Gun control debate (merged)

[kiddiedoc]

Here's a tough question for Luther and his buddies, as it is by far the most important, on this matter (if you understand statistics):

What can be done to reduce the rate at which black and Latino Americans shoot each other with pistols?

 

[volfanhill]

Here's a tough question for Luther and his buddies, as it is by far the most important, on this matter (if you understand statistics):

What can be done to reduce the rate at which black and Latino Americans shoot each other with pistols?

What do you mean? Their answer is just take guns from everyone. All of them. Luther tries to be sly. He pretends to want a do A, and see what happens, but then do B if A doesn't work.

 

[85SugarVol]

What do you mean? Their answer is just take guns from everyone. All of them. Luther tries to be sly. He pretends to want a do A, and see what happens, but then so B if A doesn't work.

For the Progressive that knows in their heart that guns is the answer, ‘B’ is the natural and logical follow, irrespective of the outcome derived from ‘A’.

Taking assault weapons had no impact.
- Well, we simply need to take handguns as well.

Taking assault weapons had X impact.
- Well, what impact can we get taking handguns as well.

 

[luthervol]

There is ambiguity with regards to the data and conclusions.

Ambiguity favors the Defense.

How did you prove your case? You have stated the findings are inconclusive.

That was my case.

Did you not see how I responded to your first two posts?
"The safety metrics will be the difficult part."
"....hard to determine."

I was willing to leave it at that until orangeslice came in and said that it had been done and "there was no improvement" as if that was some sort of agreed upon fact. It is anything but, and that will always be the case to some degree.

That was my point from the beginning.
Any part of the debate that centers around what is done once the measure has proven to be either successful or unsuccessful needs to at least include a big asterisk.

 

[LouderVol]

I understand that point of view, but I don't really have a problem with "do somethin else."
What's the harm? Is there something that you currently cannot purchase that is just really bumming you out and harming your quality of life?
And the other big part of my position is the reduction in the number of new guns being added.

an M2.

from the history perspective a functioning Sturmgewehr 44 would be sweet.

silencers would be another.

 

[85SugarVol]

an M2.

from the history perspective a functioning Sturmgewehr 44 would be sweet.

silencers would be another.

Ahem..

*suppressors

 

[LouderVol]

Not at all. It was basically to prove the point that "discernable improvement" would always be debatable.

except it isn't. your own source said there wasn't a difference in the ban vs not. you would think the report would be able to find solid enough data to make it conclusive.

you just cherry picked the parts that said there COULD be, and assumed the whole thing lead to that solo conclusion. you just left out all the parts that said it wasn't.

 

[LouderVol]

Orangeslice's comment that "there was no improvement" is no more supportable by fact than the statement "there was improvement".

Which is the point I've been making for two days now.

but the report can't conclude what actually caused it. Causation vs Correlation. the reports can't say the ban CAUSED whatever small change that was seen. It is very likely some non-related thing CAUSED the difference, and the ban coincidentally fell in line (Correlation).

its kinda like drug use. it doesn't matter what the laws do, or how much a location crack downs, the biggest single impact is how the economy is doing. same goes with violence, when economies get bad, people get violent. more stress, less resources=more violence.

also with the focus on the relatively fewer mass shootings, individual events are going to have statistically more impact than they should, which would also make any scientific study question causation and conclude there was any proof the ban helped.

also generally speaking violence has been on a downward trend. so any event could be used as CORRELATION to say it was the reason violence went down.

).

 

[LouderVol]

Ahem..

*suppressors

nah nah nah. I want the movie grade silencers and Luther's bans are the thing keeping me from getting them.

 

[marcusluvsvols]

CORRECTION TO EARLIER POST: The .303 British delivers roughly twice the energy of a .223.

The .30-06, standard US military cartridge from 1906 until after Korea, delivers over twice the energy of a .223.
The .308 Winchester/7.62x51 Nato is roughly the same as the .303 British in terms of energy.

This is quite true based on the old Force=Mass x Acceleration equation I somehow managed to learn in public school anyway.

From what I have seen in videos regarding lethality, smaller caliber cartridges like the .223 NATO and 5.7mm for pistols can often time make up for the lack of outright force with great penetration and the tendency to flip/tumble after making contact with clothing and skin. While tumbling, those same smaller rounds tear some nasty gouges in ballistic gel made to mimic human torso. The problem is that sometimes the smaller rounds do not tumble and can pass right thru the target, or not do much relative damage compared to the larger rounds like 7.62 etc. Fortunately the smaller caliber rounds also have significantly less recoil/muzzle rise which should enable the shooter to fire follow up rounds very soon after the 1st shot...in order to assure the threat is ended.

Hope that makes sense. I am certainly not a gun expert and several folks here have far more experience and knowledge than I do. Personally i love big caliber weapons for home intruder type situations like a 12ga shotgun loaded with alternating buckshot/slugs...but i have fallen in love with the tackdriver that is a 5.7mm pistol and now really understand why the .22LR pistols are a favorite for mob hitmen. Different tools for different jobs and whatnot.

** i read somewhere that the reason hitmen liked the .22s was not accuracy etc but rather that when placed against the head or base of skull, the rounds had enough velocity to "bounce around " inside the skull but not enough usually to exit altogether. So they were very effective doing maximum damage to the brain, and also being a small cartridge made far less noise as not to draw umwanted attention. Not sure how accurate this is, but it seems logical

 

[85SugarVol]

nah nah nah. I want the movie grade silencers and Luther's bans are the thing keeping me from getting them.

Remember these?

Thwoop! Thwoop!

 

[marcusluvsvols]

It’s like talking to the conspiracy theorists in the vaccine thread.

I still identify as a conspiracy theorist whose pronouns are Told/You/So ... but theres no way I can wrap my head around blaming guns for what evil people do. We used to joke with the reply " what are you gonna do, ban kitchen knives too?!" But now England does just that in many cases, and makes folks register knives also. Knives. Thats so batcrap crazy on it's face that I dont even have a clever reply. When a person has lost their mind and is intent on killing someone...they will find a way. In many instances, a car is far deadlier than any gun. Ask the guy who ran over the parade up north. Why not ban cars too?

 

[marcusluvsvols]

Here's a tough question for Luther and his buddies, as it is by far the most important, on this matter (if you understand statistics):

What can be done to reduce the rate at which black and Latino Americans shoot each other with pistols?

THIS Is the discussion the liberal gun grabbers are never willing to have. The facts regarding their leftist brethren are eye opening.

Blacks make up 13.7% of the US but commit more than 50% of violent crime and an even higher % of gun violence and murders.

The overwhelming majority of perpetrators of gun violence identify as liberal/progressive and vote for Democrats if they vote at all. Gun violence could be reduced by probably 80% if the lefties simply destroyed their own guns.

 

[GroverCleveland]

This is quite true based on the old Force=Mass x Acceleration equation I somehow managed to learn in public school anyway.

From what I have seen in videos regarding lethality, smaller caliber cartridges like the .223 NATO and 5.7mm for pistols can often time make up for the lack of outright force with great penetration and the tendency to flip/tumble after making contact with clothing and skin. While tumbling, those same smaller rounds tear some nasty gouges in ballistic gel made to mimic human torso. The problem is that sometimes the smaller rounds do not tumble and can pass right thru the target, or not do much relative damage compared to the larger rounds like 7.62 etc. Fortunately the smaller caliber rounds also have significantly less recoil/muzzle rise which should enable the shooter to fire follow up rounds very soon after the 1st shot...in order to assure the threat is ended.

Hope that makes sense. I am certainly not a gun expert and several folks here have far more experience and knowledge than I do. Personally i love big caliber weapons for home intruder type situations like a 12ga shotgun loaded with alternating buckshot/slugs...but i have fallen in love with the tackdriver that is a 5.7mm pistol and now really understand why the .22LR pistols are a favorite for mob hitmen. Different tools for different jobs and whatnot.

** i read somewhere that the reason hitmen liked the .22s was not accuracy etc but rather that when placed against the head or base of skull, the rounds had enough velocity to "bounce around " inside the skull but not enough usually to exit altogether. So they were very effective doing maximum damage to the brain, and also being a small cartridge made far less noise as not to draw umwanted attention. Not sure how accurate this is, but it seems logical

Good points. Another important factor is the bullet design. FMJ vs soft points/hollow point/dum dums, the latter being more lethal as a general rule.

And also matters what one is after. I have taken deer with .223 Remington. Dropped them like a sack of rice in their tracks. Same with my Model 70 in .270 Winchester. But depends on where I hit them. Have never done a body shot with the .223 (always in the neck), while I will with the .270. And for longer shots, of course, the larger cartridges are far more lethal.

PS - gave my youngest son a Weatherby .300 Win Mag this past spring. He lives in Colorado.

PS#2 - the muzzle rise also depends on rifle weight relative to the cartridge. Watch those videos of the Mad Minute with the SMLE. Tough.

 

[UT_VOLS13]

https://packaged-media.redd.it/l0gp11nl9jpc1/pb/m2-res_614p.mp4?m=DASHPlaylist.mpd&v=1&e=1710975600&s=9b3a0465ae4d48ca3d37b329680cd44e29ab7620#t=0

 

[hog88]

^^What did I just watch?

 

[PEPPERJAX]

^^What did I just watch?

I don't know either but that dudes multi-colored murse is rockin! You can only pull that off while holding a machine gun BTW.

 

[Boston Vol]

 

[davethevol]

If Biden gets a second term, this country is done.

 

[VOLS INC.]

Awesome!

 

[W.TN.Orange Blood]

 

[LouderVol]

I want to do a little informal poll, just give me guesses don't research:
1. how long do you think it is from the average straw purchase of a gun from an FFL (having a third party buy a gun at a gun shop for a criminal) until that gun ends up being used in a crime?
2. How long until its considered a problem that needs addressing? Obviously if a gun dealer has a number of guns being used in crimes the next day that is a problem, and they should be shut down/audited. But what if its 3 years, or 5 year, 10+? at some point the blame for that straw sale has to be off their hands. what is people's standard, I am looking for input from the @luthervol of the VNPF

I read an interesting article I will share once I find it on the PC. It was about buying guns in DC, but in it they talk about the ATF's handling of straw buys, and pretty much confirms they have a gun registry. or at least they keep the 4473 and actively track that data.

but the point I found most compelling was what the ATF considered problem gun dealers (FFLs). They track when and where a gun was originally bought and then have a standard of how long it takes that gun to end up being used in a crime. I had never looked into it or had a real thought about how long the average straw sale took to end up in crime. Always figured it was a couple months, maybe half a year or so. Curious about what people think, so the informal poll above.

and yes I know the answer already from reading the article, but I just want to see some people's gut reactions to the questions.

 

[LouderVol]

DC police dealt thousands of guns; ATF demands answers after concerning number found at crime scenes

For at least seven months in 2020 and 2021, the D.C. area’s largest police department was the only legal gun dealer in the nation’s capital. It was the only place D.C. residents could legally get a handgun. That much was reported at the time, but now the News4 I-Team has the federal documents...

www.nbcwashington.com

So apparently in DC for a while there were no FFLs, at all. you had to go to Virginia or Maryland to order the gun, and have it shipped to the DC police. the DC police ran the background checks before turning the gun owner. typical process just through the police.

One would figure that with it running through the police, especially one as anti-gun as DC, this would cut down on crime.

well it turns out the DC police were a problematic FFL according to the ATF and are being investigated. To not spoil the poll above, I will just say the DC police "time to crime", the time from the turnover of a gun by the police to an owner until that gun is used in a crime, is almost 50% below the problem threshold. and about 6x shorter than the typical FFL.

so once again trusting the government to keep us safe is foolhardy. adding new laws and more government doesn't help the process at all.

 

[luthervol]

I want to do a little informal poll, just give me guesses don't research:
1. how long do you think it is from the average straw purchase of a gun from an FFL (having a third party buy a gun at a gun shop for a criminal) until that gun ends up being used in a crime?
2. How long until its considered a problem that needs addressing? Obviously if a gun dealer has a number of guns being used in crimes the next day that is a problem, and they should be shut down/audited. But what if its 3 years, or 5 year, 10+? at some point the blame for that straw sale has to be off their hands. what is people's standard, I am looking for input from the @luthervol of the VNPF

I read an interesting article I will share once I find it on the PC. It was about buying guns in DC, but in it they talk about the ATF's handling of straw buys, and pretty much confirms they have a gun registry. or at least they keep the 4473 and actively track that data.

but the point I found most compelling was what the ATF considered problem gun dealers (FFLs). They track when and where a gun was originally bought and then have a standard of how long it takes that gun to end up being used in a crime. I had never looked into it or had a real thought about how long the average straw sale took to end up in crime. Always figured it was a couple months, maybe half a year or so. Curious about what people think, so the informal poll above.

and yes I know the answer already from reading the article, but I just want to see some people's gut reactions to the questions.

I would think the gun is used for the first time in a crime pretty soon after the purchase. (1-6 months)
I would also think that only a small percentage of those guns are recovered the first time they are used in a crime.
Some are recovered after the 8th crime, some after the 17th crime, and some have yet to be recovered even after being used in a crime 57 times.


So, it is impossible to know the answer to your first question - as it is worded.

 

[LouderVol]

I would think the gun is used for the first time in a crime pretty soon after the purchase. (1-6 months)
I would also think that only a small percentage of those guns are recovered the first time they are used in a crime.
Some are recovered after the 8th crime, some after the 17th crime, and some have yet to be recovered even after being used in a crime 57 times.


So, it is impossible to know the answer to your first question - as it is worded.

that's a fair point about recovery.

If a gun is used in a crime after 2 months from purchase, but is not recovered until 10 years later, they are still going to have the time-to-crime as 2 months, they just wouldn't know that it was 2 months until 10 years later. Its going to be a rolling clock, the data is updated as information comes in. so the information they have is correct based on their current information. there won't be some great leap that would skew the average.

knowing that there will be some sliding of the date, what would you generally assume is the threshold is for a FFL doing their ethical service to try and cut down on their guns being used in crimes? An FFL whose average time-to-crime is 2 months, is worse than one whose time is 2 years, but is that 2 years "enough" for you? Where would that line be for you, and it has to be some number below "never". 3 years, 5 years, 10 years, 20 years?