mandatory mental health evaluation for gun-rights supporters

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
I feel no embarrassment and obviously have no need to...

[/ QUOTE ]
That's what people call shamelessness, Midge. You spread your ill-informed opinions about how you'd like to control other people, back them up with links to sights of dubious credibility, and then when confronted with stats directly related to your own argument, you simply leave the discussion and go harp on why someone else isn't talking about what you want them to talk about.

e.g. here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&vc=1

I'd certainly be embarassed, if I were you. As would most debaters, when crushed by their own examples.

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is it your position that civilian enthusiasts cannot be as well trained in 5.56 use as civilian police, or have less intel regarding the immediate surroundings of their own house than would civilian police directed to an incident at the same location?

[/ QUOTE ]

My position is that overall they will be much less trained than professionals and have potentially less firing discipline, even if honourable exceptions will apply - and that is a very fair assessment.

This greatly increases the risk of collateral damage.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you point to stats referring to actual rates of collateral damage? E.G. how many people were mistakenly killed or seriously wounded by high-velocity rifle bullets use in self-defense by civilians last year? (even better if we knew how many of those actually went through something that would stop a 9mm or shotgun first) I.E. How "greatly" do you mean by "greatly increases the risk?" Could you even estimate the number for us, or give us a number that you would consider representing "too great a risk"?

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is it your position that civilian enthusiasts cannot be as well trained in 5.56 use as civilian police, or have less intel regarding the immediate surroundings of their own house than would civilian police directed to an incident at the same location?

[/ QUOTE ]

My position is that overall they will be much less trained than professionals and have potentially less firing discipline, even if honourable exceptions will apply - and that is a very fair assessment.

This greatly increases the risk of collateral damage.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you point to stats referring to actual rates of collateral damage? E.G. how many people were mistakenly killed or seriously wounded by high-velocity rifle bullets use in self-defense by civilians last year? (even better if we knew how many of those actually went through something that would stop a 9mm or shotgun first) I.E. How "greatly" do you mean by "greatly increases the risk?" Could you even estimate the number for us, or give us a number that you would consider representing "too great a risk"?

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't rocket science, the bullets have a tendency to retain much kinetic energy even after long travel and they will go through barriers much more easily. If you accept that mishaps happen, these weapons have greater chance of causing collateral damage.

There is a reason police operations in civilian areas would prefer 9mm (or an ever so slightly bigger calibre than that is often _the_ choice, but that is another discussion) calibres as long as it tactically feasible.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I feel no embarrassment and obviously have no need to...

[/ QUOTE ]
That's what people call shamelessness, Midge. You spread your ill-informed opinions about how you'd like to control other people, back them up with links to sights of dubious credibility, and then when confronted with stats directly related to your own argument, you simply leave the discussion and go harp on why someone else isn't talking about what you want them to talk about.

e.g. here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&vc=1

I'd certainly be embarassed, if I were you. As would most debaters, when crushed by their own examples.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not embarassed at all. My comment were to the point, what you are quoting has nothing to do with either th OP or your quote but all to do with ballistics.

You REALLY are trying to drown any possibility of an argument as per OP that doesn't suit the NRA, even if very valid!

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is it your position that civilian enthusiasts cannot be as well trained in 5.56 use as civilian police, or have less intel regarding the immediate surroundings of their own house than would civilian police directed to an incident at the same location?

[/ QUOTE ]

My position is that overall they will be much less trained than professionals and have potentially less firing discipline, even if honourable exceptions will apply - and that is a very fair assessment.

This greatly increases the risk of collateral damage.

[/ QUOTE ]
Can you point to stats referring to actual rates of collateral damage? E.G. how many people were mistakenly killed or seriously wounded by high-velocity rifle bullets use in self-defense by civilians last year? (even better if we knew how many of those actually went through something that would stop a 9mm or shotgun first) I.E. How "greatly" do you mean by "greatly increases the risk?" Could you even estimate the number for us, or give us a number that you would consider representing "too great a risk"?

[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't rocket science, the bullets have a tendency to retain much kinetic energy even after long travel and they will go through barriers much more easily. If you accept that mishaps happen, these weapons have greater chance of causing collateral damage.

There is a reason police operations in civilian areas would prefer 9mm calibres as long as it tactically feasible.



[/ QUOTE ]
I tend to think you're overestimating the probability of certain events based on a theoretical possibility alone. I suspect that the odds of a single number winning the powerball lottery are better than your odds of being seriously injured by a rifle round used in self defense that already perforated its intended target. I've discussed the issue of "injury due to target perforation" with police officers before, and they have produced stats that told me "basically, it never happens." (I don't know if this referred to rifles too, or only to handgun calibers capable of perforating a target with significant energy remaining) Your odds of being hit by someone missing their intended target are orders of magnitude greater -- and of course it's typically much, much easier to miss with a pistol than a rifle.

Also I think the reason police use handguns and handgun calibers is simply due to their handiness (always having one with them) -- there are very few self-defense situations (perhaps extreme in-close indoor fighting would be an exception) where a pistol would be preferred over a long-gun of some type.

I'm not trying to slam the door on you by any means -- I don't have the stats handy. But if you're advocating any kind of government policy based on the above considerations, I'd suggest you seek out the law enforcement stats that have been compiled on the subject.

[Metric]

You forgot to include a [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

[tame_deuces]

Your policeofficers are most likely talking about 9mm rounds or similar, which would tend to stop in their target. Trust me, I've fired enough military 7.62 in my life to know what they can do.

You are also assuming that the target will be hit, which believe me - when you have seen amateurs in action is not something you will ever assume lightly (even though honourable exceptions apply as said before).

And I'm not advocating any government law - I'm saying if you want or need a personal defense weapon then shop smart, like most people do, all honor to them.

And I'm saying if the [censored] hits the fan, you are an amateur and you only have access to 'military' weapons in an uncontrollable environment, then you should leave if you have the chance - you will be putting yourself, others and potentially innocent at risk, you will most likely be creating more strain on law enforcement personnel and health personnel which could have been put to better use and you will be making an already hazardous situation and lot less clear for the professionals.

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I feel no embarrassment and obviously have no need to...

[/ QUOTE ]
That's what people call shamelessness, Midge. You spread your ill-informed opinions about how you'd like to control other people, back them up with links to sights of dubious credibility, and then when confronted with stats directly related to your own argument, you simply leave the discussion and go harp on why someone else isn't talking about what you want them to talk about.

e.g. here: http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...age=0&vc=1

I'd certainly be embarassed, if I were you. As would most debaters, when crushed by their own examples.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not embarassed at all. My comment were to the point, what you are quoting has nothing to do with either th OP or your quote but all to do with ballistics.

You REALLY are trying to drown any possibility of an argument as per OP that doesn't suit the NRA, even if very valid!

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

The criticism stands!

Bt I would like to use this opportunity for people that bumped accidentally into this thread to read the OP and the earlier posts. They are much more interesting and not drowned out by people that have a very different agenda!

[Metric]

[ QUOTE ]

Your policeofficers are most likely talking about 9mm rounds, which would tend to stop in their target. Trust me, I've fired enough military 7.62 in my life to know what they can do.

[/ QUOTE ]
The stats certainly included more than 9mm, as it would be impossible to use the stats to make policy decisions regarding caliber choice if they referred to 9mm alone. Also, 9mm certainly isn't the only handgun caliber in use these days.

And I've fired plenty of 7.62 also, of course.

[ QUOTE ]
You are also assuming that the target will be hit, which believe me - when you have seen amateurs in action is not something you will ever assume lightly (even though honourable exceptions apply as said before).

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm making no such assumption -- I'm simply saying that being hit by someone who MISSED their target is not a reason to choose one caliber over another. If you're hit by a full-velocity 9mm, it can certainly kill you as dead as anything else. If you're worried about use of a rifle, it's (presumably) because of the rifle's ability to perforate the target and maintain plenty of kinetic energy (something your typical hollowpoint 9mm doesn't do very often).

[ QUOTE ]
And I'm not advocating any government law - I'm saying if you want or need a personal defense weapon then shop smart, like most people do, all honor to them.

[/ QUOTE ]
Fair enough.

[ QUOTE ]
And I'm saying if the [censored] hits the fan, you are an amateur and you only have access to 'military' weapons in an uncontrollable environment, then you should leave if you have the chance - you will be putting yourself, others and potentially innocent at risk, you will most likely be creating more strain on law enforcement personnel and health personnel which could have been put to better use and you will be making an already hazardous situation and lot less clear for the professionals.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't think anyone is arguing that walking into a police scene with guns blazing is a good idea. But yeah.

[tame_deuces]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm making no such assumption -- I'm simply saying that being hit by someone who MISSED their target is not a reason to choose one caliber over another. If you're hit by a full-velocity 9mm, it can certainly kill you as dead as anything else. If you're worried about use of a rifle, it's (presumably) because of the rifle's ability to perforate the target and maintain plenty of kinetic energy (something your typical hollowpoint 9mm doesn't do very often).

[/ QUOTE ]

First sorry for saying 9mm, obviously I'm referring to typical pistol or submachine gun calibres which comes in varying sizes - but still somewhat comparable.

And obviously I am also worried about the misses. Those bullets would go further, penetrate more barriers and generally be more hazardous to what you weren't aiming at in the first place.

Simply put if you own a shop, I'd really, really prefer it if you didn't have an AK-47 replica under the counter but instead something more controllable like a shotgun or smaller calibre pistol type weapon - if you intended to use the weapon in a personal defense situation should it arise. It would be a lot of safer for public in or nearby your shop.