(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/560902_526956400656914_139805376_n.jpg)
Hey, wait a minute...what? I...is that guy implying the SEALs that killed bin Laden are idiots?
Hey, wait a minute...what? I...is that guy implying the SEALs that killed bin Laden are idiots?
I think he's trying to say that "Don't blame guns for the actions of stupid people" by using the logic of "Praising guns for the actions of smart people -- see how stupid it is?".
In other words, taking an argument to its supposedly logical absurd conclusion.
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/560902_526956400656914_139805376_n.jpg)
Hey, wait a minute...what? I...is that guy implying the SEALs that killed bin Laden are idiots?
I love the, 'guns are tools.' argument. The problem with it is, real tools like hammers, screwdrivers, and even knives have non-injuring uses, like, I don't know, building buildings, fixing devices, etc.
Guns have one, ONE use . . . to hurt people or damage objects. The only gun that can do otherwise is a nailgun, so until they invent AK-47's that can repai damaged pipes or attach objects to walls, they are NOT tools!
I love the, 'guns are tools.' argument. The problem with it is, real tools like hammers, screwdrivers, and even knives have non-injuring uses, like, I don't know, building buildings, fixing devices, etc.
Guns have one, ONE use . . . to hurt people or damage objects. The only gun that can do otherwise is a nailgun, so until they invent AK-47's that can repai damaged pipes or attach objects to walls, they are NOT tools!
Guns are tools; whether you agree with their intended task or not and whether you want them to be or not.
That said, that doesn't mean they can only ever be used for their intended task, and yes, it does still take a person holding them to determine what their task will be.
I love the, 'guns are tools.' argument. The problem with it is, real tools like hammers, screwdrivers, and even knives have non-injuring uses, like, I don't know, building buildings, fixing devices, etc.
Guns have one, ONE use . . . to hurt people or damage objects. The only gun that can do otherwise is a nailgun, so until they invent AK-47's that can repai damaged pipes or attach objects to walls, they are NOT tools!
Okay, fine, I stand corrected. I don't hate guns by the way. I just hate the arguments people make for having them, especially military-grade weapons, which I think should be banned to private citizens.
I'm going to do something I dislike doing: I'm going to throw morality and ethics right out of the window and state this from an emotionless, logical point of view.
Tools are not objects created to build. They are objects created to do a specific job. Claw hammers are designed to drive nails into wood and to be able to remove them. That is the only intent of their design. Power saws are designed to cut through large pieces of wood very quickly. That is the only intent of their design. Guns are designed to kill things. That is the only intent of their design.
Tools can also be used for tasks that is not a part of their intended design. A claw hammer can be used to crush a man's skull. A chainsaw can be used to dismember a corpse. A gun can be used in competitive and recreational sport shooting.
Guns are tools; whether you agree with their intended task or not and whether you want them to be or not.
That said, that doesn't mean they can only ever be used for their intended task, and yes, it does still take a person holding them to determine what their task will be.
Okay, fine, I stand corrected. I don't hate guns by the way. I just hate the arguments people make for having them, especially military-grade weapons, which I think should be banned to private citizens.I love the, 'guns are tools.' argument. The problem with it is, real tools like hammers, screwdrivers, and even knives have non-injuring uses, like, I don't know, building buildings, fixing devices, etc.
Guns have one, ONE use . . . to hurt people or damage objects. The only gun that can do otherwise is a nailgun, so until they invent AK-47's that can repai damaged pipes or attach objects to walls, they are NOT tools!
I'm going to do something I dislike doing: I'm going to throw morality and ethics right out of the window and state this from an emotionless, logical point of view.
Tools are not objects created to build. They are objects created to do a specific job. Claw hammers are designed to drive nails into wood and to be able to remove them. That is the only intent of their design. Power saws are designed to cut through large pieces of wood very quickly. That is the only intent of their design. Guns are designed to kill things. That is the only intent of their design.
Tools can also be used for tasks that is not a part of their intended design. A claw hammer can be used to crush a man's skull. A chainsaw can be used to dismember a corpse. A gun can be used in competitive and recreational sport shooting.
Guns are tools; whether you agree with their intended task or not and whether you want them to be or not.
That said, that doesn't mean they can only ever be used for their intended task, and yes, it does still take a person holding them to determine what their task will be.
I for one do not like bans or restriction that only apply to certain type of weapons. The reason is simple: The guns aren't the problem, people are. All restriction should be about who should be allowed to own any type of guns.
I mean sure if someone goes crazy with a blackpowder muzzleloading rifle (legal and license free in several countries) or a single/double shotgun (legal and license free in many countries) then he might have a smaller bodycount than if he had been armed with an assaultrifle. But, and this is important, would anyone go to the families of those who had been killed in the rampage and say that these deaths are acceptable since he did not have a more dangerous weapon. That simply having a law that bans "military type weapons" is good because this limits the casualties in spree killings.
No, I don't think anyone would. Many say that even one death is too many in such cases and I'm agree but the only way to prevent every single killing spree is to stop the would-be-killer before he strikes (possibly getting some medical/mental help to him/her.) Especially since knives, cars and improvised explosives have also been used in mass murders.
Which brings me to my point. Gun control should be about who gets a firearm license, not about what kind of guns that person can have. For example, I own several firearms. Few years ago I sold about half of them. Does that mean I am 50% less dangerous now? Or if I wanted to buy another gun would it make me 20% more dangerous? Would the type of the gun matter? I mean I have a pistol and shotguns and rifles already. So getting another shotgun would not really help me shoot more, since I already have more guns that I can carry on my person at the same time. What if I wanted to buy an assault rifle? (for the record I am interested in trying action shooting as well as a certain shooting competitions for reservists and both would require the use of an assault rifle. Can't afford to start those hobbies yet though.) If the police would refuse my license for an assault rifle, what would that mean? Does it mean that I am a threat to other people if I had it? Then shouldn't they take away my other guns as well? I mean if even one death is too much then if I would be a threat I should not be allowed to have any guns. And if I am allowed to keep my other guns does that really mean that I only become a danger to society if I get some type of "gun overload" where I exceed the safe amount of firepower that I can posses.
Not totally related, but there was a shooting at a local mall about an hour ago. Reports say two people are confirmed dead.
Oh, ok. So it wasn't the gun that did the killing, it was a person using a gun.
So now guns aren't a problem, we should let anybody drive a car; qualified or not. Because cars don't have accidents, PEOPLE DO.
I'm really pissed at all the pro-gunners jumping into the comments on every news article to tell anyone talking gun control to shut up. I had a cousin working there, and I only just managed to hear from her. The people at the mall are what matters right now, but all these pricks want to do is use this as an excuse to preach about how everyone should be armed.
She's fine, but traumatized. She worked in the Macy's where someone was killed.
Going by Facebook posts, at least four people I know were there. All of them are okay, but I'm really worried there are others. This is the closest something like this has ever been to home.
However, the AR-15, the AR-15 carbine, and the civilian legal AK-47 are all functionally different from their military counterparts. They fire once per pull of the trigger and this makes them no different than grandpa's M1 Garand, the Ruger Mini-14 or Mini-30, Ruger 10/22 or any other semi-automatic rifle.
Oh, ok. So it wasn't the gun that did the killing, it was a person using a gun.
So now guns aren't a problem, we should let anybody drive a car; qualified or not. Because cars don't have accidents, PEOPLE DO.
I'm really pissed at all the pro-gunners jumping into the comments on every news article to tell anyone talking gun control to shut up. I had a cousin working there, and I only just managed to hear from her. The people at the mall are what matters right now, but all these pricks want to do is use this as an excuse to preach about how everyone should be armed.
Oh, ok. So it wasn't the gun that did the killing, it was a person using a gun.
So now guns aren't a problem, we should let anybody drive a car; qualified or not. Because cars don't have accidents, PEOPLE DO.
However, the AR-15, the AR-15 carbine, and the civilian legal AK-47 are all functionally different from their military counterparts. They fire once per pull of the trigger and this makes them no different than grandpa's M1 Garand, the Ruger Mini-14 or Mini-30, Ruger 10/22 or any other semi-automatic rifle.
Thank you!
I am tired of people thinking that the AK is some sort of magical killing device. If anything, you probably stand a better chance of surviving an AK round than you do a 12 gauge slug and many buckshot rounds.
However, the AR-15, the AR-15 carbine, and the civilian legal AK-47 are all functionally different from their military counterparts. They fire once per pull of the trigger and this makes them no different than grandpa's M1 Garand, the Ruger Mini-14 or Mini-30, Ruger 10/22 or any other semi-automatic rifle.
Thank you!
I am tired of people thinking that the AK is some sort of magical killing device. If anything, you probably stand a better chance of surviving an AK round than you do a 12 gauge slug and many buckshot rounds.
Isn't the problem though that the AK's (at least the 47. I don't know about the rest) fire a lot more than a single round when you pull the trigger. That's what concerns me, not one shot, lots of shots in a small amount of time, especially in neighborhoods where people live close together.
Although I think that if you need an AK-47 or an M-9 to defend your home, the Constitution is the least of your problems.
I'm sure that'll stop about the time you get stuff like this to stop;Oh, ok. So it wasn't the gun that did the killing, it was a person using a gun.
So now guns aren't a problem, we should let anybody drive a car; qualified or not. Because cars don't have accidents, PEOPLE DO.
How many bullets are you allowed in a magazine? Thirty rounds of 39 mm ammo will probably do MORE damage semi-auto than fired rock-and-roll.
Oh, ok. So it wasn't the gun that did the killing, it was a person using a gun.
So now guns aren't a problem, we should let anybody drive a car; qualified or not. Because cars don't have accidents, PEOPLE DO.
You'd be amazed how many people repeatedly make your prior argument in gun issuesI'm sure that'll stop about the time you get stuff like this to stop;Oh, ok. So it wasn't the gun that did the killing, it was a person using a gun.
So now guns aren't a problem, we should let anybody drive a car; qualified or not. Because cars don't have accidents, PEOPLE DO.
Admittedly I'm coming at it from a warped perspective as a non-American, so anybody possessing a handgun is sort of inconceivable. Just about everybody where I live has a shotgun or a rifle, and they seem to do the trick.
European style gun control could never work in America due to the sheer amount of guns already present and the way that the American psyche has got so used to guns over the years.
How many bullets are you allowed in a magazine? Thirty rounds of 39 mm ammo will probably do MORE damage semi-auto than fired rock-and-roll.
How many bullets are you allowed in a magazine? Thirty rounds of 39 mm ammo will probably do MORE damage semi-auto than fired rock-and-roll.
How many bullets are you allowed in a magazine? Thirty rounds of 39 mm ammo will probably do MORE damage semi-auto than fired rock-and-roll.
...39mm? Well, yeah, considering anything that can fire that is pretty much a cannon and the largest caliber round any American can legally own without delving into Class 3 licenses is .50 cal (12.7mm).
As for the question of magazine capacity, that's a two answer question. Weapons with an internal magazine usually have a fixed capacity while firearms with detachable magazines can usually accept any amount you can think of short of being belt fed.
a) You can have simply carry more magazines. (like back when USA made that 10 cartridge limitation on handguns.)
b) Criminals can get bigger, illegal magazines the same way they get their illegal guns.
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/560902_526956400656914_139805376_n.jpg)
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/560902_526956400656914_139805376_n.jpg)
What bugs me is the total lack of awareness of what a straw man this is.
yes Seal Team Six killed Bin Ladin... WITH FRIGGIN GUNS! They didn't use swords or arrows or spatulas. They used GUNS! Because if you want to kill someone guns make it really really REALLY easy!
Which is the same reason psychos use guns. and that was the point of gun control. Not that guns are self aware and shoot themselves.
GAhhH!!!!
And dont' even get me started on people who compare gun deaths to auto accidents or smoking.
While I have seen some bad arguments from the gun control side, I see it a lot more blatantly among those arguing against gun control.
It's like they just don't care if what they say makes sense or advances the debate as long as it affirms what they want to believe.
There is a tired old argument that still holds some truth. All the gun control in the world does nothing to address one simple point: the people going through the process of responsibly and legally owning guns are going to be the ones dealing with the gun control processes. And generally they aren't the problem.
It seems like rather than (or in addition to) trying to figure out which guns are "good" and which are "bad", we as a nation should be looking at ways to keep guns from those who shouldn't have them while still allowing others to. That was awkwardly worded. How do you let the safe responsible owner have a gun while keeping them away from someone who isn't safe and responsible? And that's a genuine question for anyone who wants to answer it, as I've got nothing.
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/560902_526956400656914_139805376_n.jpg)
What bugs me is the total lack of awareness of what a straw man this is.
yes Seal Team Six killed Bin Ladin... WITH FRIGGIN GUNS! They didn't use swords or arrows or spatulas. They used GUNS! Because if you want to kill someone guns make it really really REALLY easy!
Which is the same reason psychos use guns. and that was the point of gun control. Not that guns are self aware and shoot themselves.
GAhhH!!!!
And dont' even get me started on people who compare gun deaths to auto accidents or smoking.
While I have seen some bad arguments from the gun control side, I see it a lot more blatantly among those arguing against gun control.
It's like they just don't care if what they say makes sense or advances the debate as long as it affirms what they want to believe.
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/560902_526956400656914_139805376_n.jpg)
What bugs me is the total lack of awareness of what a straw man this is.
yes Seal Team Six killed Bin Ladin... WITH FRIGGIN GUNS! They didn't use swords or arrows or spatulas. They used GUNS! Because if you want to kill someone guns make it really really REALLY easy!
Which is the same reason psychos use guns. and that was the point of gun control. Not that guns are self aware and shoot themselves.
GAhhH!!!!
And dont' even get me started on people who compare gun deaths to auto accidents or smoking.
While I have seen some bad arguments from the gun control side, I see it a lot more blatantly among those arguing against gun control.
It's like they just don't care if what they say makes sense or advances the debate as long as it affirms what they want to believe.
So if someone makes more bad arguments for a certain side, it makes that argument invalid?
Look, gun control isn't a solution to gun violence.
Criminals operate on a black market that already illegally transports drugs and gun modifications into America or any other country. All it does it make it less likely that someone will commit certain instances of violent crime, but most of those you can accomplish instead by using a sword or a knife.
A gun just makes it somewhat easier.
I mean, the main source of violence in the USA is gangs, poverty, lack of education, and ghettos.
Guns simply give these people a means to be violent and deadly
but they are generally not purchased from legal suppliers anyways.
America's had major federal restrictions on automatic weapons for a long time. Other stuff is state by state.
Weapon restrictions and bans historically have more to do with government control.
A gun doesn't care how rich or poor you are, doesn't care if you are fat, skinny, or muscular.
...It is an equalizer for those who who could not defend themselves without it and a terrible tool for those who cry tears of impotent rage.
Can I point out something? Pro-gun =! against gun control.The only issue is pretty much any law or rule you make isn't gonna stop criminals from getting them. That's the main issue at this point. People cry for more control like it's going to stop anything, especially when it doesn't even go after the main guns used in gun crimes, aka the Assault Weapons Ban.
Some of us simply disagree on the type of gun control we think would be the best.
I for one do not want guns in the hands of criminals and mass murderers I just want that law abiding sensible people are allowed to legally own guns.
......
The only issue is pretty much any law or rule you make isn't gonna stop criminals from getting them. That's the main issue at this point. ....
jumping around the world and comparing countries with different political systems, cultures, backgrounds, diversity and a host of other factors isn't going to say much.
Your argument against the list of things that lead to crime is that guns are used in robberies and murder..
how is a gun not a tool of defense or tool of crime?
Actually I think the issue is that so many assume that.. and then insist the rest of us to accept that assumption without good reason.
Tracking straw purchases and changing re gifting without a paper trail probably would stop some criminals. Limiting the amount of guns one can buy in a day could have an effect.
Twice now in this thread alone, I have seen at least two people respond to me saying "gun laws dont' work" and then later say some gun laws do work. You even gave an example.
.....and without a hint of cognitive dissonance to acknowledge this discrepancy.
That's my issue right now. I dont' think you guys have thought this through.
I jumped twice.. first to australia. to prove a single point.. provide an example where a law regulating guns worked. That was it. Whether that exact law would work here or if we could change it or if we should try something else wasn't even brought up by me as i recall.
Oh and you are making a Genetic Fallacy. There's no reason why something from another country/culture couldn't work here (nor why it couldn't be modified) that argument is refuted by every child in kindergarten and every person who votes. Not saying that particular law would work here. I'm saying being an Australian law doesnt' automatically mean it wouldn't work here. (did you catch how much I am bothered by fallacious arguments?)
According to FBI and CDC statistics, the majority of gun deaths aren't caused by gang bangers or muggers or bank robbers.
Can a gun act as a shield to stop bullets?
My position is that gun control laws can work to reduce gun deaths.
In 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
QuoteIn 2002 — five years after enacting its gun ban — the Australian Bureau of Criminology acknowledged there is no correlation between gun control and the use of firearms in violent crime. In fact, the percent of murders committed with a firearm was the highest it had ever been in 2006 (16.3 percent), says the D.C. Examiner.
Even Australia’s Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research acknowledges that the gun ban had no significant impact on the amount of gun-involved crime:
In 2006, assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
Moreover, Australia and the United States — where no gun-ban exists — both experienced similar decreases in murder rates:
Between 1995 and 2007, Australia saw a 31.9 percent decrease; without a gun ban, America’s rate dropped 31.7 percent.
During the same time period, all other violent crime indices increased in Australia: assault rose 49.2 percent and robbery 6.2 percent.
Sexual assault — Australia’s equivalent term for rape — increased 29.9 percent.
Overall, Australia’s violent crime rate rose 42.2 percent.
At the same time, U.S. violent crime decreased 31.8 percent: rape dropped 19.2 percent; robbery decreased 33.2 percent; aggravated assault dropped 32.2 percent.
Australian women are now raped over three times as often as American women.
...
.... It controls me, the guy that wants to remain law abiding.
.It does nothing for the people running around doing the crime..
Some gun laws do work. 1930 machine gun restriction worked, of course the main push at the time was organized crime in the bootlegging business.
By the way, straw purchases for the intent of criminal mischief is already illegal.
I think you're too busy reading what you want and taking the most literal and direct meaning to stand up and poke holes in.
And what was their gun crime prior? What's their violent crime now? Compare that to the US, or the UK, or Finland, or Somalia. No, it doesn't mean it couldn't work, but implying "it works there, it'll work here" is quite the brazen stance.
And who said those were the only catagories? robberies don't need to be just bank robbers or muggers, nor does gang related mean they have to only be the gang bangers.
I think this shows my assumption you're reading what you want and responding to it like it was the most literal meaning.
Guns don't need to act as a shield to defend.
That cop that got a perp to give up because he had a gun while the perp didn't, that's defense.
The person that's woke up in the middle of the night because people are robbing his house, his gun is for defense.What if the person doesn't wake up in time? What if the guy can't see because it's dark? What if it's not a robber but his daughter sneaking in?
In poorer parts of the world where people that don't have the strength or firepower to defend themselves until they grab a gun, that's defense.
Defense doesn't mean "makes a shield"
Btw, felt I should add; Mythbusters has shown that guns can block bullets and bullets can block bullets. It may be highly unlikely one will, but they can
QuoteMy position is that gun control laws can work to reduce gun deaths.
I have no qualms with that and agree,
@Balooy since I'm not bothering quoting that giant text block and I'm not playing the chop up the quote game. Cause that annoys me.
I'm not saying that things can't work.but you did..
Look, gun control isn't a solution to gun violence.
All it does it make it less likely that someone will commit certain instances of violent crime
I'm just saying don't be surprised if a solution that worked with one culture/geography/religion is not always a one size fits all.since I never claimed that what worked in one country would automatically work here, I would say I am unlikely to be surprised. Nor is this relevant. It is however a bit of a straw man.
There's not a fallacy is being cautious.
jumping around the world and comparing countries with different political systems, cultures, backgrounds, diversity and a host of other factors isn't going to say much.
Something might work, it might not work. Assumptions one way or the other is dumb.
the way you were talking I could only come to the assumption you were pushing for gun bans or extreme gun control.
Just you seem to be missing some of what I'm saying.
....
While I have seen some bad arguments from the gun control side, I see it a lot more blatantly among those arguing against gun control.
It's like they just don't care if what they say makes sense or advances the debate as long as it affirms what they want to believe.
I'm saying the historical precedence for arms control is controlling your population.
It never really works since if there's a demand, the supply will meet it. The people who instituted a drug ban seem to forget that. I'm telling you the strongest reason why I tend to oppose gun bans and the like.
A paper forthcoming in the American Law and Economics Review finds the buyback cut firearm suicides 74 per cent, saving 200 lives a year.
A former Australian Treasury economist, Christine Neill, now with Canada's Wilfrid Laurier University, says she found the result so surprising she tried to redo her calculations in the expectation the effect would be smaller.
''I fully expected to find no effect at all,'' she told The Age from Waterloo, Ontario. ''That we found such a big effect and that it meshed with a range of other data was just shocking, completely unexpected.''
Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/guns-buyback-saved-lives-20100829-13xmn.html#ixzz2F3adlXQk
And I was never saying that there aren't murders by angry white people. I had my focus in a certain aspect, so there's that.
Sorry if I got tangential in my argument, it's a super bad problem of mine. I don't intend to, but it happens.
So Booley, is it guns you don't like? Or is it you don't like people who like guns? Really, I'm having a hard time getting a read on that.
He doesn't like people who want mass shooters and other killers to have guns.
Because here's my point once again but reworded...
People aren't making these arguments to say we need better gun laws. they use them to say we should have fewer/weaker gun laws.
And these arguments aren't just falllacious. They are deeply deeply stupid.
This isn't to say one can't make a valid argument against any particular gun law. But few are making valid arguments.
If the people who argue against gun laws want to convince me they are responsible enough to have the ability to snuff out a human life with ease, they can start by not sounding like idiots who will accept any dumb argument as long as it reinforces what they want to believe.
Otherwise not a sign of responsibility. That's a sign that one is iresposnsible but the consequences simply haven't caught up to them yet.
And with guns, the "consequences" are generally a corpse.
If the people who argue against gun laws want to convince me they are responsible enough to have the ability to snuff out a human life with ease, they can start by not sounding like idiots who will accept any dumb argument as long as it reinforces what they want to believe.
Otherwise not a sign of responsibility. That's a sign that one is iresposnsible but the consequences simply haven't caught up to them yet.
He doesn't like people who want mass shooters and other killers to have guns.
He doesn't like people who want mass shooters and other killers to have guns.Which I don't think anyone does. In his mess to communicate this he just pisses everyone else off on the opposing side while making messes of the thread.
....
None of those laws would completely prevent people from owning guns, even if those guns would be evil, black, assault rifles.
And how would we prove that? I haven't killed anyone yet. And I say that I have not, nor will I ever, go on a mad killing spree.
While I have seen some bad arguments from the gun control side, I see it a lot more blatantly among those arguing against gun control.
.....He doesn't like people who want mass shooters and other killers to have guns.
That is a straw man.
Also, Australia has an estimated 550k to 6 million illicit firearms still in country.
Also, Australia has an estimated 550k to 6 million illicit firearms still in country.
Where did you get this number from?
Also, killing sprees should say more about the lack of mental health services than the availability of guns.
.....He doesn't like people who want mass shooters and other killers to have guns.
That is a straw man.
Sadly, no it isn't.
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/map-gun-laws-2009-2012
"want" may no be the best word. But if the people passing these laws have a problem with it, they have a strange way of showing it.
The problem isn't that guns exist, and even if it is, we're stuck with them so we need to treat the parts of the disease that we can do something about. In my not so humble opinion, America needs to get its head out of its ass and start providing meaningful social, mental, medical help for its citizens. A gun is perfectly safe in the right hands, so do what you can to keep them there.
In my not so humble opinion, America needs to get its head out of its ass and start providing meaningful social, mental, medical help for its citizens. A gun is perfectly safe in the right hands, so do what you can to keep them there.
....
Also, killing sprees should say more about the lack of mental health services than the availability of guns.
....
Also, killing sprees should say more about the lack of mental health services than the availability of guns.
Why couldn't it be about both.
And agian let me state, most homicides occur because of arguments.
It's possibly comforting to think that one has to have along and obvious history of mental illness before one decides to murder another (and many times that is the case).
Bu tit' s not true that is a prequisite.
....
Mass murderes and spree killers desire to kill as many people as possible and therefore choose a method that will let them kill a lot of people. If they won't use a gun they can use a bomb (they can find instructions on the net for something destructive) or even a car.
....
If there were good counselling services available, maybe some of those arguments wouldn't escalate to murder. It wouldn't solve the problem, but it'd probably make a good dent.
....
If there were good counselling services available, maybe some of those arguments wouldn't escalate to murder. It wouldn't solve the problem, but it'd probably make a good dent.
For some people but really this is cultural (which may explain why the southern US has more gun crimes)
It's not that people are insane.
It's that they think they need to escalate or else they are a "bitch"
Though I will say that there is some evidence that there might also be a medical cause to violent crime as well..
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/05/lead-prisons-and-crack-explaining-drop-violent-crime
In spite of the mass shootings, violent crime has actually been going down. through no one is quite sure why.
....
If they think they need to escalate or be considered a "bitch", perhaps good counselling services (not only for those who are in danger of escalation, but for those who would view them negatively) would help.
As for a medical cause, if such is shown, then good, generally available medical care might help alleviate the problem.
....
Also, killing sprees should say more about the lack of mental health services than the availability of guns.
Why couldn't it be about both.
And agian let me state, most homicides occur because of arguments.
It's possibly comforting to think that one has to have along and obvious history of mental illness before one decides to murder another (and many times that is the case).
Bu tit' s not true that is a prequisite.
So what is the answer? Bear in mind there is not a way right now to make guns go away. If they stopped making guns right now as I type this, there are still millions of guns floating around the US.
There absolutely is a way to make guns go away. Australia, for instance, used to have twice as many firearms as we currently do. Then we destroyed them all. With a halving of the number of guns (from 88 per 100 persons to 44 per 100 persons), gun crime would decline precipitously, as it did here.
There absolutely is a way to make guns go away. Australia, for instance, used to have twice as many firearms as we currently do. Then we destroyed them all. With a halving of the number of guns (from 88 per 100 persons to 44 per 100 persons), gun crime would decline precipitously, as it did here.
Voluntary compliance? Please excuse me while I chuckle sadly.
There absolutely is a way to make guns go away. Australia, for instance, used to have twice as many firearms as we currently do. Then we destroyed them all. With a halving of the number of guns (from 88 per 100 persons to 44 per 100 persons), gun crime would decline precipitously, as it did here.
Voluntary compliance? Please excuse me while I chuckle sadly.
Often involuntary, and effective in any case. Americans are hardly unique among all the world's people.
The simple fact is that regular gun massacres are a problem almost unique to the US, that mass gun ownership (also unique to the US) is the clear cause, that gun regulation would gradually reduce gun ownership and that people and politicians are scared to even talk about it in the immediate aftermath of a massacre of children caused by those unique circumstances because of the power of an American business lobby.I'm waiting for the information to clear up, but frankly he might be completely right this time and for the most frustrating reasons possible.
Do not pretend the answers are not known, or that they are complex. The solution is unbelievably simple, you just won't enact it.Unless your answer includes the phrase 'Carpet bombing' I think you're underestimating the number of issues your simple solution would cause in this country. For some people guns are just shy of a way of life, despite the complete lack of a need for one in most people's. If you've watched the main page you've seen the people who are now stockpiling guns and ammo like a second revolution is just waiting to happen. A unilateral ban would simply aggravate it to the point where those pricks would start shooting.
What was that saying?
"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns"?
Less likely than civilian hand guns being turned on their owners from what I remember.What was that saying?
"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns"?
And cops. Cops will also have guns. And the military, they might need them.
Does anyone have stats on how often civilians with guns help prevent a crime? Honestly asking.
There absolutely is a way to make guns go away. Australia, for instance, used to have twice as many firearms as we currently do. Then we destroyed them all. With a halving of the number of guns (from 88 per 100 persons to 44 per 100 persons), gun crime would decline precipitously, as it did here.
Voluntary compliance? Please excuse me while I chuckle sadly.
Often involuntary, and effective in any case. Americans are hardly unique among all the world's people.
So, who'll propose a repeal of the Second Amendment, then? (Or maybe a rewording to make it utterly plain that you can only keep and bear arms if you're part of a state militia.)
What was that saying?
"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will own guns"?
Bearing in mind, Australia is quite a bit smaller and less segmented than the USA is.
The simple fact is that regular gun massacres are a problem almost unique to the US, that mass gun ownership (also unique to the US) is the clear cause, that gun regulation would gradually reduce gun ownership and that people and politicians are scared to even talk about it in the immediate aftermath of a massacre of children caused by those unique circumstances because of the power of an American business lobby.Because from what I'm hearing(and this could be complete bunk) the gun control laws ALMOST worked. The guy couldn't get a gun himself. But his mother had them, so he took one, killed her, and went on this spree.
Unless your answer includes the phrase 'Carpet bombing' I think you're underestimating the number of issues your simple solution would cause in this country. For some people guns are just shy of a way of life, despite the complete lack of a need for one in most people's. If you've watched the main page you've seen the people who are now stockpiling guns and ammo like a second revolution is just waiting to happen. A unilateral ban would simply aggravate it to the point where those pricks would start shooting.
QuoteUnless your answer includes the phrase 'Carpet bombing' I think you're underestimating the number of issues your simple solution would cause in this country. For some people guns are just shy of a way of life, despite the complete lack of a need for one in most people's. If you've watched the main page you've seen the people who are now stockpiling guns and ammo like a second revolution is just waiting to happen. A unilateral ban would simply aggravate it to the point where those pricks would start shooting.
Political problems, not practical ones. Frankly, if idiots start shooting when a majority of citizens enact commonsense best-practice gun laws, have the army shoot them.
So, who'll propose a repeal of the Second Amendment, then? (Or maybe a rewording to make it utterly plain that you can only keep and bear arms if you're part of a state militia.)
I don't care. That's a political problem, not a moral or practical problem.
The mother would not have had a gun to be stolen in any other country on Earth.
Political problems, not practical ones. Frankly, if idiots start shooting when a majority of citizens enact commonsense best-practice gun laws, have the army shoot them.
Often involuntary, and effective in any case. Americans are hardly unique among all the world's people.
There is a reason we see shooting like this far more than bombing even when a bomb can do far more damage. It is rare that a person would have all the components to make a bomb at the ready.
I have a question.
If guns are banned, how does a farmer stop a fox or racoon from destroying his livelyhood?
All it takes is one rabid fox to infect a whole herd of cattle.
One racoon can kill hundreds of chickens in an hour.
Coyotes are another problem for farmers. A pack can bring down a bull in minutes.
If you call animal control, they might show up the next day with a live trap... or they might take a week to get to you. Meanwhile, everything you own is being destroyed.
I love the, 'guns are tools.' argument. The problem with it is, real tools like hammers, screwdrivers, and even knives have non-injuring uses, like, I don't know, building buildings, fixing devices, etc.
Guns have one, ONE use . . . to hurt people or damage objects. The only gun that can do otherwise is a nailgun, so until they invent AK-47's that can repai damaged pipes or attach objects to walls, they are NOT tools!
.....
Then again there are also mass/spree killings which had been planned for a long time. And in those cases building a bomb is a very real and dangerous possibility.Quote
quite a few mass murders were pre planned. some of them even had explosives.
but explosives were not the primary weapon used here.
and even when a bomb was (unabomber, atlanta olympics) the death toll wasn't as horrific.
Guns are simply betterQuoteI don't think mixing up something that will blow up is that hard. Proper fuze or timed detonator might require more skill and equipment.
think of it this way.
You mess up with a gun, a modicrum of care should keep you from shooting your self.
Mess up with a bomb, you blow yourself up
why do you think terrorists put such high regard for skilled gun makers?
A large stick. Or any of the other pre-rifling methods we used to use.
Or proper fencing, that can accomplish a lot too.
So, those guns that are 'still out there,' who has them?So what is the answer? Bear in mind there is not a way right now to make guns go away. If they stopped making guns right now as I type this, there are still millions of guns floating around the US.
There absolutely is a way to make guns go away. Australia, for instance, used to have twice as many firearms as we currently do. Then we destroyed them all. With a halving of the number of guns (from 88 per 100 persons to 44 per 100 persons), gun crime would decline precipitously, as it did here.
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense.
How do you make people comply with laws? A very difficult question. Traditionally the most effective methods, known as 'a police force' and 'prison', have not quite been completely effective.
....
The question is how do you make those people comply with the law? If you can answer that Fred, I'll nominate you for the Nobel Peace Prize.
How do you make people comply with laws? A very difficult question. Traditionally the most effective methods, known as 'a police force' and 'prison', have not quite been completely effective.
So basically, your solution to the problem ofhow to make people abide by bans of certain firearmsrape/murder/drug dealing is to round them all up and put them in jail for victimless crimes.
How do you make people comply with laws? A very difficult question. Traditionally the most effective methods, known as 'a police force' and 'prison', have not quite been completely effective.
So basically, your solution to the problem ofhow to make people abide by bans of certain firearmsrape/murder/drug dealing is to round them all up and put them in jail for victimless crimes.
victimless crimes
victimless crimes
victimless crimes
Do you think gun violence is a victimless crime?
Do you think gun violence is a victimless crime?
Yes, but owning a gun isn't. Do you seriously think that every single gun owner is a public menace who should be thrown in prison?
I found this (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm) to be interesting. A little more than 3000 more people died in 2009 from vehicular accidents than were killed from firearms. Or one more person per hundred thousand. So in America it seems cars are a greater threat than guns. Why is nobody talking about banning certain kinds of cars?I hate this argument.
.....
Yes, but owning a gun isn't. Do you seriously think that every single gun owner is a public menace who should be thrown in prison?
Just out of curiosity anyone know if there have been any school shootings at private schools?
I found this (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm) to be interesting. A little more than 3000 more people died in 2009 from vehicular accidents than were killed from firearms. Or one more person per hundred thousand. So in America it seems cars are a greater threat than guns. Why is nobody talking about banning certain kinds of cars?I hate this argument.
.....
But, to make a very clear statement of those in favor of gun control rather outright banning:
We want to be sure you aren't going to turn it on someone else, that you are competent enough to handle it properly, and that you will take sufficent precautions to keep the weapon out of the hands of someone who does not fit the last two categories. The last part is really the part to stress.
....
The question is how do you make those people comply with the law? If you can answer that Fred, I'll nominate you for the Nobel Peace Prize.
what abou tthos that did comply with the law?
what about those people who couldn't get these illegal guns?
did gun violence go down?
as far as suicide, it appears it did.
I guess my thing here is we don't expect 100% compliance with any other law to judge it effective.
Except it seems, for guns.
BTW, apparently we do ban at least one kind of gun and it seems to have worked.
We dont' seem to have had a rash of plastic guns. With 3D printing that may change but so far criminals seem to be using what they can get easily.
You essentially accused me of valuing gun rights over lives?
In case you flunked history, we did try gun control starting in the '80s after Reagan was shot, further reinforced by the "assault weapons" ban of the '90s. Guess what? NEITHER OF THEM WORKED. Why?
You essentially accused me of valuing gun rights over lives?
That's the only honest argument I can see.
Tell you what, Fred, I'm a reasonable guy. You said that prioritizing mental health would be too expensive.
As for gun laws, I'm for them within reason, so long as they don't infringe on the liberties of lawful owners.
Make an explicit argument or shut up. Argument by implication is fallacious.
Reading comprehension problems again?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
Write better laws.
Now restrictions on certain types and accessories would be much better. Let's not compare a semi-auto .22 rifle to a AR-15. It's stupid.
There is a reason the US military use certain types of guns over others. Certain weapons have been designed for combat and killing multiply people. These types of weapons do not need to be in the hands of the general public. That includes semi-auto versions.
...and finally no firearm should be in the same home as a person with mental health issues.
There is a reason the US military use certain types of guns over others. Certain weapons have been designed for combat and killing multiply people. These types of weapons do not need to be in the hands of the general public. That includes semi-auto versions.
Semi-auto versions that are functionally no different than a typical hunting rifle and, in fact, fire a much lighter weight bullet than those same hunting rifles.
Anyone ever think that we are way past a tipping point with guns? Even if somehow a ban was to be become law, it would cause a civil war trying to get them off the street. And then all the guns we have sent south of the border would come flying back north. Buy-backs and turn ins like in the UK and Australia just wouldn't work here.
There is a reason the US military use certain types of guns over others. Certain weapons have been designed for combat and killing multiply people. These types of weapons do not need to be in the hands of the general public. That includes semi-auto versions.
Semi-auto versions that are functionally no different than a typical hunting rifle and, in fact, fire a much lighter weight bullet than those same hunting rifles.
Hm, question on this, though: wouldn't the momentum and kinetic energy of the bullet matter? The bullet can be lighter, but if it can be fired with a higher velocity, couldn't the increase in those two quantities at least partly make up for its lighter weight?
No, it isn't. Functionally they are identical. Functionally they both fire a single round per pull of the trigger. You want to know what else is functionally identical? The M14 and M1 Garand. And you know what else is interesting about both of those rifles? The round they fire is fucking huge and the Garand has an effective range of 440 yards and can take box magazines.
Semi-auto versions that are functionally no different than a typical hunting rifle and, in fact, fire a much lighter weight bullet than those same hunting rifles.
So if you are going to hunt small game a .22 is not going to be better than a .30-06? If you are going to kill big game functionally they are the same?
Last time I went hunting I don't recall needing a 20 round mag and a rifle designed to quickly engage multiple targets. Perhaps you have had deer try and over run your positions, but I have not.
Different rifles are designed to do different things. An AR-15, M-16 and an M1 Garand were all designed to be used in combat and kill people.
Different rifles are designed to do different things. An AR-15, M-16 and an M1 Garand were all designed to be used in combat and kill people.
....
But right now, in the wake of the tragedy in Conn., you are being drowned out by the likes of Fred and Sylvanya.
Most reasonable people, gun owners and not, would like to see reasonable restrictions. We can argue about what's reasonable. I bet we could all hammer it out given the chance to sit down and do it.
I have read this four times and I still have no idea what you're saying.
Oh? When you're out hunting small game do you not want a very accurate rifle that can fire a small enough projectile to not damage the target excessively and be able to hit the target from far enough away to keep from spooking and scaring it into bolting? Because if that's the case then by all means, find something other than an AR-15 with one of the many 5 round magazines they make to use for hunting. Maybe that shotgun loaded with deer slugs would be better for you to shoot that rabbit with.
Different
Yes, and the Remington 700 was designed to be used to hunt medium and big game but it's been used in combat and to kill people too. I guess what whatever a rifle's origins might be that doesn't keep it from branching out into other areas, eh?
The thing is that if you put a five round magazine in an AR-15 what you have is a modern semi-automatic hunting rifle that is well suited to its environment. It is light weight, compact, robust, and allows for rapid follow up shots if you miss or only wound your target. Strip off the bayonet lug and the M1 makes a damn fine long range hunting rifle although its magazine design is kind of lacking (mind you, it is also an old, old design).
The only gun that really incorporates significant features for use in combat is the M-16 with its selective fire capability.
yeah I know you weren't speaking to me. sorry.
I am not sure it's the likes of fred or sylvania (or me) that's your problem.
I think it's the gun lobby that's your problem.
Well ..... reasonable is a rather loaded term. Everyone thinks they are being reasonable. I have yet to find anyone who honestly said "I am being unreasonable and I am going to continue doing what I am doing.."
But one way to tell if one is beign reasonable is how reasonable one appears to others. (not a perfect way but it's a start)
And how do many gun owners appear to others?
The best way to determine that is to look at who represents them.
So... is having doctors being able to ask about guns in the home reasonable?
Is limiting the number of guns one can buy at one time, even though you can still get these guns over time, to avoid someone accumulating an instant arsenal reasonable?
Is requiring a transfer of ownership every time a gun is sold or gifted (even if it's within the same state) reasonable?
Are child safety locks reasonable?
Because you know all of these things have ben opposed by the people who say they represent gun owners.. the gun lobby. Indeed, Ia m hard pressed to think of any "solution" to gun violence they have supported that wasn't essentially give more access to guns.
Yes I know there are 60 million gun owners and only 4 million members of the NRA but seriously, when we hear the "pro gun" side on any story, where do you think those talking points are coming from? IF there's some other, more 'reasonable" group on the pro gun side, they are not evident to the rest of us.
I don't think the problem for gun owners are people who want more fire arms regulation, not even that small group of Americans that seriously wants to ban all guns.
I think your problem is your own press (that for one thing, conflates any gun control laws with banning all guns)
The thing is that if you put a five round magazine in an AR-15 what you have is a modern semi-automatic hunting rifle that is well suited to its environment. It is light weight, compact, robust, and allows for rapid follow up shots if you miss or only wound your target. Strip off the bayonet lug and the M1 makes a damn fine long range hunting rifle although its magazine design is kind of lacking (mind you, it is also an old, old design).
The only gun that really incorporates significant features for use in combat is the M-16 with its selective fire capability.
Some of those feathers you mentioned also make it a good weapon to go on a shooting spree with. You do not need a selector switch for a gun to be designed for combat. When you hunt you really don't do a lot of maneuvering so you really don't need a light weight, compact gun. A good hunting rifle is much closer to a sniper rifle and an infantry weapon.
You do what those things when hunting small game. Thing is out of a .22 rifle a shot gun and an AR-15 which is the best for killing a bunch of people in a short amount of time?
Some of those feathers you mentioned also make it a good weapon to go on a shooting spree with. You do not need a selector switch for a gun to be designed for combat. When you hunt you really don't do a lot of maneuvering so you really don't need a light weight, compact gun. A good hunting rifle is much closer to a sniper rifle and an infantry weapon.
If you think that compact, lightweight semi-automatics with detachable magazines are too dangerous, that is a perfectly reasonable argument to make, but phrase it that way because if you don't you are reduced to "it's too scary looking" and for every bonified assault rifle derivative out there there are probably a half dozen non-assault rifles with the same specs and are just as deadly. I'm sorry, and I mean this as no slight to you, it is just a general observation, but the phrase 'assault rifle ban' screams I don't know anything about guns and just want the scary looking ones gone. That just gets peoples backs up and does to the pro gun side what screaming 'they're gonna take our guns away,' and 'second amendment, bitch' does to to the gun control side.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
I'm not quite sure if you're deliberately misunderstanding the problem. Or if you're arguing from a purely ideological standpoint.
Write better laws.
No Galileo, I don't care what your telescope shows you, the sun goes around the earth because I make the rules and you will follow them.
-Pope Urban VIII
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
I'm not quite sure if you're deliberately misunderstanding the problem. Or if you're arguing from a purely ideological standpoint.
Your argument was fallacious. Lots of people believe X. X remains wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
I'm not quite sure if you're deliberately misunderstanding the problem. Or if you're arguing from a purely ideological standpoint.
Your argument was fallacious. Lots of people believe X. X remains wrong.
Lots of people believe X. X remains wrong. Politician notices that lots of people believe X, therefore votes in line with X, even if he knows that X is wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
I'm not quite sure if you're deliberately misunderstanding the problem. Or if you're arguing from a purely ideological standpoint.
Your argument was fallacious. Lots of people believe X. X remains wrong.
Lots of people believe X. X remains wrong. Politician notices that lots of people believe X, therefore votes in line with X, even if he knows that X is wrong.
Still fallacious. Instead of the merits of policy X, you're basing your estimation of the value of policy X in the views of everyone else about policy X.
The thinking goes like this:
Most people want Y
The government should do whatever most people want it to do
Therefore, I think Y is the best
Write better laws.
No Galileo, I don't care what your telescope shows you, the sun goes around the earth because I make the rules and you will follow them.
-Pope Urban VIII
What is this supposed to be?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
I'm not quite sure if you're deliberately misunderstanding the problem. Or if you're arguing from a purely ideological standpoint.
Your argument was fallacious. Lots of people believe X. X remains wrong.
Lots of people believe X. X remains wrong. Politician notices that lots of people believe X, therefore votes in line with X, even if he knows that X is wrong.
Still fallacious. Instead of the merits of policy X, you're basing your estimation of the value of policy X in the views of everyone else about policy X.
The thinking goes like this:
Most people want Y
The government should do whatever most people want it to do
Therefore, I think Y is the best
Of course that's fallacious.
Write better laws.
No Galileo, I don't care what your telescope shows you, the sun goes around the earth because I make the rules and you will follow them.
-Pope Urban VIII
What is this supposed to be?
You, and your refusal to actually see what actually is and your insistence in seeing it as you wish to.
A glib response to a glib suggestion. You cannot write a law that will work for the U.S. because it will either be toothless feelgood crap that accomplishes nothing and be ignored or it will violate the constitution in multiple places.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
I'm not quite sure if you're deliberately misunderstanding the problem. Or if you're arguing from a purely ideological standpoint.
Your argument was fallacious. Lots of people believe X. X remains wrong.
Lots of people believe X. X remains wrong. Politician notices that lots of people believe X, therefore votes in line with X, even if he knows that X is wrong.
Still fallacious. Instead of the merits of policy X, you're basing your estimation of the value of policy X in the views of everyone else about policy X.
The thinking goes like this:
Most people want Y
The government should do whatever most people want it to do
Therefore, I think Y is the best
Of course that's fallacious.
Good, so you admit to being wrong. That's excellent.
You do what those things when hunting small game. Thing is out of a .22 rifle a shot gun and an AR-15 which is the best for killing a bunch of people in a short amount of time?
You want the cold hard truth? All of them.
Part of the reason why I think constitutions are silly. You might change or reinterpret the constitution, of course.
Wyvern:
First thing's first:
So people like me, Damen, and Rookie are Rambo-wannabe gun humpers to you? Seriously? *burns the strawman*
Your argument's been addressed earlier in the thread. Most of the guns they're looking to ban aren't even used in most crimes. And by-the-by, stop acting like some pro-life group trying to stop someone from going into a Planned Parenthood. I'm no more keen on kids getting killed than you are, but I'm not gonna stand there being compared to some murderous slimeball just because someone decided to get on their high horse.
So people like me, Damen, and Rookie are Rambo-wannabe gun humpers to you? Seriously? *burns the strawman*
Canadian Mojo: DAMN, sorry, my bad, man. And I believe you on owning more guns than I do. Nothing wrong with that!That's okay, nobody suspects us Canadians. ;D
No kids, and only three, a .22 rimfire for varmints, 20-gauge shotgun (given to me by my dad), and a 9mm Ruger. I keep them all locked up and unloaded when not in use. I also plan to get my concealed-carry permit AND a .454 revolver or an M1911A1 as soon as possible. There's been bears, coyotes, and mountain lions sighted around the farm, and I'm seeing the pawprints to prove it. And a bear will just laugh off 9mms. Here's hoping I'll never have to use a gun in my own defense or the defense of others.
And before you handwave me for not having kids, I DO have two nephews and a niece. Not that such is any business of yours. When people try to hide behind kids as a reason for their bad behavior, I take it poorly. I treat the pro-life groups with contempt (my view on them is "I don't negotiate with terrorists", but that's another thread). And if I did have kids, I'd make DAMN sure they knew those guns weren't toys, and that they got properly educated in what they can do only AFTER learning gun safety. I do the same for my nephews and niece.
I mainly use my firearms to hunt. Thankfully, as of yet, I've had no reason to use one in defense of any cows on the farm, but the coyotes and bears have been getting bolder, and that's a cause for concern.
Wrong.
There is a reason the AR-15 is modeled after the M-16, and why that gun is used by the military. It is not that is looks scary as Canadian Mojo pointed out, but that it is a weapon that is very very good a hitting multiple targets pretty quickly. That is exactly why it is used by police forces and for competition shooters. It is also why it is a good gun for some nut job to use and shoot up a school.
I really don't care how many people use it safely each year. Weapons such as this should not be in the hands of civilians. It holds to many round, it is to portable and simply to easy for some to use in this sort of thing.
To put things into perspective: I own a slingshot. More specifically, a "wrist rocket"
Not one of those dinky little toy ones, this one is designed for the hunting of small game. And I believe it'd be very effective at it, too. I use it for target practice to improve my hand eye coordination.
I imagine it'd also be able to seriously injure any human being should I be foolish enough to use it in such a manner.
Should we ban all slingshots now, simply because of what some of them might do?
Lt. Fred. I'm a gunowner. I own a couple of longarms and a handgun, and I've always done so legally. I keep them locked up when not in use, and I'm very, VERY careful about how I store them. So, why should I trade my right to carry, in the name of your security?
I see I'm not the only one with that very real possibility, Spaceprog. I'm hearing a lot more of the yippy little things myself. A pack recently killed one of my neighbors' horses. I hope I won't have to use my guns to stop them from going after my animals, but it's a real possibility.
Tell you what, Fred, I'm a reasonable guy. You said that prioritizing mental health would be too expensive. Frankly, it would be even more so to leave it unaddressed, both in long-term care and in lives. Of course, prescriptions alone won't be the answer, and if anything, overprescription is part of the problem. That would mean putting our trust back in doctors and shrinks rather than in pill bottles and those who profit from it.So that's a no.
As for gun laws, I'm for them within reason, so long as they don't infringe on the liberties of lawful owners. And Fred, if you can't answer my arguments, say so. Funny how that works both ways.
To put things into perspective: I own a slingshot. More specifically, a "wrist rocket"
Not one of those dinky little toy ones, this one is designed for the hunting of small game. And I believe it'd be very effective at it, too. I use it for target practice to improve my hand eye coordination.
I imagine it'd also be able to seriously injure any human being should I be foolish enough to use it in such a manner.
Should we ban all slingshots now, simply because of what some of them might do?
I may be a tad naive or uninformed about the dexterity of the human body, but I do think that an assault rifle is a bit more lethal than a slingshot.
To put things into perspective: I own a slingshot. More specifically, a "wrist rocket"
Not one of those dinky little toy ones, this one is designed for the hunting of small game. And I believe it'd be very effective at it, too. I use it for target practice to improve my hand eye coordination.
I imagine it'd also be able to seriously injure any human being should I be foolish enough to use it in such a manner.
Should we ban all slingshots now, simply because of what some of them might do?
I may be a tad naive or uninformed about the dexterity of the human body, but I do think that an assault rifle is a bit more lethal than a slingshot. I also think that setting up a straw man in which any kind of regulation is comparable to a complete ban of all weapons is a poor debate tactic.
I may be a tad naive or uninformed about the dexterity of the human body, but I do think that an assault rifle is a bit more lethal than a slingshot.
QoH, I don't want you to think I'm taking a shot at you personally (no pun intended) but I want to comment on the phrase "more lethan than X" because I've seen it before, here and elsewhere, and I want to address it specifically.
When it comes to lethality, there's only one level. One firearm isn't more or less lethal than another. All of them are potentially lethal because an AR-15 won't make someone more dead than a .22LR pistol.
*edit*
Also, my 900th post.
Considering that I am arguing with people who are calling for a complete ban for all civilian weapons, I'm quite frankly insulted by this.
Also, lethal is lethal. If I kill someone with a slingshot, they are not less dead.
Also, lethal is lethal. If I kill someone with a slingshot, they are not less dead.
Damen, I've said it before that I'm not very gun savvy, but I know that if a nutjob went on a rampage in a place like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:L%27Enfant_Plaza_upper_level,_facing_outbound.jpg), I would rather him be armed with a pistol than an assault rifle. Things like shot time, bullet distance, and clip size make a huge difference in the difference between 30 casualties and 15. Second, when your criteria is "more dead" you're willfully being dense so as to skew the debate to your side. A slingshot would only be lethal if it was a near perfect shot (made up number, I'm guessing less than 0.1% of slingshot shots are lethal). A knife in the hand of the Chinese man didn't cause any deaths. An assault rifle in the hands of Lanza killed 26 women and children. Don't look at this as a "more dead/less dead issue." Look at it percentage wise in which one would cause the most deaths in the most effective manner.
Finally, as a gun owner/enthusiast with extensive firearm knowledge, you have an obligation to this gun debate that you are willfully ignoring. You know these things better than everyone else on this board. Make suggestions (on bans & regulations) that would burden hunters/recreational shooters little if at all and save lives at the same time. To date, I haven't seen you make one suggestion and actually scoff at plenty of reasonable ones that in no way could burden recreation users based on "what ifs." When a compromise in this thread is "lets restrict gun sales to six a year" I'm baffled. If a person wants to buy 6 guns a year, I don't want this lunatic owning any! At the same time, realize using a semi-automatic, 30 clip assault rifle to hunt dear may be overkill. If the deer gets away, it's not the end of the world and compromising something like this to save lives is more than reasonable in my opinion. The more you (general you @ reasonable gun owners) shirk this responsibility the more people compare you to the gun nuts in the NRA and the more of a disservice you do to your position.
I'm going to agree with QoH here. Starting with the premise that a complete ban of guns was never an option*, what should the solution be? No extended clips? Close the gun show loophole? A limit on number of guns and/or ammo that can be bought at one time?
* A complete ban will never happen. The Second Amendment would never allow it, and public opinion is very much against it anyway.
A couple of questions;His mother had one, he got to them, killed her, and continued on his merry way. At least that's the story I'm hearing.
1. How did he get access to the gun? I don't see how someone so mentally ill could be sold a rifle, no questions asked.
2. How was he allowed to walk through a school with a rifle in hand? It's not like he could've hid it. Why didn't anyone immediately call the cops or tell everyone over the intercoms to lock their doors?Because you can walk into schools without being subjected to so much as a glance. Not many places are so fucking paranoid as to have full time staff covering all doors to a school. I can get in and out of my HS 10 years later despite them now having an offical cop, and I don't look like a student anymore. If it was during classes odds are no one even noticed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum
I'm not quite sure if you're deliberately misunderstanding the problem. Or if you're arguing from a purely ideological standpoint.
Your argument was fallacious. Lots of people believe X. X remains wrong.
Anyways, general question for anyone who wants to answer. What exactly is the difference between an assault rifle (that s a civilian version semiautomatic) of any stripe, be it the ARs, Klashnikovs, or any other type and a semiautomatic hunting rifle of the same caliber?Off the top of my head, weight distribution and reload speed. At least going by my grandfather's old guns. I can't think of a gun he owned that didn't use an internal magazine you had to load round by round. Hunting rifles are generally weapons you intend to aim carefully with and shoot once, military rifles and their derivatives are generally better balanced for quick target acquisition and quick loading.
I'm going to agree with QoH here. Starting with the premise that a complete ban of guns was never an option*, what should the solution be? No extended clips? Close the gun show loophole? A limit on number of guns and/or ammo that can be bought at one time?
* A complete ban will never happen. The Second Amendment would never allow it, and public opinion is very much against it anyway.
I had a thought. So the Constitution (which isn't going anywhere despite Fred's objections) specifically mentions militias in the 2nd Amendment. How about if legal owners were required to join a club (which shall henceforth be called a militia)? They would have to openly join and abide by any bylaws and pay any dues the militia requires. The militia could then use the dues to purchase tracts of land to hunt, run target ranges, offer safe secure storage, offer gun education classes, the list goes on. Basically they would operate like gun clubs now, only membership would be required for gun ownership. And they would have to keep records of members.
I see. How many shooters have you got in your little arsenal then? Another question. You have any children?
I had a thought. So the Constitution (which isn't going anywhere despite Fred's objections) specifically mentions militias in the 2nd Amendment. How about if legal owners were required to join a club (which shall henceforth be called a militia)? They would have to openly join and abide by any bylaws and pay any dues the militia requires. The militia could then use the dues to purchase tracts of land to hunt, run target ranges, offer safe secure storage, offer gun education classes, the list goes on. Basically they would operate like gun clubs now, only membership would be required for gun ownership. And they would have to keep records of members.
The exact wording of the Constitution doesn't matter, what matters is interpretation. Summarizing DC v. Heller (2008) "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."
The decision also states that, if I'm reading it right, the right to guns extends to both citizens and militias on the grounds that "history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people's arms."
Therefore "We therefore believe that the most likely reading of [some] pre-Second Amendment state constitutional provisions is that they secured an individual right to bear arms for defensive purposes." I would try to summarize it more, but Scalia has a really convoluted way of writing.
I had a thought. So the Constitution (which isn't going anywhere despite Fred's objections) specifically mentions militias in the 2nd Amendment. How about if legal owners were required to join a club (which shall henceforth be called a militia)? They would have to openly join and abide by any bylaws and pay any dues the militia requires. The militia could then use the dues to purchase tracts of land to hunt, run target ranges, offer safe secure storage, offer gun education classes, the list goes on. Basically they would operate like gun clubs now, only membership would be required for gun ownership. And they would have to keep records of members.
The exact wording of the Constitution doesn't matter, what matters is interpretation. Summarizing DC v. Heller (2008) "In sum, we hold that the District's ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate self-defense."
The decision also states that, if I'm reading it right, the right to guns extends to both citizens and militias on the grounds that "history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people's arms."
Therefore "We therefore believe that the most likely reading of [some] pre-Second Amendment state constitutional provisions is that they secured an individual right to bear arms for defensive purposes." I would try to summarize it more, but Scalia has a really convoluted way of writing.
For better or worse, Canada has a 'not withstanding' clause that essentially lets the government say fuck the constitution when they feel they need to. I shudder to think of what some of your states would do with it though.
2. How was he allowed to walk through a school with a rifle in hand? It's not like he could've hid it. Why didn't anyone immediately call the cops or tell everyone over the intercoms to lock their doors?Because you can walk into schools without being subjected to so much as a glance. Not many places are so fucking paranoid as to have full time staff covering all doors to a school. I can get in and out of my HS 10 years later despite them now having an offical cop, and I don't look like a student anymore. If it was during classes odds are no one even noticed.
Yeah, but her was carrying a rifle. How do you just walk through a school carrying a rifle and no one looks at you twice? Hell, they were suspending children for making gun motions with their hands!I'm saying it's entirely possible no one even saw him until he started shooting.
Or are 'hand guns' more dangerous than actual rifles?
Damen, I've said it before that I'm not very gun savvy, but I know that if a nutjob went on a rampage in a place like this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:L%27Enfant_Plaza_upper_level,_facing_outbound.jpg), I would rather him be armed with a pistol than an assault rifle. Things like shot time, bullet distance, and clip size make a huge difference in the difference between 30 casualties and 15.
Second, when your criteria is "more dead" you're willfully being dense so as to skew the debate to your side. A slingshot would only be lethal if it was a near perfect shot (made up number, I'm guessing less than 0.1% of slingshot shots are lethal).
A knife in the hand of the Chinese man didn't cause any deaths.
An assault rifle in the hands of Lanza killed 26 women and children. Don't look at this as a "more dead/less dead issue." Look at it percentage wise in which one would cause the most deaths in the most effective manner.
Finally, as a gun owner/enthusiast with extensive firearm knowledge, you have an obligation to this gun debate that you are willfully ignoring. You know these things better than everyone else on this board. Make suggestions (on bans & regulations) that would burden hunters/recreational shooters little if at all and save lives at the same time. To date, I haven't seen you make one suggestion and actually scoff at plenty of reasonable ones that in no way could burden recreation users based on "what ifs."
When a compromise in this thread is "lets restrict gun sales to six a year" I'm baffled. If a person wants to buy 6 guns a year, I don't want this lunatic owning any!
At the same time, realize using a semi-automatic, 30 clip assault rifle to hunt dear may be overkill. If the deer gets away, it's not the end of the world
and compromising something like this to save lives is more than reasonable in my opinion.
The more you (general you @ reasonable gun owners) shirk this responsibility the more people compare you to the gun nuts in the NRA and the more of a disservice you do to your position.
A couple of questions;
1. How did he get access to the gun? I don't see how someone so mentally ill could be sold a rifle, no questions asked.
2. How was he allowed to walk through a school with a rifle in hand? It's not like he could've hid it. Why didn't anyone immediately call the cops or tell everyone over the intercoms to lock their doors?
Ok. That is mostly true of older guns. However about 8 years ago I bought a Winchester 30.06 semiautomatic. It came with a detachable magazine that holds five rounds. So I could walk around the woods with six bullets ready to go (five in the magazine and one in the chamber). It is gas operated just like the rifles I named, same caliber as the venerable AK. And I'm pretty sure you can rechamber the AR to take the same round (Damen, help me out on this one please).
I had a thought. So the Constitution (which isn't going anywhere despite Fred's objections) specifically mentions militias in the 2nd Amendment. How about if legal owners were required to join a club (which shall henceforth be called a militia)? They would have to openly join and abide by any bylaws and pay any dues the militia requires. The militia could then use the dues to purchase tracts of land to hunt, run target ranges, offer safe secure storage, offer gun education classes, the list goes on. Basically they would operate like gun clubs now, only membership would be required for gun ownership. And they would have to keep records of members.
SpaceProg: Believe me, I have plenty of respect for the yotes. I respect what they can do to cattle and animals, and I respect their role in nature. I can respect something and be annoyed by it at the same time. I don't kill without very good reason. Thanks, SpaceProg.Oh I didn't think you did. It was mostly a general FYI to whoever would give a damn. It's cool you respect them, but as a fellow animal on this planet, you have your territory you need to protect too. If I were to have to kill a coyote, I wonder what I'd do with the body? Other than skin it and maybe doing something with the skeleton... I just don't know. Eating the meat would be too much to me like eating the family dog... which coys are dogs...
Do you know that most pistol ranges are 25 yards long? At that distance a shooter with a pistol has the ability to put rounds inside the 10 ring and the better shooters can keep the spread inside of 2 inches. That means that in the area you depicted, a murderer could still kill the guy in the blue sweater across the platform getting onto the escalator.
I'm sorry you think I'm trying to obscure the debate but I'm not. The idea of something being "more lethal" is silly. And a comparison to using a slingshot isn't as far fetched as you'd think it is. When slingshots were first developed, it was as a hunting tool. And people still use them (http://slingshotforum.com/forum/23-slingshot-hunting/) for hunting today. Slingshots are quite lethal.
New York in 2007 and 2008 saw a decline in firearm homicide and homicide of all kinds but at the same time fatal stabbings jumped (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/nyregion/28knives.html) by 50%.
Okay, I'm perfectly willing to look at the numbers. And the numbers state that even though "assault rifles" can fire one round per pull of the trigger and can reach out to longer distances and were used on the mass killings, they still only account for less than 2% (http://times247.com/articles/crs-under-2-of-gun-crimes-involve-assault-weapons) of firearms used in the commission of a crime. According to the numbers, the most common weapon used in homicides are handguns (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-20).
Talking about the reason I'm against microstamping on firing pins? The largest reason I'm against it is because all it can do is lead you back to the last owner, is easily defeated and we still don't know how it would work when a person needs to purchase a replacement firing pin.
But you want some suggestions on how to ease gun violence that won't excessively burden legal owners? Okie dokie.
-More comprehensive background checks that include mental health records.
-Better access to mental health facilities.
-Subsidized purchases and installations of gun safes.
-Limit the velocity of rifle rounds.
-Require private sales to have a transaction record submitted to the BATF.
-Subsidized firearm safety and handling courses.
Regardless of what rifle a person uses to hunt with, legally the most rounds that can be used to hunt with in a rifle is five rounds. That's why they make 5 round magazines (http://www.midwayusa.com/product/593609/ar-stoner-magazine-ar-15-223-remington-5-round-with-anti-tilt-follower-stainless-steel-black) for the AR-15.
It's amusing that you think I'm wrong, it really is.
You don't think a .22 is as lethal as any other bullet? This guy (http://www.snipershide.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=503007) conducted a wee little experiment and found he was able to put .22LR rounds through a target turkey wrapped in three layers of clothing at 250 yards. And here's a video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZBc5VGH5dg) of a .22LR at 25 yards going through carpet, a 1 inch wood plank and a 1 gallon jug of water. But you want more proof that the .22LR is just as deadly as a .223? One of the pistols used by Seung-Hui Cho when he committed the Virginia Tech massacre was a Walther P22; a pistol chambered in .22LR.
So no, I'm not wrong. A .22LR will kill you just as dead as a .223 and will do it with zero recoil to allow for an even faster follow-up shot than you'd get with a .223. To say otherwise is a sign of ignorance.
Here's something else that I find amusing; no one has been calling to ban the Ruger Mini-14 or called it an "assault weapon" or complained about how it's "designed to kill as many people in as short amount of time as possible" when every single argument against the AR-15 can be used against the Mini-14. The Mini-14 is chambered in .223, it takes detachable box magazines, it has very little recoil to allow for rapid follow-up shots, it's light weight and it was designed off of the military's M14 battle rifle. But no one was scared of it because it has wood furniture instead of plastic and had a half-grip instead of a pistol grip.
In fact, when the Assault Weapons Ban was the law of the land, the Mini-14 was able to skirt a lot of the provisions in that law. And in many ways it can be more dangerous than the AR-15 because of the way the bolt is designed you can completely remove the stock and add a pistol grip and make the rifle much, much shorter (and thus more concealable) than you can with an AR-15.
The AR-15 is no more dangerous than any other rifle chambered in that caliber or even a .22LR, no matter how much you wish otherwise. This includes the Mini-14 and the whole host of bolt-action and other semi-auto rifles that are out there. The gun isn't the dangerous part, it's the bullet.
The federal US government should place a heavy sin tax on guns and an even heavier one on bullets. Perhaps part of this could be a heavy yearly cost for registered guns. Make the punishment for owning an unregistered gun much more severe, including mandatory jail time unless you have extenuating circumstances (crazy old veteran with his old service rifle for instance). Couple that with government buy backs.
No, they're for reducing the number of guns.
I'm going to gloss over certain things, not to willfully ignore points (I hope to combine points), but for parsimony. Last thing we need is to argue all day on this
Looking up the accuracy and rate of fire for the standard pistol & the Bushmaster XM15 (what Lanza used), the Bushmaster can shoot up to 50 more rounds per minute (assuming semi-automatic) and has a range well above 200 yard (Bushmaster Firearms reports up to 400). The magazine difference is also worth mentioning; 30 to around 7. Now if you went into that place and started shooting, people wouldn't stand still and let you shoot from 25 yards away, they would stampede in every direction possible. A herd of people is much easier to kill if you have a high-powered, accurate, gun that can shoot far distances, very fast. Because of these difference, one is much more lethal. Again, I'm defining lethality as most deaths in the most effective manner.
Your call. I can shoot you in the chest from 25 yards away with a slingshot or that Bushmaster XM, which would you prefer....
The knife murders in your statistic rose by 43 people. The gun murders in your statistic dropped by 55 people. This may be too small a sample size (1 year and 1 city), but this does prove my point that less guns available to criminals means overall fewer deaths. It should also be noted this is without laws or bans. This is only with police crackdowns and a redistribution of their focus.
This is one of the harder areas for me to argue, because I literally can't. I know full well that most crimes involve handguns. However, as you can see from my summary of DC V. Heller, a handgun ban is just not feasible (at least until Scalia, Thomas, or Kennedy step down). I'm perfectly willing to compromise my ideals for what will amount to less gun violence. On this point, I re-assert that guns that can shoot many rounds, well over 200 yards, in a short amount of time without the need to reload aren't really necessary in our society. I mean, if you're hunting, going with what Distind said on the prior page, a hunting rifle sounds just as, if not more effective than the gun Lanza used.
-firing pin debate snip to save space-
Third, another genius idea I heard, put a serial number on the side of the shell. This way, police find the shell at a crime scene, run the serial number and can get the exact location that shell was sold at (maybe even the time, this is years old). The gun lobby adamantly opposed it. I think this could be another good idea, as it would burden you all of 0% and is another loose end for criminals to cover. The more loose ends they have to cover, the more likely it is they get caught in a timely manner, possibly before committing more crimes.
Thank you. I think these can be good first step solutions to the gun problem this country faces. That said, I still thinks things like the firing pin serial number and the serial number on the side of shells can help and should be included for their low risk/high reward qualities. Finally, I think limiting/banning things like large magazine size and semi-automatic guns can help too, but that can be explored after these suggestions set in to see if this set is effective.
The thing is, rarely are these solutions ever explored. After Columbine, Fort Hood, Virginia Tech, Aurora, the list goes on, everyone talks about limiting magazine size and performing mental health checks, but never are they implemented. The NRA is much like the republican party of the 90's was on health care reform. Point out a problem here or there with the oppositions idea, make a plan of your own, but never follow through and leave the status quo in check. At the same time, they take steps to make guns more accessible in public; concealed carry, stand your ground, in VA they wanted to let people carry guns into bars & churches not too long ago. In summary, I would love to see things like limiting velocity or mental health checks, I'm just skeptical that such change will ever come, in large part because of such sensationalist media labeling things like serial numbers on firing pins as gun control.
Thing about that suggestion is, I can't find any reason for someone to own 6 guns nor for someone to decide 6 guns a year is reasonable. I certainly don't want some nutjob like Lanza's mother hoarding guns. It's those people who brace for "Armageddon" who I feel are most likely to snap and make such an Armageddon occur.
Second, the effect this will have on crime. If you remember an article posted here on the Fast & Furious operation, the cartels had people buying guns for them. Banning things like buying guns for others should also be on the list of sensible solutions, but limiting it to six almost institutionalizes or normalizes such things and will probably have little effect on the amount of arms the cartels get their hands on. Hence, I think 6 a year is egregiously high.
Third, the only people I feel are really hurt by this are gun collectors. While I feel for them, they can get over it. The best way to solve this gun problem isn't to think of the 1% of people who may be burdened and fighting tooth-and-nail for them. It is to list the problems and what feasible changes we can take to reducing those problems. Ideally, I'm with Sylvana in that I don't see a reason for anyone to own guns, but I am willing to compromise and feel others should be willing to as well for the best results.
Final paragraph and then I'm done. I don't think you're a bad person Damen, quite the contrary. But, and I say this ironically, I do think emotion may be as much a factor for you as you think it is for us. I point to the firing pin thing, I don't see how anyone can oppose it, and to see someone who does makes me think their opposition is not reason but on things like emotion.
Further, Zachski throwing up a red herring with slingshots and you agreeing with it makes me think you see this as an "us vs. them" thing in which you lend credence to his absurdity cause he's on "your side." Slingshots and assault rifles are apples and oranges and I never intended to get dragged into this conversation. I meant only to point out that was a bad point for him to make and a poor debate tactic for him to use.
I seek only to come up with feasible solutions that can limit or reduce gun violence and on that note, I am far more interesting in working with you than arguing a sides issue. Truth be told, I don't like spending almost an hour typing these things up and I do feel there are better ways to spend my time. All that said, I do think you're a good person, I don't think you're a lunatic nor a gun nut, and I hope you aren't confusing my opinions or words with saying you are anything of that sort.
QuoteTalking about the reason I'm against microstamping on firing pins? The largest reason I'm against it is because all it can do is lead you back to the last owner, is easily defeated and we still don't know how it would work when a person needs to purchase a replacement firing pin.
And you know, I have to argue with you here. I know full well there are ways around it. When I first read the idea, I thought "well so-and-so could just pick up the shell." But that's the point. What this does is create another loose end for criminals to tie up. Not all criminals are going to think it. It may not work in 50% of cases, but I bet it would give the police clues into at least 5% of cases. This would save the police countless man hours in investigations and give prosecutors additional evidence in building a case.
Second, let's say you're right. Someone steals the gun from you. That means nothing. The police show up at your place, you're a suspect, you tell them it was stolen. At least then they have leads into where the criminal got the gun from and can search the place for evidence. Again, and pardon the pun, the firing pin imprint is not a smoking gun. It is there to help an investigation. Further, in no way will this EVER, EVER burden you unless one of your guns was used in the commission of a crime (in which case, that investigative burden is the least of your problems). Finally, and I differ to Eric's legal knowledge, I doubt a prosecutor will be able to get a conviction solely on your weapon being used in the commission of a crime.
Third, another genius idea I heard, put a serial number on the side of the shell. This way, police find the shell at a crime scene, run the serial number and can get the exact location that shell was sold at (maybe even the time, this is years old). The gun lobby adamantly opposed it. I think this could be another good idea, as it would burden you all of 0% and is another loose end for criminals to cover. The more loose ends they have to cover, the more likely it is they get caught in a timely manner, possibly before committing more crimes.
No, they're for reducing the number of guns.
So you'd prefer if everyone just gave up their guns regardless of use, purpose, or meaning?
No, they're for reducing the number of guns.
So you'd prefer if everyone just gave up their guns regardless of use, purpose, or meaning?
If you reduce the number of guns in society, it will make that society safer, with very few exceptions. Preferably those thousand guns come out of the hands of gangsters, but even if one thousand good citizens lose their shotguns, that's a little bit safer.
The federal US government should place a heavy sin tax on guns and an even heavier one on bullets. Perhaps part of this could be a heavy yearly cost for registered guns. Make the punishment for owning an unregistered gun much more severe, including mandatory jail time unless you have extenuating circumstances (crazy old veteran with his old service rifle for instance). Couple that with government buy backs.
No, they're for reducing the number of guns.
So you'd prefer if everyone just gave up their guns regardless of use, purpose, or meaning?
If you reduce the number of guns in society, it will make that society safer, with very few exceptions. Preferably those thousand guns come out of the hands of gangsters, but even if one thousand good citizens lose their shotguns, that's a little bit safer.
“You don’t need no gun control, you know what you need? We need some bullet control. Men, we need to control the bullets, that’s right. I think all bullets should cost five thousand dollars… five thousand dollars per bullet… You know why? Cause if a bullet cost five thousand dollars there would be no more innocent bystanders.
Yeah! Every time somebody get shut we’d say, ‘Damn, he must have done something ... Shit, he’s got fifty thousand dollars worth of bullets in his ass.’
And people would think before they killed somebody if a bullet cost five thousand dollars. ‘Man I would blow your fucking head off…if I could afford it.’ ‘I’m gonna get me another job, I’m going to start saving some money, and you’re a dead man. You’d better hope I can’t get no bullets on layaway.’
So even if you get shot by a stray bullet, you wouldn't have to go to no doctor to get it taken out. Whoever shot you would take their bullet back, like "I believe you got my property.”
Oh dear. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/12/21/tech-printer-guns.html)
Admittedly not very a very important component at the range most shootings take place at, and shotguns don't have rifling at all (actually slug barrels often do, but that is a different story).Oh dear. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/12/21/tech-printer-guns.html)
Home made guns lack machined rifling.
The thing is, rarely are these solutions ever explored. After Columbine, Fort Hood, Virginia Tech, Aurora, the list goes on, everyone talks about limiting magazine size and performing mental health checks, but never are they implemented. The NRA is much like the republican party of the 90's was on health care reform. Point out a problem here or there with the oppositions idea, make a plan of your own, but never follow through and leave the status quo in check. At the same time, they take steps to make guns more accessible in public; concealed carry, stand your ground, in VA they wanted to let people carry guns into bars & churches not too long ago. In summary, I would love to see things like limiting velocity or mental health checks, I'm just skeptical that such change will ever come, in large part because of such sensationalist media labeling things like serial numbers on firing pins as gun control.
One of the things I've seen this go around more than any other is such an intent focus on the fuckhead's mental state. I've been hearing about as much about his mental health and the accessibility of mental health facilities in the USA as I have about gun control. I'm hoping this tragedy will open up a dialogue on the state of our mental health care system.
Obama said at his news conference that mental healthcare should be at least as accessible as a firearm and I fully agree with this.
Oh dear. (http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/story/2012/12/21/tech-printer-guns.html)
Home made guns lack machined rifling.
No, they're for reducing the number of guns.
So you'd prefer if everyone just gave up their guns regardless of use, purpose, or meaning?
If you reduce the number of guns in society, it will make that society safer, with very few exceptions. Preferably those thousand guns come out of the hands of gangsters, but even if one thousand good citizens lose their shotguns, that's a little bit safer.
Taking the guns away from criminals would make society safer, taking guns away from law-abiding citicens would not.
The federal US government should place a heavy sin tax on guns and an even heavier one on bullets. Perhaps part of this could be a heavy yearly cost for registered guns. Make the punishment for owning an unregistered gun much more severe, including mandatory jail time unless you have extenuating circumstances (crazy old veteran with his old service rifle for instance). Couple that with government buy backs.
Well if you are going to do that, why don't you give the NRA what it wants and put taxes on guns and ammunition to cover the cost of putting one police officer for every 100 students (rounded up) in every school in the U.S? The sputtering and fuming coming from them would be quite comical.
No, they're for reducing the number of guns.
So you'd prefer if everyone just gave up their guns regardless of use, purpose, or meaning?
If you reduce the number of guns in society, it will make that society safer, with very few exceptions. Preferably those thousand guns come out of the hands of gangsters, but even if one thousand good citizens lose their shotguns, that's a little bit safer.
No one want to take firearms away from responsible owners. The problem is you really can't tell a responsible owner from one that has ill intent. So along with things like a license to buy any firearm, background and physiological checks we should also limit certain things. Assault rifles, extended clips for all weapons, owner to owner sales, and unrestricted ammo purchases should all be regulated or outright banned.Some do and the NRA like to try and paint it as though you all do so that they can justify taking their diametrically opposed viewpoint. It's like they know that if they let the knowledgeable gun control moderates lead the discussion they are fucked because they have nothing to fight back with.
In a safe society there is no need to defend yourselves.No free society can truly be safe, and safe society can truly be free, so in the end we are left with philosophy and reality trying to come to some sort of accommodation.
In a safe society there is no need to defend yourselves.No free society can truly be safe,
Did I say that? You fight for what you think is right, they will fight for what they think is right and hopefully we will land somewhere in the middle of lawless anarchy and a totalitarian nanny state and not too close to either end of the spectrum.In a safe society there is no need to defend yourselves.No free society can truly be safe,
So we should just give up?
^ Problem with that being the same problem with the police.
People treat "less lethal" as "non lethal" and you end up having people tased/battered to death by tools that are supposed to stop them without killing them.
"A BRIEF GUN HISTORY"
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. >From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated. China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated. Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million. You won't see this data on the US evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens. Take note my fellow Americans, before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favor of gun control, please remind them of this history lesson. With guns, we are 'citizens'. Without them, we are 'subjects'. During WWII the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED! If you value your freedom, please spread this antigun-control message to all of your friends. SWITZERLAND ISSUES EVERY HOUSEHOLD A GUN! SWITZERLAND'S GOVERNMENT TRAINS EVERY ADULT THEY ISSUE A RIFLE. SWITZERLAND HAS THE LOWEST GUN RELATED CRIME RATE OF ANY CIVILIZED COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!!! IT'S A NO BRAINER! DON'T LET OUR GOVERNMENT WASTE MILLIONS OF OUR TAX DOLLARS IN AN EFFORT TO MAKE ALL LAW ABIDING CITIZENS AN EASY TARGET. Spread the word everywhere you can that you are a firm believer in the 2nd Amendment! ~"It's time to speak loud before they try to silence and disarm us. You're not imagining it, history shows that governments always manipulate tragedies to attempt to disarm the people"~
In a safe society there is no need to defend yourselves.Then there isn't one on the face of the earth.
Here's a thought for you: Make less-lethal ammunition (beanbags, rubber bullets) more available on the civilian market. If the idea of a gun owner killing someone else in self-defense makes you that queasy, then allow that much. It's not a perfect solution (less lethal is called that for a reason), and hunters can't really hunt with them (making bullets a necessity still for many things).But then you also have the question relevant in many of the areas in the country that favor guns, how how do you stop a freaked out meth head with bean bags?
Of course, other alternatives are available. Glaser rounds are in the market for those not wishing to risk overpenetration (the rounds aren't entirely solid, so the rounds couldn't penetrate drywall. The US Marshall's Service uses them with their Sky Marshalls so the bullets don't cause decompression if they miss).
In a safe society there is no need to defend yourselves.Then there isn't one on the face of the earth.Here's a thought for you: Make less-lethal ammunition (beanbags, rubber bullets) more available on the civilian market. If the idea of a gun owner killing someone else in self-defense makes you that queasy, then allow that much. It's not a perfect solution (less lethal is called that for a reason), and hunters can't really hunt with them (making bullets a necessity still for many things).But then you also have the question relevant in many of the areas in the country that favor guns, how how do you stop a freaked out meth head with bean bags?
Of course, other alternatives are available. Glaser rounds are in the market for those not wishing to risk overpenetration (the rounds aren't entirely solid, so the rounds couldn't penetrate drywall. The US Marshall's Service uses them with their Sky Marshalls so the bullets don't cause decompression if they miss).
Here's a thought for you: Make less-lethal ammunition (beanbags, rubber bullets) more available on the civilian market. If the idea of a gun owner killing someone else in self-defense makes you that queasy, then allow that much. It's not a perfect solution (less lethal is called that for a reason), and hunters can't really hunt with them (making bullets a necessity still for many things).
Of course, other alternatives are available. Glaser rounds are in the market for those not wishing to risk overpenetration (the rounds aren't entirely solid, so the rounds couldn't penetrate drywall. The US Marshall's Service uses them with their Sky Marshalls so the bullets don't cause decompression if they miss).
As for the sin tax, all that does is deny those who can't pay it the right to carry, so unless it's made within their means, pass.
Hell, in the practical education half, I couldn't count the number of times that the other student would start driving with one hand or something, with the instructor right there next to him.
We learned on an automatic.One hand isn't that bad provided you know when to switch back to a two handed grip. The whole 'knowing when' part is why you tell new drivers to keep both hands on the wheel at all times.
Two hands on the wheel is for safety reasons, since it's harder to control a vehicle with one hand than it is with two :P
So I was thinking about putting this in the FB thread, but it's also relevant to this discussion.
(http://i.imgur.com/0NEhT.jpg)
Really? So what does that mean? I can think of four things.
A) His mom bought the gun before the ban, and this kind of shit is not retroactively enforced - despite what the paranoid fucks who think the gubment is gunna take 'der guns 'way think or want you to think.
B) His mom was illegally owning the guns.
C) The "Assault Rifle ban" is so goddamn weak that it doesn't include an AR-15.
D) This asshole is lying through his fucking teeth for political reasons.
I'm not sure which one is true and I've not done research into it yet. I just saw this on FB and immediately headdesked. The person who posted it shared it from a "We Will NOT Be Disarmed" page. So make of that what you will of how much they would look into or even care about the claims made by this macro.
"Assault weapon" means any one of the following:
1. Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms: Algimec Agmi; Armalite AR-180; Australian Automatic Arms SAP Pistol; Auto-Ordnance Thompson type; Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type; Barrett Light-Fifty model 82A1; Beretta AR-70; Bushmaster Auto Rifle and Auto Pistol; Calico models M-900, M-950 and 100-P; Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88; Colt AR-15 and Sporter; Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max-1 and Max-2; Encom MK-IV, MP-9 and MP-45; Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FN/FNC; FAMAS MAS 223; Feather AT-9 and Mini-AT; Federal XC-900 and XC-450; Franchi SPAS-12 and LAW-12; Galil AR and ARM; Goncz High-Tech Carbine and High-Tech Long Pistol; Heckler & Koch HK-91, HK-93, HK-94 and SP-89; Holmes MP-83; MAC-10, MAC-11 Carbien type; Intratec TEC-9 and Scorpion; Iver Johnson Enforcer model 3000; Ruger Mini-14/5F folding stock model only; Scarab Skorpion; SIG 57 AMT and 500 Series; Spectre Auto Carbine and Auto Pistol; Springfield Armory BM59, SAR-48 and G-3; Sterling MK-6 and MK-7; Steyr AUG; Street Sweeper and Striker 12 revolving cylinder shotguns; USAS-12; USI Carbine, Mini-Carbine and Pistol; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson "Linda" Pistol.
Any semiautomatic firearm not listed in subdivision (1) that meets the following criteria:
(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:
i. a folding or telescopic stock;
ii. a pistol grip;
iii. a bayonet mount;
iv. a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
v. a grenade launcher.
And in the next episode of our ongoing series... (http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/24/firefighters-shot-rochester.html)
The chief said Spengler had mental health issues that were a concern.
So I was thinking about putting this in the FB thread, but it's also relevant to this discussion.
(http://i.imgur.com/0NEhT.jpg)
Really? So what does that mean? I can think of four things.
A) His mom bought the gun before the ban, and this kind of shit is not retroactively enforced - despite what the paranoid fucks who think the gubment is gunna take 'der guns 'way think or want you to think.
B) His mom was illegally owning the guns.
C) The "Assault Rifle ban" is so goddamn weak that it doesn't include an AR-15.
D) This asshole is lying through his fucking teeth for political reasons.
I'm not sure which one is true and I've not done research into it yet. I just saw this on FB and immediately headdesked. The person who posted it shared it from a "We Will NOT Be Disarmed" page. So make of that what you will of how much they would look into or even care about the claims made by this macro.
I looked it up. Generally any ban that grandfathers the item it's banning will set the grandfather cut-off date for the date the law goes into effect. In this case, Connecticut's grandfather date and the date their state AWB went into effect was October 1st 1993 (http://www.chattanoogan.com/2012/12/22/240929/Connecticut-Already-Has-A-Ban-On.aspx). For reference, the date of the original Federal AWB went into effect was September 13th, 1994.
Connecticut banned the Bushmaster Auto Rifle by name as well as (http://www.jud.ct.gov/JI/criminal/glossary/assaultweapon.htm):Quote"Assault weapon" means any one of the following:
1. Any selective-fire firearm capable of fully automatic, semiautomatic or burst fire at the option of the user or any of the following specified semiautomatic firearms: Algimec Agmi; Armalite AR-180; Australian Automatic Arms SAP Pistol; Auto-Ordnance Thompson type; Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 type; Barrett Light-Fifty model 82A1; Beretta AR-70; Bushmaster Auto Rifle and Auto Pistol; Calico models M-900, M-950 and 100-P; Chartered Industries of Singapore SR-88; Colt AR-15 and Sporter; Daewoo K-1, K-2, Max-1 and Max-2; Encom MK-IV, MP-9 and MP-45; Fabrique Nationale FN/FAL, FN/LAR, or FN/FNC; FAMAS MAS 223; Feather AT-9 and Mini-AT; Federal XC-900 and XC-450; Franchi SPAS-12 and LAW-12; Galil AR and ARM; Goncz High-Tech Carbine and High-Tech Long Pistol; Heckler & Koch HK-91, HK-93, HK-94 and SP-89; Holmes MP-83; MAC-10, MAC-11 Carbien type; Intratec TEC-9 and Scorpion; Iver Johnson Enforcer model 3000; Ruger Mini-14/5F folding stock model only; Scarab Skorpion; SIG 57 AMT and 500 Series; Spectre Auto Carbine and Auto Pistol; Springfield Armory BM59, SAR-48 and G-3; Sterling MK-6 and MK-7; Steyr AUG; Street Sweeper and Striker 12 revolving cylinder shotguns; USAS-12; USI Carbine, Mini-Carbine and Pistol; Weaver Arms Nighthawk; Wilkinson "Linda" Pistol.
And also:QuoteAny semiautomatic firearm not listed in subdivision (1) that meets the following criteria:
(A) A semiautomatic rifle that has an ability to accept a detachable magazine and has at least two of the following:
i. a folding or telescopic stock;
ii. a pistol grip;
iii. a bayonet mount;
iv. a flash suppressor or threaded barrel designed to accommodate a flash suppressor; and
v. a grenade launcher.
It doesn't ban the Bushmaster AR-15 by name. It bans a Colt AR-15, but that's automatic. The gun Adam used was semiautomatic rifle, according to the news. It may have been banned under one of the other provisions, but I'm not completely sure if the AR-15 meets the minimum specifications meant to meet the ban. It not only needs the detachable magazine, but TWO of those provisions. I'm not familiar with the guns specs, and looking up the information on it is proving a bit tricky.
Also, that date means nothing if we're not aware of how long Adam's mom held that gun. She could have held it from before October 1993. Without actual information on that, I guess we really can't say one way or the other.
After doing a little digging, I've found something on the Bushmaster AR-15. It would be banned, but not by name. According to Cabela's (http://Cabela's) page, the Bushmaster AR-15 has both a flash suppressor and telescoping stock (and I assume a detachable magazine).
So how and when did his mom get her hands on these guns? That question is still hanging in the air.
It doesn't ban the Bushmaster AR-15 by name. It bans a Colt AR-15, but that's automatic. The gun Adam used was semiautomatic rifle, according to the news. It may have been banned under one of the other provisions, but I'm not completely sure if the AR-15 meets the minimum specifications meant to meet the ban. It not only needs the detachable magazine, but TWO of those provisions. I'm not familiar with the guns specs, and looking up the information on it is proving a bit tricky.
Also, that date means nothing if we're not aware of how long Adam's mom held that gun. She could have held it from before October 1993. Without actual information on that, I guess we really can't say one way or the other.
After doing a little digging, I've found something on the Bushmaster AR-15. It would be banned, but not by name. According to Cabela's (http://www.cabelas.com/semiautomatic-bushmaster-firearms-15-rifles-4.shtml) page, the Bushmaster AR-15 has both a flash suppressor and telescoping stock (and I assume a detachable magazine).
So how and when did his mom get her hands on these guns? That question is still hanging in the air.
A typical AR-15 has enough of those features to fall under the ban. It has a detachable magazine, but also a pistol grip, flash hider (and threaded barrel for the flash hider) and bayonet mount. The AR-15 carbine also has a telescoping stock.
She may have purchased it in a different state without the ban, even without malicious intent. That's why state-based gun control can't work.
I see you quoted me while I was modifying my post to clean it up. I'm not sure if it's fair to say the "typical AR-15" has things if there's different models with different features. Although I do admit that if Adam's mom owned it before the ban, that may not matter much.
The devils always in the details, eh? To bad people are so up in arms about making political points - both in the media and in general - that they don't give enough of a shit to think critically about these things.
She may have purchased it in a different state without the ban, even without malicious intent. That's why state-based gun control can't work.
Is it really possible to circumvent state gun laws by pulling shit like that? If so, that's fucking stupid.
Are they even committing a crime?
Wow, this is just so full of stupid (http://news.yahoo.com/pro-gun-rights-us-petition-deport-piers-morgan-130319681.html)
Wow, this is just so full of stupid (http://news.yahoo.com/pro-gun-rights-us-petition-deport-piers-morgan-130319681.html)
Wow, this is just so full of stupid (http://news.yahoo.com/pro-gun-rights-us-petition-deport-piers-morgan-130319681.html)
I think Penny Arcade (http://penny-arcade.com/comic) put it best.
Wow, this is just so full of stupid (http://news.yahoo.com/pro-gun-rights-us-petition-deport-piers-morgan-130319681.html)
I think Penny Arcade (http://penny-arcade.com/comic) put it best.
So we should ban owning guns, cigarettes, and cars?
So we should ban owning guns, cigarettes, and cars?
Oh God, not this again. One thing, then I'm out (again), he never said to ban firearms, just to regulate them in an efficient manner to save lives. Restrictions are not full on bans. Why is this hard to comprehend?
So we should ban owning guns, cigarettes, and cars?
Oh God, not this again. One thing, then I'm out (again), he never said to ban firearms, just to regulate them in an efficient manner to save lives. Restrictions are not full on bans. Why is this hard to comprehend?
So we should ban owning guns, cigarettes, and cars?
Oh God, not this again. One thing, then I'm out (again), he never said to ban firearms, just to regulate them in an efficient manner to save lives. Restrictions are not full on bans. Why is this hard to comprehend?
... because the straw man is easier to argue against?
Also as some have said before, a semi auto that's got black plastic is no different from one with wood furniture, and a full auto is generally useless as anything other than a toy at the gun range, with it having little use in a combat situation other than suppressive fire.
Is there a demand for suppressive fire where you live then?
If you and the rest of you "responsible" gun owners were really responsible you wouldn't have guns at all. Not that I think any of you will take the slightest bit of notice. Go to the gun shows and fondle all those lovely guns. You know you want to.
A simple question.
Do you think if the people who wrote the constitution knew then what we know today would they have still inserted the 2nd amemdment knowing the misery it was going to cause?
Zach, hun, you're grasping at straws when you have to go back over 50 days and into different threads. Second, I honestly doubt that's what Rookie was referring to, he was more than likely referring to this
Zach, hun, you're grasping at straws when you have to go back over 50 days and into different threads. Second, I honestly doubt that's what Rookie was referring to, he was more than likely referring to this
Cost benefit analysis:
Car
Costs- road accident deaths, climate change, ect
Benefits- A to B
Gun
Costs- accidents, suicide, murders, gang violence, ect
Benefits- none.
Ban guns.
Cost benefit analysis:
Car
Costs- road accident deaths, climate change, ect
Benefits- A to B
Gun
Costs- accidents, suicide, murders, gang violence, ect
Benefits- none.
Ban guns.
Gun Benefits - personal protection, hunting, sport, business, fun.
Banning all guns will not eliminate all gun crimes. Plus most US citizens do not want to ban all guns.
Cost benefit analysis:
Car
Costs- road accident deaths, climate change, ect
Benefits- A to B
Gun
Costs- accidents, suicide, murders, gang violence, ect
Benefits- none.
Ban guns.
Gun Benefits - personal protection, hunting, sport, business, fun.
Banning all guns will not eliminate all gun crimes. Plus most US citizens do not want to ban all guns.
To steal a phrase: A guns is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses. Owning a gun makes both yourself and everyone else much less safe, not more safe. As the US proves, living in a society with a lot of guns is far less safe than living in one with very few.
To steal a phrase: A guns is an instrument entirely inefficient toward redressing wrong; and multiplies, instead of indemnifying losses. Owning a gun makes both yourself and everyone else much less safe, not more safe. As the US proves, living in a society with a lot of guns is far less safe than living in one with very few.
Far less safe is a huge stretch. Far more people are killed in car accidents and numerous other way each day then are killed by guns. Slightly less safe at the very most.
You also can't say that having a gun make everyone around less safe. Lets not use blanket statements. A responsible owner will never have a problem, and is not any less safe than a non owner.
No, that's wrong. A 'responsible owner' is far more likely to use their weapon on themselves, on an innocent person or by accident than legitimately. The difference is 'making everyone around less safe'.
Why not?
Why not?
I just don't think that personal enjoyment outweighs the potential danger. It sounds extremely shallow when the argument against "people are dying" is "I don't want my toys taken away". Notice that Lt. Fred didn't list racing along with "A to B" on his list of benefits from cars.
No, that's wrong. A 'responsible owner' is far more likely to use their weapon on themselves, on an innocent person or by accident than legitimately. The difference is 'making everyone around less safe'.How about a citation for that?
..
Funny, the same argument can - and is - being made from the NRA with regards to violent videos games, movies, and TV shows. Of course, guns and media aren't necessarily the same thing, but the argument goes that the media has an affect on your mental health/well being.
*The argument that all weapons are equally deadly is openly ridiculous (and, if we're honest, semantic), a sign that gunsters have completely abandoned rational debate. Saying that a bolt action .22 is as deadly as an M4 with all the bells and whistles is like saying the common cold is no less deadly than cancer.
*The argument that all weapons are equally deadly is openly ridiculous (and, if we're honest, semantic), a sign that gunsters have completely abandoned rational debate. Saying that a bolt action .22 is as deadly as an M4 with all the bells and whistles is like saying the common cold is no less deadly than cancer.
Those who are killed by a .22lr bolt action rifle are just as dead as those who are killed by an M4. "Gunsters" and the reason we bring this up is that even though a crazed gunman might be able to kill more people with an M4 than the .22lr rifle he would still be able to kill. A bullet to the head from either of those guns is often deadly, unlike common cold vs cancer. If someone murders five people then that is already bad enough without others claiming that with a different type of gun he might have killed fifteen. And that is the issue we have, all guns can kill and rather than arguing over "but gun B has a different paint job so it could kill .13% more people than gun A." they all deserve to be treated with same respect. If person A should not get an M4 because he would kill people with it then person A should not get ANY gun. And should be reported to someone to get some help, or at least detained. I think we agree about this part. If person B would not kill anyone with gun X then he would not kill anyone no matter what or how many guns he has. There is no magical "gun overload" that causes sane people to go on killing sprees, to shoot their spouses during an argument or while drunk. Blame the person not the gun.
Also.
The school shooters in Finland had .22lr pistols because the gun laws and policies back then basically considered the guns "harmless." That was not the purpose of the law but the way it was written was that:
a) .22lr had a separate section called "small bore" and these guns were easier to get a license for than any other type of firearm, especially for a person getting their first license. So if the official had some doubt wether or not the person should get a gun, they could take the easy choise and give them a .22lr and then after a few years, if they have been behaving well, give them a "real" gun.
b) Most licenses had no duration, licenses with a five year duration (after which the owner would have to go through the same process again to see if he/she is still considered able to own guns) were a special case reserved for those cases where there is a "good" reason why the person should not get a permanent license. What this means is if that if the person is deemed a bit suspicous or something, rather than say... Checking more about him or simply saying "no" they could get the gun for five years and if they behave well for that time they could keep the gun and get other guns as well.
The two school shooters had .22lr pistols with five year permits. (for the record after the school shooting politicians and a large civilian movement declared that they want the gun laws to be changed, the proposed changes were that first gun license would always be temporary and no one under 18 could get a gun. Since both shooters were over 18 and had temporary licenses those changes would not have prevented the shootings.)
EDIT: For the record, gun control? HELL YES! Just make the laws sensible and control rather than ban.
EDIT 2 (THE EDIT STRIKES BACK): http://www.lohud.com/interactive/article/20121223/NEWS01/121221011/Map-Where-gun-permits-your-neighborhood-?nclick_check=1
WHAT THE HELL PEOPLE!
Is this like a sex offender registry? Are all gun owners now considered a threat to society? Did anyone think this through? Now that gun owners have been singled out it is easy for burglars looking for guns to check out their location, possibly looking houses which are empty during a vacation, since they no know that the house migh contain a gun.
I would not see any point in requiring all firearms be vault locked away from home, just the battlefield, overpowered weapons.
but keep in mind; Adam Lanza was able to open his mother's gun locker - he just took the keys after murdering her. He would not have had that chance if he'd shown up at her gun club, and tried to get her weapons - she knew he was sick, and would not have had him authorized to access her locker.
I guess "over powered" may just be my opinion, but recall, I'm keeping in mind what happens to unarmored civilian victims of mass shootings, where these rifles were chosen quite a few times by the murderers.
Here's a really well done, clearly video recorded demonstration in a field fire scenario with a lower power 52 grain round (albeit, surplus NATO, not Winchester civvie round).
-vid snip-
And I think your idea about subsidizing home vaults is excellent!
The only reason I don't have a gun safe is because they're too expensive and they're so heavy it would likely require significant construction in my house to make sure it doesn't drop through the floor. As it stands currently, I'm left focusing more on hiding them. :(
*is taking notes* I have a key-based gun safe, but I need to upgrade to a combination lock myself. I don't let guests know where the safe is, nor the key, but even that has me concerned.Well my safe is located in the closet off to the side so when you open the closet door you can't see it. Combine that with the full length clothes hanging right in front of it, and it is invisible for any casual snooping. The usual grab and go types we get here aren't going to find it, and even if they do they aren't going to want to spend the time trying to get into it. The only real thing I can complain about, and its a nitpick, is that there is an exploitable gap between the door and the body of the safe. Good luck exploiting it in the confines of a closet, but it is there. It would take time, effort, and tools though.
And here's a thought, any objections to requiring a gun license to be presented to purchase ammo? Edit: By which I mean a license for a gun using the desired ammo.
And here's a thought, any objections to requiring a gun license to be presented to purchase ammo? Edit: By which I mean a license for a gun using the desired ammo.
There are also the usual potential holes thanks to gun shows, private sales, and the internet in any system set up. Depending on how lot numbering of ammo is set up, it could be very hard to actually convict any violators.This reminds me of an old question I had, is it actually legal to ship live ammo? I've heard of mail order and internet purchasing, but that seems like a rather bad idea.
The legalities seem to vary state to state from the little bit that I looked at. It's also legal here in Canada. I pulled this from Le Baron (http://www.lebaron.ca/english/cat_item_ord.htm) a well established vendor who have been around since I was a kid.There are also the usual potential holes thanks to gun shows, private sales, and the internet in any system set up. Depending on how lot numbering of ammo is set up, it could be very hard to actually convict any violators.This reminds me of an old question I had, is it actually legal to ship live ammo? I've heard of mail order and internet purchasing, but that seems like a rather bad idea.
And the anti-reg people can suck my nuts. I have little intention to infringe, I just want to know who has the damn things so when someone uses one I can figure out where it came from.
5. Shipping and Delivery
All orders less than 30 kg are shipped by Expedited Parcel Post. If you have a preferred method of transport, please indicate. Orders over 30 kg., will be shipped by the most economical transport. Firearms will be shipped via Canada Post, and to Canadian residents only. Ammunition and related products will be shipped via licensed carrier, and to Canadian residents only.
6. Firearms and Ammunition Ordering
To purchase a firearm, you must provide a valid Possession and Acquisition Licence (P.A.L.) number, along with your birth-date, place of birth, and permit holder's address. To purchase ammunition you must provide a valid P.A.L. or a Possession Ownership Licence (P.O.L.).
Please note that these products can only be shipped to the permit holder's address. Firearms and hazardous materials cannot be shipped outside of Canada.
And here's a thought, any objections to requiring a gun license to be presented to purchase ammo? Edit: By which I mean a license for a gun using the desired ammo.
This reminds me of an old question I had, is it actually legal to ship live ammo? I've heard of mail order and internet purchasing, but that seems like a rather bad idea.
the only way this would work is if a law were passed at a Federal level requiring firearms to be registered. Otherwise, it'd likely end up near illegal for the vast majority of citizens to purchase ammunition in the states where they don't require registration.My assumptions are generally at the fed level, as state level just means you go a state over to buy the weapons/ammo.
And normally, I don't have a problem with registration, but the only way I could support it at the Federal level is if a law is passed that the personal information of registered firearm owners is to remain confidential to prevent abuses of that info like this (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html) one.Here's my thing, why shouldn't it be public information that someone has a weapons permit? I see claims of omg someone's gonna steal my guns or such, I might even lean toward it being a privacy issue, if it didn't involve something you could kill your neighbor with from your living never leaving the living room to do it.
If we can resolve those issues, I'd have no real problems with it.
And normally, I don't have a problem with registration, but the only way I could support it at the Federal level is if a law is passed that the personal information of registered firearm owners is to remain confidential to prevent abuses of that info like this (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html) one.Here's my thing, why shouldn't it be public information that someone has a weapons permit? I see claims of omg someone's gonna steal my guns or such, I might even lean toward it being a privacy issue, if it didn't involve something you could kill your neighbor with from your living never leaving the living room to do it.
If we can resolve those issues, I'd have no real problems with it.
I'm reasonably sure the information is public in NY and this is just someone making a map out of it. Which does a lovely job of pointing out just how damn many guns there are out there, even in NY which is a pretty restrictive state on ownership. Without even going into Westchester county itself.
And normally, I don't have a problem with registration, but the only way I could support it at the Federal level is if a law is passed that the personal information of registered firearm owners is to remain confidential to prevent abuses of that info like this (http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/25/us/new-york-gun-permit-map/index.html) one.Here's my thing, why shouldn't it be public information that someone has a weapons permit? I see claims of omg someone's gonna steal my guns or such, I might even lean toward it being a privacy issue, if it didn't involve something you could kill your neighbor with from your living never leaving the living room to do it.
If we can resolve those issues, I'd have no real problems with it.
I'm reasonably sure the information is public in NY and this is just someone making a map out of it. Which does a lovely job of pointing out just how damn many guns there are out there, even in NY which is a pretty restrictive state on ownership. Without even going into Westchester county itself.
As it stands getting that information requires a FOIA request, so while it is technically publicly available, it isn't readily available...until now.
And as for why it shouldn't be public knowledge?
- This is a list of law-abiding citizens, not criminals.
- Criminals now have a map of which houses are armed and which aren't.
- Yes, the fear of a stolen firearms is a perfectly valid one, considering they are some of the most nabbed (http://www.ackermansecurity.com/blog/article/home-burglary-commonly-stolen-items/) items.
- This map does nothing to locate illicit firearms.
- This map does not show us which criminals have firearms.
- This map only serves to stigmatize lawful firearm owners when the only other group of people we do that to are registered sex offenders.
- A number of the people on this map are police officers and people under protective orders who are now worried that their abusers and criminals with a grudge will now have an easy way (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/1227/Gun-owner-map-ricochet-Blogger-publishes-journalists-personal-data) to track them down.
- When both the NRA and the Brady Campaign (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36BZhlgZnfw) say it's a bad idea, then you can be pretty sure it's a bad fucking idea.
If they wanted to say how many permits are in any given county, or how many of whatever type of firearm are in a county, I'd have no problems with that. But a map with names and addresses of lawful firearm owners? No, that's going way too far, plain and simple.
Just because information is public does not make it newsworthy. People own guns for a wide range of law-abiding reasons. If you are not breaking the law, there is no compelling reason to publish the data.
Publishing gun owners’ names makes them targets for theft or public ridicule. It is journalistic arrogance to abuse public record privilege, just as it is to air 911 calls for no reason or to publish the home addresses of police or judges without cause.
Unwarranted publishing of the names of permitted owners just encourages gun owners to skip the permitting.
My problem here is weed can't kill you from across the street.
How many of the school shootings or other recent big gun crimes were comitted with illegal guns? How many with legal ones?
The point right now is that you don't need to have an illegal gun to be the prick that's out shooting people. You can have a perfectly legal one and decide to shoot someone, or have a perfectly legal one someone takes, shoots you, and then proceeds to shoot up a number of other people.
Guns are weapons, effective ones. Why do we not treat or consider them as such?
- This is a list of law-abiding citizens, not criminals.
- Criminals now have a map of which houses are armed and which aren't.
- Yes, the fear of a stolen firearms is a perfectly valid one, considering they are some of the most nabbed (http://www.ackermansecurity.com/blog/article/home-burglary-commonly-stolen-items/) items.
- This map does nothing to locate illicit firearms.
- This map does not show us which criminals have firearms.
- This map only serves to stigmatize lawful firearm owners when the only other group of people we do that to are registered sex offenders.
- A number of the people on this map are police officers and people under protective orders who are now worried that their abusers and criminals with a grudge will now have an easy way (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/1227/Gun-owner-map-ricochet-Blogger-publishes-journalists-personal-data) to track them down.
- When both the NRA and the Brady Campaign (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36BZhlgZnfw) say it's a bad idea, then you can be pretty sure it's a bad fucking idea.
Maybe the fact that I hate that we're becoming a surveillance state colors my bias a little. To me, surveillance isn't the solution, it's part of the problem along with the militarization of law enforcement.
Maybe the fact that I hate that we're becoming a surveillance state colors my bias a little. To me, surveillance isn't the solution, it's part of the problem along with the militarization of law enforcement.
Whoa, easy there. You should watch what you say about the surveillance state. At least until Big Brother can do it for you.
I want to return your attention to my list:Your list fails to address how many recent shootings were done with perfectly legal guns. It assumes that gun owners are all decent and wonderful people who'd never do something like that, so no one would ever be concerned with their presence. And it also assumes that some how being aware that there are gun owners, and they live places, that everyone will believe they're evil evil people no matter how many halos they have shooting out their asses. It's a public record of people who have registered to potentially own a gun. That's it. The only demonizing is being done within someone else's head. If anything, anything at fucking all, it should point out to people that they've been surrounded by these guns all this time and people haven't shot them. Showing that it's not just the trigger happy psychos who own and use guns.
- This is a list of law-abiding citizens, not criminals.
- Criminals now have a map of which houses are armed and which aren't.
- Yes, the fear of a stolen firearms is a perfectly valid one, considering they are some of the most nabbed (http://www.ackermansecurity.com/blog/article/home-burglary-commonly-stolen-items/) items.
- This map does nothing to locate illicit firearms.
- This map does not show us which criminals have firearms.
- This map only serves to stigmatize lawful firearm owners when the only other group of people we do that to are registered sex offenders.
- A number of the people on this map are police officers and people under protective orders who are now worried that their abusers and criminals with a grudge will now have an easy way (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/1227/Gun-owner-map-ricochet-Blogger-publishes-journalists-personal-data) to track them down.
- When both the NRA and the Brady Campaign (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36BZhlgZnfw) say it's a bad idea, then you can be pretty sure it's a bad fucking idea.
The problem with this list is that it lumps all firearm owners into the same category: ticking time bombs waiting to go off. It demonizes people who have done nothing wrong. It does not point out who is at risk of shooting up a public place, it does not point out who has mental problems and owns a firearm, it does not point out anything of any value.
This map serves ZERO positive purpose.
Your list fails to address how many recent shootings were done with perfectly legal guns.
Your list fails to address how many recent shootings were done with perfectly legal guns. It assumes that gun owners are all decent and wonderful people who'd never do something like that, so no one would ever be concerned with their presence. And it also assumes that some how being aware that there are gun owners, and they live places, that everyone will believe they're evil evil people no matter how many halos they have shooting out their asses.
It's a public record of people who have registered to potentially own a gun. That's it. The only demonizing is being done within someone else's head.
If anything, anything at fucking all, it should point out to people that they've been surrounded by these guns all this time and people haven't shot them. Showing that it's not just the trigger happy psychos who own and use guns.
If you want to understand the fear people have of guns, I invite you to have your less than competent stepfather decide guns are interesting and purchase some just as his relationship with your mother is going on the rocks.
And the worst part of all this, the absolute worst fucking part. I don't blame the guns for the school shootings, I don't even place all the blame on the people who own them. When it comes to these school shootings I blame the idiots who think a fist fight is the end of the damn world. The only conflicts which are allowed to occur between children are suppressed and escalated to the point where taking a life appears to be a viable option because no other outlets are available. Then toss in a gun happy culture that requires next to nothing to actually keep guns out of children's hands, and wonder what's going to happen. And what's the big solution proposed by the core of this idiot culture? More guns, pointed AT the kids. Brilliant.
I think I'm done watching the passion of St. Heston for a while, I'm actually more for banning guns because of the reactions I'm getting in this thread than when I started. I really wasn't trying for that either.
- This is a list of law-abiding citizens, not criminals.
- Criminals now have a map of which houses are armed and which aren't.
- Yes, the fear of a stolen firearms is a perfectly valid one, considering they are some of the most nabbed (http://www.ackermansecurity.com/blog/article/home-burglary-commonly-stolen-items/) items.
- This map does nothing to locate illicit firearms.
- This map does not show us which criminals have firearms.
- This map only serves to stigmatize lawful firearm owners when the only other group of people we do that to are registered sex offenders.
- A number of the people on this map are police officers and people under protective orders who are now worried that their abusers and criminals with a grudge will now have an easy way (http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/1227/Gun-owner-map-ricochet-Blogger-publishes-journalists-personal-data) to track them down.
- When both the NRA and the Brady Campaign (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=36BZhlgZnfw) say it's a bad idea, then you can be pretty sure it's a bad fucking idea.
The New York newspaper that published a map of names and addresses of gun owners only made it easier for crooks to choose which houses to break into, seemingly putting unarmed residents in greater danger, former burglars told FoxNews.com. At the same time, gun owners could also become targeted by thieves who are looking to steal weapons.
---
“That was the most asinine article I’ve ever seen,” former burglar and jewel thief Walter T. Shaw said. “Having a list of who has a gun is like gold – why rob that house when you can hit the one next door, where there are no guns?”
The FBI reportedly blames Shaw, 65, for more than 3,000 break-ins that netted some $70 million in the 1960s and 1970s. In other words, his credentials as a thief are legitimate.
“What they did was insanity,” Shaw added.
Arguably one of the most famous burglars ever, Frank Abagnale, who was portrayed by Leonardo DiCaprio in 2002′s “Catch Me if You Can,” called the newspaper’s decision “reprehensible.” Here’s what he had to say via FoxNews.com:
“It is unbelievable that a newspaper or so called journalist would publish the names and addresses of legal gun owners, including federal agents, law enforcement officers and the like,” said Abagnale, who noted that he grew up in the suburban New York area served by the Journal-News. “This would be equivalent to publishing the names of individuals who keep substantial sums of money, jewelry and valuables in their home.”
---
“They just created an opportunity for some crimes to be committed and I think it’s exceptionally stupid,” said Bob Portenier, another former their and armed house robber turned crime prevention consultant. He added that professional burglars are always trying to gain an advantage and they read newspapers like ordinary people.
Criticism of The Journal News, which published a gun permit database last month, broadened Friday with Rockland law enforcement officials saying the map listing the names and addresses of those with gun permits is endangering lives.
Inmates at the Rockland County jail are taunting corrections officers by saying they know the guards' home addresses -- information they got from the list published by Westchester-based newspaper, Rockland County Sheriff Louis Falco said.
"Since about 9:30 this morning, I've been in a meeting with my corrections officers and their unions. They have inmates coming up to them and telling them exactly where they live. That's not acceptable to me," Falco said at a news conference Friday morning in New City, where local leaders condemned the list.
---
"My members are outraged," Riley said, noting that the potential dangers to law enforcement extend beyond Westchester and Rockland counties.
"You have guys who work in New York City who live up here," Riley said. "Now their names and addresses are out there, too."
Falco said there are 8,000 active and retired NYPD officers currently living in Rockland County.
---
Swift said she has owned a gun for more than 20 years and her name is on the published list.
"When I saw the list, I had an immediate flood of emotions that I cannot even describe to you," said Swift. "I originally obtained a gun permit because I had previously been married to a man who attempted to strangle me . . . The first emotion I felt was, 'Oh my gosh, he can find me.'"
Distind never called for a ban. From the way it read, it seemed more tongue in cheek than anything. He said our reactions are harming our cause to the point that almost out of spite his opinion is shifting. At least, that's my take.That'd be it about dead on. It's the complete lack of wishing to take responsibility for owning the damn things that bothers me. It's not just illegal guns that are the problem, and noting that gets... nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Check society and history.
Guns are weapons, effective ones. Why do we not treat or consider them as such?
And that justifies treating all gun owners like potential trigger-happy child killers... how? Oh, wait. It doesn't.
I'm just unendingly frustrated with two things, people not admitting that the presence of guns increases the likelyhood of these occurrences and that the damned things are weapons.
See, my own state, Oklahoma, is one of a few where we don't require people to register their firearms or get a license to own them and the only way this would work is if a law were passed at a Federal level requiring firearms to be registered.
I have a personal little bet going. I predict that given the last 2 years, that there will be another mass shooting event in America within 5 months. I am waiting to see if I am right.
I'm feeling mildly more human now, and should point out I don't think a gun ban will work simply because we don't even know where the bloody hell half of them are. Despite their being at least one for every adult in the country......
When I read this:See, my own state, Oklahoma, is one of a few where we don't require people to register their firearms or get a license to own them and the only way this would work is if a law were passed at a Federal level requiring firearms to be registered.
I was horrified. In America there are more regulations on owning a car than there is on owning a firearm. According to Damen, in Oklahoma, there is technically no such thing as an illegal firearm because they are not a controlled product.
The term ''short-barreled rifle'' means a rifle having one or
more barrels less than sixteen inches in length and any weapon made
from a rifle (whether by alteration, modification, or otherwise) if
such weapon, as modified, has an overall length of less than
twenty-six inches.
I am completely baffled that the concept of just requiring everyone to be registered with the state and having all their firearms registered also is considered an attack on someone personally. Why can we not have a real legal discussion about having people register their weapons? It really is the very absolute least we can do.
These excuses are rubbish. Gun control laws are not a personal attack on anyone, stricter gun control laws will reduce the amount of crimes that happen with legal weapons, as well as making getting possession of an illegal one harder, and despite the monumental effort to implement, it can still be done. It will always seem impossible until you actually start doing something about it.
Seriously, it is not to hard. Implement registration requirements and limitations on firearms both in type and number owned. Allow people to turn in their weapons if they do not meet the requirements, and provide about a year window for this. I don't want to hear how people cant afford to register themselves and their weapons because that's a lie, these people can afford their guns to begin with. If they cant afford to register, the correct option is to then hand them in to the police. The police then melt down and destroy all the collected firearms, and in their normal duties any unregistered firearm they come across is also collected and destroyed. In this process you gradually reign in the wanton gun ownership and violence. Nothing worth doing happens overnight.
This turned into a far longer rant than I originally anticipated, it is just that I see the same arguments from the pro-gun side and it is starting to get to me.
I have a personal little bet going. I predict that given the last 2 years, that there will be another mass shooting event in America within 5 months. I am waiting to see if I am right.
While I agree, I think the bigger problem isn't the mass shootings. It's the ones and twos that happen every day in most major cities. They seem to happen a couple times a night in my own hometown.
For what it's worth, I too want stricter gun control. And please bear in mind who it is typing this. I want stricter, effective gun control. What worries me is it will be practically useless feel good while accomplishing nothing legislation that comes out of D.C. and the various state capitols. If we can avoid that and find some sort of gun control that would do something, I'm all on board. As would be most regular posters here I'd bet. Even Damen, Shep, and Stormwarden.
I haven't really followed most of this debate because it is lengthy and I am lazy but have laws relating to firearm storage been raised.
My impression of US gun laws is that I can basically keep a loaded gun under my pillow. Personally I think firearms should be kept in a gun safe with ammunition kept in a separate safe. This would prevent (or at least hinder) people who don't own the firearms from having access to them, such as the children of the owners or intruders to the House.
I suspect, although I don't have any hard figures, they would also reduce the number of accidental shootings.
Two handguns and two pistol permits were stolen from the New City home of a man whose name and address are listed on the website of a local newspaper as possessing gun permits, police said.
The thieves ransacked the house Wednesday night, breaking into two safes on the home's third floor and stealing a third safe. The guns were in the stolen safe, police said.
Clarkstown police said they had no evidence the burglary was connected to the controversial map.
"The burglary is still under investigation, and there are no facts to support this correlation at this time," Clarkstown Sgt. Joanne Fratianni said in a statement. "If the investigation develops further information, it will be released accordingly."
The burglary comes less than a week after a White Plains homeowner -- who also was listed on the Journal News website as having gun permits -- arrived home to find his home burglarized, with jewelry missing and an attempted break-in of his gun safe. The thieves were not successful, and no guns were stolen.
---
The homeowner's stolen pistol permits were for Rockland and Orange counties.
The head of the White Plains Police Benevolent Association, Robert Riley, has been one of the fiercest critics of the Journal News map, saying it puts the lives of police and ordinary residents in potential danger.
"The Journal News printed a virtual treasure map for criminals," Riley said Monday. "It lets the bad guys know who is vulnerable, due to not having a gun permit, and where to go if they wanted a gun."
I haven't really followed most of this debate because it is lengthy and I am lazy but have laws relating to firearm storage been raised.
My impression of US gun laws is that I can basically keep a loaded gun under my pillow. Personally I think firearms should be kept in a gun safe with ammunition kept in a separate safe. This would prevent (or at least hinder) people who don't own the firearms from having access to them, such as the children of the owners or intruders to the House.
Um, there are very little "U.S. gun laws". Most just deal with higher classes of weaponry and provide some guidance on interstate travel. What you do have is 50 state laws plus laws for the District and U.S. territories. And who the fuck knows how many local ordinances and restrictions. Maryland requires me to have a gun safe and trigger locks. Wyoming might not require any of that. Oklahoma may only require trigger locks while Vermont may only require safes. Can you sleep with the gun under your pillow? Check your local listings. But I will put this out there. Maryland does require safes and locks. But really, there's nothing stopping me from sleeping with a gun under my pillow, laws be damned.
Um, there are very little "U.S. gun laws". Most just deal with higher classes of weaponry and provide some guidance on interstate travel. What you do have is 50 state laws plus laws for the District and U.S. territories. And who the fuck knows how many local ordinances and restrictions. Maryland requires me to have a gun safe and trigger locks. Wyoming might not require any of that. Oklahoma may only require trigger locks while Vermont may only require safes. Can you sleep with the gun under your pillow? Check your local listings. But I will put this out there. Maryland does require safes and locks. But really, there's nothing stopping me from sleeping with a gun under my pillow, laws be damned.
I'm not going to dispute anything there (because there's nothing to dispute [save that Oklahoma doesn't require trigger locks and those laws were found unconstitutional (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/other/44134-court-trigger-lock-requirement-also-unconstitutional) in the Heller case]). But I will say you are vastly understating just how many gun laws there are in the USA. How many are there? I don't know. And the simple truth is, no one does for sure (yet) because we hark back to the sheer size of the United States. In this vast country we have the Federal laws. And then we have state laws. But then we also have gun laws at the county level and at the city, town and village level.
When you look at the sheer scope of how many states, counties and cities there are and consider that they may all have different gun laws, the (still unknown) number of gun laws in the USA can swiftly become mind boggling.
All the more reason for there to be a review of gun laws on at least the Federal and State levels. Reviewing local gun laws would also be a big help as well, but given the reluctance of local authorities to address them, it will be difficult.
I've said this before, but it bears repeating: Restore the ATF, get them a director, and, after reviewing the laws currently on the books and eliminating the chaff, start enforcing them properly. And educate, educate, EDUCATE. Teach firearm safety from a young age, make it clear that they aren't toys, and teach responsibility.Unfortunately, I'm not sure the pols can stop playing politics long enough to get any real work done.
Aside from the fact that the ATF hasn't had a director in six years, and has had its budget cut every year for quite some time?
You're misunderstanding his point. When he says there are very few "U.S. gun laws", he's referring to the federal laws. In fact, he immediately goes into explaining the many conflicting state laws.
Honestly, I figure a set of laws based on county population density could work out. Wind up with various classes of gun restrictions/regulations based on the sheer number of people in the area. Penalties for firing the weapon in high density areas such as cities, allowances for weapon use in low density country areas where there's a slight excuse for a gun. And mark out on a county by county basis which class they fall into.
Also, some counties cross city limits. I live in Jefferson County and the city of Topeka, but MOST of Topeka is in Shawnee county. We're like a vanguard tip over the county line.
Will these laws also affect carry regulations? I mean both concealed/open carry of self-defense weapons and the transport of firearms to and from a range, gun store, gunsmith, etc.Well then obviously you people don't know how to make counties correctly, so how can we trust you with gun laws?
One of the biggest problems with the conflicting gun laws is that something that's legal on one side of an imaginary line suddenly becomes illegal on the other side. "County by county" is even more liable to cause problems than "state by state", as people often drive into two or three different counties just to get to work. I personally live in Seminole County, but I pass into Orange County if I ever need to go downtown. In fact, out of the 23 days of work I had on Rockabilly and Game On, exactly 3 days of that took place in Seminole. What if Seminole and Orange County both had radically different laws regarding the transport of weapons due to the change in population density? What about the fact that Orange County most famously includes Orlando, but also includes much less populated areas miles away that are now under gun laws made for a densely populated city?
Well then obviously you people don't know how to make counties correctly, so how can we trust you with gun laws?
cause you never know when you're going to need to fire off a series of bullets to express excitement, and that's illegal up here regardless of the permits.
State lines are really the ONLY place where you can easily have differing gun laws, because they're such large portions of land (and typically don't cut cities or counties in half). Even then, I'd much rather have a concise set of federal laws and exemptions/special changes be handed out to individual locations on a case-by-case basis instead of letting the cities and states do essentially whatever they want.
This is pretty off topic... and might sound stupid... but what makes something a gun? Like how powerful does it have to be? Does it have to be able to break skin or something?
This is pretty off topic... and might sound stupid... but what makes something a gun? Like how powerful does it have to be? Does it have to be able to break skin or something?
I will take a crack at this, guns are by design a manufactured1 tool created with the explicit purpose to cause harm. See also weapon.
1Not naturally occurring in nature. Created from synthesized materials, may contain interlocking mechanisms.
This is pretty off topic... and might sound stupid... but what makes something a gun? Like how powerful does it have to be? Does it have to be able to break skin or something?
I will take a crack at this, guns are by design a manufactured1 tool created with the explicit purpose to cause harm. See also weapon.
1Not naturally occurring in nature. Created from synthesized materials, may contain interlocking mechanisms.
Would you consider a crossbow a gun then?
I know a few compound bows that can fit that description, too.
I would like to add that guns work by firing a projectile when the shooter triggers the firing mechanism and the projectile is not "powered" by the shooter. Usually gunpowder is used but then again airguns have been used for hunting elk centuries ago so I suppose there should be some "threat assesment" to separate kids BB guns and military style airguns. (I bet that not all of you knew they existed.)
This is pretty off topic... and might sound stupid... but what makes something a gun? Like how powerful does it have to be? Does it have to be able to break skin or something?
I will take a crack at this, guns are by design a manufactured1 tool created with the explicit purpose to cause harm. See also weapon.
1Not naturally occurring in nature. Created from synthesized materials, may contain interlocking mechanisms.
Would you consider a crossbow a gun then?
I know a few compound bows that can fit that description, too.
This is pretty off topic... and might sound stupid... but what makes something a gun? Like how powerful does it have to be? Does it have to be able to break skin or something?
This is pretty off topic... and might sound stupid... but what makes something a gun? Like how powerful does it have to be? Does it have to be able to break skin or something?
I will take a crack at this, guns are by design a manufactured1 tool created with the explicit purpose to cause harm. See also weapon.
1Not naturally occurring in nature. Created from synthesized materials, may contain interlocking mechanisms.
Would you consider a crossbow a gun then?
I know a few compound bows that can fit that description, too.
A crossbow and or compound bow do not naturally occur in nature. While the materials used to create them may, they in and of themselves do not. Unless you have found a way to literally grow a crossbow plant. Though this does bring up a lacking aspect with my definition, range. Otherwise knives and guns can easily be confounded.
New Definition:
Guns are by design a manufactured1 tool created with the explicit purpose to cause harm at a variety of distances. See also weapon.
1Not naturally occurring in nature. Created from synthesized materials, may contain interlocking mechanisms.
I know of guns made of wood and bows and crossbows made of plastic, often with interlocking components. They can also cause harm at a variety of differences.
Again, do bows and crossbows count as guns?
I know of guns made of wood and bows and crossbows made of plastic, often with interlocking components. They can also cause harm at a variety of differences.
Again, do bows and crossbows count as guns?
They lack a barrel and so technically, do not count as a gun.
What they are considered to be legally, might be a different matter entirely depending on where you live. In Canada, they aren't.
A crossbow and or compound bow do not naturally occur in nature. While the materials used to create them may, they in and of themselves do not. Unless you have found a way to literally grow a crossbow plant. Though this does bring up a lacking aspect with my definition, range. Otherwise knives and guns can easily be confounded.
New Definition:
Guns are by design a manufactured1 tool created with the explicit purpose to cause harm at a variety of distances. See also weapon.
1Not naturally occurring in nature. Created from synthesized materials, may contain interlocking mechanisms.
New Definition:
Guns are by design a manufactured1 tool created with the explicit purpose to cause harm at a variety of distances. See also weapon.
1Not naturally occurring in nature. Created from synthesized materials, may contain interlocking mechanisms.
1. Any weapon (including a starter gun) that expels a projectile by the action of an explosive
2. The frame or receiver of any such weapon
3. Firearm mufflers and silencers
4. Destructive devices
The exact same legislation during the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban that tried to ban heat shields, folding stocks, and pistol grips.
The Striker is only unique by a 12 round magazine, which the Kel-Tec KSG and UTS 15 both exceed while not being legally any different from typical firearms AND being released in a much more left-wing time period. It's not exactly fast to reload either, since you need to insert a shell into each chamber (like a Colt Single Action Army) and on the older versions actually wind the cylinder. It only has 3 rounds more than a typical shotgun with an extended magazine tube and a round in the chamber as well.Interesting, are you sure that the purpose of such legislation was not to make handling guns more difficult?
I almost though the Saiga12 was an assault rifle for a moment!
(http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/_thumbs/Images/shotgun/sh07/saiga_12k-1.jpg)
It takes about two seconds for someone who's not very good with guns to reload a handgun or rifle with a detachable magazine. Someone who practices their reloading skills can have the gun ready to fire in under a second.I have to ask what exactly you're saying here.
I almost though the Saiga12 was an assault rifle for a moment!
(http://world.guns.ru/userfiles/_thumbs/Images/shotgun/sh07/saiga_12k-1.jpg)
There's no rear sight, the mag is disproportional, and the butt stock appears to be way heavier than it needs to be for a rifle.
I have to ask what exactly you're saying here.
Someone with can swap out a magazine from their hand to their gun in 2 seconds, or go through the process of retrieving the new magazine and loading it to the gun in 2 seconds?
Most people I know take 5 seconds to find their damn keys, with a lanyard. Either having a magazine in a proper secured pouch You'd have to unfasten the pouch, snag the magazine, and get the magazine from the pouch location to the ammo port. Assuming they can walk and chew gum at the same time ejecting the old magazine and letting it fall while getting the new one, letting it fall rather than retrieving it. Probably longer for your typical idiot who's just stuffed a few magazines in their pocket as they'd have to fumble around for it.
I can see a lot of people managing 2 seconds if the magazine is sitting next to the rifle itself, but I don't see it as a realistic time in any situation the laws would be concerned with. Plus reloading does a wonderful job of showing intent to kill someone rather than being panic fire that some how managed to hit someone.
Even just assuming five seconds, five seconds can be a lot of time when someone is keyed up from being shot at.
You also know a lot more about guns than most people. Though I would admit figuring for someone competent with firearms would be quite different. I have no problem believing you can manage it, perhaps I'm assigning a wrong group of 'most people' when I read his post.
My view on it is that a lot of responsible gun owners tend to practice the hell out of things like this, for several reasons:
1) If it came to a self-defense situation, the other person won't just sit there and let you reload.
2) A slip up at a critical moment could get someone (you, possibly others) killed.
Like a lot of other things, practice makes perfect. As an example, I would want to practice this in case the first clip (or cylinder if I go with a revolver) doesn't stop the bear. Let me make it clear: I REALLY don't want to be in that predicament, and I will take every precaution against it, but where I am, the possibility is there when I'm out and about.
Except columbine had armed guards (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/21/columbine-armed-guards_n_2347096.html) on the day of the massacre. Likewise, no mass shooting has ever been stopped by a "good guy" (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/nra-mass-shootings-myth) with a gun.
After reading the provided link about Columbine, as far as the glasses go, you're making a few leaps here in regard to how Gardner was affected. "Jim Shults, a Colorado-based former SWAT trainer and critic of the Columbine response, said the glasses may not be significant." The guard was also able to give a detailed description of Harris despite the many yards between them including slight body movements (Klebold was not present).
....
Additionally, one can have prescription glasses and not have vision impaired enough to interfere with aiming a gun sight at a target, even at a distance.
The problem here is you don't know how blurred his vision was and you're filling in the blanks to suit your determination. These assumptions don't help your argument. Unless you have evidence of the degree of his impairment.
a man killed 7 and injured 10 with nothing but a truck and a knife, both items that almost any of the mass shooters would have access to.Since trucks are known for not being lethal in anyway, particularly not in crowded areas.
If you want an example of a mass killing that involved no gunfire at all, look at the Akihabara Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre) in Japan. In a nation where firearms are under extremely tight scrutiny, a man killed 7 and injured 10 with nothing but a truck and a knife, both items that almost any of the mass shooters would have access to. According to the National Police Agency, 67 similar attacks have occurred between 1998 and 2007 (can you recall 67 attempted mass shootings in the United States in the past 10 years?). Exactly 7 years before Akihabara, a school janitor killed 8 children and seriously wounded 13 others and two teachers with a kitchen knife; the total number of casualties is only 3 lower than the Sandy Hook death count (excluding the shooter and his mother, which he murdered earlier). Sarin gas attack in Japan? 13 deaths, over 1100 injured, 50 of whom suffered long-term effects. A previous attack on the Tokyo Metro killed 8 and injured 144. The impure sarin used in the attack can be made by a chemist who simply has the right ingredients and recipe, and the method of attack is as simple as dropping a plastic bag full of the liquid on the floor, stabbing it a few times with your umbrella, and walking off.
But clearly, guns are the problem. Japan's certainly NEVER suffered massive amounts of casualties to killing sprees.
If you want an example of a mass killing that involved no gunfire at all, look at the Akihabara Massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre) in Japan. In a nation where firearms are under extremely tight scrutiny, a man killed 7 and injured 10 with nothing but a truck and a knife, both items that almost any of the mass shooters would have access to. According to the National Police Agency, 67 similar attacks have occurred between 1998 and 2007 (can you recall 67 attempted mass shootings in the United States in the past 10 years?). Exactly 7 years before Akihabara, a school janitor killed 8 children and seriously wounded 13 others and two teachers with a kitchen knife; the total number of casualties is only 3 lower than the Sandy Hook death count (excluding the shooter and his mother, which he murdered earlier). Sarin gas attack in Japan? 13 deaths, over 1100 injured, 50 of whom suffered long-term effects. A previous attack on the Tokyo Metro killed 8 and injured 144. The impure sarin used in the attack can be made by a chemist who simply has the right ingredients and recipe, and the method of attack is as simple as dropping a plastic bag full of the liquid on the floor, stabbing it a few times with your umbrella, and walking off.
But clearly, guns are the problem. Japan's certainly NEVER suffered massive amounts of casualties to killing sprees.
Look at all the ignored context since we are confounding Japan and the USA. Chitoryu12, let’s play ‘one of these things is not like the other’!
What is the purpose of Sarin gas?
What is the purpose of a knife?
What is the purpose of a truck?
How about this? We all stop and chill out for a moment. We've been debating this whole thing for three months, and some of the stuff here's starting to remind me of what we fucking submit in the quote queue. So let's get the peace pipe out and calm down. Feels like 12 Angry Men in this frickin' thread...
How about this? We all stop and chill out for a moment. We've been debating this whole thing for three months, and some of the stuff here's starting to remind me of what we fucking submit in the quote queue. So let's get the peace pipe out and calm down. Feels like 12 Angry Men in this frickin' thread...
....
Look at all the ignored context since we are confounding Japan and the USA. Chitoryu12, let’s play ‘one of these things is not like the other’!
What is the purpose of Sarin gas?
What is the purpose of a knife?
What is the purpose of a truck?
You're missing my point. 2/3 of that list are within the reach of literally almost every single person who has committed a mass killing or desired to do so.
Incidents with several dozen deaths like Virginia Tech and Aurora, despite the fear mongering inherent in talks about gun control, are extremely rare events.
The majority of mass shootings (or attempted mass shootings, like the SuccessTech Academy shooting that failed to kill anyone but the gunman) have injuries and deaths of the same caliber as one man with a knife and/or truck.
Moreover, mass shootings are rarely moments where a person with a gun "snaps" and shows up an hour later dual-wielding and trying to kill as many people as possible,
or the frankly fictitious claim that someone with a concealed carry license is at risk of murdering someone even if they're just a teacher getting into a disagreement with a student. Even if they don't plan out their shooting in any way beyond gathering the weapons and driving to the location, their reaction isn't "I don't have guns. Better rethink my plans to kill people and learn to love again."
How about this? We all stop and chill out for a moment. We've been debating this whole thing for three months, and some of the stuff here's starting to remind me of what we fucking submit in the quote queue. So let's get the peace pipe out and calm down. Feels like 12 Angry Men in this frickin' thread...
Priestling: I prefer the old B and W version myself, but I actually like reading the original play itself. I find the ending much more interesting in that one. If you get the chance, look for the original play. You won't be disappointed.
Side note:
Thank you Damen for your thoughts on long rage firing, I appreciate the thoroughness. Considering what he was carrying, Neil Gardner would probably have had a difficult time landing an accurate shot as you stated, but suffice it to say there is a distinct lack (at least from what I've seen) of evidence he was compromised by his missing glasses.
How about this? We all stop and chill out for a moment. We've been debating this whole thing for three months, and some of the stuff here's starting to remind me of what we fucking submit in the quote queue. So let's get the peace pipe out and calm down. Feels like 12 Angry Men in this frickin' thread...
THIS THIS THIS
We can arm guards, and teachers all you want, but as long as we have culture that says the way to solve a problem is through the use of a gun, these shootings will continue, and our communities will continue to break down.
Damen: It doesn't help when most guards train their aim for around 21 feet, which, in all fairness, is the range most firefights take place in. What happened at Columbine was a rare case indeed.
Again, I'm not big on guards at schools, but if there needs to be guards, train the hell out of them. That includes situational awareness, threat assessment, unarmed combat, etc.
Right, going back on break from the gun debate. I could use some sun.
The range qualification is pretty easy. You need a score of 78 or better in 2 out of 3 tries to pass.
50 shots. 2 points a shot.
You shoot 5 at 25 yards, 15 at 15 yards, and 30 at 7 yards. And you are timed. Example: 3 shots in 4 seconds... ready... draw!
By the 5th day of shooting you should be able to hit all 30 shots at 7 yards. That means you need to hit 9/20 from the other distances. Very doable.
Most people were in the mid 80s to low 90s on the final day.
Damen: It doesn't help when most guards train their aim for around 21 feet, which, in all fairness, is the range most firefights take place in. What happened at Columbine was a rare case indeed.
Again, I'm not big on guards at schools, but if there needs to be guards, train the hell out of them. That includes situational awareness, threat assessment, unarmed combat, etc.
Right, going back on break from the gun debate. I could use some sun.