• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Another Good Guy with a Gun...

Nickyjo said:
Ok, my head is clear of my ass. Cleaned my ears and everything. What is the source of real gun violence in the US, and what does it possibly have to do with racism?
Click to expand...

It is largely socio economics. The FBI maintains a lot of data about shootings and there are two consistent trends. It is far more prevalent among the poor and also it is disproportionately done by black males and against black males.

This is where people say "that's racist". It is an observation born out in the statistics. A black male between 16-35 is far more likely to shoot you than any other demographic. Similarly, that same person is also more likely to be shot.
 
Fledermaus said:
Strawman....

You know exactly what my point is.

The regulations you propose have have no effect on mass shootings.
Click to expand...

I assume that a weapon with twenty rounds capacity would do more damage more quickly than one with ten. The point is not to eliminate mass shootings, but to make them fewer in number and involve fewer victims. Again, what would you try?
 
Nickyjo said:
I assume that a weapon with twenty rounds capacity would do more damage more quickly than one with ten. The point is not to eliminate mass shootings, but to make them fewer in number and involve fewer victims. Again, what would you try?
Click to expand...

This is not supported by actual research. The FBI/ATF did a large study after the sunsetting of the 94 AWB. A large part of that ban involved all magazines over 10 rounds as well. They concluded that no aspect of the limitations and restrictions within that ban actually had any "measurable impact".

Really what it boils down to is:
1) Someone who is planning on a mass murder, is highly unlikely to obey your laws about his mag size
2) There is not a huge difference between carrying 100 rounds in 10 mags and 100 rounds in 5 mags, reload time is minimal if practiced
3) Most homicides are not mass shootings
4) Alternative weapons still exist should all of the above exist, whether you are talking about chemicals, vehicles, bombs etc.
 
bave said:
It is largely socio economics. The FBI maintains a lot of data about shootings and there are two consistent trends. It is far more prevalent among the poor and also it is disproportionately done by black males and against black males.

This is where people say "that's racist". It is an observation born out in the statistics. A black male between 16-35 is far more likely to shoot you than any other demographic. Similarly, that same person is also more likely to be shot.
Click to expand...

Soooo... 50-6O years ago it might have been Italians, before that Jews, before that Irish, before that Germans.

One correction, I am white and a white person is more likely to shoot me, according to the FBI. Trump tried to claim that 80% or so of white homicide victims were killed by blacks. Naturally. We tend to kill within our own ethnic groups.
 
bave said:
This is not supported by actual research. The FBI/ATF did a large study after the sunsetting of the 94 AWB. A large part of that ban involved all magazines over 10 rounds as well. They concluded that no aspect of the limitations and restrictions within that ban actually had any "measurable impact".

Really what it boils down to is:
1) Someone who is planning on a mass murder, is highly unlikely to obey your laws about his mag size

++ Then why pass any laws if there are people who will disobey them? I suggest making it harder for them to find such mags.

2) There is not a huge difference between carrying 100 rounds in 10 mags and 100 rounds in 5 mags, reload time is minimal if practiced

++ If I confronting someone firing away, I’d like to have even minimal time while he reloads, and/or hope for someone who hasn’t practiced much, who drops things, etc., as I suppose most cops would prefer as well.

3) Most homicides are not mass shootings

++ Ok. We have different regulations aimed at different potential crimes.

4) Alternative weapons still exist should all of the above exist, whether you are talking about chemicals, vehicles, bombs etc.
Click to expand...

++ Right. That’s why we have some restrictions on sale of some chemicals and bomb making materials, and why there are different licensing requirements for those who drive semis.

Finally, the argument from your side seems to suggest that if a law or regulation doesn’t work perfectly, it is useless. “Well, the Manson family and Ted Bundy killed lots of people without using fully automatic weapons.” The perfect is often the enemy of the good.
 
Nickyjo said:
I assume that a weapon with twenty rounds capacity would do more damage more quickly than one with ten. The point is not to eliminate mass shootings, but to make them fewer in number and involve fewer victims. Again, what would you try?
Click to expand...

you never ever responded to my point against your demand for stupid magazine bans.

that being-those defending against a criminal attack rarely have time to stock up with extra magazines. Most homeowners dealing with a violent home invasion, or shopkeepers dealing with an armed robber(s), are usually limited to the rounds in the one magazine in the firearm. Why do you want to handicap such people?
 
Nickyjo said:
Soooo... 50-6O years ago it might have been Italians, before that Jews, before that Irish, before that Germans.

One correction, I am white and a white person is more likely to shoot me, according to the FBI. Trump tried to claim that 80% or so of white homicide victims were killed by blacks. Naturally. We tend to kill within our own ethnic groups.
Click to expand...

Like I said, it is socioeconomic. When the Italians and the Irish were the poor underclass they were involved in more crime, particularly violent crime.

You are correct at an individual level, but not at a societal level. A white person is more likely to be shot by another white person. A person, in general, is more likely to be shot by a black person. Per the most recent FBI data I could just grab, there were more black murderers than white murderers, which despite a 5:1 difference in racial demographic proportions. So while we tend to kill within our own social groups, black men are far more likely to do it than white men.

That's where the race card comes in, but we are just talking about statistics. The question of why is a far more complex debate.
 
Nickyjo said:
++ Right. That’s why we have some restrictions on sale of some chemicals and bomb making materials, and why there are different licensing requirements for those who drive semis.

Finally, the argument from your side seems to suggest that if a law or regulation doesn’t work perfectly, it is useless. “Well, the Manson family and Ted Bundy killed lots of people without using fully automatic weapons.” The perfect is often the enemy of the good.
Click to expand...

Yea, but not really. You can't buy dynamite super easily sure, but you can very easily buy the chemicals to make enormously powerful bombs very easily and cheaply. Just as the boys from OK City. The problem with your line of logic is that you assume a criminal is going to abide by a rule. Oh shucks, I can't buy C4 so I guess I will just play X-Box? No. They instead buy diesel fuel and ammonia. I can't get a CDL, so I can still steal a semi, dumptruck, or just get an F350 and plow into a crowd just fine. When that guy in France decided to drive the truck over the crowd, did anyone ask if he had the appropriate license? No, it was immaterial. The same way when the guys with AK47's shot up the newspaper and grocery store, no one asked where they got the weapons. People just knew that committed criminals are going to find a way.

The problem with the theory (I assume you are supporting) in that high cap mags and assault weapons lead to higher murder rates is simply not found in any of the data is the point. For instance. Australia instituted a mandatory gun confiscation program, the left's wet dream in the US. Do you know that from the time that law passed in AU to today their murder rate has declined *less* than the murder rate in the US? Meanwhile, as we have relaxed gun regs in the US (again, sunsetting of AWB ban in 2004) the number of scary guns/mags in this country has *exploded* yet the murder rate has declined.

This is my point. None of the statistics support the idea that more gun rules, less guns, less scary black rifles, less 15 round handgun mags actually make an impact. In fact, the FBI/ATF said themselves they did not make a difference.
 
Nickyjo said:
I assume that a weapon with twenty rounds capacity would do more damage more quickly than one with ten. The point is not to eliminate mass shootings, but to make them fewer in number and involve fewer victims. Again, what would you try?
Click to expand...

No. The magazine capacity does not change the ballistics of a weapon. And I can swap a magazine in a few seconds.

And the magazine restrictions are already in place in California..... Looks like that didn't help
 
TurtleDude said:
you never ever responded to my point against your demand for stupid magazine bans.

that being-those defending against a criminal attack rarely have time to stock up with extra magazines. Most homeowners dealing with a violent home invasion, or shopkeepers dealing with an armed robber(s), are usually limited to the rounds in the one magazine in the firearm. Why do you want to handicap such people?
Click to expand...

I don’t know what nightmarish neighborhood you live in, and I can’t believe you need more than a dozen rounds to defend yourself. I imagine people living in the danger you describe could get an exemption from the police and have a 50 cal machine gun mounted in a strategic place. Sorry you live in such fear.
 
Nickyjo said:
I don’t know what nightmarish neighborhood you live in, and I can’t believe you need more than a dozen rounds to defend yourself. I imagine people living in the danger you describe could get an exemption from the police and have a 50 cal machine gun mounted in a strategic place. Sorry you live in such fear.
Click to expand...

<sigh>

It always devolves into this.

Do you need an 8000 lb SUV with a 500hp engine that gets 8mpg? No.
Do you need a 7,000 square foot house? No.
Do you need a swimming pool? No.
Do you need to eat meat? No.
Do you need air conditioning? No.

There are a million things that people don't "need" but still determine they would prefer. The problem here is that you *feel* you should have the ability to determine what someone should be allowed to have, when all the data suggests that your feelings are immaterial to the problem at hand.

I will agree with your feelings that we should limit magazine size when you agree with my codifying my belief that the obese should be limited into how many calories they get per day. Deal?

Edit: FWIW, your .50 caliber machine gun is a prohibited weapon as it stands. To own any automatic weapon would require an enormous amount of paperwork and expense. Almost no crimes are committed with automatic, suppressed, etc style weapons. So you should be arguing for more limitations on private tank ownership, rocket launchers, and attack helicopter licenses because they are statistically closer to the number of murders with "scary black rifles".
 
Nickyjo said:
I don’t know what nightmarish neighborhood you live in, and I can’t believe you need more than a dozen rounds to defend yourself. I imagine people living in the danger you describe could get an exemption from the police and have a 50 cal machine gun mounted in a strategic place. Sorry you live in such fear.
Click to expand...

well given your admitted ignorance of this subject, I can tell you that 12 rounds is inadequate in many situations.
 
bave said:
<sigh>

It always devolves into this.

Do you need an 8000 lb SUV with a 500hp engine that gets 8mpg? No.
Do you need a 7,000 square foot house? No.
Do you need a swimming pool? No.
Do you need to eat meat? No.
Do you need air conditioning? No.

There are a million things that people don't "need" but still determine they would prefer. The problem here is that you *feel* you should have the ability to determine what someone should be allowed to have, when all the data suggests that your feelings are immaterial to the problem at hand.

I will agree with your feelings that we should limit magazine size when you agree with my codifying my belief that the obese should be limited into how many calories they get per day. Deal?

Edit: FWIW, your .50 caliber machine gun is a prohibited weapon as it stands. To own any automatic weapon would require an enormous amount of paperwork and expense. Almost no crimes are committed with automatic, suppressed, etc style weapons. So you should be arguing for more limitations on private tank ownership, rocket launchers, and attack helicopter licenses because they are statistically closer to the number of murders with "scary black rifles".
Click to expand...

Those are next to be banned in the new and improved Democratic America!

2f7si1.jpg
 
Fledermaus said:
No. The magazine capacity does not change the ballistics of a weapon. And I can swap a magazine in a few seconds.

++ Congratulations on your speed. Hopefully bad guys aren’t as quick.

And the magazine restrictions are already in place in California..... Looks like that didn't help
Click to expand...

++ Again, if you were a cop, would you prefer to face a shooter who maybe only brought one magazine or one who brought several? Magazines with 40 rounds or 20?
 
Nickyjo said:
++ Again, if you were a cop, would you prefer to face a guy with 12 rounds in a clip or 40? One who maybe only brought me magazine or one who brought several?
Click to expand...

Why don't you stop for a moment and realize that the restrictions you would place on ownership are pretty much worthless when dealing with mass shooting in the state where they have been implemented....

BTW - Clips go in your hair. Magazines go in guns.
 
TurtleDude said:
well given your admitted ignorance of this subject, I can tell you that 12 rounds is inadequate in many situations.
Click to expand...

I suppose 12 would be inadequate in some situations. As would 120. How many rounds would you like to have in your mag?
 
bave said:
<sigh>

It always devolves into this.

Do you need an 8000 lb SUV with a 500hp engine that gets 8mpg? No.
Do you need a 7,000 square foot house? No.
Do you need a swimming pool? No.
Do you need to eat meat? No.
Do you need air conditioning? No.

There are a million things that people don't "need" but still determine they would prefer. The problem here is that you *feel* you should have the ability to determine what someone should be allowed to have, when all the data suggests that your feelings are immaterial to the problem at hand.

I will agree with your feelings that we should limit magazine size when you agree with my codifying my belief that the obese should be limited into how many calories they get per day. Deal?

Edit: FWIW, your .50 caliber machine gun is a prohibited weapon as it stands. To own any automatic weapon would require an enormous amount of paperwork and expense. Almost no crimes are committed with automatic, suppressed, etc style weapons. So you should be arguing for more limitations on private tank ownership, rocket launchers, and attack helicopter licenses because they are statistically closer to the number of murders with "scary black rifles".
Click to expand...

Exactly. Why outlaw the 50 cal weapon?

Do you need heroin? No.

And obese people are not a threat to cops, unless of course they sit on them.
 
Fledermaus said:
Why don't you stop for a moment and realize that the restrictions you would place on ownership are pretty much worthless when dealing with mass shooting in the state where they have been implemented....

BTW - Clips go in your hair. Magazines go in guns.
Click to expand...

Magazines also go on coffee tables.
 
Fledermaus said:
My personal weapons are six round revolvers. My lever action rifle takes eight. My bolt actions five.
Click to expand...

Obviously, some people on this topic believe you may be unprepared.

Btw, what do you have against California? Great beautiful, productive state. Just in the part of it where I live, the north, one could draw a line from Mendocino to Tahoe to Yosemite to Monterey and you’d have in that relatively small area one of the prettiest cities in the world, fabulous natural beauty in the Sierra, the Napa Valley, the Delta, gorgeous coastlines, etc. True, housing prices are absurd, thanks to our prosperity, but we try to address that as best we can.
 
Nickyjo said:
Obviously, some people on this topic believe you may be unprepared.

Btw, what do you have against California? Great beautiful, productive state. Just in the part of it where I live, the north, one could draw a line from Mendocino to Tahoe to Yosemite to Monterey and you’d have in that relatively small area one of the prettiest cities in the world, fabulous natural beauty in the Sierra, the Napa Valley, the Delta, gorgeous coastlines, etc. True, housing prices are absurd, thanks to our prosperity, but we try to address that as best we can.
Click to expand...

1. Unnecessary taxes
2. Gas taxes
3. Waste
4. Over regulation
5. 1/8th the population, 1/3 the welfare.
6. Damned texting drivers.
7. The Parris/Lake Elsinore meth zone.
8. Needles, poop and condom dodging in SF. (I lived in the bay area 8 years.)

ALL man made issues......

The natural beauty is what helps keep us. That and family obligations.
 
Nickyjo said:
I suppose 12 would be inadequate in some situations. As would 120. How many rounds would you like to have in your mag?
Click to expand...

as many as I want but none of my defensive weapons have a magazine more than 32 rounds
 
Fledermaus said:
1. Unnecessary taxes
++ We have income tax, better than regressive sales taxes some other states use. We like the services taxes provide.

2. Gas taxes
++ To build streets and highways, among the best world wide. Gas taxes are much higher than Louisiana where my son lives. You should see their streets, some unrepaired since Katrina.

3. Waste
++ Recycling very popular, and creates jobs. Name a state without waste and you’ll see a state without people.

4. Over regulation
++ Safety. Check out chemical caused deaths/illness in rural Louisiana, where there is light regulation of energy. Trump recently legalized a pesticide that causes birth defects in kids before it was studied adequately. He eliminated a high number of injuries and deaths as a negative factor to consider awarding government contracts to business. These wouldn’t fly in over-regulated California. Thankfully. Your regulatory burden saved my life when working in a steel mill.

5. 1/8th the population, 1/3 the welfare.
++ Don’t know if that’s true, but big deal, we have more poor people or are more generous, but it depends if you mean people or dollars spent. And as noted, our prosperity has brought the problems of gentrification which creates huge problems for the poor. Our general assistance rates are in the middle of the pack compared to other states, if that is what you are referring to.

6. Damned texting drivers.
++ Agree with you on that, but think it might be a national disease.

7. The Parris/Lake Elsinore meth zone.
++ Much of SoCal shouldn’t be there anyway, but really? Breaking Bad was set in New Mexico, an otherwise charming state. In addition, opioids are everywhere, hadn't you heard?

8. Needles, poop and condom dodging in SF. (I lived in the bay area 8 years.)
++ And yet strangely, lots of people still want to live here. Go figure. Property values through the roof. I couldn’t afford to buy my home now, so there is a significant downside, as people commute long distances to work in SF. Misfit of all types have been moving west since 1849, we even named our football team after them. The world awaits your solution to the homeless crisis.

ALL man made issues......

The natural beauty is what helps keep us. That and family obligations.
Click to expand...

It ain’t paradise, but lots of people still see the future, for better and worse, in California. And as I said, the Mendocino-Tahoe-Yosemite-Monterey quadrangle is hard to beat.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom