The Big Gun Control Thread

If only she'd had a gun, she could have shot him and stopped him from killing a bunch of schoolkids.

So here's today's dose of irony...

http://gawker.com/lawmaker-leading-c...

Fortunately it was only a rubber bullet, but still...

IMAGE(https://i.chzbgr.com/maxW500/7765440512/hD6EEC9CF/)

I think I found a way to get the arts taught in Arkansas schools again.

The cleaning rods in the top of the case look distinctly old school... And I think they are a little bowed.

Farscry wrote:
If only she'd had a gun, she could have shot him and stopped him from killing a bunch of schoolkids.

I love this!

Iowa now granting gun permits to the blind

Some people contend that denying the blind access to guns is also a violation of the Americans with Disabilities act
err...I don't think that's wha... *slowly steps back into the non-Iowa bushes*

krev82 wrote:
Iowa now granting gun permits to the blind

Some people contend that denying the blind access to guns is also a violation of the Americans with Disabilities act
err...I don't think that's wha... *slowly steps back into the non-Iowa bushes*

No, this is good. It could encourage the SWAT teams that are invading your home (because they think it is someone else's house) to actually announce that they are cops.

krev82 wrote:
Iowa now granting gun permits to the blind

Some people contend that denying the blind access to guns is also a violation of the Americans with Disabilities act
err...I don't think that's wha... *slowly steps back into the non-Iowa bushes*

Hey, another state I'll never go to. Wonder if I could get a living wage job in Sweden or Canada or Australia sometime soon.

Demosthenes wrote:
Hey, another state I'll never go to.

Yeah, I grew up in Iowa, it can get pretty bad there. Almost as bad as Ohio, sometimes.

krev82 wrote:
Iowa now granting gun permits to the blind

Some people contend that denying the blind access to guns is also a violation of the Americans with Disabilities act
err...I don't think that's wha... *slowly steps back into the non-Iowa bushes*

They're also claiming its partly due to the 2nd Amendment; since gun rights are a constitutional right, it's exceptionally difficult to restrict access to them.

Personally, I think this makes great ammo (pun fully intended) for an argument in favor of rewriting the 2nd Amendment to take into account modern reality.

Two Michigan men got into a road rage incident and fatally shot each other. Both had valid concealed carry permits. One still had said permit after being charged with carrying a concealed weapon while intoxicated in 2006.

Well, at least that's two fewer irresponsible gun owners for us to worry about, and bonus points for them not harming any innocent third parties.

It's possible that only one of those people was irresponsible. If guy A started brandishing first, and then shot first wouldn't guy B be in the clear morally?

Yonder wrote:
It's possible that only one of those people was irresponsible. If guy A started brandishing first, and then shot first wouldn't guy B be in the clear morally?

They pulled into a car wash to confront one another after a road rage incident. Both parties knew they were carrying, both stepped out of their vehicle voluntarily into an emotionally charged confrontation, neither exercised their responsibility to retreat or avoid the confrontation.

Farscry wrote:
Yonder wrote:
It's possible that only one of those people was irresponsible. If guy A started brandishing first, and then shot first wouldn't guy B be in the clear morally?

They pulled into a car wash to confront one another after a road rage incident. Both parties knew they were carrying, both stepped out of their vehicle voluntarily into an emotionally charged confrontation, neither exercised their responsibility to retreat or avoid the confrontation.

Guy in the front car had two passengers with him. Why he didn't have either of them dial 911 and drive toward a police station can only be explained by his desire to participate in a deadly confrontation.

Yeah.

Completely avoidable dumbassery.

Ah yes, true enough.

OG_slinger wrote:
Two Michigan men got into a road rage incident and fatally shot each other. Both had valid concealed carry permits. One still had said permit after being charged with carrying a concealed weapon while intoxicated in 2006.

This happened a few miles from my house.

First: the man who ran out and tried to administer CPR on both dying people is a goddamn hero, and should be remembered.

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapi...

Second: it's been said 1000 times, but the comments on local outlet sites has been awful. Just terrible. ...actually you used mlive articles, so you can all read them.

Edit: how completely f*cked up is it that when I saw this on local news I considered it just normal gun crime and not worth posting about? Jesus.

From reading about follow-up, it sounds as though one of the guys was actually just stopping to wash his car, and unaware that the other guy was going to stop and confront him; then the other guy came up and began firing unprovoked.

Paleocon wrote:
Farscry wrote:
Yonder wrote:
It's possible that only one of those people was irresponsible. If guy A started brandishing first, and then shot first wouldn't guy B be in the clear morally?

They pulled into a car wash to confront one another after a road rage incident. Both parties knew they were carrying, both stepped out of their vehicle voluntarily into an emotionally charged confrontation, neither exercised their responsibility to retreat or avoid the confrontation.

Guy in the front car had two passengers with him. Why he didn't have either of them dial 911 and drive toward a police station can only be explained by his desire to participate in a deadly confrontation.

Yeah.

Completely avoidable dumbassery.

Might be a bit late, but one of those two passengers did make a 911 call.

This was, actually, a very common occurrence, back in the Wild West. People like to mythologize gunfights, with the Hero vanquishing the Bad Guy and walking away unscathed, but in reality, it was very frequent for both participants to die. With a few exceptions, people don't just drop dead after being shot, they stay functional for awhile. It's quite possible, for instance, that the attacker shot the defender, who then took out his gun and shot his attacker to death before collapsing.

Not saying it actually happened that way, just saying that it could. Maybe they both had their guns out and were yelling at each other or something. I'm just trying to point out that shooting someone doesn't work like it does in the movies, and that the situation probably wasn't much like we see in movies, either.

Malor wrote:
This was, actually, a very common occurrence, back in the Wild West. People like to mythologize gunfights, with the Hero vanquishing the Bad Guy and walking away unscathed, but in reality, it was very frequent for both participants to die. With a few exceptions, people don't just drop dead after being shot, they stay functional for awhile.

It would be a myth to say this was a very common occurrence back in the days of the Wild West. Gunfights were pretty danged rare and most cities had perhaps a murder or two per year. Heck, even the most famous gunfight of the Old West--the OK Corral--only had a body count only one higher than this road rage incident.

It's only because of movies and TV that we think the Wild West was wild and that a day didn't pass without a shootout at noon on Main Street.

Disagree, OG. it's also because of my strong confirmation bias.

So Nyaaaa.

PITBULLS AT DAWN.

Edit: I'm leaving that awesome autocorrect Typo in there, but I meant pistols.

Hmm, just normal pitbulls, pitbulls wielding pistols, or pistols that shoot pitbulls?

Yonder wrote:
Hmm, just normal pitbulls, pitbulls wielding pistols, or pistols that shoot pitbulls?

All 3. Pitbulls wielding pistols that shoot pitbulls.

It's pitbulls all the way down.

It would be a myth to say this was a very common occurrence back in the days of the Wild West.

Gunfights, yes, were rare, but that wasn't related to what I was talking about.

What I'm saying is this: when gunfights happened, it was quite common for both people to die. It's not like a movie.

Jonman wrote:
Yonder wrote:
Hmm, just normal pitbulls, pitbulls wielding pistols, or pistols that shoot pitbulls?

All 3. Pitbulls wielding pistols that shoot pitbulls.

It's pitbulls all the way down.

We need to go deeper...

Malor wrote:
It would be a myth to say this was a very common occurrence back in the days of the Wild West.

Gunfights, yes, were rare, but that wasn't related to what I was talking about.

What I'm saying is this: when gunfights happened, it was quite common for both people to die. It's not like a movie.

I was actually thinking about this when I was reading the recent front page article about the rolling health meter in Earthbound.

That's a much more accurate system as far as real fights go. One way of putting it is "your opponent is dead, he just doesn't know it yet". Knife fights are especially privy to this, you'll occasionally hear about a fight in the news where each guy staged the other 60 to 80 times.

They were each screwed half way through, but it takes so long to actually bleed out with puncture wounds like that that they could keep at it for a long time with all that adrenaline.

you'll occasionally hear about a fight in the news where each guy stabbed the other 60 to 80 times.

I'd never heard of that, but it makes a lot of sense.

That may be the real problem with violence in media.... not that it's violence, but that it's ridiculously unrealistic violence, in which the heroes never die, and bad guys are clueless, expiring from a cross expression. Risk is low, and reward is high, exactly opposite to real life.

Just a warning - my pittbull licks a lot. But if you give her a toy, you're safe.

Nevin73 wrote:
Just a warning - my pittbull licks a lot. But if you give her a toy, you're safe.

What if that toy is a pistol?

Malor wrote:
you'll occasionally hear about a fight in the news where each guy stabbed the other 60 to 80 times.

I'd never heard of that, but it makes a lot of sense.

That may be the real problem with violence in media.... not that it's violence, but that it's ridiculously unrealistic violence, in which the heroes never die, and bad guys are clueless, expiring from a cross expression. Risk is low, and reward is high, exactly opposite to real life.

I have often contended that a sufficiently sharp knife in the right hands makes a much more formidable self defense weapon than a handgun.

First off, by the time someone is within knife range, the question of self defense distance is largely already answered.

Second, the proper use of a knife, even in skilled hands, requires next to no fine motor coordination.

Third, a knife is always "loaded".

Fourth, both the temporary and perminent wound channels of a reasonably sized self defense knife (e.g. blade length 4.5"+) will be roughly equivalent to a decent caliber handgun round.

Fifth, whereas range favors the marksman, proximity does precisely the opposite.