Gun Control

Quote: Dalex64

If everyone thinks everyone else has a gun, will they stop throwing slurpees?

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2015/10/road_rage_in_mount_clemens_wom.html

Will people be able to express their anger without fearing being shot?

Here is an idea, don't threaten people and you will not force them to show their legal gun?

Quote: Dalex64

If everyone thinks everyone else has a gun, will they stop throwing slurpees?

http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2015/10/road_rage_in_mount_clemens_wom.html

Will people be able to express their anger without fearing being shot?

What's this world coming to when a redneck can't slam his pick-up truck in park, "in an intersection" an go yell at a woman for her poor driving and, throw a drink in her face?

Not only that, it appears to me the reporter is some ignorant anti-gun nut. I will wager his story where he says " she pulled out a 9 mm Luger handgun ", is incorrect. Chances are she may have been sporting a Ruger handgun, but I doubt she was packing a Nazi Luger. He can't even get the gun right, what are the chances he might have put a bit of spin on the rest of the story?

She does however make CCP's look weak,,,she missed. And as evidenced by the fact she didn't empty the mag into him, it is a shame she is charged with intent to commit murder.

Mlive is pretty notorious for bad reporting. They use a lot of unpaid volunteers.

So it is ok to react to having a slurpee thrown at you with deadly force? I think stories like this reinforce the ideas of the anti-gun people.

Quote: AZDuffman

Here is an idea, don't threaten people and you will not force them to show their legal gun?

She didn't "show her gun," she discharged it. And no one forced her to do it.

I've decided I'm in favor of gun control laws which actually reduce penalties when criminals use less effective ammunition and weapons.

In psychological terms, it would be defined as redirection. Nothing is a total solution, but I think it might have a significant effect making some criminals essentially less lethal and more vulnerable when they do engage.

Do you think someone is going to go for a safer less penalties buy vs. taking a bigger risk?

Quote: Dalex64

She didn't "show her gun," she discharged it. And no one forced her to do it.

So she used a gun in self-defense. Good for her.

Quote: rxwine

I've decided I'm in favor of gun control laws which actually reduce penalties when criminals use less effective ammunition...

There's no such thing. I mean, yeah, a slug is "more effective" than some #7 shot (what Cheney blew into some guy's face), but even bean bags kill people. And remember, the vast majority of gun deaths come by way of the lowly .22. Of course, this is because the .22 is the most common, but I'm just making a point. If something is propelled by combustion out of a barrel, it is lethal.

Quote: rxwine

...and weapons.

We already do this. Mug someone with a knife and you're facing assault with a deadly weapon (among others). Do the same with a gun and you'll get all the same robbery, all the same assault stuff, but with additional gun charges on top. Using a less effective weapon spares you those additional charges.

Quote: AZDuffman

So she used a gun in self-defense. Good for her.

Please tell me you're just trolling Dalex. This is a horrible use of force, at least based off the few details provided.

It's gravy that she had a loaded weapon. It's totally OK that she drew it. But "pierced the door and shattered the window" is about as damning as it gets. There's maybe 3 reasons you can justifiably shoot into a car. 1 - The driver is using the vehicle as a weapon, ie. he's trying to run you down. 2 - In the attempted prevention of a kidnapping. 3 - You can prove in a court of law the person is on their way to committing a violent felony, and this #3 is a huuuuge stretch that puts you, the shooter, in great peril of prison life.

The ONLY way she is forgiven is if her story was true, and the guy is on foot, at her door, and she just shot and missed, striking the door. If that guy was anywhere but right at her door, she's going to jail, and IMO, it's deserved.

Also: LOL at Luger. Ain't no one carrying an expensive, 100yr old German pistol for SD. I'd bet half my arsenal neither of them have ever seen one in person. It's a gun of collectors and connoisseurs, not people so dumb they keep their pain meds in a baggie.

Quote: Face

Please tell me you're just trolling Dalex. This is a horrible use of force, at least based off the few details provided.

Not trolling as much as slapping down a trolling post.

Quote: Face

There's no such thing. I mean, yeah, a slug is "more effective" than some #7 shot (what Cheney blew into some guy's face), but even bean bags kill people. And remember, the vast majority of gun deaths come by way of the lowly .22. Of course, this is because the .22 is the most common, but I'm just making a point. If something is propelled by combustion out of a barrel, it is lethal.

I thought this might be coming, but not from you!

I disagree.

As many gun deaths we've had from "Saturday Night Specials" let's assume everyone was using your favorite "knock down" power, or hollow points, instead and then see how many survivors we've had and less serious injuries.

Second example -- let's multiply the situation. You get to pick your army. You want face all the guys with your favorite choices of handguns rifles and ammunition, or take the least of the weapons?

The more good citizens and cops have the better weapons, the better, IMO.

From BJS

Quote:

Surveys of inmates show that they
prefer concealable, large caliber
guns. Juvenile offenders appear to
be more likely to possess guns than
adults. page 5

Studies of the guns used in homicides
show that large caliber revolvers
are the most frequent type of gun
used in homicides, but the number
of large caliber semiautomatic guns
used in murders is increasing. page

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/GUIC.PDF

Quote: rxwine

As many gun deaths we've had from "Saturday Night Specials" let's assume everyone was using your favorite "knock down" power, or hollow points, instead and then see how many survivors we've had and less serious injuries.

But hollow points are a viable SD measure. The simple use of one can't be criminalized. You could start to convince me if we went towards armor piercing, but even that would leave me wary. Just about any rifle over a 5.56 is "armor piercing" and I wouldn't want regular ball ammo suddenly being outlawed. You'd have to move into a territory where there is little to no practical use with a high element of danger, and then I'm on board. Explosive rounds? Depleted Uranium? No practical need, go ahead and ban 'em. And they are, and I've never spoken word against it.

Hollow points aren't outrageous. They're completely practical.

Quote: rxwine

Second example -- let's multiply the situation. You get to pick your army. You want face all the guys with your favorite choices of handguns rifles and ammunition, or take the least of the weapons?

But that's the thing. In RL, you don't get to pick your army.

A bunch of gang bangers say they want "large calibers". The stats don't lie. Over and over again when looking at gun homicide stats you see the largest gun used is often the 9mm / .357 / .38. That one caliber takes up ~75% of ALL of handgun related homicides. Same thing with guns stolen, guns owned, everything.

OK, yes. Gunners talking to gunners are going to go into detail, and compare FPS, and compare energy, and ballistics, blah, blah, blah. But the 9mm / .357 / .38 is the same bullet. It is the vast majority. So if you deem the .454 Casull to be far too powerful to use for good or ill and outlaw it, you will have prevented nothing as a situation arising from the use of a .454 will almost never happen. In order to have an effect, you'd have to target the guns being used, which means you'd target the vast majority. And how would you do that?

I suppose there are ways to sort of make some guns "more powerful" than guns of a similar make. Concealment of your position is powerful indeed, so silencers shouldn't be allowed. But they already aren't. Some think a 17rd mag is more dangerous than a 10 round, so maybe lower the capacity. Already did that. Muzzle breaks and hand grips and all sorts of things that people do as comfort and convenience mods are sometimes viewed as dangerous. Maybe ban those? Ah, already have. What's left? Laser sights? Sub-compact models?

Yeah, I get pedantic when I talk guns. But when it comes down to it, a shot to the chest with a .357, .38, .40, .45, .454, .50, .500.... it's gonna kill ya. Whether citizen or crim, most people's priority is on cost and comfort. Ease. For you and me, that's a small, cheap .38. For the common crim... exact same thing. You want to start parsing dangerous vs too dangerous when you're already parsed down to the same make, and you're already past the ridiculous (capacity limits) and into lala land. Like competition triggers and red dot scopes being banned. No thanks.