Jump to content

Gun Control 5


Stubby

Recommended Posts

Like many other people in this thread, I think many gun owners are in favor of increased regulation. They are just not in favor of laws written by the anti-gun lobby or their supporters because those people tend to not know enough about guns to effectively regulate them - as with the assault weapons ban, or, for an even more egregious example, the following:

I'm also puzzled about Senator Feinstein's call for a ban on automatic and semiautomatic guns as a response to this when the murdering weapons were rifles.

The Bushmaster .223 rifle is an AR-15 clone. The AR-15 is a semi-automatic variant on the M-16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15 "The AR-15 is a lightweight, 5.56 mm, magazine-fed, semi-automatic rifle, with a rotating-lock bolt, actuated by direct impingement gas operation or long/short stroke piston operation." A rifle is a shoulder-fired firearm with a "rifled" (or grooved) barrel. Automatic weapons continue firing while the trigger is pulled and are illegal in the United States. Semi-automatic weapons "performs all steps necessary to prepare the weapon to fire again after firing" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semi-automatic_firearm) but fire one bullet per trigger pull.

People who enough about guns to effectively regulate them don't trust the system enough to participate in it, largely because of past (poorly written) legislation on the subject, etc., and a belief that all members of the anti-gun lobby just want to ban all guns as, you know, scary things they don't understand. And it's hard to say that isn't justified just reading over the last few pages of this thread.

So, it's all at an impasse. Since the anti-gun advocates can't have a total ban, a total handgun ban, etc., etc. under the Constitution, it would, as a practical matter behoove them to either (1) learn enough about guns to propose effective regulations or (2) learn enough about guns to sound enough less ignorant about them that all the people who do aren't unwilling to even come to the table. Not seeing much chance that either will be happening any time soon.

But if the anti-gun advocates want to know why no progress is being made, that is why. Because you do not know what you are talking about to a frightening degree, just as when the Christian right drafts abortion regulations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Facts on how this happened (related directly to the tragedy as opposed to more general society issues).

1. Mentally unstable young man-assumption until further evidence comes to light but I feel pretty safe in making this assumption.

2. Inadequate mental health support for young man-further evidence is required as to why mental health system failed him-ie mother not engaging system on child's behalf, ineffective treatment, inadequate resources.

3. Mother with guns-apparently a surviivalist-meaning fears of societal collapse contributed to her creating the situation where she had guns and her son had access to them. We do not yet know the interaction between mother and son vis a vis her guns so dangerous to speculate, although the evidence that boy shot mother would indicate that the guns were not adequately secured

4. Gun controls are in effect including strict laws in CT that apparently prevented Lanza from obtaining his own guns

5. Lanza used hand guns and assault style rifle, apparently primarily rifle to cause multiple wounds to child

6. Tragedy occured at a school where guns are prohibited and had enacted some common security measures. Doorsto school apparently were glass

7. Despite heroic efforts by staff, lanza was still able to access school rooms to kill

8. Noone was wounded by gunfire they were all killed.

9. Guns were obained legally

10. School apparently did not have a full time security officer in place.

The above can be categorized by access to guns and bullets, nature of weapons, mental health system and security for at risk groups.

Our responsibility as a society is to address all of these things. The only sane response is to address each of the problems, holistically. Certainly the issue gets far more complicated when theissue of guns and violence expands to other gun violence because the nature of the act is significantly different.

I have my ideas which include a vastly expanded health care system, including mental health, outlawing guns-necessarily a gradual process and adding security to sensitive populations. My belief is that little or nothing will be done.

Connecticut is known a state with 'strict' gun laws, but in reality it they aren't that strict. The shooter was definitely capable of purchasing that rifle on his own (as long as he could pass a basic background check). You only need to be 18 to buy a rifle or shotgun in CT. If you buy it at a dealer or store you need to pass a background check and wait 2 weeks to pick it up. A handgun purchase requires you be 21, pass a handgun safety course, bass a federal background check, and be approved by your local police department for a permit.

But to buy a rifle or a shotgun, you don't even need a background check or waiting period unless you buy it at a dealer. If your neighbor wants to sell you one for cash it doesn't have to be reported.

In this case the shooter apparently did try to buy a gun earlier in the week but didn't want to go through the 2 week waiting period that is required by going through a dealer.

A pistol permit allows you to purchase a long gun at a dealer without waiting.

The private sale background check / waiting period loophole is ridiculous.

That being said, if you're a pistol permit holder, you don't need to lock up your weapons unless there are children in the house under the age of 15.

So while it's known as a 'strict gun law' state, in practice it isn't really true, due to serious legal loop holes.

http://www.belfastte...e-16251468.html

Article shedding more light on the psychology of the mother of shooter ............ her sister-in-law disclosed that she was an obsessive "prepper" who been hoarding foods and guns in preparation for an economic collapse.

I'm also puzzled about Senator Feinstein's call for a ban on automatic and semiautomatic guns as a response to this when the murdering weapons were rifles.

The rifle used in the Newton shooting was a semi-automatic rifle. The press uses the word a lot but I'm not sure everyone realizes what it means. Semi-automatic just means that each time you pull the trigger a bullet is fired and another one is loaded. Pretty much every pistol that isn't a revolver is semi-automatic. It doesn't have anything to do with the power of the cartridge or how many bullets the weapon holds.

edit: ninja'd on the semi-auto thing

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By December 1941, the Germans were stopped at Moscow, eliminating the possibility that the Germans could win decisively

Conjecture.

By November 42, the 1st time Americans landed soldiers (in Africa) to face any Axis troops-Vichy French BTW-Stalingrad was won destroying any chance of a German victory

Conjecture.

By September 43, when AMerica landed at Salerno-Continental Europe-Kursk had been won eliminating the German ability to wage strategic offensive warfare.

By this point, the United States was seriously impacting things, so it could be claimed the Soviet Union's victory was in a large part due to the U.S.

By June 44 when America landed in NW Europe, the Soviets had won and crushed the wehrmacht in Operation Bagration puttng victory within easy reach.

They may not have done this without U.S. involvement.

The Soviets faced over 90% of the wehrmacht.

And the U.S. and U.K. faced 90% of the Luftwaffe, and 99% of the Kriegsmarine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except I have refuted it, showing that many thousands to millions of Americans have used their guns to protect themselves and their families, and posessions. I cited CATOs paper on it, articles that showed that after Heller was passed, and more guns were easily obtained, crime went down in two cities. Crime in England is rising, crime in the USA declining.

The Cato stuff is just junk, there are tonnes of rebuttals of it, just google it. Crime in the UK is also falling, but even if it were rising, your murder rate is a ridiculous multiple of ours. There is clear evidence, as I have posted various times that owning a gun increases the likelihood you will commit suicide and murder, and that you will be murdered.

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/07/30/opinion/frum-guns-safer/index.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/murder-rate-falls-crime-figures

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If not, I'd like to know: what's it like being so afraid?

There are a lot of combat veterans in the United States that this kind of attempt at reverse-bravado is pretty insensitive to. I understand where you are coming from, but a lot of people have past experiences, active threats, etc., that cause them to be afraid and it's not cool to be this insensitive, IMO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's put a drunk behind the wheel and find out. There are responsible gun owners and responsible drivers, just as there are criminal snd drunks.

The design purpose of a gun is not to protect the well being of the wielder. If it was a 'deterrent', plastic guns would do. It is there to kill. If the design intent was protection, you would instead get body armor and not a gun. A car was designed for transport through iterations of engines, transmission set up and car bodies. Guns have a more straightforward purpose. I agree that there are responsible owners for both, but calling a gun a tool primarily used for defense is a twisting of the definition. You can't calculate the defense factor of a gun. You can calculate the bullet's impact force and penetration. It's for wounding and killing. Either that, or give me a formula telling you how much it can defend from a threat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a lot of combat veterans in the United States that this kind of attempt at reverse-bravado is pretty insensitive to. I understand where you are coming from, but a lot of people have past experiences, active threats, etc., that cause them to be afraid. People on this board have been threatened on this board by convicted murders.

What? Hired killers don't get sensitivity from me, and I think it's fair to say they aren't looking for it.

I tend to agree with Erik, reading people like Lorien's posts (others too, but you have been more elaborate) I have to say, why are these people so very afraid? It's as if they feel that the world is personally out to get them. The better armed you are, it seems to me, the more frightened you are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a lot of combat veterans in the United States that this kind of attempt at reverse-bravado is pretty insensitive to. I understand where you are coming from, but a lot of people have past experiences, active threats, etc., that cause them to be afraid and it's not cool to be this insensitive, IMO.

I think rational people would get out of a hellhole, rather than set up some killing zone in their own home.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ummm, 11 months before ground forces landed in Africa, not really an expeditious training schedule.

We did have a few prewar marine units get to Guadalcanal, but that is irrelevant as again, pre war units.

If you look at U.S. replacement rates per unit, you should note that for example, the 1st Division had a 205.9% casualty rate, and that's just after June 6th 1944. And I'm just picking on the 1st, there were all those other divisions too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A gun is designed to kill; I use mine to harvest delicious meat. As far as I'm concerned there's not much advantage to using it to defend yourself except in some crazy situation that I can't even imagine. Not to say it doesn't happen; it's just that 99.99% of the situations I can imagine defending myself in, I wouldn't be reaching for a gun.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at U.S. replacement rates per unit, you should note that for example, the 1st Division had a 205.9% casualty rate, and that's just after June 6th 1944. And I'm just picking on the 1st, there were all those other divisions too.

205.9% sounds a bit...impossible. That's me being polite, BTW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are a lot of combat veterans in the United States that this kind of attempt at reverse-bravado is pretty insensitive to. I understand where you are coming from, but a lot of people have past experiences, active threats, etc., that cause them to be afraid and it's not cool to be this insensitive, IMO.

People that are afraid deserve some amount of sympathy, but people who are irrationally afraid don't necessarily deserve to have their excessive and dangerous precautions catered to.

RWHamel: http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/ww2-loss.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

reading people like Lorien's posts (others too, but you have been more elaborate) I have to say, why are these people so very afraid? It's as if they feel that the world is personally out to get them. The better armed you are, it seems to me, the more frightened you are.

Why do you take out life insurance? Is it because you are afraid of dying? No, it is to protect someone financially when the day finally arrives. The better prepared you are for the eventuality you are taking steps to deal with, the more secure you are.

You inject the word fear because you are projecting your own feelings onto others.

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...