'The' Gun Thread (Page 11)

Bingo.  Especially in a show that is jam packed full of details like Elementary (it's normally a well written show).  It's about Sherlock Holmes, the guy who can determine if you've been to African based on the smell of your sweat or the lint on your jacket.  Do you think he'd really not know a semi-auto does not fire in 3 round bursts?

It's it a major conspiracy?  No.  It's about as important as an "easter egg" slipped into a movie or video game.  It was the writer making his statement.  However it was intentional.  I guarantee that.

Wow, I had never heard of that sidearm.  Pretty neat.

I know a few company experimented with inserts that go into the chamber to allow for smaller calibers to be fired.  Even saw an adapter for a shotgun that fired rifle rounds.  This seems a bit safer.

Sorry for the confusion, I meant "this", meaning the Medusa, seems safer.  That rifle round in a shot gun barrel looked a wee bit sketchy...

http://soldiersystems.net/2012/11/23/x-caliber-survival-rifle-gauge-adapter-system/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VAQRwx0BTLE

I'll play:  (1) regarding the vast minority issue, you want numbers to support the notion that gun crimes are committed by a small vast minority of people.  In two separate 2010 studies/polls it was estimated that 45% of Americans legally own at least one firearm.  That equates to approximately 53 million people legally owning at least own firearm. (according to an NRA study the vast majority of these, 87% are handguns)

(2) Using the pro-gun control lobby numbers of "victims of violent gun crimes" total of 30,000 a year, we now know that these numbers also include the roughly 18,000 suicides per year in this number.  So removing the suicides that leaves approximately 12,000 victims of gun violence.

(3) Even assuming that each one of the victims of gun violence is committed by one individual and assuming even further that these are legal gun owners that committed these acts (Both assumptions that aren't even close to being accurate) but even assuming that your talking 12,000 out of 53 million.....so yeah I'd say that's a vast minority. (Additionally, again over the last 10 years there has been a natural, consistent, and constant downward trend in gun violence.)

(4) Now on to the assault weapon ban:  of the roughly 12,000 firearm homicides only about 1% were committed with a long gun/rifle, and of that, only approximately 1% of that 1% were committed with what would be termed an "assault weapon"

Now onto the core issue you've posed, that seems to be "are you willing to live with the bottom "x"%'s abuses in order to support your right to carry a weapon.  I answer this unequivocally, and emphatically in the affirmative.

Again, we do this with every other Constitutional Right.  We support and protect our right of free speech, even in the face of those that use it to promote abhorrent and reprehensible ideas and ideology.  We support and protect our right against unreasonable searches and seizures even when such a search yields illegal contraband.  We support and protect our right of due process even in cases where the evidence against an individual is overwhelming and the crime for which they are charged is heinous.  We support and protect an individuals right to freely exercise their religious beliefs to the extent in allowing them to die rather than being forced to accept life saving medical procedures that would save their life.  We support and protect an individuals presumption of innocence and right to reasonable bail/bond regardless of the heinousness of the alleged crime.

The founders and framers knew of the natural and inevitable over reaching of governments, not because the form of government was wrong, but rather based upon their understanding of the basic nature of man.  In an attempt to combat the over reaching of the men who govern they demanded the Bill of Rights.  These specific rights were enumerated in order to protect the people from their government.

It is the natural order of things that governments will attempt to extend their power beyond that which is permitted based upon the founding principles of that form of government.  History shows no exceptions to this, it is so true as to be axiomatic.

What is truly horrifying to me, is the speed with which the PEOPLE themselves are willing to give up their natural/God given/inalienable Rights based upon the governments assertion that giving up these rights will lead to safety. 

I don't think it's always intentional.

For example on "The Bible", I don't believe the producers were trying to find an actor that looked like Obama to play the Devil.  They've responded quickly to those assertions and have explained why they picked the actor that they picked.  I think it was a mistake. 

But in the specific instance that TriRSquared mentioned, the writers are clearly trying to include language being used in drafts of legislation right now.

Since I work in the Energy Business, I see a lot of BS from people about Fracking, about EMF, about evil corporations.  It's kinda easy to pick out the intentional stuff from the obvious willing error to make the story better for the uneducated consumer.

Agreed....and it mostly falls on deaf ears among the gun-control folks. 

The gun "debate" is such a common sense issue to me that it boggles my mind that there even has to be discussions about it.  Controlling the guns that law-abiding people own will do NOTHING to change how criminals use guns.  It never has.

Interesting.  FoxNews also reported on the same story.  Initially, they wrote that investigators "found an assault weapon and improvised explosive devices".  And in their updated story, they reported investigators found "an assault weapon, a handgun, and makeshift explosive devices". I always knew FoxNews was secretly trying to sway public opinion towards Obama's gun control platform.  

Or maybe, just maybe, both news outlets were quoting the same police spokesman.  When you're in a race to scoop your competitors, fact checking tends to slow you down.  For what it's worth, both NBC and Fox are now calling it a ".22 caliber tactical rifle".  

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/18/dorm-evacuated-classes-cancelled-after-police-find-man-dead-explosive-devices/

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/18/guns-and-explosives-found-in-dorm-room-after-student-commits-suicide-at-fla/

"because it was more dramatic" =  "because more people would watch"

"because it was more dramatic" = "because it might cause more people to agree with NBC's political position"

I'll go with option 1. Again, Occam's Razor.

I look forward to your future treatises.

I'd agree with this if it were not for the video that played right after Jennings called it an AW.  The video was of the sheriff showing a .22 rifle.

As for Fox News calling it a AW?  Who knows.  That's an odd one.

I still think you're giving the media too much credit. Look at it this way, who is NBC trying to sway. All their gun-loving, conservative viewers?  Come to think of it, what were you doing watching NBC?

Here's another example (link below) from an article published on Foxnews just last week.  In it, it says "Obama made an assault weapons ban part of the gun curbs he proposed in January, a month after a shooter with an assault rifle killed 20 first-graders and six educators at a school in Newtown, Conn."

It's one thing to toss around the term "assault weapon".  It's a generic term thought up by politicians.  It has no definition, therefore it can pretty much mean anything.  Adam Lanza used an assault weapon.  Not because it was a big, scary, black gun, but because it was a weapon that he assaulted people with. Could have been a pistol, a knife, or a lead pipe.  Still would have been an assault weapon.  "Assault rifle" on the other hand, has a very clear definition.  Adam Lanza most definitely did not use an assault rifle. 

How could Fox so blatantly misuse a word months after the shootings?  In my opinion, you don't need to look any farther than incompetence or ignorance, same as all the other media outlets. It's how, time and time again, every network continues to be bamboozled by a man named Captain Janks.  

Or maybe it's possible you're right. NBC could be involved in an elaborate conspiracy to subtly sway public opinion, and Fox is just incompetent.   

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03/14/senate-committee-ready-to-ok-assault-weapons-ban/#ixzz2O1Eu2NTg

Do you think it is never intentional or agenda driven with firearms?

007 has access to the most advanced technology...
and he choses a Walther PPK chambered in .380...

?

(Walther-PPK.jpg)