dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
21
share rss forum feed
« Guns pointed at people??
This is a sub-selection from It's their right.

ptbarnett

join:2002-09-30
Lewisville, TX

1 recommendation

reply to tshirt

Re: It's their right.

said by tshirt:

They are constantly admonished for failing to be MORE diligent in their restriction in the broadcast of actual events like nipple slips and violent crime scenes and should be at least as strict in ads and dramatic content over which they have full control.

I not aware of the FTC or FCC asking NBC/Comcast to not broadcast commercials for firearms or sellers of firearms.... at least not yet. This is NBC's decision, and the responsibility is solely theirs.

But, one has to wonder why they aren't applying their standard for advertising to the dramatic content they control -- either directly or indirectly.

[Yes, that's a rhetorical question]


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast

said by ptbarnett:

I not aware of the FTC or FCC asking NBC/Comcast to not broadcast commercials for firearms or sellers of firearms...

I did not say that.
I said they are expected to edit/avoid imagery that conflicts with social/religious/morality stances that our leadership claims are important.
(an unnaturally high percentage of religious, and political leaders seem to get caught violating these same issues as compared to the general population)

Gun control happens to be the current hot button issue, hence the broadcasters new standards (something like the emperors new clothes )

IMHO
Any gun advocate who doesn't see a problem with the current lack of EFFECTIVE gun control, or who continues to bluster ahead as the NRA does, is doing responsibly gun owners a disservice which will likely lead to even greater (and possibly less sensible) regulations.


mikedz4

join:2003-04-14
Weirton, WV

what about the right to life ads I occasionally see on tv? Shouldn't those be banned too? What about the beer ads and the ads for the smokeless cigarettes?



tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast

2 edits

said by mikedz4:

what about the right to life ads I occasionally see on tv? Shouldn't those be banned too? What about the beer ads and the ads for the smokeless cigarettes?

Be ok with me but...
what specific group is harmed by those? A how would banning those ads prevent specific harm?
that is the gov't can't just choose to block anything on a whim, the cigarettes ban came after specific evidence showed the Tabaco companies depended on those ads to show minors "smoking is cool", and that NO general benefit came from cigarettes and it took many years to push that through congress.
they would like to ban smokeless cigs, but it could be seen as a cessation tool, and a couple beers aren't harmful to most people (In fact, both relaxation and a small amount of alcohol per day are good for most adults health)

But this isn't a gov't ban it's comcast sensing a shift in public opinion about guns, and they are right... there are few reasons to NEED assault style semi-auto rifles with large15-45 round magazines, not for home defense, not for skilled hunting, not for target practice.. nothing that taking a second or 2, every 9 seconds can explain other than that empowered "I can take you all out" feeling that, that sort of weapon gives people, that all to often comes out in anger and occasionally leads to the killing fields.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

said by tshirt:

(In fact, both relaxation and a small amount of alcohol per day are good for most adults health)

And there is nothing like a few hours of plinking, or target shooting, with the aroma of gunsmoke in the background, to relax a guy, or gal!
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4

you can practice changing magazines too.



Thereisnospo

@comcast.net
reply to tshirt

The last time I checked the threat of tyranny is no less today than it was in 1900, 1800, or 1700.



NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC
reply to tshirt

said by tshirt:

you can practice changing magazines too.

I mostly use clips; both the Springfield variety, and the Garand type.

M1903A3 Springfield clip.

M1 Garand clip.

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


nonamesleft

join:2011-11-07
Manitowoc, WI
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Callcentric
reply to tshirt

said by tshirt:

said by mikedz4:

what about the right to life ads I occasionally see on tv? Shouldn't those be banned too? What about the beer ads and the ads for the smokeless cigarettes?

Be ok with me but...
what specific group is harmed by those? A how would banning those ads prevent specific harm?
that is the gov't can't just choose to block anything on a whim, the cigarettes ban came after specific evidence showed the Tabaco companies depended on those ads to show minors "smoking is cool", and that NO general benefit came from cigarettes and it took many years to push that through congress.
they would like to ban smokeless cigs, but it could be seen as a cessation tool, and a couple beers aren't harmful to most people (In fact, both relaxation and a small amount of alcohol per day are good for most adults health)

But this isn't a gov't ban it's comcast sensing a shift in public opinion about guns, and they are right... there are few reasons to NEED assault style semi-auto rifles with large15-45 round magazines, not for home defense, not for skilled hunting, not for target practice.. nothing that taking a second or 2, every 9 seconds can explain other than that empowered "I can take you all out" feeling that, that sort of weapon gives people, that all to often comes out in anger and occasionally leads to the killing fields.

No! theres only a politically motivated shift opinion about guns, stop watching main stream media! They only are there to get propaganda out, not tell you the truth. What about those assault weapons the government ran to mexican drug cartels?


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to Thereisnospo

said by Thereisnospo :

The last time I checked the threat of tyranny is no less today than it was in 1900, 1800, or 1700.

And having large stockpiles of weapons and ammo in the hands of individuals who believe THEY will know the right moment to strike out against the tyrannical gov't has done nothing to prevent that over the last 230+ years.
However more than a few of these /patriot/gun nuts and /or their children have struck out at SOMEONE in city halls and shopping malls and schools and theaters.
And thousands of innocents die every year.

Do you seriously believe that you and even several 100,000 like mind whackos will ever be organized enough, let alone well enough armed with semi-auto AR-15's to overwhelm the police, nation guard and US military to take over and prevent tyranny? (have you noticed the level of really sophisticated weaponry available to them as seen in Iraq and Afghanistan)
At what point do YOU think YOU might cross the line between well meaning patriot and domestic terrorist?


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to nonamesleft

said by nonamesleft:

No! theres only a politically motivated shift opinion about guns, stop watching main stream media! They only are there to get propaganda out, not tell you the truth.

See, you are exactly the delusional paranoid that is convincing the general population that you and people like you are the problem, not the solution.

said by nonamesleft:

What about those assault weapons the government ran to mexican drug cartels?

A really bad idea that quickly went from bad to worse, but in no way justifies making more, faster better weapons available and accessible to delusional people like Adam Lanza to use on the kindergarten children in Sandy Hook.
Your constitutional right does not excuse you from reasonable and responsible regulation


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
reply to NormanS

And each has less than 10 rounds, which should be plenty to handle any problem you are likely to encounter in this country, with out allowing the" just kept pulling the trigger" bloodbaths that seem so common now.



NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

said by tshirt:

And each has less than 10 rounds, which should be plenty to handle any problem you are likely to encounter in this country, with out allowing the" just kept pulling the trigger" bloodbaths that seem so common now.

And I can shoot with those Springfield clips at the rate of 10 - 11 rounds per minute until I am out of clips.

Both at Cleveland Elementary School, in Stocton, CA (Jan., 1989) and Sandy Hook Elementary School, Newtown, CT (Jan., 2013), the shooters reloaded multiple times.

Oh! Hark! Look at the commonalities! Maybe we should ban January! But wait! Columbine didn't happen in January of any year; i happened in Jefferson County, CO!! So ban state names beginning with the letter, "C"!!!

Seriously, what the Australian and English experiences show us is that any U.S. Pol who promises not to take my firearms either isn't serious about replicating those experiences, or lying through their teeth. My money is on the latter.

And Comcast/NBC/Hollywood are simply being self-righteous hypocrites in this affair.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast

2 edits

said by NormanS:

.. the rate of 10 - 11 rounds per minute...

10-12 per minute isn't 1 plus rounds per second with a 30-50 round banana clip and a reload (new 30-50 round clip) in 2 seconds.
This isn't precision shooting, giving the prey/victims a chance, it's pure spray and pray killing.
If these people with these gun only killed themselves, it wouldn't be the problem of the currently competitive "taking as many as I can with me" or trying for suicide by cop.
The one factor that ends most of the shooting sprees is he kills himself OR the guns heat up and jam and that pause allows someone to take the gunman down usually a physical tackle not shooting him with a personal weapon, so, so much for the protection theory.

No you can't go by the date or the location (though the CDC has a interesting interactive map showing were murder by gun happens, stay out of NOLA a few very unfriendly people ruin the whole bunch) but the one commanality of all those and more is semi-automatic assault style weapon and assault style fantasies driving that final push for fame, so removing the access to those weapons is one of logical methods to reduce the killing sprees.
Unless you are suggesting it is their right.


NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

said by tshirt:

said by NormanS:

.. the rate of 10 - 11 rounds per minute...

10-12 per minute isn't 1 plus rounds per second with a 30-50 round banana clip and a reload ...

It is sufficient for lethal work.

»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Whitman

No semi-automatic "assault" weapon there.

No you can't go by the date or the location (though the CDC has a interesting interactive map showing were murder by gun happens, stay out of NOLA a few very unfriendly people ruin the whole bunch) but the one commanality of all those and more is semi-automatic assault style weapon and assault style fantasies driving that final push for fame, so removing the access to those weapons is one of logical methods to reduce the killing sprees.

Removing that weapon type won't stop mass shootings, it will only stop mass shootings with that weapon type.

You might say that Japan got it right when Hideyoshi Toyotomi banned firearms from Japan at the beginning of the 17th Century. No other country has such a low firearms death rate; but no other country has such a restrictive ban on firearms.

Are you prepared to ban the manufacture and sale of firearms in the United States? Are you prepared to confiscate the 300 million firearms currently extant in the United States? If not, than you don't have your heart in making this a "safe" society.

Unless you are suggesting it is their right.

Logical fallacy: Argument reductio absurdum.
--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast

you're comparing a trained marksman, (who actually recognized his own mental illness even as he proceeded to kill) to a series of very deranged "kids" with excessively capable semi-automatic weapons
said by NormanS:

No semi-automatic "assault" weapon there....
... Removing that weapon type won't stop mass shootings, it will only stop mass shootings with that weapon type.

A lot of people in Colorado and Connecticut and Arizona and Wisconsin, etc. would be happy to start with that.
Nobody expects to disarm any existing owner (barring threats, irrational behavior, or criminal activity), and most weapons would still be available with the hope of buybacks and voluntary turn-ins removing/reducing big clips and certain weapon and ammo types overtime (If you don't think your kids are responsible, you shouldn't will your weapons to them, or ebay them to persons unknown)

The idea that we shouldn't start the process with some particularly dangerous weapons, because some would still exist is silly Should we also sell fissionable material? just in case you feel really threatened , by the new neighbor or gang down the street
Expand your moderator at work


tim_k
Buttons, Bows, Beamer, Shadow, Kasey
Premium,VIP
join:2002-02-02
Stewartstown, PA
kudos:38

1 edit
reply to tshirt

Re: It's their right.

said by tshirt:

so removing the access to those weapons is one of logical methods to reduce the killing sprees.
Unless you are suggesting it is their right.

So instead they'll use shotguns which can wipe out an entire classroom in 5 secs.
quote:
loads of 12 gauge, 00 buck are commonly available in 8 to 18 pellets in lengths from 2.75" to 3.5".
00 buck is .33 caliber vs .22 caliber for the AR15. A shotgun typically holds five rounds which puts 40-90 projectiles down range in less than half the time needed to empty a 30 round mag. Using smaller sized buckshot will of course put even more projectiles down range. A shotgun is far more deadly in the situations these cowardly mass murderers typically choose.
--
RIP my babies Buttons 1/15/94-2/9/07, Beamer 7/24/08, & Bows 12/17/94-10/11/09

itguy05

join:2005-06-17
Carlisle, PA
reply to tshirt

said by tshirt:

And each has less than 10 rounds, which should be plenty to handle any problem you are likely to encounter in this country, with out allowing the" just kept pulling the trigger" bloodbaths that seem so common now.

You do realize 2 things:

1. The average (non sniper/military) person will not hit their adversary on the first try. Adrenalin, movement, etc will make you much less accurate than shooting at a paper target that does not move.

2. Few will end up dead on the first shot. You miss and get them in the arm all you did is piss them off. This is especially true of someone breaking into your house in a drug induced rage.

3. Why is 10 OK but 11-16 bad? You do realize it is trivial to switch magazines right? And there is this thing called a shotgun that shots hundreds of projectiles each time you pull the trigger.

Limiting magazine sizes is not the answer. Limiting types of weapons is not the answer either. Some horrific things happened while the assault weapons ban was in place (Columbine and others) so that doesn't work either.


nonamesleft

join:2011-11-07
Manitowoc, WI
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Callcentric
reply to tshirt

said by tshirt:

said by nonamesleft:

No! theres only a politically motivated shift opinion about guns, stop watching main stream media! They only are there to get propaganda out, not tell you the truth.

See, you are exactly the delusional paranoid that is convincing the general population that you and people like you are the problem, not the solution.

said by nonamesleft:

What about those assault weapons the government ran to mexican drug cartels?

A really bad idea that quickly went from bad to worse, but in no way justifies making more, faster better weapons available and accessible to delusional people like Adam Lanza to use on the kindergarten children in Sandy Hook.
Your constitutional right does not excuse you from reasonable and responsible regulation

The 2nd amendment protects the 1st amendement without it, the 1st amendment goes bye bye, hence no more freedom of speech.


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to tim_k

but it limits the range.
look, other than a magical all guns disappear, no ban will end gun violence, and no one with half a brain believes anything more than an "Assault weapon" ban is possible politically or practically.
And there are quite a few of us who don't believe a total ban is even desirable. but there are responsible gun owner who take care to control their own guns, and there are idiots who seem to believe leaving a loaded gun out and accessible to others including young children is their RIGHT. and those few( or many) damage the argument of total wild west freedom as fine, those days are gone.
BTW statistically Semi auto pistols are the most deadly, assault rifles about half that and revolvers and shotguns are both in a single digit low/ double digit range. CDC actual deaths since 2001. so in a perfect world we'd start with SA pistols but that isn't going to happen.
as friends of dick Cheney will tell you, a couple pellets here and there (like birdshot to the face) (almost) never kill you



NormanS
I gave her time to steal my mind away
Premium,MVM
join:2001-02-14
San Jose, CA
kudos:11
Reviews:
·SONIC.NET
·Pacific Bell - SBC

said by tshirt:

... so in a perfect world we'd start with SA pistols but that isn't going to happen.

I own an SA pistol which, by your CDC stats, is in the "single digit low/ double digit range". Excuse my laughter, but I have normally seen "SA" applied to a certain "action" type. As in, "SA auto", or, "SA" revolver. For most firearms aficionados, "SA" means, "Single Action"; as in you must manually cock the piece before you fire it. The semi-automatic "Automatic Pistol, Caliber .45, M1911A1" is an example of an "SA auto". So also its replacement, the, "Pistol, Semiautomatic, 9mm, M9".

BTW, I believe the CDC calculation of "deadly" isn't accurate. It seems to be based on frequency of use, not on actual weapon firepower. The CDC "deadly" is more appropriately applied to the shooter, not the weapon.

P.S. I forgot to include the classic, and grandaddy of all SA handguns: The Colt "Model P, Peacemaker, M1873". I have a latter-day knock-off; the Ruger "New Model Blackhawk".

--
Norman
~Oh Lord, why have you come
~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum

whoaru99

join:2003-12-17
reply to tshirt

Our perception of danger is easily distorted by rare events.


whoaru99

join:2003-12-17

4 edits
reply to tshirt

said by tshirt:

Your constitutional right does not excuse you from reasonable and responsible regulation

There already is and has been for about 80 years. It's called the National Firearms Act, which prohibits things like machine guns (automatic) weapons, sawed-off shotguns, bombs, missiles, large bore rifles, etc.

Just how many of the 80 million or so gun owners are involved in killing someone or are suggesting they should have things already banned by NFA? Point being, stop lumping the 99.9998% of good folks in the category of the lunatics and criminals that commit these acts by implying we are not reasonable and responsible.

People are easily distracted by shiny trinkets and our perception of danger is easily distorted by rare events.


tshirt
Premium,MVM
join:2004-07-11
Snohomish, WA
kudos:4
Reviews:
·Comcast
reply to NormanS

said by NormanS:

BTW, I believe the CDC calculation of "deadly" isn't accurate. It seems to be based on frequency of use, not on actual weapon firepower. The CDC "deadly" is more appropriately applied to the shooter, not the weapon.

Sorry I used SA to mean Semi-auto sorry I confused you.
I also applied "deadly" to the CDC chart to mean killed the most, because that's what counts...certainly the .44 magnum Dirty Harry revolver has more energy per bullet but they are either rarely used or not applied in a deadly way.
SEMI AUTOMATIC pistols and rifles are particularly deadly, largely due to the volume of bullets rather then size or energy of the bullet.
For the most part these are NOT great marksman, but do have high speed tools.


bTU

join:2009-04-22
Aurora, CO
reply to whoaru99

The NFA doesn't ban most of those, you just need to pay a $200 tax for a stamp provided by the ATF. I have 2 short barreled rifles in 5.56 chambering that are registered with the ATF. The reason most people think they are banned by NFA is because you don't see them in most gun stores since my full auto ran me 12k, and a lot of others can run over 20k. SBR's can be built for about 900 with decent parts and another 200 for the tax stamp, and a 90 day wait from the ATF.
--
Heghlu'meh qaq jajvam!



tim_k
Buttons, Bows, Beamer, Shadow, Kasey
Premium,VIP
join:2002-02-02
Stewartstown, PA
kudos:38

said by bTU:

The NFA doesn't ban most of those, you just need to pay a $200 tax for a stamp provided by the ATF. I have 2 short barreled rifles in 5.56 chambering that are registered with the ATF. The reason most people think they are banned by NFA is because you don't see them in most gun stores since my full auto ran me 12k, and a lot of others can run over 20k. SBR's can be built for about 900 with decent parts and another 200 for the tax stamp, and a 90 day wait from the ATF.

What confused even some pro gun folks is the provision on machine guns in the Firearms owners protection act. »en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Ow···tion_Act A machine gun must be registered before May 19 1986 in order to be legally owned by civilians. No newer full autos can be registered.

So how much hassle is it to own a class III firearm? I've heard that you need to have paperwork approved just to transport them somewhere and the Feds can inspect your place to make sure they are properly stored.
--
RIP my babies Buttons 1/15/94-2/9/07, Beamer 7/24/08, & Bows 12/17/94-10/11/09

whoaru99

join:2003-12-17

1 edit
reply to bTU

said by bTU:

The NFA doesn't ban most of those, you just need to pay a $200 tax for a stamp provided by the ATF. I have 2 short barreled rifles in 5.56 chambering that are registered with the ATF. The reason most people think they are banned by NFA is because you don't see them in most gun stores since my full auto ran me 12k, and a lot of others can run over 20k. SBR's can be built for about 900 with decent parts and another 200 for the tax stamp, and a 90 day wait from the ATF.

What's your point? That a law abiding citizen can be trusted, despite allegations otherwise?

Hello??


tim_k
Buttons, Bows, Beamer, Shadow, Kasey
Premium,VIP
join:2002-02-02
Stewartstown, PA
kudos:38

said by whoaru99:

said by bTU:

The NFA doesn't ban most of those, you just need to pay a $200 tax for a stamp provided by the ATF. I have 2 short barreled rifles in 5.56 chambering that are registered with the ATF. The reason most people think they are banned by NFA is because you don't see them in most gun stores since my full auto ran me 12k, and a lot of others can run over 20k. SBR's can be built for about 900 with decent parts and another 200 for the tax stamp, and a 90 day wait from the ATF.

What's your point? That a law abiding citizen can be trusted, despite allegations otherwise?

Hello??

I think his point is, you said
quote:
There already is and has been for about 80 years. It's called the National Firearms Act, which prohibits things like machine guns (automatic) weapons, sawed-off shotguns, bombs, missiles, large bore rifles, etc.
Technically they aren't prohibited, at least by the Feds. You just need to pass their requirements for owning them.
--
RIP my babies Buttons 1/15/94-2/9/07, Beamer 7/24/08, & Bows 12/17/94-10/11/09

whoaru99

join:2003-12-17

1 edit

I understand what was said, which is why I questioned the point with this...

That a law abiding citizen can be trusted, despite allegations otherwise?

99.999% of gun owners haven't shot anyone and ten times less than that haven't killed anyone. The overwhelming majority of gun owners are fine, upstanding citizens, despite insinuations and or allegations otherwise.