It Has Happened Again...

[Polaris]

Politicians in California talk about the .50 cal BMG all the time. It's now trendy to display a round (dummy I assume) to demonstrate how big it is and then declare that the opponent is pro .50 cal BMG's.

I heard about this crap. Preventive rights-infringement - how very post-modern.

This is like outlawing McLaren F1s because someone could potentially drive one twice as fast as the average Ford Taurus.

Didn't Schwarzenegger ban them outright?

 

[Polaris]

Thanks for the links and you have got me wondering now. The figures you posted don't seem to make sense because physics says that two objects will be affected by gravity the same, so a piece of shrapnel traveling a minimum of three times the speed of a rifle round should be deadly up to three times as far as long as the cross section is fairly similar. As shrapnel goes in all directions there should be a lot of damage from shrapnel many kilometres from even a moderate bomb blast.

Now, I know that the Halifax Blast of 1917 devastated the surrounding area for two kilometres but it was a huge blast, exceeding that of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan. Most other blasts just don't send shrapnel that far.

Now I have to figure this out but it is late. I am going to bed because its off to California for me tomorrow. I'll think about it while I lie on the beach, or maybe not.

Wasn't Halifax an ammo dump explosion?

The reason shrapnel doesn't travel as far as bullets is because it's generally the most unaerodymanic stuff you can send flying. The air slows it down quite a bit, and most any objects will stop it - it doesn't go through things like bullets tend to do (which is why helmets stop shrapnel and not bullets).

I wish I could find this link where a bunch of Marines in Iraq blow up a weapons cache from a few hundred yards away and in less than a second a piece of metal hits the ground next to one of them at high speed - I could search around for it and PM it to you.

I know, I lied about letting this derail die.

 

[CFLarsen]

It has nothing to do with my keeping up. You are not making sense.

How is post #90 relevant to the discussion that you and I are having?

If you are not interested in looking at the evidence, just say so.

? We are different in our view of guns. That's it. That's all.

I am talking about what the overall American culture is.

No, I only want to look at the issues that are relevant. We differ in our attitudes of guns. All the rest is irrelevant.

On the contrary, to find explanations, we have to look at the whole picture. We can't focus on just the one thing that separates us.

I want the truth. I don't want to sacrifice rights

What rights? You have a right to keep and bear arms in a militia for national defense, not own handguns for protection against criminals, or even just for fun.

in the vain belief that prohibition is a solution when it is clear in America's past that such prohibitions don't work.

You have one example. Extrapolating from one example? Tsk.

America is a dynamic. America is different than other nations. Merely saying that there are similarities proves nothing especially when the relevant differences are so stark.

Any nation is different from other nations. I would say that there are far more similarities than differences between the US and European countries, e.g. given the fact that so many immigrants come from Europe.

If you want to point to this one example - attitude of guns - you have to explain why that is.

You know Claus, you and I are on the same side of many issues, but I can barely stand to watch you debate. You badger people, try to force them into false dichotomies, put words into their mouths and you make snide, insulting remarks like the ones above.

Now RandFan and I are on the opposite side of most issues, but I've found him to be fair and reasonable, even when he is wrong (which is most the time ). You really should save your vitriol for those who deserve it.

If I were picking a team of debaters for my liberal side, you would not be on it. Not even fourth string. Like Bush, you recruit for the enemy. Lighten up, please. Everything doesn't have to be a fight.

It isn't. But I feel strongly about this issue, so I present my case to the best of my ability.

Your criticism would be valid, if I started with being frustrated - because that's what it is: Frustration. Look back on how RandFan and I started in this thread: Nice and easy. Then, when I start heaping evidence upon evidence, it is merely ignored. When I refer to the evidence, I am asked to refer to it, which I do. The evidence is criticized, but in vague terms. When I ask for exactly what is wrong, I get no clear response. Then, it evolves into a game of "What? I don't see anything. There's no evidence. There's never been any evidence", despite repeated references to it. What is presented as counter-argument? Opinions, blanket statements, repeated but not backed up with any kind of evidence.

To debate a blind believer like that can be very frustrating. It's like trying to reason with an ostrich.

 

[CFLarsen]

Now, I know that the Halifax Blast of 1917 devastated the surrounding area for two kilometres but it was a huge blast, exceeding that of the atomic bombs dropped on Japan.

Nope:

The Halifax Explosion occurred on Thursday December 6, 1917, at 9:04:35 a.m. local time in the Halifax Harbour in Halifax, Nova Scotia, in Canada, when the French munitions ship Mont-Blanc bound for World War I France, collided near Pier 6 with the Norwegian ship The Imo chartered to carry Belgian relief supplies. In the aftermath of the collision, Mont-Blanc caught fire and exploded, killing about 2,000 people (1,950 known dead - see Link Below) and injuring thousands more. The explosion caused a tsunami, and a pressure wave of air that snapped trees, bent iron rails, demolished buildings, and carried fragments for kilometres.

This was the largest artificial explosion until the first atomic bomb test explosion in 1945 and still ranks highly among the largest artificial non-nuclear explosions.

Source

 

[RandFan]

If you are not interested in looking at the evidence, just say so.

This does not answer my question.

I am talking about what the overall American culture is.

You are free to talk about what ever you want. The problem is that it is irrelevant.

On the contrary, to find explanations, we have to look at the whole picture. We can't focus on just the one thing that separates us.

But it is this one thing that is so significant. When I pointed out that the Saudis successfully prohibited alcohol you cited a single thing that separates America and the Saudis. You were right and it was significant. And America's desire for guns is significant as is their desire for liquor.

What rights? You have a right to keep and bear arms in a militia for national defense, not own handguns for protection against criminals, or even just for fun.

That's another debate. Let's assume you are right (you're not but I don't want need 50 pages of debate on rights) Americans can simply be wrong and perceive it as a right to have guns for whatever reason. "Perception is reality".

You have one example. Extrapolating from one example? Tsk.

It's not the only one and it is rather significant. Prohibitions against drugs has resulted in incarceration of a large segment of our population and a large black market. Americans have a way of not just saying no to their wants. If they can't get it legally they will just get it illegally.

Any nation is different from other nations. I would say that there are far more similarities than differences between the US and European countries, e.g. given the fact that so many immigrants come from Europe.

Been there done that.

If you want to point to this one example - attitude of guns - you have to explain why that is.

No, I just need to demonstrate that it is.

To debate a blind believer like that can be very frustrating. It's like trying to reason with an ostrich.

I like you Larsen and I pretty much just stay out of your petty debates anymore since I see it as an excercise in futility. But this is the most laughable statement considering that even people who share your ideology think you are dogmatic and have a serious blind spot when it comes to logic.

 

[WinterMute]

What rights? You have a right to keep and bear arms in a militia for national defense, not own handguns for protection against criminals, or even just for fun.

I might be wrong here but ever since I first read the Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I always thought that it stated that there is a need for a milita AND ordinary people to be armed.

 

[WinterMute]

That's another debate. Let's assume you are right (you're not but I don't want need 50 pages of debate on rights) Americans can simply be wrong and perceive it as a right to have guns for whatever reason. "Perception is reality".

I guess the two of you don't agree on that topic. Ignore my post. Don't want the thread to go more off-topic.

 

[CFLarsen]

I might be wrong here but ever since I first read the Second Amendment:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I always thought that it stated that there is a need for a milita AND ordinary people to be armed.

Armed, for what?

 

[CFLarsen]

This does not answer my question.

No, I have shown you the evidence, not just with references, but also quoted in this thread. If you don't want to see it, there's nothing I can do about it.

You are free to talk about what ever you want. The problem is that it is irrelevant.

You point to the uniform American culture as a reason why Americans want to have guns, but you think it is irrelevant to talk about? Why bring it up, then??

But it is this one thing that is so significant. When I pointed out that the Saudis successfully prohibited alcohol you cited a single thing that separates America and the Saudis. You were right and it was significant. And America's desire for guns is significant as is their desire for liquor.

Ah, one more factor: Alcohol. How many are there?

That's another debate. Let's assume you are right (you're not but I don't want need 50 pages of debate on rights) Americans can simply be wrong and perceive it as a right to have guns for whatever reason. "Perception is reality".

Until you get shot.

It's not the only one and it is rather significant. Prohibitions against drugs has resulted in incarceration of a large segment of our population and a large black market. Americans have a way of not just saying no to their wants. If they can't get it legally they will just get it illegally.

That's ridiculous. Why have laws at all, then?

No, I just need to demonstrate that it is.

Again, you are not looking for explanations or solutions.

I like you Larsen and I pretty much just stay out of your petty debates anymore since I see it as an excercise in futility. But this is the most laughable statement considering that even people who share your ideology think you are dogmatic and have a serious blind spot when it comes to logic.

Sure, ignore the evidence and call me illogic. It works on some people, unfortunately.

 

[WinterMute]

Armed, for what?

I guess the writers where scared of a strong centralized government and thought that arming all people would be a good idea.
I personally don't think it's a good idea today. A bit outdated.

If the amount of guns is the only factor (or the biggest) in all these killings that you argue, I hope everyone else realizes this soon. I guess most ppl in the US hasn't reach this conclusion yet.

But please move on if this will side track the thread.

 

[Mephisto]

Knife Wielding Maniacs Are Human Too!

Yesterday, another "school-violence" incident happened quite near me. A knife-wielding man dressed in "dark clothing" tried to lure a girl in an Albuquerque (NM) school near a portable classroom into the main school building. She ran away and notified a teacher and the authorities were promptly called and surrounded (and searched) the school and the surrounding areas.

Several schools in the area remained in lockdown for several hours until the search was called off. The suspect remains at large.

NM is a "concealed-carry" state and firearms are available nearly everywhere having anything to do with sporting goods. I don't know if it was the waiting period (for a handgun purchase) or shortage of funds that kept this guy from obtaining a firearm, but it didn't seem to deter his intentions.

 

[CFLarsen]

I guess the writers where scared of a strong centralized government and thought that arming all people would be a good idea.
I personally don't think it's a good idea today. A bit outdated.

If the amount of guns is the only factor (or the biggest) in all these killings that you argue, I hope everyone else realizes this soon. I guess most ppl in the US hasn't reach this conclusion yet.

But please move on if this will side track the thread.

Arming them for the purpose of "securing" the state. That does not mean that you have a right to guns for fun or protection.

 

[CFLarsen]

Yesterday, another "school-violence" incident happened quite near me. A knife-wielding man dressed in "dark clothing" tried to lure a girl in an Albuquerque (NM) school near a portable classroom into the main school building. She ran away and notified a teacher and the authorities were promptly called and surrounded (and searched) the school and the surrounding areas.

Several schools in the area remained in lockdown for several hours until the search was called off. The suspect remains at large.

NM is a "concealed-carry" state and firearms are available nearly everywhere having anything to do with sporting goods. I don't know if it was the waiting period (for a handgun purchase) or shortage of funds that kept this guy from obtaining a firearm, but it didn't seem to deter his intentions.

Yes, thank you, that myth is busted.

 

[Tricky]

Yesterday, another "school-violence" incident happened quite near me. A knife-wielding man dressed in "dark clothing" tried to lure a girl in an Albuquerque (NM) school near a portable classroom into the main school building. She ran away and notified a teacher and the authorities were promptly called and surrounded (and searched) the school and the surrounding areas.

Several schools in the area remained in lockdown for several hours until the search was called off. The suspect remains at large.

NM is a "concealed-carry" state and firearms are available nearly everywhere having anything to do with sporting goods. I don't know if it was the waiting period (for a handgun purchase) or shortage of funds that kept this guy from obtaining a firearm, but it didn't seem to deter his intentions.

Claus is right here, Mephisto. This incident only supports the contention that guns are a big part of the problem. Two crazies, presumably with the same intentions. The one with a gun kills, the one without doesn't. Sure, loonies are and will always be with us. Guns help empower them.

 

[RandFan]

No, I have shown you the evidence, not just with references, but also quoted in this thread. If you don't want to see it, there's nothing I can do about it.

A claim without foundation.

You point to the uniform American culture as a reason why Americans want to have guns, but you think it is irrelevant to talk about? Why bring it up, then??

Your point is irrelevant. Not mine.

Ah, one more factor: Alcohol. How many are there?

One each.

Until you get shot.

Sophistry

That's ridiculous. Why have laws at all, then?

Some laws are good. Some laws, like the prohibition on drugs are counter productive.

 

[CFLarsen]

Your point is irrelevant. Not mine.

Ah, I see. You can raise a point, and call it relevant, but when I want to discuss it, you find it irrelevant.

One each.

I don't understand. Please clarify.

Sophistry

No, truth.

Some laws are good. Some laws, like the prohibition on drugs are counter productive.

Are all laws that prohibit something counter productive?

 

[Katana]

I am not making hasty generalizations, quite the contrary. I base my point on facts, evidence, data.

You have provided data that shows that guns are used in school shootings and that America has more guns and gun-related violence. Neither of these facts supports the contention that removing guns is the solution to school violence.

Of the three, the only injury was damaged fingers on a superintendent. Only one incident happened while the school was open.

I said when I cited those that they were minor because guns are still the weapon of choice. You said bombs aren't being made, I have shown several instances in which they have been.

Then, take a look at this:

Recent school shootings.

Germany 3, Canada 2, Yemen, Scotland, Argentina, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Netherlands and Sweden 1 each.

34 from the US. 70 dead, 116 wounded.

Yes, I pellet you with evidence, I know that. When are you going to wake up?

Why are you acting like you're telling me something new? When did I deny that guns were being used? Interesting that you to respond to an argument that I haven't been making.

Of course not. You won't remove milk from the supermarket by removing bread. But gun-related crime is a substantial part of crime. Why not get at least that sizeable chunk out of the way?

I'm talking specifically about school shootings. What have you done to address the anger and psychological problems behind the school shootings?

Take away guns, you'll stop school shootings, but you won't stop students from trying to kill each other until you do something to get at the reasons why they want to.

The evidence does not support your contention.

Show me where, in the United States, access to guns has been completely removed resulting in an elimination of school killings.

The difference is, I provide evidence. You provide opinion.

What do you think of the data above?

You continue to celebrate your evidence when you have provided no evidence addressing what I am saying. You simply continue to provide links to information that I do not question, acting as though you have shot down what I have said. Interesting tactic.

 

[CFLarsen]

You have provided data that shows that guns are used in school shootings and that America has more guns and gun-related violence. Neither of these facts supports the contention that removing guns is the solution to school violence.

????

Are you out of your mind? Seriously. Who has argued that school shootings would disappear altogether, if guns were removed?

I said when I cited those that they were minor because guns are still the weapon of choice. You said bombs aren't being made, I have shown several instances in which they have been.

No, I said that bombs were not being used in the absence of guns. You have shown zero evidence that bombs would be substituted for guns, if guns were removed. You have offered nothing but your opinion. But no evidence.

Why are you ignoring the evidence I have presented?

Why are you acting like you're telling me something new? When did I deny that guns were being used? Interesting that you to respond to an argument that I haven't been making.

Address the evidence, please. Don't bat your eyes and pretend it doesn't exist. Address the evidence.

I'm talking specifically about school shootings. What have you done to address the anger and psychological problems behind the school shootings?

What are you talking about??

Show me where, in the United States, access to guns has been completely removed resulting in an elimination of school killings.

Who has been arguing that, by removing guns, gun attacks would be completely removed?

Yes, direct quotes, please. Put up or shut up.

You continue to celebrate your evidence when you have provided no evidence addressing what I am saying. You simply continue to provide links to information that I do not question, acting as though you have shot down what I have said. Interesting tactic.

What do you think of the data above?

 

[qayak]

Wasn't Halifax an ammo dump explosion?

Halifax was caused when two ships collided and one drifted into the pier while on fire. It then exploded. I believe it is still the worst disaster of that type ever.

I wish I could find this link where a bunch of Marines in Iraq blow up a weapons cache from a few hundred yards away and in less than a second a piece of metal hits the ground next to one of them at high speed - I could search around for it and PM it to you.

But, a few seconds later means that the shrapnel wasn't travelling that fast.

I know, I lied about letting this derail die.

That's okay, it is an interesting discussion and more likely to be productive now than when we were just slagging each other.

 

[RandFan]

Ah, I see. You can raise a point, and call it relevant, but when I want to discuss it, you find it irrelevant.

No, I don't think this is what happened.

I don't understand. Please clarify.

One point for Saudis one point for America.

No, truth.

Is that what they are calling rhetoric these days?

Are all laws that prohibit something counter productive?

Just those laws that prohibit things that are in high demand. The failed drug laws and the failed prohibition of alcohol demonstrate that in an other wise free society people will break the law to get that which they deem proper for them.