The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old August 1, 2014, 02:03 PM   #26
Grant D
Senior Member
Join Date: August 14, 2011
Location: Brazos County, Texas
Posts: 1,026
Austin's motto is "KEEP AUSTIN WEIRD" I think it is one of the most liberal city's in Texas, but it's ok, we have them surrounded! LOL
Grant D is offline  
Old August 1, 2014, 02:32 PM   #27
Tom Servo
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 11,911
Alrighty, guys...let's keep it gun-related.
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Old August 1, 2014, 02:39 PM   #28
Senior Member
Join Date: September 13, 2005
Posts: 3,497
IMHO the high rate of illegitimacy and the spread of drug use has a lot more to do with it. And lethality is in the shooter, not the firearm or its ammunition.
SIGSHR is offline  
Old August 1, 2014, 02:46 PM   #29
Senior Member
Join Date: August 30, 2009
Location: Northern AZ
Posts: 7,134
But I wanted to say that if hi-cap was the reason they wish to blame the Beretta 92, shouldn't they be blaming the Browning Hi-Power or perhaps the Smith & Wesson Model 59?
Never mind them; Let's just go back to the Savage Model 1905 pistol with its staggered column "10 shots quick" magazine.
As always, YMMV.
gyvel is offline  
Old August 3, 2014, 01:00 PM   #30
Andy Blozinski
Senior Member
Join Date: August 31, 2013
Posts: 409
Does anyone keep statistics on single impact vs multiple impact civilian shootings? If you put multiple in a search, you get lots of stuff on multiple victim shootings.
Andy Blozinski is offline  
Old August 3, 2014, 07:34 PM   #31
Senior Member
Join Date: October 23, 2005
Location: US
Posts: 1,761
Ok, I cede that the author is making one assumption that is somewhat fair. Semi-automatic guns did, in fact, become more popular during the time period that he is addressing. Like it, love it, or leave it, I think that is a fair statement.

The rest of the article is a hack piece. To suggest that it was the Army or M9's fault is ridiculous. There were a number of issues that made the late 80's, through the 90's, dangerous. Street gangs and crack cocaine aren't mentioned in this article... nor is Gaston Glock's design. The one statistic that the article found that supported it's claims is multiple shot ER victims rose from the mid 80's into the 90's... that is not a causal correlation but mere speculation. One could also argue that gang "hits," and not just a happenstance gunshot from a robbery gone bad, made that statistic grow.

The article also correctly states that gun deaths began to decrease after 1993, which is coincidentally the year before the Brady law was enacted. The article failed to mention, however, that there are currently more firearms in existence in the US now than ever, yet gun homicides are still FAR lower than they were in 1993. In addition to this, if the Brady bill actually was a direct cause of the decrease in gun deaths it is far more likely that the background check clause was more effective (in reducing homicides) than the arbitrary Brady AWB. Also, the Brady AWB sunset occurred in 2004 but gun homicides continued to decline for several years after. There has been a slight uptick in 2012 and 2013 (stats for 2013 are fresh, too), but nothing even close to 1993 levels. The economy could easily be an explanation for this slight uptick. Also, the article fails to mention that gun homicides in 1993 were the end of a LONG uptick in gun deaths that started in the 1960's. Coincidentally, gun homicides were rising despite the gun control act of 1968. So, we have one anecdotal instance of a gun control passing and the gun homicide rate going down (Brady Bill), with another anecdotal instance of a gun control passing and gun homicide rates continuing to rise.

So... this article is a hack piece. If I were in charge of an institute of higher learning, even a tech school, I would be embarrassed by a professor that authored such a hack piece with only the arbitrary statistics and the reaching "correlations" presented. I would make a mention of the media outlet, but honestly this is par for the course for the Atlantic. They have some interesting articles, but they are better off sticking with pure opinion pieces authored by professionals such as John Q Wilson's "Broken Windows." Now that was an article. Didn't cite a bunch of sources, nor did it dazzle with statistics. But it made sense and no one could definitively deny the points made in it.
5whiskey is offline  
Old August 4, 2014, 03:04 AM   #32
Senior Member
Join Date: January 7, 2008
Location: Colorado
Posts: 1,462
Holly carp!

That's some well thought out bs in that article.

Based on their main gripes I'd say we need to either control or restrict parenting and Hollywood rather than guns and their magazine capacity.

I have to laugh that the article portrays such a gigantic leap in the deadlines between a 1911 in WW1 and a Beretta 92fs in the 80's and 90's, only to latter say that the military might end up with a more powerful handgun in 45acp.

Not to mention that suddenly .357 sig and 40 s&w are to be feared as new and devastating to the civilian market.


Why are so many people so ignorant... ?

Why does the general concept of universal understanding and consideration seem so foreign to people that want us to surrender our freedoms...? It's as if people only have so much room in their minds for an opinion that they can't actually form a balanced one because it would take too much space in their single track consciousness.
mellow_c is offline  
Old August 6, 2014, 10:19 AM   #33
Unlicensed Dremel
Junior member
Join Date: February 13, 2014
Location: Flathead Valley, MT
Posts: 2,187
I read that one and commented. It's utterly absurd - as if the Beretta (a) was the only and/or first "wonder-nine" - it was neither - the BHP, CZ75 and many many others before and since, and (b) military adaption is the *cause* of the handguns being available to the public, as if they wouldn't have been legal but for the military adaptation? AND, to buy the argument, you'd have to swallow all of that, plus that effective guns in the hands of the citizenry is a bad thing.

It's just a ridiculous pack of lies / nonsense.
Unlicensed Dremel is offline  
Old August 6, 2014, 10:42 PM   #34
Senior Member
Join Date: June 7, 1999
Posts: 3,830
I might be stupid,pardon me, but I've seen more than a few "large cap" 45ACP pistols,14, possibly 15 rounds, which leaves me curious as to all the fuss.

The 45 ACP has a lot more punch than the 9mm Luger round, it is a few years younger too if that concerns anyone. Of course, a number of 9 mm pistols carry more than 14-15 rounds, but 14-15 rounds still catches ones attention, especially in 45 ACP size.

Has this somehow escaped attention?
alan is offline  
Old August 7, 2014, 10:29 AM   #35
Unlicensed Dremel
Junior member
Join Date: February 13, 2014
Location: Flathead Valley, MT
Posts: 2,187
Well it's all a pack of lies, meaning it's all coming from the blissninny anti-civil-rights crowd. That crowd knows nothing of ballistics (or much else about guns) - meaning that they don't have the first clue that .45 is more powerful than 9mm. After all, 9 is bigger than 4. So all they look at is the mag capacity (scary 17 & 18 rounders), and military adoption (oh the horror - how could it be possible that the citizens have the same gun as our military!?!?!)
Unlicensed Dremel is offline  
Old August 7, 2014, 02:07 PM   #36
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 6,503
Originally Posted by Unlicensed Dremel's all coming from the blissninny anti-civil-rights crowd. That crowd knows nothing of ballistics (or much else about guns)... how could it be possible that the citizens have the same gun as our military!?!?!
IMHO these three sentences underlie the true goal of this piece, which is to fool the ignorant into believing that (a) there's some sort of bright and easily distinguished line between military and civilian firearms, (b) military firearms are extra super lethal, and (c) pro-gun people are somehow obsessed with extra super lethal stuff.

It's an undercurrent that runs through a lot of so-called journalism regarding guns.
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak
carguychris is online now  
Old August 7, 2014, 06:59 PM   #37
Unlicensed Dremel
Junior member
Join Date: February 13, 2014
Location: Flathead Valley, MT
Posts: 2,187

Grant D..... so, it appears that BOTH Austin TX and Portland OR have the same motto: "Keep _______ Weird"

Therefore, I believe that Portland needs to adopt the motto "Keep Portland Weirder than Austin", and vice versa - make it a good old fashioned whizzin contest.
Unlicensed Dremel is offline  
Old August 7, 2014, 09:20 PM   #38
Glenn E. Meyer
Join Date: November 17, 2000
Posts: 17,565
I know both cities well and they are fun places and the area is gun friendly despite concentrations of anti folks.

However, that is not our topic - so are we done with this or is there more to the original topic?
NRA, TSRA, IDPA, NTI, Polite Soc. - Aux Armes, Citoyens
Being an Academic Shooter
Being an Active Shooter
Glenn E. Meyer is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2016 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07392 seconds with 7 queries