How many people can a weapon kill in under a minute before it should be banned?

[vegas giants]

My plan is to keep these people locked up, decrease the size of police departments for having to re-arrest the same people over and over and over again, and decrease the size of the courts for the very same reason. Society is safer and we don't have to raise anyone's taxes.

You have no clue of the economics involved. That is a fantasy.

 

[PirateMk1]

Why is deaths per minute your standard? Have something in mind you would like to prohibit?



Those would be ordinance, not arms. The point of the militia is that each member should be able to quickly assemble with the best means of defense one could carry. Things like artillery or weapons requiring multiple operators like mounted guns aren't one's "arms."

Technically ordinance is a subsection of arms. Arms is everything one could possibly use. I am one of those people who doesn't see a grey area when it comes to our rights and government interference with them. Those rights including freedom of speech and the right to bear arms are absolute. If society wish to limit those rights, then an amendment is required.

Side note at the time the Constitution was ratified private citizens tended to be BETTER armed than the military. This included owning private warships, cannon and the like. I don't care if people are uncomfortable with me being armed with EVERYTHING the military has. I have documented right to own it visa vi the Constitution.

The answer is currently no limit. You want a limit, pass an amendment.

 

[vegas giants]

Technically ordinance is a subsection of arms. Arms is everything one could possibly use. I am one of those people who doesn't see a grey area when it comes to our rights and government interference with them. Those rights including freedom of speech and the right to bear arms are absolute. If society wish to limit those rights, then an amendment is required.

Side note at the time the Constitution was ratified private citizens tended to be BETTER armed than the military. This included owning private warships, cannon and the like. I don't care if people are uncomfortable with me being armed with EVERYTHING the military has. I have documented right to own it visa vi the Constitution.

The answer is currently no limit. You want a limit, pass an amendment.

Weaponized anthrax for everyone!!!!

 

[Gaius46]

Because suicides aren't deaths?

And suicide by poisoning is?

No. Suicides shouldn't be counted because they aren't relevant in determining how dangerous the implement is to other people. Including them overstates that risk.

 

[PirateMk1]

Weaponized anthrax for everyone!!!!

If they want. I wouldn't use it. Those type weapons are hard to control. Better to use short life chemicals in conjunction with conventional means, or better yet nukes.

 

[vegas giants]

No. Suicides shouldn't be counted because they aren't relevant in determining how dangerous the implement is to other people. Including them overstates that risk.

They are pretty risky to the suicidal person

 

[Threegoofs]

No. Suicides shouldn't be counted because they aren't relevant in determining how dangerous the implement is to other people. Including them overstates that risk.

I'm pretty sure the cause of death is *directly* relevant to determining how dangerous something is.

We know suicide is an impulsive, often one time decision, and that having a gun will greatly increase your chances of success, often multifold over other common methods. 70% + of people attempting suicide once will never do it again, and 90%+ of suicide survivors will not end up dying from suicide.

And guns work well. 5% of suicide attempts are by gun, and 55% of suicide fatalities are by gun. It's about 90% likely to work, vs about 5% of overdoses.

Seems pretty relevant to me.

 

[TurtleDude]

Deaths are deaths.

comparing intentional misuse versus accidental carnage is moronic when trying to make policy decisions

 

[vegas giants]

I'm pretty sure the cause of death is *directly* relevant to determining how dangerous something is.

We know suicide is an impulsive, often one time decision, and that having a gun will greatly increase your chances of success, often multifold over other common methods. 70% + of people attempting suicide once will never do it again, and 90%+ of suicide survivors will not end up dying from suicide.

And guns work well. 5% of suicide attempts are by gun, and 55% of suicide fatalities are by gun.

Seems pretty relevant to me.

Suicide is most often an impulsive act. A gun gives you no chance to back out which is why it makes suicide attempts much more lethal

 

[Threegoofs]

comparing intentional misuse versus accidental carnage is moronic when trying to make policy decisions

Whats abjectly moronic and astonishingly dishonest is trying to pretend suicides are just not relevant to the debate.

 

[Spartacus FPV]

Technically ordinance is a subsection of arms. Arms is everything one could possibly use. I am one of those people who doesn't see a grey area when it comes to our rights and government interference with them. Those rights including freedom of speech and the right to bear arms are absolute. If society wish to limit those rights, then an amendment is required.

Side note at the time the Constitution was ratified private citizens tended to be BETTER armed than the military. This included owning private warships, cannon and the like. I don't care if people are uncomfortable with me being armed with EVERYTHING the military has. I have documented right to own it visa vi the Constitution.

The answer is currently no limit. You want a limit, pass an amendment.

1. So if it takes more than one person to man it, as I said, is it not an arm?

2. Everything one could possibly use? EVERYTHING?!?

So my cat is an arm? I use my cellphone, is that an arm? Sorry but that standard is rather loose. But I'm not the one pushing for a limit.

 

[TurtleDude]

Whats abjectly moronic and astonishingly dishonest is trying to pretend suicides are just not relevant to the debate.

they aren't as a crime control matter. laws are enforced by the threat of punishment. The threat of punishment has no value in suicide prevention. Its also astonishingly dishonest to pretend that we need to limit gun rights based on suicides.

 

[jimbo]

People have a right to bare arms. Okay, how about nuclear arms? Surface to air missiles capable of downing a commercial aircraft? Those are arms right?

Where do we draw the line? How much death can a weapon cause in under a minute before we should consider banning it?

I dunno'. A van load of fertilizer can kill over 70, with no real consequences. A gallon of gasoline properly placed can do in over a couple hundred. We still have gas stations. Box cutters + aircraft over three thousand and we still have both.

I'm going with around 5,000, but that could be low.

 

[pinqy]

what is more dangerous

an AR 15 that can shoot only semi auto

an M4 with a selector switch

Marginally the M4, because there's not often a need in combat to use 3-round burst and it uses up your ammo fast. And if noncombatants are around there's a greater chance of one of them getting hit. But the difference is slight.

and if cops are issued fully automatic hand held rifles and carbines doesn't that mean that the governmental authorities who issue such firearms have determined that such weapons are useful for the self defense of civilians in a civilian environment?

If those were standard issue for patrol cops you might have a point. But the self defense weapon for the vast majority of LEO's is a pistol, then your argument works against you

 

[pinqy]

Step #1 What guns are the state/local LEOs (police/sheriff) issued?

Around here, I believe it's a .40 cal dig

Step #2 What personal security threat do LEOs face not also faced by those that they are supposed to protect and serve?

well, they are more likely to encounter armed criminals. That's the "enforcement" part of "law enforcement." So that's considerably different from self defense.

Step #3 What mention of "sporting use" exists in the 2A?

None. But I wasn't suggesting that sporting use be a main criterion. My point was that because of their highly destructive nature, and that there is no self defense or sporting use of a 40mm HE grenade, restricting grenade launchers does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Slingshot Bob]

If you support gun control you must support a ban???

If you support traffic control do you support a ban on cars??? LOL

You still did not tell me how I am a gun extremist, unless you answer my question, I will no longer answer yours.

 

[vegas giants]

You still did not tell me how I am a gun extremist, unless you answer my question, I will no longer answer yours.

I don't remember calling you a gun extremist. What post # is that

 

[Slingshot Bob]

I don't remember calling you a gun extremist. What post # is that

post # 117

 

[PirateMk1]

1. So if it takes more than one person to man it, as I said, is it not an arm?

2. Everything one could possibly use? EVERYTHING?!?

So my cat is an arm? I use my cellphone, is that an arm? Sorry but that standard is rather loose. But I'm not the one pushing for a limit.

The standard was set by the dictionary. If you look at the current definition or the definition of the time the word arms means literarily EVERYTHING you, me, or anyone, singular or plural, could possibly use, and yes that includes your cat, should you train it, or just use the poor bastard as a projectile.

Answers to questions:

1. You are correct it is an arm or arms.

2. Yes, EVERYTHING. Cats, cellphones, ect. If it has the remote possibility be used as a weapon it is considered arms.

 

[vegas giants]

post # 117

You may be a gun extremist but I did not call you one. I asked you why gun extremists lie so much

 

[TurtleDude]

Marginally the M4, because there's not often a need in combat to use 3-round burst and it uses up your ammo fast. And if noncombatants are around there's a greater chance of one of them getting hit. But the difference is slight.



If those were standard issue for patrol cops you might have a point. But the self defense weapon for the vast majority of LEO's is a pistol, then your argument works against you

no it doesn't because a citizen with an M4 will almost always use it in their home or in a shop versus a cop who will often use it out on the street. so my argument is sound because I actually understand the tactical uses of self defense weapons. Non-Police civilians are generally unable to walk around with a loaded SMG on the streets.

now they should be but I doubt even if the odious Hughes amendment is overturned-as it should be, and the NFA nonsense repealed, will you see legal owners of machine guns walking the streets with them.

remember, cops with select fire rifles have no greater right to shoot people than you do

 

[Threegoofs]

they aren't as a crime control matter. laws are enforced by the threat of punishment. The threat of punishment has no value in suicide prevention. Its also astonishingly dishonest to pretend that we need to limit gun rights based on suicides.

Moved goalposts noted.

Whatever you have to tell yourself to ease your conscience...

 

[TurtleDude]

Step #1 What guns are the state/local LEOs (police/sheriff) issued?
Around here, I believe it's a .40 cal dig

well, they are more likely to encounter armed criminals. That's the "enforcement" part of "law enforcement." So that's considerably different from self defense.


None. But I wasn't suggesting that sporting use be a main criterion. My point was that because of their highly destructive nature, and that there is no self defense or sporting use of a 40mm HE grenade, restricting grenade launchers does not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.

that really isn't the issue

when a private citizen encounters an armed criminal or more criminals, its almost ALWAYS at a time and place chosen by the criminal. When COPS encounter armed criminals-its USUALLY a time and place that the cops are aware of and they are thus ready. Now there are cases where criminals ambush cops-like that lady cop who was killed by a gutless coward in NY a few weeks ago. But mainly the cops have far more control over time and place encounters than intended victims do

which cuts in favor of private citizens being better armed or at least having higher capacity magazines since when you are attacked, you often haven't had time to stock up on extra magazines or back up weapons

 

[Grand Mal]

It's the right to bear arms that's guaranteed, right? And the definition of 'arms' is the dispute, am I right? So what if the government says you have the right to bear arms but not firearms? You have to arm yourself with a cavalry sabre or battle axe or nunchaku. Is your 'right to bear arms' being infringed? I mean, being as how it's already accepted that the government defines what's reasonable for personal protection.

 

[Gaius46]

They are pretty risky to the suicidal person

To not put too fine a point on it - that's a problem for the suicidal person and their family to deal with. It is not a justification to restrict the ownership of something by other people.