Originally Posted by playwrite

...I'm a gun owner and, in younger days, an avid hunter...

-I guess PW got one o' them thar huntin' lah-scenses along with JF Kerry. Goody Gumdrops for him.

If PW doesn't want to use an AR-15 with a 30 round mag' to go hunting, that's his business. But if someone wants to, or to use it for self defense, then I suggest he mind his own business.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Oh, yea, that happens all the time...

-PW seems to miss out on the point that weapons are not neccessarily for things which "happen all the time."

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Nice stats with nothing but self-reported nonesense to back them up. You can thank the NRA for making gun related data unavailalble..

-Nothing nonsense about it. It merely confirms day to day experience. Besides, in 1986, a DOJ study determined that crfiminals were deterred more by armed citizens than by the police (Armed and Considered Dangerous).

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...When someone like GEN McChrystal takes the opposite POV, I tend to listen to him, not you. BTW, McChrystal is only one of many sayin the same thing. .

-McC has as legitimate claim to expertise in counter-insurgency, even though when he said that we could win in Afghanistan, many people didn't want to hear it. What makes McC a moral, legal or technical authority on the private ownership of weapons for self defense? His ability to put his foot in his mouth? Or his falsification of the circumstances of CPL Tillman's death? Any chance that you seem are interested in what he has to say about issues in which he is not an expert, but not intersted in those things for he does have a claim of expertise?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...No, there is no evidence to suggest that concelaed carry has any effect, one way or the other. Part of that has to do with the lack of data, but even the data available show no correlatoin at all. .

-Your analysis is obsolete:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceal..._United_States

In a 2003 article, Yale Law professors John J. Donohue III and Ian Ayres have claimed that Lott's conclusions were largely the result of a limited data set... However Lott has recently updated his findings with further evidence. According to the FBI, during the first year of the Obama administration the national murder rate declined by 7.4% along with other categories of crime which fell by significant percentages. During that same time national gun sales increased dramatically. According to Mr. Lott 450,000 more people bought guns in November 2008 than November 2007 which represents a 40% increase in sales, a trend which continued throughout 2009.^[87] The drop in the murder rate was the biggest one-year drop since 1999, another year when gun sales soared in the wake of increased calls for gun control as a result of the Columbine shooting.

In reporting on Lott's original analysis The Chronicle of Higher Education has said that although his findings are controversial "Mr. Lott's research has convinced his peers of at least one point: No scholars now claim that legalizing concealed weapons causes a major increase in crime."


...IOW, the Austrailian program AT BEST was a multi-million dollar boondoggle.


And again, back in 1986, the DOJ determined that the possibility of an armed citizen had greater deterence value than the threat of intervention by the police, long before most states had concealed carry. It's really just common sense that criminals commit fewer crimes in places were the likelihood of getting shot for their efforts is higher. Or do you postulate a world where that does not enter their thinking, contrary to the DOJ study?

Doing a quick search, I find this:

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

They were written to be ignored ... and they are. Fixing this requires the same guts the Aussies showed under very similar curcumstances.

Are you kidding?

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

In 2005 the head of the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, Don Weatherburn, noted that the level of legal gun ownership in New South Wales increased in recent years, and that the 1996 legislation had had little to no effect on violence... It is always unpleasant to acknowledge facts that are inconsistent with your own point of view. But I thought that was what distinguished science from popular prejudice."

In 2006, the lack of a measurable effect from the 1996 firearms legislation was reported in the British Journal of Criminology. Using ARIMA analysis, Dr Jeanine Baker (a former state president of the SSAA(SA)) and Dr Samara McPhedran (Women in Shooting and Hunting) found no evidence for an impact of the laws on homicide...

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

...So using crime stats to prove anything is highly suspicious.

-Right. Everyone who should be in jail, isn't, and those who should, be, aren't. Welcome to Hollywood movies and TV shows.

I can't believe people are still pushing this liberal pablum. In most cases, it's the victim who identifies the perpetrator's race (OK, murder and manslaughter are exceptions). I think you already know this, don't you? Since a disproportionate number of victims are minorities, you could claim that minorities are making false claims about the ethnicity of their victimizer, but that would make you look silly.

As for the Central jogger case, the DNA evidence shows it was a Matt Reyes, a latino. They may have gotten the wrong latino, but it was still a latino who belonged in jail.

FWIW, you might remember cases where the "experts" claimed "Whitey Done It", when it was actually an ethnic minority:

Beltway Shooter:

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

...and particularly Derrick Lee, the Louisiana Serial Killer:

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

...not only supposedly white perp's, but supposedly white trucks. What's up with that?!

Anyway, most victims are minorities, and they're the ones who id their attackers as minorities, so your argument is not "ample evidence" but bogus.

Originally Posted by '58 Flat

One of my betes noires is on prominent display these days - and that is the use of static as opposed to dynamic analysis, as is being done with these polls showing a majority of the country as a whole favoring this gun-control provision or that gun-control provision.

And it is static and not dynamic because it neglects to focus on the only numbers that would really matter in the grand scheme of things - and that is what percentage of people support various gun-control measures in Congressional districts located in red states and currently represented by white Democrats.

For there is where the Dems got utterly blitzed in 1994 after passing the original assault weapons ban - and will get utterly blitzed again in 2014 if they are "successful" this time around.

The 'static model' is the assumption that the political realities are much as the were in 1994. They are not. 1994 was 3T; 2013 is 4T (and I have no cause to believe that the Crisis Era will come to an end before the 2014 election. Democrats are in the majority in the Senate; Republicans are in the majority in the House. The Republican majority in the House is far shakier than the Democratic majority in the Senate. In a 4T people are more willing to undergo some limitations on their impulses to save something even more precious.

President Obama has chosen to pit Republicans against each other on gun control. Republicans are caught with conflicting interests on firearms -- the conservative agenda of law and order and the conservative agenda of profit maximization for gun manufacturers. This President knows where the rifts are. If one must choose between law and order and profit maximization that allows America to become an armed camp I would choose law and order. Armed camps have a poor record on human rights and public safety; without law and order, civil liberties vanish.

One difference between Barack Obama and many prior liberals, Barack Obama was a community organizer and not a limousine liberal. He may have had to dodge a mugger on occasion. He has no illusion that the bad guys are victims of oppression (they are the oppressors!) deserving sympathy and leniency. He has never shown himself 'soft on crime', but he can turn that calumny against anyone who opposes gun control.

The urban thugs will be incarcerated for violations of any new gun laws or freshly-enhanced enforcement of existing gun laws. That said, innocent people such as small children will less likely be hit by bullets in turf wars of urban gangs. Such is a trade that I would gladly make. Maybe the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School changes the discussion to legislation that can make life safer for far more people.

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-...
If PW doesn't want to use an AR-15 with a 30 round mag' to go hunting, that's his business. But if someone wants to, or to use it for self defense, then I suggest he mind his own business.

No more or less than it was the business of these little first graders -



nor these -



F. U.

Originally Posted by playwrite

No more or less than it was the business of these little first graders -



nor these -



F. U.

-Oh! Look! Pictures of cute kids which are meant to create an emotional reaction, but whom Playwrite's proposed gun laws wouldn't have done one thing to save!

Snore.

The Commander in Bleep:

http://moonbattery.com/?p=25046

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/obama-...shooting-photo

Enjoy!

Originally Posted by JDG 66

-Oh! Look! Pictures of cute kids which are meant to create an emotional reaction, but whom Playwrite's proposed gun laws wouldn't have done one thing to save!

Snore.

The Commander in Bleep:

http://moonbattery.com/?p=25046

http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/obama-...shooting-photo

Enjoy!

The shooter had high capacity clips. If he only had a revolver, there's no way he could have inflicted the casulty count that he did.

You should know that, but being a a dipshit sheeple, its above your head.

If you don't like the pics, again, F.U.

Originally Posted by playwrite

The shooter had high capacity clips. If he only had a revolver, there's no way he could have inflicted the casualty count that he did.

Because revolvers can't be re-loaded?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Because revolvers can't be re-loaded?

Lanza used the AR15 on everyone. He had 30+ mags; he may have reloaded once or twice, but didn't need to for the maximum casualties – one round is usually enough particularly for a six year old.

Can't duplicate that with a revolver. Seconds count in these situations. Regardless what you’ve seen in movies, you don’t lift your head up, aim-and-shoot back, let alone charge a shooter that has a semi- anything.

You do know what a revolver is?

Originally Posted by playwrite

Lanza used the AR15 on everyone. He had 30+ mags; he may have reloaded once or twice, but didn't need to for the maximum casualties – one round is usually enough particularly for a six year old.

Can't duplicate that with a revolver.

Lanza began shooting at 9:35. He stopped shooting somewhere between 9:46 and 9:49. Call it ten minutes, to give you the benefit of the doubt. He fired "up to" 100 rounds, killing and wounding a total of 29 people. -link-

A six-shot revolver can be fired to empty in a very short time. If we want to make a cursory attempt to aim (something not a one of the mass-shooters has done), give it a full second to aim per shot. Ten seconds is an eternity to dump and refill the six chambers. Call it fifteen seconds for the full fire-reload cycle, then. A minute, then, sees 24 somewhat-aimed shots fired from a single guy with a single revolver. Ten minutes? That's 240 shots. You could take half the time off to do whatever other nefarious things, and still rack up a significantly higher shots-fired and victim count than happened in Sandy Hook. That's not 'duplication'. That's exceeding.

You do know what a revolver is?

Though your comments strongly hint at it, you should have made it more clear from the beginning that you needed someone to explain to you what a revolver is. I'm happy to oblige.

A 'revolver' is a repeating firearm with a cylinder holding generally six bullets, each in its own chamber, that revolves (hence the name) to clear from a previous shot and advance the next cartridge into position between the pin and barrel. You've seen them in movies for sure -- it's the classic western gunslinger sidearm.

Here's 1000 words for you, in case that's more your style:

Originally Posted by Justin '77

... Ten seconds is an eternity to dump and refill the six chambers....

bullshit.

And obvious from someone who has never been in a situation.

Originally Posted by playwrite

bullshit.

And obvious from someone who has never been in a situation.

-yawn-

This guy, for all his bullshitting and taking the time to walk you slowly through every step of the process, takes only 20 seconds to empty and reload. ONE-HANDED, at that, while the revolver is lying awkwardly on a desk in front of him.



Even he could get off 144 shots in ten minutes. Taking the time to instruct his victims at each reloading just how to do it carefully and safely.

Here's another fun one. He uses a little gizmo that anyone with a drill and some plywood can make up for themself. Speeds it up a bit, naturally.

You just embarrass yourself when you shout your ignorance so loudly and openly.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

-yawn-

This guy, for all his bullshitting and taking the time to walk you slowly through every step of the process, takes only 20 seconds to empty and reload. ONE-HANDED, at that, while the revolver is lying awkwardly on a desk in front of him.



Even he could get off 144 shots in ten minutes. Taking the time to instruct his victims at each reloading just how to do it carefully and safely.

Here's another fun one. He uses a little gizmo that anyone with a drill and some plywood can make up for themself. Speeds it up a bit, naturally.

You just embarrass yourself when you shout your ignorance so loudly and openly.

Note 20 seconds is not 10 seconds. One CAN do a lot more in 20 seconds than 10 seconds. It's not rocket science.

Loading a gun on a table IS easier than loading it in your hand - even when your steady and not killing people.

For those who are wondering what this is about, its comparable to Justin getting his fat ass to run a 4 minute mile. Aint' gonna happen even if Zombies are looking to get a taste of him.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Loading a gun on a table IS easier than loading it in your hand - even when your steady and not killing people.

Clearly, you are unfamiliar with a speed loader. With a bit of practice and a modern revolver you can get the reload time down to that of M1911, which is still used by many shooters even after a hundred years. I know because I have done this myself. This is comparable in firepower to the M1911 in firepower and ease of reloading. The world record for twelve rounds out of a revolver is 3 seconds, and he hit the target every time.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Note 20 seconds is not 10 seconds.

And demonstrating a lesson is not working in real life. It takes longer and goes slower. Like, the difference between 20 seconds to demonstrate/teach and 10 to actually just do it for yourself.

Loading a gun on a table IS easier than loading it in your hand - even when your steady and not killing people.

Loading a gun one-handed is not easier than two-handed. Table or not. Someone who had actually handled a revolver before could probably help you understand that. I'm sure you can find at least one person.

For those who are wondering what this is about, its comparable to Justin getting his fat ass to run a 4 minute mile...

If we presume that a random internet-person could run an 8-minute mile without a problem while hopping on one leg and conducting a lesson on how to ride a unicycle, then.. yes; your analogy would hold.

Oh yeah, and if the admittedly fastest person out there could run a mile in five times faster (that is, in 48 seconds) with the use of special running shoes. There's that part of your analogy, too.

Are you tired of embarrassing yourself yet, or do you still have more to go?

---
Oh, and what's more since we're on the subject of revolvers versus scary-looking guns with big clips...

Revolvers don't jam. Consider that every single mass shooting in the last long-long time has ended when the shooter got a jam which he couldn't or wasn't inclined to clear. Consider further that big clips directly increase the likelihood of misfeeds or otherwise gummed up works. And again, revolvers don't jam. So instead of ten minutes to pop off as many shots as he could, consider a shooter who need not stop until he runs out of bullets. A couple of pockets can carry a hell of a lot more than 100 .38 shells.

It's a fact not particularly germane to your stark ignorance of how to reload a revolver, but it is nevertheless a significant part of the reason why your line that "can't do it with a revolver" is just a load of brain-dead jabber.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

-yawn-

This guy, for all his bullshitting and taking the time to walk you slowly through every step of the process, takes only 20 seconds to empty and reload. ONE-HANDED, at that, while the revolver is lying awkwardly on a desk in front of him.

....

Even he could get off 144 shots in ten minutes. Taking the time to instruct his victims at each reloading just how to do it carefully and safely.

Here's another fun one. He uses a little gizmo that anyone with a drill and some plywood can make up for themself. Speeds it up a bit, naturally.

You just embarrass yourself when you shout your ignorance so loudly and openly.

Yep. Anyone who shoots revolvers seriously owns several speed loaders. It makes reloading a revolver quick and easy (swing out cylinder models anyway). Drop the speed loader into the empty cylinder, twist the knob and the weapon is reloaded using nothing more than the force of gravity. With a few minutes of practice anyone can reload a revolver in less than 10 seconds.

I have honestly forgotten how many speed loaders I have altogether. I always keep a few loaded just in case I suddenly need to create large holes in something with Mr. .44 Magnum.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Note 20 seconds is not 10 seconds. One CAN do a lot more in 20 seconds than 10 seconds. It's not rocket science.

Loading a gun on a table IS easier than loading it in your hand - even when your steady and not killing people.

For those who are wondering what this is about, its comparable to Justin getting his fat ass to run a 4 minute mile. Aint' gonna happen even if Zombies are looking to get a taste of him.

Seriously clown shoes; what in the blue fuck are you talking about? Try actually picking up a revolver sometime in your life before you foolishly suggest that "reloading it on a table is easier than loading it in your hand". I dare say from the sound of it, I probably put more rounds through my revolver(s) in a weekend than you have fired out of every gun you have touched over your entire life.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Seriously clown shoes; what in the blue fuck are you talking about? Try actually picking up a revolver sometime in your life before you foolishly suggest that "reloading it on a table is easier than loading it in your hand". I dare say from the sound of it, I probably put more rounds through my revolver(s) in a weekend than you have fired out of every gun you have touched over your entire life.

You dumb ass, I've been in combat and I've been hunting since I was 7 or 8 years old.

Anyone just Google "police outgunned" and see that the issue today is much less of one than it was a couple of decades ago when standard department issue was revolvers while every thug out there was increasingly getting their hands on at least 9mm Glock knock-offs from China.

Now why would a cop want a 9mm instead of 6-shooter particularly when he could be 'speedily' reaching into his pants pockets and finding his speed reloaders next to his car keys and chewing gum; maybe, in the case of Cooperfield, even getting a couple moments of pocket pool in. Or better, have a nearby table to lay out his dozens of bullets. In either case, just ask the thug for a time-out of course! That's only fair; a common code amongst all shooters! .

Another thing I've learned about Libertarians/Anarchist is their philosophy goes hand in glove with faux macho and being completely clueless outside of their make-believe magic pony lands. They’re so use to their macho bullshit that they actually believe it.

Now, Coop, go back and watch one of your Dirty Harry movies; be sure to have one of your stuffed magic ponies nearby for the really scary parts.

While you were busy playing pocket pool looking for your speed loaders or a table to dump your bullets on -



- I just filled your heads with around a dozen slugs EACH (yea, I'm that good).

But don't worry, it was that head on your shoulders - nothing there to damage.

Originally Posted by playwrite

While you were busy playing pocket pool looking for your speed loaders or a table to dump your bullets on -



- I just filled your heads with around a dozen slugs EACH (yea, I'm that good).

Hey [dumb]ass, nobody is saying that revolvers aren't relatively slower than automatics. Just that they're plenty more than fast enough to do what pretty much every mass-shooter has done. Then again, arguing against your own imaginary opponents' imaginary positions seems to be your schtick... so, par for the course.

And I have a hell of a hard time believing your self-serving claims about familiarity with guns or "combat". You know, what with the abject ignorance you demonstrate pretty much nonstop on the subject.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Hey [dumb]ass, nobody is saying that revolvers aren't relatively slower than automatics. Just that they're plenty more than fast enough to do what pretty much every mass-shooter has done. Then again, arguing against your own imaginary opponents' imaginary positions seems to be your schtick... so, par for the course.

And I have a hell of a hard time believing your self-serving claims about familiarity with guns or "combat". You know, what with the abject ignorance you demonstrate pretty much nonstop on the subject.

I think that video is worth thousands of words from you macho squirrel nuts about who is ignorant over this issue.

Any gun novice or even gun phobian is going to be able to conclude that there are valuable seconds there with someone having to pull a speed loader and certainly individual bullets (your video by the way, not mine) to reload multiply times to get the same amount of lead flying as a high capacity pistol or AR which gives you no chance to take a second breath before you and everyone around you are dead from multiply gunshot wounds. It's not rocket science.

The problem with you nuts is you start with your wanted vision of the world, and then selectively go find the few facts and selectively present them in a macho way to convince yourself of your forgone conclusion. You've gotten good enough at it to constantly fool yourselves and live comfortable in your magic pony lands regardless of the reality swirling around you.

p.s. When was the last mass shooting with a revolver?

Originally Posted by playwrite

Any gun novice or even gun phobian is going to be able to conclude that there are valuable seconds there with someone having to pull a speed loader and certainly individual bullets (your video by the way, not mine) to reload multiply times to get the same amount of lead flying as a high capacity pistol or AR which gives you no chance to take a second breath before you and everyone around you are dead from multiply gunshot wounds.

Too true. Then again, that's your imaginary opponent you're beating up on. No actual people claimed anything to the contrary.

But I think we've established pretty well already that you have nothing to say of any validity whatsoever on the actual issue at hand -- the claim you made that set this all off, that the Sandy Hook shooting was something made possible by the shooter's possession of "large" clips. Clearly, this is not the case, as a six-shooter revolver would be more than up to the task of matching or bettering the toll at Sandy Hook. As it turns out, that is also the case for any other mass shooting.

Please feel free to continue beating up on your made-up friends all you want, though. The show is, if absolutely uninformative, at least occasionally entertaining.

Originally Posted by playwrite

You dumb ass, I've been in combat and I've been hunting since I was 7 or 8 years old.

Anyone just Google "police outgunned" and see that the issue today is much less of one than it was a couple of decades ago when standard department issue was revolvers while every thug out there was increasingly getting their hands on at least 9mm Glock knock-offs from China.

Now why would a cop want a 9mm instead of 6-shooter particularly when he could be 'speedily' reaching into his pants pockets and finding his speed reloaders next to his car keys and chewing gum; maybe, in the case of Cooperfield, even getting a couple moments of pocket pool in. Or better, have a nearby table to lay out his dozens of bullets. In either case, just ask the thug for a time-out of course! That's only fair; a common code amongst all shooters! .

Another thing I've learned about Libertarians/Anarchist is their philosophy goes hand in glove with faux macho and being completely clueless outside of their make-believe magic pony lands. They’re so use to their macho bullshit that they actually believe it.

Now, Coop, go back and watch one of your Dirty Harry movies; be sure to have one of your stuffed magic ponies nearby for the really scary parts.

You've been in combat since you were 8 years old? Well that certainly explains a few things...

But yes pops, please tell us your enthralling Nam stories about how you stayed stateside and got to beat up on dirty hippies for a few years. As for the hunting tales, I am sure that your dear ol' dad and uncle Dave made you promise never to tell anyone what happened up in the cabin. I don't think any of us here are qualified to help you process those memories.

Originally Posted by playwrite

While you were busy playing pocket pool looking for your speed loaders or a table to dump your bullets on -



- I just filled your heads with around a dozen slugs EACH (yea, I'm that good).

But don't worry, it was that head on your shoulders - nothing there to damage.

Would you please point out the weapon in this video that fires slugs? I must be missing it....

Originally Posted by playwrite

Now, Coop, go back and watch one of your Dirty Harry movies; be sure to have one of your stuffed magic ponies nearby for the really scary parts.

Oh I almost forgot this.

Good film!

You being a weapons expert and all, I am sure that you will able to spot and explain all three of the errors in that scene. I'll give you a cookie if you can.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Too true. Then again, that's your imaginary opponent you're beating up on. No actual people claimed anything to the contrary.

But I think we've established pretty well already that you have nothing to say of any validity whatsoever on the actual issue at hand -- the claim you made that set this all off, that the Sandy Hook shooting was something made possible by the shooter's possession of "large" clips. Clearly, this is not the case, as a six-shooter revolver would be more than up to the task of matching or bettering the toll at Sandy Hook. As it turns out, that is also the case for any other mass shooting.

Please feel free to continue beating up on your made-up friends all you want, though. The show is, if absolutely uninformative, at least occasionally entertaining.

You've just stated that the issue is whether a revolver has the same kill capacity as the AR, and just one sentence after you said I imagined it.

The problem here is not whether I'm right or wrong. The problem is your inability to carry-on any rational discourse.

Are you intellectually retarded?

Originally Posted by Copperfield

You've been in combat since you were 8 years old? Well that certainly explains a few things...

Speaking of retardation.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

But yes pops, please tell us your enthralling Nam stories about how you stayed stateside and got to beat up on dirty hippies for a few years. As for the hunting tales, I am sure that your dear ol' dad and uncle Dave made you promise never to tell anyone what happened up in the cabin. I don't think any of us here are qualified to help you process those memories.

That's the best you can do? Pretty pathetic even for some kid n junior high.