In The Wake Of This Tragedy

[4588686]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="Kevin" data-cid="2525868" data-time="1355998088"><p>
"Nearly instant" is not the same as "semi-automatic". I'd like to know, if you're theory is correct, we bother arming troops in Aghanistan with M16s if a pistol is just as good "with practice."</p></blockquote>


That is mysterious. American troops need range but it is odd that swat teams font use revolvers since they're basically just as effective.

Yeah. When I was a kid I could load and fire the Winchester 30 30 pretty quickly. Still would have been a lot more difficult to kill so many so quickly if I was swapping in 30 round high capacity magazines. that is even more so for somebody not as comfortable with a weapon.

[PhuturePriest]

"Nearly instant" is not the same as "semi-automatic". I'd like to know, if you're theory is correct, we bother arming troops in Aghanistan with M16s if a pistol is just as good "with practice."

 

First off, comparing an M-16 to an AR-15 is bogus. The M-16 is far superior and it has a bigger bullet. Plus, it is fully automatic. This is like comparing a 9mm with a 45. caliber Glock.

[Jesus_lol]

"Nearly instant" is not the same as "semi-automatic". I'd like to know, if you're theory is correct, we bother arming troops in Aghanistan with M16s if a pistol is just as good "with practice."

 

what are you talking about? reloading a gun isnt at all related to Semi automatic, what you just said made absolutely no sense. Let me guess, you are completely ignorant about firearms?

 

A pistol IS a semi automatic, and the reloading function can be done nearly instantly, within 2 seconds at the most. In a close range shooting like Connecticut(and basically every other shooting spree in the history of the USA other than Charles Whitman sniping people from a tower), the use of a rifle, is unnecessary, a Pistol would be similarly effective.

 

He had these kids trapped in a room, and he shot each of them repeatedly, he could have killed them with just about anything, even a double barrel shotgun would have done the trick, its not like they could have overpowered him while he was reloading.

 

Soldiers use rifles because.... oh yeah, they are engaging multiple targets frequently at extremely long distances, and they provide better penetration through armour and cover at those distances. Not at all needed in short range. For instance, most short range weapons carried by SWAT teams for instance are sub machine guns, in other words, full auto guns firing pistol rounds.

 

Hasan, you are a smart guy, there is no need for you to be comparing a situation where soldiers are fighting numerous adult, armed enemies, to a situation where a guy has 20 kids trapped in a room and he can pick them off at his leisure. It doesnt matter at all if a full auto m16 is better suited for clearing out neighborhoods in afghanistan or vietnam jungles. Of course no one in that situation would choose a relatively shorter range gun like a pistol, though there is strong precedent for use of pistol caliber guns in warfare(like the Thompson machine gun, which aside from fire rate is just a 15 pound .45 pistol.)

 

In a spree shooting, a easily concealable handgun, that can be reloaded nearly instantly, easily aimed within 100 ft, that has plenty range and power to kill people, with compact light ammo is more than enough to do what the shooter has set out to do. 

 

The guys in columbine did just fine with 9mm's and garden variety shotguns(one of which was a double barrel)

 

But feel free to avoid the point Im making and tell me more about how soldiers in Iraq used mounted 50 cal automatics.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Jesus_lol

[Winchester]

First off, comparing an M-16 to an AR-15 is bogus. The M-16 is far superior and it has a bigger bullet.

 

No, it doesn't.

 

 

A burglar only is much more worried about stealth.

 

And no, you can't go above the police because what if you decide to be the criminal one day like Adam Lanza. Why are you even pretending that home security is the primary reason gun owners won't give their assult rifles in face of clear numbers showing the don't make anyone safer. Isn't it more honest to say that they (and I won't say you, since I came if late to this conversation and am hoping you're playing devil's advocate) want to reserve the right to stage a violent insurrection if the darkies and queers don't learn their place soon (note - this only applies to gun owners who absolutely demand automatic weapons).

 

 

 

You clearly believe the State and its agents to be superiors of the citizen. I do not. I reject classed society. I reject that State has a right to rule without consent of the ruled.

 

I know a lot of police. They're ordinary people. No better or worse than you will find amongst the regular population.

 

Government in its proper role is a servant, not a master.

 

Judging from your later posts, I think your irrational fear of firearms is due to massive ignorance on the matter. Perhaps you could find someone to teach you about them.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Winchester

[Winchester]

Or acknowledges generally and respected.  That doesn't mean that they are rights because they can be backed by force.  There is no right to universal healthcare in America because certain concentrations of capital that carry political power do not wish it to be so.  If there weren't then there would be.  

 

I accept that ownership can be a right.  But I don't understand what you mean by 'right' outside of a legal context.  

 

Because I cannot think of a succinct definition right now, I pose this question:

 

If a man an a woman were on an island, outside of any legal jurisdiction, and without having formed any agreements between them, if this man raped the woman, would he be committing an offense against her?

 

Yes, this question is emotionally charged.

[4588686]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="Jesus_lol" data-cid="2525873" data-time="1356003384"><p>
what are you talking about? reloading a gun isnt at all related to Semi automatic, what you just said made absolutely no sense. Let me guess, you are completely ignorant about firearms?<br />
<br />
A pistol IS a semi automatic, and the reloading function can be done nearly instantly, within 2 seconds at the most. In a close range shooting like Connecticut(and basically every other shooting spree in the history of the USA other than Charles Whitman sniping people from a tower), the use of a rifle, is unnecessary, a Pistol would be similarly effective.<br />
<br />
He had these kids trapped in a room, and he shot each of them repeatedly, he could have killed them with just about anything, even a double barrel shotgun would have done the trick, its not like they could have overpowered him while he was reloading.<br />
<br />
Soldiers use rifles because.... oh yeah, they are engaging multiple targets frequently at extremely long distances, and they provide better penetration through armour and cover at those distances. Not at all needed in short range. For instance, most short range weapons carried by SWAT teams for instance are sub machine guns, in other words, full auto guns firing pistol rounds.<br />
<br />
Hasan, you are a smart guy, there is no need for you to be comparing a situation where soldiers are fighting numerous adult, armed enemies, to a situation where a guy has 20 kids trapped in a room and he can pick them off at his leisure. It doesnt matter at all if a full auto m16 is better suited for clearing out neighborhoods in afghanistan or vietnam jungles. Of course no one in that situation would choose a relatively shorter range gun like a pistol, though there is strong precedent for use of pistol caliber guns in warfare(like the Thompson machine gun, which aside from fire rate is just a 15 pound .45 pistol.)<br />
<br />
In a spree shooting, a easily concealable handgun, that can be reloaded nearly instantly, easily aimed within 100 ft, that has plenty range and power to kill people, with compact light ammo is more than enough to do what the shooter has set out to do. <br />
<br />
The guys in columbine did just fine with 9mm's and garden variety shotguns(one of which was a double barrel)<br />
<br />
But feel free to avoid the point Im making and tell me more about how soldiers in Iraq used mounted 50 cal automatics.</p></blockquote>

I said that the use of soldiers wasn't a good comparison because of range. But the comparison to SWAT trams is, I think, fair and you haven't really addressed it. Why don't SWAT teams just use a standard cop sidearm? We both know it's because a weapon like an AR15 is way more lethal than a 9mm, pratically speaking, particularly for somebody who is not extremely proficient with a fiream. Can somebody still kill a lot of people with a revolver and a lot of bullets? Sure. But chances are it will take them significantly longer and there will be more time for victims to excape and/or for the police to arrive. If you had to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible would you pick a normal handgun or an AR15 with a high capacity magazine? I've asked this a fee times but haven't gotten a straight answer and I think it's because everybody with any gun experience knows the answer to that question, all theory about firing rates aside. I could also kill a lot of kids with a musket and bayonet but an AR15 with high capacity magazines would be a lot more efficient.

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="Winchester" data-cid="2525883" data-time="1356009110"><p>
Because I cannot think of a succinct definition right now, I pose this question:<br />
<br />
If a man an a woman were on an island, outside of any legal jurisdiction, and without having formed any agreements between them, if this man raped the woman, would he be committing an offense against her?<br />
<br />
Yes, this question is emotionally charged.</p></blockquote>

But I think it's a fair one. I'd say it's immoral and he's a poopey human being in that sense is certainly an offense against her. But I don't know if it's an offense in the sense that anybody has a right not to be raped since I don't know what it means to have a right outside of the context of a social institution.

[Kevin]

what are you talking about? reloading a gun isnt at all related to Semi automatic, what you just said made absolutely no sense. Let me guess, you are completely ignorant about firearms?

 

You said "He had kids trapped in a room and shot them repeatedly, methodically reloading several times. A simple handgun(even a revolver with moon clips) would have been just as easy to do the exact same damage with just one 9mm. Swapping out magazines can be done nearly instantly with practice, and anyone should be able to do it in a second or two."

 

I said: "Nearly instant" is not the same as "semi-automatic". I'd like to know, if you're theory is correct, we bother arming troops in Aghanistan with M16s if a pistol is just as good "with practice."

 

In the first place, I'm not talking about this particular situation, but about the deadliness of the weapon in general. In the second case, my argument was that, by your reasoning, you can fire off as many rounds in a given period of time with a 9mm as with an AR-15. I was suggesting incredulity - if this was the case, one of the main advantages of a larger magazine would be lost for semi-automatic rifles.

[Winchester]

Longer range.

[Kevin]

First off, comparing an M-16 to an AR-15 is bogus. The M-16 is far superior and it has a bigger bullet. Plus, it is fully automatic. This is like comparing a 9mm with a 45. caliber Glock.

 

The AR-15 was first built by ArmaLite as a selective fire rifle for the United States armed forces. Because of financial problems, ArmaLite sold the AR-15 design to Colt. The select-fire AR-15 entered the US military system as the M16 rifle. Colt then marketed the Colt AR-15 as a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle for civilian sales in 1963.^[8] Although the name "AR-15" remains a Colt registered trademark, variants of the firearm are independently made, modified and sold under various names by multiple manufacturers.

 

True enough, the AR-15 is not literally an M16, being semi-automatic (though full-auto modification is possible, if difficult and expensive). But it's mostly the same gun.

 

As for "bullets" (I think you mean cartridges):

 

With the U.S. military adoption of the ArmaLite AR-15 as the M16 rifle in 1963, the .223 Remington was standardized as the 5.56×45mm NATO. As a commercial sporting cartridge the .223 Remington was only introduced in 1964.

Edited December 20, 2012 by Kevin

[4588686]

http://www.upworthy.com/gun-expert-decides-to-make-stuff-up-reporter-decides-to-shut-him-down?c=upw1

[Kevin]

Longer range.

 

Yes, I suppose it still has that, but I am skill skeptical about notion you could get as many rounds out with a pistol as an AR-15 in close quarters.

 

Also, if the idea is that these guns are for home defense instead of armed insurrection, how often does defending against a home break-in require an advantage in terms of range?

http://www.upworthy.com/gun-expert-decides-to-make-stuff-up-reporter-decides-to-shut-him-down?c=upw1

 

Oh wow.

[Winchester]

Yes, I suppose it still has that, but I am skill skeptical about notion you could get as many rounds out with a pistol as an AR-15 in close quarters.

 

Also, if the idea is that these guns are for home defense instead of armed insurrection, how often does defending against a home break-in require an advantage in terms of range?

 

I was being specific to the military on the battlefield. In CQB, shorter rifles are used, including carbines. I'm not why you're focusing solely on rate of fire, which is pretty well the same across the spectrum of semi-automatics.

 

Have you ever fired either a semi-auto pistol or rifle?

 

Do you deny that rebellion is a human right?

Edited December 20, 2012 by Winchester

[4588686]

http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2003/10/double-barreled-double-standards?c=upworthy

[Kevin]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote'data-author="Winchester" data-cid="2525883" data-time="1356009110"><p>
Because I cannot think of a succinct definition right now, I pose this question:<br />
<br />
If a man an a woman were on an island, outside of any legal jurisdiction, and without having formed any agreements between them, if this man raped the woman, would he be committing an offense against her?<br />
<br />
Yes, this question is emotionally charged.</p></blockquote>

But I think it's a fair one. I'd say it's immoral and he's a poopey human being in that sense is certainly an offense against her. But I don't know if it's an offense in the sense that anybody has a right not to be raped since I don't know what it means to have a right outside of the context of a social institution.

 

I think it's the Lockean concept of natural rights. I have no strong opinion on the issue, but there it is.

 

Supposing, though, that the woman was an ethical philosopher and these rapes were repeated - she might ask the question "Do I have a right not to be raped?" in order to determine if she should take violent action against him. This might be to say, since there are two people on it, the island is a society whether or not any agreements have been formed.

[Winchester]

But I think it's a fair one. I'd say it's immoral and he's a poopey human being in that sense is certainly an offense against her. But I don't know if it's an offense in the sense that anybody has a right not to be raped since I don't know what it means to have a right outside of the context of a social institution.

What would make it immoral, then?

I guess police need superior firepower so they can protect themselves whilst in the midst of sexual assault:

 

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/12/19/two-women-sue-texas-troopers-for-illegal-roadside-cavity-search/

 

 

Because it's not rape if you have a badge, I guess.