Tag Search for "4600"

says...

He didn't have full auto, he used a bump fire stock.
Full auto fires around 20hz. Well practiced bump firing is around 10hz. Well practiced semi auto pull is around 6hz.

Bump firing also sprays so bad it's not aimable beyond a few feet distance. The gun community is even more surprised than other people, most considered the bump stock as a joke doo dad for making noise and wasting money.

All vendors, even at a gun show, must do background checks.

All private sellers, regardless of where (at home, gun show, on the street, wherever), are not required to do checks - but are in practice held liable for subsequent gun crimes if they can't prove they had no idea the buyer was shady.

There is absolutely nothing special about gun shows. The gun show loophole is an entirely imaginary issue (I explained this earlier).

A traceable gun is just as capable of shooting a person as an untraceable gun.

Yes, anyone can put together that arsenal.
Especially anyone with a squeaky clean record who qualifies to be a gun owner no matter what the restriction - like the Vegas shooter.

Hence why *nothing proposed* would have had *any impact* on the Vegas events, short of confiscation raids nation wide and capital punishment for possession.

The reply was to : "You are more likely to be killed by a criminal if you have a gun than if you don't."

I have two interpretations of that chart

1) (my initial thought)
Assault understood as the legal meaning (brandishing, threatening, not necessarily killing).
Discharge understood as firing.
This is what the original math was based on.
But yes, it seems senseless because how can you die to brandishing?

You are correct regarding the "per year".
The original math does include the mistake of thinking it was cause of death, not per year chance of death.
That alters the result from 350'000 lifetimes for a 50/50 chance, down to 350'000 years for a 50/50 chance. AKA 4600 lifetimes worth of years for a 50/50 chance in the next year.

2) (your [likely correct] thought)
Assault understood as being fired upon.
Discharge understood as accidental (what else could it mean?)
This variant is computed below.
However, this challenges conventional assertion, because the common assertion is that accidents kill more than intentional. Maybe that assertion is crap.

1/24974 as caused by assault
That's a 99.995995835669095859694081845119% chance of dying by a cause OTHER than firearms.
Which requires around 17'000 trials for the chance of the next death to be 50% by firearm.
I.E. 99.995995835669095859694081845119% ^ 17'000 = 50.625%, or about 50/50.
AKA 226 lifetimes worth of years to have a 50/50 chance of death by firearm in the next year.

Referring to the study I linked earlier :
http://service.prerender.io/http://polstats.com/?_escaped_fragment_=/life#!/life
#2 version has a similar death chance to the polstats link, so the #2 variant is likely the appropriate understanding (not my initial understanding).

-schehearzade

newtboy

said:

Common sense is not anti gun.
There clearly aren't laws enough. Anyone could put together the arsenal of full auto weapons he had, untraceable if from a gun show, legally, and repeat this. Felons, psychotics, terrorists, libtards, anyone. This is definitely a case of intentional neglect, make no mistake. Congress knows about these devices, they've fought to keep them legal. This hole in the law was by design.

You totally misread or intentionally misrepresent your own dumb, misleading blaze.com chart which separates all different firearm deaths into "firearm discharge, firearm assault, intentional self harm (by firearm) , and accident" Even using their highly suspect numbers and singling out only death by firearm assault, it's 24974/1 , not the 350000/1 that you claim ....and that's total odds of dying by firearm assault per year, not odds that, if you die, it will be by firearms. Math...it's a thing.

imstellar28 says...

^I am reading every word you are saying and addressing all the points I see. You underestimate science budgets by 4600% though. Perhaps that is one reason you think it is money well spent?

You are attempting to argue for government funding of science based on personal experience, but as a scientist you should know that 3 is a pretty statistically impoverished sample.

How can you judge whether companies are willing to take risk? Who would not be interested in a smaller computing alternative to vacuum tubes, or to a phone that you can utilize anywhere in the world, or to clean energy? Clearly these things will be in high demand, and some (remember theres 6 billion people) would be willing to take that risk.

In effect, you are telling me, and others, what products their money is "well spent" on...can you really argue for that? What if it was $1,000 or $10,000 would it still be well spent? At what monetary value does it no longer become well spent?