Gun control

  • Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!



    Go here and give us your nominations!
    Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!
chaos

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
I haven't seen a single citizen who wasn't a Republitroll who supports it. Even the more sensible Republicans don't support it. That has nothing to do with Bush. Guys like Khorum or General Antony or Merlin are the type of people I have seen here supporting it.

It isn't shocking to me that they aren't moving to get rid of it. I've read my daughters If You Give A Mouse A Cookie about 100 times, so I know how this story goes. I don't see that going away in my lifetime.
 
khalid

khalid

Unelected Mod
14,071
6,775
Many times in this thread people have stated "You have nothing to worry about" in regards to this legislation, and have had discussions in the politics thread that being a one-issue gun voter is a bad idea. Yet take a look at the Patriot Act. Something passed in haste around a national tragedy that now essentially is permanent law even though no one on either side will admit to supporting it.

That is my biggest fear on gun control. I think that if nothing gets passed this time in regards to an AWB or magazine size, that the lesson some will take from this is "We didn't have our legislation ready in time" and that if only they had put it up the week after the tragedy it might have passed. The next Sandy hook or something like it, we will see the Dianne Feinstein bill hitting congress the next day. I think this will be an all too effective strategy too, as we saw big spikes in the polls for support of that kind of stuff the week after.
 
chaos

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
Perhaps. I didn't think there would be any legislation and I still don't think it will even be voted on, much less passed.

I find the Patriot Act absolutely abhorrent, but still not enough to be a single issue voter over it. I don't care what his NRA rating is, I'm not voting for someone who wants to turn the country into a theocracy or eliminate the FDA or take food out of babies' mouths or whatever crazy shit they will come up with next. There are more important things.
 
Z

Zombie Thorne_sl

shitlord
918
1
Big Phoenix_sl said:
Oh god not heavy winter clothing.
Click to expand...
I know it sounds dumb, but when you are dealing with the pocket pistol calibers it is surprising just how much energy and velocity is lost when you hit multiple layers of heavy clothing.

A fatty with a leather jacket and a few layers under it is going to be hard to stop with a small round. 2-3 inches of penetration doesn't go far.

So yeah, bullet proof fatties!
 
Big Phoenix

Big Phoenix

Pronouns: zie/zhem/zer
<Gold Donor>
46,411
98,675
Thorne_sl said:
I know it sounds dumb, but when you are dealing with the pocket pistol calibers it is surprising just how much energy and velocity is lost when you hit multiple layers of heavy clothing.

A fatty with a leather jacket and a few layers under it is going to be hard to stop with a small round. 2-3 inches of penetration doesn't go far.

So yeah, bullet proof fatties!
Click to expand...
Urban myth, short of you being dressed to summit everest and being shot with something like a 22lr, clothing is not going to have any measurable impact of the ballistics of a bullet.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot8.htm
 
Z

Zombie Thorne_sl

shitlord
918
1
That's exactly what I'm talking about. Rounds like .380 ACP, 32 ACP, .25, .22 etc.

The bullet does not expand properly and penetrates far less than a .380 FMJ. That's why recent data suggests loading the pocket pistol calibers with FMJ for SD roles. That's why one of the standards of testing has become 4 layers of denim + ballistics gel.

Does not apply with 9mm and up of course.

Hollow points are not some magic death bullet like some ppl think. All they do is expand giving the bullet a larger diameter hole to poke. Unless you have a CNS shutdown the way to stop someone is blood loss. A bigger hole helps that.

This relates to almost all handgun rounds. Rifle stuff is a bit different as shown in the video.

I would really like to see what ammo was used in Aurora and Sandy Hook. I would bet money it is 55gr FMJ which is a relatively poor stopper compared to newer 223 ammo. But the good stuff is close to a buck a round.
 
Ignatius

Ignatius

#thePewPewLife
4,761
6,402
Mom was a prepper and was apparently into stockpiling, so I think the 55gr is a safe bet.

At the range though, the round used is pretty irrelevant.
 
Zodiac

Zodiac

Lord Nagafen Raider
1,200
14
Tuco_sl said:
More evidence to support mental testing of gun owners.
Click to expand...
Dude prolly had Old Timers disease.

rrr_img_11452.jpg
 
Aychamo BanBan

Aychamo BanBan

<Banned>
6,338
7,144
I've been debating commenting on this, and I think I did briefly before, but I really do not like the idea of doctor's being able to have any say on someone having a gun. Sure, I have seen patients where the thought of them, or any family member, owning a gun is absolutely scary, and some patients that I even believe could possibly be future school shooters. But, the sheer idea of mental health screening is just daunting.

(I am not a psychiatrist.)

- The majority of patients with mental illness are reasonably well controlled on medication. Most would be just fine owning a gun. However, if these patients become non-compliant with their medications, which we have no reasonable way of knowing, then they could become dangerous.

- Each mental illness is a spectrum, so not all patients with depression should be denied guns. Similarly, how would we classify which patients are too mentally ill to have a gun? Based on their DSM diagnosis? Schizophrenics can't, but bipolar patients can? How much anxiety do you need to not be allowed to own a gun?

- Similarly, obviously there's no test or anything we can perform to determine if someone will kill someone. The best we can do is ask them "Do you have a gun? Do you plan to harm anybody with it?" And use our clinical judgement, but even that likely barely useful in these types of cases. People can always lie.

- Next, if a doctor forgets to ask about a gun, and their patient shoots someone, are they liable? That's ridiculous. Or if they asked and the patient lied, and then the doctor is sued because he didn't "pick up on it."

- It's just more useless work on the doctor. Sure, it may add 1-2 minutes to a patient encounter, but do that 10-20 times a day each day and all of a sudden you're wasting days on a likely useless series of questions without reimbursement.

- As a doctor, I'd be worrisome of the repercussions of writing a letter or filling out a form that would revoke a crazy persons gun owning privileges. I don't want to be harassed at home by a nut-job solely because of a decision I made at work. I already have patients that call me at home asking about medication refills, which is entirely inappropriate.

- The entire thing likely wouldn't help. Lanza was denied a gun, but his mother had them. The "solution" to deny crazy people guns is to disarm their entire house. Now we're taking guns away from non-crazy people in order to keep them away from crazy people. I can't even imagine all the problems with that solution.

Etc.
 
Hoss

Hoss

Make America's Team Great Again
<Gold Donor>
27,253
15,412
aychamo_aycono_sl said:
- The majority of patients with mental illness are reasonably well controlled on medication. Most would be just fine owning a gun. However, if these patients become non-compliant with their medications, which we have no reasonable way of knowing, then they could become dangerous.
Click to expand...
If we ever go there (mental health screening to own guns) the medication should absolutely not be a factor. If you need meds to stay 'well controlled', then the answer should be no.
 
Tuco

Tuco

I got Tuco'd!
<Gold Donor>
47,456
81,084
aychamo_aycono_sl said:
I've been debating commenting on this, and I think I did briefly before, but I really do not like the idea of doctor's being able to have any say on someone having a gun. Sure, I have seen patients where the thought of them, or any family member, owning a gun is absolutely scary, and some patients that I even believe could possibly be future school shooters. But, the sheer idea of mental health screening is just daunting.

(I am not a psychiatrist.)

- The majority of patients with mental illness are reasonably well controlled on medication. Most would be just fine owning a gun. However, if these patients become non-compliant with their medications, which we have no reasonable way of knowing, then they could become dangerous.

- Each mental illness is a spectrum, so not all patients with depression should be denied guns. Similarly, how would we classify which patients are too mentally ill to have a gun? Based on their DSM diagnosis? Schizophrenics can't, but bipolar patients can? How much anxiety do you need to not be allowed to own a gun?

- Similarly, obviously there's no test or anything we can perform to determine if someone will kill someone. The best we can do is ask them "Do you have a gun? Do you plan to harm anybody with it?" And use our clinical judgement, but even that likely barely useful in these types of cases. People can always lie.

- Next, if a doctor forgets to ask about a gun, and their patient shoots someone, are they liable? That's ridiculous. Or if they asked and the patient lied, and then the doctor is sued because he didn't "pick up on it."

- It's just more useless work on the doctor. Sure, it may add 1-2 minutes to a patient encounter, but do that 10-20 times a day each day and all of a sudden you're wasting days on a likely useless series of questions without reimbursement.

- As a doctor, I'd be worrisome of the repercussions of writing a letter or filling out a form that would revoke a crazy persons gun owning privileges. I don't want to be harassed at home by a nut-job solely because of a decision I made at work. I already have patients that call me at home asking about medication refills, which is entirely inappropriate.

- The entire thing likely wouldn't help. Lanza was denied a gun, but his mother had them. The "solution" to deny crazy people guns is to disarm their entire house. Now we're taking guns away from non-crazy people in order to keep them away from crazy people. I can't even imagine all the problems with that solution.

Etc.
Click to expand...
All good points. There are no easy answers. Rather than relying on a patients primary care physician we could require people to submit to an ability test and psych evaluation before being able to have a license to purchase a gun, and require them to take a test every year. Not sure if that is too much cost and not enough coverage, however.
 
chaos

chaos

Buzzfeed Editor
17,324
4,839
I don't know, I can see some of those points, but for the medication I'm with Hoss. If a pill is the only thing keeping you from losing your shit, then you probably should be allowed to own guns.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.