Shoot a camera, not a gun

[Jubb Jubb]

I don't know how many times I have to say this.

You cannot compare a gun to a car. A gun's sole purpose is to kill. A cars is for transportation.

 

[E__WOK]

I have also stayed out of this til now on the basis it's likely a hiding to nothing, but I don't quite follow the above.

Look, full disclosure: I don't own a gun. I never have. I don't actually like them that much. But I do accept that there are legitimate reasons for people needing to own one.

However: not being wise in the way of weapons: how is a semi automatic rifle more accurate, than, say, a bolt action?

You say:
"Using a semi auto rifle with a 30 round mag will allow me to get quick and accurate rounds out to stop the threat."

Then you say:
"One round is not always enough to stop a threat."

Is this because, there are multiple threats? If a round fired is accurate, why, otherwise, would there be a need to fire more than one? Unless you're not shooting to kill?
I'm not necessarily challenging your comments, however I do profess to not really understanding how your statements sit with each other.

Generally: unless I've missed it, I have yet to see discussed the role the gun industry in America plays in influencing the types and volumes of firearms that are available in the USA. On the one hand I should think that they have a market, and are catering to it. On the other, to what extent, if any, do they drive the availability of the various types of weapons and the manner in which they are marketed?

I'm basing these queries on the reasonably logical assumption (I hope) that they are a part of the problem (and I hope noone woud deny that the USA does have a problem in relation to the use of firearms).
Regards
Brett

Footnote, catching up on recent posts as I've typed this one the thread seems to be heading downhill...maybe this may get it back on track. Or not. I've appreciated the respectful conversation on a contentious and emotive issue until now, so it would be disappointing to see it deteriorate to the point it's closed, as inevitable as that might appear.
Cheers,
Brett

There can or may be more than one threat. I'm not shooting to kill, I'm shooting until the threat stops being a threat be it one round or more than one.

Someone shot in the arm with a non life threatening wound might collapse to the ground due to shock. Another person shot multiple times in the body might think, heck I've been hit multiple times and will die. Minus well keep on moving until I can't move anymore.

Bolt action vs semi auto.
Bolt action rifles are generally limited to a 4 or 5 round internal capacity. Recoil is generally harsher than a semi auto rifle due to physics and obviously takes longer to extract the round and load another one.

 

[E__WOK]

Cars are designed to get from a to b, guns are designed to kill. There is no comparison between the two.

I never said I lived in the states, I am expressing my opinion as many of you have too.

It's a good debate, but I still can't see why one needs a weapon.

The design doesn't matter. Killing is killing.

Just because you don't see why I need/want a so called assault weapon doesn't mean I shouldn't have one.

Talk some facts, not feelings...

 

[jtm6]

I'll have to be cynical, as it seems a bit weird to judge a death rate per gun owned, instead of gun deaths per capita.

The statistics are "by firearm" not "per firearm".

In 2010 there were 8,775 murders committed with firearms in the U.S.

Skyrocketed to what? They have what? 60 gun deaths a year maybe, vs. our tens of thousands?

8,775 is a lot less than "tens of thousands."

 

[E__WOK]

Although if by magic every gun was swapped for a camera one day, I don't think anybody here could say the world would be worse for it. :angel:

Are you fine with using cameras to take pictures for kiddie porn? Nobody is getting killed.

If you don't get what I'm saying, any object can be used for good and bad purposes.

 

[tunalegs]

The design doesn't matter. Killing is killing.

Just because you don't see why I need/want a so called assault weapon doesn't mean I shouldn't have one.

Talk some facts, not feelings...

Funny that all of your posts seems to be basically you talking about how you feel you need a weapon, but you have offered no proof you need one.

Are you fine with using cameras to take pictures for kiddie porn? Nobody is getting killed.

If you don't get what I'm saying, any object can be used for good and bad purposes.

I'm not a moderator, but I have to say that your conduct in this thread is something less than polite, to put it politely. There are lots of people commenting with different opinions and most of them are acting perfectly respectful of one another and sticking to the topic at hand. Show some respect for the topic at hand and for the other members of this forum. There is nothing funny about your joke here, nor does it contribute to the discussion in any way.

 

[tunalegs]

The statistics are "by firearm" not "per firearm".



That is a lot less than "tens of thousands."

Because it is murders, which does not include the thousands of other gun deaths that result from suicides and accidents. The number of gun deaths per year is indeed in the tens of thousands. Sorry for any misunderstanding.

In 2010 there were 8,775 murders committed with firearms in the U.S...

 

[E__WOK]

I'll have to be cynical, as it seems a bit weird to judge a death rate per gun owned, instead of gun deaths per capita.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc.../crime-in-the-u.s.-2010/tables/10shrtbl08.xls

In 2010 there were 8,775 murders committed with firearms in the U.S., as compared to about 50 in the UK. Or - get this - eleven in Japan: http://www.theatlantic.com/internat...-virtually-eliminated-shooting-deaths/260189/ In 2006 there were only two shooting deaths there.

Per capita the U.S. has more gun deaths than any other industrialized country. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Edit: this article provides an interesting visual comparison that considers per capita and guns owned http://www.businessinsider.com/shooting-gun-laws-2012-12

It's funny how you are selectively picking the information you want.

El Salvador's rate is six times greater than the US.

 

[E__WOK]

Funny that all of your posts seems to be basically you talking about how you feel you need a weapon, but you have offered no proof you need one.

I'm not a moderator, but I have to say that your conduct in this thread is something less than polite, to put it politely. There are lots of people commenting with different opinions and most of them are acting perfectly respectful of one another and sticking to the topic at hand. Show some respect for the topic at hand and for the other members of this forum. There is nothing funny about your joke here, nor does it contribute to the discussion in any way.

I'm in America. As long as I can afford it and can meet all the Federal and State qualifications, I don't have to explain why I want what I want to buy.

 

[Mystyler]

The design doesn't matter. Killing is killing.

Just because you don't see why I need/want a so called assault weapon doesn't mean I shouldn't have one.

Talk some facts, not feelings...

Right. So why the outcry with Iran or North Korea having a handful of nukes? They don't need them. But they want them. Yet America is appalled (as is most of the world) for the same reason most of the world are appalled that guns are so ingrained into US culture.
Nukes/guns=sole design purpose is to kill. No civillian should carry a gun for the same reason they should not carry around a nuke. Unfortunately too many are blinded by the, "but my pen can kill too, so should we ban/make pens harder to get!?!" logic to see why tighter gun control is a good thing. No one wants to ban guns. I don't want to ban guns. No one thinks that all shootings will magically end, but if you have an opportunity to reduce shooting injuries or deaths, why not try it?! Be that achieved by changing laws, consitutions, attitudes or a combination of the above.

Just like what the airline industry has done with arming pilots.

I must have missed that company NOTAM, I'm not going to work armed.

 

[E__WOK]

Funny that all of your posts seems to be basically you talking about how you feel you need a weapon, but you have offered no proof you need one.

I'm not a moderator, but I have to say that your conduct in this thread is something less than polite, to put it politely. There are lots of people commenting with different opinions and most of them are acting perfectly respectful of one another and sticking to the topic at hand. Show some respect for the topic at hand and for the other members of this forum. There is nothing funny about your joke here, nor does it contribute to the discussion in any way.

Is the logic finally getting to you? You want to punish the law abiding citizens that own firearms (me) just so that criminals have a harder chance of getting a gun?

You haven't used your camera for anything bad, but you have the capability of doing something bad, so cameras must be taken away from everybody just for the good of the population.

 

[tunalegs]

Is the logic finally getting to you? You want to punish the law abiding citizens that own firearms (me) just so that criminals have a harder chance of getting a gun?

Not owning a gun is a punishment? Wow, who knew?

You haven't used your camera for anything bad, but you have the capability of doing something bad, so cameras must be taken away from everybody just for the good of the population.

I don't think I can easily kill somebody with a camera, intentionally or on accident. If ten thousand people a year were killed by cameras, I'd probably think something was wrong with cameras, and question if the intended results of taking a photo were worth the consequences of having tens of thousands mortally wounded each year by cameras.

 

[E__WOK]

Right. So why the outcry with Iran or North Korea having a handful of nukes? They don't need them. But they want them. Yet America is appalled (as is most of the world) for the same reason most of the world are appalled that guns are so ingrained into US culture.
Nukes/guns=sole design purpose is to kill. No civillian should carry a gun for the same reason they should not carry around a nuke. Unfortunately too many are blinded by the, "but my pen can kill too, so should we ban/make pens harder to get!?!" logic to see why tighter gun control is a good thing. No one wants to ban guns. I don't want to ban guns. No one thinks that all shootings will magically end, but if you have an opportunity to reduce shooting injuries or deaths, why not try it?! Be that achieved by changing laws, consitutions, attitudes or a combination of the above.

I must have missed that company NOTAM, I'm not going to work armed.

So you want to reduce gun crime by having people turn in their guns? Will we be allowed to buy and own guns? Making people turn their guns is is the same result as banning them.

My guns haven't killed anybody. Why do I have to turn mine in?

There are more than enough gun laws on the books. They should try enforcing them.

 

[E__WOK]

Not owning a gun is a punishment? Wow, who knew?

I don't think I can easily kill somebody with a camera, intentionally or on accident. If ten thousand people a year were killed by cameras, I'd probably think something was wrong with cameras, and question if the intended results of taking a photo were worth the consequences of having tens of thousands mortally wounded each year by cameras.

So by your logic, an inanimate camera take bad pictures by themselves? Come on!

 

[tunalegs]

So by your logic, an inanimate camera take bad pictures by themselves? Come on!

Not at all. What I'm saying is that if something kills thousands of people every year, it might be smart to look at the situation and figure out why that something kills thousands of people every year. If similar events happen repeatedly that results in dozens dead each time, we might want to figure out how that happens - and perhaps maybe even figure out how to prevent it from happening repeatedly.

I am not in favor of banning guns, but I question the wisdom of selling things like semi automatic assault rifles over the counter. Is somebody's right to play with a killing machine for the betterment of our society?

 

[E__WOK]

I am not in favor of banning guns, but I question the wisdom of selling things like semi automatic assault rifles over the counter. Is somebody's right to play with a killing machine for the betterment of our society?

What exactly do you mean by 'assault rifles should not be sold over the counter'?

Who is allowed to buy them?

 

[Jubb Jubb]

Is the logic finally getting to you? You want to punish the law abiding citizens that own firearms (me) just so that criminals have a harder chance of getting a gun?

You haven't used your camera for anything bad, but you have the capability of doing something bad, so cameras must be taken away from everybody just for the good of the population.

I don't see how removing guns from society is punishing anyone. It is helping make a safer environment.

It's fine. You have your thoughts, but thats fine, they're your thoughts, and this is why America will continue to see tragedies like the school massacre happen.

They just don't get that guns are bad.

 

[E__WOK]

I don't see how removing guns from society is punishing anyone. It is helping make a safer environment.

It's fine. You have your thoughts, but thats fine, they're your thoughts, and this is why America will continue to see tragedies like the school massacre happen.

They just don't get that guns are bad.

Crazy, you have not seen crazy yet.

 

[Soeren]

>SNIP
Bolt action vs semi auto.
<SNIP> Recoil is generally harsher than a semi auto rifle due to physics and obviously takes longer to extract the round and load another one.

Actually All others being equal the recoil will be the same altered only by weight of the weapon. On automatic rifles the action will mostly be delayed blowback or gasoperated and on both types the bolt is locked when the weapon is fired. Then you can have recoildampers but theoretical that can be done on nonautomatics as well.
Best regards

 

[E__WOK]

These two felons who can't legally buy firearms somehow bought firearms and illegally converted them to full auto.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout

Oh and by the way, LAPD did not have enough firepower to penetrate the body armor so they went to the local civilian gun shop and borrowed AR-15 ASSAULT WEAPONS and eventually stopped the criminals.

So yes, civilian ASSAULT WEAPONS saves lives.