Author Topic: Guns again  (Read 14030 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #406 on: April 19, 2013, 07:17:10 AM »
The state of Maryland just passed some fairly strict new gun control laws that will be going into effect on October 1st.

Not exactly in the misinformation category, but an aside and expansion.

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/beretta-leaves-maryland-following-stricter-gun-laws

Odin, King of the Gods

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11980
  • Darwins +614/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Guns again
« Reply #407 on: April 19, 2013, 08:30:13 AM »
How about if I just try to point out the misinformation in the posts, and in the various sides of the debate?

You can participate in whatever way you are comfortable.  Your input on this topic is welcome.

No one can walk into a gun store in the US and walk out with a fully automatic weapon.

I was aware of this.  If someone has said otherwise, I missed it.

I belong to a shooting club, with skeet, trap and sporting clays ranges.  Our membership, about 1,000 total, includes mostly high-tech engineers, managers, computer specialists, numerous PhDs including retired college professors, CPAs, attorneys, etc.  Not exactly Chronos' average profile?

True.  But that also is not representative of the general population either.  I invite you to read the Gun Fail links I have posted in this thread.
Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 11980
  • Darwins +614/-23
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Guns again
« Reply #408 on: April 19, 2013, 08:35:54 AM »

http://www.opposingviews.com/i/society/guns/beretta-leaves-maryland-following-stricter-gun-laws


I'm not clear on exactly why Beretta is leaving.  Does the law make it impossible for them to do business there?  Is it illegal for them to produce or transport their product?  Or are they just being being vindictive assholes?  The article is not clear.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4350
  • Darwins +206/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Guns again
« Reply #409 on: April 19, 2013, 08:54:19 AM »
I'm not clear on exactly why Beretta is leaving.  Does the law make it impossible for them to do business there?  Is it illegal for them to produce or transport their product?  Or are they just being being vindictive assholes?  The article is not clear.

It's a combination of factors.  The law does not make it impossible for them to do business here, but it is going to ban a number of products that the company makes.  Beretta is angry about the fact that their employees are going to be manufacturing products that they will be prohibited from owning, and that they will not be able to sell in the state they are located in.  Maryland is also among the more gun-hostile states in the union, and Beretta resents the fact that they are manufacturing products in a state where the state already places so many restrictions on ownership and use of those products .  (For example, in Maryland, if you have an unloaded, locked handgun in the trunk of your car, and you stop anywhere, regardless of the reason -- even if it's to fill your car's gas tank or just go the bathroom somewhere -- you are committing a felony.)  As the restrictions are now about to become even tighter, Beretta is increasingly feeling that it is no longer welcome in Maryland.  I would feel the same way if I were them.

Maryland in general is also not known for being a very business-friendly state in any event, between regulations, taxes and so forth, but that's probably only a secondary consideration at best.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #410 on: April 19, 2013, 12:30:27 PM »
P.S. But I agree it is too easy to go to the shopping center and buy automatic weapon. I know not everyone is ready to own a gun.

Odin, King of the Gods

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #411 on: April 19, 2013, 12:48:44 PM »
I'm not clear on exactly why Beretta is leaving.  Does the law make it impossible for them to do business there?  Is it illegal for them to produce or transport their product?  Or are they just being being vindictive assholes?  The article is not clear.

With the research I did on Jeffery Reh, it was pretty evident why they are considering leaving.  “Why expand in a place where the people who built the gun couldn’t buy it?” said Jeffrey Reh, general counsel for Beretta.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/md-politics/berettas-future-in-maryland-tied-to-states-gun-control-debate/2013/02/23/bcc56c62-7776-11e2-95e4-6148e45d7adb_story.html

They are vindictive assholes who don't want to reward a state that makes some of their products illegal to own in that state?  Do you all see the kind of bullshit rhetoric folks try to get away with in a debate like this?

Odin, King of the Gods

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #412 on: April 19, 2013, 12:55:06 PM »
True.  But that also is not representative of the general population either.  I invite you to read the Gun Fail links I have posted in this thread.

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

Point, Counter-Point.  I'm sure these idiots, rednecks and ne'er-do-wells shouldn't have had these guns.  They should have waited for the police to save them.  Right?

Odin, King of the Gods

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #413 on: April 19, 2013, 12:57:55 PM »
I don't understand why we need the kind of guns that can do this kind of damage.  Rifles and hand guns are fine.  These things have no purpose xcept this kind of stuff.

Nick, what exactly do think an AR-15 is?  Is it not a rifle?

Odin, King of the Gods

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #414 on: April 19, 2013, 01:03:58 PM »
Nobody here seems willing to suggest banning guns. Why not? There are around 30,000 people killed and 75,000 injured by firearms each year in the US. Here’s my proposal to reduce the carnage.

Ban private ownership of all firearms and airguns unless a person can provide a genuine reason and demonstrate a genuine need to own a gun. Genuine reasons would include pest control, hunting, target shooting or collecting. Self-defence would not be considered a genuine reason.

The approved firearm would be the least powerful weapon required for the task—for example, a single-shot .22 for pest control on farms. Applicants would need to demonstrate a genuine need for a more powerful weapon. Only professional hunters would be allowed semi-automatic weapons. Target shooters would need to compete in a specified minimum number of matches each year to retain their licence. Collectors’ weapons would be rendered permanently inoperable by plugging the barrel and welding the action. Only registered collectors would be allowed to own replica firearms.

All gun owners would be licensed through a rigorous process including a probationary period and each firearm would be individually registered to the owner by serial number. Additional firearms would only be allowed if the owner could demonstrate a genuine need to own more than one firearm. Owners must have secure storage for the firearm.

The currently existing weapons in private hands would be surrendered and destroyed. Fair compensation would be paid and financed with a levy on all taxpayers.

So, what do people think of this proposal? Do you think it is reasonable, desirable or feasible? Would you vote for this? If not, what are your objections?

Here is my objection.  I am a US citizen. 

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Odin, Americanized Nordic King of the Gods

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #415 on: April 19, 2013, 01:09:07 PM »
I would support it 3sigma.  Sounds like a great way to clamp down on this so that every single person has to go through a bit more hassle.  Sure beats the current setup of multiple gun shows per city, per week, where one can walk out with an ICBM in their trunk.   ;D

Bullshit, as per my other posts.  My hometown holds one gun show every quarter.  It is a fair sized city in the US, in the top fifty in population.  You can't acquire an ICBM (hell, not even the North Korean knucklehead can get these!), nor legally acquire a fully automatic weapon.  You also cannot legally acquire a handgun without a permit, in my state.

Odin, King of the Gods

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #416 on: April 19, 2013, 01:22:38 PM »
Enough flood for today.  I tried to use logic to counter posts which seemed illogical to me, without interjecting my own opinion.  It appears that it was not possible to do so, but I believe I came close.  Flame away.

3sigma - Are you a US Citizen?  It's an important question, given that you propose repealing the 2nd Amendment. 

Odin, King of the Gods

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4609
  • Darwins +502/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Guns again
« Reply #417 on: April 19, 2013, 02:39:43 PM »
I see lots of rhetoric in the various posts Odin has made, but I think he's letting himself get carried away somewhat.  For example, let's take his citation of the Second Amendment:  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Emphasis mine.  It seems to me that a lot of people pretty much ignore the entire first half of the Second Amendment, including Odin.  I think gun ownership is okay, but I also think it should be regulated, and indeed, the wording of the Second Amendment strongly suggests that the intent was to regulate gun ownership via militia membership, and in exchange, you couldn't just arbitrarily disarm people.

As for Beretta moving, let's be honest here - it isn't as if Maryland is preventing Beretta from selling any of its products in general.  They just can't sell specific kinds of guns within Maryland's borders.  They aren't being forced to move, they're choosing to move because they are upset with Maryland's laws regarding gun ownership.  And while that's their decision, let's not pretend that there isn't at least some vindictiveness there.  "You aren't going to let me sell everything I make here in this state?  Well, then, I'll just move my company to a different state instead."

Regarding the AR-15, it is a rifle, a semi-automatic gun with a magazine.  However, it was also used to murder children at an elementary school.  Is it any surprise how many people are reacting?  I personally don't see the point in all the fuss about limiting magazine size.  When you get right down to it, a reasonably skilled shooter can switch magazines in only a few seconds; small-capacity magazines wouldn't have spared any of those children from being murdered.  While I realize it's largely an effort to be seen as doing something after a massacre like that, I'm of the opinion that half-baked responses are worse than no response at all.

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2135
  • Darwins +70/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Guns again
« Reply #418 on: April 19, 2013, 02:50:01 PM »

As for Beretta moving, let's be honest here - it isn't as if Maryland is preventing Beretta from selling any of its products in general.  They just can't sell specific kinds of guns within Maryland's borders.  They aren't being forced to move, they're choosing to move because they are upset with Maryland's laws regarding gun ownership.  And while that's their decision, let's not pretend that there isn't at least some vindictiveness there.  "You aren't going to let me sell everything I make here in this state?  Well, then, I'll just move my company to a different state instead."

Let me preface this by stating that I've done zero research on Beretta, but it seems to me a very rare company that makes moves just to be vindictive. That runs completely contrary to most business models I've witnessed, where all decisions are based on revenues.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #419 on: April 19, 2013, 03:16:06 PM »
I see lots of rhetoric in the various posts Odin has made, but I think he's letting himself get carried away somewhat.  For example, let's take his citation of the Second Amendment:  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Emphasis mine.  It seems to me that a lot of people pretty much ignore the entire first half of the Second Amendment, including Odin.  I think gun ownership is okay, but I also think it should be regulated, and indeed, the wording of the Second Amendment strongly suggests that the intent was to regulate gun ownership via militia membership, and in exchange, you couldn't just arbitrarily disarm people.

from    http://ivn.us/2012/12/21/second-amendment-individual-rights-vs-collective-rights/

Throughout most of U.S. history, the Second Amendment was not viewed as protecting an individual right. It wasn’t until 2008 that the Supreme Court ruled the Second Amendment addresses an individual right in District of Columbia v. Heller.
 
In a 5-4 decision, the justices on the high court struck down a handgun ban in Washington, D.C. by dividing the amendment into separate, but equal clauses.
 
“The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause,” Justice Scalia wrote in the court’s opinion. “The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose.”
 
To simplify what he said:
 
“The Amendment could be rephrased, ‘Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.’”
 
The majority opinion stated that not only is the right to bear arms an individual right, separate from military service or service in a collective body, but the phrase “keep and bear” means individuals have a right to possess and carry in the event of confrontation.

Ergo, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Quote
As for Beretta moving, let's be honest here - it isn't as if Maryland is preventing Beretta from selling any of its products in general.  They just can't sell specific kinds of guns within Maryland's borders.  They aren't being forced to move, they're choosing to move because they are upset with Maryland's laws regarding gun ownership.  And while that's their decision, let's not pretend that there isn't at least some vindictiveness there.  "You aren't going to let me sell everything I make here in this state?  Well, then, I'll just move my company to a different state instead."

Yes, and it is their prerogative to be vindictive.  Why continue to do business in a hostile state environment?  Why not move to a more gun-friendly state?  I would bet if you made product X, and your home state outlawed product X, you would also not be too happy with that state. 

Quote
Regarding the AR-15, it is a rifle, a semi-automatic gun with a magazine.  However, it was also used to murder children at an elementary school.  Is it any surprise how many people are reacting?  I personally don't see the point in all the fuss about limiting magazine size.  When you get right down to it, a reasonably skilled shooter can switch magazines in only a few seconds; small-capacity magazines wouldn't have spared any of those children from being murdered.  While I realize it's largely an effort to be seen as doing something after a massacre like that, I'm of the opinion that half-baked responses are worse than no response at all.

Here we can disagree.  An AR-15 with a five-round magazine is no more deadly than any semi-automatic hunting rifle, like say a Remington Model 750 in .270 Winchester caliber, with a five-round magazine.

End of rhetoric.

Odin, King of the Gods

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #420 on: April 19, 2013, 03:19:45 PM »
Let me preface this by stating that I've done zero research on Beretta, but it seems to me a very rare company that makes moves just to be vindictive. That runs completely contrary to most business models I've witnessed, where all decisions are based on revenues.

Dante and jaimehlers,

You clearly don't understand the attitudes of family-owned businesses, like Beretta.  They are very protective of their brands and products.  As I stated above, why stay in a clearly hostile business environment?

Odin, King of the Gods

Offline Dante

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2135
  • Darwins +70/-8
  • Gender: Male
  • Hedonist Extraordinaire
Re: Guns again
« Reply #421 on: April 19, 2013, 03:30:29 PM »
Let me preface this by stating that I've done zero research on Beretta, but it seems to me a very rare company that makes moves just to be vindictive. That runs completely contrary to most business models I've witnessed, where all decisions are based on revenues.

Dante and jaimehlers,

You clearly don't understand the attitudes of family-owned businesses, like Beretta.  They are very protective of their brands and products.  As I stated above, why stay in a clearly hostile business environment?Odin, King of the Gods

Money. It's why businesses are businesses.

But, if they really are relocating because of their convictions, I have no problem with that either.
Actually it doesn't. One could conceivably be all-powerful but not exceptionally intelligent.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4609
  • Darwins +502/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Guns again
« Reply #422 on: April 19, 2013, 03:54:09 PM »
Odin, that Supreme Court decision didn't happen in a vacuum.  It happened because of organizations which viewed gun ownership as an individual right, and who were able to get a slim majority on the Court to agree with them.  Those people and groups basically ignore the first part of the Second Amendment by separating it into two clauses.  "A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state" doesn't really say a lot by itself.  A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state...?  While I'd agree that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, it doesn't really say much in a legal sense.  It needs the other half, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" in order to make proper sense.

In other words, it's just playing word games with the Constitution, and I flat out don't buy it.  I'm glad you pointed that out, though, because it's more proof that many 'conservatives' are playing fast and loose with the Constitution so they can do what they want with it.  We saw the same thing with Citizens United, where a similar 5-4 majority declared that a corporation was a person and thus used it to justify allowing unlimited spending by those corporations during election cycles.

Regarding Beretta, I don't really care.  If they want to be vindictive, that's their responsibility, I'm not going to give them a bye or excuse their actions for it.

And regarding magazine sizes, my point was that there's no reason to limit them because it's pretty easy to switch magazines if you know how to do it.  Indeed, I segued into the point that it would have been better to wait until the hysteria died down before they started passing laws, rather than passing half-baked laws to appease that hysteria.  I don't know what you were responding to here, it certainly isn't anything I said.

Offline Azdgari

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 12208
  • Darwins +267/-31
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #423 on: April 19, 2013, 03:57:17 PM »
And regarding magazine sizes, my point was that there's no reason to limit them because it's pretty easy to switch magazines if you know how to do it.  Indeed, I segued into the point that it would have been better to wait until the hysteria died down before they started passing laws, rather than passing half-baked laws to appease that hysteria.  I don't know what you were responding to here, it certainly isn't anything I said.

Because you disagree with his interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, everything else you say must be disagreed with as well.
The highest moral human authority is copied by our Gandhi neurons through observation.

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #424 on: April 19, 2013, 05:34:10 PM »
I personally don't see the point in all the fuss about limiting magazine size.  When you get right down to it, a reasonably skilled shooter can switch magazines in only a few seconds; small-capacity magazines wouldn't have spared any of those children from being murdered.  While I realize it's largely an effort to be seen as doing something after a massacre like that, I'm of the opinion that half-baked responses are worse than no response at all.

This is what I was responding to, regarding magazine sizes.  I don't think you have shot many semi-automatic guns, and you also have not thought this issue through, it appears to me.

Three 30-round AR magazines obviously hold 90 rounds.  It takes 18 5-round magazines to total 90 rounds.  I would suggest it is much easier to carry 3 30-round AR magazines than it would be to carry 18 5-round magazines.  It would also be more effective and efficient, from a killing perspective, to change magazines just 2 times to fire 90 rounds than to change magazines 17 times.

That being said, I believe that limiting magazine capacity is the most effective way to prevent mass shootings.  However, there are about 3 million AR-15 type weapons held by US citizens.  The majority have magazine capacities of 20 and/or 30 rounds.  Pandora's Box has been opened, and cannot be closed.

Odin, King of the Gods

Offline Brakeman

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1242
  • Darwins +47/-3
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #425 on: April 19, 2013, 09:02:48 PM »

Three 30-round AR magazines obviously hold 90 rounds.  It takes 18 5-round magazines to total 90 rounds.  I would suggest it is much easier to carry 3 30-round AR magazines than it would be to carry 18 5-round magazines.  It would also be more effective and efficient, from a killing perspective, to change magazines just 2 times to fire 90 rounds than to change magazines 17 times.

That being said, I believe that limiting magazine capacity is the most effective way to prevent mass shootings. .

So why doesn't the U.S. Army issue 30 round clips?

 The army wants their soldiers to be as lethal as possible, but they know that a practiced reload takes very little time and the small clips are easier to manage and don't become entangled with objects while being waved around.

Watch this shooter and tell us how you would wrestle him to the ground while he's reloading..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GsmUzSBaUQ
Help find the cure for FUNDAMENTIA !

Offline Chronos

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 2266
  • Darwins +120/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Born without religion
    • Marking Time
Re: Guns again
« Reply #426 on: April 19, 2013, 09:42:08 PM »
I belong to a shooting club, with skeet, trap and sporting clays ranges.  Our membership, about 1,000 total, includes mostly high-tech engineers, managers, computer specialists, numerous PhDs including retired college professors, CPAs, attorneys, etc.  Not exactly Chronos' average profile?

My average profile? I don't understand. Please elaborate.



John 14:2 :: In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #427 on: April 19, 2013, 09:53:41 PM »
It appears that the easiest thing to do to a populace is to disarm them of their common sense, and the best way to do that is to arm them with as many firearms as possible. More guns = fewer brains.

Perhaps I misunderstood?

Odin

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #428 on: April 19, 2013, 10:11:18 PM »
So why doesn't the U.S. Army issue 30 round clips?

 The army wants their soldiers to be as lethal as possible, but they know that a practiced reload takes very little time and the small clips are easier to manage and don't become entangled with objects while being waved around.

Watch this shooter and tell us how you would wrestle him to the ground while he's reloading..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GsmUzSBaUQ

Not sure where you are getting your info on Army M4 magazine capacities.  It looks like 30 rounds to me.

http://www.military-today.com/firearms/m4.htm

Also, that speed reloader is one shooter in a few million.  It's like comparing a PGA Tour Pro with a weekend duffer.  They don't play the same game.

Odin, King of the Gods

Offline jaimehlers

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4609
  • Darwins +502/-11
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Guns again
« Reply #429 on: April 19, 2013, 11:39:43 PM »
This is what I was responding to, regarding magazine sizes.  I don't think you have shot many semi-automatic guns, and you also have not thought this issue through, it appears to me.

Three 30-round AR magazines obviously hold 90 rounds.  It takes 18 5-round magazines to total 90 rounds.  I would suggest it is much easier to carry 3 30-round AR magazines than it would be to carry 18 5-round magazines.  It would also be more effective and efficient, from a killing perspective, to change magazines just 2 times to fire 90 rounds than to change magazines 17 times.

That being said, I believe that limiting magazine capacity is the most effective way to prevent mass shootings.  However, there are about 3 million AR-15 type weapons held by US citizens.  The majority have magazine capacities of 20 and/or 30 rounds.  Pandora's Box has been opened, and cannot be closed.
The Army issues assault rifles that have burst and fully-automatic settings.  I'm pretty sure those kinds of guns are not sold to civilians.  Come on, seriously, what do you take me for?

And it really isn't that difficult to switch magazines, given the way many firearms are designed.  We aren't talking about bolt-action rifles here.  Sure, a typical shooter won't be able to change clips in a second, but it won't slow them down very much.  Certainly not enough for unarmed, untrained civilians to rush him.

Personally, I think the best way to prevent mass shootings is to teach people how to use - and when not to use - them.

Offline DumpsterFire

  • Graduate
  • ****
  • Posts: 383
  • Darwins +61/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • The Flaming Duck of Death!
Re: Guns again
« Reply #430 on: April 20, 2013, 01:45:16 AM »
Yes, and it is their prerogative to be vindictive.  Why continue to do business in a hostile state environment?  Why not move to a more gun-friendly state?  I would bet if you made product X, and your home state outlawed product X, you would also not be too happy with that state. 

The Jack Daniels distillery is located in a TN county that has been dry[1] since Prohibition, and they've been doing just fine for nearly a century.
 1. for anyone who may not know, dry means the sale of alcoholic beverages is illegal
Providing rednecks with sunblock since 1996.

I once met a man who claimed to be a genius, then boasted that he was a member of "Mesa".

Think for yourself.

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #431 on: April 20, 2013, 05:35:05 AM »
The Army issues assault rifles that have burst and fully-automatic settings.  I'm pretty sure those kinds of guns are not sold to civilians.  Come on, seriously, what do you take me for?
 

I'm not sure what I said that makes you think I take you for something.  Fully automatic and burst-fire rifles are not available to the general public in the US.  I stated that several times.

Quote
And it really isn't that difficult to switch magazines, given the way many firearms are designed.  We aren't talking about bolt-action rifles here.  Sure, a typical shooter won't be able to change clips in a second, but it won't slow them down very much.  Certainly not enough for unarmed, untrained civilians to rush him.

Personally, I think the best way to prevent mass shootings is to teach people how to use - and when not to use - them.

You actually believe teaching a mentally ill Adam Lanza how to use, and when not to use, guns would have prevented a mass shooting?  That's a novel concept.  Here's a better one.  How about if his mom, who legally owned the guns, had followed the laws in place and not allowed her mentally ill son to have access to them? 

Odin, King of the Gods

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #432 on: April 20, 2013, 05:41:58 AM »
The Jack Daniels distillery is located in a TN county that has been dry[1] since Prohibition, and they've been doing just fine for nearly a century.
 1. for anyone who may not know, dry means the sale of alcoholic beverages is illegal
 

It is their perogative to stay.  However, per Wikipedia:

When the company was later incorporated, it was incorporated as "Jack Daniel Distillery, Lem Motlow, Prop., Inc." This has allowed the company to continue to include Lem Motlow, who died in 1947, in its marketing, since mentioning him in the advertising is technically just citing the full corporate name. Likewise, the advertisements continue to say that Lynchburg has only 361 people, though the 2000 census reports 5,740. This is allowable because the entire label was trademarked in the early 1960s when this figure was the actual population cited by the Census Bureau; changing the label would require applying for a new trademark or forfeiting trademark protection. However, the census population includes all of Moore County, as the county and city governments are consolidated. Moore County, where the Jack Daniel's distillery is located, is one of the state's many dry counties. Therefore, while it is legal to distill the product within the county, it is illegal to purchase it there. However, a state law has provided one exception: a distillery may sell one commemorative product, regardless of county statutes.[12] Jack Daniel's now sells Gentleman Jack, Jack Daniel's Single Barrel, the original No. 7 blend (in a commemorative bottle), and a seasonal blend (on rotation) at the distillery's White Rabbit Bottle Shop.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Daniel's

I also bet that distillery workers get some whiskey allowance every so often, though I can't easily find a reference to it.  Note that they moved out of TN at one point.

It's actually not a good analogy to compare sour mash whiskey production to gun manufacturing.  Sour mash and bourbon whiskey are almost exclusively distilled in KY and TN.  Distilleries were originally located there, in hilly or mountainous areas, to take advantage of the supply of clean waters in streams and rivers.  Read some about the history of sour mash and bourbon.

Odin, King of the Gods

PS - Odin has been known to consume these "Nectars of the Gods" upon occasion.  Gentleman Jack is one of his favorites. 
« Last Edit: April 20, 2013, 05:59:12 AM by Odin »

Offline pianodwarf

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 4350
  • Darwins +206/-5
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Guns again
« Reply #433 on: April 20, 2013, 05:57:22 AM »
So why doesn't the U.S. Army issue 30 round clips?

 The army wants their soldiers to be as lethal as possible, but they know that a practiced reload takes very little time and the small clips are easier to manage

Just an aside, by the way: the term is "magazine", not "clip".
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline Odin

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1030
  • Darwins +13/-2
  • Gender: Male
Re: Guns again
« Reply #434 on: April 20, 2013, 06:00:19 AM »
So why doesn't the U.S. Army issue 30 round clips?

 The army wants their soldiers to be as lethal as possible, but they know that a practiced reload takes very little time and the small clips are easier to manage

Just an aside, by the way: the term is "magazine", not "clip".

Ah, another knowledgeable gun owner/user.

Odin, King of the Gods