Yet another shooting thread

[Loren Pechtel]

At least locally criminals shooting at criminals doesn't make the newspaper. Innocents getting killed does.

No, it doesn't; For the simple reason that "Innocents" is an entirely fictional category, whose population is zero.

You really, seriously need to reign in your false dichotomies.

People cannot be sensibly divided good from evil, or criminal from innocent.

Perhaps actions can (though even then, the utility of such categorizations is doubtful); But not people, because people always indulge in a wide variety of actions.

If you imagine that they can, that absurdity will inevitably lead to atrocity.

When your fundamental beliefs lead you to defend the killing of a person while they are asleep, you are in dire need of some better fundamental beliefs.

In this context it has a simple enough definition--those who don't habitually engage in criminal activity. Most murder victims have multiple felony raps. Those who do not lead a criminal lifestyle and do not associate with those who do very rarely get murdered. (And most of those are long standing domestic violence situations.)

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Only 109? I bet other cities did better than that. I mean, with those newly re-legalized bump stocks, 109 bullets takes less than a minute. And we’re talking about a whole 24 hour period!

Rifles are rarely used in crime--they're simply too big.

Tell that to Donald Trump.

Rarely. Not never.

You are at this moment armed with a weapon that's responsible for more murders than rifles.

 

[Elixir]

Rarely. Not never.

Yabut they rack up disproportionate fatalities.

 

[Gospel]

You are at this moment armed with a weapon that's responsible for more murders than rifles.

And it's also the most powerful tool for preventing murders, regrettably its effectiveness is hindered by human obstacles.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Only 109? I bet other cities did better than that. I mean, with those newly re-legalized bump stocks, 109 bullets takes less than a minute. And we’re talking about a whole 24 hour period!

Rifles are rarely used in crime--they're simply too big.

Tell that to Donald Trump.

Rarely. Not never.

You are at this moment armed with a weapon that's responsible for more murders than rifles.

Rarely. Not never.

Yabut they rack up disproportionate fatalities.

I note no response to the second part of my message.

 

[Elixir]

I note no response to the second part of my message.

What can I say? Throw my hands up?

 

[ZiprHead]

Only 109? I bet other cities did better than that. I mean, with those newly re-legalized bump stocks, 109 bullets takes less than a minute. And we’re talking about a whole 24 hour period!

Rifles are rarely used in crime--they're simply too big.

Tell that to Donald Trump.

Rarely. Not never.

You are at this moment armed with a weapon that's responsible for more murders than rifles.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

 

[Derec]

You are at this moment armed with a weapon that's responsible for more murders than rifles.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

But seriously:
"Personal weapons" (hands, fists, feet) that most people are armed with at all times are responsible for more homicides than rifles of any type. And of course, so-called "assault weapons" are a subset of all rifles.
Source: FBI

 

[Derec]

Rarely. Not never.

Yabut they rack up disproportionate fatalities.

When we are talking homicides, that implies fatalities. And rifles are very underrepresented there. So, I guess you are technically correct.

Rifles rack up disproportionate (as in, disproportionately few) fatalities.

 

[Derec]

What can I say? Throw my hands up?

Statistically speaking, you are already more dangerous than somebody with an AR15.

 

[Elixir]

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

I took it to refer to hands.

 

[ZiprHead]

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

I took it to refer to hands.

The use of hands to murder is infinitesimally small compared to their other uses.

 

[ZiprHead]

You are at this moment armed with a weapon that's responsible for more murders than rifles.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

But seriously:
"Personal weapons" (hands, fists, feet) that most people are armed with at all times are responsible for more homicides than rifles of any type. And of course, so-called "assault weapons" are a subset of all rifles.
Source: FBI

And yet HFF are very small numbers compared to all firearms.

 

[Shadowy Man]

What can I say? Throw my hands up?

Statistically speaking, you are already more dangerous than somebody with an AR15.

I’d be super impressed if Trump’s shooter could have taken him out with his hands from 150 yards.

 

[laughing dog]

What can I say? Throw my hands up?

Statistically speaking, you are already more dangerous than somebody with an AR15.

That is one of the stupidest use of statistics I have ever seen. One can easily say being alive makes you statistically more dangerous than a person with any firearm.

 

[Elixir]

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

I took it to refer to hands.

The use of hands to murder is infinitesimally small compared to their other uses.

Hey, so they’re multi-functional.
Too bad AR15s aren’t offered in multi-functional configs that would justify everyone always having one on their person, eh?

I’d be super impressed if Trump’s shooter could have taken him out with his hands from 150 yards.

+1

 

[laughing dog]

What can I say? Throw my hands up?

Statistically speaking, you are already more dangerous than somebody with an AR15.

I’d be super impressed if Trump’s shooter could have taken him out with his hands from 150 yards.

It would give a new meaning to AT&T’s “reach out and touch someone”!

 

[Elixir]

I’d be super impressed if Trump’s shooter could have taken him out with his hands from 150 yards.

Or even with a .22 or a .45 handgun.

 

[Derec]

I’d be super impressed if Trump’s shooter could have taken him out with his hands from 150 yards.

Or even with a .22 or a .45 handgun.

On the other hand, something like a 30-06 bolt action with a scope would have been a far better choice than an intermediate range weapon such as the AR15.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I’d be super impressed if Trump’s shooter could have taken him out with his hands from 150 yards.

Or even with a .22 or a .45 handgun.

On the other hand, something like a 30-06 bolt action with a scope would have been a far better choice than an intermediate range weapon such as the AR15.

Sure, but did his dad own one?