The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 5741 - 5760 of total 5824 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Sep 3, 2014 - 11:13am PT
Well TE,, seeing as how i actually converse with the reps for those companys, and work in the industry, i will believe what they are telling us.. You on the other hand shall guess from all the way across the country.. Funny that. I suppose you dont know everything isnt on google ...
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Sep 3, 2014 - 11:15am PT
Found this on Goog &#40;rhymes with Spooge&#41;
Found this on Goog (rhymes with Spooge)
Credit: Not mine
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Sep 3, 2014 - 11:18am PT
And since Ron doesn't believe anything Fox News hasn't told him:

http://www.ruger.com/retailer/find.php

I only know one CA zipcode, so:
Boycott? I don't think so.
Boycott? I don't think so.
Credit: TradEddie

TE
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Sep 3, 2014 - 11:25am PT
http://www.ruger.com/search/group/?cat=ca

Credit: TradEddie

Pesky facts, or don't you trust Ruger.com as a reliable source?

TE
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Sep 3, 2014 - 11:27am PT
Sigh,,, yes please do go visit those retailers and see what they have to sell. Then ask those retailers how long the supply will last.. Then get back to me.
apogee

climber
Technically expert, safe belayer, can lead if easy
Sep 3, 2014 - 11:31am PT
pwned again!
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Sep 3, 2014 - 12:00pm PT
op Gun Makers To Stop Selling Handguns In California Due To ...
sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2014/01/23/top-gun-makers-to... Cached
Jan 23, 2014 ∑ Smith & Wesson said Wednesday it will stop selling handguns in California rather comply with a ... Top Gun Makers To Stop Selling Handguns In California ...
GUN MANUFACTURERS TO STOP SELLING GUNS IN CALIFORNIA |
http://www.americasfreedomfighters.com/2014/01/23/gun... Cached
Emily Miller Smith & Wesson announced it will stop selling its handguns in California rather than manufacture them to comply with the new
Have Any More Gun Makers Stopped Selling To Anti-Gun States ...
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/20/have-any-more-gun Cached
Last Friday TheBlaze reported on a growing list of gun manufacturers and ... at least 18 companies have made the decision to stop selling to ... California youíre ...
Gun makers stop selling guns in California thanks to the new ...
lightfromtheright.com/2014/01/27/gun-makers-stop-selling... Cached
Gun makers stop selling guns in California thanks to the new microstamping law Monday, 27 January 2014 06:30 Bob Adelmann 0 Comments
Gun makerís threat to stop selling in California is not so ...
http://www.dailynews.com/opinion/20140128/gun-makers-threat-to... Cached
Smith & Wesson, one of the countryís biggest and most influential gun makers, said last week it will stop selling some semi-automatic pistols in the Golden State to ...
Gun flight: Smith & Wesson, Ruger quit California over ...
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/01/26/smith-wesson-to-stop... Cached
Jan 26, 2014 ∑ The two companies have announced they will stop selling their wares in the ... of the book "California Gun ... and Ammunition Manufacturers ...
Microstamping causes two major gun manufacturers to stop ...
newsninja2012.com/microstamping-causes-two-mgr-gun-man... Cached
This announcement was in response to Californiaís new gun law which requires that all ... Microstamping causes two major gun manufacturers to stop selling ...
Microstamping law forces gun manufacturers to stop selling ...
http://www.insidecounsel.com/2014/01/28/microstamping-law... Cached
Jan 28, 2014 ∑ Two gun manufacturers say they've stopped selling updated versions of semiautomatic handguns in California because they can't comply with the law This new ...
Gun makers stop selling guns in California thanks to the new ...
beforeitsnews.com õ Tea Party
Jan 27, 2014 ∑ (Before It's News) Following Sturm, Rugerís announcement last month that it would no longer be selling its semi-automatic handguns to California ...
Gaining Momentum: Now 44 Gun Companies Have Stopped Selling ...
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/23/gaining-momentum-now... Cached
... Now 44 Gun Companies Have Stopped Selling to Law ... This is an expansion of our 2002 ban against the California ... While we canít stop the ...







wanna play some more google do ya? Ps, im a rep for Ruger and S&W as well as Kahr, and SigSauer..
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Sep 3, 2014 - 02:25pm PT
Not one of those companies has announced that they have voluntarily stopped shipping legal guns to California, they have said that "they will".
Joe Biden said today that the US will hunt down and bring ISIS to justice, that doesn't make it happen.

The only guns they have stopped selling are those they are no longer permitted to sell. That's not a boycott, they made a business decision not to make new guns that comply with the law, but they continue to sell guns that are exempt from that law.

Find any reputable link that shows Ruger or S&W have voluntarily stopped shipping guns that they are legally allowed to sell in California, and I'll buy you a beer next time I'm in your neck of the woods.

TE
crankster

Trad climber
Sep 3, 2014 - 02:28pm PT
Credit: crankster
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Sep 3, 2014 - 03:56pm PT
Has everyone already forgotten Newtown?

No, but let's get clear about what has really happened in these mass shootings since about 1950 and honestly assess if ANY of the proposed gun-control laws would have had any effect.

Per a well-researched article by Michael Martin in the latest issue of Concealed Carry....

Magazine Capacity

For a moderately (not even well) trained shooter, here are the effective rounds per minute possible with various magazines, holding the semi-auto weapon type constant throughout testing:

Magazine Capacity | Reloads Per Minute | Rounds Per Minute
--------------------------------------------------

5 rounds 11 55
10 rounds 7.5 75
30 rounds 3.3 100

Now, look at the big-name mass shootings:


Shooter | Dead | Rounds Fired | Time | Round Per Minute
------------------------------------------------------------------

Seung-Hui Cho 30 174 11 min 15
Adam Lanza 26 154 9 min 17
Eric Harris... 13 188 47 min 4
Jeff Weise 7 45 9 min 5
James Holmes 12 70 9 min 8
Nidal Malik Hasan 13 214 10 min 21

James Holmes even used large-cap, 100-round magazines, and his rate of fire was not higher to reflect his essentially unlimited capacity to just keep firing!

"Having these baseline numbers, the 'it's the magazine' crowd would have a strong argument if it could be demonstrated that mass shooters who used 30-round magazines had achieved a rate of fire of 100 rounds per minute or more, but unfortunately for them, the facts don't support their argument."

Of course, it might be argued instead that the rate of fire in these incidents was not purely a function of rounds/time, because the shooters were doing much more than merely firing, swapping mags, and firing more. They walked around. They stalked their prey. And so on.

However, it is extremely telling what magazine evidence was actually recovered from the sites of these shootings.

Adam Lanza, for example, entered Sandy Hook with 10 30-round magazines! Three of them were entirely unused, and four others were left with 10, 11, 13, and 14 rounds remaining. This means that he was dropping most magazines long before they were even close to used up. The mag-capacity was not relevant either to his rate of fire nor to his decisions to fire or drop mags and reload. This same effect has been repeatedly observed. Mass shooters are not thinking about nor employing their magazine capacity once the shooting starts.

In fact, the rate of fire that is typical in these shootings is FAR below what can trivially be achieved (and usually was) during the Civil War with the Henry Rifle, a lever-action, low-capacity weapon 150 years old!

Magazine capacity was literally and demonstrably irrelevant in all of the above six mass shootings.

Time Is The Killer!

"The large number of victims killed during school shootings is not occurring because of magazine capacity or a high rate of fire, it is occurring because these shooters have each had 5 to 9 minutes or more of uninterrupted time to commit their murders before police are able to commit to an interior response."

"In the 'gun-free zones' of our nation's schools, these shooters don't just believe, they know that a counter-attack will only come from the outside, and they'll get a loud and dramatic warning of the upcoming counter-attack as they hear sirens approaching from all directions. Those sirens tell them that they have at least another four minutes or more to kill any remaining victims before police will enter the building."

From the time the shooting starts, until the time police are called, until the time police gather outside, until police formulate an entry plan, and until the time police actually execute the entry plan, these mass shooters have many minutes in which to execute their victims. It is these many minutes, rather than magazine capacity, that is the problem and that radically increases the death toll!

Gun-Free Zones

"With just one single exception (the attack on congresswoman Gabby Giffords in Tucson in 2011) every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns."

"James Holmes... had at least seven movie-theaters to choose from, all within a 20 minute drive of his home and all that were showing The Dark Knight Rises. The Century Theater that Holmes settled on wasn't the closest, but it happened to be the only theater that posted 'NO GUNS' signs, while the other six theaters had no such declaration. Those 'NO GUNS' signs let Holmes know that he'd get the 5 to 9 minutes he needed."

There is not a single incident in United States history in which a gunman has fought his way past security or any effective resistance in order to gain access to victims. In every case, these mass shooters choose soft targets in gun-free zones. Malls, schools, and "NO GUNS" theaters. EVERY case has been in soft-target, gun free zones where the shooters KNOW that they will have uninterrupted access to victims for MANY minutes before an effective OUTSIDE force can be mustered to stop them.

"Signs, school policies, state statutes, glass doors, unlocked doors, and unarmed staff do not create hardened targets. What they create instead is the perfect environment for these deranged individuals to successfully carry out their plans. If we change the environment, we stand a chance of changing their plans."

So, if you really want to "remember Newtown," then LEARN what is there to be learned, and stop aiming at entirely the wrong target.

Edit: Sorry, but the taco's AI strips spaces, etc., and screws up the tabular columns.
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 3, 2014 - 04:17pm PT
im a rep for ...... as Kahr, and SigSauer.


Got one of each while you're bullshetting Ron...



TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Sep 3, 2014 - 05:23pm PT
Jonnyrig, I can see and understand what's going on in California, and don't have an opinion one way or another on the new law, or Ruger's response. However, Ron claims that Ruger has stopped shipping ALL guns to CA as a result of the new law, which is clearly not true. As I've said before, we're entitled to our own opinions, but not our own facts.

TE
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Sep 3, 2014 - 06:05pm PT
Madbolter, in your research, did you ever come across the following minor historical figures: Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, John F Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt, or Ronald Reagan?

All were being protected by the best trained and best armed force possible. All were shot, most were killed.

As for the High Capacity /Assault rifle issue, I agree that it's a red herring and far from the most serious issue in this debate, but it doesn't make it a minor issue. Your wonderful report carefully parses its words to exclude the most common type of mass shootings, those of family members, by a family member. There are many hundreds of those every year, don't they count unless they suit your hypothesis?

TE
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Sep 3, 2014 - 06:37pm PT
Madbolter, in your research, did you ever come across the following minor historical figures: Lincoln, Garfield, McKinley, John F Kennedy, Teddy Roosevelt, or Ronald Reagan?

This is the problem with "debating" the issue. Every time an "anti-gunner" offers an anti-gun argument and proposes legislation to "solve" the perceived "problem," the "gun nuts" show that the argument isn't persuasive, much less compelling. Then the "anti-gunner" just moves the target.

The picture above, to which I was responding, asked the question: "Does anyone remember Newtown?" The argument underlying that question, which has been touted countless times, is that magazine sizes, etc. are the issues that we should "remember" as we pass legislation to "keep incidents like Newtown from happening again."

The problem is that the legislation arguments to "prevent more Newtowns" cannot have the desired effect. That is demonstrated, as I and others have done.

But, then, people like you just change up the argument!

It's like arguing with Jehovah's Witnesses. It's always a moving target.

There can be no "debate" in such a context.

All were being protected by the best trained and best armed force possible. All were shot, most were killed.

Irrelevant, unless you are (as you CLAIM you are not) trying to eliminate all gun ownership.

A TINY proportion of gun owners will misuse the tool. Just as a TINY proportion of car owners, cell phone owners, knife owners, etc. will misuse their tools.

The POINT is that the MASS murders that prompts cartoons like the "remember Newtown" one above are ALL committed against soft targets in gun-free zones. "Gun free zones" are only gun free until the nut job shows up! Your response is irrelevant to THAT point.

As for the High Capacity /Assault rifle issue, I agree that it's a red herring and far from the most serious issue in this debate, but it doesn't make it a minor issue.

It's an irrelevant issue. It doesn't even get so far as to qualify as "minor." Magazine sizes have no, nada, ZERO effect on the efficacy of victimization once a nut job decides to rampage. We have tons of statistical evidence to demonstrate that fact.

As argued above, TIME and "gun-free" combine to make these soft-target zones appealing to nut jobs. Weapon type and magazine size are literally irrelevant in the statistics of death that follow.

Your own examples show that weapon type and magazine type are irrelevant even in those sorts of cases.

Your wonderful report carefully parses its words to exclude the most common type of mass shootings,

Sorry, but now YOU are the one "parsing" the verbiage to twist the clear meanings. The sorts of shootings you are referring to are NOT "mass shootings." They are individual-on-individual shootings... nothing MASS about them.

There are many hundreds of those every year, don't they count unless they suit your hypothesis?

You seem VERY confused about what my "hypothesis" actually is, despite the fact that it is very clearly and cogently argued.

MY hypothesis is that proposed gun control laws DO not and WILL not keep more Newtowns from happening. Period. Don't change up my focused argument.

If you want to CHANGE the subject and switch up the "hypothesis," then at least be clear about what you are doing. Otherwise, you are simply arguing past me.

If you want to talk about the "epidemic of gun violence," then you seem to be arguing numbers. There is some point in your mind beyond which it is "too much."

Then we're back to the "reduce" argument that we've argued all before. And I will sum up the same way: In a nation of 1/3 of a billion people from all over the planet, THE mixed salad of nations, and a nation that enjoys unprecedented individual freedoms, there literally IS NO "epidemic of gun violence." And as a nation, with limited resources to engage in various "wars on..." this or that perceived "problem," we MUST allocate our resources where they will have the most effect relative to the magnitude of the "problem" we are trying to prevent. And we should employ the data that we do have to determine what sorts of responses will actually be efficacious.

You don't prevent more Newtowns, which are employed (as in the cartoon above) to motivate all sorts of legislative efforts that can and will have demonstrably ZERO effect on the very sorts of incidents that are employed to justify the legislation. THAT is my point, and don't try to change it up into something else.

YOU (and some others) somehow (and I honestly don't know why) are fixated on this "gun violence problem," which is in fact literally a drop in the bucket compared to other FAR more pressing problems (including ones that cause truly MASSIVE amounts of suffering and unnecessary death). So, if you are playing a numbers game, then the numbers are not persuasive, much less compelling.

There is something about the fact that it's "intentional murder" that has your panties in a bunch. But, again, we can't go after everything that causes needless trauma and death. So, rather than to fixate on what is statistically-speaking a non-issue, it is far better to devote our resources where they can actually solve a statistically-significant problem.

People with guns kill other people. People with knives kill other people. People texting while driving kill other people. Drunk drivers kill other people. People that smoke around their kids kill them. People that make their kids morbidly obese before they are teenagers kill them. It goes on and on.

It is all KILLING... not just passive "dying." YOU want to impose certain rules on everybody to solve a statistically-insignificant "problem," but MANY others simply do not agree that there IS this "problem of gun violence" at current rates, certainly not to the level demanding federal legislation. If you want to legislate away as much needless KILLING as possible, then you are fixated on entirely the wrong issue.
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Sep 3, 2014 - 08:05pm PT
Your claim is supported by the following:

with just one single exception (the attack on congresswoman Gabby Giffords in Tucson in 2011) every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

Firstly, it conveniently omits the most common type of mass murders.
Secondly, it omits mass murders in inconvenient places like military bases and police stations.
Lastly, it's simply not true, unless the spin on the word "public" is to exclude the very example of Sandy Hook Elementary.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/09/16/us/20-deadliest-mass-shootings-in-u-s-history-fast-facts/

I've even excluded the examples that occurred in schools, universities, peoples home or places of work (where weapons may have been permitted).

23 killed - October 16, 1991 - In Killeen, Texas, 35-year-old George Hennard crashes his pickup truck through the wall of a Lubys Cafeteria. After exiting the truck, Hennard shoots and kills 23 people.

21 killed - July 18, 1984 - In San Ysidro, California, 41-year-old James Huberty, armed with a long-barreled Uzi, a pump-action shotgun and a handgun shoots and kills 21 adults and children at a local McDonalds.

13 killed - September 5, 1949 - In Camden, New Jersey, 28-year-old Howard Unruh, a veteran of World War II, shoots and kills 13 people as he walks down Camden's 32nd Street. His weapon of choice is a German-crafted Luger pistol.

8 killed - December 5, 2007 - In Omaha, Nebraska, 19-year-old Robert Hawkins goes to an area mall and kills eight shoppers before killing himself.

Facts - you don't get to make them up.

MY hypothesis is that proposed gun control laws DO not and WILL not keep more Newtowns from happening.

Proposed gun control laws cannot possibly stop more Newtons until they become law, so I will accept the first point, proposed laws DO NOT stop anything.

If your second point is that proposed laws have to stop ALL mass murders from ever happening, then I will accept that point too, but no law of any type has ever been required to meet that standard.

If your hypothesis is that enactment of proposed laws will not prevent some future mass shooting from happening, it's absurd. Universal Background checks will prevent some madman from buying a gun, it won't prevent them all.

TE
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Sep 3, 2014 - 08:16pm PT
Good going Chief,, id grab any handgun you want soon. Those nice lil semi autos are going the way of the do-do bird in Cal.


And heres a funny thing, the Kahr is made is Massa-two-shyts. Home of liberal looneys gone mad...
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Sep 3, 2014 - 08:23pm PT
madbolter posted
No, but let's get clear about what has really happened in these mass shootings since about 1950 and honestly assess if ANY of the proposed gun-control laws would have had any effect.

The "proposed gun laws" are proposed because that's what people think can get passed by congress. Then they get watered down to sh#t and made fun of for being ineffective by the same people who watered them down. They are the Bradley Fighting Vehicle of regulations.
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Sep 3, 2014 - 08:35pm PT
"The "proposed gun laws" are proposed because that's what people think can get passed by congress."



And you wonder why they aren't so popular.
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 3, 2014 - 08:49pm PT
Yuuuuuuuuuup RON!



And my .45 Sig P220R is imported/distributed by Sig Sauer USA which is located right next door in another of the nations top ten Liberal states, New Hampshire.


HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!
TradEddie

Trad climber
Philadelphia, PA
Sep 4, 2014 - 05:42am PT
There is something about the fact that it's "intentional murder" that has your panties in a bunch. But, again, we can't go after everything that causes needless trauma and death. So, rather than to fixate on what is statistically-speaking a non-issue, it is far better to devote our resources where they can actually solve a statistically-significant problem.

Since I'm bored again today, can you name any of those other issues where death or injury could be reduced by legislation, or one where you'd be happy to pay the corresponding tax increase to pay for the remediation of the problem? We can't regulate disease out of existence, so let's limit the challenge to mechanisms of death or injury for people under 40, which kill 1000 and injure 10,000 people each year, yet are less regulated than guns in their design, sale, use or disposal and where the manufacturers are immune from product liability lawsuits?

TE
Messages 5741 - 5760 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