Can't blame the sniper anymore

[HeavyStick]

Ballistic fingerprinting is still an infant technology and not even remotely reliable or trustworthy.

the technology itself is reliable. changing the ballistic characteristics is very easy.

 

[JazzManJim]

The way I see it, if you have technology that can be easily fooled by something so elementary, then it's not reliable.

It's like saying a car is reliable, just as long as you only put Supreme gas in it.

 

[Guest]

Do you think that I should be disarmed?

Yes. Then, only then you can play with CV manmeat as long as you like.

 

[Problem Child]

This paragraph is, of course, an absolute lie.

Ballistic fingerprinting is still an infant technology and not even remotely reliable or trustworthy.

The two states which have BF are Mass and MD. Neither system works well at all. It does nicely to serve as a gun registration database, though, which is really what Michael Moore wants.

Now Jimmy, you know it's not an absolute lie.

I mean, if the gun isn't stolen, and if there is a proper background check, using legitimate identification, and if the shooter hasn't changed the barrel out, and if the barrel has had almost no rounds fired through it causing it to remain in the same condition as when it was fingerprinted, and if the shooter has not altered the barrel by scratching, grinding, honing, lapping, or otherwise altering it, and if the bullets are recovered in such a state that allow technicians to actually read the rifling marks if they are recovered at all...then...it would be a fine crime-fighting tool.

 

[HeavyStick]

The way I see it, if you have technology that can be easily fooled by something so elementary, then it's not reliable.

It's like saying a car is reliable, just as long as you only put Supreme gas in it.

I understand your point.

 

[JazzManJim]

Well, when you're right, PC, you're right.

I'll say then that I have a greater chance of being shot by a sniper than that paragraph does of being true.

 

[metal_minx]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: weapons

That's to say that maybe the firearms are not the problem.

Homicides are statistically likely to happen in urban areas with gun control. That are less likely in rural areas with gun ownership.

I wonder why that is?

Maybe because there are more people in urban areas, overcrowding that causes tensions.

My question is: what is in the American pysche that demands that we pick up a gun and shoot first, ask questions later?

 

[metal_minx]

Because it gives me the ability to help others, because its the way of a warrior, because good people must be as strong as the bad. I train constantly and take the responsibility with absolute seriousness. We live in a world of constant war, the mechanism is called survival of the fitest. Human history proves over and over the need to defend ones self...especially against governments. Only out of true strength can one show true compassion and love.

Shit, are you a Neo-nazi or something? lol I've seen propaganda from them that practically follows your statement word for word. All that is missing is the "niggers with guns that'll invade your home and the Jews in the government trying to disarm you" You sound like a fucking fascist. Forget the superhero uniform, I think a swastika would suit you better.

 

[Problem Child]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: weapons

Maybe because there are more people in urban areas, overcrowding that causes tensions.

That's a good guess. It's still a guess. What should be compared is the crime rate in urban areas with strict gun control vs. the crime rate in urban areas that allow more liberal legal ownership and use of guns.

You should look up a very good study that's oft-quoted here, by Lott & Mustard from the University of Chicago. It outlines how states with concealed weapons laws have lower crime rates than states without, and how in every state where concealed carry has been passed, the overall crime rate has remained static or has gone down.

That doesn't go very far towards supporting the more guns=more crime argument.

 

[metal_minx]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: weapons

That's a good guess. It's still a guess. What should be compared is the crime rate in urban areas with strict gun control vs. the crime rate in urban areas that allow more liberal legal ownership and use of guns.

You should look up a very good study that's oft-quoted here, by Lott & Mustard from the University of Chicago. It outlines how states with concealed weapons laws have lower crime rates than states without, and how in every state where concealed carry has been passed, the overall crime rate has remained static or has gone down.

That doesn't go very far towards supporting the more guns=more crime argument.

I'm not sure if I believe more guns = more crime, but I do think the more you crowd people together, especially into housing projects and the like, then the rate of murder will jump. More likely because of the tension and depression that being poor, desperate, and overcrowded cause rather than the number of guns there is.

 

[crysede]

Here's the study PC mentioned if you want to look at it metal_minx: Lott & Mustard Study

L&M's study is infinitely better than most of the crap masquerading as studies on this issue, but it has some serious flaws.

For one thing, the methodology they are using was discredited long ago. Because of this they don't take things like the fact that crime moves in waves into account, so their analysis does not include variables like gangs, drugs, or community policing levels that can explain these cycles. This omission leads to some funny results: for example, that decreasing the number of older black women will lead to an even more dramatic reduction in homicide rates than increasing arrest rates or concealed carry laws.

They also come up with some rather strange arguments to justify evidence that fails to support their theory - such as arguing that the increase in property crimes following laws permitting concealed weapons result in criminals substituting property crime for crimes likely to involve contact with (possibly armed) victims. There is no credible explanation for why a criminal would steal a car because he felt deterred from assaulting someone. A much more reasonable explanation would be that something other than gun laws was an important factor at work in determining the crime rates.

(However, the problems with this study don't provide any support for the more guns=more crime argument either.)

 

[sufisaint]

Shit, are you a Neo-nazi or something? lol I've seen propaganda from them that practically follows your statement word for word. All that is missing is the "niggers with guns that'll invade your home and the Jews in the government trying to disarm you" You sound like a fucking fascist. Forget the superhero uniform, I think a swastika would suit you better.

Your just such an asshole I really don't feel like responding directly to your bullshit other than saying your comments come only from your own psyche not my words and if your anti-2nd amendment beliefs are so strong, like mine are for my rights and freedoms, than I suggest you go out and campagain for your liberal cowards than you join the BATF and try and take my rights away. You would last about two hearts beats....

 

[JazzManJim]

**coughcoughWashingtonDCcoughcough**

 

[HeavyStick]

**coughcoughWashingtonDCcoughcough**

judging by the looks of your AV I'd guess you ate sillyman or his chicken.

 

[Shewritesatnite]

A gun is an inanimate object - people kill people........... perhaps you would like to ban people........grow up.......

 

[metal_minx]

Your just such an asshole I really don't feel like responding directly to your bullshit other than saying your comments come only from your own psyche not my words and if your anti-2nd amendment beliefs are so strong, like mine are for my rights and freedoms, than I suggest you go out and campagain for your liberal cowards than you join the BATF and try and take my rights away. You would last about two hearts beats....

My comments were coming from previous experiances. I've talked to fascists before and what you were saying smelled familiar.

 

[metal_minx]

A gun is an inanimate object - people kill people........... perhaps you would like to ban people........grow up.......

I think the answer is nuclear weapons. Why not just pass those out to everyone because then I think that maybe there would be some hesitation before shooting it at someone, and if they did, the people left would really be pissed and willing to call for action. Does the second amendment cover the H bomb?

 

[sufisaint]

My comments were coming from previous experiances. I've talked to fascists before and what you were saying smelled familiar.

Well you have never talked to me and know nothing about me so my advice to you is to shut the fuck up....

 

[metal_minx]

Well you have never talked to me and know nothing about me so my advice to you is to shut the fuck up....

...?

Those little dots make you seem wishy washy. I thought you were a big tough take-no-shit-or-I'll-shoot Rambo guy?

 

[sufisaint]

...?

Those little dots make you seem wishy washy. I thought you were a big tough take-no-shit-or-I'll-shoot Rambo guy?

Not at all...your wrong again...but you seem to make judgements on appearances and stereotypes without knowing a damn thing..you make alot of generalizations about people, races and religions you obviously know nothing about.

 

[metal_minx]

Not at all...your wrong again...but you seem to make judgements on appearances and stereotypes without knowing a damn thing..you make alot of generalizations about people, races and religions you obviously know nothing about.

Listen steroid head, I made a judgement on what you said. This is the internet, I'm not going to sit down and get to know you before responding to your bullshit. "Judgements on appearances" are necessary here. I just calls 'em as I sees 'em.

 

[metal_minx]

You also look like a big ape.

 

[sufisaint]

yes it is the internet which allows a little coward like you to say what you want.... You can put "nigger" in quotation marks and think its ok to use an offense racial slur like that when it has absolutely nothing to do what i or any one else in this thread has said... (the same goes for your Jew comment as well) put just as you would not dare say these things to my face or in front of any black person because you know your scawny ass would be kicked ... I am done with you, gone on with your uninformed bullshit.

 

[metal_minx]

yes it is the internet which allows a little coward like you to say what you want.... You can put "nigger" in quotation marks and think its ok to use an offense racial slur like that when it has absolutely nothing to do what i or any one else in this thread has said... (the same goes for your Jew comment as well) put just as you would not dare say these things to my face or in front of any black person because you know your scawny ass would be kicked ... I am done with you, gone on with your uninformed bullshit.

I was illustrating a point. The impression I got of you from your ultra right wing comments. Excuse me for breaking the 1st amendment, which obviously is not as important to you as the 2nd.
If anyone was offended, I don't give a shit.

 

[Evil Attorney]

Speaking as a Jewish person, I find myself agreeing with the person you would call a Nazi.

MM, you have your first ammendment rights, thats fine. I'll excercise mine. You are a coward. You also have no clue how violent the world can be, and even if you had a clue, your way of dealing with it is to hide behind someone else willing to use force.

You asked "My question is: what is in the American pysche that demands that we pick up a gun and shoot first, ask questions later?"

Well, if you know anything about firearms or had any training, you know their are a lot of questions that trained people ask before they shoot.

Is this target a Legitimate threat? Is the target free of obstruction that I can engage without risking anyone else? If I miss, do I endanger someone else?
Things like that.

I don't have enough space to go into all the questions that ran through my mind one night when someone stood outside the door to my house banging on the door yelling. I knew my family was inside, and at 3 am, the only people outside were not their for friendly reasons.

Standing with a .308 rifle ready to kill someone if they broke the door down raised a lot more questions in my head than you have thoughts in yours.

If I had shot first and asked questions later as you believe I would have, I would have killed someone who got tired of being an asshole and went away.

The shoot first and ask questions later mentality you cite is from hollywood, made by the same people that know as much about guns as you do, who then protest when life imitates art.

When you equate criminals using firearms to law abiding people who use them, you may as well equate Hittler's speaking to Martin Luther King Jr. speaking.

If you think you know so much about people that you can insult them as you wish to do, you are more ignorant than you can imagine.

And to paraphrase you, I give a shit if you are offended, because in my oppinion, pig-shit ignorant is exactly what a you are when you projects your hostility into others so that you can proclaim yourself "normal".