The Big Gun Control Thread

Obviously compensating for the size of her penis, 58 year old woman pulls gun on home invader and he leaves.

If it had been a semi-automatic, I bet he would have left even fasterer!

Edwin wrote:
Firearm manufacturers refusing to sell to Law Enforcement agencies in regions where restrictions are being placed on civilians.

People who make most of their money selling to gun fanboys will respond by doing what those gun fanboys want. Any evidence that law enforcement can't find the weapons it needs from other sources?

Firearm manufacturers refusing to sell to Law Enforcement agencies in regions where restrictions are being placed on civilians. Not all are completely refusing, some are just applying the same rules to LE that applies to civilians. So far 105 retailers and manufacturers now refuse to sell "assault weapons" and magazines over 7 rounds to LE in NY.

Cheap publicity stunt, in this market. These manufacturers know that they can comfortably limit sales to LE departments in NY, because there are more than enough buyers in others states.

Had the President been good to his word post-Newtown, OSHA would've flooded every manufacturing facility. AR-15s have a bunch of pinchy, snappy bits on them, after all, and it's good to be sure the people making them are safe.

Prolly would've been a good time for a top-to-bottom IRS audit, too.

And a check of EPA compliance in the manufacturing process.

It may also be part of the impact of social media. Smaller manufacturers didn't want to be caught in the angry internet fanboy headlights like so many companies have been over the past few years.

lostlobster wrote:
Obviously compensating for the size of her penis, 58 year old woman pulls gun on home invader and he leaves.

If it had been a semi-automatic, I bet he would have left even fasterer!

I know we're just being snarky at each other, but I am feeling better than I was yesterday so less snark from me today.

75 - 80% of rounds fired by police officers in lethal force encounters miss the intended target. The rounds that do hit the target, fail to immediately incapacitate the threat.

NYPD fired 368 rounds in 2010 to stop 24 attackers (6.5% effective hit rate). In 27% of the encounters only one round was fired. In one encounter inside an apartment, four officers fired a total of 21 rounds (16 rounds by one officer) and struck the suspect three times (14% hit, 86% hit). [PDF Source, Page 17, Chart 1]

In August 2010, four officers fired 46 rounds, hitting one subject four times and the other 21 times (along with three bystanders and one police officer one time each).

If you want people to have the ability to defend themselves in any meaningful way, besides having strict training standards, those who prove to meet the minimum standards outlined in other posts here should have the option to if they choose to.

What would have happened to this 38 year old mother was defending her two kids when she emptied her revolver and the guy had kept coming? At point blank range she hit him five times to the face and neck and he still kept moving. Thankfully he stopped pursuing them but what if he had not? [The Atlanta Journal-Constitution]

There is a reason why we have moved beyond revolvers. After the 1986 FBI Miami shootout, which happened down the street from the park I grew up playing little league baseball and basketball, we knew revolvers were inadequate. Hell, we knew back in 1911 when our armored forces ditched revolvers for the 1911.

The incident is infamous in FBI history and is well-studied in law enforcement circles. Despite outnumbering the suspects 4 to 1, the agents found themselves pinned down by rifle fire and unable to respond effectively. Although both Matix and Platt were hit multiple times during the firefight, Platt fought on and continued to injure and kill agents. This incident led to the introduction of more powerful handguns in the FBI and many police departments around the United States.

The only reason I even know about this is because every time I would walk or bike home from the park, I would pass this sign which led me to look it up one day.

IMAGE(http://www.guns.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/miami-memorial1.jpg)

Funkenpants wrote:
Edwin wrote:
Firearm manufacturers refusing to sell to Law Enforcement agencies in regions where restrictions are being placed on civilians.

People who make most of their money selling to gun fanboys will respond by doing what those gun fanboys want. Any evidence that law enforcement can't find the weapons it needs from other sources?

Nope and no claim was ever made. This is all just posturing. It's like children having a tantrum and taking their ball to go home.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:
Firearm manufacturers refusing to sell to Law Enforcement agencies in regions where restrictions are being placed on civilians. Not all are completely refusing, some are just applying the same rules to LE that applies to civilians. So far 105 retailers and manufacturers now refuse to sell "assault weapons" and magazines over 7 rounds to LE in NY.

Cheap publicity stunt, in this market. These manufacturers know that they can comfortably limit sales to LE departments in NY, because there are more than enough buyers in others states.

Bingo. Especially when the biggest retailers and manufacturers aren't and won't get involved (Colt, Smith and Wesson, Sig Sauer, H&K, Glock, FNH, Springfield, etc.). When local range owners start getting involved and police can no longer practice, or qualify that's when we should start worrying (assuming that the police don't have their own range or a municipal one). Not that the police practice as much as they should as shown in earlier posts.

That seller ban could go farther than you think. Most police departments do not engage in direct supply of arms to officers, rather the individual officer has to go to a store to buy their service piece. If these shops are no longer offering the discounted, negotiated rate to law enforcement, the cost to arm the police is going to go up a lot. This could mean officers are getting cheaper, less dependable side arms because that is all that they can afford. Or for departments that offer to reimburse, the department will be shelling out more money to cover that cost. PDs are strapped for cash as it is in just about every jurisdiction.

KingGorilla wrote:
That seller ban could go farther than you think. Most police departments do not engage in direct supply of arms to officers, rather the individual officer has to go to a store to buy their service piece. If these shops are no longer offering the discounted, negotiated rate to law enforcement, the cost to arm the police is going to go up a lot. This could mean officers are getting cheaper, less dependable side arms because that is all that they can afford. Or for departments that offer to reimburse, the department will be shelling out more money to cover that cost. PDs are strapped for cash as it is in just about every jurisdiction.

I don't think that the police officer in your example would be buying a directly from LaRue Tactical or Braco Company, or other lords declarant. As you said, he'd go to a gun shop, and he'd purchase a sidearm, just as you said.

I was under the impression many on that list operated stores in addition to the boutique manufacturing. Was I mistaken?

Edwin wrote:
What would have happened to this 38 year old mother was defending her two kids when she emptied her revolver and the guy had kept coming?

But he didn't because he was shot in the face. That's not a good case for your argument. The revolver worked perfectly. I follow the news of shootings closely these days, and I can't remember a case in the past few months where not having more than six shots mattered in a civilian self-defense situation. There may be some out there, but it doesn't seem like a common phenomena.

Funkenpants wrote:
Edwin wrote:
What would have happened to this 38 year old mother was defending her two kids when she emptied her revolver and the guy had kept coming?

But he didn't because he was shot in the face. That's not a good case for your argument. The revolver worked perfectly. I follow the news of shootings closely these days, and I can't remember a case in the past few months where not having more than six shots mattered in a civilian self-defense situation. There may be some out there, but it doesn't seem like a common phenomena.

And really, I would think that's an argument more in favor of relying on a shotgun for home defense than for higher capacity firearms than a revolver.

Farscry wrote:
Funkenpants wrote:
Edwin wrote:
What would have happened to this 38 year old mother was defending her two kids when she emptied her revolver and the guy had kept coming?

But he didn't because he was shot in the face. That's not a good case for your argument. The revolver worked perfectly. I follow the news of shootings closely these days, and I can't remember a case in the past few months where not having more than six shots mattered in a civilian self-defense situation. There may be some out there, but it doesn't seem like a common phenomena.

And really, I would think that's an argument more in favor of relying on a shotgun for home defense than for higher capacity firearms than a revolver. :)

IMAGE(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/Soldier_with_Bazooka_M1.jpg/300px-Soldier_with_Bazooka_M1.jpg)

Now we're talking!

Farscry wrote:
And really, I would think that's an argument more in favor of relying on a shotgun for home defense than for higher capacity firearms than a revolver. :)

Based on what I've seen in the news stories, you can use just about gun for home defense. People don't like to get shot and will stop whatever they are doing in order to not get shot or to avoid being shot multiple times.

There are a small subset of cases that involve a gun battle and people continuing to fight after being shot, but a lot of those involve gangbangers battling each other or the cops.

Funkenpants wrote:
Farscry wrote:
And really, I would think that's an argument more in favor of relying on a shotgun for home defense than for higher capacity firearms than a revolver. :)

Based on what I've seen in the news stories, you can use just about gun for home defense. People don't like to get shot. I see only a small subset of cases that involve a gun battle and people continuing to fight after being shot, and a lot of those involve gangbangers battling each other or the cops.

Oh yeah? Well what about when this guy comes knocking, huh? What then!?

Or you find yourself wanting to visit a relative in a Hong Kong hospital (where, based on what I see in the movies, gun fights are very common).

For the terminator, you're going to need a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range.

KingGorilla wrote:
That seller ban could go farther than you think. Most police departments do not engage in direct supply of arms to officers, rather the individual officer has to go to a store to buy their service piece. If these shops are no longer offering the discounted, negotiated rate to law enforcement, the cost to arm the police is going to go up a lot. This could mean officers are getting cheaper, less dependable side arms because that is all that they can afford. Or for departments that offer to reimburse, the department will be shelling out more money to cover that cost. PDs are strapped for cash as it is in just about every jurisdiction.

Each department is run differently. Glock and S&W deal directly with some departments for the handguns if the department chooses to issue one to its officer, which is how Glocks got so big in the US since the 1980's.

There are just too many departments out there with different rules to make any generalizations how it will affect anyone overall. I suspect some will have issues when they have to buy their own things and some wont since they can buy it online from someone else or its provided by their department.

Funkenpants wrote:
Edwin wrote:
What would have happened to this 38 year old mother was defending her two kids when she emptied her revolver and the guy had kept coming?

But he didn't because he was shot in the face. That's not a good case for your argument. The revolver worked perfectly. I follow the news of shootings closely these days, and I can't remember a case in the past few months where not having more than six shots mattered in a civilian self-defense situation. There may be some out there, but it doesn't seem like a common phenomena.

And if there was more than one guy? It took her emptying her six shot revolver into the face to sort of stop one guy. Multiple home invaders or attackers do happen Cincinnati.com has one example and the video below is another recent case.

Though it would be better if we had statistics on how often that happened in comparison to single attacker/home invader.

Omg what if her house was invaded by aliens?! We should legalize private ownership of high energy plasma rifles to ensure the public's safety from the armies of Galactic Overlord Drolggg!

Are any of you going to take this seriously or are we just going to keep playing this game? Just let me know if you ever plan to have a serious discussion, because otherwise I will go back to spending my time lobbying my congress critters and Cease Fire WA on creating a system that may work better than what we have now instead of wasting it on you.

Devolving into increasingly unlikely hypothetical situations trying to revalidate a countered argument is hardly a serious discussion. Even Galactic Overlord Drolggg knows that.

Edwin wrote:
Are any of you going to take this seriously or are we just going to keep playing this game? Just let me know if you ever plan to have a serious discussion, because otherwise I will go back to spending my time lobbying my congress critters and Cease Fire WA on creating a system that may work better than what we have now instead of wasting it on you.

I do take your posts seriously, my attempt to inject humor was probably misguided and I apologize.

And while I took a joking tone, I was serious about my (admittedly ignorant as a non-gun-owner) thought that a shotgun seems like it would make more sense as a home-defense weapon than a revolver.

I suspect that handguns are more easily misused, as well. If I ever do buy a firearm, my intention is that it would be either a shotgun or a rifle.

Edwin wrote:
And if there was more than one guy? It took her emptying her six shot revolver into the face to sort of stop one guy.

It's not fair to take an example of a shooting that didn't require a big magazine to argue that we need big magazines because of a hypothetical situation that didn't happen may have happened. Just find a shooting involving a civilian who needed more than six rounds. I'm sure they happen, but they seem very rare.

We've gone through the whole self-defense angle time and time again. There are a 5-6 different risks involved with firearm ownership, both to owners and other people. We're trying to balance those risks against the risks of criminal assault while having very limited statistical information.

ruhk wrote:
Devolving into increasingly unlikely hypothetical situations trying to revalidate a countered argument is hardly a serious discussion. Even Galactic Overlord Drolggg knows that.

t is not hypothetical when I back up my posts with cases, stats, videos and examples. The 1986 FBI Miami shootout that caused police departments around the nation to abandon revolvers because of their inability to stop attackers is NOT hypothetical. Whether you care to admit it or not, having more than 6 rounds is necessary sometimes. There are plenty of times when it isn't, but the NYPD numbers I posted in an earlier post clearly show that more often than not, a semi-auto is the better choice, if we are strictly talking about handguns.

Is the intent for all home-defense measures to be 100% lethal?
Edit: Sorry for the short question. I had a much longer thing typed up but it basically boiled down to this. No snark intended. Honest question.

Edwin wrote:
ruhk wrote:
Devolving into increasingly unlikely hypothetical situations trying to revalidate a countered argument is hardly a serious discussion. Even Galactic Overlord Drolggg knows that.

t is not hypothetical when I back up my posts with cases, stats, videos and examples. The 1986 FBI Miami shootout that caused police departments around the nation to abandon revolvers because of their inability to stop attackers is NOT hypothetical. Whether you care to admit it or not, having more than 6 rounds is necessary sometimes. There are plenty of times when it isn't, but the NYPD numbers I posted in an earlier post clearly show that more often than not, a semi-auto is the better choice, if we are strictly talking about handguns.

Any situation is possible, but what matters is how probable something is, which is why people were satirizing the argument. Yeah, tonight a group of criminals might break into my house and kill me... Am I worried that will actually happen? Should I go buy a gun "just in case?" Of course not, and it's ridiculous to suggest it.

How about this?

The need for gun owners to have guns in the home is often said to be based on defensive concerns. I'm not sure why this is advisable for home owners in the US. It must be because of factors that are unfamiliar to me. For the sake of a poor, ignorant foreigner, and to establish them for discussion, what are the factors unique to the US that make it necessary to use a gun for home defense and not any other tactic or strategy?

I don't have or need a gun because I live in a rather populated area. Even in relatively unpopulated areas, people generally know each other well and communicate the presence of strangers or invaders very fast in our current era of cellphone technology. At worst, an armed captain can be present in your area in about an hour, assuming he has to hoof it because of rough, impassable terrain.

Can I wait an hour?

In general, I would say yes. Houses are commonly (but sadly not universally) made to be proof against physical entry, or have secret entrances and exits to facilitate evacuation for various concerns - landslides, fire, floods, bandits, and assassins. The best houses feature both. Is it common for American homes to be designed to be indefensible and inescapable at the same time? That seems rather ill-advised.

In the event of escape, people have multiple pathways to their neighbors. Single-pathway houses are taken for the sake of a determined defense - such houses are intentionally situated in isolation in order to be defensible from small regiments of armed assailants. You'd need guns to hold the position, of course. Is help and succor really so far from Americans that they can't just secretly flee their homes to the security of their neighbor's until police arrive? Neighbors will not aid you in the event of an animal attack?

Could not the law be modified to have special dispensations and/or exemptions that expire on a timed basis - say, every three years? I can imagine a scenario wherein a house is so far up the boondocks that it really will take 2 or 3 hours for police to arrive, if at all. The only reason anyone would attack you that far out would be to kill you or take your stores. In the former case, a gun could be necessary to survive.

I sense an unstated aversion to fleeing or seeking nonviolent means to end invasions and conflicts. Am I seeing something that's just not there?

Rezzy wrote:
Is the intent for all home-defense measures to be 100% lethal?
Edit: Sorry for the short question. I had a much longer thing typed up but it basically boiled down to this. No snark intended. Honest question.

In a sue-happy country like America, my unfortunate answer is "yes".

As a close friend likes to put it "I'd rather be judged by twelve men than carried by six", especially when criminals can make civil cases against victims when they were injured while perpetrating a crime.

ruhk wrote:
Any situation is possible, but what matters is how probable something is, which is why people were satirizing the argument.

Exactly. The Hypothetical Scenario Argument is absurd, and often in poor taste. It's like kids on the playground trumping being shot with bulletproof armor being trumped by armorproof bullets etc. Eventually, you're asking what that lady was supposed to do if a Terminator showed up.

ruhk wrote:
Edwin wrote:
ruhk wrote:
Devolving into increasingly unlikely hypothetical situations trying to revalidate a countered argument is hardly a serious discussion. Even Galactic Overlord Drolggg knows that.

t is not hypothetical when I back up my posts with cases, stats, videos and examples. The 1986 FBI Miami shootout that caused police departments around the nation to abandon revolvers because of their inability to stop attackers is NOT hypothetical. Whether you care to admit it or not, having more than 6 rounds is necessary sometimes. There are plenty of times when it isn't, but the NYPD numbers I posted in an earlier post clearly show that more often than not, a semi-auto is the better choice, if we are strictly talking about handguns.

Any situation is possible, but what matters is how probable something is, which is why people were satirizing the argument. Yeah, tonight a group of criminals might break into my house and kill me... Am I worried that will actually happen? Should I go buy a gun "just in case?" Of course not, and it's ridiculous to suggest it.

I have never told anyone to go buy a gun, here or in any other conversation ever. My position that I have very specifically advocate for the option should be available. It's not for everyone and I've said that before numerous times.

You don't like it. Fine. But for those of us who want that option, I want it to still be there.