A well regulated militia...

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 6:32 pm

Chambering the first round... is that the point of sliding the top of the gun back until it makes that click, which is never neglected in movies (because it looks and sounds cool), whereas they usually don't bother flicking safety off (because that's not cool)?

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 6:49 pm

sabs wrote:Because, that woman, would totally have been able to draw her weapon from her purse, take the safety off, aim and shoot the guy, while he grabbed her and shot her.

You can't just have guns, you need combat/self defense training. Otherwise, you get maybe the gun out of the bag, and then the guy takes it from you and now he's raping you at gun point.

The best statistic on can find on the issue is this one from the Bureau of Justice.

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/ascii/hvfsdaft.txt

*A fifth of the victims defending themselves with a firearm
suffered an injury, compared to almost half of those who defended
themselves with weapons other than a firearm or who had no weapon.
Care should be used in interpreting these data because many aspects
of crimes--including victim and offender characteristics, crime
circumstances, and offender intent--contribute to the victims'
injury outcomes.

It's not that good because it lumps all crimes together and counts a completed rape as just another type of injury. It would be nice to have one that looks at rape specifically.

I've seen repeated reference to a 1990 study by Kleck and Sayles that suggests that the use of a firearm in self defense drastically reduces the completion rate of rape, but I don't have a subscription to JSTOR so I can't provide an exact quote.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/800645

Koumei wrote:Chambering the first round... is that the point of sliding the top of the gun back until it makes that click, which is never neglected in movies (because it looks and sounds cool), whereas they usually don't bother flicking safety off (because that's not cool)?

Yes, that's the point. Some movies do it gratuitously.

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 6:50 pm

Koumei wrote:Chambering the first round... is that the point of sliding the top of the gun back until it makes that click, which is never neglected in movies (because it looks and sounds cool), whereas they usually don't bother flicking safety off (because that's not cool)?

Yes.

If you have a semi-automatic with the slide dropped and you just put in a clip, there won't actually be a bullet in the barrel to shoot. Pulling the slide back and dropping it puts that first bullet in the barrel. Also, when you empty a clip, the slide often remains back, so that when you load the next clip, you can simply drop it to chamber the first round, saving you the trouble of pulling it back by hand.

Sir Neil · Post by **Sir Neil** » Wed Nov 02, 2011 12:26 am

My department recently got ahold of an HK 416. It's heavier than I expected.

Koumei wrote:...whereas they usually don't bother flicking safety off (because that's not cool)?

It might just not be noticeable onscreen -- it can be done as you draw the pistol with just a twitch of your thumb.

K · Post by K » Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:16 am

Fun facts:

280 people got injured by lightning this year.

276 non-police citizens justifiably killed criminals who were in the midst of commissioning of a crime last year.

Draw your own conclusions.

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:28 am

K wrote:276 non-police citizens justifiably killed criminals who were in the midst of commissioning of a crime last year.

When I looked, the website actually said 278. 8 and 6 do look similar, though.

Fuchs · Post by **Fuchs** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 11:37 am

K wrote:Fun facts:

280 people got injured by lightning this year.

276 non-police citizens justifiably killed criminals who were in the midst of commissioning of a crime last year.

Draw your own conclusions.

How many criminals were justifiably wounded by non-police officers?

Post by **fbmf** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:16 pm

Fuchs wrote:
K wrote:Fun facts:

280 people got injured by lightning this year.

276 non-police citizens justifiably killed criminals who were in the midst of commissioning of a crime last year.

Draw your own conclusions.
How many criminals were justifiably wounded by non-police officers?

And/or how many crimes were stopped by non-police officers using a gun or the threat of a gun?

Game On,
fbmf

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:21 pm

K wrote:280 people got injured by lightning this year.
276 non-police citizens justifiably killed criminals who were in the midst of commissioning of a crime last year.
Draw your own conclusions.

God doesn't use a gun? He uses a taser instead?

I wonder if anyone got killed by a small lead meteror this year?

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 4:48 pm

tzor wrote:
K wrote:280 people got injured by lightning this year.
276 non-police citizens justifiably killed criminals who were in the midst of commissioning of a crime last year.
Draw your own conclusions.
God doesn't use a gun? He uses a taser instead?

I wonder if anyone got killed by a small lead meteror this year?

He prefers heart attacks and strokes, or the occasional act of nature.

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:29 pm

You're missing the point. The 278 people who were justifiably killed includes justifiable homicide committed with a knife, a club, or bare hands. The point is that the number of people who were struck by lightning exceeds the entire number of justifiable homicides. Therefore no matter what fantasies you have about shooting bad guys, the total number of bad guys killed by any means is exceeded by lightning strikes on innocents.

It's just generally stupid. Of the 55 million people who own one or more firearms, only a handful ever get a chance to shoot a dude in self defense. It's an appeal

-Username17

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:47 pm

Robby: no, you're thinking of Kira, not god

FrankTrollman wrote:the total number of bad guys killed by any means is exceeded by lightning strikes on innocents.

To think of it another way, you are better off hoping lightning strikes them before they commit the crime.

It's an appeal

An appeal to what?

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:55 pm

Koumei wrote:
It's an appeal
An appeal to what?

I'd say it looks like the post was cut short, but his usual sig is in there. Maybe this is the newest "what this is I don't even" meme!

Darth Rabbitt · Post by **Darth Rabbitt** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 5:56 pm

Clearly we need to sacrifice more to Zeus, so he will punish the wicked with more lightning.

We've neglected him for too long, and our world and society is crumbling because of it.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 6:05 pm

RobbyPants wrote:
Koumei wrote:
It's an appeal
An appeal to what?
I'd say it looks like the post was cut short, but his usual sig is in there. Maybe this is the newest "what this is I don't even" meme!

Frank's standard method of writing is to compose different parts of the message based on whatever strikes his fancy. You'd think he'd only do it on larger pieces, but it's the only explanation I can think of for leaving an unfinished sentence like that.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:13 pm

Yeah, that's my assumption.

Whatever · Post by **Whatever** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:25 pm

K wrote:Fun facts:

280 people got injured by lightning this year.

276 non-police citizens justifiably killed criminals who were in the midst of commissioning of a crime last year.

Draw your own conclusions.

I conclude that getting struck by lightning is two hundred and eighty times more likely than winning an argument on the internet.

Psychic Robot · Post by **Psychic Robot** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 7:49 pm

276 non-police citizens justifiably killed criminals who were in the midst of commissioning of a crime last year.

276 people are american heroes

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 8:52 pm

Raw justifiable homicide rates aren't a good way to determine the effectiveness of self defense measures. What you really need is a breakdown of victim injury and death rates relative to different methods of resistance (or the lack thereof).

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Thu Nov 03, 2011 9:17 pm

A raw number of successful self defense attempts would be sufficient (killed + wounded + deterred). But those statistics won't exist.

violence in the media · Fri Nov 04, 2011 1:50 am

DSMatticus wrote:A raw number of successful self defense attempts would be sufficient (killed + wounded + deterred). But those statistics won't exist.

I'm not even sure how they could exist. It seems like the sort of thing that would be rife with false reporting. I mean, if you put up a NO TRESPASSING sign, do you count it as a successful deterrent every time someone walks by and DOESN'T walk on your lawn? If someone backs down from an altercation without realizing that you have a weapon, does that count as a deterrence victory for carrying the weapon? Are we going with the justification that having the weapon gave someone the courage to stand their ground long enough for the other person to back down?

RadiantPhoenix · Post by **RadiantPhoenix** » Fri Nov 04, 2011 2:18 am

violence in the media wrote: Are we going with the justification that having the weapon gave someone the courage to stand their ground long enough for the other person to back down?

Every person should carry a magic feather like Dumbo?

Username17 · Post by **Username17** » Fri Nov 04, 2011 5:51 am

hyzmarca wrote:Raw justifiable homicide rates aren't a good way to determine the effectiveness of self defense measures. What you really need is a breakdown of victim injury and death rates relative to different methods of resistance (or the lack thereof).

Well, the closest thing to an actual number would be the comparison of how many people who have guns are killed vs. those who have none. People with guns are 2 to 10 times more likely to be killed than people who have no guns. Therefore whatever the fuck they are doing does not work.

The point about the justifiable homicides is that the scenario that gun enthusiasts fap to really needing a gun for is less than one in a million. You are better off buying lottery tickets on the chance you might become a millionaire than buying guns on the chance you might be offered an opportunity to commit justifiable homicide.

I mean we can put thing in terms of relative risk for society: for every woman who uses a handgun to kill in self defense, more than a hundred women are murdered with hand guns. Er can put this in terms of relative risk for your family: a gun in your home is 43 times more likely to shoot a family member than an intruder. We can put this in terms of relative risk for the individual: you are personally over four times more likely to be shot if there is a gun in your house than if there is not.

The reality is that no matter how you add up the anecdotes about guns protecting you from stuff, people who have guns are less safe and people near guns are less safe. So however many anecdotes there might be of a gun saving the day, there is by definition more anecdotes of a gun getting you in trouble. Gun advocates like to throw around the claim that having a gun intimidates more than a million burglars out of breaking into a home each year. I have no idea how they could possibly know that, since to the best of my knowledge the thieves' guild doesn't keep track of houses they were "going to break into before they got scared off". But sure, maybe it's true. But the number of houses that people break into to get the guns is by definition going to be larger, because homes with guns in them are broken into more than homes without. Indeed, the actual number of guns reported stolen each year is higher than the number of burglaries supposedly foiled by guns.

You can imagine scenarios where guns help save you and you can imagine scenarios where guns get you into trouble. But the latter scenarios are simply more likely, because objectively gun owners get bad outcomes from theft and violence more often than non-gun owners.

-Username17

hyzmarca · Post by **hyzmarca** » Fri Nov 04, 2011 8:09 am

I don't give a crap about anecdotes. What I want to see is a detailed breakdown that takes into account all known risk factors. Correlation doesn't equal causation, and drawing conclusions from a single statistic is risky.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Sun Nov 06, 2011 3:01 am

So was driving from Long Island to Troy NY and I turned on the SiriusXM Patriot Channel and what does my wonderful ears hear but this heartwarming tale of a man and his gun. Defending truth, justice and PRIVATE PROPERTY!

Developer with shotgun scared off Oakland rioters

OAKLAND -- Oakland developer Phil Tagami is used to working behind the scenes to broker some of the biggest deals in town. Late Wednesday, he was using different persuasive skills - holding a loaded shotgun to scare away rioters trying to get into a downtown building.

"We had people who attempted to break into our building," the landmark Rotunda Building on Frank Ogawa Plaza outside City Hall, Tagami said Thursday. He grabbed a shotgun that he usually keeps at home, went down to the ground floor and "discouraged them," he said.

"I was standing there and they saw me there, and I lifted it - I didn't point it - I just held it in my hands," Tagami said. "And I just racked it, and they ran."

That is so ... made for TV

Also in the same story

Tagami disagreed, calling the Occupy Oakland encampment "basically concealment and cover for anarchists who are doing this to our city."

"We're very concerned that a group of people can be allowed to do this type of destruction to our town and to our image without any repercussions," Tagami said. "They need to be held accountable." He rejected assertions that the anarchists were a small minority, saying, "No, you can't have it both ways."

Tagami added, "I support a peaceful protest. But it was a siege situation last night, and quite frankly, I'm glad we were here. But I never want to have to do that again."

Other businesses that professed support for Occupy Oakland's general strike didn't escape the damage. Windows at the Men's Wearhouse, which closed Wednesday and put up signs of support, were shattered.