18
   

WHY DO SOME OPPOSE ANALYSES OF GUN DEATH DATA BY NIH??

 
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 14 Jan, 2016 09:54 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
But they don't have identical magazines.

Both guns take the same type of magazine. There is no reason not to install identical magazines when comparing them.


parados wrote:
Nor can they be held in the same fashion while changing magazines.

Irrelevant.


parados wrote:
You seem to want to argue that facts in evidence to everyone else don't exist for you.

I do have a habit of disregarding imaginary facts.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2016 06:09 am
@oralloy,
Quote:

The militia was not intended to overthrow the federal government. It was intended to fight for the federal government.

The Framers felt that a federal government that relied on a militia to enforce the law would never become tyrannical, whereas a federal government that used a standing army to enforce the law would naturally evolve into tyranny
I'll have to research when we first began having a standing army to see if that argument holds up.

But I guess you are saying we're kind'a screwed now anyway, what with the attitude most police having the attitude of 'us' (the police) vs 'them' (the people) who they refere to as 'civilians'. Not to mention the militarization of police with training, tactics and equipment courtesy of the federal government.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2016 06:52 am
Oralloy, as is the case with many firearms fanatics, either makes it up as he goes along, or relies upon sources who have done so. The events of the Whiskey Rebellion show what a fantasy that is. Local militia men in western Pennsylvania attempted to interfere with the United States Marshall serving writs, and eventually fired on the house where he then lodged. They came back in greater force, while the Marshall had been reinforced by United States troops. The obvious intent of a document which provides for a militia as well as land and naval forces is that both have their roles. The "combating tyranny" fairy tale is a favorite one of the firearms extremists.

Article One, Section Eight, reads, in part:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The Whiskey tax was an excise, which the Congress was empowered to levy.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;


And . . .

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


Nothing in the text of the constitution supports the chimerical and often hysterical claims about the militia being a bulwark against tyranny.
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2016 07:10 am
It is also often the case that fanatical people, whether about firearms or other issues, will makes claims about the "framers' intent," as though a body of men with a great deal of experience of the law and of legislatures, were incapable of explicitly stating their intent. Such claims about intent are almost invariably the hallmark of a weak argument, which is usually self-serving. Furthermore, arguments about the "framers' intent" when the topic is any constitutional amendment are made more ridiculous because the framers' and the members of any Congress which proposes amendments are not the same people. So, for example, the second amendment ratified was the fourth amendment proposed by the First Congress--the members of which were not identical with the delegates to the constitutional convention.
parados
 
  4  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2016 12:10 pm
@oralloy,
If 30 round magazines are illegal a gun equipped with such a magazine would be illegal. To equip a legal gun with such a magazine would make the gun illegal.

When you claim a legal gun can shoot 100 rounds at the same rate as an illegal gun by making the legal gun illegal, you undermine any argument you think you might have.
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2016 01:03 pm
@parados,
Rate of fire is the frequency at which a specific weapon can fire or launch its projectiles. It is usually measured in rounds per minute (RPM or round/min), or rounds per second (RPS or round/s).

Several different measurements are used. The fastest and most commonly quoted rate is the cyclical rate of fire. However, heat (possibly leading to weapon failure) and exhaustion of ammunition mean most automatic weapons are unlikely to sustain their cyclic rate of fire for a full minute. That is why lower rates apply in practice and it is incorrect to describe RPM as "the number of rounds a weapon can fire in one minute."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rate_of_fire

A 30 round magazine would not make a gun illegal, the gun would be legal but the magazine would be illegal. Did you know that they list guns by their rate of fire regardless of the magazine that would be inserted into the gun?

As an example:
Technically, the AR-15 fires 800 rounds a minute (source: Wikipedia), which is 13.3 rounds per second. This is for the full-auto version. We know that fanning your index finger is going to be much slower than that, so saying 180 rounds per minute is actually a very, very reasonable number. Except that you'd never get there, because you can only fire 30 (or 10 in Colorado) rounds from a standard magazine. (Colorado is actually 15 rounds)

Now we know 800 rpm is not really possible because even the military only uses 30 round mags and not a continues feed to the chamber.

M249:
Rate of fire Sustained rate of fire: 100 RPM
Rapid rate of fire: 200 RPM
Cyclic rate of fire: 800 RPM

The same could be said for the M249 since it only uses a can that holds 200 rounds.

Here is some info for you on the different meanings:

There are diverse measurements of rate of fire:

Cyclic rate[edit]
This is the mechanical rate of fire, or how fast the weapon "cycles" (loads, locks, fires, unlocks, ejects). Measurement of the cyclic rate assumes that the weapon is being operated as fast as possible and does not consider operator tasks (magazine changes, aiming, etc.). When the trigger is pulled, the rate at which rounds are fired is the cyclic rate. Typical cyclic rates of fire are 600–900 RPM for assault rifles, 1,000-1,100 RPM in some cases, 900-1,200 RPM for submachine guns and machine pistols, and 600-1,200 RPM for machine guns. M134 Miniguns mounted on attack helicopters and other combat vehicles can achieve rates of fire of over 100 rounds per second (6,000 RPM).

Sustained or Effective rate[edit]
This is the rate at which the weapon could reasonably be fired indefinitely without failing. In contrast to the cyclic rate, the sustained rate is the actual rate at which the weapon would typically be fired in combat. Sustained rate considers several factors, time spent reloading, aiming, changing barrels if necessary, and allowing for some cooling. Knowing the sustained rate of fire is useful to know for logistics and supply purposes. Machine guns are typically fired in short bursts rather than in long continuous streams of fire, although there are times when they must be fired in very long bursts (see rapid rate below). Sustained rate also applies to box magazine fed assault rifles and semi-automatic rifles. In these weapons it refers to the rate at which the typical rifleman can effectively engage targets in a combat situation. The rate is usually 12-15 rpm, except for barrel changes it considers most of the same factors as for the belt fed MGs.

Rapid rate[edit]
Rapid rate is a rate of fire between cyclic and sustained. It is usually much faster, although less accurate, than the sustained rate and is only used in emergency/final defensive line situations. The Rapid rate is not sustainable for long periods because it eats up a great amount of ammunition (more than the troops are likely to carry on a patrol), the heat generated requires barrel change times to be reduced, and with the one spare barrel usually issued, prolonged rapid fire will result in shortened weapon/barrel life.

Semi-Automatic rate[edit]
The semi-automatic rate is the maximum rate that a semi-automatic weapon can fire with any degree of accuracy in semi-auto mode, usually 45-60 rpm. However a semi-automatic firearm can mechanically function at (about) the same rate of fire as its fully automatic (or select-fire) counterpart, this is assuming the trigger could be pulled fast enough to facilitate such a rate of fire. Firing rates approaching that of a full-automatic version of the same gun can be achieved using "bump fire".
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2016 01:38 pm
@Leadfoot,
Leadfoot wrote:
I'll have to research when we first began having a standing army to see if that argument holds up.

We had a trivial standing army (sort of a framework to be ready for when we wanted to raise a real army) from the start.

The standing army started to be expanded into a real fighting force after the War of 1812. The Framers were disappointed in the performance of the militia in that war.


Leadfoot wrote:
But I guess you are saying we're kind'a screwed now anyway, what with the attitude most police having the attitude of 'us' (the police) vs 'them' (the people) who they refere to as 'civilians'. Not to mention the militarization of police with training, tactics and equipment courtesy of the federal government.

Things aren't so bad. The courts are somewhat defending our right to be armed for self defense.

And the NRA does a good job of protecting the Constitution in Congress.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2016 01:41 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Oralloy, as is the case with many firearms fanatics, either makes it up as he goes along, or relies upon sources who have done so.

The best rebuttal to this false accusation is the fact that no one can show anything untrue in what I said.


Setanta wrote:
The events of the Whiskey Rebellion show what a fantasy that is. Local militia men in western Pennsylvania attempted to interfere with the United States Marshall serving writs, and eventually fired on the house where he then lodged. They came back in greater force, while the Marshall had been reinforced by United States troops.

Show what a fantasy what is???


Setanta wrote:
The "combating tyranny" fairy tale is a favorite one of the firearms extremists.

The reality that the Framers were quite concerned about preventing tyranny is hardly a fantasy.


Setanta wrote:
Article One, Section Eight, reads, in part:

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

The Whiskey tax was an excise, which the Congress was empowered to levy.

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;


And . . .

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

OK. And?


Setanta wrote:
Nothing in the text of the constitution supports the chimerical and often hysterical claims about the militia being a bulwark against tyranny.

Nothing chimerical or hysterical about pointing out history.

Even if it were true that nothing in the Constitution addressed the Framers' hopes about the militia, so what? Is there some rule that the only valid history is what can be found in the Constitution?

Anyway, note the first half of the Second Amendment. It specifically refers to a free state (the opposite of tyranny).
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2016 01:46 pm
@Baldimo,
So your argument is that a weapon that has a 30 round magazine will fire 100 rounds in the exact same time that a weapon that has an 8 round magazine. That it takes no time to swap out magazines, let alone fumble for 12 of them vs only needing 3. OK. I can see you are completely out of touch with reality.

I was responding to posted pictures that claimed one gun was illegal and the other was legal. I am merely pointing out that as pictured they can't fire 100 rounds in the same time frame.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2016 01:49 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
It is also often the case that fanatical people, whether about firearms or other issues, will makes claims about the "framers' intent," as though a body of men with a great deal of experience of the law and of legislatures, were incapable of explicitly stating their intent.

Just the opposite actually. Claims about what the Framers intended come about because the Framers stated their intent very clearly.


Setanta wrote:
Such claims about intent are almost invariably the hallmark of a weak argument, which is usually self-serving.

I've found that adhering to facts makes for an incredibly strong argument -- invulnerable even.


Setanta wrote:
Furthermore, arguments about the "framers' intent" when the topic is any constitutional amendment are made more ridiculous because the framers' and the members of any Congress which proposes amendments are not the same people.

As if the Bill of Rights did not originate from the demands of the Anti-Federalists???


Setanta wrote:
So, for example, the second amendment ratified was the fourth amendment proposed by the First Congress--the members of which were not identical with the delegates to the constitutional convention.

Also not identical with the Virginia Ratifying Convention. What of it?
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2016 01:58 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
If 30 round magazines are illegal a gun equipped with such a magazine would be illegal. To equip a legal gun with such a magazine would make the gun illegal.

I'm not entirely sure that that is true, but even if it is true I don't see the point.


parados wrote:
When you claim a legal gun can shoot 100 rounds at the same rate as an illegal gun by making the legal gun illegal, you undermine any argument you think you might have.

Pointing out reality has never undermined any of my arguments so far.

With identical magazines, both guns will shoot at the same rate.

Given the speed at which magazines can be changed, I would not expect a dramatic decrease in firing speed using smaller magazines.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2016 03:01 pm
@oralloy,
Quote:
With identical magazines, both guns will shoot at the same rate.

So both guns would act the same if they were both the same and illegal. WOW... what a concept....

Now do you believe that if you are given 2 guns; one with four 3o round magazines and the other with thirteen 8 round magazines that you would be able to fire 100 rounds just as fast with both guns? Or do you agree that replacing the magazines takes time? Or will you continue to show us you are out of touch with reality?
Baldimo
 
  0  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2016 03:08 pm
@parados,
Quote:
So your argument is that a weapon that has a 30 round magazine will fire 100 rounds in the exact same time that a weapon that has an 8 round magazine. That it takes no time to swap out magazines, let alone fumble for 12 of them vs only needing 3. OK. I can see you are completely out of touch with reality.


Sorry Parados, but that isn't what I said at all. I was pointing out what a fire rate actually is. I'm letting you know that you don't know **** about guns and are working from a strictly emotional space and not using any logic what so ever. That is what I said.

Quote:
I was responding to posted pictures that claimed one gun was illegal and the other was legal. I am merely pointing out that as pictured they can't fire 100 rounds in the same time frame.

I'll say it again. A magazine doesn't make a gun illegal, it just means you are using an illegal mag. The subject of the pic was referring to the cosmetic look of the guns and how the looks of a gun being scary to people like you, will make you want to ban it without actually understanding the differences. A majority of your argument against guns comes from a strictly emotional space of fear and no understanding of guns.

What you guys consider high capacity, is not in fact high capacity. They are normal capacity magazines but they are being mislabeled by know nothing anti gun nuts.
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2016 03:17 pm
@parados,
I dont think I have ever answered the question posed on this site. The reason they, the gun nuts, dont want stats about gun deaths is that if people realized how many gun deaths there were they might pass laws requiring background checks and checking mental health which would eliminate a large number of the gun nuts on this site from owning guns.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Fri 15 Jan, 2016 09:52 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
So both guns would act the same if they were both the same and illegal. WOW... what a concept....

There is no legitimate reason for banning harmless cosmetic features on a gun.


parados wrote:
Now do you believe that if you are given 2 guns; one with four 3o round magazines and the other with thirteen 8 round magazines that you would be able to fire 100 rounds just as fast with both guns? Or do you agree that replacing the magazines takes time?

"Given the speed at which magazines can be changed, I would not expect a dramatic decrease in firing speed using smaller magazines."


parados wrote:
Or will you continue to show us you are out of touch with reality?

Can you show even a single divergence between my position and reality?
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 03:40 am
@oralloy,
Being obtuse doesn't help your weak and silly arguments. Talking about the intent of the framers with regard to any constitutional amendment is dishonest because the framers did not write those amendments. Yes, the framers were explicit. The text of the constitution states what they intended. Nowhere does it state that the purpose of the militia is to protect against tyranny, and nowhere is a standing army prohibited. As usual, you just make sh*t up and call it facts.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 03:42 am
@oralloy,
I've shown your entire "bulwark against tyranny" claim to be untrue. You continue to offer tortured, silly arguments.
Setanta
 
  2  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 04:05 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:
The standing army started to be expanded into a real fighting force after the War of 1812. The Framers were disappointed in the performance of the militia in that war.


This is hilarious. You write of the framers with a capital "F" as though they were some body of magical, mystical guardians of good governance, as though you were invoking the Name of God. How many of the delegates of the constitutional convention were still alive in 1815? Were they looking down on us from heaven with Washington at their head? How many delegates to the convention were in positions of trust in the government in 1815, capable of making policy decisions about the nation's military affairs? You have no business invoking history, as you clearly don't know what the hell you're talking about.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 04:17 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Being obtuse doesn't help your weak and silly arguments.

Obtuse, weak, and silly are in the eye of the beholder I guess. I find that basing my arguments on facts makes them incredibly strong.


Setanta wrote:
Talking about the intent of the framers with regard to any constitutional amendment is dishonest because the framers did not write those amendments.

Quite often the intent of the Framers is highly relevant to the issue that led to an amendment.

For example the Second Amendment. The Framers had specific intentions regarding the militia, and those intentions are relevant regarding claims about the militia today, even though the Second Amendment modified the Constitution regarding the militia.


Setanta wrote:
Yes, the framers were explicit. The text of the constitution states what they intended.

The Constitution states the rules themselves, not the intentions and desires that led to those rules being adopted.


Setanta wrote:
Nowhere does it state that the purpose of the militia is to protect against tyranny,

Try Federalist 29. It was written by Alexander Hamilton, who was trying to argue that instead of making the entire population of the US into militiamen, the militia should be composed of only some of the people.

It is clear from his text that a standing army was regarded (both by him and by the people that he was trying to convince) as a step towards tyranny, while a government that relied on a militia to enforce the law would remain non-tyrannical.


Setanta wrote:
and nowhere is a standing army prohibited.

True. Restricted a bit however.


Setanta wrote:
As usual, you just make sh*t up and call it facts.

No, all of my facts are accurate history.
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Sat 16 Jan, 2016 04:18 am
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
I've shown your entire "bulwark against tyranny" claim to be untrue.

Hardly.


Setanta wrote:
You continue to offer tortured, silly arguments.

I can't help it if facts are inconvenient.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 11/27/2021 at 05:09:52