Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Blood and bulletsFollow

#27 Mar 08 2016 at 8:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
Which is a great reason for making getting one at least as difficult as getting a driver's licence. Thanks for seeing the light on this one!!


Friar Bijou wrote:
"E", after waiting in his truck for about four hours for his target(s) to leave the building together, stepped out of his truck, walked over to target "J" and shot him point-blank with a .45. He then said to target "S" 'you're next..


Seems as though that would not have made much difference either. Not seeing any light here at all. Smiley: tongue

Quote:
And the law does need changing. Making anyone illegally selling the gun an immediate accesory to any crime committed with it by the purchaser would eliminate most of the problem. Businessmen don't like to go to prison for 20 years...as a rule.


Was the firearm actually sold to him illegally though? I don't feel like digging through all the applicable laws, and frankly I doubt either of us knows for sure what exact process occurred to result in that handgun being in his hand at that moment. I'm assuming you weren't present with him when he picked it up from the store, right? So any knowledge you have is second hand at best. Probably 3rd or 4th hand (A guy you know said he heard someone say that he overheard someone say that he bought it at ...). We have no way to know this. Maybe he purchased it legally. Unless he's a convicted felon, or has committed some set of lesser offenses, he's legally allowed to purchase and own a firearm. Was he currently committed to an institution? Presumably not, since he was driving around on the streets. So by what rule would you have excluded this one guy from buying a handgun, but not all the other folks who aren't going to go on a shooting spree? And how would you stop him from "borrowing" a weapon from a friend or family member (and by borrow, that can include "steal")?

It's easy to say after the fact "that guy shouldn't have had access to a gun". It's a lot harder to actually come up with a set of rules that will prevent just the people who would later fall into that category from obtaining them. It's obvious that someone is crazy and dangerous after he does a crazy and dangerous act. But that's not terribly helpful ahead of time.


I know it sounds trite, but it really is true that the more and more we pursue this idea of making us safe by making it harder to legally obtain firearms (and to carry them), the more we skew the actual presence of firearms in our proximity away from those who obey the law, and towards those who don't. Because people who obey the law aren't going to violate it every day on the off chance that a shooting might occur and they might be able to save lives. The guy planning to do such a shooting isn't under any such restriction. Those laws do absolutely nothing to deter him.


Has it occurred to you that this shooting, happening in a state with so few firearm regulations, taking place on a property where firearms are not allowed may not at all have been accidental? Despite being a block or two from a police station, this may very well have been the one place this guy knew he'd have enough time to conduct his attack with minimal risk of being interrupted by another armed person before he was done. The fact that the shooting didn't go at all the way he planned was lucky for his victims, but the reality is that, according to your account, he fired 14 shots. Which is one of the highest magazine loads a .45 can carry. That's quite possibly all the rounds he had on him (making his last act basically suicide by cop). In other words, he had enough "time" to do what he planned to do and no one stopped him. He just missed. A lot.

Edited, Mar 8th 2016 6:07pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#28 Mar 08 2016 at 8:12 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'm not second guessing you..
judge or criticize (someone) with hindsight.

Why does your ilk find it so easy to lie? Have you no shame at all?
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#29 Mar 09 2016 at 8:58 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
less risk to the dozen or so bystanders
How is an untrained hillbilly with an itchy trigger finger firing at moving targets without any intel less dangerous to a crowd? Smiley: dubious
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#30 Mar 09 2016 at 9:17 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Because manly fantasies, that's why.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#31 Mar 09 2016 at 11:10 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
But not necessarily "less (fewer - sic) deaths", right? Fewer blue cars on the road will quite obviously result in fewer accidents involving blue cars, but no rational person would argue that driving a blue car increases the odds of an accident occurring based on that statistic alone. Yet this exact example of ridiculously bad logic is one of the most repeated arguments for increased gun regulation.

There is zero correlation in the US between rates of gun ownership in an area and the homicide rates in that area. None at all. Isn't that the more important stat? There isn't even much of a correlation between gun ownership rates by nation and the resulting homicide rates. It's just such a weak weak argument to make. Let me repost this page (yes, cross thread shenanigans abound!). Scroll down to the bottom where it has some graphs showing just how weak any correlation between increased gun regulations and actual resulting homicide rates are.
According to this paper (really if you read it it's a pretty nice review), homicide rates seemed to be among the least affected by different laws put in place. Which makes sense, largely for reasons yourself and other conservatives have argued. The paper came out and said that pretty directly:

Quote:
evidence suggests that laws restricting the sales of certain firearms are not associated with variations in all or firearm homicides.

So, like you say, banning assault rifles isn't going to stop people from killing each other on the streets. The results are mixed at best, with a bit of speculation into why some regions might have seen more correlation than others. Severity of the punishments, nature of the restrictions, time frame over which the law was implemented in, may have had an effect on the outcome for reasons discussed at the bottom of this post. They also point out that there are studies funded by people on either side of the debate, and unfortunately they can't rule out bias having an effect on the outcome. It seems they weren't really able to completely exclude those kinds of studies from the review, and I'd imagine plenty of the studies were funded by groups with a political goal in mind.

Things that were talked about in a positive light include background checks. Specifically mentioned checking for restraining orders was "associated with reductions in intimate partner female firearm homicides." Also "checking local mental health facility records is linked to fewer firearm suicides." There's also discussion about different rules which are meant to reduce the number of accidental deaths due to firearms, and how effective they are.

The biggest thing that was pointed out:

Quote:
A variety of longitudinal studies describe the association between the simultaneous implementation of laws targeting multiple elements of regulations and firearm deaths. Despite their limitations, specifically on the identification of which laws are more likely to be effective, these studies inform on the potential synergistic effects, or the aggregated individual effects of multiple laws, when they are simultaneously implemented within a narrow time window.

In short isolated measures are less likely to produce statistically significant results on their own, and combining multiple laws in short succession addressing various issues with firearms is more effective. This is probably a "no duh" kind of observation, big changes are easier to see than small changes, with small changes more likely to get lost in the general background noise or swamped out by other cultural factors.

A series of big changes may well point at an underlying shift in a population's attitude to firearms as well. After all you had to have an environment where multiple laws would get passed in the first place. In this case it could argued a significant change in attitude in a population might be an important factor in increasing firearm safety, more-so than any particular restriction forced on a group of people (i.e. any change is more effective when people want to change, not when they have to). There's examples spanning the better part of a century from different parts of the world in there as well, so a shift in thinking in Australia in the 1950's may or may not be as relevant today of course.

Anyway, yeah, TL;DR probably can't do it justice. There's a lot of information in there.

Edited, Mar 9th 2016 12:36pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#32 Mar 09 2016 at 11:15 AM Rating: Good
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
less risk to the dozen or so bystanders
How is an untrained hillbilly with an itchy trigger finger firing at moving targets without any intel less dangerous to a crowd? Smiley: dubious
If you're packing a shotgun filled with rock salt, it doesn't really matter who you hit, but you'll definitely hit someone? /shrug
#33 Mar 09 2016 at 11:41 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Maybe if you're really good at bluffing. Rock salt is pretty useless beyond like twenty feet on anything that can hurt you back.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#34 Mar 09 2016 at 1:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Citizen's Arrest!
******
29,527 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
Maybe if you're really good at bluffing. Rock salt is pretty useless beyond like twenty feet on anything that can hurt you back.

Luckily, a shotgun gives you a +5 on Intimidation checks.
#35 Mar 09 2016 at 1:25 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
What you want is molten salt. That stuff packs a punch.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#36 Mar 12 2016 at 3:01 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
less risk to the dozen or so bystanders
How is an untrained hillbilly with an itchy trigger finger firing at moving targets without any intel less dangerous to a crowd? Smiley: dubious


Because the odds of a person who has spent the time and effort to obtain a concealed weapons permit also spending time and effort becoming a proficient shot with his weapon is pretty high. Not to mention being well schooled on and practiced with, gun safety. I get that there's this strange need to paint "gun people" as being all about the ego of firearm ownership, but none of the responsibility, but the reality is that they tend to practice firing them. A lot. And they tend to take gun ownership and the responsibility that goes with it seriously. I get how scared liberals who've never held a gun in their lives might think otherwise, but I'm assuming you know lots of "gun people", and thus should know better than to toss this bit of rhetoric out there.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#37 Mar 12 2016 at 3:06 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
According to this paper (really if you read it it's a pretty nice review), homicide rates seemed to be among the least affected by different laws put in place. Which makes sense, largely for reasons yourself and other conservatives have argued. The paper came out and said that pretty directly:

...

Anyway, yeah, TL;DR probably can't do it justice. There's a lot of information in there.


Were you going to actually link to it?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#38 Mar 12 2016 at 4:42 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
Because the odds of a person who has spent the time and effort to obtain a concealed weapons permit also spending time and effort becoming a proficient shot with his weapon is pretty high.
It's so adorable you believe that after a woman let her son shoot her in the back.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#39 Mar 12 2016 at 4:54 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Because the odds of a person who has spent the time and effort to obtain a concealed weapons permit also spending time and effort becoming a proficient shot with his weapon is pretty high.

Most shots fired by trained police officers miss their target. Which is (part of) why police officers aren't supposed to fire their weapons unless absolutely necessary.

But, sure, random guy with a gun will be the crack shot during an active situation who saves us all. Why not.
Quote:
I get how scared liberals who've never held a gun in their lives might think otherwise, but I'm assuming you know lots of "gun people", and thus should know better than to toss this bit of rhetoric out there.

Or he's just known a shit ton more "gun people" than you and is considerably better informed.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#40 Mar 12 2016 at 5:18 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
When the Army's qualification scores is like 60% accuracy with basically unlimited tries, I have very little faith in random Joe Shmuck's diligence after one eight hour course. Doubly so when all the "horrible liberal scary stories" involve people who randomly leave their weapons easily accessible to even worse people than they are. All the "gun people" I know don't mind more regulations because they know it won't affect them but people that are too irresponsible to be gun owners in the first place.

Edited, Mar 12th 2016 6:28pm by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#41 Mar 13 2016 at 5:11 AM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
After the Kalamazoo shooting here a short time ago, there was a big drive for CPLs. My uncle took my aunt to one, and it was a 2 hour course sponsored by a Church. After which you could get your CPL.

I don't have any confidence that someone with a CPL or even open carrying, especially these days, is any trained professional.

Michigan's CPL requirements state:
Quote:
4. Have knowledge and training in the safe use and handling of a pistol by successfully completing an appropriate pistol safety training course or class.


But it gives no guidelines as to what those training courses or classes should actually entail, or any metric given to how they should be deemed successful.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#42 Mar 13 2016 at 2:50 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
You, with all your logic, remind me of a very young Spock!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#43 Mar 14 2016 at 7:51 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
TirithRR wrote:
But it gives no guidelines as to what those training courses or classes should actually entail, or any metric given to how they should be deemed successful.
If it's anything like it is here then it's mostly how to take apart and put together the weapons, cleaning, and an overview of the state laws of how to store and when to use and such. Even looking up a couple of random states permit requirements shows none of them deal with seeing if the person can actually shoot.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#44 Mar 14 2016 at 11:19 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
Were you going to actually link to it?
Did the link not come through for you? Should have been the first link in my initial post above (#14). Or is it behind a paywall for you good people perhaps?

Here it is again, just for grins and giggles if nothing else: http://epirev.oxfordjournals.org/content/38/1/140.full.pdf+html

Edited, Mar 14th 2016 10:21am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#45 Mar 14 2016 at 4:11 PM Rating: Good
****
7,861 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
But it gives no guidelines as to what those training courses or classes should actually entail, or any metric given to how they should be deemed successful.
If it's anything like it is here then it's mostly how to take apart and put together the weapons, cleaning, and an overview of the state laws of how to store and when to use and such. Even looking up a couple of random states permit requirements shows none of them deal with seeing if the person can actually shoot.

Ohio requires proficiency with shooting the firearm as well. It wasn't from an incredible distance, 10 feet or so, but you had to maintain a fairly tight grouping.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#46 Mar 14 2016 at 5:02 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Kastigir wrote:
Ohio requires proficiency with shooting the firearm as well. It wasn't from an incredible distance, 10 feet or so, but you had to maintain a fairly tight grouping.

One guy here who got his a year or two ago, with testing through a local course, said his target grouping was the size of a paper dinner plate. (Actually was a paper dinner plate). At a distance similar to what you said.

But he also said you could basically do it as many times as you wanted or needed.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#47 Mar 15 2016 at 7:44 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
TirithRR wrote:
One guy here who got his a year or two ago, with testing through a local course, said his target grouping was the size of a paper dinner plate.
I'd feel safer if he just threw the gun.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#48 Mar 15 2016 at 10:29 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
One guy here who got his a year or two ago, with testing through a local course, said his target grouping was the size of a paper dinner plate.
I'd feel safer if he just threw the gun.


You know as well as I that he would have a light trigger and the safety off. That gun would bounce.

____________________________
Just as Planned.
#49 Mar 15 2016 at 3:39 PM Rating: Good
****
7,861 posts
TirithRR wrote:
Kastigir wrote:
Ohio requires proficiency with shooting the firearm as well. It wasn't from an incredible distance, 10 feet or so, but you had to maintain a fairly tight grouping.

One guy here who got his a year or two ago, with testing through a local course, said his target grouping was the size of a paper dinner plate. (Actually was a paper dinner plate). At a distance similar to what you said.

But he also said you could basically do it as many times as you wanted or needed.

The target was the size of a dinner plate, our groupings had to be much closer, within a couple of inches I believe. It's been 2 years since I took the course, so I don't remember everything about the shooting part.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#50 Mar 15 2016 at 4:09 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
17,302 posts
Kastigir wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
Kastigir wrote:
Ohio requires proficiency with shooting the firearm as well. It wasn't from an incredible distance, 10 feet or so, but you had to maintain a fairly tight grouping.

One guy here who got his a year or two ago, with testing through a local course, said his target grouping was the size of a paper dinner plate. (Actually was a paper dinner plate). At a distance similar to what you said.

But he also said you could basically do it as many times as you wanted or needed.

The target was the size of a dinner plate, our groupings had to be much closer, within a couple of inches I believe. It's been 2 years since I took the course, so I don't remember everything about the shooting part.


That was a miswording on my part. I meant that they had a paper plate, literally, and they had to shoot it. The goal being that the number of shots had to hit the plate.

I confirmed it today with another coworker who had his CPL last year. He also said that they didn't fail anyone for the paper plate "training". Chatted him up about the training course he went through. His was a more legitimate training and educational course offered through a local hunting club, not just a spur of the moment group capitalizing on the recent shootings.
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#51 Mar 15 2016 at 4:46 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I got 20 out of 20 in Duck Hunt. That should qualify me to open fire in a crowd.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 256 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (256)