Canadian students express support their U.S. counterparts with solidarity rallies

300 posts / 0 new
Last post
Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

That's certainly interesting.  But Wyoming, for example, requires no permit to own a rifle, shotgun or handgun, and if I'm not mistaken, is an "open carry" state.  But they only became a state well after the abolition of slavery.

So why does Wyoming like their guns so much?

Sean in Ottawa

Michael Moriarity wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Here is an opinion on the second amendment:

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratifi...

I think I posted a link to that article a couple of years ago in one of the U.S. threads. It seems to me that it is much more than "an opinion". It is rather a very persuasive historical case for the propostion that the second amendment was included in the constitution to ensure that the slave states could maintain control of their property. It cites primary sources, particulary the ratification debates, quoting figures such as Patrick Henry and James Madison. If it is merely an opinion, it is one which is given with very strong supporting evidence.

Yes-- I was trying to be gentle. I have read other articles and in fact was looking for a different one when I found that link. I think this is not really debatable. It also explains the history of it (and why it is not replicated elsewhere). Without the fear of an oppressed population, no government would go along with such a stupid destabalizing scheme. Problem is that many Second Amendment types might like it more if they knew why it was created.

Unionist

[oops]

Paladin1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Problem is that many Second Amendment types might like it more if they knew why it was created.

lol

Bunch of racists those second ammendment good old boys.

Hey while we're taking to the Twitterverse and trying to bully companies into not dealing with the NRA or, like our own MEC in Canada carry products from companies that also deal with firearms or firearms gear, can we boycot movies that  feature guns? And Boycot actors and actresses that use guns in Hollywood movies?

Maybe tomb Raider, Black Panther, Avengers, Red Sparrow, Oceans 8? @BoycotHollywoodguns!

Unionist

The truth is painful. But it's the truth.

It is too late for gun control in America: Neil Macdonald

Quote:

As America's attention span wanes, and the clock ticks down to the next school shooting massacre, it's almost poignant to watch the abruptly politicized teenagers, burning as righteously as young people do when they coalesce around a noble cause, hectoring important politicians, making them squirm on television, clearly believing that they shall overcome.

But they shall not overcome. These lambs may not be silent, but they are battering an insuperable wall of legal and political iron.

[...]

The teen activists today are probably too young to remember the awful despair of the Sandy Hook families, but they should prepare to experience it themselves. Because they will.

josh

Mr. Magoo wrote:

That's certainly interesting.  But Wyoming, for example, requires no permit to own a rifle, shotgun or handgun, and if I'm not mistaken, is an "open carry" state.  But they only became a state well after the abolition of slavery.

So why does Wyoming like their guns so much?

And that has to do with the meaning of the Second Amendment how?

josh

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Here is an opinion on the second amendment:

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/13890-the-second-amendment-was-ratifi...

 

Yes, I think I posted something similar earlier.  It's highlights the important of the militia in the context of the right to bear arms.  And another how example of how slavery infected the Constitution.

NorthReport

The business community is feeling the ‘heat’ of being too closely connected to the NRA

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/world/dicks-sporting-goods-assault-rifle-stop-sales-1.4556215

NorthReport
NDPP

US Gun-Nuttism

https://on.rt.com/906i

Unfortunately, their foreign policy is as wacko. Maybe we shouldn't align with either.

Unionist

Vehitetu harvotam le'itim vehanitotehem le'mazmerot.
Lo yisa goi el goi herev, lo yilmedu od milhamah.

Isaiah 2:4

 

NorthReport
NorthReport
voice of the damned

How many times is the thread title going to be changed?

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I think this is the seventh title, but to be honest, it could be the eighth.  I haven't been scratching lines in the wall.

@MegB:  is it possible to disable the changing of thread titles?  I seem to recall when we couldn't even edit a first post, so I'm assuming it's some "yes" or "no" in the configuration file.  This is just getting stupid now.  What question am I responding to? 

The first, second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth or seventh?

Paladin1

I wrote a letter to MEC and got a fairly lengthy personalized one back, it was interesting.

Here is the thing about this MEC stunt. In an open letter the CEO talks about how the company recieved "thousands" of emails asking them to end their association with some umbrella corporation that some companies belong to because they also own some companies with gun shares, or some shit like that.  Lots of people are calling bullshit on these thousands of emails.  No one I've spoke to has heard of the umbrella corporation and no one sounded like they had any idea they were associated with guns.  I've been going to MEC a lot time, spent a lot of cash there, never had an idea.  CamelBak and Bolle?  They sell backpacks with inflatable water bags and sunglasses, respectively.

Thousands of people emailing them? No. Something like this comes right from the company. *I* think the company itself, knowing there was some tenious connection with camelback and a company that also has companies associated with a brand of guns, decided to virtue signal some very clever marketing. Jumping on the dissociate with NRA train.  Totally in their right to do so, but pretending it was from thousands of people emailing in?  If you take a look at their page on facebook the ovberwealming amount of people that are posting  about this issue are AGAINST MEC politicking like this. They're telling MEC that they're canceling their membership.  I'd say 1 out of ever 15 people who post support what MEC is doing but when you take a quick look at their Facebook profiles they very much do not come across as outdoors type or someone that looks like they would shop at MEC.  Stereotyping? Maybe a little, they're still not spending thousands on climbing gear or kayaks. That or they just don't post pictures about it.

I have a strong suspicion MEC is going to "look at the situation" and decide not to drop the American companies.

NorthReport

So which Canadian companies are going to follow MEC’s lead and disaffiliated themselves from the gun merchants of student deaths. As a member I have never been more proud of MEC than I am today, and a big thank you to the 40,000 people who signed a document supporting this decision. 

MegB

Hey Magoo, I've already put in a request to shut down that permission. Waiting on a response.

Paladin1

Looks like I'm wrong.

 

Signing a petition online takes 15 seconds.

Speaking of which MECs review rating on their Facebook page dropped from 4.7 stars to 3.9 stars in a couple days and is continuing to drop. The overwealming feedback on their page continues to condemn their actions with a steady flow of people apparently canceling their memberships. 

It'll be interesting to see if this improves or impacts their physical sales.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

I wish this had been a direct consumer boycott of those brands instead, because with the courage of my convictions, I think I could live without a backpack that holds water, or $350 sunglasses, if it means doing the right thing and finally ending gun crime in another country.  I had my "Take THAT, you gunmongering water-backpack-mongerers!" letter all ready and everything.

Paladin1

I'm not sure if I'll boycott MEC or not. I'm selfish and self-ceneterd and if I need something then I'll buy it. I guess if I have two options I won't pick MEC but if they're the cheapest option I'll probably cave (ourdoorsy joke LOL).

Maybe if I'm in store and they ask me if I want a bag in that condisending "you're killing the planet!" tone I'll ask for two bags.

NRA memberships are seeing a big spike. I'd guess 95% of MECs items are made in countries with horrible human rights records or child labour but I suppose you can't pick up 10 items in your house without 9 of them being made in those places so lets not worry about that LOL

Paladin1

True to form Facebook is deleting poor reviews on MEC's page lol

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

People are free to approve of MEC no longer selling the bad water backpacks, or to disapprove of them for no longer selling the bad water backpacks.  If they want to boycott MEC over it, that's fine.  If they want to go to MEC and buy 20 sleeping bags to support them, that's fine too.

But reviews are intended to be someone's actual experience with either the products (quality, value, etc.) or service. 

If you don't think a local restaurant should support certain politics, don't eat there, and ask your friends not to eat there because of those politics.  But please, don't rush to "Yelp" to complain that your server spat at you and your risotto had a roach in it when you live 3000km away.  That's not what reviews are for.

Paladin1

I agree 100%.

But Facebook is deleting 1 star reviews and keeping 5 star ones. How do they know what a legit review is and what's not? Most of the reviews I looked at was people saying they're canceling their membership and/or never shopping there again, not just spouting nonsense. A quick look at the 1 star reviewer profiles show people who seem very much the outdoors type.  I'd very much like to follow up and compare their profit margines after this.

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
But Facebook is deleting 1 star reviews and keeping 5 star ones. How do they know what a legit review is and what's not?

That's a fair question too.  I'm not sure what FB or Yelp should do when some business ends up controversial.  I suppose they could delete reviews that are one or more standard deviations from the average.  Or they could shut off reviews for a period of time, the way Wikipedia sometimes locks editing of contentious pages.

It would be interesting if, in the future, any purchase from any retailer, restaurant or service would come with an encrypted hash printed on the sales receipt (e.g."UYT76U-88HB8-00PL4") that would indicate that someone had, in fact, at least patronized a specific retailer, restaurant or service, and would need to be entered and validated before providing a "review".

IIRC, there have been at least a few times where a paid reviewer (of a restaurant, or a theatre production, or whatever) has been clearly shown to have not eaten at that restaurant, or attended that theatre production, and I think we're right to believe that that's dishonest and shouldn't happen.

The best workaround I can think of:  if you want to shop at MEC and want honest reviews, just look at the ones before a week ago.

NDPP

Membership in Gun Groups is Spiking After the Florida Shooting

http://time.com/5176471/national-rifle-association-membership-florida-sh...

"Membership in the NRA and gun rights groups across the country, which includes more than five million Americans, is spiking..."

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

It always does, after some shooting, beacause after some shooting some Americans, for several days, act like they're ready to say "enough is enough" and pass toothy new laws.

NorthReport
NorthReport

Welcome to the 21st century bud!

Mr. Magoo wrote:

People are free to approve of MEC no longer selling the bad water backpacks, or to disapprove of them for no longer selling the bad water backpacks.  If they want to boycott MEC over it, that's fine.  If they want to go to MEC and buy 20 sleeping bags to support them, that's fine too.

But reviews are intended to be someone's actual experience with either the products (quality, value, etc.) or service. 

If you don't think a local restaurant should support certain politics, don't eat there, and ask your friends not to eat there because of those politics.  But please, don't rush to "Yelp" to complain that your server spat at you and your risotto had a roach in it when you live 3000km away.  That's not what reviews are for.

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Welcome to the 21st century bud!

I'm afraid you're right.  It's just another way of doing "fake news".

NorthReport
NorthReport
NorthReport

It’s not only machine guns, as we need to ban handguns completely as well

Paladin1

NorthReport wrote:

It’s not only machine guns, as we need to ban handguns completely as well

Serious question, why do we need to ban machineguns in Canada?

There's only a few hundred of them, maybe 1000, if memory serves me and they're already prohibited and heavily regulated. So a mother or father who owns one cannot pass them down to their children, they must be turned in to the police when the member no longer has a licence or dies.  I don't think they've ever been used in a crime in the last 50 or 70 years, or longer. 

Gun owners are allowed to buy semi-automatic "machineguns" for thousands of dollars ($3000-$10'000, here's a site with some for sale in Canada  https://www.marstar.ca/dynamic/category.jsp?catid=75102 ).  None of those have been used in crime as far as I'm aware of either.   Stastically speaking they're safer than hotdogs.

 

So I'm not saying don't ban them, I'm just curious the justification.   Handguns? Well I'm a big handgun shooter (have 8 of them) but I would agree that they are the most commonly used firearm in murders and crime. If Handfuns are used in 85% -90% of firearm murders in the USA then AR15s are used in 1%. They're the most coveted by criminals.

Paladin1

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
Welcome to the 21st century bud!

I'm afraid you're right.  It's just another way of doing "fake news".

Attacking someones online website\reviews\business is sadly typical.  A while ago I was on a gun forum and a member wanted to debate about using firearms for self-defense in the home. It was his opinion that guns were very bad for home defense and people should invest money in other avenues like a security system, strong windows, deadbolt. Nice guy very polite and articulate.  He was also a business owner and had his business info linked to his profile even though he was debating the topic as a gun owner and forum member, not as a business. People launched on him and attacked his business's facebook page. Piece of shit Liberal, thowing gun owners under the bus, wants guns banned. Never buying from his business.  They went out of their way to try and harm his company because he had an opinion they didn't like. Most of them never bought from him in the past and even admitted that they probably wouldn't have shopped there anyways (guy sold a specific line of specialized parts)  People are real assholes though.

I think the MEC situation is a bit different and the people upset about their decision are, at least a good number of them, actual customers. But I think you're right about people leaving shitty reviews when they've never shopped/ate somewhere.   I'd say things would be different if we were all forced to use our real names but then again we've seen what happens when people are doxxed. People go after their friends families and jobs. Like Miranda Dyck getting someone fired for donating $20 to Gerald Stanly, then playing the victim card when peope went after her in kind.

Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

It’s not only machine guns, as we need to ban handguns completely as well

Serious question, why do we need to ban machineguns in Canada?

There's only a few hundred of them, maybe 1000, if memory serves me and they're already prohibited and heavily regulated. So a mother or father who owns one cannot pass them down to their children, they must be turned in to the police when the member no longer has a licence or dies.  I don't think they've ever been used in a crime in the last 50 or 70 years, or longer. 

Gun owners are allowed to buy semi-automatic "machineguns" for thousands of dollars ($3000-$10'000, here's a site with some for sale in Canada  https://www.marstar.ca/dynamic/category.jsp?catid=75102 ).  None of those have been used in crime as far as I'm aware of either.   Stastically speaking they're safer than hotdogs.

 

So I'm not saying don't ban them, I'm just curious the justification.   Handguns? Well I'm a big handgun shooter (have 8 of them) but I would agree that they are the most commonly used firearm in murders and crime. If Handfuns are used in 85% -90% of firearm murders in the USA then AR15s are used in 1%. They're the most coveted by criminals.

Just takes one in the hands of a person who has a break. These are not the kinds of weapons that should be in the hands of the public.

Weapons of this kind are actually a potential risk to other gun owners.  The kind of damage they are capable of could lead to widespread desire to regulate all guns more strictly.  Not sure why supporters of other types of gun ownership are not nervous.

NorthReport
Paladin1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Just takes one in the hands of a person who has a break. These are not the kinds of weapons that should be in the hands of the public.

Weapons of this kind are actually a potential risk to other gun owners.  The kind of damage they are capable of could lead to widespread desire to regulate all guns more strictly.  Not sure why supporters of other types of gun ownership are not nervous.

I happen to mostly agree. I don't see a great reason for civilians to have machineguns besides "I want them".  My opinion is based on feelings and not relevant stats though.  Numbers wise they're historically insignificant when it comes to crime. That alone with the sheer dificulty in obtaining machineguns leads me to believe they're technically safer than all the other guns available to Canadians.  Is it worth banning them? If we're about saving lives why not ban smoking? I'm not deflecting- smoking has killed 100% more Canadians than machineguns in the last 100 years. I don't care if they're banned and I'd rather not risk them falling into the wrong hands but I realize that's an emotion based argument and not evidence.

And the most recent school shooting in Quebec was done with a shitty old single shot shotgun and our parliment was assaulted with a rifle designed 123 years ago.  When you look at the big picture numbers the type of gun and size of magazine really doesn't play a part in how many people are killed. The Parkland shooter used 10 round magazines (because they're smaller and easier to conceal than full sized magazines). In Canada there are loopholes that let people like me use 10 and 15 round magazines even though the law technically says 5 round magazines. But you know what? None of those are even being used in crimes or shootings. This is why I say magazine capacity limits and targeting certain guns sounds great but it doesn't change anything. It's not a viable solution.

Some of the recent changes in Floridas gun control seem very intelligent to me.

Raising the age limit of people who can buy guns. A waiting period to buy guns. Stricter background checks. and I believe more emphasis on mental health?  Talking about AR15s is a deflection. The Florida shooter had the police called on him 40 times. He posted numerous times online about shooting up a school. He assaulted people.

He shouldn't have been able to buy a gun, ANY gun, and he should have been arrested and dealt with not ignored.

Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Just takes one in the hands of a person who has a break. These are not the kinds of weapons that should be in the hands of the public.

Weapons of this kind are actually a potential risk to other gun owners.  The kind of damage they are capable of could lead to widespread desire to regulate all guns more strictly.  Not sure why supporters of other types of gun ownership are not nervous.

I happen to mostly agree. I don't see a great reason for civilians to have machineguns besides "I want them".  My opinion is based on feelings and not relevant stats though.  Numbers wise they're historically insignificant when it comes to crime. That alone with the sheer dificulty in obtaining machineguns leads me to believe they're technically safer than all the other guns available to Canadians.  Is it worth banning them? If we're about saving lives why not ban smoking? I'm not deflecting- smoking has killed 100% more Canadians than machineguns in the last 100 years. I don't care if they're banned and I'd rather not risk them falling into the wrong hands but I realize that's an emotion based argument and not evidence.

And the most recent school shooting in Quebec was done with a shitty old single shot shotgun and our parliment was assaulted with a rifle designed 123 years ago.  When you look at the big picture numbers the type of gun and size of magazine really doesn't play a part in how many people are killed. The Parkland shooter used 10 round magazines (because they're smaller and easier to conceal than full sized magazines). In Canada there are loopholes that let people like me use 10 and 15 round magazines even though the law technically says 5 round magazines. But you know what? None of those are even being used in crimes or shootings. This is why I say magazine capacity limits and targeting certain guns sounds great but it doesn't change anything. It's not a viable solution.

Some of the recent changes in Floridas gun control seem very intelligent to me.

Raising the age limit of people who can buy guns. A waiting period to buy guns. Stricter background checks. and I believe more emphasis on mental health?  Talking about AR15s is a deflection. The Florida shooter had the police called on him 40 times. He posted numerous times online about shooting up a school. He assaulted people.

He shouldn't have been able to buy a gun, ANY gun, and he should have been arrested and dealt with not ignored.

I disagree that these numbers are insignificant.  They are only if you equate this on a 1-1 about the weapons themselves. What if you consider the bullets they can fire? The spead? The public risk? One machine gun does not compare to a non automatic rifle. Logically, what about allowing one single atomic bomb -- I mean just one.

I do not think you measure risk based on the numbers  of the item but of the relative risk.

You argue that most gun owners are not dangerous. So given very low numbers of people that might fire them, and how significant a single incident would be, the low number numbers of these is not that reassuring.

But it seems we largely agree on this sub-issue as you say.

Paladin1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I disagree that these numbers are insignificant.  They are only if you equate this on a 1-1 about the weapons themselves. What if you consider the bullets they can fire? The spead? The public risk? One machine gun does not compare to a non automatic rifle. Logically, what about allowing one single atomic bomb -- I mean just one.

When we look at the bullets guns fire again you might be surprised but a hunting rifle will generally fire a more deadly bullet than a machinegun.   Machine gun ammo that's linked on a belt are called full metal jacket (FMJ) The bullet is encased in copper and they generally leave a small hole entering your body and a small hole leaving it.  Hunting ammunition is designed to expand (to kill large animals) so it leaves a small hole going in, say diamater of a pencil, and a hole the size of a baseball or softball on the way out. As for spread a machinegun's bullets won't start speading out until around 400 meters (1200 feet) but even then it's still going to be a relatively small area. A shotgun on the other hand will expand quite rapidly.  In WW1 you would see machineguns set up to cover fields from far away, but for close range in the trenches (read school hallways and classrooms) a shotgun was the gun of choice.

I can tell you that inside a building someone firing a hunting rifle (or AR15 or shotgun) slowly and methodically will be more deadly than a "machinegun".   Where a machiengun would come in to it's own would be something like the Las Vegas shooting from a few months ago.  But with all his money and connections he didn't even have a machine gun, and that's down in the states.

Gun people hate when I say this but I do think someone who properly sets up a position with a gun that has a high rate of fire and lots of ammo and protection from police bla bla can do a lot of damage, like the las vegas nut. I also think he would have tripled the number of people he killed if he had a UHAUL truck weighed down and had a clear run at the crowd. 

Las Vegas guy killed some 50 people and injured 500 others (well a bunch were hurt from being trambled). Costed a lot of money, took a lot of planning, lasted 15 minutes or more?  In Nice France the driver killed 86 people and injured 458 others in a minute with a truck.  I could hypothecially go crazy and shoot up a school but you could also go crazy and drive a truck into a bunch of kids outside waiting for the bus.   That's why while I agree guns ARE deadly and dangerous, and should be controled, I'm just as concerned, if not more, with prevention. Like identifying and stopping attacks before they begin.  We need to do both but don't get distracted by low hanging fruit (AR15s).

 

 

Mr. Magoo Mr. Magoo's picture

Quote:
Hey Magoo, I've already put in a request to shut down that permission. Waiting on a response.

Fingers crossed.

But if the techies can't use code to shut it down, you can still shut it down as a mod, yes?

Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I disagree that these numbers are insignificant.  They are only if you equate this on a 1-1 about the weapons themselves. What if you consider the bullets they can fire? The spead? The public risk? One machine gun does not compare to a non automatic rifle. Logically, what about allowing one single atomic bomb -- I mean just one.

When we look at the bullets guns fire again you might be surprised but a hunting rifle will generally fire a more deadly bullet than a machinegun.   Machine gun ammo that's linked on a belt are called full metal jacket (FMJ) The bullet is encased in copper and they generally leave a small hole entering your body and a small hole leaving it.  Hunting ammunition is designed to expand (to kill large animals) so it leaves a small hole going in, say diamater of a pencil, and a hole the size of a baseball or softball on the way out. As for spread a machinegun's bullets won't start speading out until around 400 meters (1200 feet) but even then it's still going to be a relatively small area. A shotgun on the other hand will expand quite rapidly.  In WW1 you would see machineguns set up to cover fields from far away, but for close range in the trenches (read school hallways and classrooms) a shotgun was the gun of choice.

I can tell you that inside a building someone firing a hunting rifle (or AR15 or shotgun) slowly and methodically will be more deadly than a "machinegun".   Where a machiengun would come in to it's own would be something like the Las Vegas shooting from a few months ago.  But with all his money and connections he didn't even have a machine gun, and that's down in the states.

Gun people hate when I say this but I do think someone who properly sets up a position with a gun that has a high rate of fire and lots of ammo and protection from police bla bla can do a lot of damage, like the las vegas nut. I also think he would have tripled the number of people he killed if he had a UHAUL truck weighed down and had a clear run at the crowd. 

Las Vegas guy killed some 50 people and injured 500 others (well a bunch were hurt from being trambled). Costed a lot of money, took a lot of planning, lasted 15 minutes or more?  In Nice France the driver killed 86 people and injured 458 others in a minute with a truck.  I could hypothecially go crazy and shoot up a school but you could also go crazy and drive a truck into a bunch of kids outside waiting for the bus.   That's why while I agree guns ARE deadly and dangerous, and should be controled, I'm just as concerned, if not more, with prevention. Like identifying and stopping attacks before they begin.  We need to do both but don't get distracted by low hanging fruit (AR15s).

 

 

 

Sorry i think this starts with a ridiculous argument. The number of less deadly bullets put out by a machine gun makes up for the difference.

 

Lets take this to history with an analogy. during the second world war there were several tank battles that demonstrated that large numbers of less effective tanks were in the aggregate far more lethal. With bullets and tanks you multiply the number by the how lethal and do not just pay atention to one. The speed of fire of an automatic is such that it is more lethal even if individual bullets- if consideredon their own are less lethal.

In particular with these domestic incidents you rarely have more than one shooter so the magnifying number is significant especially the number before authorities can get on the scene or people can escape. As well a single person with a machine gun will outgun several cops while with a non-automatic would be outgunned. Comparing bullets ignoring the speed of fire is a ridiculous comparison to make and completely invalid.

All the arguments about this or that thing that could make the fire of a non-automatic more lethal are exponentially true of an automatic.

Paladin1

Machineguns have an advantage with distance and open terrain. Inside buildings and up close they quickly lose their advantages and more of a hinderance.  Inside a building a light weight non-automatic gun is going to have distinct advantages.

Automatic weapons, both machineguns and small arms, have an increased chance to jam, overheat, and go through ammo quickly leaving the shooter vunerable, for longer periods of time.  At 25 - 30 pounds they're very difficult with to aim, control and shoot standing up.

Quote:
during the second world war there were several tank battles that demonstrated that large numbers of less effective tanks were in the aggregate far more lethal

How did this work out for the numerically superior number of Egyptian tanks in the 1967 invasion of Israel?

Egyptian side had 2,504  tanks and Israel 800.

Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:

Machineguns have an advantage with distance and open terrain. Inside buildings and up close they quickly lose their advantages and more of a hinderance.  Inside a building a light weight non-automatic gun is going to have distinct advantages.

Automatic weapons, both machineguns and small arms, have an increased chance to jam, overheat, and go through ammo quickly leaving the shooter vunerable, for longer periods of time.  At 25 - 30 pounds they're very difficult with to aim, control and shoot standing up.

Quote:
during the second world war there were several tank battles that demonstrated that large numbers of less effective tanks were in the aggregate far more lethal

How did this work out for the numerically superior number of Egyptian tanks in the 1967 invasion of Israel?

Egyptian side had 2,504  tanks and Israel 800.

Books have been written about the wars between Israel and Egypt and why Israel won -- it was not about the technology. The first of these wars Israel often had less on both numbers and technology -- they fixed that later.

I do not accept your argument at all. There are many reasons why it makes no sense. One them is that people presume that a machine gun is more powerful (and in many ways it is). That presumption and attraction to may be part of the reason some of these attacks happen in the first place. It may also be why those without automatic weapons are less likely (despite Trump's claims) to confront these shooters.

 

Here is an attempt to deconstruct the statistic about the number of shootings. Here it says that there are issues with the argument that the number of shooting went up but it affirms that they are deadlier:

http://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2018/feb/23/ted-deutch/did-...

"Nonetheless, mass public shootings have become deadlier over the last decade, as the number of victims shot and killed has increased since the expiration of the assault weapons ban, Duwe said."

As to the number of shootings the article says:

"Trends in the incidence and severity of mass public shootings on a per capita basis also show that the rate per 100 million is similar now to that of the 1980s and early 1990s, an expert told us."

The problem here is with the statistic comparing it to the total population. there have been two major changes in the population:

1) it is getting older and we know that shooters are usually younger. In comparing this per capita they forgot to take account of population aging.

2) The US also has had immigration through this period and we also know that shooters are less likely to be immigrants. I do not have statistics comparing immigration before and after the assualt weapons ban but I do know that the average age of immigrants is significantly lower than the native born population (also true in Canada). So not only is the population aging in the US but the US born population is aging faster than the general population.

Considering those things -- the shootings should have been going down more rapidly (as crime in general has a fact that has been largely credited to population aging).

Paladin1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I do not accept your argument at all. There are many reasons why it makes no sense. One them is that people presume that a machine gun is more powerful (and in many ways it is). That presumption and attraction to may be part of the reason some of these attacks happen in the first place. It may also be why those without automatic weapons are less likely (despite Trump's claims) to confront these shooters.

Sometimes things don't make sense. If you've been fed a det of hollywood movies depicting machineguns in a certain way there's a good chance you'll believe it. Same thing with hand grenades. Think they explode in a ball of fire when they go off? Nope.

Automatic weapons are prone to jamming, over heating, injuring the shooter (touching a hot barrel), difficult to control when fired on automatic, inaccurate.   The Marine corps is getting rid of their squad level machineguns and down sizing to basically an M16 with a heavier barrel and carry more 30 round magazines because machineguns are very shitty when used in confined spaces.  The Canadian militaries doctrine when going through a building full of bad guys used to besomeone spraying each and every room with a full 30 round magazine on automatic from their rifles. It's changed to soldiers taking aimed shots because it's more effective. More control.  Big machineguns and and automatic rifles are good for suppressing fire, like what the Las Vegas shooters position and situation. A rifle shotgun or pistol would be more deadly inside a confined area, building, house. 

When Justin Bourque decided he wanted to kill as many cops as he could he researched turning his rifle into an automatic rifle.  During his interogation he spoke about how he read enough examples of how shitty it would actually make his gun so he decided not to make it into an automatic rifle BECAUSE he wanted to kill more cops. He was able to ambush and kill those police because he was using a rifle that had greater range than the police pistols and he took aimed shots. If he blasted away on full auto theres a good chance more police would have survived.

Quote:

Here is an attempt to deconstruct the statistic about the number of shootings. Here it says that there are issues with the argument that the number of shooting went up but it affirms that they are deadlier:

Here's a list of the 20 deadliest shootings in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

8 out of 20 are with handguns.

2 are with a long gun an hand gun and;

6 and with "multiple weapons"

You'll notice automatic weapons and machineguns aren't in that list. They're irrelevant when it comes to stats.

When you look at straight up murder handguns are are used in 8000-9000 of the 11'000 or so murders yearly. Rifles account for 5% and within those a loosly defined "assault weapon" accounts for probably 1%-2%. of firearm deaths from murder.

The US 3rd largest mass shooting was carried out with a handgun. 33 dead, 17 injured. The type of ammunition, hollowpoints, were a factor.

Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I do not accept your argument at all. There are many reasons why it makes no sense. One them is that people presume that a machine gun is more powerful (and in many ways it is). That presumption and attraction to may be part of the reason some of these attacks happen in the first place. It may also be why those without automatic weapons are less likely (despite Trump's claims) to confront these shooters.

Sometimes things don't make sense. If you've been fed a det of hollywood movies depicting machineguns in a certain way there's a good chance you'll believe it. Same thing with hand grenades. Think they explode in a ball of fire when they go off? Nope.

Automatic weapons are prone to jamming, over heating, injuring the shooter (touching a hot barrel), difficult to control when fired on automatic, inaccurate.   The Marine corps is getting rid of their squad level machineguns and down sizing to basically an M16 with a heavier barrel and carry more 30 round magazines because machineguns are very shitty when used in confined spaces.  The Canadian militaries doctrine when going through a building full of bad guys used to besomeone spraying each and every room with a full 30 round magazine on automatic from their rifles. It's changed to soldiers taking aimed shots because it's more effective. More control.  Big machineguns and and automatic rifles are good for suppressing fire, like what the Las Vegas shooters position and situation. A rifle shotgun or pistol would be more deadly inside a confined area, building, house. 

When Justin Bourque decided he wanted to kill as many cops as he could he researched turning his rifle into an automatic rifle.  During his interogation he spoke about how he read enough examples of how shitty it would actually make his gun so he decided not to make it into an automatic rifle BECAUSE he wanted to kill more cops. He was able to ambush and kill those police because he was using a rifle that had greater range than the police pistols and he took aimed shots. If he blasted away on full auto theres a good chance more police would have survived.

Quote:

Here is an attempt to deconstruct the statistic about the number of shootings. Here it says that there are issues with the argument that the number of shooting went up but it affirms that they are deadlier:

Here's a list of the 20 deadliest shootings in the US.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_shootings_in_the_United_States

8 out of 20 are with handguns.

2 are with a long gun an hand gun and;

6 and with "multiple weapons"

You'll notice automatic weapons and machineguns aren't in that list. They're irrelevant when it comes to stats.

When you look at straight up murder handguns are are used in 8000-9000 of the 11'000 or so murders yearly. Rifles account for 5% and within those a loosly defined "assault weapon" accounts for probably 1%-2%. of firearm deaths from murder.

The US 3rd largest mass shooting was carried out with a handgun. 33 dead, 17 injured. The type of ammunition, hollowpoints, were a factor.

Your argument is full of shit. It is hard to believe that you do not know it and are not purposefully lying.

First you point to stats saying they do not include fully automatics -- fully automatics  guns are illegal in the US. Yep, gun control works. That is a lie by omision as you pretend that this is a sign that these weapons are not as deadly. No - it is becuase they are not as available. the next best thing is in almost all shootings -- a semi automatic weapon.

You reference handguns without mention that these are almost all (all in the last 25 years) semi automatics. And nit is a gun of choicebeacuse it is easy to conceal and semi automatic.

Leaving out all mention of semi automatics with all that detail pretending for the sake of this bullshit argument that there are only fully automatics and non-automatic not the semi automatic in the middle that people usually are talking about controlling is lying.

Look at  the top 10 most deadly -- semi automatics in 90% of the cases - all but one. 60% in the last decade. the one that is not semi-automatic is from 1991.

Then obviously, using wiki you reference the top 20 but in fact that is 23 and one of your 8 handguns is in the 20th spot that has 4 tied for that position .  -- there are actually 23 shootings on the list. The handgun stats include semi-automatic handguns in almost all cases.

Only 2 of the 23 did not include semi automatics (in 1991 and 1966 one over 25 years ago and the other over 50 years ago). 21 out of 23 used semi automatic weapons.

1 Las Vegas shooting 2017 Semi-automatic rifles

2 Orlando nightclub shooting 2016 Semi-automatic rifle

3 Virginia Tech shooting  2007 SEMI AUTOMATIC Handgun used

4 Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting 2012 Semi-automatic rifle and handgun

5 Sutherland Springs church shooting 2017  Semi-automatic rifle

6 Luby's shooting 1991 Handguns

7 San Ysidro McDonald's massacre 1984 Multiple weapons- including semi automatic

8 University of Texas tower shooting 1966 Multiple weapons --  before semi automatics were freely available.

9 Stoneman Douglas High School shooting 2018 Semi-automatic rifle

10 San Bernardino attack 2015 Semi-automatic rifles

11 Edmond post office shooting 1986 - semi automatic hand gun

12 Columbine High School 1999 - semi automatic hand gun

13 Binghamton shootings 2009- semi automatic hand gun

14 Cambden 1949 - semi automatic hand gun

 15 Wilkes-Barre shootings 1982 Semi-automatic rifle

16 Fort Hood 2009 Semi Automatic Handgun

17 Washington navy yard 2013 Semi Automatic Handgun

18 Aurora 2012 - Semi-automatic rifle

19 Geneva county 2009 - Semi-automatic rifle

20 GMAC 1990 Semi-automatic rifle

21 Atlanta 1999 Semi Automatic Handgun

22 Red Lake 2005 Semi Automatic Handgun

23 Umpqua Community College 2015 Semi Automatic Handguns

NorthReport

Come on Canada, get behind these American students who want gun-free schools, eh!

7,000 pairs of shoes displayed on U.S. Capitol lawn in memorial to children killed by guns

“These should be kids. There should be kids in these shoes. But instead they’re just empty,” said Nell Greenberg, an Avaaz campaign director. “Every pair of shoes out here represents a child who can’t march for themselves anymore.”

https://www.thestar.com/news/world/2018/03/13/7000-pairs-of-shoes-displa...

Paladin1

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

Your argument is full of shit. It is hard to believe that you do not know it and are not purposefully lying.

 

Well maybe you just know more than me that's all.

Quote:

First you point to stats saying they do not include fully automatics -- fully automatics  guns are illegal in the US. Yep, gun control works. That is a lie by omision as you pretend that this is a sign that these weapons are not as deadly. No - it is becuase they are not as available. the next best thing is in almost all shootings -- a semi automatic weapon.

They are not all illegal in the US, there are a bunch of full auto guns in the states.

Quote:
You reference handguns without mention that these are almost all (all in the last 25 years) semi automatics. And nit is a gun of choicebeacuse it is easy to conceal and semi automatic.

I've actually said handguns are the type of gun of choice of criminals BECAUSE they're easy to conceal.

Quote:
Leaving out all mention of semi automatics with all that detail pretending for the sake of this bullshit argument that there are only fully automatics and non-automatic not the semi automatic in the middle that people usually are talking about controlling is lying.

I have no idea what you're talking about or trying to say here.  There are fully automatic firearms and non-automatic firearms, right. So, what?  Semi-automatic firearms call under non-automatic. So does pump action, bolt action, single shot, lever action.

Quote:
Look at  the top 10 most deadly -- semi automatics in 90% of the cases - all but one. 60% in the last decade. the one that is not semi-automatic is from 1991.

So no machineguns?  Just like I said, got it.

Quote:
Then obviously, using wiki you reference the top 20 but in fact that is 23 and one of your 8 handguns is in the 20th spot that has 4 tied for that position .  -- there are actually 23 shootings on the list. The handgun stats include semi-automatic handguns in almost all cases.

Handguns were used in 13 of the 20 deadliest  mass shootings in US history (6 out of the last 10).  Handguns are used in 80%-90% of murders in the US, rifles of all types are used in 5% of murders, and you can extrapolate that AR15s and larger still "assault weapons" are used in 1%-2%.

So what point exactly are you trying to make?    Machineguns still suck in close quaters, sorry.

Sean in Ottawa

Paladin1 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Paladin1 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

Your argument is full of shit. It is hard to believe that you do not know it and are not purposefully lying.

 

Well maybe you just know more than me that's all.

Quote:

First you point to stats saying they do not include fully automatics -- fully automatics  guns are illegal in the US. Yep, gun control works. That is a lie by omision as you pretend that this is a sign that these weapons are not as deadly. No - it is becuase they are not as available. the next best thing is in almost all shootings -- a semi automatic weapon.

They are not all illegal in the US, there are a bunch of full auto guns in the states.

Quote:
You reference handguns without mention that these are almost all (all in the last 25 years) semi automatics. And nit is a gun of choicebeacuse it is easy to conceal and semi automatic.

I've actually said handguns are the type of gun of choice of criminals BECAUSE they're easy to conceal.

Quote:
Leaving out all mention of semi automatics with all that detail pretending for the sake of this bullshit argument that there are only fully automatics and non-automatic not the semi automatic in the middle that people usually are talking about controlling is lying.

I have no idea what you're talking about or trying to say here.  There are fully automatic firearms and non-automatic firearms, right. So, what?  Semi-automatic firearms call under non-automatic. So does pump action, bolt action, single shot, lever action.

Quote:
Look at  the top 10 most deadly -- semi automatics in 90% of the cases - all but one. 60% in the last decade. the one that is not semi-automatic is from 1991.

So no machineguns?  Just like I said, got it.

Quote:
Then obviously, using wiki you reference the top 20 but in fact that is 23 and one of your 8 handguns is in the 20th spot that has 4 tied for that position .  -- there are actually 23 shootings on the list. The handgun stats include semi-automatic handguns in almost all cases.

Handguns were used in 13 of the 20 deadliest  mass shootings in US history (6 out of the last 10).  Handguns are used in 80%-90% of murders in the US, rifles of all types are used in 5% of murders, and you can extrapolate that AR15s and larger still "assault weapons" are used in 1%-2%.

So what point exactly are you trying to make?    Machineguns still suck in close quaters, sorry.

Not all shootings are in close quarters. Semi automatics are used more than anything else.

Fully automatic guns are extremely difficult and expensive to get. Guns older than 1986 are around but not easy to come by and certainly not a lot in the general population -- they cost about $20,000 as opposed to semi automatic at $450.:

The reason they are not used in more shoootings is not becuase they are not as deadly as you suggested but they are not as available. And yes, a shooter would chose a killing field differently for a Machine gun. But so what?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/its-still-legal-to-own-a-machine-gun-...

Paladin1

You're right not all shootings are in close quarters. The RCMP officers were killed because the shooter had a rifle, the officers hand handguns and no body armor and most importantly the shooter was in a position of ambush. Most mass shootings are at close range though, as are most murders.

Semi-automatics are used often yup.   In Canada in the last 10 mass murders shotguns were present 3 out of 10 instances, pistols were present 4 or 5 times out of 10, 1 was with a knife and one with a crossbow.  3 had rifles present.

I think availability is the biggest factor and not the type of firearm. Price is an important factor too. While one of these guns may cost $600-$800, on the black market they are a lot more. Maybe $2000+. The guns criminals get their hands on are usually pretty old, shitty and beat up. And still very expensive to them.  So I'd say our currently rules are working fairly well.

Agreed machineguns are not as available BUT were they to be available they might be used more because someone automatically assumes they're more deadly, however my point is that in close quarters they're actually not.  Guess that's one of those agree to disagree things.

The majority of mass shooters in Canada AND the US have had numerous, numerous warning signs. Indications that should have been acted on and monitored more closely.

Pages