France banned all rifles...130 dead in attack on Rock Concert, here...58 killed

[JohnPrewett]

 

[JoeB131]

Don't forget that every time we also find out the shooter was a liberal.

No, every time you call him a liberal... but most of the time they aren't.

"Well, he went to college, he must be a liberal".. that's the kind of thinking we get.

Funny how shootings here in the states seem to be lone wolf attacks, while in Europe they are well organized planned mass attacks.

Why is that? What policies might account for that difference, (point to the US, of course)?

The US Let's any "Lone Wolf" crazy person buy a shitload of guns.

It takes actual organization to get guns to crazy people in Europe. Abdul can't walk into a gun store and say, "Give me an AR-15 with a bump stock and a 100 round magazine!"

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, this is the kind of mind rot you get from reading Chick Tracks.

 

[AsianTrumpSupporter]

Terrorists in Madrid killed more than that without using a single gun:

2004 Madrid train bombings - Wikipedia

 

[danielpalos]

How do you explain the higher death rate in all of the states that have less gun restriction (like Alaska, Louisiana, and Mississippi) and a lower death rate in states that have more gun restriction (like Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Hawaii)?

How do you explain the fact that sine the 1990s we went from 200 million guns to 600 million guns in 2017 and 4.7 million people carrying guns to over 16.3 million people carrying guns and our gun murder rate went down 49%.....our gun crime rate went down 75%.....our violent crime rate went down 72%....so no matter how you slice it, normal people owning and carrying guns does not increase the gun crime rate......

The main driver........criminal control policies in the various cities. That is the difference, not normal people carrying guns.

Do you have a link for those stats?

I will post them when I have easier access to my data...

Thank you.

Here you go......

Analysis | Obama’s claim that ‘states with the most gun laws tend to have the fewest gun deaths’

In any case, we were curious to see what would happen if suicides were removed from the totals. After all, rural areas (which may have less-restrictive gun laws) have a lot of suicides of older single men who become lonely. So we ran the numbers — and in some cases, it made a huge difference.

Alaska, ranked 50th on the National Journal list, moved up to 25th place. Utah, 31st on the list, jumped to 8th place. Hawaii remains in 1st place, but the top six now include Vermont, New Hampshire, South Dakota, Iowa and Maine. Indeed, half of the 10 states with the lowest gun-death rates turn out to be states with less-restrictive gun laws.

Meanwhile, Maryland — a more urban state — fell from 15th place to 45th, even though it has very tough gun laws. Illinois dropped from 11th place to 38th, and New York fell from 3rd to 15th.


******************
Do Strict Firearm Laws Give States Lower Gun Death Rates?

Once you get past those six states, the hypothesis that low gun death rates go hand in hand with strict gun control starts to break down. New Hampshire, with a gun death rate just a little higher than New Jersey's, has permissive gun policies. Likewise Minnesota, Washington, Vermont, Wisconsin, and South Dakota, all of which have gun death rates of 10 or less per 100,000. New Hampshire and Minnesota have lower rates than California, Illinois, the District of Columbia, and Maryland, all of which have substantially stricter gun rules.

At the other end of the list, Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming have both permissive gun policies and high gun death rates, ranging from around 17 to nearly 20 per 100,000. But of these six states, only Louisiana has a very high gun murder rate (based on 2010 data). The rate in Mississippi is fairly high but still lower than in D.C. or Maryland, which have much stricter gun laws. Alaska, Wyoming, Alabama, and Arkansas have lower gun murder rates than California, which has more gun restrictions.

Although its overall analysis looks at all gun-related deaths, National Journal (after some prodding, judging from the note in italics) focuses on gun homicides in charts that compare states based on three policies: whether they impose a duty to retreat, whether they require background checks for all gun sales, and whether they issue carry permits to anyone who meets a short list of objective criteria. Excluding suicides makes sense for at least two of those comparisons, since you would not expect the rules for self-defense or for carrying guns in public to affect suicide rates. Background checks conceivably could, since among other things they are supposed to prevent gun purchases by people who were forcibly subjected to psychiatric treatment because they were deemed a threat to themselves.

According to the first chart, the average rate of gun-related homicides in states with "some form of 'stand your ground' law" in 2013 was 4.23 per 100,000, compared to 3.08 in the other states. (Oddly, Arkansas is included in the former category, although its "stand your ground" law was not enacted until this year.) States that did not require background checks for private sales also had a higher average gun homicide rate: 4.02 per 100,000, compared to 3.41 for the other states. But the average rates were the same (3.78 per 100,000) regardless of whether states had discretionary or "must issue" carry permit policies, which is consistent with the observation that permit holders rarely commit violent crimes.

Some states were excluded from these analyses, and the reason is revealing. The fine print at the bottom of the charts says "Alaska, Idaho, Maine, Montana, New Hampshire, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming had too few homicides in 2013 to calculate a reliable rate" (emphasis added). These are all states with permissive gun laws, and three of them are among the seven states with the highest overall gun death rates, which highlights the importance of distinguishing between suicides and homicides. Had National Journal's main analysis excluded suicides, some of the states with few gun controls, including Alaska and Wyoming, would have looked much safer.

"The states with the most gun laws see the fewest gun-related deaths," say the headline and subhead over the National Journal post, "but there's still little appetite to talk about more restrictions." The implication is that the data prove a cause-and-effect relationship. But the question of whether stricter gun control policies cause lower gun death rates cannot be addressed by this sort of static analysis. Gun laws obviously are not the only way in which Alaska, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Arkansas, and Wyoming differ from Hawaii, Massachusetts, New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New Jersey. Furthermore, while the latter states have both low suicide and low homicide rates, the former states (with the notable exception of Louisiana) are distinguished mainly by high suicide rates.





****************



The Dishonest Gun-Control Debate, by Kevin D. Williamson, National Review


Take this, for example, from ThinkProgress’s Zack Beauchamp, with whom I had a discussion about the issue on Wednesday evening: “STUDY: States with loose gun laws have higher rates of gun violence.” The claim sounds like an entirely straightforward one. In English, it means that there is more gun violence in states with relatively liberal gun laws.

But that is of course not at all what it means
.
In order to reach that conclusion, the authors of the study were obliged to insert a supplementary measure of “gun violence,” that being the “crime-gun export rate.” If a gun legally sold in Indiana ends up someday being used in a crime in Chicago, then that is counted as an incidence of gun violence in Indiana, even though it is no such thing.


This is a fairly nakedly political attempt to manipulate statistics in such a way as to attribute some portion of Chicago’s horrific crime epidemic to peaceable neighboring communities.

And even if we took the “gun-crime export rate” to be a meaningful metric, we would need to consider the fact that it accounts only for those guns sold legally. Of course states that do not have many legal gun sales do not generate a lot of records for “gun-crime exports.” It is probable that lots of guns sold in Illinois end up being used in crimes in Indiana; the difference is, those guns are sold on the black market, and so do not show up in the records. The choice of metrics is just another way to put a thumb on the scale.

Read more at: The Dishonest Gun-Control Debate

Yes, the gun control debate is dishonest. We have a Second Amendment, there should be no security problems in our free States.

It is the whole and entire fault, of the Commander in chief of the State militia.

 

[Brain357]

You totally missed the point. When the Second Amendment was written their guns looked like this:

Today guns look like this:

Which is why they were smart enough to know to make the Constitution so that it could be amended to meet the changing times.

so how would you amend it??

Here's the thing, I'm for the Second Amendment, however our government is going the wrong way with it. They are trying to pass legislation to legalizes silencers. Why the fuck would someone need a silencer to use for protection!?!?

This guy, Larry Correia.....a gun expert, explains it...

http://monsterhunternation.com/2017/09/26/an-opinion-on-suppressors-and-the-hearing-protection-act/

First off, it’s education time. How do suppressors work and why do we use them? When a cartridge is fired, the gun powder burns extremely rapidly, and this creates pressure which forces the bullet down the barrel. When those hot expanding gasses escape into the atmosphere, it is rather energetic and extremely loud.

If you’ve ever been around a really loud bang, you may have noticed that afterwards your ears ring. I’ve got some bad news for you, that ringing means you’ve permanently damaged your hearing. When that fades you will have lost some measure of hearing, and hearing damage is permanent and cumulative. The more of these loud bangs you are exposed to, the greater the damage. It will never get better. It will only continue to get worse.

I was a firearms instructor for about a decade and spent a lot of time running ranges and teaching people. I was religious about wearing my hearing protection, but if you spend enough time on the range you will be caught unaware eventually and somebody is going to touch something off right after you take your muffs off.

I have tinnitus. Basically, there is literally no sound of silence in my world. For me it is a constant ringing noise that’s about the same pitch as my lawn sprinklers. I also can’t pick up a lot of things in higher ranges, like for many years, my daughters’ voices. If you’ve ever spoken to me in the dealer’s room of a con, you’ll notice that I tend to lean over the table to get close to the speaker. That’s not because I’m being weird, it’s that I can’t understand you, especially in a room with background noise that aggravates the perpetual ringing.

I’m not alone. I’m sure audiologists love old gun nuts because they sell a lot of hearing aids that way.

Guns are loud, but are also incredibly useful. If you want to be proficient with a firearm, you must practice with it. So we put up with the loudness and put things in or over our ears in order to mitigate the damage as much as possible.

However, muffs slip. It is really easy to break the seal of an ear muff when you place your cheek on the stock of a rifle. Boom. Hearing damage. Or that little foam plug in your ear isn’t squished in quite right, or deforms and falls out? Boom. Hearing damage. I used to hate when I came home from a long day teaching a class, and I’d hear that ring that told me that at some point I’d screwed up. Because there’s no going back.

Suppressors were invented to mitigate that danger. You can call them silencers too, that’s fine, but Silencer was a brand name, not a particularly true description. It’s like Xerox or Kleenex. Many of us gun nuts just refer to them as cans, because that’s basically all they are.

I wasn’t joking when I said they work exactly like the muffler on your car. As those expanding gasses from the burning gun powder escape the muzzle, instead of flying outward to bombard those delicate little hairs in your ears, the gasses are trapped in a can screwed onto the end. That’s basically it.

Cans are usually filled with something that increases the interior surface area that gives the sound waves more things to bounce off of. In the olden days we used things like rubber gaskets, steel wool, grease, and all sorts of other stuff. Nowadays since good precision machine tools are common and cheap, most of them use metal baffles. The hardest part about building a can to last is dealing with the temperature. That energy which would normally escape as noise gets trapped as heat. Cans get hot fast.

So if you screw a suppressor onto the end of your gun, usually it isn’t going to make it silent. Not even close. The actual noise reduction is going to vary greatly depending on a whole bunch of different factors. The quality and construction of the can is secondary to the power level of the gun. The more powerful the boom, the more can required to contain it. It’s all about the amount of expanding gasses escaping that muzzle.

Also, most bullets are supersonic. Just like a fighter jet, when that bullet breaks the speed of sound it is going to make a sonic boom. Though since bullets are much smaller, it is more of a sonic crack. The baffles in a modern can never actually touch the bullet, so they do nothing about the bullet breaking the sound barrier.

I won’t get into decibel ratings (which are indecipherable gibberish to most folks anyway) but if you slap a suppressor onto a standard rifle, shooting standard ammunition, it is still pretty loud. It is still noticeable by anybody nearby. Everybody is still going to hear the sonic crack of the bullet. Only for the shooter is doesn’t feel like you’re getting hit in the ear canal with a hammer.

Regular pistols with regular ammo aren’t movie gun quiet. Not even close. In the movies the hit man shoots somebody with his 9mm and the people in the next room don’t hear it. Bullshit. A suppressed 115 grain standard 9mm sounds like taking a big ass dictionary and slamming it down as hard as you can flat on a hardwood floor. WHUMP. Bystanders are still going to hear, it’s just not as sharp.

There’s also the mechanical action of the gun working. On a semi-automatic firearm, the action is still going to cycle, and that also makes a pretty distinct noise. Bullet impacts are surprisingly loud, especially when they land close to you.


----

Excuse me, your highness, but if it pleases the crown, I would like to have the ability to teach my children to use firearms safely, in such a manner that they don’t end up hearing perpetual lawn sprinkler noises for the rest of their lives.

There is absolutely, positively, NO REASON for them to be legalized. I don't care how much you like guns, there is too many negative things with them than positive.

There are close to 16 million of them in private hands.......right now. At most a few each year are used to commit crimes and murder...vs, again, 16 million of them.....

there were 6 mass public shootings in 2016....71 people were murdered...not all 6 shootings involved rifles.

Knives were used to murder 1,604 people in the same year....

1,604 vs 71 ( an not all of those were rifles)

Can you tell which number is bigger?

Blunt objects were used to murder 472 people in 2016.

472 vs. 71

Can you tell which number is bigger?

Bare hands murdered 656 people in 2016.

656 vs. 71

Can you tell which number is bigger?

So tell us again how out of 16 million rifles, in a country of over 320 million people.....these rifles should be banned because less than 71 people were murdered with them...........cars killed 35,161 people in 2015......

This is why we know you are irrational.

It is irrational to think anyone should have a gun for mass killing.

 

[2aguy]

so how would you amend it??

Here's the thing, I'm for the Second Amendment, however our government is going the wrong way with it. They are trying to pass legislation to legalizes silencers. Why the fuck would someone need a silencer to use for protection!?!?

This guy, Larry Correia.....a gun expert, explains it...

http://monsterhunternation.com/2017/09/26/an-opinion-on-suppressors-and-the-hearing-protection-act/

First off, it’s education time. How do suppressors work and why do we use them? When a cartridge is fired, the gun powder burns extremely rapidly, and this creates pressure which forces the bullet down the barrel. When those hot expanding gasses escape into the atmosphere, it is rather energetic and extremely loud.

If you’ve ever been around a really loud bang, you may have noticed that afterwards your ears ring. I’ve got some bad news for you, that ringing means you’ve permanently damaged your hearing. When that fades you will have lost some measure of hearing, and hearing damage is permanent and cumulative. The more of these loud bangs you are exposed to, the greater the damage. It will never get better. It will only continue to get worse.

I was a firearms instructor for about a decade and spent a lot of time running ranges and teaching people. I was religious about wearing my hearing protection, but if you spend enough time on the range you will be caught unaware eventually and somebody is going to touch something off right after you take your muffs off.

I have tinnitus. Basically, there is literally no sound of silence in my world. For me it is a constant ringing noise that’s about the same pitch as my lawn sprinklers. I also can’t pick up a lot of things in higher ranges, like for many years, my daughters’ voices. If you’ve ever spoken to me in the dealer’s room of a con, you’ll notice that I tend to lean over the table to get close to the speaker. That’s not because I’m being weird, it’s that I can’t understand you, especially in a room with background noise that aggravates the perpetual ringing.

I’m not alone. I’m sure audiologists love old gun nuts because they sell a lot of hearing aids that way.

Guns are loud, but are also incredibly useful. If you want to be proficient with a firearm, you must practice with it. So we put up with the loudness and put things in or over our ears in order to mitigate the damage as much as possible.

However, muffs slip. It is really easy to break the seal of an ear muff when you place your cheek on the stock of a rifle. Boom. Hearing damage. Or that little foam plug in your ear isn’t squished in quite right, or deforms and falls out? Boom. Hearing damage. I used to hate when I came home from a long day teaching a class, and I’d hear that ring that told me that at some point I’d screwed up. Because there’s no going back.

Suppressors were invented to mitigate that danger. You can call them silencers too, that’s fine, but Silencer was a brand name, not a particularly true description. It’s like Xerox or Kleenex. Many of us gun nuts just refer to them as cans, because that’s basically all they are.

I wasn’t joking when I said they work exactly like the muffler on your car. As those expanding gasses from the burning gun powder escape the muzzle, instead of flying outward to bombard those delicate little hairs in your ears, the gasses are trapped in a can screwed onto the end. That’s basically it.

Cans are usually filled with something that increases the interior surface area that gives the sound waves more things to bounce off of. In the olden days we used things like rubber gaskets, steel wool, grease, and all sorts of other stuff. Nowadays since good precision machine tools are common and cheap, most of them use metal baffles. The hardest part about building a can to last is dealing with the temperature. That energy which would normally escape as noise gets trapped as heat. Cans get hot fast.

So if you screw a suppressor onto the end of your gun, usually it isn’t going to make it silent. Not even close. The actual noise reduction is going to vary greatly depending on a whole bunch of different factors. The quality and construction of the can is secondary to the power level of the gun. The more powerful the boom, the more can required to contain it. It’s all about the amount of expanding gasses escaping that muzzle.

Also, most bullets are supersonic. Just like a fighter jet, when that bullet breaks the speed of sound it is going to make a sonic boom. Though since bullets are much smaller, it is more of a sonic crack. The baffles in a modern can never actually touch the bullet, so they do nothing about the bullet breaking the sound barrier.

I won’t get into decibel ratings (which are indecipherable gibberish to most folks anyway) but if you slap a suppressor onto a standard rifle, shooting standard ammunition, it is still pretty loud. It is still noticeable by anybody nearby. Everybody is still going to hear the sonic crack of the bullet. Only for the shooter is doesn’t feel like you’re getting hit in the ear canal with a hammer.

Regular pistols with regular ammo aren’t movie gun quiet. Not even close. In the movies the hit man shoots somebody with his 9mm and the people in the next room don’t hear it. Bullshit. A suppressed 115 grain standard 9mm sounds like taking a big ass dictionary and slamming it down as hard as you can flat on a hardwood floor. WHUMP. Bystanders are still going to hear, it’s just not as sharp.

There’s also the mechanical action of the gun working. On a semi-automatic firearm, the action is still going to cycle, and that also makes a pretty distinct noise. Bullet impacts are surprisingly loud, especially when they land close to you.


----

Excuse me, your highness, but if it pleases the crown, I would like to have the ability to teach my children to use firearms safely, in such a manner that they don’t end up hearing perpetual lawn sprinkler noises for the rest of their lives.

There is absolutely, positively, NO REASON for them to be legalized. I don't care how much you like guns, there is too many negative things with them than positive.

There are close to 16 million of them in private hands.......right now. At most a few each year are used to commit crimes and murder...vs, again, 16 million of them.....

there were 6 mass public shootings in 2016....71 people were murdered...not all 6 shootings involved rifles.

Knives were used to murder 1,604 people in the same year....

1,604 vs 71 ( an not all of those were rifles)

Can you tell which number is bigger?

Blunt objects were used to murder 472 people in 2016.

472 vs. 71

Can you tell which number is bigger?

Bare hands murdered 656 people in 2016.

656 vs. 71

Can you tell which number is bigger?

So tell us again how out of 16 million rifles, in a country of over 320 million people.....these rifles should be banned because less than 71 people were murdered with them...........cars killed 35,161 people in 2015......

This is why we know you are irrational.

It is irrational to think anyone should have a gun for mass killing.

No one said you should have a gun for mass killing....mass killing is illegal. Americans have the Right to have a gun for self defense.

 

[2aguy]

so how would you amend it??

Here's the thing, I'm for the Second Amendment, however our government is going the wrong way with it. They are trying to pass legislation to legalizes silencers. Why the fuck would someone need a silencer to use for protection!?!?

This guy, Larry Correia.....a gun expert, explains it...

http://monsterhunternation.com/2017/09/26/an-opinion-on-suppressors-and-the-hearing-protection-act/

First off, it’s education time. How do suppressors work and why do we use them? When a cartridge is fired, the gun powder burns extremely rapidly, and this creates pressure which forces the bullet down the barrel. When those hot expanding gasses escape into the atmosphere, it is rather energetic and extremely loud.

If you’ve ever been around a really loud bang, you may have noticed that afterwards your ears ring. I’ve got some bad news for you, that ringing means you’ve permanently damaged your hearing. When that fades you will have lost some measure of hearing, and hearing damage is permanent and cumulative. The more of these loud bangs you are exposed to, the greater the damage. It will never get better. It will only continue to get worse.

I was a firearms instructor for about a decade and spent a lot of time running ranges and teaching people. I was religious about wearing my hearing protection, but if you spend enough time on the range you will be caught unaware eventually and somebody is going to touch something off right after you take your muffs off.

I have tinnitus. Basically, there is literally no sound of silence in my world. For me it is a constant ringing noise that’s about the same pitch as my lawn sprinklers. I also can’t pick up a lot of things in higher ranges, like for many years, my daughters’ voices. If you’ve ever spoken to me in the dealer’s room of a con, you’ll notice that I tend to lean over the table to get close to the speaker. That’s not because I’m being weird, it’s that I can’t understand you, especially in a room with background noise that aggravates the perpetual ringing.

I’m not alone. I’m sure audiologists love old gun nuts because they sell a lot of hearing aids that way.

Guns are loud, but are also incredibly useful. If you want to be proficient with a firearm, you must practice with it. So we put up with the loudness and put things in or over our ears in order to mitigate the damage as much as possible.

However, muffs slip. It is really easy to break the seal of an ear muff when you place your cheek on the stock of a rifle. Boom. Hearing damage. Or that little foam plug in your ear isn’t squished in quite right, or deforms and falls out? Boom. Hearing damage. I used to hate when I came home from a long day teaching a class, and I’d hear that ring that told me that at some point I’d screwed up. Because there’s no going back.

Suppressors were invented to mitigate that danger. You can call them silencers too, that’s fine, but Silencer was a brand name, not a particularly true description. It’s like Xerox or Kleenex. Many of us gun nuts just refer to them as cans, because that’s basically all they are.

I wasn’t joking when I said they work exactly like the muffler on your car. As those expanding gasses from the burning gun powder escape the muzzle, instead of flying outward to bombard those delicate little hairs in your ears, the gasses are trapped in a can screwed onto the end. That’s basically it.

Cans are usually filled with something that increases the interior surface area that gives the sound waves more things to bounce off of. In the olden days we used things like rubber gaskets, steel wool, grease, and all sorts of other stuff. Nowadays since good precision machine tools are common and cheap, most of them use metal baffles. The hardest part about building a can to last is dealing with the temperature. That energy which would normally escape as noise gets trapped as heat. Cans get hot fast.

So if you screw a suppressor onto the end of your gun, usually it isn’t going to make it silent. Not even close. The actual noise reduction is going to vary greatly depending on a whole bunch of different factors. The quality and construction of the can is secondary to the power level of the gun. The more powerful the boom, the more can required to contain it. It’s all about the amount of expanding gasses escaping that muzzle.

Also, most bullets are supersonic. Just like a fighter jet, when that bullet breaks the speed of sound it is going to make a sonic boom. Though since bullets are much smaller, it is more of a sonic crack. The baffles in a modern can never actually touch the bullet, so they do nothing about the bullet breaking the sound barrier.

I won’t get into decibel ratings (which are indecipherable gibberish to most folks anyway) but if you slap a suppressor onto a standard rifle, shooting standard ammunition, it is still pretty loud. It is still noticeable by anybody nearby. Everybody is still going to hear the sonic crack of the bullet. Only for the shooter is doesn’t feel like you’re getting hit in the ear canal with a hammer.

Regular pistols with regular ammo aren’t movie gun quiet. Not even close. In the movies the hit man shoots somebody with his 9mm and the people in the next room don’t hear it. Bullshit. A suppressed 115 grain standard 9mm sounds like taking a big ass dictionary and slamming it down as hard as you can flat on a hardwood floor. WHUMP. Bystanders are still going to hear, it’s just not as sharp.

There’s also the mechanical action of the gun working. On a semi-automatic firearm, the action is still going to cycle, and that also makes a pretty distinct noise. Bullet impacts are surprisingly loud, especially when they land close to you.


----

Excuse me, your highness, but if it pleases the crown, I would like to have the ability to teach my children to use firearms safely, in such a manner that they don’t end up hearing perpetual lawn sprinkler noises for the rest of their lives.

There is absolutely, positively, NO REASON for them to be legalized. I don't care how much you like guns, there is too many negative things with them than positive.

There are close to 16 million of them in private hands.......right now. At most a few each year are used to commit crimes and murder...vs, again, 16 million of them.....

there were 6 mass public shootings in 2016....71 people were murdered...not all 6 shootings involved rifles.

Knives were used to murder 1,604 people in the same year....

1,604 vs 71 ( an not all of those were rifles)

Can you tell which number is bigger?

Blunt objects were used to murder 472 people in 2016.

472 vs. 71

Can you tell which number is bigger?

Bare hands murdered 656 people in 2016.

656 vs. 71

Can you tell which number is bigger?

So tell us again how out of 16 million rifles, in a country of over 320 million people.....these rifles should be banned because less than 71 people were murdered with them...........cars killed 35,161 people in 2015......

This is why we know you are irrational.

Please tell me how a silencer is going to help with defending yourself from a home invasion or while concealed carry. Why would you need a silencer to help defend yourself against the government in case of some kind of Police State round up.

Now let's talk about how a silencer would help a criminal doing a home invasion to murder an entire family...

A silencer at home will keep you from blowing out your ear drums when you have to shoot the criminal.....why should a law abiding person go deaf simply because a criminal forces them to use a gun for self defense.

Criminals can already get silencers moron....they don't use them because they are bulky and hard to hide.

 

[2aguy]

Do you know what kinds of guns the govt has???

You totally missed the point. When the Second Amendment was written their guns looked like this:

Today guns look like this:

Which is why they were smart enough to know to make the Constitution so that it could be amended to meet the changing times.

And if the Founders knew that in our future, national socialists would murder 12 million unarmed Europeans in gas chambers, the soviet communists would murder 12 million unarmed men, women and children, and that the chinese communists would murder 70 million unarmed people....not to forget the drug cartels in Mexico murdering 10s of thousands of citizens every year with the help of police, and the other mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing around the world.......

They would have mandated that every single American have guns by law...no exceptions.....

What does that have to do with the U.S.? Nothing.

Mass murder, genocide, and ethnic cleansing only happen to people who don't have guns....that is why it is relevant here....we don't want mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing to happen to us.......

I'm not saying get rid of all guns. What we don't need is when ONE person can get enough guns, and have guns that by himself he can kill 59 people and injure over 500.

And they can simply rent a truck and kill 89 people like the guy in Nice, France, did.....

There are people who own more guns than that guy, and they never use them to commit murder.

 

[2aguy]

What does that have to do with the U.S.? Nothing.

The same stuff not happening in the US would kind of prove his point the fact we are armed keeps it from happening here ...

.

We are armed and it didn't stop the Vegas attack.

And other people in other mass public shootings did use guns to stop them. France has traffic laws, yet it didn't stop the guy from using the rental truck to kill 89 people and injure over 400.....this guy murdered 58 with two rifles....had he used a rental truck he may have murdered more....

 

[Dalia]

To compare two approaches to gun control.....

France banned all rifles....military rifles are banned, as are self defense rifles with magazines, the semi auto rifles we have here....

At their concert attack...130 were killed...

November 2015 Paris attacks - Wikipedia

Here....58......

Yes, especially as Macron to vote a law that removes the (maximum alert) they want us to accept to live under the threat of terrorists that we put our lives at stake.
Because we can not defend ourselves, we must be vigilant and hope that it does not happen to us.
But they are protected so they don't give a shit that we are killed is the only way to see things in my country.

 

[JoeMoma]

To compare two approaches to gun control.....

France banned all rifles....military rifles are banned, as are self defense rifles with magazines, the semi auto rifles we have here....

At their concert attack...130 were killed...

November 2015 Paris attacks - Wikipedia

Here....58......

I know this doesn't fit your argument, but it wasn't a lone attacker in France.

Oh shit...Lewdog deflecting again.

Not a deflection. You can't compare the two incidents. One had 7-8 attackers, the other had a lone gunman.

Guns and the banning of them is the argument. What does the number of perpetrators in an incident have to do with France banning guns? If anything it proves they are even MORE readily available. You're like trying to walk a drunk through a doorway.

Do you have problems with logic? The two incidents are not alike, therefor they can't be compared.

Of course things can be compared when they are not alike. What's the point in comparing things if they have to be exactly alike?

 

[Dalia]

I know this doesn't fit your argument, but it wasn't a lone attacker in France.

Oh shit...Lewdog deflecting again.

Not a deflection. You can't compare the two incidents. One had 7-8 attackers, the other had a lone gunman.

Guns and the banning of them is the argument. What does the number of perpetrators in an incident have to do with France banning guns? If anything it proves they are even MORE readily available. You're like trying to walk a drunk through a doorway.

Do you have problems with logic? The two incidents are not alike, therefor they can't be compared.

France was worse and demonstrated that gun bans do not work....

And Immigration does not work the last one in Marseilles to kill two young French girls

with knives he had 7 identity on him and he was not on the S File.

2 dead in suspected terror attack at French train station

 

[Lewdog]

Here's the thing, I'm for the Second Amendment, however our government is going the wrong way with it. They are trying to pass legislation to legalizes silencers. Why the fuck would someone need a silencer to use for protection!?!?

This guy, Larry Correia.....a gun expert, explains it...

http://monsterhunternation.com/2017/09/26/an-opinion-on-suppressors-and-the-hearing-protection-act/

First off, it’s education time. How do suppressors work and why do we use them? When a cartridge is fired, the gun powder burns extremely rapidly, and this creates pressure which forces the bullet down the barrel. When those hot expanding gasses escape into the atmosphere, it is rather energetic and extremely loud.

If you’ve ever been around a really loud bang, you may have noticed that afterwards your ears ring. I’ve got some bad news for you, that ringing means you’ve permanently damaged your hearing. When that fades you will have lost some measure of hearing, and hearing damage is permanent and cumulative. The more of these loud bangs you are exposed to, the greater the damage. It will never get better. It will only continue to get worse.

I was a firearms instructor for about a decade and spent a lot of time running ranges and teaching people. I was religious about wearing my hearing protection, but if you spend enough time on the range you will be caught unaware eventually and somebody is going to touch something off right after you take your muffs off.

I have tinnitus. Basically, there is literally no sound of silence in my world. For me it is a constant ringing noise that’s about the same pitch as my lawn sprinklers. I also can’t pick up a lot of things in higher ranges, like for many years, my daughters’ voices. If you’ve ever spoken to me in the dealer’s room of a con, you’ll notice that I tend to lean over the table to get close to the speaker. That’s not because I’m being weird, it’s that I can’t understand you, especially in a room with background noise that aggravates the perpetual ringing.

I’m not alone. I’m sure audiologists love old gun nuts because they sell a lot of hearing aids that way.

Guns are loud, but are also incredibly useful. If you want to be proficient with a firearm, you must practice with it. So we put up with the loudness and put things in or over our ears in order to mitigate the damage as much as possible.

However, muffs slip. It is really easy to break the seal of an ear muff when you place your cheek on the stock of a rifle. Boom. Hearing damage. Or that little foam plug in your ear isn’t squished in quite right, or deforms and falls out? Boom. Hearing damage. I used to hate when I came home from a long day teaching a class, and I’d hear that ring that told me that at some point I’d screwed up. Because there’s no going back.

Suppressors were invented to mitigate that danger. You can call them silencers too, that’s fine, but Silencer was a brand name, not a particularly true description. It’s like Xerox or Kleenex. Many of us gun nuts just refer to them as cans, because that’s basically all they are.

I wasn’t joking when I said they work exactly like the muffler on your car. As those expanding gasses from the burning gun powder escape the muzzle, instead of flying outward to bombard those delicate little hairs in your ears, the gasses are trapped in a can screwed onto the end. That’s basically it.

Cans are usually filled with something that increases the interior surface area that gives the sound waves more things to bounce off of. In the olden days we used things like rubber gaskets, steel wool, grease, and all sorts of other stuff. Nowadays since good precision machine tools are common and cheap, most of them use metal baffles. The hardest part about building a can to last is dealing with the temperature. That energy which would normally escape as noise gets trapped as heat. Cans get hot fast.

So if you screw a suppressor onto the end of your gun, usually it isn’t going to make it silent. Not even close. The actual noise reduction is going to vary greatly depending on a whole bunch of different factors. The quality and construction of the can is secondary to the power level of the gun. The more powerful the boom, the more can required to contain it. It’s all about the amount of expanding gasses escaping that muzzle.

Also, most bullets are supersonic. Just like a fighter jet, when that bullet breaks the speed of sound it is going to make a sonic boom. Though since bullets are much smaller, it is more of a sonic crack. The baffles in a modern can never actually touch the bullet, so they do nothing about the bullet breaking the sound barrier.

I won’t get into decibel ratings (which are indecipherable gibberish to most folks anyway) but if you slap a suppressor onto a standard rifle, shooting standard ammunition, it is still pretty loud. It is still noticeable by anybody nearby. Everybody is still going to hear the sonic crack of the bullet. Only for the shooter is doesn’t feel like you’re getting hit in the ear canal with a hammer.

Regular pistols with regular ammo aren’t movie gun quiet. Not even close. In the movies the hit man shoots somebody with his 9mm and the people in the next room don’t hear it. Bullshit. A suppressed 115 grain standard 9mm sounds like taking a big ass dictionary and slamming it down as hard as you can flat on a hardwood floor. WHUMP. Bystanders are still going to hear, it’s just not as sharp.

There’s also the mechanical action of the gun working. On a semi-automatic firearm, the action is still going to cycle, and that also makes a pretty distinct noise. Bullet impacts are surprisingly loud, especially when they land close to you.


----

Excuse me, your highness, but if it pleases the crown, I would like to have the ability to teach my children to use firearms safely, in such a manner that they don’t end up hearing perpetual lawn sprinkler noises for the rest of their lives.

There is absolutely, positively, NO REASON for them to be legalized. I don't care how much you like guns, there is too many negative things with them than positive.

There are close to 16 million of them in private hands.......right now. At most a few each year are used to commit crimes and murder...vs, again, 16 million of them.....

there were 6 mass public shootings in 2016....71 people were murdered...not all 6 shootings involved rifles.

Knives were used to murder 1,604 people in the same year....

1,604 vs 71 ( an not all of those were rifles)

Can you tell which number is bigger?

Blunt objects were used to murder 472 people in 2016.

472 vs. 71

Can you tell which number is bigger?

Bare hands murdered 656 people in 2016.

656 vs. 71

Can you tell which number is bigger?

So tell us again how out of 16 million rifles, in a country of over 320 million people.....these rifles should be banned because less than 71 people were murdered with them...........cars killed 35,161 people in 2015......

This is why we know you are irrational.

Please tell me how a silencer is going to help with defending yourself from a home invasion or while concealed carry. Why would you need a silencer to help defend yourself against the government in case of some kind of Police State round up.

Now let's talk about how a silencer would help a criminal doing a home invasion to murder an entire family...

A silencer at home will keep you from blowing out your ear drums when you have to shoot the criminal.....why should a law abiding person go deaf simply because a criminal forces them to use a gun for self defense.

Criminals can already get silencers moron....they don't use them because they are bulky and hard to hide.

You don't understand how to weigh the pros and cons of a subject do you?

 

[2aguy]

This guy, Larry Correia.....a gun expert, explains it...

http://monsterhunternation.com/2017/09/26/an-opinion-on-suppressors-and-the-hearing-protection-act/

First off, it’s education time. How do suppressors work and why do we use them? When a cartridge is fired, the gun powder burns extremely rapidly, and this creates pressure which forces the bullet down the barrel. When those hot expanding gasses escape into the atmosphere, it is rather energetic and extremely loud.

If you’ve ever been around a really loud bang, you may have noticed that afterwards your ears ring. I’ve got some bad news for you, that ringing means you’ve permanently damaged your hearing. When that fades you will have lost some measure of hearing, and hearing damage is permanent and cumulative. The more of these loud bangs you are exposed to, the greater the damage. It will never get better. It will only continue to get worse.

I was a firearms instructor for about a decade and spent a lot of time running ranges and teaching people. I was religious about wearing my hearing protection, but if you spend enough time on the range you will be caught unaware eventually and somebody is going to touch something off right after you take your muffs off.

I have tinnitus. Basically, there is literally no sound of silence in my world. For me it is a constant ringing noise that’s about the same pitch as my lawn sprinklers. I also can’t pick up a lot of things in higher ranges, like for many years, my daughters’ voices. If you’ve ever spoken to me in the dealer’s room of a con, you’ll notice that I tend to lean over the table to get close to the speaker. That’s not because I’m being weird, it’s that I can’t understand you, especially in a room with background noise that aggravates the perpetual ringing.

I’m not alone. I’m sure audiologists love old gun nuts because they sell a lot of hearing aids that way.

Guns are loud, but are also incredibly useful. If you want to be proficient with a firearm, you must practice with it. So we put up with the loudness and put things in or over our ears in order to mitigate the damage as much as possible.

However, muffs slip. It is really easy to break the seal of an ear muff when you place your cheek on the stock of a rifle. Boom. Hearing damage. Or that little foam plug in your ear isn’t squished in quite right, or deforms and falls out? Boom. Hearing damage. I used to hate when I came home from a long day teaching a class, and I’d hear that ring that told me that at some point I’d screwed up. Because there’s no going back.

Suppressors were invented to mitigate that danger. You can call them silencers too, that’s fine, but Silencer was a brand name, not a particularly true description. It’s like Xerox or Kleenex. Many of us gun nuts just refer to them as cans, because that’s basically all they are.

I wasn’t joking when I said they work exactly like the muffler on your car. As those expanding gasses from the burning gun powder escape the muzzle, instead of flying outward to bombard those delicate little hairs in your ears, the gasses are trapped in a can screwed onto the end. That’s basically it.

Cans are usually filled with something that increases the interior surface area that gives the sound waves more things to bounce off of. In the olden days we used things like rubber gaskets, steel wool, grease, and all sorts of other stuff. Nowadays since good precision machine tools are common and cheap, most of them use metal baffles. The hardest part about building a can to last is dealing with the temperature. That energy which would normally escape as noise gets trapped as heat. Cans get hot fast.

So if you screw a suppressor onto the end of your gun, usually it isn’t going to make it silent. Not even close. The actual noise reduction is going to vary greatly depending on a whole bunch of different factors. The quality and construction of the can is secondary to the power level of the gun. The more powerful the boom, the more can required to contain it. It’s all about the amount of expanding gasses escaping that muzzle.

Also, most bullets are supersonic. Just like a fighter jet, when that bullet breaks the speed of sound it is going to make a sonic boom. Though since bullets are much smaller, it is more of a sonic crack. The baffles in a modern can never actually touch the bullet, so they do nothing about the bullet breaking the sound barrier.

I won’t get into decibel ratings (which are indecipherable gibberish to most folks anyway) but if you slap a suppressor onto a standard rifle, shooting standard ammunition, it is still pretty loud. It is still noticeable by anybody nearby. Everybody is still going to hear the sonic crack of the bullet. Only for the shooter is doesn’t feel like you’re getting hit in the ear canal with a hammer.

Regular pistols with regular ammo aren’t movie gun quiet. Not even close. In the movies the hit man shoots somebody with his 9mm and the people in the next room don’t hear it. Bullshit. A suppressed 115 grain standard 9mm sounds like taking a big ass dictionary and slamming it down as hard as you can flat on a hardwood floor. WHUMP. Bystanders are still going to hear, it’s just not as sharp.

There’s also the mechanical action of the gun working. On a semi-automatic firearm, the action is still going to cycle, and that also makes a pretty distinct noise. Bullet impacts are surprisingly loud, especially when they land close to you.


----

Excuse me, your highness, but if it pleases the crown, I would like to have the ability to teach my children to use firearms safely, in such a manner that they don’t end up hearing perpetual lawn sprinkler noises for the rest of their lives.

There is absolutely, positively, NO REASON for them to be legalized. I don't care how much you like guns, there is too many negative things with them than positive.

There are close to 16 million of them in private hands.......right now. At most a few each year are used to commit crimes and murder...vs, again, 16 million of them.....

there were 6 mass public shootings in 2016....71 people were murdered...not all 6 shootings involved rifles.

Knives were used to murder 1,604 people in the same year....

1,604 vs 71 ( an not all of those were rifles)

Can you tell which number is bigger?

Blunt objects were used to murder 472 people in 2016.

472 vs. 71

Can you tell which number is bigger?

Bare hands murdered 656 people in 2016.

656 vs. 71

Can you tell which number is bigger?

So tell us again how out of 16 million rifles, in a country of over 320 million people.....these rifles should be banned because less than 71 people were murdered with them...........cars killed 35,161 people in 2015......

This is why we know you are irrational.

Please tell me how a silencer is going to help with defending yourself from a home invasion or while concealed carry. Why would you need a silencer to help defend yourself against the government in case of some kind of Police State round up.

Now let's talk about how a silencer would help a criminal doing a home invasion to murder an entire family...

A silencer at home will keep you from blowing out your ear drums when you have to shoot the criminal.....why should a law abiding person go deaf simply because a criminal forces them to use a gun for self defense.

Criminals can already get silencers moron....they don't use them because they are bulky and hard to hide.

You don't understand how to weigh the pros and cons of a subject do you?

No...I understand it quite well...it is you morons who don't understand this when it comes to guns...and every other issue.

 

[Lewdog]

You totally missed the point. When the Second Amendment was written their guns looked like this:

Today guns look like this:

Which is why they were smart enough to know to make the Constitution so that it could be amended to meet the changing times.

And if the Founders knew that in our future, national socialists would murder 12 million unarmed Europeans in gas chambers, the soviet communists would murder 12 million unarmed men, women and children, and that the chinese communists would murder 70 million unarmed people....not to forget the drug cartels in Mexico murdering 10s of thousands of citizens every year with the help of police, and the other mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing around the world.......

They would have mandated that every single American have guns by law...no exceptions.....

What does that have to do with the U.S.? Nothing.

Mass murder, genocide, and ethnic cleansing only happen to people who don't have guns....that is why it is relevant here....we don't want mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing to happen to us.......

I'm not saying get rid of all guns. What we don't need is when ONE person can get enough guns, and have guns that by himself he can kill 59 people and injure over 500.

And they can simply rent a truck and kill 89 people like the guy in Nice, France, did.....

There are people who own more guns than that guy, and they never use them to commit murder.

Non Sequitur. We aren't talking about mass killings with vehicles, this guy used multiple guns.

 

[Lewdog]

There is absolutely, positively, NO REASON for them to be legalized. I don't care how much you like guns, there is too many negative things with them than positive.

There are close to 16 million of them in private hands.......right now. At most a few each year are used to commit crimes and murder...vs, again, 16 million of them.....

there were 6 mass public shootings in 2016....71 people were murdered...not all 6 shootings involved rifles.

Knives were used to murder 1,604 people in the same year....

1,604 vs 71 ( an not all of those were rifles)

Can you tell which number is bigger?

Blunt objects were used to murder 472 people in 2016.

472 vs. 71

Can you tell which number is bigger?

Bare hands murdered 656 people in 2016.

656 vs. 71

Can you tell which number is bigger?

So tell us again how out of 16 million rifles, in a country of over 320 million people.....these rifles should be banned because less than 71 people were murdered with them...........cars killed 35,161 people in 2015......

This is why we know you are irrational.

Please tell me how a silencer is going to help with defending yourself from a home invasion or while concealed carry. Why would you need a silencer to help defend yourself against the government in case of some kind of Police State round up.

Now let's talk about how a silencer would help a criminal doing a home invasion to murder an entire family...

A silencer at home will keep you from blowing out your ear drums when you have to shoot the criminal.....why should a law abiding person go deaf simply because a criminal forces them to use a gun for self defense.

Criminals can already get silencers moron....they don't use them because they are bulky and hard to hide.

You don't understand how to weigh the pros and cons of a subject do you?

No...I understand it quite well...it is you morons who don't understand this when it comes to guns...and every other issue.

You do? You just said silencers should be legal to protect gun owners ear drums when using their gun during a home evasion was more important that criminals having a silencer that would allow them to come in a home and kill a whole family without the others hearing the first gun shots.

Fucking stupid.

 

[Lewdog]

I know this doesn't fit your argument, but it wasn't a lone attacker in France.

Oh shit...Lewdog deflecting again.

Not a deflection. You can't compare the two incidents. One had 7-8 attackers, the other had a lone gunman.

Guns and the banning of them is the argument. What does the number of perpetrators in an incident have to do with France banning guns? If anything it proves they are even MORE readily available. You're like trying to walk a drunk through a doorway.

Do you have problems with logic? The two incidents are not alike, therefor they can't be compared.

Of course things can be compared when they are not alike. What's the point in comparing things if they have to be exactly alike?

They aren't even remotely alike. One was a large group of shooters that were a coordinated attack with others in the city setting off bombs.

 

[2aguy]

And if the Founders knew that in our future, national socialists would murder 12 million unarmed Europeans in gas chambers, the soviet communists would murder 12 million unarmed men, women and children, and that the chinese communists would murder 70 million unarmed people....not to forget the drug cartels in Mexico murdering 10s of thousands of citizens every year with the help of police, and the other mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing around the world.......

They would have mandated that every single American have guns by law...no exceptions.....

What does that have to do with the U.S.? Nothing.

Mass murder, genocide, and ethnic cleansing only happen to people who don't have guns....that is why it is relevant here....we don't want mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing to happen to us.......

I'm not saying get rid of all guns. What we don't need is when ONE person can get enough guns, and have guns that by himself he can kill 59 people and injure over 500.

And they can simply rent a truck and kill 89 people like the guy in Nice, France, did.....

There are people who own more guns than that guy, and they never use them to commit murder.

Non Sequitur. We aren't talking about mass killings with vehicles, this guy used multiple guns.

No...completely relevant...this guy had an 23 guns with him, he used two and killed 58 people...he went through federally mandated background checks for every gun purchase.....

The guy in France rented a truck and killed 89 people and wounded over 400......

Completely relevant comparison....as is the fact that terrorists on French government, terrorist watch lists got fully automatic military rifles in France, where they are completely banned.....

Gun control does not stop criminals and terrorists from getting whatever guns they want...and even more...even criminals in France get fully automatic rifles...they just don't use them to commit murder...

Paris attacks highlight France's gun control problems

But in recent years a black market has proliferated. The number of illegal weapons has risen at a rapid rate – double-digit percentages – for several years, according to the National Observatory for Delinquency, a body created in 2003.

“In Marseille and the surrounding area almost all the score settling is carried out using weapons used in wars,” a police spokesman told Reuters after the Toulouse attacks, adding that Kalashnikovs were the weapon of choice: “If you don’t have a ‘Kalash’ you’re a bit of a loser.”

============================
Paris attacks highlight France's gun control problems

The arsenal of weapons deployed by the eight attackers who terrorised Paris on Friday night underlined France’s gun control problems and raised the spectre of further attacks.

The country has extremely strict weapons laws, but Europe’s open borders and growing trade in illegal weapons means assault rifles are relatively easy to come by on the black market.



-------------=================
France’s real gun problem

Despite these strict laws, France seems to be awash with guns. The guns used in high-profile terror attacks are really just the tip of the iceberg. In 2012, French authorities estimated that there were around 30,000 guns illegally in the country, many likely used by gangs for criminal activities. Of those guns, around 4,000 were likely to be "war weapons," Le Figaro reported, referring to items such as the Kalashnikov AK-variant rifles and Uzis. Statistics from the National Observatory for Delinquency, a government body created in 2003, suggest that the number of guns in France has grown by double digits every year.

Three dead in suspected gang shooting in France: source - The Express Tribune

MARSEILLE: Three men were killed in a suspected gang shooting in southern France on Saturday, sources said, taking to eight the number who have died in gang violence in the city this year.

Three others were also injured in the gunfight, which broke out around 10:30 pm (2030 GMT) in Marseilles.

--------

At least 19 people were murdered in and around Marseilles last year, compared to 18 in 2014 and 17 in 2014, many of which authorities believe were carried out by gangs linked with drug trafficking.

On March 17, a 35-year-old man was killed by two men armed with Kalashnikovs, who ambushed him while driving then gunned him down as he tried to flee
--------------------------------------

 

[2aguy]

Oh shit...Lewdog deflecting again.

Not a deflection. You can't compare the two incidents. One had 7-8 attackers, the other had a lone gunman.

Guns and the banning of them is the argument. What does the number of perpetrators in an incident have to do with France banning guns? If anything it proves they are even MORE readily available. You're like trying to walk a drunk through a doorway.

Do you have problems with logic? The two incidents are not alike, therefor they can't be compared.

Of course things can be compared when they are not alike. What's the point in comparing things if they have to be exactly alike?

They aren't even remotely alike. One was a large group of shooters that were a coordinated attack with others in the city setting off bombs.

No moron.......you had men on government terrorist watch lists...known terrorists....who easily got fully automatic, military rifles......and grenades....in a country where they are completely banned...and they used them to kill over 140 people if you include Charlie Hebdo with the Paris attack.......