Jump to content

Gun Control III: the Hedge Knight Rises.


Mother Cocanuts

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Has the NRA said it's OK with the bump stock ban?

I don't think the NRA would pick a public fight against an all Republican govt on bump stocks. They may choose to fight a rear guard action and get enough votes to kill the ban without any kind of public campaign. But they would probably live with taking the loss if they were confident the loss would be limited only to bump stocks.

How did the fully automatic ban get through? I assume the NRA was at least initially against it, since it is literally a violation of the 2nd amendment in the eyes of a lot of pro-gun people. The popularity of bump stocks is an obvious sing that many gun owners would like to be able to legally own fully automatic weapons. In fact I don't know how this ban has not been successfully challenged in the SCOTUS, unless the pro-gun folks have decided that it's not a fight they want to take (and win) because the PR would be very negative for them.

But if anyone tried to do anything more meaningful, eg. universal background checks, the NRA wold go into full on attack mode no matter who is in power.

The NRA is for the bump stock ban when it's included in the national concealed carry bill that will be coming.  They're trying to package it nice. 

 

ETA:. I bet that after Trump and co pretend to look into school shootings for a bit we'll set 'gun bill' that will really just be shoring up gun rights with a few insignificant concessions like banning bumpstocks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On ‎02‎/‎16‎/‎2018 at 11:14 AM, SerHaHa said:

There were plenty of other horrific mass shootings, and "regular" shootings everyday, thousands per year in Chicago alone, (sometimes 150 shootings per weekend and 25+deaths in a single long weekend there), long before the orange orangutan showed up on the scene.  Blaming Trump, hating Trump, and talking about Trump isn't going to get us out of the cycle of violence society is in.

 

Actually my post wasn't intended for this thread, it was actually meant for the US Politics thread in general. When I logged in to make a reply it somehow send me to this topic without me noticing. As for gun control I don't think I would disagree with you, but good luck getting anything accomplished with the congress we have now and days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is interesting that the pro-gun people talk about people being the problem, not guns. But they are as disinclined to do anything about people's access to guns as they are about limiting or eliminating access to certain kinds of guns. So they have their views about what the problem is, but they are unwilling to entertain meaningful solutions to the problem.

Until they accept that in order for certain types of people to be kept away from guns every gun owner will need to do some things they haven't been required to do until now, there will be no solutions to gun violence and mass shootings. Banning certain types of guns (or gun accessories) might limit the carnage when someone goes on a rampage, but it won't stop these people getting their hands on guns and going on a rampage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/21/2018 at 3:23 AM, Yukle said:

On the first part, yes, they said they would support such a ban.

My understanding was that the NRA would support restrictions on bump stocks, but not an outright ban?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, mormont said:

My understanding was that the NRA would support restrictions on bump stocks, but not an outright ban?

The NRA will consent to the bump stock ban and maybe some other ineffective milquetoast solutions, if they can also get a national concealed carry bill passed. Half a step forward and three steps back with these fuckers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, DanteGabriel said:

The NRA will consent to the bump stock ban and maybe some other ineffective milquetoast solutions, if they can also get a national concealed carry bill passed. Half a step forward and three steps back with these fuckers.

I've looked around and I can't find anything saying that they agree to even this. The closest I've come is this, which suggests they'll 'look at' any proposal on bump stocks before commenting, and that for now their position is unchanged: which means that it is that they want ATF to report on whether bump stocks comply with federal law. Which is pretty much a whole bag of nothing at all. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, mormont said:

I've looked around and I can't find anything saying that they agree to even this. The closest I've come is this, which suggests they'll 'look at' any proposal on bump stocks before commenting, and that for now their position is unchanged: which means that it is that they want ATF to report on whether bump stocks comply with federal law. Which is pretty much a whole bag of nothing at all. 

Fair enough. I was going off the October 2017 statement referenced in your link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m out of the house right now, but just before I left I was watching the head of the NRA speak at some NRA conference on CNN, and the short bit I saw was both sickening and disgusting. The children in Florida demand their constitutionally protected right to life, the NRA says the only way to demand life is with guns. 

Really sickening was his discussion, an NRA talking point I see widely broadcast to politicians, of the idea schools just put out the welcome mats for killers looking for easy targets. That there is more security to protect banks and Hollywood galas, and absolutely bizarre statement in so many ways. 

Correct me if I’m wrong, but hasn’t virtually every school shooting been committed by a student or a former student, or on occasion a disgruntled male spouse or ex hunting down a wife or girlfriend? (Can’t remember the first, Texas, but it might be the exception, and just because there was a tower.) The NRA people have been demanding metal detectors, armed police, armed teachers, bunker-like schools with limited access points (just imagine a fire and stampeding students looking for a door).

And his comment about ‘Hollywood galas’ having security. What the hell was that about - an invitation to his audience to go shoot up a Hollywood gala, nudge-nudge wink-wink?

Holy WTF, only in America does anyone think of schools as an inviting meal for a gunman.

And before that he was ranting about how useless background checks are, naming all the shooters who had passed background checks. I mean, geez Louise, doesn’t that prove the point, asshole, it’s the access to guns?

The NRA (I just accidentally typed IRA, lol) wants to see the US spend billions on mental health and rebuilding schools as fortresses and arming everyone just so a small percentage of the population can buy any weapon they want at the drop of the hat. While billions should be spent on health issues, no doubt, it’s the billions on turning every building into a fortress to protect people from the guns that citizens are born with a right to have (another of his points) that is frightening.

Imagine, East German blocks of buildings across America.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Fragile Bird said:

I’m out of the house right now, but just before I left I was watching the head of the NRA speak at some NRA conference on CNN, and the short bit I saw was both sickening and disgusting. The children in Florida demand their constitutionally protected right to life, the NRA says the only way to demand life is with guns. 

Really sickening was his discussion, an NRA talking point I see widely broadcast to politicians, of the idea schools just put out the welcome mats for killers looking for easy targets. That there is more security to protect banks and Hollywood galas, and absolutely bizarre statement in so many ways. 

Correct me if I’m wrong, but hasn’t virtually every school shooting been committed by a student or a former student, or on occasion a disgruntled male spouse or ex hunting down a wife or girlfriend? (Can’t remember the first, Texas, but it might be the exception, and just because there was a tower.) The NRA people have been demanding metal detectors, armed police, armed teachers, bunker-like schools with limited access points (just imagine a fire and stampeding students looking for a door).

And his comment about ‘Hollywood galas’ having security. What the hell was that about - an invitation to his audience to go shoot up a Hollywood gala, nudge-nudge wink-wink?

Holy WTF, only in America does anyone think of schools as an inviting meal for a gunman.

And before that he was ranting about how useless background checks are, naming all the shooters who had passed background checks. I mean, geez Louise, doesn’t that prove the point, asshole, it’s the access to guns?

The NRA (I just accidentally typed IRA, lol) wants to see the US spend billions on mental health and rebuilding schools as fortresses and arming everyone just so a small percentage of the population can buy any weapon they want at the drop of the hat. While billions should be spent on health issues, no doubt, it’s the billions on turning every building into a fortress to protect people from the guns that citizens are born with a right to have (another of his points) that is frightening.

Imagine, East German blocks of buildings across America.

Well, look at it this way. The NRA is the marketing arm of the gun manufacturers. A few deaths are worth the profits. 

All I can see are armed fortress out of our worst dystopian nightmares instead of schools where kids can learn and feel safe. It's insanity. 

Background checks will stop some people from getting these weapons, but there's a problem with that. Most of them have never committed a crime before their shooting spree, so they might not show up in the system at all. What then? 

The only way to be sure is a total ban on assault weapons and all the accessories that come with them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The NRA is the equivalent of tobacco companies in the 1950's. They're a marketing firm trying to pass themselves off as an advocacy group--a disgusting pack of war profiteers that value profits over innocent lives.

For the past thirty years, they've lured gun owners to their side with scare tactics and slick marketing that promises "security" and packages "freedom." Their attempts to commercialize patriotism would be absurdly laughable if they weren't so  effective with a certain segment of the population. 

They fucking disgust me. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, mormont said:

I've looked around and I can't find anything saying that they agree to even this. The closest I've come is this, which suggests they'll 'look at' any proposal on bump stocks before commenting, and that for now their position is unchanged: which means that it is that they want ATF to report on whether bump stocks comply with federal law. Which is pretty much a whole bag of nothing at all. 

Oh... yes, now that I read it carefully it's essentially endorsing the status quo in order that nothing is actually restricted.

 

7 hours ago, Crazy Cat Lady in Training said:

The only way to be sure is a total ban on assault weapons and all the accessories that come with them. 

Then all of the morons say, "It's not so easy to define an assault weapon, you liberal snowflake, so therefore it's a dumb idea." Which is easy: all guns are assault weapons, so that's fairly clear.

They also have this stupid idea that unless a gun law will stop violence 100% of the time then it's a non-starter. "Oh, ban bump stocks? What about modified barrels? People will just find other means therefore your law is dumb and won't pass."

The NRA are flat out evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I've known that since they started using the fact that the AR-15 isn't technically an assault rifle because it doesn't have a selective fire mechanism as an argument. One of the first things to come up when I was getting qualified on the C7 (which is virtually identical to the AR-15) was that switching to full auto was fun, but pretty much pointless. 90% of the time it's just a waste of ammo. But the AR-15 isn't an assault rifle therefore it's perfectly okay to let civilians use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This article came across my Facebook feed, posted by one of our boarders who is a doctor.

It was written by one of the doctors, a radiologist, who works in the trauma centre where the kids from the high school were brought for treatment, and it explains why many died. They may have survived the very same wounds from another gun, but the velocity of the bullets from an AR-15 make it exceptionally deadly. https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/what-i-saw-treating-the-victims-from-parkland-should-change-the-debate-on-guns/553937/

 

Quote

In a typical handgun injury that I diagnose almost daily, a bullet leaves a laceration through an organ like the liver. To a radiologist, it appears as a linear, thin, grey bullet track through the organ. There may be bleeding and some bullet fragments.

I was looking at a CT scan of one of the victims of the shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, who had been brought to the trauma center during my call shift. The organ looked like an overripe melon smashed by a sledgehammer, with extensive bleeding. How could a gunshot wound have caused this much damage?

 

Quote

The bullet from an AR-15 passes through the body like a cigarette boat travelling at maximum speed through a tiny canal. The tissue next to the bullet is elastic—moving away from the bullet like waves of water displaced by the boat—and then returns and settles back. This process is called cavitation; it leaves the displaced tissue damaged or killed. The high-velocity bullet causes a swath of tissue damage that extends several inches from its path. It does not have to actually hit an artery to damage it and cause catastrophic bleeding. Exit wounds can be the size of an orange.

With an AR-15, the shooter does not have to be particularly accurate. The victim does not have to be unlucky. If a victim takes a direct hit to the liver from an AR-15, the damage is far graver than that of a simple handgun shot injury. Handgun injuries to the liver are generally survivable unless the bullet hits the main blood supply to the liver. An AR-15 bullet wound to the middle of the liver would cause so much bleeding that the patient would likely never make it to a trauma center to receive our care.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NB: The following post is not mine, but made elsewhere by an online-friend who's British, ex-military and currently working in mental health. I haven't verified the figures, as I trust the source, but feel free:

 

" There are around 3.2 million professional school teachers in the US. If 20% of them are armed then that means 640,000 of them are taking a gun to school every day.

The incidence of PTSD in the general population of the US is estimated at between 7-8%, which can be extrapolated to suggest that somewhere between 44,800 and 51,200 people would be walking into American schools every morning armed with a weapon and some form of mental disorder.

But wait! If the intent is to concentrate the carriage of guns into a 20% of "gun-adept teachers with military or special training experience," then the incidence of PTSD in the military population must be taken into consideration. According to peer-reviewed research (Psychological Services Vol9, No4, 361-382 (2012)) the prevalence of PTSD among former Servicemen and women who have served in recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan is between 14-16%. This would suggest that between 89,600 and 102,400 people would be walking into school in the US every morning armed with a weapon, a mental disorder and military training! "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...