sigpro2340
New member
Read signature below ...
The Beretta 92 is the cause of all our problems
- Thread starter Glenn E. Meyer
- Start date
Machineguntony
New member
Austin, Texas is, without a doubt, the greatest city in the world. They have great and tolerant firearms laws. You can own any NFA item. And it is a friggin fantastic place to open a business and become successful beyond your dreams.
People are tolerant and not bigoted. It is a live and let live type of liberal city.
A lot of people are liberals, but a lot of people also are pro2A. That's why the 2A issue should never be a democratic vs republican issue, or a liberal vs conservative issue.
People are tolerant and not bigoted. It is a live and let live type of liberal city.
A lot of people are liberals, but a lot of people also are pro2A. That's why the 2A issue should never be a democratic vs republican issue, or a liberal vs conservative issue.
spacecoast
New member
More people than ever are dying in their 90s. Let's make the 90s illegal.
Isn't Austin where the topless Moms Against Guns demonstration was held?
Tolerant indeed. I thank the large number of editors who have reported the story with some discretion. What has been seen cannot be unseen.
I found this when I first came across the article: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/07/29/Army-s-New-Handgun-Weapon-Criminals
The story starts with an unfounded claim, then resorts to saying it was made by another writer, who goes on to making statements without any logical substantiation from the data.
It's all backscratcher blogging disguised as "journalism" and typical of the genre.
Tolerant indeed. I thank the large number of editors who have reported the story with some discretion. What has been seen cannot be unseen.
I found this when I first came across the article: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Articles/2014/07/29/Army-s-New-Handgun-Weapon-Criminals
The story starts with an unfounded claim, then resorts to saying it was made by another writer, who goes on to making statements without any logical substantiation from the data.
It's all backscratcher blogging disguised as "journalism" and typical of the genre.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Austin is a good city. Plenty of gun stores and gun friendly folk. The city government isn't friendly but there's no real handicap to leading the gun life - plus great restaurants. Plenty of matches in the local area. Indoor ranges, also.
But the Beretta 92 and the new army gun might cause the fall of civilization.
But the Beretta 92 and the new army gun might cause the fall of civilization.
Andy Blozinski
New member
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sigh...
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.
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.
Sigh...
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.
Unlicensed Dremel
Moderator
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.
It's just a ridiculous pack of lies / nonsense.
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?
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?
Unlicensed Dremel
Moderator
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!?!?!)
carguychris
New member
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.Unlicensed Dremel said:
It's an undercurrent that runs through a lot of so-called journalism regarding guns.
Unlicensed Dremel
Moderator
Yep.
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.
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.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
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?
However, that is not our topic - so are we done with this or is there more to the original topic?