A firearm question for you LeftiesFollow

Typically schools have procedures for fires, and they minimize the casualties to such a degree that the likely-hood of death is low. China's gun death rate is a quarter of ours. All of the ex-Axis powers all have even lower gun death rates. That points to a problem.

Edited, Dec 24th 2012 6:51pm by Timelordwho

"The road has no rules. It's a lawless wasteland of tar and those pressed against it. Better bring my gun" --Timelord mimicing me

^^^^This.^^^^

When it comes to defending myself and my loved ones, who else is there? The police? Maybe after 5 or 10 minutes perhaps if they aren't busy doing something elsewhere. The politicians intent on restricting my ability to defend myself and my loved ones? I don't expect they'll ever show up unless my name is Trayvon Martin, and even then it'll be long after the fact that I am already dead.

What is with this Progressive cultural fixation on helplessness?

Totem

"ARs have an incredible range..." --Timelord
The range just exponentially increases the chances of a miss.

"...throughput..." --Timelord
Throughput just means those wild misses will have the gunner running out of ammuition even sooner.

Truthfully, if you had the presence of mind when faced with a person holding a gun-- let's say it is a handgun of any type --it is easy to make them miss you. No, I have not been in this situation, before you even ask. But that does not negate the reality that 9 out of 10 people are righthanded, so as they shoot at you, you rapidly move to your left toward them (or away if there is an avenue of escape). The pulling of the trigger and the general long extension of the shooter's arm makes for a wobbly stance and a leftward gunline.

Don't believe me? Just go to your local gun range and try to hit a non-moving paper target at a distance of 10 feet. You'll likely find out of the 6 rounds in a wheel gun or 15 rounds in a stacked magazine none will hit the target with the wheel gun and maybe 1 will graze the left shoulder of the target from the automatic handgun. And this is while you have a chance to set yourself, no pressure, no distractions, no accelerated heart rate, no amped up adrenaline, no screaming bystanders, and certainly no one aimng a gun back at you and shooting in return.

Guns of the nature that are in vogue for crazies simply aren't efficient people killers. In a closed classroom or a tightly packed movie theater? Sure, the totalnumbers look--and are --bad, but for every round expended, many are pure clean misses.

Again, this fixation on this type of firearm is misguided at best, but why should that stop a good social cause that's boiling over, right?

Totem

The thing that amazes me, as someone from gunless Europe, is how Totem and all others I see defending guns-for-all is how they seem to expect that they're going to end up having to have a shootout with some criminals or terrorists sooner or later. It seems kinda paranoid to me.

ITT: Totem is an idiot and everyone else is hooked on trollbait.

I seem to recall there being phrasing about a regulated militia in that document.

I also seem to recall there being some mechanism by which the contents of said document could be altered over the course of time.

So yes, I am going to go ahead and say that the Constitution is not some infallible document that we aren't allowed to scrutinize. To suggest otherwise would be exceedingly stupid. Are you stupid? Is that what you're trying to convey to me here?

The power to end another person's life is something that should not be taken lightly and to be perfectly frank the majority of the people in this country are not up to the task of shouldering that kind of responsibility.

Edited, Dec 24th 2012 9:23pm by cidbahamut

As a far left leaning social liberal, I have absolutely no issue with gun ownership. My brother leans as far left as me and owns a pistol. We are a hunting family as well and I have a freezer full of delicious venison (although the meat this year is from bow season, not gun). I have no problem with pistols, rifles, or shotguns (certain barrel lengths). It's when you get beyond the average gun into guns that could be categorized as military grade or guns that would only realistically be used on a tank or elephant that I start to question your need.

Qualifying this post, I think that everyone should be required to undergo at the very least, a psychological evaluation and also a class that meets at least three to five times for education prior to being allowed to own a gun. I think that should be a minimum requirement with potential stronger requirements prior to initial ownership. I also think that there should be much stricter requirements than are currently in place (at least in Wisconsin) to get a concealed carry permit.

Edited, Dec 24th 2012 9:36pm by Paskil

You mean "More Rounds = More Chances for Damage". It's not like firing a bunch of 9mm rounds is going to equal a .50 shell. You're going to have the same amount of damage per hit, just more chances for you to hit the target.

The whole tenor of debate in America mystifies me. I don't care even slightly about the right to own a gun. I'd rather have the right to live in peace and good health, thank you. I don't understand America at all..

And China owns America...

That's where I always get stuck, as a non-US citizen. Surely the fact you now have actual Armed Forces negates the need for Militia. So, why again would your average Joe need military grade firearms?


The logic of "we need guns because I need to defend my family from other people with guns" boggles the mind.