StarDestroyer.Net BBS

aerius wrote:I don't think making guns more difficult to legally get would have any affect at all unless the black market is wiped out.

The black market is facilitated by the size of the legitimate market. When the traffic stream is so large, it is easy to reach into the river and grab a few trout without anyone noticing.

I very much doubt any of the people involved in the various gang related shootings in Toronto over the past few years used legally purchased handguns and bullets.

Of course not. I wasn't talking about them; a determined criminal will accomplish his goals regardless. I was talking about the sort of random violence and "crimes of passion" we see a lot of in the States. Didn't you ever wonder why a typical large American city will have 10 times more murders per year than a place like Toronto? If you live near such a city, you'll find out; there are an INCREDIBLE number of "heat of the moment" violent acts.

There's a saying that goes with this, "when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns", that's not a world I want to live in.

Thank you for demonstrating my earlier statement that it is impossible to have a middle-ground position on gun control, as people will invariably try to twist any argument for regulation into a "ban all guns" strawman.

MKSheppard wrote:Here in Maryland we are prevented by the anti-gun nut liberals from protecting ourselves. No concealed carry, no open carry, and no firearms allowed in your car (unless unloaded, in a locked box, and locked in the trunk). We are all sitting ducks if a sniper or nut decides to start assasinating random people.

Actually Mark on that note you are technically incorrect. If you present in documented proof, along with an applicaton fee, evidence that your job (such as plain clothes security officer) or other reasons makes carrying a weapon you can be granted a permit to either open carry, or in some cass, concealed carry. The conditions for recieving such a permit are not that easy to meet but they exist.

CmdrWilkens wrote: Actually Mark on that note you are technically incorrect. If you present in documented proof, along with an applicaton fee, evidence that your job (such as plain clothes security officer) or other reasons makes carrying a weapon you can be granted a permit to either open carry, or in some cass, concealed carry. The conditions for recieving such a permit are not that easy to meet but they exist.

Actually in order to get that permit in MD, you have to be politically connected,
and/or handle LOTS of money to get a CCW permit. It's the same as having
NO permits at all......

Maryland is what we call a "can issue state"

It's on the books, but they never ever issue them, only to
well-connected people, as issuance of the permits is controlled
by the state police, and the state police is the lapdoog of
whichever governor is in office.

Virginia OTOH, is a "MUST issue state"

If you meet the minimum standards, they MUST give you a permit.

(stick a gun in the hand of an enraged idiot, and you've got a problem).

Did you ever think how this might affect our society? Let's assume that in a decade from now the government decided to relax its gun control laws. Now the majority of people have concealed weapons. Wouldn't this cause more fear in people and wouldn't it cause us to be more passive? For instance, if you were used to driving around like a goddamned maniac on the streets with the worst happening to you is getting pulled over by a police officer or getting honked at, wouldn't you keep doing it? Now, let's say you are used to driving around like a goddamned maniac and when you tailgate someone, swerve over into the left lane, cutting someone else off, floor it, cut off the car you're passing into the right lane, and then get SHOT AT, wouldn't you "adjust" your driving habits? And other goddamned maniacs on the road would hear of these reports on the news and would also "adjust" their driving habits so they wouldn't get shot at. In the long run, this saves lives. People on the streets wouldn't try robbing people if everyone had guns. They shoot some woman in an alley, some people with their own guns hear the shots, pull out their weapons, and then gun him down as he comes out of the alley with the money. Someone shoots at someone out on the street. Everyone around him gun him down like a dog. Someone with a silenced weapon picks off someone else. Everyone around takes cover instantaneously and take out their weapons. Because they were trained to locate the source of incoming rounds, they know where the shooter is. The scenarios are endless, but I think you get the point. As long as people are educated in the use of firearms and learn the proper way of handling situations that don't involve firearms, this should be fine. It works in the southern states, even without the training I mentioned, so why shouldn't it work anywhere else?

IRG CommandoJoe wrote:Wouldn't this cause more fear in people and wouldn't it cause us to be more passive? For instance, if you were used to driving around like a goddamned maniac on the streets with the worst happening to you is getting pulled over by a police officer or getting honked at, wouldn't you keep doing it? Now, let's say you are used to driving around like a goddamned maniac and when you tailgate someone, swerve over into the left lane, cutting someone else off, floor it, cut off the car you're passing into the right lane, and then get SHOT AT, wouldn't you "adjust" your driving habits?

Clearly you think differently but I'd rather not live in a society based on mutually shared terror. If you like that kind of environment, feel free to move to Somalia. (Or Texas--same difference)

In Texas, people walk around all over the place with guns and no one uses them. Sort of like Mos Eisley, or what they based it off of, the old West. The only people that would fear others are the ones that strike first. People can walk around with guns and do their day-to-day activities. Except whenever some criminal scumbag starts shooting they can shoot back.

Enlightenment wrote:feel free to move to Somalia. (Or Texas--same difference)

Uhm, then why don't we hear about Techinicals prowling the roads of Texas,
dispensing their own brand of Justice, and how mass famine stalks the state,
and how it is one never-ending civil war in Texas between a bunch of dope
addicts?

Maybe because you're an idiot who brought into the entire
"Wild West" Argument against Concealed carry.

See I compared the "wild" West and Mos Eisley to real life because you never see them use their weapons on the streets. That is how "wild" it really was back then. Hardly anyone ever used their guns. They carried them around just in case--the way people should be able to today.

Enlightenment wrote:

MKSheppard wrote:
SHOTS FIRED AT THE UN BUILDING IN NYC!

Some details, including a photo of the gunman, at:

http://www.cnn.com/2002/US/Northeast/10 ... index.html

The gunman appears to be ethnic asian (Chinese?) rather than one of al Qaida's native population (Saudis).

Whats even more amusing is that he's a postal worker...

He was hired by Newman because Newman's too lazy to do it.

MKSheppard wrote:
SHOTS FIRED AT THE UN BUILDING IN NYC!

Hmm, incredibly ironic considering that that could be stopped by a law abiding armed citizen witnessing this and the fact that the UN is staunchly anti gun in all forms and fashions.

MKSheppard wrote: From a gun board......

Which board is that? ar15.com has a good one.

IRG CommandoJoe wrote: Did you ever think how this might affect our society? Let's assume that in a decade from now the government decided to relax its gun control laws. Now the majority of people have concealed weapons. Wouldn't this cause more fear in people and wouldn't it cause us to be more passive? For instance, if you were used to driving around like a goddamned maniac on the streets with the worst happening to you is getting pulled over by a police officer or getting honked at, wouldn't you keep doing it? Now, let's say you are used to driving around like a goddamned maniac and when you tailgate someone, swerve over into the left lane, cutting someone else off, floor it, cut off the car you're passing into the right lane, and then get SHOT AT, wouldn't you "adjust" your driving habits? And other goddamned maniacs on the road would hear of these reports on the news and would also "adjust" their driving habits so they wouldn't get shot at. In the long run, this saves lives.

And what if you were driving well and doing all the right things, but some arsehole who can't drive and thinks he owns the road thinks that you cut him off, so in his road rage decides to take pot shots at you even if it was his fault in the first place in not paying attention when driving? Or what if you're a cautious driver who stays on or just under the speed limit, but some impatient arsehole decides that you are deliberately doing it to spite him, and shoots at you using your logic above as justification?

oh, and one thing. It has been proven in places like Australia and Great Britain, that gun control doesnt keep guns out of the hands of criminals, as it has only increased the rates of guns used in crimes because the criminals know that the populus is unarmed. I mean, do you really think that a psychopatic murderer is going to be worried that he might be breaking a law by carrying a gun? I dont think so. Now, if you were a half sane criminal, would you think twice about going out and committing your crimes if you knew that there was a good chance you would be faced by other armed citizens?

MKSheppard wrote: Uhm, then why don't we hear about Techinicals prowling the roads of Texas,
dispensing their own brand of Justice, and how mass famine stalks the state,
and how it is one never-ending civil war in Texas between a bunch of dope
addicts?

Ah, yes, the South. Where family trees have no branches and humor is an unknown art...

The VICTIM might not have had a chance, but a WITNESS might have been able to stop the THUG/THUGS.

A WITNESS also has a pretty good chance of hitting another innocent bystander or witness.

As for taking damaging and still managing to get shots off, one IJN pilot took two 12.7mm machine gun bullets in the HEAD and managed to fly his damaged Zero over 500 miles back to base. He was also basically blind from blood running into his eyes. He recovered and fought again.

Pople have been hit with everything from 9mm to 14.5 AP, a round with twice the power of an M2 12.7 and still managed to use there weapon. One Marine in 1968 got hit five times with 12.7mm from a captured waud fifty, and still managed to take it out with his M79.

So ? This does not change the reality that when you are shot in the head, you most likely will go down and stay down.

TrailerParkJawa wrote:

The VICTIM might not have had a chance, but a WITNESS might have been able to stop the THUG/THUGS.

A WITNESS also has a pretty good chance of hitting another innocent bystander or witness.

As for taking damaging and still managing to get shots off, one IJN pilot took two 12.7mm machine gun bullets in the HEAD and managed to fly his damaged Zero over 500 miles back to base. He was also basically blind from blood running into his eyes. He recovered and fought again.

Pople have been hit with everything from 9mm to 14.5 AP, a round with twice the power of an M2 12.7 and still managed to use there weapon. One Marine in 1968 got hit five times with 12.7mm from a captured waud fifty, and still managed to take it out with his M79.

So ? This does not change the reality that when you are shot in the head, you most likely will go down and stay down.

What the WITNESS hits or does not hit is a produce of there skill and th situation. However in most senarios the shoot is far more likely to be hit then a fourth party. This is because people tend not to cluster around people who suddenly start shooting.

Whats YOUR point about headshots? There quite hard to get without alot of training or pointblank range, and make up a tiny minority of gunship wounds. If you are hit by a bullet in the United States you stand a quite high chance of living. You also stand a high chance of not being incapacitated.

My point about the headshots relates to the shootings on the East Coast. The impression I got from the news was these folks got shot in the head.

I brought it up because several folks made comments about getting up and fighting back after being wounded. I wanted to make it clear that people shot in the head wont do this.

TrailerParkJawa wrote:My point about the headshots relates to the shootings on the East Coast. The impression I got from the news was these folks got shot in the head.

I brought it up because several folks made comments about getting up and fighting back after being wounded. I wanted to make it clear that people shot in the head wont do this.

That depends, many .22 cheep rounds will skip off a human skull even with solid hits. Guns firing such rounds areo ften used for planned shoots due ot the low cost.

The human jaw can stop 9mm IIRC, one plice officer got hit in the lower jaw and managed to drop his attacker, though the range was about 5 feet. .45 should plow through though.

But yes, headshots normaly put you down for the count.

As for these recent shootings several got hit in the head, several in the upper chest. Whoever did this had time to aim and a rifle with a well-calibrated sight, likely a scope.

Your average shooting has nowhere near this level of marksmanship, quite a lot of "gunshot wounds" in drive bys and the like are actually spall from bullets being defeated by car bodies, or shattering on impact with curbs or the pavement and spraying fragments around.

That depends, many .22 cheep rounds will skip off a human skull even with solid hits. Guns firing such rounds areo ften used for planned shoots due ot the low cost.

The human jaw can stop 9mm IIRC, one plice officer got hit in the lower jaw and managed to drop his attacker, though the range was about 5 feet. .45 should plow through though.

But yes, headshots normaly put you down for the count.

As for these recent shootings several got hit in the head, several in the upper chest. Whoever did this had time to aim and a rifle with a well-calibrated sight, likely a scope.

Your average shooting has nowhere near this level of marksmanship, quite a lot of "gunshot wounds" in drive bys and the like are actually spall from bullets being defeated by car bodies, or shattering on impact with curbs or the pavement and spraying fragments around.

Im not about to volunteer to find out if a 22 will bounce of my head or not.
even if it does, you are gonna have a hell of a headache.
Actually recently we had police shooting a few miles north of me. A cop got hit with I belive a 9mm and it grazed him and followed the path of his skull.

One luck muther you know what.

Clearly you think differently but I'd rather not live in a society based on mutually shared terror. If you like that kind of environment, feel free to move to Somalia. (Or Texas--same difference)

Funny, that is exactly the society everyone in both the U.S. and the Soviet Union lived in for the duration of the Cold War, fearing that one person would be insane or angry enough to press the button.
Besides, your odds of dying this year are still measurably higher to happen by auto accident anyway, even if you live in MD like some of us. I am concerned by the lack of effective police response reported though, if this was someone taking signifigant terrorist action we'd be in a lot more trouble if we can't do better than this to stop them.

consequences wrote: Funny, that is exactly the society everyone in both the U.S. and the Soviet Union lived in for the duration of the Cold War, fearing that one person would be insane or angry enough to press the button.

The cold war was bad enough (even from a historical perspective--I wasn't alive during the really hairy parts) that it is extremely hard to understand why anyone of sane mind and body would, if given the option, want to live through similar conditions. The cold war is gone, good riddence; there is no benefit to bringing it back on a personal level.