With the destructive power of guns increasing year over year something HAS to be done

[samsingh]

The status quo and the crazy wayne fantasies of a dystopian police state cannot work with exponential increases in firepower happening all the time. At some point the destructive power of a bullet, encased along with hundreds of bullets in assault rifles, will be economically destructive, as well as the human tragedy (which for the most part does not seem to affect the emotions of people like crazy wayne and the NRA - i've heard him say something similar on TV).

This is becoming a case of mutually assured destruction.

[jmg257]

1. What do you suggest? nt

[samsingh]

6. just that something will have to be done and 2nd amendment proponents can't keep ignoring

reality as it starts to disintegrate tragedy after tragedy.

i would not deign to be able to define a workable solution given that i do not have the time or knowledge to thoroughly investigate all the options. But some government will, if not the current one. When someone can stand outside a building a spray a thousand grenade like bullets into the structure - economics and self-preservation, if not humanity and caring for others, will drive solutions

[Recursion]

21. Grenade-like bullets? (nt)

[HooptieWagon]

29. Its their "when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor" moment.

Pure comedy.

[samsingh]

114. you just like making shit up

[marions ghost]

111. I tend to agree that it will be economics that causes changes--

not humanity and caring for others. We are living in a society where economics rules, not people or their concerns. And more and more, people just become numb to being abused.

[slackmaster]

2. A false premise does not lead to a productive discussion

[samsingh]

3. no productive discussion has been happening since 1995

witness the massacres

[slackmaster]

5. I'd set the date at 1913

The massacre of Armenians by the Turks.

[samsingh]

7. let's try to stick with American history during our lifetimes

unless you were born before 1913 - not sure we have any voting influence in Turkey.

[slackmaster]

9. The "destructive power" of guns has not increased in a long, long time

HTH

[samsingh]

17. well it's not you i'm trying to convince in any case, but expressing my opinion

[exboyfil]

19. 12 gauge semiautomatic shotguns

with 20 round drum magazines. That is a heck of lot of firepower for a civilian. .223 rounds optimized for maximum wound size combined with 30 and 100 round semiautomatic fed magazines.

[HooptieWagon]

23. Can you find one example of a homicide involving a semi-automatic shotgun with a 20 round magazine ?

Hell, any shotgun homicide is a fairly infrequent occurrence...they barely register on DOJ data.

[exboyfil]

30. Just wait

It is not about the event, it is about the probability that it will happen. Lanza had a 12 gauge semiauto with an extended magazine in the trunk of his car. The question was no more firepower (actually the original post was poorly worded) than in the 1970s. I am making the assertion that unprecedented firepower is in the hands of civilians, and at some point that firepower will be used.

"Regarding semi-automatic cyclic rate of fire, we witnessed the Saiga fire twenty-eight ( 28 ) 12 gauge rounds, on target, in just under 14 seconds. The shooter had 10 rounds in the first mag and downloaded the second and third mags to 9 rounds to increase mag insertion speed."

I have also seen a video of someone using bump fire and putting 20 rounds with a reasonable level of accuracy if you don't care what you are hitting.

[sir pball]

31. There's more of them than assault weapon murders

Hell, 2011 was the first year that there were more rifle homicides than shotgun homicides and that includes ALL rifles, not just "assault" types.

I guess if you want to spend all your political capital (and you will) on controlling one type of weapon, shotguns would be a better choice than rifles. I mean, handguns would be the best, but there's just no emotional appeal to be had there.

[HooptieWagon]

44. Right. Handguns are about 75% of homicides.

That means rifles of all types (semi, bolt action, assault) PLUS shotguns of all types, plus other firearms, are divided among the remaing 25%. I didn't check the numbers, but it's likely shotgun homicides are in single digit percentage of all homicides.

[sir pball]

51. 2.8%

12,664 homicides in 2011 ÷ 356 by shotgun = 0.0281

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8

I was reading the table backwards though, there were a few more shotgun killings than rifle crimes.

[sir pball]

53. All firearms are ~75%, handguns are ~50%

Still an absolutely airtight case for spending the mentioned capital on them, not rifles. The reality of the current political calculus is that there's probably only one chance to pass one set of laws, and wasting it on an AWB (that in its current incarnation won't even begin to dream of passing) seems kind of foolish.

[HooptieWagon]

64. Oh, yes. I agree.

I too would lile to see the political capital spent where it wluld do the most good...not wasted on "feel good" legislation.

I probably wasn't clear on my numbers, meaning handguns responsible for 75% of gun-related homicides...at least that was the figure I recalled from several months ago when I looked it up.

[nadinbrzezinski]

159. A few years back you could not point to one

Involving a Bushmaster, or any other in the AR family. Then came DC.

Why this argument makes zero sense given recent history.

[jpak]

128. World War 2 M1 Garand vs. 21st Century Gun Nut AR15 + 30 round clip

I rest my case

yup

[slackmaster]

130. .30-'06 muzzle energy near 3,000 foot-pounds. 5.56 mm muzzle energy about 1,100 foot-pounds.

Less is not more.

[jpak]

138. Yet another gun nuttery deflection - why doesn't the US Army use the M1 Garard today?

Because it is heavy and can load only one 8 round clip at a time.

The AR-16 & AR-15 varients with detachable 30 round magazines are more efficient killing machines.

That is why it is the gin of choice for 21st Century child masscres.

NRA douchebaggery fail.

yup

[slackmaster]

139. If I want to destroy something at 500 or 600 yards

I'll choose an M1 every time.

[nadinbrzezinski]

160. No, it is not the weight.

You can thank the Wermacht for that. After almost six years of war they found out most firefights happened at 300 yards or so. This meant the heavier rounds were not needed.

A little history gets a long way. Until the M-14 the army still used the heavier rounds.

Cute piece of trivia, a Roman Legionnaire carried the same weight as a modern infantryman.

[NightWatcher]

8. my new favorite response, can I steal it?

A false premise does not lead to a productive discussion.

Ctrl-C and Ctrl-V in 99% of the gun threads here.

[slackmaster]

10. Please do. I have more than 1,000 "gun threads" in my trash bin

[Puzzledtraveller]

12. same here

its even surpassed the "rape" threads in my trash bin.

[samsingh]

15. why do you trivialize rape that way?

Last edited Thu Dec 27, 2012, 12:44 PM - Edit history (1)

[samsingh]

78. wow that's so witty

and yet, not one suggestion on how to safe lives because taken by guns

[mmonk]

4. Is this about the Columbine shootings?

[Recursion]

11. Guns have not become significantly more powerful since about World War I (nt)

[ileus]

13. You knew shit was going to turn bad when wal-turd

started selling AR's...

I know 8 co-workers that own AR's just because WM started selling them.

[HooptieWagon]

14. Congratulations...a new world record in hyperbole!

"an exponential increse in firepower", "guns holding hundreds of rounds of ammunition", ...
Holy mackerel. No wonder you antis aren't taken seriously. There hasn't been an increase in firepower since center-fire cartridges were developed in the latter 1800s. Modern assault weapons (developed over 50 years ago) actually have LESS firepower, in recognition of the changes in how modern warfare is waged. No assault weapon has a standard capacity of more than 20 rounds. High capacity magazines can go as high as a hundred rounds, but that is more or less a gimmick. Do you even realize how much hundreds of rounds weighs? The weapon would be so heavy as to be almost unusable.
OP is hereby nominated as the epic fail post of 2012.

[samsingh]

16. my point is being made about what is important to some gun proponents

i'm not surprised

[HooptieWagon]

20. The only point you've made is that you haven't a clue what you're talking about.

Pulling shit out of your ass and flinging it against the wall isn't making a point. Its just spewing bullshit. I am neither a gun-owner or an expert, but I study history and I recogize your post as a complete fabrication.

[samsingh]

22. how could it be fabrication when i'm making a forecast?

how do you know i'm wrong?

you say you study history. so what? so do i, that's what i'm basing my forecast on.

[HooptieWagon]

26. Oh, bullshit.

You claimed firepower is exponentially increasing year by year. It has actually DECREASED with modern weapons, so if you were making a forecast you would say firepower will decrease.
Look, you've been called out on your bullshit. Stop trying to spin it, and just admit you were wrong.

[samsingh]

36. i can see your ability to talk about a point rationally - let me try your reasoning

prove to me that guns are not going to be much powerful in their destructive capability next year.

i don't expect a response by the way - just to be clear.

your argument are insenstive, invalid, and completely without merit

[HooptieWagon]

46. I didn't make the claim firepower was increasing exponentially year by year.

YOU made that claim. Back it up, or retract it.

[samsingh]

71. you clearly - and i'll type this slowly - don't understand what you are taking about or reading in

in my posts

[HooptieWagon]

86. Duh, because your posts are nothing but ignorant babble.

How is it possible to prove firepower won't exponentially increase next year? All I can prove is that it hasn't in the past 120. You made the claims in your OP. Now back them up.

[samsingh]

91. prove i'm wrong

[HooptieWagon]

99. You made the initial claim, you back it up.

I'll give you a clue, since you so obviously need one. The firepower of a round is its kinetic energy, which is calculated by the formula E= 1/2 Mass X Velocity ^2. Now calculate it out and back up the claim you made in the OP.

[samsingh]

104. if gun capabilities have not changed since the late 1800s (i laugh as i type this)

why bother to buy any guns past that date?

[HooptieWagon]

110. Many reasons.

Many of the old guns use ammunition that is scarce and expensive. Modern guns are safer. Modern guns are lighter, and easier to handle. Modern guns are more accurate, generally. Modern guns are more reliable. Modern guns are more durable. Some modern guns have styling some people prefer.
An analogy might be made with automobiles. Modern cars have about the same power and speed of those 50 years ago. But they are safer, more efficient, last longer, more comfortable, and more pleasant to drive.

[samsingh]

115. so you've answered the question you've been pestering me with

more accurate means more killing power

[jmg257]

117. As an unbiased observer - pretty lame, Sam.

Re-think & re-post, or give it up!

[samsingh]

118. ASSAULT RIFLES AND THEIR AMMUNITION:HISTORY AND PROSPECTS

lots of information about evolution of the assault rifle and the ammunication at the link:

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm

It's clear that the killing efficiency of guns is going up over time much as the computing power of PCs.

[HooptieWagon]

126. Not true at all.

When a person is dead, you can't make them deader. Thus, killing power of rifles remained fairly constant for the 100 year period beginning at the Civil War. During WW2, armies no longer were stationary entities...thousands of soldiers remaining stationary shooting at each other from trenches and behind stone walls. Troops had reorganized into small mobile platoons that went in search of the enemy and engaged them in short firefights at close range. In recognition of this, weapons were developed that better served a mobile army. Firepower was reduced by more than half. A wounded soldier hinders a mobile army more than a dead soldier who can be left behind.

[samsingh]

119. as a comparison

compare the images of the semi-automatic rifles from 1918 to the assault rifles in the period of 1960+. A lot changed.

http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm

[jmg257]

121. Have you ever seen a BAR? The M1918 version?

It's a full auto which uses magazines carrying 20 rounds of 30-06 ammo. How about Johnson's 1941 LMG? Auto, 25 rounds of 30-06? How about an M14? Select fire, 20 round mags of .308? An AR-10? The same, both from the 50's.

Not for nothing, I would choose any of those as having MORE firepower, and more destructive power due to the rounds, then an AR-15 with 20 rounds of .223.

[samsingh]

122. the M14 appears to be pretty bulky. The AR-15 is far easier to handle.

[jmg257]

123. That is true...which is why they were adopted (m16). Little to do with OP though. Nt

Last edited Fri Dec 28, 2012, 02:22 PM - Edit history (1)

[samsingh]

124. this is not a f=ma or e=mc2 discussion

this is about the ability to inflict increasing levels of damage with guns as technology improves. Just google the internet and you can see these trends with guns over the past 100 years.

[HooptieWagon]

127. So you are saying the firepower of a rifle is dependant on its APPEARANCE?

[Lizzie Poppet]

59. You're asking him/her to prove a negative.

You realize that for synthetic propositions, that's pretty darned close to impossible, right?

[samsingh]

69. i'm being asked to prove my forecast

and the problem you're pointing out is that i reversed the question to show how stupid the request was of me?

[Lizzie Poppet]

73. It's silly when it's being done to you, too.

Personally, I don't need you to try and prove your forecast because I consider it to have been premised on a false axiom...but I assure you I wouldn't have asked you to do so. I might have asked you to further substantiate it with empirical evidence (had I accepted its premise), but certainly not prove it.

[samsingh]

75. i was making a forecast - empirical evidence is used to validate a point - not a forecast.

but this is the tactic of gun lover's - attack the words and challenge the right of someone to express an opinion.

i'm used to it in the gungeon. normally i don't waste my time - as i've said - it's about money, power, and votes. Convincing the few is impossible and irrelevant.

however, i am expressing my opinion because of the sorrow i feel towards those who have been massacred by guns and the imbeciles who used them to kill innocent people. I am touched by the teachers and principal who gave their lives to protect other kids. Those are the heroes. In their memory, i am at least trying to find ways to cut gun violence.

[Lizzie Poppet]

79. Actually, empirical evidence is used to substantiate forecasts all the time.

It's used to bolster (statistical) confidence in the forecast's predictive model in more formal settings...and to boost confidence in the prediction in less formal ones. But no matter...the main point is the same: being asked to "prove" many types of assertion in this sort of context is silly, regardless of who does it.

I agree wholeheartedly about those heroic educators who died trying to save as many kids as they could at Sandy Point. "No greater love."

[samsingh]

82. here's one of many web definitions

"Evidence derived from direct observation and sense experience. Contrasts: Intuitive insight, metaphysical speculation, and pure logic."

i cannot directly observe what is going to happen a year from now, but i can use logic to speculate and hypothesis.

I'm not usually wrong.

[HooptieWagon]

88. OK, let's see the empirical data supporting your "forecast".

I'll try my best not to laugh before getting to the end.

[samsingh]

89. i'm laughing at your complete disregard for what i'm trying to say

it really does not add any confidence to anything else you're saying when you don't even bother to read and comprehend what i'm saying

perhaps you should stop responding to my posts

[HooptieWagon]

97. You've made preposterous claims, unsubstantiated by any facts.

That's pretty much a definition of bullshit. There's nothing to understand, you're spewing crap. Provide one shred of evidence for your claim, and I'll address it.

[samsingh]

102. why do you think i care whether you address it or not - your acceptance or rejection is completely

irrelevant.

your rude words 'bullsit', 'not a clue' show me that you actually have no argument, except to feel gratified when you can point at one think and pick at it. Like i said, prove that every available gun and bullet since 1890 (as per one of the comments in this block) has never increased destructive capability and gun making materials have not increased mobility and usabiliity of guns.

Better yet, why are we even manufacturing different models year over year. Just buy the guns that were available pre 1900.

[HooptieWagon]

112. So, you are unable to substantiate even one claim.

Like I figured.

[samsingh]

113. guess you can't understand the multiple threads woven in my paragraph

i'm not surprised


especially when i gave you a chance to explain

[HooptieWagon]

87. No, you didn't make a forecast.

You said firepower HAS (past tense) exponentially increased. If you didn't just make that up, then you should have some evidence to back that claim up.
So, stop spinning, and let's see it.

[samsingh]

90. firepower has increased exponentially

[HooptieWagon]

98. Prove it.

[samsingh]

101. you prove it hasn't for every weapon and bullet that is available

if you can't retract everything you've said.

[HooptieWagon]

125. Okay, here's proof you're wrong.

Civil War era Sharps rifle : .45 cal, 300 grain bullet. 2275 ft/sec muzzle velocity. Kinetic Energy of 4676 Joules.

Ww1 era Springfield rifle: .308 can, 220 grain bullet. 2300 ft/sec muzzle velocity. 3505 Joules of Kinetic Energy

WW1 to present era Lee-Enfield rifle (still in use): .303 cal, 180 grain bullet. 2441 ft/sec muzzle velocity. Kinetic Energy of 3574 Joules.

WW2 era M1 Garand rifle (standard US in WW2, but used until recent as a sniper rifle): .30-06 cal, 220 grain bullet. 2500ft/sec muzzle velocity. Kinetic Energy of 4042 Joules.

Vietnam until present era M16 Assault rifle: .223 cal, 62 grain bullet. 3110 ft/sec muzzle velocity. 1767 Joules of kinetic energy.

So, firepower of common military rifles remained somewhat constant during the 100 year period from the civil war until Vietnam. When automatic weapons were introduced during Vietnam, the firepower was REDUCED by over half. Your assertion in OP is not only wrong, it's a pants on fire wrong.

[samsingh]

129. interesting

i equate 'destructive power' with more than size, velocity, and energy. There is mobility, time to reload, shots/second, reliability, expandibility, accessibility, cost, flexibility.

[HooptieWagon]

131. Assault weapons are designed for a mobile army.

Lighter weapon and lighter ammunition is less weight to carry. Plus, the weapon can be brought to bear quicker. The battles are sudden, short, and fought at close range. The high rate of fire is intended for covering fire, not necessarily to hit target. A wounded soldier is more of a hindrance to a mobile army than a dead one, whose body can be left behind and recovered later...so killing power, accuracy, and range are of lower priority.
In the Russian-Afghan war, before the Russians brought in air-support, the Afghans were slaughtering the Russians at long range with their WW1 era bolt-action Lee-Enfields...even though the Russians had AK47s.

[samsingh]

132. if they are designed for a mobile army, why are assualt rifles allowed to be owned by civilians?

[HooptieWagon]

133. Only semi-automatic versions are. Automatics are difficult to own.

Modern semis have the same rate of fire as an old M1 Garand, although much lower firepower. Both only fire as fast as trigger can be pulled. The rate of fire of a semi-automatic isn't all that much greater than a bolt-action rifle...maybe 1 round per second vs 1 round per second and a half. Main difference is a semi-automatic has a little larger magazine, and is a little easier to reload. The older more powerful rifles were designed to be fired from a fixed position, such as a prone position or kneeling behind cover like a stone wall. Shooter had to be well-braced because of recoil of large caliber, and a long heavy gun. Awkward to do in a mobile battle. The lighter rifles are designed to be fired quickly while standing, then running or taking cover. Newer guns are lighter with shorter barrels (technically, they are carbines).

[samsingh]

134. is it possible to turn a semi-automatic into an automatic weapon ?

[HooptieWagon]

135. The parts to do so are as tightly regulated as auto weapons are.

And some good machining and gunsmith skills required. Doing so without the proper permits and licensing carries such high penalties and fines its not worth it. Its even illegal to allow a semi-automatic become so worn out that it fires automatically. There's a guy in jail for that.

[samsingh]

137. that's a good control

[Kaleva]

49. Depends on how one defines "firepower"

The individual round has become less powerful but one reads many posts in GC/RKBA how much better such guns based on the AR platform are compared to what one would consider to be the more traditional hunting guns. At short to intermediate ranges, a person armed with a bolt action .30-06 has less firepower then a person armed with a .223 Bushmaster loaded with a standard magazine.

If a conflict was to take place at a range of 150 yards or less, which gun would you select? My guess is that you'd select the one that had the greater firepower within such a range and that'd be the .223 Bushmaster.

[HooptieWagon]

61. Correct. And those changes reflect the changes in how modern war is conducted.

No longer large, stationary armies shooting at each other from long range. Now it's smaller, mobile troop units encountering the enemy at close range, providing cover fire while others
move to cover, or a position of greater tactical advantage.
Yes, an M1 is at a disadvantage in that type of battle, but in a battle the M1 is designed to fight, it would be superior firepower to modern weapons. The Afghans were holding off the Russians just fine with their bolt-action Lee-Enfields against Russian AK47s. And the old guns are sill effective in desert warfare, many of the Libyan rebels used vintage weapons.
So, firepower is only relative to the type of battle being fought.

[backwoodsbob]

18. please explain how guns are getting more powerful

with links please

[samsingh]

24. it's only about guns, that i'm asked to provide links on even the most

obvious points. I've expressed my opinion and made a forecast. Unfortunately, i'm probably going to be right - much as i used to say these fing massacres would keep happening. And again i was asked for links and called names by any one who didn't agree with my warnings of too many guns being out there.

it's gone beyond a tipping point. i heard some fing talking head make the point that gun control would not be effective because there were already too many guns. that tells me everything about the good faith discussions around guns that have gone on for decades.

[backwoodsbob]

27. I never called you any names

I just am a gun owner who understands the complete and total misconceptions about guns many have.

You got called names?...boohoo...I tried to give people an idea on what would really make a difference on gun control and got a death threat so get over it.

I can help you guys to understand what gun laws would really help but it's hard to do when no one will listen and every gun owner is called a murderer and an NRA apologist

[samsingh]

32. i'm not surprised that 'you're a gun owner'

i certainly don't give a crap about being called names. but saying 'boohoo' is not polite and insulting, but again, this is not about me so i don't care.

people are getting killed with guns. massacred. i don't want lessons or links to politically expedient decisions on why society needs to become an armed state to allow people to feel good with their guns. some of the same supreme court justices that today are supporting an interpretation of the 2nd amendment were also the ones who thought it was acceptable to give bush the presidency in 2000 by stopping vote counting Florida. Yet these same justices (sic) don't have a problem with different voting rules in other states.

It's all about money, power, and who has the votes.

i don't need to be educated by you on what you think i know about guns.

[Recursion]

34. Slow down. Gun violence is at the lowest level in 40 years

There was an epidemic of gun violence. 20 years ago.

[samsingh]

37. are you familar with the massacres in the last couple of weeks?

[Recursion]

39. Yes. Do you remember the 1990s?

We're orders of magnitude safer now than we were back then.

[samsingh]

42. i don't think it matters to the massacred children, their families, or people like me who care and

empathize

[Recursion]

47. Yes, that's the problem with plunging crime rates

People who aren't murdered usually don't realize they "would have" been murdered if the crime rate had stayed as high as it was 20 years ago. So we have this great invisible drop in murders that nobody seems able to figure out the reason for (it's worldwide, incidentally).

[bongbong]

56. "Plunging crime rates"

So you agree that means the Delicate Flowers don't need all that firepower to "defend themselves".

[Recursion]

65. I've never been a "rights" or "defense" person

I'm skeptical about gun control because I think it won't work, not because I think guns are awesome.

[bongbong]

66. LOL

> I'm skeptical about gun control because I think it won't work

Are you talking about the stats proving that states with tighter gun control have less gun deaths?

[Recursion]

67. Ludicrous

Vermont. DC. California.

Your misreading of the stats is telling. Fewer guns means fewer deaths. Gun violence goes down when guns are rare and difficult to get. Legislation does not make that happen.

[bongbong]

68. Still LOL

> when guns are rare and difficult to get. Legislation does not make that happen.

Tell that to the residents of those "evil socialist" countries in Europe.



Keep your jokes comin'! I'm lovin' it!

[samsingh]

80. love the laughing figure - potentially show how important the gun massacre topic may be to you

gun deaths around the world are lower in other modern countries than in the US. and they have the same video games, the same television, probably as many people with mental disorders (per capita) as we do.

and crazy wayne's idea about armed police at schools. I understand they were present at Columbine, and the massacre still happened. since so many of these end up with the shooter taking their own life, not sure how the armed police would stop the incident, only that they may end up reducing fatalities or potentially result in more through more bullets in the air and as potential magnets to crazies wanting to go down in a blaze of glory.

[bongbong]

84. Not laughing at the slaughter

My laughter is reserved for the rhetorical pretzels Delicate Flowers (gun-nuts) twist themselves into to try to justify their worship of Precious.

[samsingh]

93. okay, that makes sense

[samsingh]

77. prove gun control doesn't work

Links?

or retract your statement.

[Recursion]

140. The District of Columbia (nt)

[samsingh]

143. where are the links and have you isolated out factors such as gang violence and poverty

[Recursion]

145. DC banned guns. Gun prevalence increased

We aren't talking about crime rates (read back in the thread, if needs be). We're talking about whether prohibition of guns decreases the prevalence of guns.

[samsingh]

146. if we're talking in good faith, i think other factors have to weigh in

such as time that is passed
gangs
etc.

[Jenoch]

151. If you are going to factor in

gang activity, then you need to favtor in suicides and justifiable homicides using guns.

[samsingh]

152. i think we should consider those - especially lives that were saved when a gun was available for

self-defence

- this is one of the reason's i'm not in favor of gun bans

[samsingh]

72. there are 20 butchered children and adults who put themselves in front of bullets to save other

children in the school.

those are heroes. those are Americans.

and those are the types of incidents people like me are trying to address.

do you have a meaningful suggestion on doing this? are are we expecting the crazy wayne school of thought to prevail?

[backwoodsbob]

52. cool

good luck

[HooptieWagon]

28. OK, provide proof firepower is exponentially increasing year by year.

I hope we don't all die of laughter.

[samsingh]

33. 'provide proof'

look at what's happening to technology around you.

[Recursion]

35. The technology of guns is unchanged since the early 1900s for the most part

The only improvement I can think of is better sighting, and improved machining that makes them cheaper to manufacture.

[samsingh]

38. bigger caliber bullets, lighter guns, ability to fire more bullets per minute

higher capacity cartridges.

[Recursion]

43. Bullets have been getting smaller, not bigger. Guns cannot fire more bullets per minute now...

... than they could in the 1890s. The major trend in gun design has been smaller caliber bullets, not larger caliber bullets. Rate of fire has not increased in over 100 years. Assuming by "cartridge size" you meant "magazine size", this too hasn't changed in over 100 years.

Yes, guns have been getting lighter. Polymers do that.

[Kaleva]

60. Guns easily can fire more rounds per minute now then could be done in the 1890's

A person today with a sem-auto and "standard" magazines could certainly outshoot someone armed with a 1890's lever action or bolt action action rifle with a tube or internal magazine. A person with a slide stock on their AR-15 can empty a 20-30 round mag in seconds.

[Lizzie Poppet]

62. Yes, if you go back 120 years, that's true.

But you can go back more than half a century and it won't be. Effective rate of fire for civilian firearms hasn't changed in about that period of time.

[Kaleva]

63. Slide stocks are relatively new.

With practice and using burst fire, they are quite accurate and effective.

[samsingh]

74. you asked a question - in your last line - you admit that polymers

are reducing the weight of guns. so yes, technology is making a difference.

The firepower available to individuals in 2012 is clearly more than it was in 1890. wow.

[Recursion]

141. No, it's really, really not

If you can't even understand a fact that basic, gun control is going to remain confusing for you.

Weapons today are not more powerful than they were 100 years ago.

They just aren't.

[samsingh]

142. i don't remember historical incidents where someone massacred dozens of people

with an assault rifle around 1910.

[Recursion]

144. And yet the technology to do so existed

Do you see my point?

[samsingh]

147. problem: there are many massacres where guns are involved and guns make

it easier to kill more people.

if we can't agree on this, then so be it. Like i've said, changing minds through argument is not going to work - in either direction. It's all about who has money, power and votes.

If we do agree, then my only interest is to decrease the number of deaths by gun and get them as close to 0 as possible. How this is done requires consideration of a lot of factors and some give and take.

for example, i will be impacted by the tax increases proposed by President Obama, but i'm happy to pay more in taxes so that others can get medical care and other forms of support to improve their lives.

[samsingh]

148. for the people making the rules - it's about profits and money

that's why alcohol is legal
and weed is not.

[Recursion]

150. *shrug* the PTB could profit from weed if they wanted to

Now, ask yourself, has outlawing weed made it harder to get in any real sense?

[samsingh]

153. actually it has

i would use weed if it was legal. As it is not, i don't use it.

[Recursion]

149. Guns make massacres easier. Guns haven't changed in 100 years or so.

The kinds of guns that makes massacres "easy" have been available for civilians since before World War I.

There's really not anything to argue about there; facts are stubborn that way.

[samsingh]

154. assualt rifles were not available pre world war I

also, if guns are not improving, why is R & D money being spent on them?

what do the new gun models offer that previous ones didn't? Surely something must be getting better.

[Recursion]

155. They were called carbines, and cavalry and dragoons had them

They were not that popular in WWI because there wasn't much maneuvering going on. But there were semi-automatic carbines (what we today call "assault weapons&quot .

if guns are not improving, why is R & D money being spent on them?

Err... I don't think very much is, really. There's some things like new polymers for lighter weapons, or putting GPS in the stock, or stuff like that, but there's not really active research like there is in lasers and railguns.

what do the new gun models offer that previous ones didn't? Surely something must be getting better.

Very little. The AR-15 was designed in the 1950's, and the AK-47 was designed in the 1940's. The semi-automatic versions of both have been available to civilians since then, though they weren't terribly popular until Congress tried to ban them.

Let me turn that around: what do you perceive has changed?

[samsingh]

156. some changes

- they are lighter, more mobile
- cartridge capacities have increased
- diifferent caliber bullets offer different kill strategies
- faster firing/loading
- increased accuracy
- more controlled kickback allowing for improved firing

[Recursion]

158. OK, so you're describing changes from the 1940's

I agree, those were important changes when they were made... in the 1930's and 1940's.

[samsingh]

161. but they're still changing every year - what are they changing?

[Recursion]

163. Nothing, really. Like I said the main designs today are from the 1950's and earlier

I don't know where you're getting the idea that there are big changes happening in firearms design.

[samsingh]

162. some research from the net

the .44 Magnum cartridge was designed in the 1950s and produced since the late 1950s. It improvement was to load to higher pressures for greater velocity (and thus, energy).

From Wikeapedia: The .500 S&W Magnum is a fifty-caliber (12.7 mm) semi-rimmed handgun cartridge developed by Cor-Bon in partnership with the Smith & Wesson "X-Gun" engineering team for use in the Smith & Wesson Model 500 X-frame revolver and introduced in February 2003 at the SHOT show.[6] Its primary design purpose was as a hunting handgun cartridge capable of taking all North American game species. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.500_S%26W_Magnum

see the Evolution of the Handgun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.500_S%26W_Magnum

Looking through this information, we can see various design changes that provide additional functionality, features and capability.

[Recursion]

164. Someone introduced a hunting handgun cartridge? Jesus, you're stretching there

That's an activity that was more or less invented in the 1990's, that almost nobody does.

[samsingh]

165. there is a relationship between bullet size, shape, muzzle size, energy, etc

it looks like these are being modified all the time.

It also seems to me that i could use the line of logic to argue that cars really haven't changed since the 1920s e.g. four wheels, engine, go from point a - b, still use fuel, speed really hasn't changed that much. Same with computers: information is stored digitally, computing is still the same, as are compilerss.

[Lizzie Poppet]

48. Only one of those is true (lighter guns).

And lighter weight adds nothing of significance to a weapon's deadliness. It just makes it less pleasant to shoot (weight absorbs recoil).

I understand (and share) your outrage over the Sandy Point atrocity...but FFS, if you're doing to post at length about something and make multiple assertions of fact, you should do some research first.

[Lizzie Poppet]

41. "obvious points" ???

Um...your OP was demonstrably false on several points, which others have detailed. I don't think those points, as you stated them, were remotely "obvious." An argument based on false axioms is always going to be less than convincing, and it's opften going to be criticized.

[EnviroBat]

25. the more time I spend on DU lately

the more I realize just how little people actually know what they are talking about. Spend a greater percentage of time doing actual research, and less time hand-wringing. I'm about done with this place. Another casualty of the Newtown shootings has been my tolerance for this site. Visiting here has become nauseating lately.

[samsingh]

40. of course, we should just chuck up massacres - or better still - go buy more guns

[Lizzie Poppet]

45. In the same boat.

The outpouring of hysteria and vituperation in the last couple weeks or so have soured me on this "community" (and I use the word loosely...). Hyperbole and witch hunts...fuck this.

[HooptieWagon]

50. Not only the hysteria, falsehoods, and name-calling,

But purity tests, post hiding, and other bullying tactics intended to stifle discussion and accept their views.

[Lizzie Poppet]

55. The discussions on Meta about deliberate, organized attempts to silence other posters...

...and to apply what you aptly call "purity tests" made me sick to my stomach. That's as anti-liberal as it gets. I've got a PM in to one of the admins about deleting my account (fully deleting it...not just PPR'ing, etc.), but haven't heard a word in a week. In the mean time, I'll enjoy the site as much as I still can...and I'll admit to a bit of pot-stirring.

[Berserker]

57. And not to

mention Meta where they go and whine to mommy and daddy about the mean gunners who support the Democratic platform and the Bill of Rights. When they don't get enough love from the haters in GD they go get cuddled in Meta and post our names and threads and whine some more. What the hell has this place that I have loved for 9 years turned into.

[samsingh]

70. btw - you're not obligated to respond or even read the whole post of something you don't agree with

that is freedom of expression - the amendment before the one that gun lover's live by

[Lizzie Poppet]

81. Oh, believe me, I often don't these days.

I've placed twenty people on my Full Ignore list in the last couple of weeks. Previously? Two. But none of them before reading quite a few posts that led me to believe that they offered nothing of value to the conversation, but were only interested in hurling personal insults at people with the temerity to disagree with them.

It's the overall trend that's appearing here that disturbs me, though. The tendency of what seems to be a growing number of DU'ers who advocate what amounts to ideological totalitarianism. If that's what they want this board to become (that is, an echo chamber), then so be it, and they have every right to attempt to make it that way. But it's not a liberal POV, and I'd want no part of it.

[samsingh]

83. thanks for viewpoints - they are respectful - and i appreciate that

[Lizzie Poppet]

85. I try to keep it that way.

Being far from perfect, sometimes I fail...but I do my best. I appreciate that you do the same...

[samsingh]

92. thanks

[the antigun]

54. bullet dissassembley

I to believe that bullets have become more dangerous over time. Back when they were first invented they were only balls of lead. Now we have things like bonded and hollow points and fragmenting. Even the gunpowder its self is a collection of dangerous chemicals. I have started a service for just this reason for destroying ammo. I know it sounds like I am advertising but all I am trying to do is my part to help a suffering country. Please view my site and help if you can : ammoreclaim.com

[Lizzie Poppet]

58. That's a fair point.

It's been a few years since any additional developments of note, but bullets have indeed become more lethal (the expansion characteristics of hollowpoint bullets have been improved, the development of frangible rounds, etc.). Of course, both of those specific developments have increased safety for bystanders, but your point is valid. That's a valuable service, too.

[shintao]

76. Follow Fienstien's example

Put the National Guard in the schools. Follow my example, secure the schools for our children. So simple I could throw mud at it and be a success.

[cthulu2016]

94. The premise of the OP is false

The "destructive power of guns" has increased less year over year than just about anything else in the world (!) and most technologies offering substantial increases in destructive power of guns are illegal.

The thing about a gun is that if you are shot you are shot... it was bad to be shot in 1850 and remains bad today. When something is capped (at death) very low on the scale there is surprisingly little room for 'improvement.' Lincoln is not going to get any deader.


If gun control is to succeed it must be based on sense, not hyperbole, sentiment and weird slogans.

[samsingh]

95. and what sensible gun control would you propose?

[cthulu2016]

96. I don't consider the 2nd Amd a personal right, so

personally I have no problem with a national registry of existing guns, for instance, where they have to be entered in a new registry within a year or two, with substantial penalties afterward for possession of an unregistered gun, and for an unregistered gun to be contraband.

That ought to make 100,000,000 existing guns legally un-salable. (And confiscatable)

If the popular will is there, I am all for having less guns, or even no guns if that was feasible. I don't like guns at all, except in the way I like other people's religions, favorite books, political ideas, etc.. Other people's right are important to me.

My difficulty is that under Heller I would have to oppose a lot of things that I think are good policy because I can't stand by sweeping restriction of any *personal* right under law, even if I don't think it is a personal right. Heller is the law of the land and I do not want precedents of how sweeping the abrogation of a personal right can get using guns as something legally in the same category as speech, religion, etc..

So Heller has to be overturned before anything major, which means we need to keep having Democratic presidents to change the nature of the Supreme Court.

I'll be interested to see what Obama's commission says.

[samsingh]

103. makes sense

[CrispyQ]

105. Something does need to be done.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022084719

[samsingh]

106. that's what i'm seeing

[samsingh]

107. more gun deaths - this time inside a police station

Read more: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2012/12/28/gloucester-new-jersey-police-shooting-injured/1795665/

[CrispyQ]

108. It's every day.

When I was a kid, society wasn't armed like today. We didn't have shoot outs at schools & movie theaters. But the argument is if we arm more people we will be safer.

[samsingh]

109. there are what 300 million guns in the country

more guns as a solution is contemptable, but as long as crazy wayne can squeeze out more sales, the nra will keep confusing and pushing.

An insane asylum has been created in the past 30 years with ridiculous pro-gun regulations all around the country.

[marions ghost]

120. keep singing sam

The proliferation of guns is hurting this country--really damaging all of us--and will continue to. People who can't see it are in denial.

"Responsible" gun owners need to lobby for reforms along with us.

[closeupready]

116. Epic fail.

[samsingh]

157. i think some good points were expressed in this thread

[dionysus]

166. did they invent some new caliber of bullet or something? what did i miss?

[X_Digger]

167. Everything is 'new' to someone just getting up to speed. n/t

[samsingh]

168. i'm pretty much up to speed

[X_Digger]

169. So now you understand that the only recent changes are in materials and reliability, rather than

"destructive power"?

Good, glad we got that out of the way.

[samsingh]

170. some stuff coming down the pipe

http://io9.com/5880884/this-self+guided-bullet-can-chase-you-down-from-over-a-mile-away