• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

School shooting: but don't mention guns!

rikzilla said:
snip

What real change takes is political will. We've either got it, or we don't. We can either live like people in other developed nations, or we can run frantic from one hardened location to another.

-z
Click to expand...

Given your thoughts then, an amendment to the constitution will be required. Anything short of that is navel gazing.
 
DJW said:
Given your thoughts then, an amendment to the constitution will be required. Anything short of that is navel gazing.
Click to expand...

Why?

There were previous gun controls that have been implemented.
 
BenBurch said:
A carbine is a very specific type of weapon. It is a lighter, shorter weapon (compared with the rifles of the mid 19th century) with a lower muzzle velocity designed to be carried horseback. A cavalry weapon originally. Suitable for close-in fighting.
Click to expand...

"The Ruger Mini-14 is also not restricted, and since the death of the long-gun registry last spring does not need to be registered outside of Quebec."

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/guns-notorious-canadian-mass-shootings-still-not-prohibited-234352117.html

The Ruger Mini 14's primary design purpose was pest control. Basically it's a "farmer's-gun". Thousands are legally owned across Canada, many for that designed purpose, but because fewer than a handful of them have been used in a criminal shooting people want to see them reclassified as restricted or prohibited.

Now consider that under Canadian laws, a firearms restriction or prohibition DOES NOT mean the firearm will necessarily be confiscated. Provided the current owner is not disqualified from having her or his firearms license amended with the 'restricted' or 'prohibited' classification endorsement, the current owner will be permitted to KEEP THAT FIREARM!

However, one of the features of the these two classifications means that the firearm can no longer be used for pest control.

In other words, we would now have thousands of legally owned guns, still in the hands of their law abiding owners, which can no longer be used for their intended legitimate purpose.

Absolutely brilliant rationale...
 
Last edited:
jimbob said:
Is this per minute? What magazine capacity are you talking about?
Click to expand...

They both fire as fast as you can pull the trigger and as quick as you can reload.

They are roughly equal in reloading time.

If we go back to the 10 round mag limits, then they are really exactly the same in terms of rate of fire, including reloads.

You could fire 30 rounds from each, in about the same amount of time.

With a 30 round magazine, and a 7 or 8 shot revolver, the revolver would not be very far behind in firing 30 aimed rounds.

There are also 10 shot .22LR revolvers and 9 shot .22mag revolvers.

With speed loaders, reloading a revolver is the same as swapping a magazine.
 
rikzilla said:
However,...our friends to the north are clearly onto something good when you look at crime stats between places like Detroit and Windsor, or Vancouver vs Seattle.
-z
Click to expand...

Then you look at El Paso and Ciudad Juárez and the whole comparison thing reverses. Maybe it's proximity to the equator that's the factor?
 
jimbob said:
Why?

There were previous gun controls that have been implemented.
Click to expand...

I think my reasoning has to do mostly with effect. I've made more posts today than I usually make in a year, so you'll have to forgive me for thinking you read them.:o

Bottom line, though, is that gun control laws are being tried all over in the "state laboratories". I'm not sure they're doing any good. We have a gun culture and a lot of confounding variables.

Without a national effort to amend the 2nd amendment, I think most anything else is unlikely to help, i.e. navel gazing...:)
 
Noztradamus said:
Then you look at El Paso and Ciudad Juárez and the whole comparison thing reverses. Maybe it's proximity to the equator that's the factor?
Click to expand...

Quoting a line from "Rainman":

"Well I guess that's the end of that conversation"...
 
Autolite said:
I believe it's the self-loading feature (chambering) of a semi-automatic firearm that qualifies it for that classification. The revolver you're talking about must have the rounds chambered by hand before use, does it not???
Click to expand...

I've never been really clear why there is a distinction between semi-auto and revolvers. The magazine has to be loaded by hand as well. Speed loaders make loading the cylinders of a revolver almost as quick as changing magazines.
 
Nessie said:
I did not forget to mention those countries. I did not mention them because they are not similar to the make up of the USA, whereas Canada, Australia and New Zealand are.
Click to expand...
Not actually true. Demographically they are quite different.

The USA has shown itself to be a fail of epic proportions when it comes to gun culture. The sticking plaster solutions such as wheeled ballistic shields in school corridors are hilarious to read.

A society that looks to armed teachers, ballistic shields, gunman amok evasion exercises and debates is it better to run or hide needs to be a society that accepts it has failed and failed very badly.
Click to expand...

I see that you're done with the conversation here then. "America is a failure". Thanks for your input.
 
'Death to all guns'

Mark Morford said:
Guns are, socially and ethically, devastating. Worthless. They add nothing of positive, intrinsic value to a culture, a people, a country. They only diminish, destroy, display an awesome sense of malformed ego and disastrously warped humanity.

...

Here is the truth: Guns are pain. Guns are impotence masquerading as virility, shame masquerading as valor, the devil disguised as an outrageously misinterpreted chunk of the Constitution that was never meant to suffer what the fat lords of the gun lobbies have made it suffer.

...

Guns do not protect more than they destroy. They do not save more lives than they kill. They do not safeguard more families than they devastate. They do not add security more than they add fear, suspicion, antagonism and hate. As has been pointed out again and again: Guns, by their very existence, insist on their own use. And their use is, singularly and without reservation, death.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
LTC8K6 said:
They both fire as fast as you can pull the trigger and as quick as you can reload.

They are roughly equal in reloading time.

If we go back to the 10 round mag limits, then they are really exactly the same in terms of rate of fire, including reloads.

You could fire 30 rounds from each, in about the same amount of time.

With a 30 round magazine, and a 7 or 8 shot revolver, the revolver would not be very far behind in firing 30 aimed rounds.

There are also 10 shot .22LR revolvers and 9 shot .22mag revolvers.

With speed loaders, reloading a revolver is the same as swapping a magazine.
Click to expand...

You make a great argument for single-shot pistols.
 
joesixpack said:
Not actually true. Demographically they are quite different.
Click to expand...

It is about attitude and culture.


I see that you're done with the conversation here then. "America is a failure". Thanks for your input.
Click to expand...

No get it right, American gun culture is a failure. My argument is that until it is widely accepted that American gun culture is a failure, no gun control change will make any difference whatsoever.

Scotland does not have much of a gun culture. After Dumblane there was still a change to the culture of guns in that those with handguns accepted they had no place in society and handed them over with few complaints.

There was also no protests over improved security for guns such that even if a child of a gun owner shot them, they should not be able to get at those guns with the apparent ease Lanza did.
 
LTC8K6 said:
Yes, I've discussed those and how they'd be used by a maniac.

I already said I'd use one to prevent being rushed while reloading. :D
Click to expand...

There is a lot of good information coming out in this thread on how to do a massacre. Handy stuff for future maniacs.
 
joesixpack said:
I've never been really clear why there is a distinction between semi-auto and revolvers. The magazine has to be loaded by hand as well. Speed loaders make loading the cylinders of a revolver almost as quick as changing magazines.
Click to expand...

I believe the distinction is the 'chambering' (the loading of the round into the chamber).

A semi-auto chambers each round in succession after firing. A revolver rotates the chamber into firing position but the rounds must first be pre-chambered by hand (either individually or with a speed loader).

Perhaps the difference might be better illustrated by describing the operation of the M39 Automatic Revolver Cannon where all the rounds are preloaded into the magazine.

However, by operation and design, the cannon automatically feeds the rounds from the preloaded magazine into into the individual revolver chambers. As the cannon fires, the revolver rotates to bring each automatically pre-chambered round into the firing position.

Loading rounds into a magazine and then having them loaded into the chamber are two different operations.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M39_cannon

With respect to gun control and the banning of semi-automatics, the difference between how a semi-auto works and how a revolver works is not an issue. It is the larger potential ammunition capacity of many semi-automatics that raises the concerns. This is why ammunition capacity limit laws might be on their way.

The real hurdle will be finding ways to encourage the bad people to comply...
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom