Rolling Stone Magazine releases list of top 5 most dangerous guns...

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by SLC Flyfishing, Jul 28, 2014.

  1. SLC Flyfishing Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #1
    And it has to be the most asinine waste of ink/server space yet in the gun debate.

    I can't find a non-mobile link from my phone, but this link to the Field and Stream response should give you the highlights.

    http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/field-notes/is-rolling-stones-“five-most-dangerous-guns-in-america”-the-worst-firearms-story

    Some highlights...

    Some of the comments this article has inspired are hilarious. People have been publishing their own "most dangerous" lists. For example: 5 most dangerous types of dogs:
    1. Big dogs
    2. Medium size dogs
    3. Small dogs
    4. Male dogs
    5. Female dogs

    Seriously, does it seem to anyone else like the most anti-gun folks out there are generally also the most gun-ignorant folks?

    Congratulations Rolling Stone, that's some hard hitting journalism! I'm sure Kristen Gwynne can expect her Pulitzer any day now.
     
  2. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #2
    How exactly is it "ignorant"? Handguns are by far the most widely used guns in crimes. That's a fact.

    This blog's piss and moan whine piece is a much bigger waste of electrons. Why are gun owners so insecure?
     
  3. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #3
    This is the gun thread that's going to change someone's mind. I just know it. :rolleyes:
     
  4. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #4
    You better believe it. I mean, this is solid proof that all people who would like to see something done to curtail the number and availability of guns in this country are all just a bunch of idiots who don't understand anything about guns.

    I, for one, will now be buying a load of them and only going to places that allow me to protect myself from something.
     
  5. SLC Flyfishing thread starter Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #5
    Well for one, revolvers are pistols, and so are derringers. By since "pistols is a separate category of it's own I'm assuming the author meant semi-automatic pistols?

    But still: 3 of the 5 "guns" in her list could/should all be under the category of "pistols" since that's what they are. She doesn't recognize/realize that and yet the rolling stone publishes her work as some sort of authoritative list.

    It's ignorant scribble, nothing more.

    I can't take anything serious that's this amateurish.
     
  6. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #6
    SLC,

    Before you take the time to call other people ignorant, you might want to take some interest in the way the US government (ATF and other agencies) classifies firearms. Categories include: Pistols, Rifles, Shotguns, Revolvers, Derringers, Machine Guns...

    See page 10 of this report:
    https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/f...mmary-firearms-reported-lost-and-stolen-2.pdf

    Or page 4 of this report:
    https://www.atf.gov/sites/default/f...cedata-2012/2012-trace-data-massachusetts.pdf
    which indicates that 845 pistols, 406 revolvers, 192 rifles, 138 shotguns, 14 derringers, and 5 other firearms were recovered in Massachusetts in 2012

    ----------

    If you're interested in learning more about the difference between a pistol and a revolver, or a shotgun and a rifle, here's a page from the U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives "Guide to Firearm Types:

    https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/ATFfirearms.jpg

    [​IMG]
     
  7. SLC Flyfishing, Jul 28, 2014
    Last edited: Jul 28, 2014

    SLC Flyfishing thread starter Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #7
    @miloblithe

    In your graphic, the first sentence of the "revolver" section should tell you all you need to know.

     
  8. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #8
    Does a pretty good job of explaining it to me. The only real question is why it deserves its own catagory, when it's really more of a subset of pistols.
     
  9. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #9
    One small part of a definition is all you need to know? You don't need to read the rest of the definition? Sheesh. That's a serious problem. Have you heard of confirmation bias?

    Man up. Admit you were wrong. Pistols and revolvers are classified separately by government statistics because they have distinct characteristics, as do rifles and shotguns.
     
  10. SLC Flyfishing thread starter Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #10
    Which was my point from the beginning! A revolver is a type of pistol, as is a derringer.

    But the author lists "pistols" "revolvers" and "derringers" as 3 separate types of guns.
     
  11. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #11
    The author is hardly going out on a limb here. The author is using ATF classifications and statistics. So she's using the definitions used by the U.S. agency responsible for regulating firearms. What source do you have for your belief that they are all the same thing?
     
  12. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #12
    But they serve the same function in similar situations, with the only difference being bullet capacity and loading style. A shotgun and rifle are almost diametrically opposed usage wise, with one being more of a short range weapon, and the other a long range one.

    I don't see why it deserves its own category.

    edit: keep in mind I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the article as a whole. I'm just being nitpicky about categories 'n stuff.
     
  13. rdowns macrumors Penryn

    rdowns

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2003
    #13

    The comments section on the F&S blog. Didn't you even read the OP? :D
     
  14. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #14
    Good question. There are probably historical reasons. The ATF and it's predecessors have been around since 1886. The distinct category for deringers may have something to do with their conceal-ability and that one was used in the assasination of Lincoln.
     
  15. SLC Flyfishing thread starter Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #15
    Every single dictionary definition for pistol. Which all give the definition as:

    And the fact that the ATF's definition that you're citing is not really even a workable definition. Because if a revolver has a rotating chamber not integrated with the barrel, then it by definition cannot be "of the pistol type"; since according to them, a chamber integrated with or permanently aligned with the barrel is the very essence of what makes a pistol a pistol and not a revolver.

    Unless of course they mean that a revolver, by virtue of being a small firearm designed to be held in one hand, is in fact a subtype of pistol. ;)
     
  16. zioxide macrumors 603

    zioxide

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2006
    #16
    Go complain to the ATF since that's how they classify them.

    And the blog you posted is any better? lol.

    Gun fanatics caring so much about semantics is hilarious.
     
  17. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #17
    So you're arguing that a dictionary is a better source for distinguishing firearm types than is the ATF? That's a seriously weak argument.

    You are wrong. It's simple. Admit you were wrong. The article may be dumb for other reasons, but not the one you point out.
     
  18. SLC Flyfishing thread starter Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #18
    You call it semantics, I call it a critical lack of knowledge on the subject.

    If someone is going to call for regulation/banning of something because it is dangerous, they better know what they're talking about if they don't want to come off looking like a fool.

    Especially when the right to own that something un-infringed is codified in the constitution.
     
  19. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #19
    Oh my god. You're priceless. She's citing ATF statistics using ATF terminology. You are the one who exhibiting a critical lack of knowledge about the subject matter. You seriously can't see that?
     
  20. Renzatic Suspended

    Renzatic

    Joined:
    Aug 3, 2011
    Location:
    Gramps, what the hell am I paying you for?
    #20
    I could see the derringer being its own category, since they're primarily designed to be concealed, and usually only carry about one or two bullets. It's usage is different to a pistol or revolver, which fill the exact same role despite having a few design differences.
     
  21. SLC Flyfishing thread starter Suspended

    SLC Flyfishing

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2007
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #21
    Explain then, how a revolver in any way, shape, or form, can be considered "of the pistol type" according to the ATF's definition of "pistol".

    I'm saying that the ATF's definition, is incorrect/redundant/not important beyond their ATF specific reasoning for separating the two. Just because the ATF collects data on "pistols" which in today's terms pretty much means semi-automatic hand-gun, separate from "revolvers" doesn't mean that outside the ATF statistics a revolver isn't just a type of pistol.

    In fact, despite your best attempts to prove to the contrary, they even admit as much right in their explanation of the terms.

    ----------

    But a derringer has the chamber permanently integrated with the barrel, which is why according to ATF definition, it is a "pistol". Yet again, for some unknown reason, the ATF separates the two.

    It's also a small firearm, designed to be held in one hand, which makes it (and a revolver) a pistol to everyone else in the world.
     
  22. Moyank24 macrumors 601

    Moyank24

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Location:
    in a New York State of mind
    #22
    To be fair, it's a glorified photo spread with ATF and FBI statistics - including the ATF's own terminology. There is nowhere specific in that piece (unless I missed it) where the author is calling for regulation/banning.

    I'll link it in case you haven't actually read it:

    Rolling Stone
     
  23. miloblithe macrumors 68020

    miloblithe

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #23
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handgun

    But it doesn't matter. My point is that the author can't be "ignorant" for using terminology that's accepted many (if not most) people and is used by the ATF.

    ----------

    I think we can be pretty sure he hasn't. Otherwise, he might have noted why the data set, which uses the categories of firearms given, is used, and the data set he wants, using some other categorization of weapons, is unavailable:

     
  24. Zombie Acorn macrumors 65816

    Zombie Acorn

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2009
    Location:
    Toronto, Ontario
    #24
    Because the government always properly classifies everything especially drugs.

    The list is asinine at best.
     
  25. aerok macrumors 65816

    aerok

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    #25
    Doesn't change the fact that it's wrong to call Rolling Stones ignorant.
     

Share This Page