10 round clip controversy

Discussion in 'General Weapons Discussion' started by sjansen, Jan 21, 2011.

  1. sgtmac_46

    sgtmac_46 Senior Master

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,751
    Likes Received:
    187
    Trophy Points:
    173
    Well, i don't know that 'clip' is sinister.........but it's sure inaccurate as hell, and paints anyone who uses the term as unknowledgeable about the subject matter to follow.

    If the argument starts off with someone displaying a lack of understanding of even the basic nomenclature, how much of an intelligent conversation can follow?
     
  2. sgtmac_46

    sgtmac_46 Senior Master

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,751
    Likes Received:
    187
    Trophy Points:
    173
    That's why I try not to make much of it beyond simply correcting the term, and moving along.

    But someone using the term 'clip' demonstrates that their knowledge of firearms is pretty much limited to what they saw on TV, movies and the occassional hip-hop album......and that, in and of itself, is telling as to what direction the conversation is going to go.
     
  3. Steve

    Steve Mostly Harmless

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    16,246
    Likes Received:
    3,006
    Trophy Points:
    308
    Location:
    Covington, WA
    LOL. Not THE reason. Someday I'll learn that you guys don't appreciate examples. :D

    Do you agree that we have unnecessary, unenforcable laws that are applied arbitrarily and clog up our legal system? That's certainly my opinion. Less is more, IMO.
    And more than 265 million car owners did the same.

    This was a lawfully owned gun: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/19/california.high.school.shooting/

    Injuries are about 30 times more likely than deaths, and statistically, an unintentional gun related injury occurs about 50 times each day while there are two unintentional deaths. Currently, the families of the victims would need to sue for damages and hope that they could get some compensation for medical bills, lost wages and loss of life, hoping the owner of the gun had some means to pay. If the lawful owner of the weapon carried insurance, that wouldn't be necessary.
     
  4. sgtmac_46

    sgtmac_46 Senior Master

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,751
    Likes Received:
    187
    Trophy Points:
    173
    That gun was not lawfully owned by that 17 year old kid.


    As for those statistics, they are bogus......the vast majority of deaths involving firearms in the US involve criminals involved in some criminal activity, usually perpetrated by other criminals. The vast majority of injuries are, likewise, criminals involved in some level of criminal activity.

    The statistics many folks try to foist, such as the 'thousands of children accidentally killed by firearms' are, likewise, bogus statistics provided by such groups as Brady and HCI........they derive those statistics by including every gang member blow the age of 19 that gets shot, by the police, by another gang member, etc, as a 'child' to give the illusion that is how many kids find mommy or daddies gun and shoot themselves or some other child.....it's a lie.

    The real statistics of those types of 'accidents' account for approximately 100 child accidental deaths a year........each one tragic, as any child death is, but when taken in context, and compared to the number of children of the same age group killed in backyard swimming pools a year, which is approximately 1500, it really shows folks have a misplaced sense of concern.
     
  5. Steve

    Steve Mostly Harmless

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    16,246
    Likes Received:
    3,006
    Trophy Points:
    308
    Location:
    Covington, WA
    It was lawfully owned by his dad. Right?
    That's true. As I said earlier, according to the CDC, there are about 18k unintentional injuries and only about 600 deaths per year. The number of injuries triples and the number of deaths jumps to 30,000 if you include ALL firearm related incidents. I'm not trying to mislead anyone.
    Dude. Seriously. I'm getting the numbers from the CDC. I'm specifically only using the number of unintentional injuries and deaths, although I'm sure that some of the intentional incidents used lawfully owned weapons as well.
    Once again, just so it's very clear. I got the statistics from the CDC. I'm using the most real statistics I know to use. If you have statistics that are "more real", post a link.
     
  6. Archangel M

    Archangel M Senior Master

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,555
    Likes Received:
    154
    Trophy Points:
    173
    Ahhh the CDC. The "bible" of gun grabbers everywhere. What did Twain say about statistics?


    http://www.tincher.to/deaths.htm

     
  7. Archangel M

    Archangel M Senior Master

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,555
    Likes Received:
    154
    Trophy Points:
    173
    http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,113094,00.html

     
  8. Archangel M

    Archangel M Senior Master

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,555
    Likes Received:
    154
    Trophy Points:
    173
    Then theres the old saw of "a gun in the home increases the chances of being killed by that gun".

    Well...yeah. Doesn't car ownership increase the chances of death by car accident? A pool by drowning? A knife by stabbing? It's circular reasoning. Of course a gun in the home increases the odds of being injured/killed by that gun. A fireplace increases the odds of death by fire too. So what?

    Oh and more on the CDC:

    Does Politics Influence the CDC?
    Examples Suggest Partisanship May Sometimes Affect Health Policy


    The CDC was recently pressured to insert two pro-abstinence speakers at a national sexually-transmitted-disease-prevention conference in Florida. It also removed panelists who would have discussed links between abstinence-only programs and rising STD rates. Im betting some people around here would decry that as "conservative" politicians interfering with public health policy. Yet at the same time Id wager that they accept their gun statistics as being clean of any political influence.
     
    Last edited: Jan 22, 2011
  9. sgtmac_46

    sgtmac_46 Senior Master

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,751
    Likes Received:
    187
    Trophy Points:
    173
    It was a crime to be possessed by the son, right? [/quote] He didn't own the gun, he stole the gun........so if THAT is your definition of 'legally' possessed or owned, EVERY gun is 'legally owned'......by someone somewhere, if not by the person who currently is possessing it. ;)

    Sure, if you include suicides, which I personally think are an individual choice, folks shot and killed by law abiding citizens and police in justified shootings, and criminals shooting criminals, which account for the majority of homicides involving firearms.

    I'm not saying you are trying to mislead anyone.......some very much are, however. The nebulous definition of 'child' used is intentionally misleading at it's source.......an 18 year old gang banger shot by the police should not be called a 'child', for example.




    At the end of the day, most folks that 'accidentally' get injured with a firearm are the folks in possession of it.......there should be no insurance on injuring yourself.

    Most of the rest of the folks who are injured, are injured on purpose, and there is no insurance against that.

    The analogy about cars is designed solely to suggest folks should have insurance for guns, which solely is a tool to make firearm ownership more and more expensive, and less and less attractive for the average american, in essence, a backdoor gun ban. Moreover, what are we insuring against? Murder? Won't be covered. Accidentally shooting ourself? Shouldn't be covered.

    So we're left with insurance against a few hundred incidents a year? Sure, it's an insurance company wetdream, and a gungrabber fantasy, but as for any practical purpose beyond that, there is none!
     
  10. Bruno@MT

    Bruno@MT Senior Master

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    3,399
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    108
    I don't disagree with you, but arguing about clip vs magazine is besides the matter. I used the word clip because I know it's commonly used. While that does color me as someone who is not a subject matter expert, it in no way invalidates my opinion on gun control OR magazine capacity. Personally I don't think it will make one bit of difference in gun crime but that is beside the point.

    Lack of understanding would be for example that I don't understand how a handgun operates. for example, I could fail to understand the difference between revolver and pistol, single action vs double action, semi vs full auto, and various other things. Those would be things that indeed indicate that I am starting off the discussion on the wrong premises. Calling a magazine a clip does no such thing, since I am referring to 'a device of some sorts' that allows a given number of bullets to be loaded into a gun.
     
  11. Steve

    Steve Mostly Harmless

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    16,246
    Likes Received:
    3,006
    Trophy Points:
    308
    Location:
    Covington, WA
    Honestly, I had read that he was given the gun as a gift. I would say my definition of legally owned and yours are probably very similar.
    No. Not suicides. Not children. You guys are frustrating because you're not reading. You're knee jerk reacting. Unintentional (meaning accidental) deaths AND injuries. While this wouldn't include the AZ shooting, it would include Cheney shooting a hunting partner in the face. It wouldn't include a suicide, but it would include a kid being shot by his friend while showing off his dad's gun. If there is a way to be more specific, I don't know it.
    It's difficult to avoid misleading someone who is determined to be misled. The only people talking specifically about children right now are you and archangel. The stats I put out have nothing to do with anyone's definition of children.
    I haven't seen anything to show whether this is true or not. Some? Undoubtedly. Most? I don't think you know that.
    Over 29,000 of the ~30,000 deaths each year by firearm are intentional according to the CDC. And about 2/3rds of the injuries. But that leaves over 600 deaths and over 18,000 injuries. So, yeah. Almost every fatality and most deaths are on purpose. I've never said otherwise.

    I'm talking about the average of 2 deaths per day and 30 or so injuries that are unintentional.
    I've never heard anyone else suggest liability insurance for firearms, so on one hand I can't at all guess about what their motivation is, but implying that it's part of a grand scheme is cheap. I can assure you that I have no gun control designs. My brother collects them. I thoroughly enjoy joining him at the range.
    LOL. Once again, you're making stuff up. I'd welcome some evidence. Seriously. This is an idea I've had and it seems like a good idea to me. I'd change my mind, though, if you guys had any kind of compelling arguments that it's a bad idea. So far, though, you guys seem to be stuck on conspiracy theories which are irrelevant and making things up.
     
  12. Archangel M

    Archangel M Senior Master

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,555
    Likes Received:
    154
    Trophy Points:
    173
    The "child definition" is but one example of how statistics can be "tweaked" for political purposes. Seeing that little game with what a "child" is. Leaves me wondering what they consider an "accident" to be.
     
  13. Steve

    Steve Mostly Harmless

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    16,246
    Likes Received:
    3,006
    Trophy Points:
    308
    Location:
    Covington, WA
    What are the real numbers, then? Post them. And a link to the source too, please.
     
  14. Archangel M

    Archangel M Senior Master

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,555
    Likes Received:
    154
    Trophy Points:
    173
  15. Steve

    Steve Mostly Harmless

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2008
    Messages:
    16,246
    Likes Received:
    3,006
    Trophy Points:
    308
    Location:
    Covington, WA
    That's actually higher than the stats I'd posted. And yeah. According to this site, 79 per day. That seems pretty high to me. Again, unitentional.

    It's not an apples/apples comparison, although looking at the numbers it appears that they got their numbers from the CDC as well. It looks like it's just counting fatalities, and not limiting fatalities to accidental death.
     
  16. Bruno@MT

    Bruno@MT Senior Master

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    3,399
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    108
    The same could be argued for the speed limits. But ultimately, there is always going to be less killings, the further the speed limit decreases. That doesn't mean it should be done. No matter what you do, there is always going to be a risk of injury or death. A meteorite can kill you outdoors, but you are not wearing a kevlar helmet for going to the grocery store.

    In this specific case, going from 17 to 10 bullet magazines is unlikely to have any effect at all. I mean, even if a person is going to go on a ashooting rampage with 10 bullet magazines in his handgun, he'll just pack more of them.

    How long does it take to reload a pistol? 5 second? Probably less. Even less than less if the shooter doesn't empty his magazine, and replaced reloads with 1 bullet still in the chamber.
    So the point of the 10 bullet law is... ?
     
  17. Archangel M

    Archangel M Senior Master

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Messages:
    4,555
    Likes Received:
    154
    Trophy Points:
    173
    Exactly. So if we want to eliminate speed related deaths lets just set a nationwide speed limit of 10 MPH. :)
     
  18. Bruno@MT

    Bruno@MT Senior Master

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2009
    Messages:
    3,399
    Likes Received:
    73
    Trophy Points:
    108
    Actually a kid nearby got killed under a car driving through the city center. She was in church but felt sick, or had tooth ache or something like that. So she left church to go to her grandmothers house which was right in front of the church across the street. She darted from between 2 parked cars in a low light area, right underneath a car which was not even doing 20 mph. Noone's fault really. Or at least, none who could do anything about it except the kid, and kids do as kids do. The only way to prevent people from being run over is to make all cars stand still.

    With the gun control debate it is similar (imo). I agree that some limitations are required to keep the country form turning into a wild west where stray bullets and ricochets kill people on a daily basis. Imo (again) full automatic assault rifles like miniguns have no place in a crowded city, because the risk to other people is too big. And if people can legally own them, then bad guys wil also own them and the violence problem is bad enough already that adding miniguns is not going to do much good in a place which suffers from gang warfare. Sure, you could argue that allowing citizens to arm themselves would work as a deterrent, but once the bullets start flying, there will be a massacre of inocent bystanders.

    That is what I call the low hanging fruit of gun control. Reasonable restrictions with measurable impact.

    But things like the 10 bullet magazine limitation will have zero positive impact, even IF bad people would abide by that limitation (which they won't). The only people who would be impacted are the well meaning people who do abide by the law.
     
  19. sgtmac_46

    sgtmac_46 Senior Master

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,751
    Likes Received:
    187
    Trophy Points:
    173
    http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2001/07/levittpoolsvsguns.php


    The reality is that the 'gun' risk in America is overplayed for political reasons, and that vastly more mundane risks are what threaten Americans every day.........yet we fixate on guns because when those deaths do occur, they are sensational.

    But what it reveals about those who fixate on them, is that those people utilize poor risk assessment.........for example, a parents terrified response to learn that the neighbor, who's child their child plays with, has a gun in the house.......despite the fact that their own swimming pool is 100 times more likely to kill their child or the neighbors child than a gun in the home. Poor risk assessment.
     
  20. sgtmac_46

    sgtmac_46 Senior Master

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2004
    Messages:
    4,751
    Likes Received:
    187
    Trophy Points:
    173
    As I said, nearly all but a handful of gun related unintentional injuries are self-inflicted.........that's a self-correcting problem.

    What we see in the US is a media driven perception of gun violence not supported by reality........with more guns in circulation than ever, and more diverse gun ownership than in the history of the country, with a growing number of women beginning to purchase and carry guns for self-defense........the homicide rate has been on a decline for 30 years.

    America does not have a gun problem.123
     

Share This Page