The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 3961 - 3980 of total 5824 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Apr 3, 2013 - 04:49pm PT
I know you like to wear the martyr hat but this isn't just about you.

DMT
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Apr 3, 2013 - 04:50pm PT
It's as dumb as yer other stuff, Anderson, like FEMA death camps and mass graves. Bwahahaha!
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 3, 2013 - 04:57pm PT
They are there. go see the vids on utube.


and heres an update DHS and others have now put in orders for 1.6 BILLION rounds of ammo. And we wonder why we can hardly find any to purchase?

monolith

climber
SF bay area
Apr 3, 2013 - 04:59pm PT
Debunked, idiot. Those are orders for delivery over years and is a max amount.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 3, 2013 - 05:00pm PT
1.6 Billion Rounds Of Ammo For Homeland Security? It's Time For A National Conversation
947 comments, 25 called-out Comment Now
Follow Comments

Armored Personnel Carriers in Baghdad. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

The Denver Post, on February 15th, ran an Associated Press article entitled Homeland Security aims to buy 1.6b rounds of ammo, so far to little notice. It confirmed that the Department of Homeland Security has issued an open purchase order for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. As reported elsewhere, some of this purchase order is for hollow-point rounds, forbidden by international law for use in war, along with a frightening amount specialized for snipers. Also reported elsewhere, at the height of the Iraq War the Army was expending less than 6 million rounds a month. Therefore 1.6 billion rounds would be enough to sustain a hot war for 20+ years. In America.

Add to this perplexing outré purchase of ammo, DHS now is showing off its acquisition of heavily armored personnel carriers, repatriated from the Iraqi and Afghani theaters of operation. As observed by “paramilblogger” Ken Jorgustin last September:

this from Forbes mar 11 , 2013 ^^^
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 3, 2013 - 05:02pm PT
Smog sucker...


ohhw i take that back yur in the "bay" area...Guffaw!
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Apr 3, 2013 - 05:05pm PT
I have outstanding air quality at my location. In fact, I'm going out for my second workout of the day now.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 3, 2013 - 05:09pm PT
Im on my second work out too,, An Addix buck shoulder mount. Ill be worked by its end.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Apr 3, 2013 - 05:17pm PT
The only reloading kit endored by Big Sis.



10. Rainbow Brite Ammo Loader Kit – Another wonder from GlamGuns.com, this kit ($243.95) contains streamers, glitter and confetti that can be added to a gun chamber, shooting out “a trail of sparkling love with every shot.”

Gary

Social climber
Right outside of Delacroix
Apr 3, 2013 - 05:27pm PT
If only he'd been armed and trained in firearm usage, this might have been prevented:
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-west-virginia-sheriff-shot-20130403,0,3476693.story

A West Virginia sheriff was shot and killed Wednesday near the Mingo County courthouse in the town of Williamson, officials said.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 3, 2013 - 05:38pm PT
Gary, LEOs have been targets since LEOs existed. I had a few threats against me during my time. So that isnt shocking or entirely un expected.

but the NEWS LOVES these stories right now so you will hear them frequently,, all major channels.. Hay to the sheep.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 3, 2013 - 06:10pm PT
Dumb and Dumber are out-dumbing themselves today

Hey now, I've never called YOU names.




Clearly the news is in it with the government. The more people that disagree with you, the bigger the conspiracy... and the more guns you need. Genius! Resistance is futile.
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Apr 3, 2013 - 07:08pm PT
Gun owners should be able to shoot their ARs or bushmasters at the range like they do.

A Gun Nut is someone who believes their right to punch holes in paper is superior to a kid's right to attend school without being murdered.

TE
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Apr 3, 2013 - 07:09pm PT
There was never any doubt... just having a little self-deprecating fun.

Glad to see more sane people (TE) speaking up.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 3, 2013 - 07:09pm PT
TE,,Ive known a few from PA,, logic just like yours too...
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 4, 2013 - 05:12am PT
A Gun Nut is someone who believes their right to punch holes in paper is superior to a kid's right to attend school without being murdered.

An anti-gun-nut is someone so statistically clueless that they believe that the odds of being gun-murdered at school are even related to the right to punch holes in paper.

According to the US Census Bureau, there were 55.5 million kids enrolled in school, grades 1-12, in 2012. Of that number, 565 were killed by guns (in any context!) in that year. That translates into basic odds for 1-12-graders of 1 in 98,230 of being killed by a gun (anywhere, in any context) in 2012.

However, those odds are for being killed by a gun at ANY point in the year 2012, yet kids are in school a small fraction of the total hours in a year, certainly less than 1/3 of the time. But the stated odds are not for being gun-killed AT school. The odds are far lower when contemplating ONLY at-school hours. Even non-complex thinking about this yields something like 1 in 294,690 for the odds of a kid being killed by a gun AT school in 2012. More sophisticated analysis would produce even longer odds, all things considered.

So, the anti-gun-nut believes that odds of 1 in almost 300,000 should be sufficient to excite a national brouhaha and denigrate those people that are "punching holes in paper." Let's compare for perspective....

Annual odds of dying by other causes:

All accidents and injuries: 1 in 1656

Intentional self-harm: 1 in 8447

Assault by firearm: 1 in 24974 (entire population)

Walking: 1 in 54538

Fire: 1 in 104524

So, a kid in school is dramatically, hugely, amazingly safer from being murdered by a gun than, say, uhhh... WALKING during a given year. And being killed in a car wreck. And dying in a fire.

In fact, the very kid we're trying to protect is far, far, FAR more likely to kill him/herself (not using a gun).

Indeed, worrying about death in the statistical range of 1 in hundreds of thousands is actually NUTTY!

It's nuttier than planning your retirement on the results of a single horse race. It's nuttier than planning your life income on the basis of getting some friends together to buy a bunch of lotto tickets. At these sorts of odds, it is LITERALLY not worth thinking about, much less devoting the national will to "address" and "solve."

There is no "epidemic of gun violence in our schools." This phrase, "epidemic of gun violence" is a media creation with ZERO basis in statistical fact. 1 out of 300,000 of ANYTHING is not an "epidemic."

If anything, there is an epidemic of kids killing THEMSELVES while not using guns.

If the anti-gun-nut response is the old saw: "NO kid should EVER be murdered while in school," there are (at least) two responses:

1) "Should" in this context is an absolute ideal, and it is not possible in principle to achieve the ideal. Period! You can't even get close, no matter what you do. The most radical police state could not achieve this ideal. So, some kids are gonna get killed by guns while in school. So, this devolves into (2) below, which is about "reduction."

2) This line hearkens back to the "if it can save even one life" BS. But NOBODY really believes that in ANY context. As a nation we constantly employ cost/benefit analysis to decide where to exert effort to save lives. We do not EVER think in absolute terms like "if it can save even one life."

We DO put price tags on lives, as we MUST, because there is not enough money in the world to think in terms of "if it can save even one life."

So, we devote our efforts and money toward statistically-significant risks. And if we were thinking rationally about this, as a nation we would instantly see that death by gun at school is not a statistically-significant danger. Of course there's all this visceral reactionism....

But I said, "thinking rationally."

So, if you want to put your money where the benefits are, you would devoted hundreds of times more money and effort to reduce child/teen suicide. You can't "do it all," so you put your money/efforts where they will be most statistically significant.

Nobody wants ANY particular kid to be gun-murdered. But it's not preventable. And even "reducing" its incidence is not practically possible, because the odds against it are already so LOW! And what reductions might be achieved don't relate to the GUNS. The reductions would be achieved by focusing on other metrics.

Of the gun-murders at school, the vast majority of them are caused by small handguns rather than rifles of any sort (particularly not "assault rifles"). They take place primarily in inner-city schools (such as in Chicago), and they are almost without exception gang-related.

Not one of the laws currently being proposed will have the slightest effect on the incidence of such shootings, as the kids with the guns are getting them from their older, criminal, gang-banger siblings and friends. No assault weapons ban will significant change the incidence of such shootings, so the actual odds will remain effectively unchanged. No "straw purchases" law is going to significantly reduce the "trickle down" of illegal firearms into the hands of these young gang-banger punks.

And none of these statistics considers a host of very statistically-significant metrics, such as: race, age, size of city, size of school, regional economic metrics, or many, many others. Those metrics are the statistically-significant ones, not the existence of guns.

I grew up attending just such low-income, large, inner-city schools. My first year in high school, I saw three black teens beat a white teen to death in a corner of the football field after school. All were wearing gang colors. I saw beatings and heard about a couple of shootings. All were gang-related. ALL! And none of this came my way nor near anybody I knew. Out of a school of thousands, a tiny minority were involved in the violence. NONE of it would have been stopped by any law currently being proposed. The WEAPONS were not the issue. The other, actually statistically-significant metrics were the issues. If you want to reduce gun-violence, you have to go after THOSE metrics, because gun-violence is rooted there, not in the "accessibility" of the guns.

If there's a standard and familiar component to all anti-gun-nut arguments it is a cherry-picked, superficial analysis of the data. Basically it comes down to this song and dance: People die from guns. People should not die from guns. Thus, too many people die from guns. The ONLY way to "reduce" the number of people that die from guns is to make there be fewer guns, or at least to make there be fewer guns in "the wrong hands." So, we must legislate against guns being in the wrong hands.

This thinking is tragically superficial and ignores the real causes of violence (using ANY implements). It also over-emphasizes the positive effect of legislation (when long history in this country teaches us otherwise). Guns are "easy" to use, so they are most widely used. But the causes of gun-violence are not to be found in the guns or even how they are obtained.

And, sadly for the anti-gun-nuts' "ideal world," any effect of their heroic anti-gun efforts will prove to be statistically insignificant, because they simplistically prefer to ignore the much more difficult but REAL causes of gun violence.

You want to "eliminate" straw purchases? Go for it. I'm all for it. It's no threat to my world view at all. It will have no statistical effect.

You want to have universal background checks? No problem. I have no problem with it. It will have no statistical effect.

You want to eliminate "assault rifles?" More power to you. I find that one downright funny. (The "evil grip," lol.) And it will have no statistical effect.

On and on. The odds we're talking about are ridiculously low, and there are many more profound "threats" that can be addressed, providing a far better cost/benefit ratio, IF you are really after saving lives. If fixating on "murder" as a cause of death turns your crank, then, you know, beat your head if it makes you feel any better.

Just don't try to justify your Quixotic Quest as being rational or as owning you the moral high ground. It's not. It's superficial. It's visceral. It's knee-jerk. It's reactionary. Statistically speaking, schools are very safe. You would do better to legislate that there are sprinkler systems in every nook and cranny of the nation, so as to reduce that nasty risk of dying by fire.

After all, NO child should have to worry about being burned up in his/her sleep! And the odds are a lot higher of that than of being gun-murdered at school.
johnboy

Trad climber
Can't get here from there
Apr 4, 2013 - 05:31am PT
That translates into basic odds for 1-12-graders of 1 in 98,230 of being killed by a gun

Assault by firearm: 1 in 24974 (entire population)

...and these are acceptable odds??...by any measure or comparison ??
saghi

Trad climber
Muskogee, OK
Apr 4, 2013 - 08:55am PT
...and these are acceptable odds??...by any measure or comparison ??

No. Please read the entire post before you ask questions.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Apr 4, 2013 - 10:49am PT
MadB,,again,, well put!
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Apr 4, 2013 - 10:54am PT
Even the ACLU doesn't like Dingy Harry's bill.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/04/exclusive-aclu-says-reids-gun-legislation-could-threaten-privacy-rights-civil-liberties/
Messages 3961 - 3980 of total 5824 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews