a bear a mild sting.

I haven't fired a semi automatic since 1998 and I have killed feral pigs since then. I guess I'm a fucking ninja. Or maybe read my post about semi autos. Just saying.

What the hell does the type of action (semi-automatic) have to do with the caliber (.22 versus .223)?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

the smallest caliber cartridge one can reasonably find today is .22 caliber.

Which should be the largest caliber a civilian can purchase or own or use, etc. No more than that is needed for either self defense or hunting for food, which should be the only type of hunting allowed.

A .22 is fine for something like a rabbit. It's unlikely to kill something like a deer--and we need deer hunting to keep their numbers in check. It's also not a very effective self defense round--most .22 hits are not going to stop an attacker. (From a discussion back in the BBS days--EMT was on a call. The guy had IIRC 7 .22 hits to the head from a rifle and had been unable to kill himself. He finally called for help because it hurt too much. He was in no way incapacitated, every round had bounced off his skull rather than penetrating.)

 

[Gun Nut]

My point is that "caliber" is not like a "speed limit"... you can't pick a caliber and call that a cutoff between sane gun control and whatever. The nature of the road makes a difference in choosing a speed limit.

There is no one thing that legislators can ban that can possibly fix any particular problem.

Why the discussion is not about providing mental health assistance is just insane.

 

[Patooka]

A .22 isn't going to take down a deer and would give a bear a mild sting.

I haven't fired a semi automatic since 1998 and I have killed feral pigs since then. I guess I'm a fucking ninja. Or maybe read my post about semi autos. Just saying.

What the hell does the type of action (semi-automatic) have to do with the caliber (.22 versus .223)?

Not a single thing. But comprehension is something you and Loren appear to lack, so I'll repeat my original statement before Loren segued down this particular rabbit hole:semi automatic rifles, especially 0.223 calibre and larger, have no place in civilian life. Oh, and FYI, most of the world agrees with my spelling of the word "calibre". Just saying.

 

[RavenSky]

Oops--it's only suicides that go down...

"Oops"?

Gun laws are repeatedly presented as a means of reducing gun crime. The "oops" is that the data doesn't support that.

The data doesn't support it? I'd say the data doesn't support your claim. Oops.

The largest analysis of the link between gun violence and gun control legislation was published last year by a group of public health researchers in the journal Epidemiological Reviews. They analyzed 130 studies from 10 countries that explored the connections between firearm regulations and gun violence.

The analysis uses data from a wide variety of firearms regulations including laws about sales and ownership, storage regulations, laws targeting specific types of firearms and ammunition, and punishments for gun offenders.

The authors conclude that specific laws combining different types of firearm regulations are the best way to reduce deaths from gun violence. They also found that some specific regulations – such as background checks – are the most effective. And laws that relax restrictions on the sale and use of guns lead to more gun-related deaths.

A second review published last year in the Journal of the American Medical Association looked specifically at firearms laws in the U.S. to determine whether increased restrictions lead to fewer gun-related deaths. The researchers split laws into five categories: laws that target gun trafficking, laws that strengthen background checks, laws that improve child safety, laws that ban military-style assault weapons, and laws that restrict people from carrying guns in public places.

On the whole, they found that increased restrictions led to lower rates of gun deaths, even after they adjusted for demographical differences in the studies. The research clearly showed that laws strengthening background checks and requiring a permit to purchase firearms decreased homicide rates.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...803/do-firearm-laws-reduce-gun-related-deaths

Southern states along the Mississippi River have consistently reported some of the highest rates of firearm deaths. Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee and Arkansas currently fall within the top 10 for firearm deaths. One legislative similarity that all of these states share is that none of them require license, registration or permit to buy a gun, though there are dozens of other states with the same regulations. Still, the states surrounding the Mississippi River Delta were rated as some of the most lenient in terms of gun law stringency, according to Crimadvisor.

Conversely, while Washington and Rhode Island have some of the most restrictive gun laws in the U.S., they fall on the lower end of firearm death rates in the country. Six out of the top 10 states for firearm deaths enacted "stand your ground" laws around 2006.

https://www.safehome.org/resources/gun-laws-and-deaths/

POLICIES THAT MAY INCREASE VIOLENT CRIME

Concealed-Carry Laws
Evidence that shall-issue concealed-carry laws may increase violent crime is limited. Evidence for the effect of shall-issue laws on total homicides, firearm homicides, robberies, assaults, and rapes is inconclusive.

Stand-Your-Ground Laws
Evidence that stand-your-ground laws may increase homicide rates is moderate, and evidence that such laws may increase firearm homicides is limited. Evidence for the effect of stand-your ground laws on other types of violent crime is inconclusive.

POLICIES THAT MAY DECREASE VIOLENT CRIME

Background Checks
Evidence that background checks may reduce violent crime and total homicides is limited, and studies provide moderate evidence that dealer background checks reduce firearm homicides. Evidence of the effect of private-seller background checks on firearm homicides is inconclusive.

Prohibitions Associated with Mental Illness
Evidence that mental health–related prohibitions on gun ownership reduce violent crime is moderate. Evidence that these prohibitions reduce total homicide rates is limited. Evidence for the effect of such prohibitions on firearm homicides is inconclusive.

https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/violent-crime.html

And so on...

In any case, my questioning on your "oops" comment was in reference to your callous disinterest in the reduction of suicide gun deaths.

 

[RavenSky]

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

Until they are not.

Then it is too late.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

^^^^ This BIG time!

These poor put-upon innocent "gun rights protesters" specifically showed up at a Moms Demand meeting, and this wasn't the first nor only time these fucking gun-nuts have pulled this. It is PURE intimidation, and (in my opinion) shows they are not mentally fit to own a gun.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-action-open-carry-texas-guns-rifles/3497895/

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.

yep. I agree.

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.

He is babbling about the protests conducted by breast-feeding moms in response to prudes who try to prevent moms from feeding their babies. The problem with his analogy is that milk-filled boobies don't kill anyone.

Gun nuts, of course, will respond with breastfeeding isn't a right enumerated in the constitutional amendments

 

[RavenSky]

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.

NRA conventions are 'gun-free zones'

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

the smallest caliber cartridge one can reasonably find today is .22 caliber.

Which should be the largest caliber a civilian can purchase or own or use, etc. No more than that is needed for either self defense or hunting for food, which should be the only type of hunting allowed.

then same can be said for knives...

If I had to face a knife or an Armalite, I'd face the knife and so would you every fucking time. Knives (and everything else you tried to false equate) serve other primary purposes. Guns have one purpose and one purpose only; to kill. I'm not going to repeat all the evidence I have already given dozens of times before about the stopping power of .22's. Suffice it to say they are often more effective than any other caliber--particularly for self defense--due to the fact that the recoil is less prone to affect targeting (and retargeting) and the noise is terrifying enough to scare any predator away, while not deafening the user (who will, presumably, need to be able to hear if he or she is to survive a home invasion).

This isn't anyone's first rodeo with this bullshit. We ALL know the same fucking arguments. The fact is no one needs more than a .22 handgun for self defense.

As for hunting, this is why I qualified it with civilians, since no civilian needs to hunt deer for food. As for thinning the herd, then that should be done by professionals, not civilians.

And as for Bears, too fucking bad. You're dead and bear shit in the morning. That's the price you pay for sport hunting to begin with. Unless you're a hermit actually living off the land and can prove that you require a bear rifle, you don't get one.

This idea that everyone has a right to carry whatever they want doesn't exist. Even evil fuckheads like Scailia understood this.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

the smallest caliber cartridge one can reasonably find today is .22 caliber.

Which should be the largest caliber a civilian can purchase or own or use, etc. No more than that is needed for either self defense or hunting for food, which should be the only type of hunting allowed.

A .22 is fine for something like a rabbit.

Exactly. Food.

It's unlikely to kill something like a deer

Good. Nobody needs to eat deer. Again, unless you are a hermit and can prove that you actually survive on deer meat alone.

--and we need deer hunting to keep their numbers in check.

Not civilians. Professionals should handle that and they can have single action .3006 or the like to do it, though one would think a far more humane method could be employed, like spaying/neutering just like we do with dogs and cats.

It's also not a very effective self defense round

We've gone through this dozens of times. It is the most effective for a number of reasons that we're not going to regurgitate here but this is ironically one of them:

The guy had IIRC 7 .22 hits to the head from a rifle and had been unable to kill himself.

Exactly.

You don't have a right to kill someone. You have a right to self-defense. In something like 99.9% of the time, the simple fact that you pulled a gun ended the conflict. Firing in the air or at the person--whether you hit them or not--took care of another .09%. The remaining .01% is the same percentage that would obtain no matter what caliber you used.

Iow, a .22 is all you need for self defense. If you want a shotgun that shoots non-lethal rounds and a thousand razor sharp ninja stars and flash-bang landmines all over your house be my guest, but having strong doors with deadbolts and secure windows with an alarm system (particularly the tech you can get today) is all you need.

This is fact. This is well-established.

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Why the discussion is not about providing mental health assistance is just insane.

What's insane is thinking that mental health assistance is a magical cure for mental health and/or that it would in any way be as effective as simply NOT ARMING EVERYONE.

In order for "mental health assistance" to be in any way effective, it would require that every single person in America be under constant psychological care. It's not like there is a rorschach blotter that tells us who is going to snap and take Grandpa's arsenal to town in a truck.

Talk about "profiling." We'd have to assume every single person is going to snap and even then what is a psychologist supposed to do once one of their patients snaps and opens fire? Say, "How do you feel?"

There is only one solution as has been proved every single time it's been done; ban the fucking weapons.

You can have a .22 handgun and any number of non-lethal other options. And be grateful we give you that.

 

[Gun Nut]

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

Until they are not.

Then it is too late.

which can be said about any individual regardless of how you have prejudged them. Good thing we have 4th and 5th amendments to our Constitution that protects us from thought-police like you.

 

[ZiprHead]

the smallest caliber cartridge one can reasonably find today is .22 caliber.

Which should be the largest caliber a civilian can purchase or own or use, etc. No more than that is needed for either self defense or hunting for food, which should be the only type of hunting allowed.

A .22 is fine for something like a rabbit. It's unlikely to kill something like a deer--and we need deer hunting to keep their numbers in check. It's also not a very effective self defense round--most .22 hits are not going to stop an attacker. (From a discussion back in the BBS days--EMT was on a call. The guy had IIRC 7 .22 hits to the head from a rifle and had been unable to kill himself. He finally called for help because it hurt too much. He was in no way incapacitated, every round had bounced off his skull rather than penetrating.)

This is the only story I found anywhere near your description.

Man shoots himself five times in head and survives

No where is the caliber of the weapon mentioned but it does say this: The man, who lived alone, reportedly used a very old gun and ammunition. The gunpowder did not explode with as much power as would normally occur, the officer said.

"Otherwise the first shot would already have been fatal," he said.

 

[Gun Nut]

then same can be said for knives...

If I had to face a knife or an Armalite, I'd face the knife and so would you every fucking time. Knives (and everything else you tried to false equate) serve other primary purposes. Guns have one purpose and one purpose only; to kill. I'm not going to repeat all the evidence I have already given dozens of times before about the stopping power of .22's. Suffice it to say they are often more effective than any other caliber--particularly for self defense--due to the fact that the recoil is less prone to affect targeting (and retargeting) and the noise is terrifying enough to scare any predator away, while not deafening the user (who will, presumably, need to be able to hear if he or she is to survive a home invasion).

This isn't anyone's first rodeo with this bullshit. We ALL know the same fucking arguments. The fact is no one needs more than a .22 handgun for self defense.

As for hunting, this is why I qualified it with civilians, since no civilian needs to hunt deer for food. As for thinning the herd, then that should be done by professionals, not civilians.

And as for Bears, too fucking bad. You're dead and bear shit in the morning. That's the price you pay for sport hunting to begin with. Unless you're a hermit actually living off the land and can prove that you require a bear rifle, you don't get one.

This idea that everyone has a right to carry whatever they want doesn't exist. Even evil fuckheads like Scailia understood this.

It is common knowledge (among the knowledgeable) that the 9mm is the bare minimum for protection against an average human. A .45 is bare minimum against a methed-out / psychotic human.
Your claim about the .22 is dangerously false.
Regarding dealing with recoil. You are correct that a lower caliber allows for less muscular or inexperienced shooters to stay on target. This is a common debate when discussing MUCH higher calibers... but from the .22 to the .45 the rise of the recoil is very similar between them. In discussing minimum safe caliber to protect against an attacking mountain lion or bear (you heard of hiking in the woods, right? Millions are doing this as we speak). The argument is between the .357 and .44 Magnum. One is lighter, less leadly (to a bear), but easier to have repeat shots, and the other is more reliable to stop, but harder to make followup shots. I personally carry a .357 when in the deep (not on populated trails - just the backwoods - because of the weight).
So, anyway, you're wrong, and your manner of expression tells of an emotional bias preventing you from holding onto actual facts... like about the utility of the .22 caliber

 

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Your claim about the .22 is dangerously false.

I have conclusively disproved this nonsense dozens of times already. I'm not doing it again. There is no need for anything more than .22. End of fucking story.

Every goddamned time this stupidity comes up we have to reinvent the fucking wheel. Enough. It's done.