The Gaming Den

PhoneLobster at [unixtime wrote:1122872798[/unixtime]]
Not that I suggest it as a wise action or even likely to achieve anything here or elsewhere but it isn't really doing nothing.

An actual campaign or movement of no confidence can be used as a means of achieving various things.

Yeah, when you get into starting up a campaign or movement, that *might* do something. Or considering how slowly things go, it might start something at least. But when you do that it seriously doesn't matter if you actually do vote yourself. Convincing others to vote is actually a noble cause and might do something. Voting yourself is pretty much a waste of time unless you've got someone filming you vote that people can watch, which might lead others to vote.

So convincing others to vote: good. Voting yourself: waste of time. Gotta love the hypocrisy.

Well, it's kind of hard to convince other people to vote 3rd party/no confidence if you're not going to do it yourself. There is that whole thing about walking the walk as well as talking the talk.

RandomCasualty at [unixtime wrote:1122605216[/unixtime]]Handing out guns to civilians is a great deterrant to street crime, like armed roberries, muggings, rapes, hate crimes and so on. It works because it forces every violent criminal to consider that he could be against not only the police, but the entirety of society.

I think we can agree that the events in New Orleans pretty much proved this false.

An armed society is not a polite society.

-Crissa

I think you're looking at that wrongly. New Orleans shos that takeing away society means there is no control on the violent tools so they rapidly establish mob rule. All they need for that is stoneage weapons. The only cure to armed thugs is better armed people on your side.

Seeing as yesterday's front page had pictures of the national guard evicting people from their homes at gunpoint and today's front page has an article about how the government can now legally detain citizens indefinitely without charges...I'm begining to think that the right-wing survivialist nutjobs may just be right about citizens arming themselvs against the government.

The only persons arrested in New Orleans so far have been the nut-jobs.

An armed society isn't a utopian society, sorry.

-Crissa

whatever wrote:All they need for that is stoneage weapons.

Question.

When mob rule is established in the post HurricaneBush apocalyptic landscape of your home town would you like to...

A) Run away from a guy with a rock.

B) Run away from a guy with a knife.

C) Run away from a guy with a crude bow and arrows.

D) Run away from a guy with a flint lock pistol.

E) Run away from a guy with a fully automatic assualt rifle with extra funky death ammo.

?

Answer: all of the above. The level of armament only matters to an outside observer because we percieve the threat level of each of those objects as being different. In reality, the threat level is determined by the wielder, not the weapon: a nutjob with a rock who is determined to kill you is going to kill you, just like a mostly-peacable man driven to extreme action is just as unlikely to kill you with an assault rifle as he is with a kitchen knife.

Still and all, someone with a rifle is (ignoring that most people aren't very good shots, and most people have very inflated ideas of the killing power of automatic weapons) probably more likely to have a chance at killing you than someone with a rock. So there's that.

On the other hand, there are guns out there. There are lots of guns out there. There have been enough AK-47s alone manufactured that probably every adult in the United States could have one if he really wanted one. So -- in the event of the end of civilization as we know it -- there're going to be people out there with guns, even if only members (former members, rather) of the armed forces. Probably it won't be that few for long, even in countries with strict restrictions on civilian gun ownership.

And in the case of each threat, the problem is pretty much the same: give up everything you have, possibly including your spouse, your children, any food or water you may have the good fortune to have stumbled upon -- or else you fight, and you probably die, because even a nut with a rock has the advantage in a fight with someone who has no weapon at all. So I pretty much wouldn't be too happy about the prospect of the apocalypse whether there were guns or not.

--d.

In order from best to worst ADCBE.

But that wasn't my point. The people who are currently armed thugs would still be armed thugs if all the had was baseball bats. Crissa's contention that having guns had something to do with it is wrong.

<nod>

When I ran my store, we had to deal with that issue because I sold weapons for hunting, martial arts, RenFaire types, and collectors. Some parents complained that allowing anyone to sell to minors - regardless of the fact that written documentation of parental permission was required in every case - was horrible and contributed to the delinquencies of minors.

But you know, those kids that really want to do damage and be armed could go down to the grocery store, kitchen store, or thrift store, and buy a frickin' machete (more commonly referred to as a "chef's knife" or some other such alternative name) without being looked at twice. Not only is it equally as dangerous as a collector's knife, but it's cheaper and less likely to be paid attention to.

If someone wants to be armed, they'll find a way. If they want to hurt you, they'll find a way. The tighter the regulations, the more creative they'll have to get - which may slow some down, but not that much.

I didn't say 'guns'.

But someone else did say guns.

...

On the flip side, I can run out the the range of a rock, or catch it.

I can't outrun a bullet.

-Crissa

Crissa at [unixtime wrote:1126493774[/unixtime]]
On the flip side, I can run out the the range of a rock, or catch it.

I can't outrun a bullet.

You'd be surprised. Most people have a far better accurate range with a thrown rock than they do with a pistol. I'm a fairly good shot, and I have trouble consistently hitting things 15 meters away with one. With a rock, I can probably hit you from something like 50-60 meters, and I *suck* at throwing. An average weekend baseball player is almost certainly more dangerous with a rock than a gun.

But you can run out of the range of one. It's actually not that much harder than running out of the range of a rock.

Most people -- that is, people who put little or no effort into firearms proficiency -- have trouble hitting a piece of paper wider than a human at 25 yards with a pistol. Some of them can't hit it consistently at a third of that distance. That's a piece of paper that's standing still -- not running, much less zigzagging. Hitting a moving target is extremely difficult, even for experts -- you just have to be careful to make sure you're moving across his sight picture, not just away from him.

Most people have no damned idea how to handle a rifle at all. (People who do know how to handle a rifle, however, are by far the most dangerous -- in terms of actual ability to kill you -- firearms users you're likely to ever encounter.) People who don't have much rifle experience often have difficulty hitting a wider-than-human-sized target at 100 yards, and that's assuming they're seated, using a telescopic sight, have something solid to rest the gun on, and have all the time they need to peer through the sights and take their aim and squeeze their triggers and so on.

That's all in pretty close to optimum circumstances -- standing still, target standing still, clear lines of sight, no distractions, not worrying about hitting someone other the target if he's not careful, nobody going to throw a rock at his head if they get a chance, etc. Throw in some of those complications and the odds get worse. A lot worse.

Now, 100 yards is quite a long ways. Even 25 yards will take you 5 or 6 seconds to cover if you're in reasonably good shape, and that's long enough for someone who already has his gun out to take a couple of shots. And if someone is right next to you -- he has a pretty good chance of being able to hit you no matter how bad a shot he is. But if he's right next to you, he has a pretty good chance of being able to kill you with a rock or a knife or a pointed stick, too.

So yes, guns can be very dangerous. Especially if they're in the hands of an actual expert, as opposed to someone who thinks he's hardcore because he's watched "Rambo Whups the Ayatollah" a bunch of times. Most people, though, will have to get very lucky to hit you if you run away as soon as you see someone holding a gun. It's just not that easy to hit someone.

--d.

This
made me think of this thread. (Intrusive registration sometimes required, bugmenot.com has a password.)

--d.

lets get this straight.

There is at least one person here claiming a fully automatic assualt rifle is no more dangerous than a... rock?

Well I'll be respecting that point of view on gun control any second now.

Any second.

While I wouldn't go so far as to say they're no more dangerous than a rock, people really do have inflated ideas about the killing power of automatic weapons. Ever tried to hit anything with one?

That people have inflated ideas about how deadly they are doesn't mean they can't still be deadly. They are -- it's just that they're mostly deadly at very close range or against tightly packed targets. If you're shooting at individual targets, you're actually better served taking the thing off full auto and firing single shots.

--d.

whatever wrote:If you're shooting at individual targets, you're actually better served taking the thing off full auto and firing single shots.

I'll worry about that kind of distinction when my rock comes with a full auto switch on the side.

lets get this straight.

There is at least one person here claiming a fully automatic assualt rifle is not significantly different from ... a semiautomatic rifle?

Well I'll be respecting that point of view on gun control any second now.

Any second.

--d.

As to automatic vs. single shot:
At 40m, I managed to put about 3 rounds out of a 30 round magazine somewhere in the target with an m16 on full auto. At the same range with the same gun, I managed to put about 20 out of 30 into the target on single shot (and most of those were closer to the center). However, it took me several minutes to do that aiming each shot, when full auto burned the clip in a matter of seconds. But frankly, my marksmanship sucks. The best marksman I've ever known claimed that even the 3-round burst setting on the m16a2 was a waste of ammo and the the US military should teach the double-tap technique for rifle training.

As to the inflated opinion of gun lethality:
I have one study that showed that the effective range of a handgun as reflected in crime statistics is actually 3 feet, but that study defined "effective range" as the maximum range at which shots had a 50/50 hit/miss chance, and at that point it's plausible when you consider that most crimes are commited in poor visibility by people who are not trained marksmen and who are usually highly emotional and/or under the influence of impairing substances.

50/50 chance that something usually lethal hits you, vs 50/50 chance something usually nonlethal hits you?

I wonder which I'm going to worry about.

-Crissa

If you're that worried about it, get a gun yourself.

Gun control would have worked in 1788. Now, it's too late, you're not going to get guns away from people. The best you can do is get the honest people to turn in their guns, and see a huge increase in shootings like what happened in Australia when they banned guns.

Batman is mostly right. Criminals are cowardly, and in most cases won't attack someone they think is packing.

Furthermore, I feel quite safe in this country. The crime rate is much lower than it was ten years ago, no matter what the media has lead you to beleive.

Count wrote:and see a huge increase in shootings like what happened in Australia when they banned guns.

Someones not up to date on their information... (and is placing credit where it isn't due, we happened to experience increased gun control AT THE SAME TIME as we experienced a massive increase in poverty in our country, something that doesn't make the international news too often, our gun crime could have been a heck of a lot worse)

But anyway.

As an Australian let me clue you in on the latest offline media reports.

Shooting deaths are dropping. Word on the street (OK, the media) credits it to the effect of improved gun control laws kicking in.

The sooner you enact sane gun laws the sooner you will see a benefit.

Your irresponsibility as a nation has left you with a lot of waiting to do so my suggestion is to get started.

If anyoen tries to take my guns, they'll be shot. That's it.

The second amendment is literally the last part of the bill of rights that Bush ahsn't puked all over yet.

Give me back my freedom of speech, then we'll talk about giving up right to bear arms.

(Well, you literally can't give me back my freedom of speech, Phonelobster, that was more toward my government.)

This all has a simple answer. And guns are not a part of it.

Count_Arioch_the_28th at [unixtime wrote:1126605112[/unixtime]]If anyoen tries to take my guns, they'll be shot. That's it.

Such was the words of the first squatter in New Orleans to be arrested.

The second amendment is literally the last part of the bill of rights that Bush ahsn't puked all over yet.

The Second Amendment doesn't say anything about firearms. It says an armed militia. You know, the thing that Bush did take away from control of the state Governors, and sent to Iraq.

Give me back my freedom of speech, then we'll talk about giving up right to bear arms.

Your speach has not been impinged. You're freer today to speak, and have a wider audience than ever who can, could, or will hear you.

So...

What's your arguement again?

Oh, right; that because someone trained with a rock can kill me, a rock is just as lethal (and probably moreso) than a gun in an untrained person's hands.

Does that even make sense?

-Crissa