No one needs 15 rounds

[CorvallisBMW]

It was proven in a video I posted a few pages back. Firing a gun and reloading a semiautomatic translates into little to no difference in time needed to evacuate X number of rounds from the gun.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

In a highly-controlled, closed and scripted environment, when performed by a well-rehearsed and trained expert. Real life is a different story, as I proved out in this post: http://www.r3vlimited.com/board/show...&postcount=132

Why are we well below average in the developed world for other types of violent crime?

Are we? I've never heard that. Can you show me any data or figures to back up that claim?

[marshallnoise]

You didn't watch the video, did you?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[ParsedOut]

You didn't watch the video, did you?

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

While we have the same point of view, that video is a joke. The rate of fire is obviously uncontrolled and much slower on the first set. It takes approx 2 seconds to reload in an ideal scenario, much longer if fumbled. So the benefit of smaller magazines in an active shooter scenario can be debated (obviously) it can also be debated that since larger magazines are already out there criminals will find ways of obtaining them while law abiding citizens will then be at a disadvantage. Also the statistics (too lazy to look it up for you fucks that won't even bother to consider it) show that mass shootings are such a minor portion of gun violence, that we're chasing the relatively rare headline grabbing situations while ignoring the bigger gun violence issues.

[marshallnoise]

While we have the same point of view, that video is a joke. The rate of fire is obviously uncontrolled and much slower on the first set. It takes approx 2 seconds to reload in an ideal scenario, much longer if fumbled. So the benefit of smaller magazines in an active shooter scenario can be debated (obviously) it can also be debated that since larger magazines are already out there criminals will find ways of obtaining them while law abiding citizens will then be at a disadvantage. Also the statistics (too lazy to look it up for you fucks that won't even bother to consider it) show that mass shootings are such a minor portion of gun violence, that we're chasing the relatively rare headline grabbing situations while ignoring the bigger gun violence issues.

I disagree. What it shows is exactly what you pointed out; fumbling the reload is what makes the difference. A well qualified person will not fumble, but a whacked out idiot will. The only chance reducing clip size offers is the opportunity to fumble, but then again it is zero guarantee. Too many variables in the whole equation to reduce the debate down to magazine capacity. Other than emotional, irrational responses to things out of one's control.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

[rwh11385]

Are we? I've never heard that. Can you show me any data or figures to back up that claim?

You ever care to look?

http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf

US is below the mean for robbery and assault.

[Farbin Kaiber]

http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2013/05/07/gun-homicide-rate-down-49-since-1993-peak-public-unaware/

[CorvallisBMW]

You ever care to look?

http://www.civitas.org.uk/crime/crime_stats_oecdjan2012.pdf

US is below the mean for robbery and assault.

Thanks for posting. Good to know. (And no, I did not look it up. He made the claim, the onus is on him to provide the evidence to back it up. Not me.) The next question is, do all of those countries define "Robbery" and "Assault" in exactly the same way? My first inclination is no, because Belgium is far from a dangerous country. So is Scotland. So the huge variation between figures from those countries and figures from others may have a lot more to do with semantics than with actual crimes. Does Belgium really have 4x the robberies that crime-ridden Mexico does? I find that hard to believe.

In any case, I'd much rather have higher rates on non-violent crime and lower rates of violent crime. Assaults, robberies, etc are all minor when compared to homicide. Stuff that's taken out of your home can be replaced. bruises and black eyes heel. But once someone is dead, they're dead. Call me crazy but I'd much rather have someone steal my TV than shoot me in the head

[einhander]

It was proven in a video I posted a few pages back. Firing a gun and reloading a semiautomatic translates into little to no difference in time needed to evacuate X number of rounds from the gun.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk

I said scientific proof, not some video you found while spending your time between cuckold porn and gun websites.

[BraveUlysses]

Thanks for posting. Good to know. (And no, I did not look it up. He made the claim, the onus is on him to provide the evidence to back it up. Not me.) The next question is, do all of those countries define "Robbery" and "Assault" in exactly the same way? My first inclination is no, because Belgium is far from a dangerous country. So is Scotland. So the huge variation between figures from those countries and figures from others may have a lot more to do with semantics than with actual crimes. Does Belgium really have 4x the robberies that crime-ridden Mexico does? I find that hard to believe.

Swing and a miss. It's a per capita chart you're looking at so the population size does not matter.

[The Dark Side of Will]

Thanks for posting. Good to know. (And no, I did not look it up. He made the claim, the onus is on him to provide the evidence to back it up. Not me.) The next question is, do all of those countries define "Robbery" and "Assault" in exactly the same way? My first inclination is no, because Belgium is far from a dangerous country. So is Scotland. So the huge variation between figures from those countries and figures from others may have a lot more to do with semantics than with actual crimes. Does Belgium really have 4x the robberies that crime-ridden Mexico does? I find that hard to believe.

In any case, I'd much rather have higher rates on non-violent crime and lower rates of violent crime. Assaults, robberies, etc are all minor when compared to homicide. Stuff that's taken out of your home can be replaced. bruises and black eyes heel. But once someone is dead, they're dead. Call me crazy but I'd much rather have someone steal my TV than shoot me in the head

I think it's more likely that the crimes that get reported in Belgium go unreported in Mexico... Or maybe the Mexican police don't bother tracking less severe crimes because they're too busy fighting the US' drug war. Either way we probably agree that crime in Mexico is WAY worse than that chart shows, which just serves to put the US one notch lower in the rankings.

A) How is an assault NOT a violent crime?

B) Your contention that people should sit back and take the risk that a robbery or assault won't leave them dead, maimed or permanently injured is absurdly arrogant and completely out of touch with the reality of these events. If it happened to you, you WOULD wish you had a gun.

[The Dark Side of Will]

(And no, I did not look it up. He made the claim, the onus is on him to provide the evidence to back it up. Not me.)

I had already linked that doc in another thread.

[rwh11385]

Thanks for posting. Good to know. (And no, I did not look it up. He made the claim, the onus is on him to provide the evidence to back it up. Not me.)

I'm saying you will NEVER hear more than the biased drivel out of mother jones if you never educate yourself or mold your views with anything outside of liberal media telling you want to think. You also never heard of CCW stopping mass shootings but there were just as many links as the ones you posted about someone jumping the shooter during a reload. I'd rather someone be stopped before the first shot or after a couple than after draining an entire magazine on unarmed victims, personally...

You also never responded to the CDC's study that showed that all the regulations to ban certain gun types are ineffective at reducing gun violence and that most people who conduct gun violence are in fact people who disregard any of the laws anyway. Arguing based on what you feel and what you are told to think by biased sources and for ideas that have been shown to be ineffective while simplifying a complex issue (homicides tied to poverty, drugs, gangs) to only have one cause, the tool that they use, while basing your world view in one of the states with the lowest homicide rate is a little naive. You don't get the desire for someone to protect themselves or their household and want to determine based on your limited view what their rights should be... where do you get off thinking that? Do you even pay attention to the massive drop in firearm crimes while the public think that it is on the rise? [Farbin's post] Do you just expect to magically be informed about a subject if you never take any time to read up on opposing viewpoints before calling them stupid?



You're in the lowest quartile.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ZC08iVCkjVA/TvzolM9E46I/AAAAAAAAIMY/Hvt-x4jBLAo/s1600/murder_per_100%252C000.png

Have you ever been outside of the Beaverton / Portland bubble?

Try living in Flint and then attempt to say that you think it's a brilliant idea to try to put hurdles for law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves from criminals who don't obey regulations.


Yes, the US has a lot more guns than other countries (because it was founded because of minority of civilians with them fought for what they believed in) so the means of crime is far more likely to be a gun rather than a knife or a blunt object or brunt force. But, the fact you seem to gloss over is that the US also has a lot more poor people than other developed nations:



It's been shown that pre-school lowers crime rate and raises future income levels while ineffective regulations on guns are talked about a lot more. Decriminalizing drugs would reduce addiction and greatly reduce the incentive for drug markets, while legalizing weed would fill state coffers to increase funding for police. But since neither side seems too concerned with facts and stick to stubborn beliefs, time is wasted on what is known to not work.

[rwh11385]

In any case, I'd much rather have higher rates on non-violent crime and lower rates of violent crime. Assaults, robberies, etc are all minor when compared to homicide. Stuff that's taken out of your home can be replaced. bruises and black eyes heel. But once someone is dead, they're dead. Call me crazy but I'd much rather have someone steal my TV than shoot me in the head

So you don't know the difference between Burglary and Robbery do you???

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/robbery

rob·ber·y [rob-uh-ree]
noun, plural rob·ber·ies.
1.
the act, the practice, or an instance of robbing.
2.
Law. the felonious taking of the property of another from his or her person or in his or her immediate presence, against his or her will, by violence or intimidation.

Robbery is done with violence or the threat of violence.
Burglary is where one would break and enter your home and steal your TV... they are a bit different

And you have really no influence in the choice of the person robbing you if they kill you or not, do you?

A) How is an assault NOT a violent crime?

B) Your contention that people should sit back and take the risk that a robbery or assault won't leave them dead, maimed or permanently injured is absurdly arrogant and completely out of touch with the reality of these events. If it happened to you, you WOULD wish you had a gun.

Dude, just because he doesn't know what this stuff means doesn't mean he doesn't feel entitled to an opinion about it!

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

In criminal law, the attempted battery type of assault requires a Specific Intent to commit battery.

An aggravated assault, punishable in all states as a felony, is committed when a defendant intends to do more than merely frighten the victim. Common types of aggravated assaults are those accompanied by an intent to kill, rob, or rape.

Just because he's nice and cozy and always has been or would personally prefer not to have any control in the outcome of a criminal meaning to do harm to him doesn't really mean he has the right to define our rights.... right?

[frankenbeemer]

Not really part of the discussion, so spare me the rebuttals.
I've always been in awe of this:


...and even more of this:

[CorvallisBMW]

Swing and a miss. It's a per capita chart you're looking at so the population size does not matter.

um, duh? What makes you think I didn't realize that? I was pointing out that numbers like those can often vary from country to country depending on their definition of the crime.

I think it's more likely that the crimes that get reported in Belgium go unreported in Mexico... Or maybe the Mexican police don't bother tracking less severe crimes because they're too busy fighting the US' drug war.

Probably very true.

Either way we probably agree that crime in Mexico is WAY worse than that chart shows, which just serves to put the US one notch lower in the rankings.

No, it wouldn't change the US rankings at all, just move Mexico up.

A) How is an assault NOT a violent crime?
B) Your contention that people should sit back and take the risk that a robbery or assault won't leave them dead, maimed or permanently injured is absurdly arrogant and completely out of touch with the reality of these events. If it happened to you, you WOULD wish you had a gun.

a) I never said assault wasn't a violent crime
b) Of course people can be hurt or even killed during a robbery or assault. I never said they couldn't. But considering that 99.9% of such crimes don't result in death, you're still much better off facing an assault than a homicide. So if the choice is to have a situation with either 1) more assaults and robberies but fewer homicides, or 2) fewer assaults and robberies but more homicides, you're far less likely to be killed in country #2. And as I said, I'd rather be alive than dead. And so would you.