To restore discussion to the OP itself, is it simply the case that, to you, UncleBeer, the words “utter tripe”, “stupidity and ignorance”, "myth and intolerance, “disingenous and deceitful”, “hysterical”, and “contemptible asshole” are simply synonymous with “in some disagreement with my particular worldview”?
Surely you’re aware by now that the topic is certainly subject to thoughtful debate. Note that you did not attempt to address the points raised in the linked thread, but went right here first. One would surely hope you know that resorting to invective, especially right up front, does not advance the cause of “fighting ignorance”, but does give a strong impression as to where it really lies. Remember, when you point a finger at someone, you point 4 more right back at yourself.
You’re an idiot, Elvis. The offensive rhetoric was already there in GD - prior to this thread. Else this wouldn’t exist. I take no offense, nor offer any, simply because a person doesn’t agree with my worldview. I only offered offense in return. If you’d read for comprehension, you’d see that my gripe is the derogatory labels applied to gun rights proponents, and the accusations that we’re somehow less human than the gun control activists.
Yeah, I’m aware the topic can be thoughtfully debated. That’s kinda what I’m bitching about; lissener’s apparent inability to do so. And gripes about members go in the fucking pit for Christ’s sake. Are you being deliberately obtuse? Or can you just not help it? When did you stop beating your wife?
Ow. That stings.
Now who’s dodging the argument? Despite my initial reluctance to argue this with you here, I’ve done it anyway. I’ve raised several points, even asking direct questions of you, and you’re dodging them. Exactly what you accused me of doing at the outset. Except that at least I explained the reason I refused to answer your “critique” of my argument. You won’t even do that. It’s no wonder that I often accuse you of bad faith; you illustrate it again here.
So, the mere implementation of a ban automatically means it works? I’m not sure I follow your conclusion. I repeat, if a ban may be said to be working, proscibed items simply will not be available to be found. If they’re availble, the ban is not, by definition, working.
So yes. If a proscription on murder could be said to be working, there’d be no murders to prosecute. The penalties for doing so and the likelihood of being apprehended, would be perceived to be so high, the act wouldn’t be committed. Because this obviously isn’t the case, the proscription on murder, equally obviously, doesn’t work. However, no one’s said anything about tossing it out because it doesn’t work, though. Although it’s not 100% effective, it’s a valuable law. I’m not sure you analogy is apt in any way. It’s a long jump from outlawing possession of a previously legal material good to the murder of another human being.
I know you’ve said you’re gonna attempt to find a cite, but I really doubt this is true. How much gun crime was there before? Hell, there are hundreds of little towns that have no gun crime. And I seriously doubt that most of them have banned guns. Even if they did, you’d have to prove causality.
There obviously was enough gun crime to prompt the ban. I believe the measure was originally approved in order to combat increased gang activity in that area. Word has gotten around, not only did they remove the threat of gun crimes but other forms of violence also declined.
Now that I think about this, I was wrong in my original statement. I don’t remember the particulars but jail time isn’t always mandatory; I’d think the occasional visitior who is unaware of the ban wouldn’t be imprisoned. They would still have to pay a hefty fine and surrender their gun though, repeat visitors packing heat would undoubtedly be risking prison.
Since seem not to know much about firearms, I’ll give you an example of why this is not the case. A single shot or pump-action 10 or 12-gauge shotgun is a very simple gun, as it need involve no complex magazine feed mechanism, has no rifling, no gas ports, no need for locking lugs or fancy bolt extraction. However, a 10 or 12-gauge shotgun loaded with anything over #4 shot is likely one of the worst things to be hit with from close range. Sawed off, they can be concealed under a medium-length coat. “Complicated” therefore does not uniformly mean “less likely to kill”.
I assume you left out the word “you” in your first clause – otherwise, I don’t know what it meant.
In any case, while I’m not familiar with these specifics, what you say neither surprises me nor contradicts my general point. Yes, a sawed-off shotgun is a simple weapon; my understanding is that
they’re not very safe,
they endanger people nearby,
they’re totally inaccurate at any range beyond basically point-blank, and
if you miss with your first shot, you’re not so likely to get the time to take a second shot.
Features #1 and #2 are going to discourage most people who want to commit a violent crime; features #3 and #4 make the weapon less deadly than (for example) an automatic rifle, which is accurate at long distances and with which you can take a second shot easily.
I can tell you somthing that’s worse to get hit with at close range than a simple shotgun: a chainsaw. That doesn’t make a chainsaw a deadlier weapon than a shotgun.
Sorry, Jeff. I can’t speak to your argument without seeing some facts. In the absence of a cite, or even the name of the town with which I could do a search, I don’t have anything to grab onto. I’ve spent some time googling and can’t find a single page that mentions anything about any city in Virginia that has banned guns. The closest I can come is something about a gun ban in Virginia parks enacted in 1974. If there is a city with a gun ban, it had to be enacted prior to January 1st, 1987. On that date, the state legislature passed a law, prohibiting all municipalities in Virginia from enacting legislation prohibiting firearms. Existing laws were grandfathered in, but new legislation was proscribed.
I’ll do my best, UB. Reader’s Digest printed (reprinted?) an article on that town and its ban some years ago; I should still have that issue somewhere.
I must admit that it’s possible that the ban has been voted out of existence since that article.
Ah, but you have missed my point - a non-sawed off shotgun is just as simple a weapon. It just has a shorter barrel. The overall operation of the weapon is not impacted by the fact that the barrel is sawed off. So as to the original argument over simplicity and deadliness, my point still stands uncontested.
I don’t know why you would say this - unless you’re talking about the victim.
I presume you’re still talking about sawed-off shotguns. On that point they could qualify, but as far as the original point of simplistic weapons and ability to construct such, it is not really relevant. A non-sawed off shotgun does not fit the bill for your points (2) and (3) - ask goose hunters how much reach a 10-gauge has.
I’m not sure I follow - 1 second is too long? A pump-action shotgun can have a simple tubular magazine with as many as 8 shots.
Features (1) through (4) do not seem to apply, as I noted above. And automatic weapons are NFA devices and are prohibited from ownership by the general public in the US, barring those who complete a lengthy application, background check, licensing, and expensive fee payment process.
I fail to see how this has bearing on the ability of people to make dangerous “black market” weapons with relative ease? That was my only point, and it seems to have been lost.
I CANNOT tell you how tickled and gleeful I am that you guys are having this discussion in a thread named for ME. I hope (hope hope hope hope hope) this gets as ridiculous as it seems to be getting; can you guys figure out how many angels could dance on the barrel of a shotgun, as compared to the barrel of a sawed-off shotgun? THAT would give me an ORGASM. And could somebody PLEASE say, “if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns”? Oh PLEEEZ–I’ll give you a dollar!
So let’s step away from the analogy. As you say, “Although it’s not 100% effective, it’s a valuable law.” At what percentage of effectiveness do we consider banning guns? Granted, actually banning guns in the U.S.stands about the same chance as prohibition did. I just found your particular argument in this case fascinating. A gun ban won’t be 100% effective, so don’t bother.
Well, sure, it’s possible, and easier than most people think, but the number of people who have auto mechanic-level skills and access to a Bridgeport is rather significantly smaller than the number of people with access to a bathtub. Certainly, there would be a market for hand-made guns, but it would be much more difficult to meet the demand than it was to meet the demand for illicit booze during the prohibition. So comparing the effects of a total gun ban to the alchohol ban may not be entirely accurate.
Incidentally, is it currently legal to manufacture your own firearms? Because I have (roughly) auto-mechanic level skills and a Bridgeport mill, and it occurs to me I’ve been wasting my time making compression heads and heated workstations.
That’s cool, I guess. Different strokes and all. I suppose it would also be fun to throw handgrenades around.
Fortunately the regard for public safety forbids posession of hand grenades by the general public. The danger to the public at large far outweighs the fun value.
The short answer is “yes, provided you fill out all the forms and pay a fee.” At one time, this fee was rather small and the forms not too onerous - you had to pass the same level of security as an NFA license, and you had to follow several regulations for the manufacturing process, but it certainly was doable. IIRC, the fee was once as little as $120 per year. Nowadays, I suspect things are much more difficult.
(I’m ignoring point 4, because I don’t understand what you’re getting at.)
This is one of those misconceptions that seems impossible to stomp out
The spread pattern of a sawed-off shotgun is close enough to identical to the spread pattern of a non-sawed off shotgun as to make no difference. Granted, the sawed-off model is more concealable, but the question was accuracy not concealability.
Think of it this way: the same effect as far as the shot/spread pattern is concerned can be achieved by sawing 1 foot off the barrel of a shotgun OR simply moving the barrel back one foot. And there’s simply no difference in accuracy from 12 inches further back.
I think your wrong here. Have you heard of choke? Full choke, Modified, and Improved. It’s the shape of the last 3-4 inches of the barrel and makes enough difference that hunters certainly have a preference.
Also, a goose gun would have a longer barrel than say someone shooting pheasent. The geese are shot at farther distances.
None of this would really matter at close distances though. Although sawing off a barrel, completely getting rid of any choke might
As far as accuracy is concerned, I don’t think Jeff really understands. You don’t really lose accuracy at distance, but the spread becomes too large to be effective. That, and you loose a lot of power/velocity.
I fail to see how this has bearing on the ability of people to make dangerous “black market” weapons with relative ease? That was my only point, and it seems to have been lost.