I have created this thread to allow the debate that has risen in the Ct shooting thread a place to be debated without spoiling the intent of that other thread.
I have moved those points being made about gun control onto here and ask that if you have comments concerning gun control, you put them here.
Note: The same rules concerning Politics apply to ALL threads, so please, make your points without resorting to bi-partisan comments about politicians.
Quote from: YankeeJim on December 15, 2012, 01:50:51 AM
This is not a time for politics but I can't let one side spout their opinions without responding.
I do not own a gun. There are no guns in my house. I know what guns can do from personal experience and what I can do with a gun. For the later rather then the former is why there are no guns in my house. The only people crazier then gun nuts are those who think government intervention via gun control will do something to prevent insane people doing insane things. Today, in China, a crazy took a knife and slashed 22 children. Before someone says that a gun is more efficient than a knife I would add that confining cars, buses and trains to 20 MPH would drastically cut accident deaths. Yea, I know that statement is crazy. Just as crazy as thinking making an object illegal would eliminate bad people doing bad things. We have a society today that someone once called the "me" society. People have no commitment to anything other than themselves. This fool in Newtown, CT and the one in China are the problem. A problem that our society has created. Does society have a right to regulate guns? Absolutely. Control of large magizines, rapid fire weapons and the like is something I would support. I would add that the city in the US that has the strongest gun laws is Washington, DC. It also has the highest gun murder rate in the country. Chicago also has strong laws and they mow down hundreds a year. The issue is society and only education of that society can reduce horrible events such as this.
Quote from: Forever Fulham on December 15, 2012, 01:12:46 PM
Quote from: YankeeJim on December 15, 2012, 01:50:51 AM
This is not a time for politics but I can't let one side spout their opinions without responding.
I do not own a gun. There are no guns in my house. I know what guns can do from personal experience and what I can do with a gun. For the later rather then the former is why there are no guns in my house. The only people crazier then gun nuts are those who think government intervention via gun control will do something to prevent insane people doing insane things. Today, in China, a crazy took a knife and slashed 22 children. Before someone says that a gun is more efficient than a knife I would add that confining cars, buses and trains to 20 MPH would drastically cut accident deaths. Yea, I know that statement is crazy. Just as crazy as thinking making an object illegal would eliminate bad people doing bad things. We have a society today that someone once called the "me" society. People have no commitment to anything other than themselves. This fool in Newtown, CT and the one in China are the problem. A problem that our society has created. Does society have a right to regulate guns? Absolutely. Control of large magizines, rapid fire weapons and the like is something I would support. I would add that the city in the US that has the strongest gun laws is Washington, DC. It also has the highest gun murder rate in the country. Chicago also has strong laws and they mow down hundreds a year. The issue is society and only education of that society can reduce horrible events such as this.
I normally agree with most of your observations posted on this forum, but not this one. Just because sensible gun control laws won't stop every nut case from committing heinous acts. we shouldn't b e deterred fromdoing what is right and sensible. It WILL make a difference if we institute meaningful background checks of would be firearms buyers to make sure they don't have histories of mental illness, severe depression, schizophrenia, etc., or a violent criminal record. We can and should do that as a bare minimum. We should close the so-called Gun Show Loophole. We should require registration of every firearm. There is no good reason in a civilized world for a citizen to own a machine gun, an automatic rifle, and so on. You can adequately hunt deer, wild boar, elk, etc., without military-grade weaponry. How was a deranged individual able to obtain a Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle, which greatly increased his ability to mow down little children in an elementary school. Shame on the NRA and Republican legislators who take its lobby money and kiss its fanny. Don't let the perfect get in the way of the good. There is no perfect solution. But that doesn't mean we should do so little. Sadly, every time a mass murder of this sort occurs, the public gets outraged for a few days. Then the TV production crews pack up and move on. They find a new story to cover. And nothing changes. I just don't understand why there isn't a lasting wellspring of public determination to address the issue of easy access, accountability, and registration. This Second Amendment argument is nonsense, an historic anomaly of Revolutionary period farmer militiamen. There were no semi-automatic high powered rifles back then, no bazookas, grenades, or tommy guns.
With all due respect, most of your arguments are not logical. This kid had no record & no other indications that would have kept him from buying a gun under the things you propose. hI agree with your comments on military grade weapons, waiting periods & the gun show loop ole. Background checks are done if poorly. These things should be addressed. But, none of them will keep guns out of the hands of crimminals. Heck, the current liberal administration sold hundreds of military grade weapons to the cartels in Mexico under the Fast & Furious program. In Mexico guns are illegal yet they have managed to kill 40,000 people in the last 6 years. How do you address that?
When something horrible happens, people seem to think they have to do something as if doing the wrong thing is some sort of panicia. Nothing that anyone on the left has recommeded would do anything, anything to prevent the horror og uesterday. Put crimnals in jail and commit nut cases; their civil rights are not superior to the safety of people in general.
The fact that you moved my comments about gun control over here and none of the other dozen or so comments tells me a lot.
This should have been nipped in the bud when the first comment was made, not just when you disagree with it.
I have to agree with you there YJ. I can only cite Hungerford and Dunblane as prime examples of the fact that it does take more than mere gun control, and even after the laws were tightened further, look at Cumbria just 2 years ago.
All of the above were committed in a country that has had one of the tightest gun control laws since 1921, and, when we compare that to those atrocities in the US, you might find that, for a population of some 5 or 6 times that of the UK, the US record is not actually so much worse than that of the UK.
Obviously, the day-to-day gang shootings place a whole different perspective on it, but lets be honest, if the gangs had a killing spree and started taking each other out, it could only be a good thing for society as whole, unlike those that involve schools and members of the public.
In addition, the number of people that believe the President can, alone, change the laws on gun control, obviously need to get with the program. The NRA (weirdly quite silent since the latest massacre don't you think?) happily wield much power behind the scenes, and with their celebrity spokespersons, and financial backing to political parties and lobbyists, they garner a lot of clout on Capitol Hill.
BTW, there is a report on NBC today that the shooter attempted to buy a gun but was denied. Guess gun control worked.
The NRA never comment immediately after a mass shooting. They always wait a couple of days.
A few years ago a man walked into a primary school in England. It's very difficult (not impossible, of course - but very difficult) to get hold of guns in the UK, so this guy had a machete. He attacked children and adults. A teacher stood up to him and was badly injured: but she lived and so did the children he tried to kill.
If that guy had had a gun...
Banning guns won't stop crazy people being crazy. It just makes it more difficult for crazy people to kill so many people. Banning sales won't stop crazy people getting guns, but it will make it harder. Some will still get guns, that doesn't mean it isn't worth making it harder.
There is complete incomprehension outside the US as to why Americans seem so reluctant to make it harder to get guns. It seems perverse. Is there a serious reason why guns should stay so easy to get? I don't get it. You seem like a serious guy, YJ, and I'm not having a go at you, but can you explain the thinking here?
Quote from: The Bronsons on December 16, 2012, 01:36:05 AM
The NRA never comment immediately after a mass shooting. They always wait a couple of days.
A few years ago a man walked into a primary school in England. It's very difficult (not impossible, of course - but very difficult) to get hold of guns in the UK, so this guy had a machete. He attacked children and adults. A teacher stood up to him and was badly injured: but she lived and so did the children he tried to kill.
If that guy had had a gun...
Banning guns won't stop crazy people being crazy. It just makes it more difficult for crazy people to kill so many people. Banning sales won't stop crazy people getting guns, but it will make it harder. Some will still get guns, that doesn't mean it isn't worth making it harder.
There is complete incomprehension outside the US as to why Americans seem so reluctant to make it harder to get guns. It seems perverse. Is there a serious reason why guns should stay so easy to get? I don't get it. You seem like a serious guy, YJ, and I'm not having a go at you, but can you explain the thinking here?
I'd just like to make a minor point re UK/gun ownership. Although it is indeed difficult to obtain a gun legally, it doesn't seem to be
that hard to obtain one plus ammo
illegally.
Furthermore if you take a country like Switzerland, where possession of an assault rifle/ammo is de riguer, incidents such as the tragedy in the US don't seem to be occurring. Are there in fact social issues in some places that are the root cause of the problem?
Having said this, I suspect that gun controls will be introduced in the foreseeable future, but do not really believe that it's going to save many lives.
Quote from: The Bronsons on December 16, 2012, 01:36:05 AM
There is complete incomprehension outside the US as to why Americans seem so reluctant to make it harder to get guns. It seems perverse. Is there a serious reason why guns should stay so easy to get? I don't get it. You seem like a serious guy, YJ, and I'm not having a go at you, but can you explain the thinking here?
From living here, arriving from the UK over a decade ago, and speaking with people I have to say it comes from two sources: Independence and Social hunting.
The States in the US are, to all extents, like England, Ireland, Scotland & Wales, they are independent states that are bound by a Federal Government, but each State maintains and fiercely guards it's own rights. As such, any legislation that impacts individual rights is much harder to pass at the Federal level, and requires the States themselves to enact.
In addition to this, there are many more hunters in the UK per head of population than there are in the UK. Hunting is more of a way of life here than it is in the UK, and the first day of any hunting season provides parties and celebrations.
Therefore, basically, to restrict the access to guns is seen as a personal and state infringement, and with the strength of the NRA both at local level and Federal level, the chances of restricting guns much further is slim. Have you noticed the lack of serious debate here following the shootings? There was outrage after Columbine, as that was considered a milestone event, but as each new atrocity rolls by, then the arguments become less and less, the outrage becomes shorter, and the memories (outside of the area affected) fade that little faster.
Quote from: YankeeJim on December 15, 2012, 09:06:09 PM
BTW, there is a report on NBC today that the shooter attempted to buy a gun but was denied. Guess gun control worked.
Ridiculous. James Holmes passed background checks when he bought his guns, that didn't end well. Isn't it around 40% of all annual gun sales in the US take place at gun shows where there are no background checks and waiting periods?
Your initial post is equally ridiculous where you compare guns to cars. You can't ban cars, they're used for transport. Guns have one purpose and that's to kill. Granted that a blanket ban on guns will be impossible to implement because of the American conscience that it's your god given right to own one, there should be bans on more powerful weapons which have absolutely no reason to be in a domestic environment. I was reading about Terrell Suggs (Ravens LB) being questioned the other day and he had to hand over his firearm. He handed over 7!
What's the obsession with collecting guns other than machismo vanity?
Quote from: Mr_Moon on December 16, 2012, 04:14:24 PM
Granted that a blanket ban on guns will be impossible to implement because of the American conscience that it's your god given right to own one,
Perhaps you should read my previous reply, then you would have noted that hunting in the US common, and is a national pastime, and as such, a blanket ban would not work. And when you talk about blanket bans, what do you mean? Federal? If so, then you need to read up on the US Constitution and understand that would not work given the manner in which it was framed.
Quote from: Mr_Moon on December 16, 2012, 04:14:24 PM
there should be bans on more powerful weapons which have absolutely no reason to be in a domestic environment. I was reading about Terrell Suggs (Ravens LB) being questioned the other day and he had to hand over his firearm. He handed over 7!
.. and therefore by your reckoning, a person should only own one car/cycle/motorcycle, because they all do the same thing? When I was living in OK, and we had a problem with possums, I used a shotgun to kill them, because I could get at reasonably close range. If I had also been a hunter, then the shotgun would have been useless to hunt deer (for so many reasons - including the fact I eat deer meat, but not possum). Thus, that's 2 different guns already. If I were to purchase one for personal protection, it would be a handgun, thus 3 different guns, and I wouldn't even be an enthusiast!!
Quote from: Mr_Moon on December 16, 2012, 04:14:24 PM
What's the obsession with collecting guns other than machismo vanity?
Why do people collect cars, football cards, motorcycles, or anything more than one? I have more than one Fulham shirt, that doesn't make me vain, does it? Sorry, that is a very wide-ranging and rather poor argument.
btw, I am not pro-gun at all, since moving north mid-west I have had no need for a gun, especially as I do not hunt, and therefore do not own any at all. I will not have any in the house as our grandchild comes over from time to time, and I would not risk her finding it, and as for personal protection, doesn't wash with me, but that's because I spawn from a non-gun country, and so it's not part of my make-up, but I respect those that were born here, and for whom it is a way of life.
Quote from: Logicalman on December 16, 2012, 04:43:50 PM
Perhaps you should read my previous reply, then you would have noted that hunting in the US common, and is a national pastime, and as such, a blanket ban would not work. And when you talk about blanket bans, what do you mean? Federal? If so, then you need to read up on the US Constitution and understand that would not work given the manner in which it was framed.
.. and therefore by your reckoning, a person should only own one car/cycle/motorcycle, because they all do the same thing? When I was living in OK, and we had a problem with possums, I used a shotgun to kill them, because I could get at reasonably close range. If I had also been a hunter, then the shotgun would have been useless to hunt deer (for so many reasons - including the fact I eat deer meat, but not possum). Thus, that's 2 different guns already. If I were to purchase one for personal protection, it would be a handgun, thus 3 different guns, and I wouldn't even be an enthusiast!!
Why do people collect cars, football cards, motorcycles, or anything more than one? I have more than one Fulham shirt, that doesn't make me vain, does it? Sorry, that is a very wide-ranging and rather poor argument.
btw, I am not pro-gun at all, since moving north mid-west I have had no need for a gun, especially as I do not hunt, and therefore do not own any at all. I will not have any in the house as our grandchild comes over from time to time, and I would not risk her finding it, and as for personal protection, doesn't wash with me, but that's because I spawn from a non-gun country, and so it's not part of my make-up, but I respect those that were born here, and for whom it is a way of life.
I know hunting is a pastime and it's also necessary for wildlife conservation. That's fine. There's perfectly good reasoning for farmers to have firearms to protect livestock and crops. Re: Hunting. Why can't huntsmen keep their rifles at the local nick for them to be checked in and out?
I understand what you mean about consumerism and people wanting things, but you can't compare football shirts and cars to guns. Whilst I do think that having more than two cars is completely unnecessary, they have a completely different use than to eradicate someone or something.
It's sad though. Doesn't America make up 80% of all gun deaths in the 23 richest countries? There's probably going to be another shooting next year, maybe two. And again in 2014 and '15. Whilst there have been tragic incidents in Britain such as Dunblane and Hungerford, I'm happy knowing that there are probably no guns in my area.
Quote from: Mr_Moon on December 16, 2012, 04:14:24 PM
Quote from: YankeeJim on December 15, 2012, 09:06:09 PM
BTW, there is a report on NBC today that the shooter attempted to buy a gun but was denied. Guess gun control worked.
Ridiculous. James Holmes passed background checks when he bought his guns, that didn't end well. Isn't it around 40% of all annual gun sales in the US take place at gun shows where there are no background checks and waiting periods?
Your initial post is equally ridiculous where you compare guns to cars. You can't ban cars, they're used for transport. Guns have one purpose and that's to kill. Granted that a blanket ban on guns will be impossible to implement because of the American conscience that it's your god given right to own one, there should be bans on more powerful weapons which have absolutely no reason to be in a domestic environment. I was reading about Terrell Suggs (Ravens LB) being questioned the other day and he had to hand over his firearm. He handed over 7!
What's the obsession with collecting guns other than machismo vanity?
This is an example of why there is no useful discourse about guns, taxes or religion. People read something, sieze on a few words and then go off on a rant.
Quote from: The Bronsons on December 16, 2012, 01:36:05 AM
The NRA never comment immediately after a mass shooting. They always wait a couple of days.
A few years ago a man walked into a primary school in England. It's very difficult (not impossible, of course - but very difficult) to get hold of guns in the UK, so this guy had a machete. He attacked children and adults. A teacher stood up to him and was badly injured: but she lived and so did the children he tried to kill.
If that guy had had a gun...
Banning guns won't stop crazy people being crazy. It just makes it more difficult for crazy people to kill so many people. Banning sales won't stop crazy people getting guns, but it will make it harder. Some will still get guns, that doesn't mean it isn't worth making it harder.
There is complete incomprehension outside the US as to why Americans seem so reluctant to make it harder to get guns. It seems perverse. Is there a serious reason why guns should stay so easy to get? I don't get it. You seem like a serious guy, YJ, and I'm not having a go at you, but can you explain the thinking here?
Perhaps, (note the word Mr. Moon), it is because we are a nation that was originally settled by persecuted religious people, debtors and criminals (those we now elect to office!) who came from the bottom of society. It took a lot of courage to get on a leaky boat, leave everything they knew to have a chance at being free. They guarded it religiously. They moved west for more freedom and then still further west. Those that came after, often were running from being second class citizens. the Irish & Scots were not treated well by the super power of the day. A persecuted man who has gained his freedom will not easily knuckle under again. Look up Lexington & Concord to see what a bunch of farmers did with hunting guns to the strongest army in the world. This concept of self reliance runs thoughout the American physic and is what sets us apart from the complacent of the world. Many Americnas idea of self protection is not hiding in a closet and waiting for the police to come to their aid but taking matters in their own hands. To be sure, if I lived in an unsafe area, I'd be responsibly armed
Quote from: Logicalman on December 15, 2012, 01:44:43 PM
Quote from: Forever Fulham on December 15, 2012, 01:12:46 PM
Quote from: YankeeJim on December 15, 2012, 01:50:51 AM
This is not a time for politics but I can't let one side spout their opinions without responding.
I do not own a gun. There are no guns in my house. I know what guns can do from personal experience and what I can do with a gun. For the later rather then the former is why there are no guns in my house. The only people crazier then gun nuts are those who think government intervention via gun control will do something to prevent insane people doing insane things. Today, in China, a crazy took a knife and slashed 22 children. Before someone says that a gun is more efficient than a knife I would add that confining cars, buses and trains to 20 MPH would drastically cut accident deaths. Yea, I know that statement is crazy. Just as crazy as thinking making an object illegal would eliminate bad people doing bad things. We have a society today that someone once called the "me" society. People have no commitment to anything other than themselves. This fool in Newtown, CT and the one in China are the problem. A problem that our society has created. Does society have a right to regulate guns? Absolutely. Control of large magizines, rapid fire weapons and the like is something I would support. I would add that the city in the US that has the strongest gun laws is Washington, DC. It also has the highest gun murder rate in the country. Chicago also has strong laws and they mow down hundreds a year. The issue is society and only education of that society can reduce horrible events such as this.
I normally agree with most of your observations posted on this forum, but not this one. Just because sensible gun control laws won't stop every nut case from committing heinous acts. we shouldn't b e deterred fromdoing what is right and sensible. It WILL make a difference if we institute meaningful background checks of would be firearms buyers to make sure they don't have histories of mental illness, severe depression, schizophrenia, etc., or a violent criminal record. We can and should do that as a bare minimum. We should close the so-called Gun Show Loophole. We should require registration of every firearm. There is no good reason in a civilized world for a citizen to own a machine gun, an automatic rifle, and so on. You can adequately hunt deer, wild boar, elk, etc., without military-grade weaponry. How was a deranged individual able to obtain a Bushmaster semi-automatic rifle, which greatly increased his ability to mow down little children in an elementary school. Shame on the NRA and Republican legislators who take its lobby money and kiss its fanny. Don't let the perfect get in the way of the good. There is no perfect solution. But that doesn't mean we should do so little. Sadly, every time a mass murder of this sort occurs, the public gets outraged for a few days. Then the TV production crews pack up and move on. They find a new story to cover. And nothing changes. I just don't understand why there isn't a lasting wellspring of public determination to address the issue of easy access, accountability, and registration. This Second Amendment argument is nonsense, an historic anomaly of Revolutionary period farmer militiamen. There were no semi-automatic high powered rifles back then, no bazookas, grenades, or tommy guns.
I highlighted for you Mr. Moon.
I am just a stupid Brit but this is my view.
You have to change your constitution as a right to bear arms is a hangover from your violent past and should play no part in a modern Country that want to set a good example for behaviour to the rest of the World.
What a Humble Man said.
This isn't the 1800s.
The consitutional right to bear arms was passed in 1791 when that meant single shot muskets.
The problem now is not just the will to change but putting the genie back in the bottle. The weapons are out there. Even a total ban now won't make them disappear.
Quote from: TonyGilroy on December 17, 2012, 09:41:46 AM
The consitutional right to bear arms was passed in 1791 when that meant single shot muskets.
The problem now is not just the will to change but putting the genie back in the bottle. The weapons are out there. Even a total ban now won't make them disappear.
.. and there you have it.
In addition to this, even if we managed to ban guns tomorrow, and then managed to magically make them all disappear the next day from the homes and possession of Americans, within a week we would have millions of more guns back in the States again. The UK is fortunate inasmuch that it is an island, and the natural borders, however insecure they may seem at times, are a lot more secure than our 1,954 mile border to the south with Mexico, and the 5,525 mile northern border with Canada. Both being land borders.
Returning to the argument put forward of even banning guns, the US Constitution is the US equivalent of the Magna Carta, in that is provides certain rights for citizens, and therefore any such changes affect the base of what the US was built on concerning a persons rights and freedoms.
I hear so many people saying about just banning them, or why would a person need a gun, and it becomes obvious that such people either live in a dream world where reality is as remote as us winning the Prem, and are willing to fail to understand there are several cultural differences between the two countries.
To claim that Americans are vain, or act macho, just because of such a difference is naive and insulting. I was born and bred an Englishman, and will always be so in my heart, and when I arrived here I had the same views as those expressed, but having lived in the states for a period of time now, I have begun to understand the psyche a little more, and whereas it is a far from perfect society, it still demands the right and respect of all such societies, just as much as the British culture and society demands that respect.
Sorry to go off on one, but when complex arguments are simplified to insults, then it needs those spouting such crap to be told they are wrong. I will leave you with one thought: If what happened in Ct was so bad, and reflected so bad on the US constitution and society, then how in Gods name, with tightest gun controls in the world, did Hungerford, Dunblane and Cumbria occur?
I can't remember anyone suggesting that a blanket ban would solve all problems.
Yes and those rights in the Magna Carta have changed over time as have some of America's constitutions. Everyone else can see how reluctant America is to change, there's this paranoid element within that society that believes that there is some sort of external enemy that constantly threatens them and their beliefs, hence the need to keep a semi-automatic under the bed in case the Queen, a terrorist or perhaps a communist comes knocking in the night. The same country that has substantial parts of it opposing a health care bill because it has a whiff of socialism to it.
Hungerford, Dunblane, Cumbria happened because it's near impossible to stop a lunatic. Some of the perpetrators in various American shootings have also had mental problems but the main difference is that Britain doesn't positively promote gun use.
Ah! Logicalman strikes a blow for, well, logic. This is a most complex problem and is summed up by an opinion piece in todays Wall Street Journal Hopefully this link will work.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324407504578183392516362534.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324407504578183392516362534.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h)
Difficult problems are not solved by sweeping generalizations. Guns have, are & will be a part of this society. That is not a good thing except in rare circumstances. 1775 comes to mind and a quote attributed to Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto after his successful attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941: "I fear all we have done is to awaken a sleeping giant and fill him with a terrible resolve."[1]
And of course, when the liberals assault my mountain compound I'll be sitting behind my walls with my shotgun, assault rifle and a cannon to ward off the evils of those who would enslave me. :53:
Quote from: Mr_Moon on December 17, 2012, 01:37:57 PM
I can't remember anyone suggesting that a blanket ban would solve all problems.
Yes and those rights in the Magna Carta have changed over time as have some of America's constitutions. Everyone else can see how reluctant America is to change, there's this paranoid element within that society that believes that there is some sort of external enemy that constantly threatens them and their beliefs, hence the need to keep a semi-automatic under the bed in case the Queen, a terrorist or perhaps a communist comes knocking in the night. The same country that has substantial parts of it opposing a health care bill because it has a whiff of socialism to it.
Hungerford, Dunblane, Cumbria happened because it's near impossible to stop a lunatic. Some of the perpetrators in various American shootings have also had mental problems but the main difference is that Britain doesn't positively promote gun use.
Actually, gun owners don't fear any of what you mentioned. They fear government.
Quote from: YankeeJim on December 17, 2012, 01:41:53 PM
Actually, gun owners don't fear any of what you mentioned. They fear government.
I was told that the other day actually. I'm going to have to consult my David Icke flowchart now.
No doubt Logicalman will want to respond to my reply, so I'll post again if necessary but it might be best to leave it here before posting becomes vitriolic. Also as you said, not a time for politics. I've nodded to some of your points and shook my head to others, so I'm going to have to ask if you agree to disagree as I think we'll go round in circles.
Quote from: Mr_Moon on December 17, 2012, 02:07:06 PM
Quote from: YankeeJim on December 17, 2012, 01:41:53 PM
Actually, gun owners don't fear any of what you mentioned. They fear government.
I was told that the other day actually. I'm going to have to consult my David Icke flowchart now.
No doubt Logicalman will want to respond to my reply, so I'll post again if necessary but it might be best to leave it here before posting becomes vitriolic. Also as you said, not a time for politics. I've nodded to some of your points and shook my head to others, so I'm going to have to ask if you agree to disagree as I think we'll go round in circles.
I wasn't having a go at you; at least I didn't mean to. We are not really all that far apart & an Icke's flow chart would likely apply to gun nuts as well as government & other pie in the sky types. What happened in Newtown is beyond sane comprehension & I think goes to each of our own inner fears. To lose a child like that.........
:merry christmas:
Quote from: YankeeJim on December 17, 2012, 02:22:01 PM
I wasn't having a go at you; at least I didn't mean to. We are not really all that far apart & an Icke's flow chart would likely apply to gun nuts as well as government & other pie in the sky types. What happened in Newtown is beyond sane comprehension & I think goes to each of our own inner fears. To lose a child like that.........
:merry christmas:
I know you weren't, I just thought that it would be better to leave it there. I don't have children so whilst what happened in Newton is dreadful, I know I haven't been as affected by it as parents have. I feel so much for the families who were looking forward to enjoying the festive period together.
Oh and :merry christmas: too.
Mr Moon,
I think you might have me wrong here. I don't disagree with what you say, I don't believe in the gun culture, and it is the very rare lunatic that does these terrible atrocities. My post wasn't meant to verge on the vitriolic, unfortunately I have grown up with the same beliefs that you have expressed, just to find that some of basics are a little different when viewed from the US side of things.
What I vehemently disagree with is the assumption that the base of the US Constitution must be changed because the US culture, that includes guns, does not fit in with that of the UK. My main point is that nobody will disagree with the need to ban guns (in the most part) but to just say 'ban guns' is not a solution, and provides those would have everyone armed to the teeth 'to defend freedom' with an claim that this simply a Government-sponsored assault on personal freedoms.
You're perfectly correct that the Constitution has been altered in an umber of ways, but you will find that the basic thrust of the first 10 have not been actually changed, bar the introduction of some limitations, e.g. gun ownership being banned for convicted felons, etc.
Just to show how complex and wide-ranging this argument becomes, this morning there were two State Governors on national TV, one from Ct and other from Tx. The first, obviously, was calling for tighter gun control, the second however, called for less gun control because it infringes the rights of all Americans to defend themselves. Unfortunately there are just too many of the population that agrees with the latter, and similarly, too many Senators and Representatives that have been provided to by the lobbyists for the NRA.
You and I agree on so many issues here, we just need to understand the finer points of how it is perceived in the US. oh, and especially, :merry christmas: to you and yours.
Let's say for one moment we are able to take every gun ever made and melt it down to build houses for the poor (perfect world)... Now we still have mental patients like this arse hole that killed all them babies, this guy gets so angry he grabs a machette and builds a few bombs... breaks into the school and starts wingin bombs into class rooms... people panic sprint for the doors, now the hallways are full of babies and adults... he tosses another home made bomb into the crowded hallway... more panic, he starts hacking dazed and confused children with his machette like the hootu and the tootsis... AS WE LEARNED ON 911 YOU CAN'T STOP CRAZY PEOPLE FROM DOING HARM TO THOSE WHO CAN'T DEFEND THEMSELVES. STOP BEING SO QUICK TO GIVE AWAY YOUR FREEDOMS. If we learned anything from the last idiot to inhabit the white house it should be not to allow our government to take away our freedoms... God Bless those poor children and especially their families, my heart bleeds for them it really does.
All that said, there is no problem with some well placed gun control. We have no need for assault rifles, I mean come on what is next for the gun toting zombies bazookas and tanks? you know bear hunting... whatever.
Do any of the US based posters have any stats on how many Americans have used their guns in self defence?
Quote from: YankeeJim on December 15, 2012, 04:04:35 PM
With all due respect, most of your arguments are not logical. This kid had no record & no other indications that would have kept him from buying a gun under the things you propose. hI agree with your comments on military grade weapons, waiting periods & the gun show loop ole. Background checks are done if poorly. These things should be addressed. But, none of them will keep guns out of the hands of crimminals. Heck, the current liberal administration sold hundreds of military grade weapons to the cartels in Mexico under the Fast & Furious program. In Mexico guns are illegal yet they have managed to kill 40,000 people in the last 6 years. How do you address that?
When something horrible happens, people seem to think they have to do something as if doing the wrong thing is some sort of panicia. Nothing that anyone on the left has recommeded would do anything, anything to prevent the horror og uesterday. Put crimnals in jail and commit nut cases; their civil rights are not superior to the safety of people in general.
The fact that you moved my comments about gun control over here and none of the other dozen or so comments tells me a lot.
This should have been nipped in the bud when the first comment was made, not just when you disagree with it.
YJ, I don't you and I are that far apart in our thinking. This strange loner individual who murdered his mother and scores of little children at the elementary school might have passed a background check, and a waiting period, if either or both had existed at the time. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have such checks and waiting periods. Some sick individuals will be discovered and their attempts to get a gun will/might slow them down, perhaps even stop them. I've read the killer got the guns from his mother's collection. Is that true? Why did his mother have a Bushmaster military grade rifle. She's a school teacher. Had there been sensible gun regulation, she wouldn't have procured that rifle, and her son wouldn't have been able to easily grab it and use it on the children. So even in THIS instance, regulation would probably have been beneficial. The NRA uses the slippery slope argument--today it's mere registrations; next, knowing who owns what guns, they'll come for our guns and take them away from us. Pathetic argument. You don't need an Uzi to hunt Bambi. That's a real argument with merit. Someone breaking in your back window at night? You can defend yourself with a registered handgun as easily as you can with an unregistered one. So why not help the police by working towards a system whereby everyone must register their guns or have them confiscated? Won't get all of them registered, but you will get many. Baby steps to sensible practices. That's what we need, and now is a good time to start.
I'm sure I'm about to invite a flaming, but with so many voices speaking in favor of allowing state agents a monopoly on arms, I feel I have to say something.
Firearms were designed with two purposes, stopping people and stopping animals. That is, at bottom, what they do. And any firearm can do either, with varying degrees of efficiency.
Now, clearly we no longer need to stop animals, as the state, with its agro-subsidy schemes, has graciously allowed for our food-animals to be gathered into one place, raised in their own feces, held in place while their skulls are penetrated, drained of blood, and ground into bits to be fed to both us and the next generation of food-animals. Obviously, this highly sustainable system can never fail, and voluntary abstention from it, or an insistence on harvesting animals that live in congruence with their evolutionary dispositions may all be dismissed as antisocial ravings of the isolationist madman. But, allowing yourself a trip down madman boulevard, imagine that for some reason, be it global climate change or large-scale economic difficulty, some part of this slaughterhouse scheme breaks. Crazy talk, I know.
To the second purpose of firearms - stopping people. It's nigh on impossible to put into words how offensive it is for those that are familiar with arms and their use only through press, movies and narrative television to deign like long-suffered parents to equate my ability to defend my family from threats to life and dignity with the machinations of madmen bent on mass-murder. Meaning this as respectfully as possible: you have no idea what you're talking about.
I could point out that this "Active Shooter" scenario always plays out in areas that are soft targets -- so-called "gun-free" zones where the mad man is assured of little resistance until the police intervene, usually 30 minutes to an hour after the killing has stopped by choice of the mad man, and that turning more places into softer targets does nothing to deter him. I could enumerate thousands of anecdotes of good men and women with arms preventing murders and rapes, and, yes, even mass-shootings. I could relate my own experiences in which a personal firearm saved my life and the life of a friend in one of those countless crimes-that-never-was because good men decided that This Isn't Going Down. We could conduct thought experiments in which we place our loved ones in scenarios that someone else's loved ones were really in -- like the odds you'd put on my 5' 2" 120 lb wife fighting off a 6' 200 lb rapist or three with anything other than a gun. I could direct your attention to the fact that historically, every time an active shooter is engaged with a firearm, the killing stops.
But those are all reasonable things to say. And you overbearing, condescending parents, as an overbearing state, can countenance no reasoning counter to its presumptions.
If you wish to give up your ability to defend yourself and your family in the last measure, you surely may. But don't for a moment think that your unwillingness to defend your family gives you moral grounding to (using, what else, but threat of the gun in state agent's hands) come and take my ability to defend mine.
Quote from: hesedmedia on December 17, 2012, 07:49:40 PM
I'm sure I'm about to invite a flaming, but with so many voices speaking in favor of allowing state agents a monopoly on arms, I feel I have to say something.
Firearms were designed with two purposes, stopping people and stopping animals. That is, at bottom, what they do. And any firearm can do either, with varying degrees of efficiency.
Now, clearly we no longer need to stop animals, as the state, with its agro-subsidy schemes, has graciously allowed for our food-animals to be gathered into one place, raised in their own feces, held in place while their skulls are penetrated, drained of blood, and ground into bits to be fed to both us and the next generation of food-animals. Obviously, this highly sustainable system can never fail, and voluntary abstention from it, or an insistence on harvesting animals that live in congruence with their evolutionary dispositions may all be dismissed as antisocial ravings of the isolationist madman. But, allowing yourself a trip down madman boulevard, imagine that for some reason, be it global climate change or large-scale economic difficulty, some part of this slaughterhouse scheme breaks. Crazy talk, I know.
To the second purpose of firearms - stopping people. It's nigh on impossible to put into words how offensive it is for those that are familiar with arms and their use only through press, movies and narrative television to deign like long-suffered parents to equate my ability to defend my family from threats to life and dignity with the machinations of madmen bent on mass-murder. Meaning this as respectfully as possible: you have no idea what you're talking about.
I could point out that this "Active Shooter" scenario always plays out in areas that are soft targets -- so-called "gun-free" zones where the mad man is assured of little resistance until the police intervene, usually 30 minutes to an hour after the killing has stopped by choice of the mad man, and that turning more places into softer targets does nothing to deter him. I could enumerate thousands of anecdotes of good men and women with arms preventing murders and rapes, and, yes, even mass-shootings. I could relate my own experiences in which a personal firearm saved my life and the life of a friend in one of those countless crimes-that-never-was because good men decided that This Isn't Going Down. We could conduct thought experiments in which we place our loved ones in scenarios that someone else's loved ones were really in -- like the odds you'd put on my 5' 2" 120 lb wife fighting off a 6' 200 lb rapist or three with anything other than a gun. I could direct your attention to the fact that historically, every time an active shooter is engaged with a firearm, the killing stops.
But those are all reasonable things to say. And you overbearing, condescending parents, as an overbearing state, can countenance no reasoning counter to its presumptions.
If you wish to give up your ability to defend yourself and your family in the last measure, you surely may. But don't for a moment think that your unwillingness to defend your family gives you moral grounding to (using, what else, but threat of the gun in state agent's hands) come and take my ability to defend mine.
.. and that reasoned argument is one of the best for why providing legislation to ban guns will never pass over the Presidents desk for signing.
I admit, I cannot agree with owning a gun for that purpose myself, but neither can I see why banning them would change the society we live in either. I am neither skilled in the art of shooting another human being nor in being able to stalk such a person, and therefore a firearm in my hands would not be as efficient as your own (though I did regularly gain scores of 90+ in shooting range matches with the Army whilst serving as a Police Officer - so my marksmen skills were never in doubt).
What is your over-riding view on any gun control then, notwithstanding personal use handguns?
Logical, I feel about gun control the way I feel about prohibition in general. I will note that I'm something of a political anomaly, what we call a voluntary-ist, but I think these observations are true irrespective of that political bent. It seems to me that every prohibition enacted has a few very predictable effects.
1) Trade in the prohibited good becomes violent, because contracts for trade are no longer enforceable in a predictable way, and largely the realm of those that were previously in the business of trading other prohibited goods.
2) Those individuals that value compliance with the law above possession of the prohibited good abstain from acquiring the good. The corollary is also generally true, that individuals who value possession of the good over compliance with law generally acquire the good.
So, it seems to me that the problem with gun control isn't so much that the intent of removing tools of violence from the world is terribly off-mark (although I think it is naive, for something very like the reasons you point out), but rather that the practical effect of attempting to achieve that goal through the threat of state-sponsored violence will have quite a lot in common with the effects of the prohibition of alcohol or the prohibition of drugs.
I think the heart of the gun-control advocate is somewhere very, very noble; and I always cringe a little at the right wing in this country (I'm in the US, if you hadn't guessed) drawing caricatures of political opponents as irrational ogres or malicious devils (although the Times photo of Napolitano hoisting a Kalashnikov-style rifle with her finger all over the trigger at a press conference is marvelous evidence of the ignorance of which I speak). I just think that it is largely an unfamiliarity with how injurious violence (as opposed to communicative violence, like fist fights or domestic abuse) happens, coupled with a stronger belief in legislation to accomplish real and lasting change than I would find justified that leads to a conclusion with really worrisome ramifications for those of us that have admitted to ourselves the possibility of bad things being done to good people and who are preparing for it through skill at arms.
What I would like to see is some intense internal pressure from groups like the NRA and the NGRA exposing dealers that sell weapons that are used in crimes. Publicly naming such, and listing the crime in which the weapon was used. Also, for perspective, I'd like to see regularly published the number of legally-owned guns that are involved in fatalities next to the number of accidental deaths caused by all government agencies, from drone strikes to we-got-the-wrong-house-but-killed-everyone-anyway warrant-less drug raids. We also are in dire need of reforming the way we handle mental illness in this country - the prison system does not work for cases like this. There's a viral blog post being passed around on facebook and such written by a mother of a mentally-disturbed child that is worth reading for some perspective on the way this is done in the US.
http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html (http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html)
I realize I'm not answering the question in the way you're looking to have it answered, but I'm just not comfortable deciding where the line is past which I'm willing to have state agents threaten violence on someone simply because I'm not across that line. Or putting the decision of what someone needs in the hands of a state agent. The state agent will always, on the long-run, choose to expand prohibition - it's in his interest to do so. No one gives him credit for doing nothing, and shrinking the bounds of prohibition only costs government jobs - never a popular idea. So he chooses to champion 'reform', finding new weapons now too dangerous for the public, and here we are again, piling out of our strugglebuggies and into the speak easy, if you get my drift. If I were living in the Naco region in Arizona, with cartel-backed coyotes literally skinning people and putting heads on pikes around my property, I'm not sure I wouldn't want (and wouldn't be justified in wanting) something fairly high on the firepower spectrum with which to protect my family.
On the contrary, I believe you answered the question in exactly the way I expected, and hoped you would, that is to say that the question is not simply one of ban or not ban - but more one of education, both in regards to organizations such as the NRA and also our badly-in-need welfare providers.
Getting the NRA on board, I feel, might be the hardest obstacle to overcome as, from reading their blogs and speaking to local members, I get the impression that they tend to consider any control as an infringement, though I would hope and pray that the latest carnage might push them more towards a conciliatory line of supporting a partial ban, especially in respect of assault weapons.
Other than the NRA (and related organizations) I can then see the survivalists as being an obstacle, though I have little doubt they may well be dealt with in the same manner as Waco, etc, by a government bent on doing what's right, even if they might have to do wrong to achieve that goal.
As far as the welfare providers, that will take a monumental effort, if the current state of the VA is considered, though it can only be good in the end.
Thanks for the great reply.
That assault weapons language is incredibly difficult, as well. The definition currently being used would include such antique weapons as the M1 Carbine. True assault rifles (weapons capable of fully automatic fire) are already incredibly difficult to acquire legally, costing tens of thousands of dollars and requiring a unique background check that's really pretty extensive. The AR platform that people refer to is about as ubiquitous in the US as the old lever action .30-30 was in a century ago. The magazine capacity restriction is largely unhelpful in cases like this, as anyone willing to learn can reload most magazine-fed weapons in less than two seconds. And, again, I'd hate for a border farmer to lose his family to cartel thugs bent on sending a message because he hadn't the rounds at hand to deal with the situation, especially as we've just handed those cartels some pretty high-end equipment.
Another thing I'd like to see is some serious security measures taken to harden the target that schools are. Whether that's training and arming select teachers, or installing auto-locking systems, pepper-spray or -foam dispensers in ceilings, ballistic blankets, etc. As Lt. Col. Dave Grossman recently pointed out in a speech to police officers, it is denial of the risk that has cost us so dearly. No one looks at the fireman as if he is paranoid for advocating sprinklers, and carrying a fire extinguisher in his trunk. We accept that fire is a risk, we prepare for it, and, as a result, we lose very few children to school fires. We do not, however, realistically admit that schools are targets because they are soft.
In any case, thank you for responding calmly and not launching into vitriol. This is a discussion that, like religion, often devolves into foaming ad hominem :).
Because the Supreme Court is the defender of the US Constitution unless the right to bear arms is removed from the constitution they will oppose any attempt to restrict arms.
Quote from: MJG on December 17, 2012, 06:47:48 PM
Do any of the US based posters have any stats on how many Americans have used their guns in self defence?
The National Survey of Criminal Victimization ( a government organization) suggest 100,000 people use a year of guns in self-defense. Most are the simple branishing. I got that from an anti gun interview by Peter Frum on CNN. The other side throughs numbers around such as 2.5 million. Well, if I were selling the idea I'd look for the best number as well. So anti gun people admit to 100,000 people using a gun in a positive manner. I suspect the true figure is somewhere in the middle. Read the following:
http://www.vcdl.org/new/kleck.htm (http://www.vcdl.org/new/kleck.htm)
Quote from: Forever Fulham on December 17, 2012, 06:59:46 PM
Quote from: YankeeJim on December 15, 2012, 04:04:35 PM
With all due respect, most of your arguments are not logical. This kid had no record & no other indications that would have kept him from buying a gun under the things you propose. hI agree with your comments on military grade weapons, waiting periods & the gun show loop ole. Background checks are done if poorly. These things should be addressed. But, none of them will keep guns out of the hands of crimminals. Heck, the current liberal administration sold hundreds of military grade weapons to the cartels in Mexico under the Fast & Furious program. In Mexico guns are illegal yet they have managed to kill 40,000 people in the last 6 years. How do you address that?
When something horrible happens, people seem to think they have to do something as if doing the wrong thing is some sort of panicia. Nothing that anyone on the left has recommeded would do anything, anything to prevent the horror og uesterday. Put crimnals in jail and commit nut cases; their civil rights are not superior to the safety of people in general.
The fact that you moved my comments about gun control over here and none of the other dozen or so comments tells me a lot.
This should have been nipped in the bud when the first comment was made, not just when you disagree with it.
YJ, I don't you and I are that far apart in our thinking. This strange loner individual who murdered his mother and scores of little children at the elementary school might have passed a background check, and a waiting period, if either or both had existed at the time. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have such checks and waiting periods. Some sick individuals will be discovered and their attempts to get a gun will/might slow them down, perhaps even stop them. I've read the killer got the guns from his mother's collection. Is that true? Why did his mother have a Bushmaster military grade rifle. She's a school teacher. Had there been sensible gun regulation, she wouldn't have procured that rifle, and her son wouldn't have been able to easily grab it and use it on the children. So even in THIS instance, regulation would probably have been beneficial. The NRA uses the slippery slope argument--today it's mere registrations; next, knowing who owns what guns, they'll come for our guns and take them away from us. Pathetic argument. You don't need an Uzi to hunt Bambi. That's a real argument with merit. Someone breaking in your back window at night? You can defend yourself with a registered handgun as easily as you can with an unregistered one. So why not help the police by working towards a system whereby everyone must register their guns or have them confiscated? Won't get all of them registered, but you will get many. Baby steps to sensible practices. That's what we need, and now is a good time to start.
If you read all my posts, you'll see that I have twice stated that background checks & such should be implemented. They will not help much but if they stop one of these looney tunes then it is worth it. If I wanted a gun, I have no problems with a background check and or a waiting period. This is the age of computers, it could be done for most people in a matter of minutes. Guidelines could be set so that questionable folks would be subject to additional investigation.
As to the mother, the latest reports are that she was some sort of survivalist. I guess the crazy apple didn't fall far from the tree there.
My issue is and always has been that gun control has little to nothing to do with crime. The crime rate in the US has been on the decline for years. As the largest generation in our history (baby boomers) has left its teens and twenties which began to happen around 1965, the crime rate has dipped. In 1994 we passed a so called "assault" weapon ban. The crime rate did not decline any faster than it had been doing since the sixties. When the ban expired in 2004, the left went bonkers saying there would be mass slaughter in the streets. The crime rate simply continued dropping. The elimination of the "assault" weapon ban did nothing.
As to the slippery slope argument, incrementalism is and has been a method used by the left in this country for years. So, the paranoia of the NRA probabley is accurate. What I would like to see would be some sort of limitation as to muzzle velocity (less powerful ammo). This would reduce the killing power, range and the speed of fire: lower pressure means a slower rate of fire. Metallurgy could be used to limit lower cost weapons (Saturday night specials) and in turn would raise the cost of guns, further making them not cost effective & less desirable. Magazines could be limited to say 5 rounds. Yes this is the easiest thing for a criminal to defeat since a magazine is simply a metal box with a spring but the penalty could be confiscation of that persons weapons or some other serious penalty. Also, armor piercing shells should be illegal. No earthly purpose for them. Registration would simply provide the government with a list of those that have guns which is the big fear of the NRA. Why not subject each weapon to a ballistic test (further raising the cost) and keeping that record on file. When a gun is used illegaly, law enforcement could then go to the manufacturer who would have a record as to what dealer had the gun who in turn would have a record of who he sold it too and the end user could be required to record who he sold it to. Failure to do so at any step could have penalties. A law enforcement searched would be subject to a search warrant. That should appease the NRA. And when the boogie man government comes for everyone's guns, patriots along the way could burn their records.
As you said, baby steps to a sensible solutions.
Quote from: A Humble Man on December 17, 2012, 11:14:55 PM
Because the Supreme Court is the defender of the US Constitution unless the right to bear arms is removed from the constitution they will oppose any attempt to restrict arms.
Correct.
The purpose of the Supreme Court is to uphold existing law. Any upholding of the Second Admenment is pretty much required. What it would take would be a Constitutional Admenment which in the end requires approval of 2/3rds of the states. Not in this century, to be sure.
Quote from: YankeeJim on December 18, 2012, 12:52:34 AM
Quote from: Forever Fulham on December 17, 2012, 06:59:46 PM
Quote from: YankeeJim on December 15, 2012, 04:04:35 PM
With all due respect, most of your arguments are not logical. This kid had no record & no other indications that would have kept him from buying a gun under the things you propose. hI agree with your comments on military grade weapons, waiting periods & the gun show loop ole. Background checks are done if poorly. These things should be addressed. But, none of them will keep guns out of the hands of crimminals. Heck, the current liberal administration sold hundreds of military grade weapons to the cartels in Mexico under the Fast & Furious program. In Mexico guns are illegal yet they have managed to kill 40,000 people in the last 6 years. How do you address that?
When something horrible happens, people seem to think they have to do something as if doing the wrong thing is some sort of panicia. Nothing that anyone on the left has recommeded would do anything, anything to prevent the horror og uesterday. Put crimnals in jail and commit nut cases; their civil rights are not superior to the safety of people in general.
The fact that you moved my comments about gun control over here and none of the other dozen or so comments tells me a lot.
This should have been nipped in the bud when the first comment was made, not just when you disagree with it.
YJ, I don't you and I are that far apart in our thinking. This strange loner individual who murdered his mother and scores of little children at the elementary school might have passed a background check, and a waiting period, if either or both had existed at the time. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have such checks and waiting periods. Some sick individuals will be discovered and their attempts to get a gun will/might slow them down, perhaps even stop them. I've read the killer got the guns from his mother's collection. Is that true? Why did his mother have a Bushmaster military grade rifle. She's a school teacher. Had there been sensible gun regulation, she wouldn't have procured that rifle, and her son wouldn't have been able to easily grab it and use it on the children. So even in THIS instance, regulation would probably have been beneficial. The NRA uses the slippery slope argument--today it's mere registrations; next, knowing who owns what guns, they'll come for our guns and take them away from us. Pathetic argument. You don't need an Uzi to hunt Bambi. That's a real argument with merit. Someone breaking in your back window at night? You can defend yourself with a registered handgun as easily as you can with an unregistered one. So why not help the police by working towards a system whereby everyone must register their guns or have them confiscated? Won't get all of them registered, but you will get many. Baby steps to sensible practices. That's what we need, and now is a good time to start.
If you read all my posts, you'll see that I have twice stated that background checks & such should be implemented. They will not help much but if they stop one of these looney tunes then it is worth it. If I wanted a gun, I have no problems with a background check and or a waiting period. This is the age of computers, it could be done for most people in a matter of minutes. Guidelines could be set so that questionable folks would be subject to additional investigation.
As to the mother, the latest reports are that she was some sort of survivalist. I guess the crazy apple didn't fall far from the tree there.
My issue is and always has been that gun control has little to nothing to do with crime. The crime rate in the US has been on the decline for years. As the largest generation in our history (baby boomers) has left its teens and twenties which began to happen around 1965, the crime rate has dipped. In 1994 we passed a so called "assault" weapon ban. The crime rate did not decline any faster than it had been doing since the sixties. When the ban expired in 2004, the left went bonkers saying there would be mass slaughter in the streets. The crime rate simply continued dropping. The elimination of the "assault" weapon ban did nothing.
As to the slippery slope argument, incrementalism is and has been a method used by the left in this country for years. So, the paranoia of the NRA probabley is accurate. What I would like to see would be some sort of limitation as to muzzle velocity (less powerful ammo). This would reduce the killing power, range and the speed of fire: lower pressure means a slower rate of fire. Metallurgy could be used to limit lower cost weapons (Saturday night specials) and in turn would raise the cost of guns, further making them not cost effective & less desirable. Magazines could be limited to say 5 rounds. Yes this is the easiest thing for a criminal to defeat since a magazine is simply a metal box with a spring but the penalty could be confiscation of that persons weapons or some other serious penalty. Also, armor piercing shells should be illegal. No earthly purpose for them. Registration would simply provide the government with a list of those that have guns which is the big fear of the NRA. Why not subject each weapon to a ballistic test (further raising the cost) and keeping that record on file. When a gun is used illegaly, law enforcement could then go to the manufacturer who would have a record as to what dealer had the gun who in turn would have a record of who he sold it too and the end user could be required to record who he sold it to. Failure to do so at any step could have penalties. A law enforcement searched would be subject to a search warrant. That should appease the NRA. And when the boogie man government comes for everyone's guns, patriots along the way could burn their records.
As you said, baby steps to a sensible solutions.
I think you might find, should you ever undergo training to deal with using a firearm defensively, that 5 rounds, especially in a sidearm, goes very, very quickly, and will quite often, leave you needing a fair few more.
I don't buy the incrementalism argument at all. I see no historic support for that theory. But I suspect it is part of the regular clap trap propaganda on the Fox network. I am suspicious of the source of the statistics you cite. What is the source? We agree that the so-called 'cop killer' armour piercing bullets should be illegal to possess, let alone use. No legitimate purpose for them other than to commit crimes. As to the notion that a background check could be quickly done on the computer in a matter of minutes, well, maybe in the future, but we aren't set up for it as of today. Medical/psychological treatment records haven't been centralized. They are still siloed. If I spent more time, I could probably think of other examples as well. Someone on this thread declared that these mass shootings only occur where there are only unarmed or vulnerable people. That's not true. Remember the Arab American psychiatrist in that Texas military base (Killeen? Ft. Hood?) who mowed down a bunch of soldiers and staff personnel right there on the base? It doesn't just happen in schools. I've also heard it said that if school administration were "carrying",then they would have "got him" before he killed all those kids. That's a nice pipedream when you are in the pocket of the NRA and the gun manufacturing lobby. Those untrained, scared, individuals would just as likely miss and hit children, become a target themselves. And just having the gun in the school increases the possibility for an accident to happen. I don't think the answer is to arm someone at every school in the country. Every time someone posits we should have registration, the NRA and its lobby extensions trot out that old chestnut about a slippery slope to Nazi Germany, about the government taking away everyone's guns once they know where they all are. I find that scare theory laughable.
http://www.salon.com/ (http://www.salon.com/)
"I don't buy the incrementalism argument at all. I see no historic support for that theory."
How many government agencies can you think of that have relinquished their role and declared 'job done'? How many government agencies can you think that have gradually expanded their defined mission until they are bickering with other agencies over the areas they overlap?
"But I suspect it is part of the regular clap trap propaganda on the Fox network."
I apologize for having roused your suspicions. It seems demonstrably true that government agencies grow often in scope, and rarely shrink in scope.
"What is the source?"
For which statistic? I don't think I've depended very heavily on any statistics, but rather on reason based on observation of history.
"We agree that the so-called 'cop killer' armour piercing bullets should be illegal to possess, let alone use. No legitimate purpose for them other than to commit crimes."
No we don't. Stopping crimes committed by those wearing body armor would be a legitimate purpose for them. AP rounds are actually notoriously less-lethal.
"Someone on this thread declared that these mass shootings only occur where there are only unarmed or vulnerable people. That's not true. Remember the Arab American psychiatrist in that Texas military base (Killeen? Ft. Hood?) who mowed down a bunch of soldiers and staff personnel right there on the base?"
That was me. By federal law, Fort Hood was a "gun-free" zone at the time of the attack. Which figured in to Al-Awlawki's decision to encourage Hassan to select that target. My point stands, I think. Soft targets are attractive to terrorists of all stripes.
" I've also heard it said that if school administration were "carrying",then they would have "got him" before he killed all those kids. That's a nice pipedream when you are in the pocket of the NRA and the gun manufacturing lobby."
Active shooters either stop killing when they are engaged with a firearm, or when they choose to stop, it's simply the historical fact of the matter. I assure you I'm not in anyone's pocket, as I hardly think the most effective form of propaganda would be to post on a football forum.
"Those untrained, scared, individuals would just as likely miss and hit children, become a target themselves. And just having the gun in the school increases the possibility for an accident to happen."
Well, you don't suppose we might also train the individuals we seek to put in charge of protecting our children with lethal force, do you? A biometric safe in the safety officer's office would prevent nearly every accident scenario I can think of.
"I don't think the answer is to arm someone at every school in the country."
Clearly you don't think so, but is there any reason we should agree with you? What do you think the answer is? To disarm everyone that isn't in a school?
" Every time someone posits we should have registration, the NRA and its lobby extensions trot out that old chestnut about a slippery slope to Nazi Germany, about the government taking away everyone's guns once they know where they all are. I find that scare theory laughable. "
Laughable or not, every oppressive regime in history has sought to disarm the populace they wish to oppress, is it not so? How would gun registration have prevented this or any other mass shooting?
I'll not resort to sending you to other links.
If you can't express an argument clearly, then you don't really understand the argument. Until then, it's only an appeal to authority to say, "This person says X, so it's true".
Let's take your responses in turn. You originally wrote incrementalism is used by the left, but when challenged you abandoned attributing it to the left and instead insinuated that all government programs inevitably grow beyond what was originally envisioned. That may be so, but it doesn't validate the claim that gun registration will inevitably lead to government confiscation, especially not when there are some 300,000,000 guns in the U.S. There is also nothing particularly "left" about administrative branch incrementalism. Example: The TSA, which was greatly expanded under Bush's two terms. What is your support for your claim that crimes with assault weapons did not increase when the ban on assault weapons was lifted? So you would allow the continued manufacture and sale of cop killer bullets because they could be used to shoot at criminals wearing armour. That's your argument? Everyone should be able to buy them because law enforcement might need them to shoot at bad guys wearing armour. Hmmm. I looked up the Ft. Hood shootings on Wikipedia (which admittedly isn't always entirely reliable). The entry reports that though personal weapons aren't worn on the base, security details there carry guns, and guns are used there for training. So contrary to your assertion, it wasn't a gun free zone. But my source is Wikipedia. If you have superior sources, share them and I'll revise my thinking accordingly.
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/18/the_answer_is_not_more_guns/ (http://www.salon.com/2012/12/18/the_answer_is_not_more_guns/)
Quote from: A Humble Man on December 17, 2012, 11:14:55 PM
Because the Supreme Court is the defender of the US Constitution unless the right to bear arms is removed from the constitution they will oppose any attempt to restrict arms.
Defending the Constitution, or upholding it, is too simplified. According to the US Government Citizenship, the role of the Supreme Court is to
Interpret the Constitution, advise Government and lower courts when their actions are in contravention of the Constitution.
The Court is just one of three branches that can affect the Constitution, and how it is enacted. Unfortunately the second amendment, like much of the Constitution, was written in language of the time, and can be ambiguous, this the separate interpretations, thus the constant and never-ending discussion.
What is interesting is that, in some circumstances, State Law actually affects the 2nd Amendment, rights of possession by felons being one of them.
From all these shootings, what I do see are soft targets. In the Fort Hood shootings, I believe the killings were perpetrated upon unarmed personnel. Had they been armed it is likely the perp would have been shot dead following his first shot.
If you look at when/where these shootings have occurred, I would proffer that very few were in the presence of armed persons, e.g. it is very rare for any crime to occur in the presence of an authority capable of stopping it. Thus, had there been armed guards in each hallways of each school in the country, then we might well see a reduction, but that is not feasible.
As for the sale of AP rounds. If we accept that citizens are required to defend themselves, then they need to ability to do so. Criminals are not as stupid as some people tend to think, they will adapt. Think back to ned kelly, and you will see that ballistic armor used by criminals is not a modern phenomena.
I am not a paid-up member or defender of the NRA, in fact I disagree with a lot of what they say, but I try to understand why they say it, and why gun control in the US is not a simple matter.
News this morning that Dick's Sporting Goods is withdrawing certain weapons is a good start, and it requires a grass-roots movement to get changes made. I can only hope that this continues for such weapons.
Quote from: Logicalman on December 18, 2012, 10:47:18 AM
From all these shootings, what I do see are soft targets. In the Fort Hood shootings, I believe the killings were perpetrated upon unarmed personnel. Had they been armed it is likely the perp would have been shot dead following his first shot.
If you look at when/where these shootings have occurred, I would proffer that very few were in the presence of armed persons, e.g. it is very rare for any crime to occur in the presence of an authority capable of stopping it. Thus, had there been armed guards in each hallways of each school in the country, then we might well see a reduction, but that is not feasible.
As for the sale of AP rounds. If we accept that citizens are required to defend themselves, then they need to ability to do so. Criminals are not as stupid as some people tend to think, they will adapt. Think back to ned kelly, and you will see that ballistic armor used by criminals is not a modern phenomena.
I am not a paid-up member or defender of the NRA, in fact I disagree with a lot of what they say, but I try to understand why they say it, and why gun control in the US is not a simple matter.
News this morning that Dick's Sporting Goods is withdrawing certain weapons is a good start, and it requires a grass-roots movement to get changes made. I can only hope that this continues for such weapons.
Would you really want a machine gun sitting on the desk of each teacher in every school in every state. How would that help against smoke bombs and hand grenades.
Quote from: A Humble Man on December 18, 2012, 03:27:23 PM
Quote from: Logicalman on December 18, 2012, 10:47:18 AM
From all these shootings, what I do see are soft targets. In the Fort Hood shootings, I believe the killings were perpetrated upon unarmed personnel. Had they been armed it is likely the perp would have been shot dead following his first shot.
If you look at when/where these shootings have occurred, I would proffer that very few were in the presence of armed persons, e.g. it is very rare for any crime to occur in the presence of an authority capable of stopping it. Thus, had there been armed guards in each hallways of each school in the country, then we might well see a reduction, but that is not feasible.
As for the sale of AP rounds. If we accept that citizens are required to defend themselves, then they need to ability to do so. Criminals are not as stupid as some people tend to think, they will adapt. Think back to ned kelly, and you will see that ballistic armor used by criminals is not a modern phenomena.
I am not a paid-up member or defender of the NRA, in fact I disagree with a lot of what they say, but I try to understand why they say it, and why gun control in the US is not a simple matter.
News this morning that Dick's Sporting Goods is withdrawing certain weapons is a good start, and it requires a grass-roots movement to get changes made. I can only hope that this continues for such weapons.
Would you really want a machine gun sitting on the desk of each teacher in every school in every state. How would that help against smoke bombs and hand grenades.
.. If you read on, I said that wasn't feasible. Please try to keep my quotes on context.
The simple answer is there is no simple answer. You appear to believe that it's just a case of changing the Constitution because its just a hangover from the violent past, it isn't, as many posts here testify, it is very much ingrained into the social fabric of the US, in the same way and alcohol consumption is in the UK (and before anyone tries the comparison about alcohol to guns, it was a reference to the social fabric), so what would be the result of banning alcohol in the UK then? Might be a great idea, but not feasible.
So, as you seem to prefer to tell us how it shouldn't be done, how would you tackle the problem sensibly?
"You originally wrote incrementalism is used by the left, but when challenged you abandoned attributing it to the left and instead insinuated that all government programs inevitably grow beyond what was originally envisioned."
I don't think I attributed incrementalism or mission creep to left-leaning agencies at all. Where did I do that? And where did you challenge it? I've consistently maintained that mission creep and general expansion in scope is a feature of government agencies.
"That may be so, but it doesn't validate the claim that gun registration will inevitably lead to government confiscation, especially not when there are some 300,000,000 guns in the U.S. There is also nothing particularly "left" about administrative branch incrementalism. Example: The TSA, which was greatly expanded under Bush's two terms."
Well, if it were so, it seems like it would validate the claim that the prohibitive agency or legislation would expand in scope. How long it would take to arrive at confiscation is another matter, but my point wasn't that confiscation is inevitable, necessarily. But rather that the notion that oppressors seek to disarm those they would oppress is just a matter of historical fact, and to claim that it is paranoid to acknowledge history is, er, thick. Again, I never claimed that mission creep is a particular feature of agencies staffed by leftists, and the TSA is a perfect example of what I meant.
"What is your support for your claim that crimes with assault weapons did not increase when the ban on assault weapons was lifted?"
I didn't make that claim. But, if I were to make that claim, I would direct you to the Federally-funded study published in July 2004 titled "Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003", in which the authors state, "Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement..." and ""We cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence. And, indeed, there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence." The study also notes that use of so-called 'assault weapons' in crimes was pretty rare to begin with, something like 2-8% of guns used in crimes.
"So you would allow the continued manufacture and sale of cop killer bullets because they could be used to shoot at criminals wearing armour. That's your argument? Everyone should be able to buy them because law enforcement might need them to shoot at bad guys wearing armour."
Er, there are a wide variety of bullets that will pierce a variety of armors. There are no bullets that are cop killers, any more than there are cars that are drunk drivers. If you'll note, the last three mass-shooting attempts (not counting the one thwarted by an armed woman in San Antonio), involved shooters wearing body armor. Your attempt to reduce this to a straw man argument - "because law enforcement..." is obvious and ineffective. The very point is that police are not everywhere, and historically arrive AFTER the killing has stopped at the shooter's whim. What the police have is immaterial to the discussion, as the police are not there.
"The entry reports that though personal weapons aren't worn on the base, security details there carry guns, and guns are used there for training. So contrary to your assertion, it wasn't a gun free zone. But my source is Wikipedia. If you have superior sources, share them and I'll revise my thinking accordingly. "
Sure. What I mean be 'gun-free zone' is that it is a location in which the personal possession of defensive arms is prohibited: "The suspect is believed to have used two handguns in the shooting, one a semiautomatic, Cone said. And in responding to a question, "As a matter of practice, we do not carry weapons on Fort Hood," he said."
That's Army Lt. Gen. Robert Cone, commanding officer of the base.
http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=56558 (http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=56558)
Also note that the killing stopped when the shooter was engaged with a firearm and not before. Many of the unarmed in the room attacked Hasan with chairs and tables, but the killing ended when Hasan was shot at. Do you think that maybe there's a reason Hasan/Al-Awlaki chose to start the shooting in a location on the base in which he knew no one carried personal weapons, instead of, say, at the MP security office?
Humble, I love your avatar, by the way.
There are a lot of ways to harden school targets without necessarily arming the teachers. I would reiterate Dave Grossman's recommendation about automated security systems (link below).
http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Lt-Col-Dave-Grossman-to-cops-The-enemy-is-denial/ (http://www.policeone.com/active-shooter/articles/2058168-Lt-Col-Dave-Grossman-to-cops-The-enemy-is-denial/)
Quote from: YankeeJim on December 17, 2012, 11:45:11 PM
Quote from: MJG on December 17, 2012, 06:47:48 PM
Do any of the US based posters have any stats on how many Americans have used their guns in self defence?
The National Survey of Criminal Victimization ( a government organization) suggest 100,000 people use a year of guns in self-defense. Most are the simple branishing. I got that from an anti gun interview by Peter Frum on CNN. The other side throughs numbers around such as 2.5 million. Well, if I were selling the idea I'd look for the best number as well. So anti gun people admit to 100,000 people using a gun in a positive manner. I suspect the true figure is somewhere in the middle. Read the following:
http://www.vcdl.org/new/kleck.htm (http://www.vcdl.org/new/kleck.htm)
cheers for that. Its almost 20 years old but I find those numbers amazing.
Quote from: hesedmedia on December 18, 2012, 02:39:34 AM
Quote from: YankeeJim on December 18, 2012, 12:52:34 AM
Quote from: Forever Fulham on December 17, 2012, 06:59:46 PM
Quote from: YankeeJim on December 15, 2012, 04:04:35 PM
With all due respect, most of your arguments are not logical. This kid had no record & no other indications that would have kept him from buying a gun under the things you propose. hI agree with your comments on military grade weapons, waiting periods & the gun show loop ole. Background checks are done if poorly. These things should be addressed. But, none of them will keep guns out of the hands of crimminals. Heck, the current liberal administration sold hundreds of military grade weapons to the cartels in Mexico under the Fast & Furious program. In Mexico guns are illegal yet they have managed to kill 40,000 people in the last 6 years. How do you address that?
When something horrible happens, people seem to think they have to do something as if doing the wrong thing is some sort of panicia. Nothing that anyone on the left has recommeded would do anything, anything to prevent the horror og uesterday. Put crimnals in jail and commit nut cases; their civil rights are not superior to the safety of people in general.
The fact that you moved my comments about gun control over here and none of the other dozen or so comments tells me a lot.
This should have been nipped in the bud when the first comment was made, not just when you disagree with it.
YJ, I don't you and I are that far apart in our thinking. This strange loner individual who murdered his mother and scores of little children at the elementary school might have passed a background check, and a waiting period, if either or both had existed at the time. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have such checks and waiting periods. Some sick individuals will be discovered and their attempts to get a gun will/might slow them down, perhaps even stop them. I've read the killer got the guns from his mother's collection. Is that true? Why did his mother have a Bushmaster military grade rifle. She's a school teacher. Had there been sensible gun regulation, she wouldn't have procured that rifle, and her son wouldn't have been able to easily grab it and use it on the children. So even in THIS instance, regulation would probably have been beneficial. The NRA uses the slippery slope argument--today it's mere registrations; next, knowing who owns what guns, they'll come for our guns and take them away from us. Pathetic argument. You don't need an Uzi to hunt Bambi. That's a real argument with merit. Someone breaking in your back window at night? You can defend yourself with a registered handgun as easily as you can with an unregistered one. So why not help the police by working towards a system whereby everyone must register their guns or have them confiscated? Won't get all of them registered, but you will get many. Baby steps to sensible practices. That's what we need, and now is a good time to start.
If you read all my posts, you'll see that I have twice stated that background checks & such should be implemented. They will not help much but if they stop one of these looney tunes then it is worth it. If I wanted a gun, I have no problems with a background check and or a waiting period. This is the age of computers, it could be done for most people in a matter of minutes. Guidelines could be set so that questionable folks would be subject to additional investigation.
As to the mother, the latest reports are that she was some sort of survivalist. I guess the crazy apple didn't fall far from the tree there.
My issue is and always has been that gun control has little to nothing to do with crime. The crime rate in the US has been on the decline for years. As the largest generation in our history (baby boomers) has left its teens and twenties which began to happen around 1965, the crime rate has dipped. In 1994 we passed a so called "assault" weapon ban. The crime rate did not decline any faster than it had been doing since the sixties. When the ban expired in 2004, the left went bonkers saying there would be mass slaughter in the streets. The crime rate simply continued dropping. The elimination of the "assault" weapon ban did nothing.
As to the slippery slope argument, incrementalism is and has been a method used by the left in this country for years. So, the paranoia of the NRA probabley is accurate. What I would like to see would be some sort of limitation as to muzzle velocity (less powerful ammo). This would reduce the killing power, range and the speed of fire: lower pressure means a slower rate of fire. Metallurgy could be used to limit lower cost weapons (Saturday night specials) and in turn would raise the cost of guns, further making them not cost effective & less desirable. Magazines could be limited to say 5 rounds. Yes this is the easiest thing for a criminal to defeat since a magazine is simply a metal box with a spring but the penalty could be confiscation of that persons weapons or some other serious penalty. Also, armor piercing shells should be illegal. No earthly purpose for them. Registration would simply provide the government with a list of those that have guns which is the big fear of the NRA. Why not subject each weapon to a ballistic test (further raising the cost) and keeping that record on file. When a gun is used illegaly, law enforcement could then go to the manufacturer who would have a record as to what dealer had the gun who in turn would have a record of who he sold it too and the end user could be required to record who he sold it to. Failure to do so at any step could have penalties. A law enforcement searched would be subject to a search warrant. That should appease the NRA. And when the boogie man government comes for everyone's guns, patriots along the way could burn their records.
As you said, baby steps to a sensible solutions.
I think you might find, should you ever undergo training to deal with using a firearm defensively, that 5 rounds, especially in a sidearm, goes very, very quickly, and will quite often, leave you needing a fair few more.
The ones I learned on and used had at least twenty and a few times I wished there were more. I threw up the number five because that is far too many for some, usually those that have never handled a fire arm.
Quote from: YankeeJim on December 18, 2012, 05:42:45 PM
Quote from: hesedmedia on December 18, 2012, 02:39:34 AM
Quote from: YankeeJim on December 18, 2012, 12:52:34 AM
Quote from: Forever Fulham on December 17, 2012, 06:59:46 PM
Quote from: YankeeJim on December 15, 2012, 04:04:35 PM
With all due respect, most of your arguments are not logical. This kid had no record & no other indications that would have kept him from buying a gun under the things you propose. hI agree with your comments on military grade weapons, waiting periods & the gun show loop ole. Background checks are done if poorly. These things should be addressed. But, none of them will keep guns out of the hands of crimminals. Heck, the current liberal administration sold hundreds of military grade weapons to the cartels in Mexico under the Fast & Furious program. In Mexico guns are illegal yet they have managed to kill 40,000 people in the last 6 years. How do you address that?
When something horrible happens, people seem to think they have to do something as if doing the wrong thing is some sort of panicia. Nothing that anyone on the left has recommeded would do anything, anything to prevent the horror og uesterday. Put crimnals in jail and commit nut cases; their civil rights are not superior to the safety of people in general.
The fact that you moved my comments about gun control over here and none of the other dozen or so comments tells me a lot.
This should have been nipped in the bud when the first comment was made, not just when you disagree with it.
YJ, I don't you and I are that far apart in our thinking. This strange loner individual who murdered his mother and scores of little children at the elementary school might have passed a background check, and a waiting period, if either or both had existed at the time. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have such checks and waiting periods. Some sick individuals will be discovered and their attempts to get a gun will/might slow them down, perhaps even stop them. I've read the killer got the guns from his mother's collection. Is that true? Why did his mother have a Bushmaster military grade rifle. She's a school teacher. Had there been sensible gun regulation, she wouldn't have procured that rifle, and her son wouldn't have been able to easily grab it and use it on the children. So even in THIS instance, regulation would probably have been beneficial. The NRA uses the slippery slope argument--today it's mere registrations; next, knowing who owns what guns, they'll come for our guns and take them away from us. Pathetic argument. You don't need an Uzi to hunt Bambi. That's a real argument with merit. Someone breaking in your back window at night? You can defend yourself with a registered handgun as easily as you can with an unregistered one. So why not help the police by working towards a system whereby everyone must register their guns or have them confiscated? Won't get all of them registered, but you will get many. Baby steps to sensible practices. That's what we need, and now is a good time to start.
If you read all my posts, you'll see that I have twice stated that background checks & such should be implemented. They will not help much but if they stop one of these looney tunes then it is worth it. If I wanted a gun, I have no problems with a background check and or a waiting period. This is the age of computers, it could be done for most people in a matter of minutes. Guidelines could be set so that questionable folks would be subject to additional investigation.
As to the mother, the latest reports are that she was some sort of survivalist. I guess the crazy apple didn't fall far from the tree there.
My issue is and always has been that gun control has little to nothing to do with crime. The crime rate in the US has been on the decline for years. As the largest generation in our history (baby boomers) has left its teens and twenties which began to happen around 1965, the crime rate has dipped. In 1994 we passed a so called "assault" weapon ban. The crime rate did not decline any faster than it had been doing since the sixties. When the ban expired in 2004, the left went bonkers saying there would be mass slaughter in the streets. The crime rate simply continued dropping. The elimination of the "assault" weapon ban did nothing.
As to the slippery slope argument, incrementalism is and has been a method used by the left in this country for years. So, the paranoia of the NRA probabley is accurate. What I would like to see would be some sort of limitation as to muzzle velocity (less powerful ammo). This would reduce the killing power, range and the speed of fire: lower pressure means a slower rate of fire. Metallurgy could be used to limit lower cost weapons (Saturday night specials) and in turn would raise the cost of guns, further making them not cost effective & less desirable. Magazines could be limited to say 5 rounds. Yes this is the easiest thing for a criminal to defeat since a magazine is simply a metal box with a spring but the penalty could be confiscation of that persons weapons or some other serious penalty. Also, armor piercing shells should be illegal. No earthly purpose for them. Registration would simply provide the government with a list of those that have guns which is the big fear of the NRA. Why not subject each weapon to a ballistic test (further raising the cost) and keeping that record on file. When a gun is used illegaly, law enforcement could then go to the manufacturer who would have a record as to what dealer had the gun who in turn would have a record of who he sold it too and the end user could be required to record who he sold it to. Failure to do so at any step could have penalties. A law enforcement searched would be subject to a search warrant. That should appease the NRA. And when the boogie man government comes for everyone's guns, patriots along the way could burn their records.
As you said, baby steps to a sensible solutions.
I think you might find, should you ever undergo training to deal with using a firearm defensively, that 5 rounds, especially in a sidearm, goes very, very quickly, and will quite often, leave you needing a fair few more.
The ones I learned on and used had at least twenty and a few times I wished there were more. I threw up the number five because that is far too many for some, usually those that have never handled a fire arm.
Ah! I misconstrued you, fair enough. People only familiar with firearms from film and television are invariably shocked at how fast rounds start going in a gunfight.
December 19, 2012
The N.R.A. Protection RacketBy RICHARD W. PAINTER
Edina, Minn.
FOR years, protection rackets dominated dangerous urban neighborhoods. Shop owners and residents lived in relative security only by paying off or paying homage to organized criminals or corrupt cops. Anyone who dared to stand up to these "protectors" would not be around for long.
The Republican Party — once a proud bastion of civic and business leaders who battled Southern racism, Northern corruption and the evils of big government — has for the past several decades been itself the victim of political protection rackets. These rackets are orchestrated by fringe groups with extremist views on social issues, which Republican politicians are forced to support even if they are unpopular with intelligent, economically successful and especially female voters. Their influence was already clear by the time I joined the Bush White House staff in 2005, and it has only increased in the years since.
The most blatant protection racket is orchestrated by the National Rifle Association, which is ruthless against candidates who are tempted to stray from its view that all gun regulations are pure evil. Debra Maggart, a Republican leader in the Tennessee House of Representatives, was one of its most recent victims. The N.R.A. spent around $100,000 to defeat her in the primary, because she would not support a bill that would have allowed people to keep guns locked in their cars on private property without the property owner's consent.
The message to Republicans is clear: "We will help you get elected and protect your seat from Democrats. We will spend millions on ads that make your opponent look worse than the average holdup man robbing a liquor store. In return, we expect you to oppose any laws that regulate guns. These include laws requiring handgun registration, meaningful background checks on purchasers, limiting the right to carry concealed weapons, limiting access to semiautomatic weapons or anything else that would diminish the firepower available to anybody who wants it. And if you don't comply, we will load our weapons and direct everything in our arsenal at you in the next Republican primary."
For decades, Republican politicians have gone along with this racket, some willingly and others because they know that resisting would be pointless. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, the N.R.A. spent almost $19 million in the last federal election cycle. This money is not just spent to beat Democrats but also to beat Republicans who don't toe the line.
But the last election showed the costs to Republicans of succumbing to the N.R.A. and to other groups with extremist views on issues like homosexuality and stem cell research. The fringe groups, drenched with money and the "free speech" that comes with it, have stood firm, and become even more radical, as the population as a whole — including many traditional Republican voters — has moved in the opposite direction.
Gun violence in particular frightens voters in middle- and upper-income suburbs across the country, places like my hometown, Edina, Minn. These areas, once Republican strongholds, still have many voters who are sympathetic to the economic platform of the Republican Party but are increasingly worried about their own safety in a country with millions of unregistered and unregulated guns. Some suburban voters may keep a hunting rifle locked away in a safe place, but few want people bringing semiautomatic weapons into their neighborhoods. They also believe that insane people should not have access to guns.
A few clicks on the N.R.A. Web site lead you to the type of weapons the group wants to protect from regulation. Many are not needed for hunting pheasants or deer. They are used for hunting people. They have firepower unimaginable to the founding fathers who drafted the Second Amendment, firepower that could wipe out an entire kindergarten classroom in a few minutes, as we saw so tragically last week.
This is not the vision of sportsmanship that soccer moms and dads want or will vote for, and they will turn against Republicans because of it. Who worries about the inheritance tax when gun violence may kill off one's heirs in the second grade?
Republican politicians must free themselves from the N.R.A. protection racket and others like it. For starters, the party establishment should refuse to endorse anyone who runs in a primary with N.R.A. money against a sitting Republican. If the establishment refuses to support Republicans using other Republicans for target practice, the N.R.A. will take its shooting game somewhere else.
Reasonable gun control legislation will then be able to pass Congress and the state legislatures. Next, Republicans should embrace legislation like the proposed American Anti-Corruption Act, which would rid both parties of their dependence on big money from groups like the N.R.A. The Republican Party will once again be proud to be part of the solution rather than part of the problem. And voters will go back to feeling that their children are safe, their democracy works, and they will once again consider voting Republican.
Richard W. Painter, a professor of law at the University of Minnesota, was the chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush from 2005 to 2007.
FF, that is the way lobbying works in the U.S. It is of course a diabolical system, but it's the same system that every lobby participates in.
I'll assume that since you've abandoned the other arguments, this is now the one you feel most compelling -- that the business of lobbying is evil. I agree. I think the whole system of politics is evil.
Sportsmanship has nothing to do with the gun control debate. The Second Amendment was written to ensure that the people were comparably armed to the state. So talk about sporting use is just irrelevant to your advocating men with guns go about further disarming the US populace.
Also, again, I could post someone else's arguments for you to deal with, but, if you really understand an argument, you can articulate it concisely.
To clear up one thing, I am the one who attributed incrimentalism to the left. Its a Sol Alinsky (Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals) thing. The idea being that you get what you want a bit at a time. The TSA is a silly comparison since it is a government program and government programs have a life and growth of their own. However, point taken.
The following is a article by an LA writer, teacher, speaker & radio talk show host Dennis Prager. He voices some of my opinions about the matter, using the so called war on drugs as a prime example. I'm sure this will draw more rants then gun control since morality has become a word that has ceased to mean decency but know seems to be associated more with censorship.
Mr. Prager:
Conscience, Not Guns
Tuesday, December 18, 2012
ShareThis
From the moment Americans learned of the Sandy Hook Elementary School massacre last Friday, the entire left -- editorialists, columnists, broadcasters, politicians -- used the occasion to promote one idea: gun control.
For the left, the primary reason for just about all American gun murders is the availability of guns.
I have no interest in debating gun control here. I only wish to ask the left one question: We have a massive system of drug control laws. Yet, the left is the first to argue that the war on drugs has been a failure. And whether or not one deems it a failure, the war on drugs surely hasn't prevented tens of millions of Americans, including teenagers, from obtaining drugs illegally. Why, then, does the left believe that a war on guns would be any more effective than the war on drugs?
That question aside, what matters most here is the left's preoccupation with guns as the root of the murder problem in America.
It explains a great deal about the left's worldview. The moral values and the conscience of nations as well as individuals seem to play almost no role in the left's understanding of human behavior.
That is why the left wants all nations, including the United States, to destroy their nuclear weapons. The problem for the left is not the moral values nations hold, it is the weapons nations hold. American nuclear weapons were just as troubling to the left as Soviet nuclear weapons during the Cold War and just as troubling as Iran having nuclear weapons today. So, too, the problem of gun violence in America is not the moral values of gun owners, it is gun ownership.
And because leftist thinking dominates American society -- from elementary through graduate school and in virtually all the print and electronic news media -- there is one view that almost never gets a hearing: that the primary reason for gun violence in America is not gun ownership, but the lack of a functioning moral conscience.
Lack of conscience is the problem both for individuals and for nations. Among nations the problem is nuclear (and all other) weapons in the hands of bad regimes. And among Americans the problem is guns in the hands of bad people.
This is so obvious that one has to be propagandized his whole life by leftism not to immediately understand it. But leftism is the religion of the west, the most dynamic religion in the world for the last century. It is as hard to reject leftism in the west as it was to reject Christianity in Europe during the Middle Ages or Islam in the Arab world today.
Does one reader of this column -- including individuals on the left -- fear being massacred by a decent person? Of course not.
Then why isn't our emphasis on character development and the teaching of right and wrong?
Why is this never mentioned on the left? Why are guns, not the conscience, the root issue for the left?
We are lead to believe after almost every massacre that the murderer "snapped" or had mental problems. Why? Because it implies that the murderer was not morally responsible for what he did. We are told, for example, that Adam Lanza, who by all accounts was a brilliant student, suffered from a form of autism. Even if true, why is that important? Statistically, I would bet that those with autism commit far fewer violent crimes than the rest of population. Autistic people, like everyone else, can be taught the difference between right and wrong. My stepson is autistic, and is not capable of attending regular school (much less honors classes) or driving a car, things that Adam Lanza did fully normally. But my stepson is keenly aware of right and wrong, and believes that God punishes people who commit evil.
On some rare occasions mental illness may be the only possible explanation for evil. But when American schools emphasized character development, and when nearly all Americans believed that there is a God who forbids and punishes murder, such massacres rarely took place. When people "snapped" during the Great Depression some of them did kill ... themselves. Surely some European Jews who survived the Holocaust "snapped" after seeing their families murdered. Yet I know of no survivor of the Holocaust who massacred innocent Germans or Poles or Hungarians, or Frenchmen, let alone Americans. Why not?
Because until the contemporary period, religion and/or conscience development were ubiquitous.
Instead of teaching young Americans self-control, thanks to leftist influence, we now teach them self-esteem -- which has been worse than morally useless. It has been morally destructive. According to professor of psychology Roy Baumeister, one of the leading criminologists in America, few Americans have the high self-esteem that violent criminals have.
Want to know a major cause of criminal violence in America? Try leftism's denial of the importance of moral values among nations and individuals; its systematic destruction of character education; and its elimination of God as the source of moral law.
Not guns.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 20, 2012
National Rifle (Selling) AssociationThe National Rifle Association is scheduled to hold a news conference on Friday where it says it plans to provide details about its promise of "meaningful contributions" to prevent another a massacre like the one in Newtown, Conn.
We would like to believe that the N.R.A., the most influential opponent of sensible gun-control policies, will do as it says, but we have little faith that it will offer any substantial reforms. The association presents itself as a grass-roots organization, but it has become increasingly clear in recent years that it represents gun makers. Its chief aim has been to help their businesses by increasing the spread of firearms throughout American society.
In recent years, the N.R.A. has aggressively lobbied federal and state governments to dilute or eliminate numerous regulations on gun ownership. And the clearest beneficiary has been the gun industry — sales of firearms and ammunition have grown 5.7 percent a year since 2007, to nearly $12 billion this year, according to IBISWorld, a market research firm. Despite the recession, arms sales have been growing so fast that domestic manufacturers haven't been able to keep up. Imports of arms have grown 3.6 percent a year in the last five years.
The industry has, in turn, been a big supporter of the N.R.A. It has contributed between $14.7 million and $38.9 million to an N.R.A.-corporate-giving campaign since 2005, according to a report published last year by the Violence Policy Center, a nonprofit group that advocates greater gun control. The estimate is based on a study of the N.R.A.'s "Ring of Freedom" program and very likely understates the industry's total financial support for the association, which does not publicly disclose a comprehensive list of its donors and how much they have given.
Officials from the N.R.A. have repeatedly said their main goal is to protect the Second Amendment rights of rank-and-file members who like to hunt or want guns for protection. But that claim is at odds with surveys that show a majority of N.R.A. members and a majority of American gun owners often support restrictions on gun sales and ownership that the N.R.A. has bitterly fought.
For instance, a 2009 poll commissioned by Mayors Against Illegal Guns found that 69 percent of N.R.A. members would support requiring all sellers at gun shows to conduct background checks of prospective buyers, which they do not have to do now and which the N.R.A. has steadfastly argued against. If lawful gun owners are willing to subject themselves to background checks, why is the association resisting? Its position appears only to serve the interest of gun makers and dealers who want to increase sales even if it means having dangerous weapons fall into the hands of criminals and violent individuals.
Businesses and special-interest groups often cloak their profit motives in the garb of constitutional rights — think Big Tobacco and its opposition to restrictions on smoking in public places and bold warnings on cigarette packages. The Supreme Court has made clear that the right to bear arms is not absolute and is subject to regulations and controls. Yet the N.R.A. clings to its groundless arguments that tough regulations violate the Second Amendment. Many of those arguments serve no purpose other than to increase the sales of guns and bullets.
Quote from: hesedmedia on December 18, 2012, 05:48:53 PM
Quote from: YankeeJim on December 18, 2012, 05:42:45 PM
Quote from: hesedmedia on December 18, 2012, 02:39:34 AM
Quote from: YankeeJim on December 18, 2012, 12:52:34 AM
Quote from: Forever Fulham on December 17, 2012, 06:59:46 PM
Quote from: YankeeJim on December 15, 2012, 04:04:35 PM
With all due respect, most of your arguments are not logical. This kid had no record & no other indications that would have kept him from buying a gun under the things you propose. hI agree with your comments on military grade weapons, waiting periods & the gun show loop ole. Background checks are done if poorly. These things should be addressed. But, none of them will keep guns out of the hands of crimminals. Heck, the current liberal administration sold hundreds of military grade weapons to the cartels in Mexico under the Fast & Furious program. In Mexico guns are illegal yet they have managed to kill 40,000 people in the last 6 years. How do you address that?
When something horrible happens, people seem to think they have to do something as if doing the wrong thing is some sort of panicia. Nothing that anyone on the left has recommeded would do anything, anything to prevent the horror og uesterday. Put crimnals in jail and commit nut cases; their civil rights are not superior to the safety of people in general.
The fact that you moved my comments about gun control over here and none of the other dozen or so comments tells me a lot.
This should have been nipped in the bud when the first comment was made, not just when you disagree with it.
YJ, I don't you and I are that far apart in our thinking. This strange loner individual who murdered his mother and scores of little children at the elementary school might have passed a background check, and a waiting period, if either or both had existed at the time. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have such checks and waiting periods. Some sick individuals will be discovered and their attempts to get a gun will/might slow them down, perhaps even stop them. I've read the killer got the guns from his mother's collection. Is that true? Why did his mother have a Bushmaster military grade rifle. She's a school teacher. Had there been sensible gun regulation, she wouldn't have procured that rifle, and her son wouldn't have been able to easily grab it and use it on the children. So even in THIS instance, regulation would probably have been beneficial. The NRA uses the slippery slope argument--today it's mere registrations; next, knowing who owns what guns, they'll come for our guns and take them away from us. Pathetic argument. You don't need an Uzi to hunt Bambi. That's a real argument with merit. Someone breaking in your back window at night? You can defend yourself with a registered handgun as easily as you can with an unregistered one. So why not help the police by working towards a system whereby everyone must register their guns or have them confiscated? Won't get all of them registered, but you will get many. Baby steps to sensible practices. That's what we need, and now is a good time to start.
If you read all my posts, youll see that I have twice stated that background checks & such should be implemented. They will not help much but if they stop one of these looney tunes then it is worth it. If I wanted a gun, I have no problems with a background check and or a waiting period. This is the age of computers, it could be done for most people in a matter of minutes. Guidelines could be set so that questionable folks would be subject to additional investigation.
As to the mother, the latest reports are that she was some sort of survivalist. I guess the crazy apple didnt fall far from the tree there.
My issue is and always has been that gun control has little to nothing to do with crime. The crime rate in the US has been on the decline for years. As the largest generation in our history (baby boomers) has left its teens and twenties which began to happen around 1965, the crime rate has dipped. In 1994 we passed a so called assault weapon ban. The crime rate did not decline any faster than it had been doing since the sixties. When the ban expired in 2004, the left went bonkers saying there would be mass slaughter in the streets. The crime rate simply continued dropping. The elimination of the assault weapon ban did nothing.
As to the slippery slope argument, incrementalism is and has been a method used by the left in this country for years. So, the paranoia of the NRA probabley is accurate. What I would like to see would be some sort of limitation as to muzzle velocity (less powerful ammo). This would reduce the killing power, range and the speed of fire: lower pressure means a slower rate of fire. Metallurgy could be used to limit lower cost weapons (Saturday night specials) and in turn would raise the cost of guns, further making them not cost effective & less desirable. Magazines could be limited to say 5 rounds. Yes this is the easiest thing for a criminal to defeat since a magazine is simply a metal box with a spring but the penalty could be confiscation of that persons weapons or some other serious penalty. Also, armor piercing shells should be illegal. No earthly purpose for them. Registration would simply provide the government with a list of those that have guns which is the big fear of the NRA. Why not subject each weapon to a ballistic test (further raising the cost) and keeping that record on file. When a gun is used illegaly, law enforcement could then go to the manufacturer who would have a record as to what dealer had the gun who in turn would have a record of who he sold it too and the end user could be required to record who he sold it to. Failure to do so at any step could have penalties. A law enforcement searched would be subject to a search warrant. That should appease the NRA. And when the boogie man government comes for everyones guns, patriots along the way could burn their records.
As you said, baby steps to a sensible solutions.
hesedmedia, I haven't abandoned any of my arguments. Rather, it's tiring to go back and forth with a sophist. This is, after all, a Fulham fan board. It's an unusual departure for me (and I suspect for you as well) to carry on about an issue so removed from the team, the players, and the game as a whole. I shall make a few further observations though and then get off my box. 1. The shooter got the semi-automatic Bushmaster military-grade rifle from his mother. Had she been unable to possess such a gun, perhaps more would have had time to slip away and avoid death. 2. The shooter, like most recent mass shooting incidents, operated far too quickly for any armed teacher or guard to have prevented the deaths. 20-30 seconds... If the armed protector is but down the hall, he or she wouldn't have had time to do anything save perhaps eventually shoot the sick killer, provided they don't kill more innocents with a poor aim, shaky hand, or kids running in front of the line of fire in the process. I have a mental image of my Second Grade teacher, Sister Mary Ivo, armed and pressed into service when the first pops go off.
Saul Alinsky, Yankee Jim? Really, now. You're giving away your source for political thought and information. The article you republish attempts to equate the decline of religious belief and "self-control" (an amorphous notion at best)--for which the author, and impliedly you by republication, blame upon "the left"--as a root cause of such shootings. Poppycock. It's the plentiful access to guns by people who shouldn't have such access that is largely responsible for such abberant behaviour. You paint with too broad of a brush. I am a "lefty", I suppose, in that I am liberal on civil rights issues. But I am a fiscal conservative. I was a junior member of the NRA as a teenager, briefly, when living in the U.S. Took firearm safety and use lessons. I had begged my father for a shotgun, as several of my best friends went dove and quail hunting with their dads, and went on and on about the fun of it. He bought me a 410. After a month or two of shooting, I quit for a myriad of reasons. When my father in law, a WWII decorated captain died, I inherited a number of his guns. They sit in my closet, collecting dust. Occasionally I get invited and go with colleagues to dove hunting outings. But I do it for the social, not to shoot little birds trying to get home at dusk. Point is, there are many like me. Hard to pigeon-hole into a neat category who see a nation facing greater gun violence not because of your author's claims of societal norm breakdowns, but, rather, because there are an ever-growing number of easily obtainable guns in the U.S. with no comprehensive database and review/approval waiting period, with too few limits on the nature and kind of firearms one can legally purchase as a private citizen. 300 million guns and growing. That's your real culprit.
Sophist, is it? As you've demonstrated no counter-argument but bald assertion and incredulity, this would appear to be a retreat to ad hominem. That's fine, in the interest of not escalating name-calling, I'll take that, and allow the reader to decide which of us is representing a rationally defensible viewpoint.
1. Had she not been able to possess the gun, he had not been able to find a gun anywhere else, he not have been willing to rent ferilizer and a Ryder truck, had he not locked the classroom so as to prevent escape during reloads, and had he not been willing to learn to reload a smaller-capacity magazine, fewer may have died.
2. What high-speed, low-drag Spetsnaz training do these mass-murderers undergo in your mind that turns them into unstoppable killing machines the only response to which is to hide and hope? Every person I've spoken with that carries a weapon would have given anything to have been in that school that day. No one is advocating arming your Sister Mary Ivo, or arming anyone against their will. However, if there is a teacher or administrator willing to undergo 40-120 hours* of tactical training in order to put their life on the line to stop this kind of violence, why would you stand between them and the killer down the hall insisting that only mad men can be effective shooters?
*40 hours total is the police requirement in most cases in the U.S. We shaky-handed, incompetent civilian shooters often undertake upwards of 90 per year for as many years as we can afford.
First, I apologize for calling you a sophist. Second, as to your foreseeability argument (but for this, that wouldn't have happened), it doesn't support arming adults in elementary schools. Here's an interesting article about the Bushmaster. It's a bit long, so I offer it in two postings.
Eric Lach December 20, 2012, 11:54 AM 33489When he died in April 1997 at his home in Palm City, Fla., Eugene Stoner was a millionaire with about 100 patents to his name and, in the words of an obituary that ran in The New York Times, a reputation as "one of the world's foremost designers of and experts on small arms." In the late 1950s, working as an engineer for an upstart California company called ArmaLite, a division of the Fairchild Aircraft & Engine Corporation, Stoner had developed the AR-15 rifle.
After some bureaucratic resistance and early mechanical issues, the AR-15, rebranded by the military as the M16 and manufactured by Colt's Firearms Division in Hartford, Conn., made its way onto the battlefields of Vietnam and into the American popular imagination. Its profile became synonymous with the term "assault rifle," and it stood in contrast to its Soviet counterpart, the AK-47, designed by Mikhail Kalashnikov in 1947. Lightweight, air-cooled, gas-operated, and magazine-fed, four variants of the M16 — the M16A1/A2/A3/A4 — have been used by the military since the 1960s. A more compact version of the M16A2, the M4 carbine, was introduced in the 1990s.
When Adam Lanza stepped into Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., last Friday, he was holding one of the millions of civilian descendants of Stoner's design.
Two handguns and a rifle were recovered at the scene of the massacre, but reports have indicated that Lanza used the .223 semi-automatic rifle to shoot most, if not all, of his victims, including his mother, Nancy Lanza, to whom the gun was apparently registered. On Saturday, Connecticut's chief medical examiner, H. Wayne Carver II, said that each of the victims had received multiple gunshot wounds.
"My sensibilities may not be the average man, but this probably is the worst I have seen or the worst that I know of any of my colleagues having seen," Carver told reporters.
As Times journalist C.J. Chivers described in his 2011 book "The Gun," when Stoner was working on the AR-15, he also redesigned a commercially available .222 Remington round in order to meet a standard set by the Army: that a bullet fired from the rifle be able to strike and penetrate a steel helmet at 500 yards. For this purpose, Stoner created the .223 round, slightly longer than the .222, able to be filled with more powder. Lightweight, but high-powered.
"To its champions, the AR-15 was an embodiment of fresh thinking," Chivers wrote. "Critics saw an ugly little toy. Wherever one stood, no one could deny the ballistics were intriguing. The .223's larger load of propellant and the AR-15's twenty-inch barrel worked together to move the tiny bullet along at ultrafast speeds — in excess of thirty-two hundred feet per second, almost three times the speed of sound."
Part II.
Adam Lanza/Image via APAuthorities have not yet said publicly what model of rifle Lanza used in the massacre. Media outlets, however, have identified it as a Bushmaster .223 caliber M4 carbine., a more recent variant of the AR-15. Bushmaster has been one of the most prominent manufactures of military-style rifles being sold to civilians in recent years.
Bushmaster didn't respond to TPM's request to discuss the history of its guns. The company bills itself as the "leading supplier" of AR-15 type rifles in the United States. It makes both aluminum and advanced carbon-fiber-based AR-15s, and its weapons are used, according to the company, by "hundreds of police departments and law enforcement organizations nationwide, by the military of more than 50 countries worldwide." Several Bushmaster rifles currently advertised on the company's website appear to meet the reported description of Lanza's weapon, among them the XM-15 M4-A2 Type Patrolman's Carbine.
Newtown was not the first time that a .223 Bushmaster rifle has been involved in violence that attracted national attention. In 2004, two survivors and the families of six people killed in 2002 during the Beltway sniper attacks reached a $2.5 million settlement with Bushmaster and Bull's Eye Shooter Supply in Tacoma, Wash., the store from which John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo stole the Bushmaster XM-15 E2S used in the killings. The Washington Post reported Bushmaster contributed $550,000 of the settlement, and did not admit to any wrongdoing in the case.
Unlike their military cousins — which have three-round burst settings — commercially available AR-15 type rifles like Bushmaster's are semiautomatic, meaning one bullet per trigger pull. But a little searching on YouTube turns up numerous videos showing how quickly AR-15 type rifles can unload dozens of rounds and even one example of how to turn a "semi-auto into a full-auto machine using a household rubberband!"
One estimate put the number of AR-15 type rifles made in the U.S. and not exported between 1986 and 2012 between 3.3 million and 3.5 million. (From 1994 to 2004, when the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was in place, certain semiautomatic rifles were outlawed, but not all of them — including, reportedly, the one used at Newtown.) According to the NRA, meanwhile, nearly half a million AR-15 types were manufactured in the U.S. in 2009. The AR-15 is simply the latest example of a military weapon that has become popular after soldiers returned home, gun advocates say. But there are other reasons for the gun's current appeal.
Some enthusiasts say AR-15s are popular because of how customizable they are. According to Joseph Olson, a professor at Hamline University School of Law in Minnesota and a member of the board of directors of the National Rifle Association, the guns are conversation starters at firing ranges. He told TPM he bought a Bushmaster in the early 1990s.
"It's all cosmetics and it's all marketing," Olson said, adding, a bit later: "It's the American consumer getting what they want."
Advocates say semi-automatic rifles are also becoming more popular for home defense. A recent article in Guns & Ammo, titled "Long Guns, Short Yardage: Is .223 the Best Home Defense Caliber?," said sales of AR-15 type rifles "skyrocketed" after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The same article pointed to a 2010 National Shooting Sports Foundation survey which found that the second most popular reason for owning a "modern sporting rifle" — the polite term for semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 types — was home defense. The first was recreational shooting.
Investment money has followed this consumer interest.
In 2006, Bushmaster, which was founded in 1973 in Maine, was bought by Cerberus Capital Management, a New York City-based private equity firm that quickly and quietly became a major force in gun manufacturing in the mid- to late-2000s. Cerberus acquired several other big name gunmakers, including Remington and DPMS Firearms, and brought them together under a new banner of Freedom Group, which emerged so quickly on the gun scene that it inspired conspiracy theories about its intentions.
For the first nine months of this year, Freedom Group reported $677.3 million in sales. In its most recent quarterly report, the company said that "we believe the adoption of the modern sporting rifle has led to increased long-term growth in the long gun market while attracting a younger generation of shooters." As The New Republic pointed out, the company sells more than a million rifles and shotguns a year, and Wal-Mart accounted for about 13 percent of the company's total sales.
"In many areas, the market is expanding quicker than the industry can increase production," the company said in its quarterly report. "Accordingly, our company is experiencing strong demand for modern sporting firearms and handguns, as well as above capacity demand levels for more traditional hunting and target shooting platforms."
On Tuesday, citing the tragedy in Newtown, Cerberus Capital Management announced it planned to sell its stake in Freedom Group.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Armed guards on every school is the only way to protect our children.
The hoped for conciliatory words from the gun lobby.
Weep and cry.
Quote from: Forever Fulham on December 21, 2012, 05:20:11 PM
Saul Alinsky, Yankee Jim? Really, now. You're giving away your source for political thought and information. The article you republish attempts to equate the decline of religious belief and "self-control" (an amorphous notion at best)--for which the author, and impliedly you by republication, blame upon "the left"--as a root cause of such shootings. Poppycock. It's the plentiful access to guns by people who shouldn't have such access that is largely responsible for such abberant behaviour. You paint with too broad of a brush. I am a "lefty", I suppose, in that I am liberal on civil rights issues. But I am a fiscal conservative. I was a junior member of the NRA as a teenager, briefly, when living in the U.S. Took firearm safety and use lessons. I had begged my father for a shotgun, as several of my best friends went dove and quail hunting with their dads, and went on and on about the fun of it. He bought me a 410. After a month or two of shooting, I quit for a myriad of reasons. When my father in law, a WWII decorated captain died, I inherited a number of his guns. They sit in my closet, collecting dust. Occasionally I get invited and go with colleagues to dove hunting outings. But I do it for the social, not to shoot little birds trying to get home at dusk. Point is, there are many like me. Hard to pigeon-hole into a neat category who see a nation facing greater gun violence not because of your author's claims of societal norm breakdowns, but, rather, because there are an ever-growing number of easily obtainable guns in the U.S. with no comprehensive database and review/approval waiting period, with too few limits on the nature and kind of firearms one can legally purchase as a private citizen. 300 million guns and growing. That's your real culprit.
You make assumptions without fact about me. I have often called myself a fiscal conservative and a social liberal. What individuals do, whom they marry, what color, what religion, whatever, is irrelavent to me. How they behave in society is what matters. the purpose of reprinting the article is simply the one line:
Does one reader of this column -- including individuals on the left -- fear being massacred by a decent person? Of course not.
Unlike my friend hesedmedia, I do think that the ability of a weapon should be controled. I refer you to an earlier post where I made suggestion about weapon capability. All of those suggestion would do one thing, buy a little time for the 6th through 26 person in the room. It would do nothing to totaly stop the likes of Adam Lanza. For that I refer you to Mr. Prager.
" Second, as to your foreseeability argument (but for this, that wouldn't have happened), it doesn't support arming adults in elementary schools."
Well, I agree. Obviously not. It was directed as a satirically analogous point to your suggestion that "had she not had the rifle, he might have killed slowly enough to allow escape", to demonstrate the tenuous nature and proper gravity of the argument. If not for X, maybe not Y.
I'm not sure what you're getting at with the article. The sale of firearms is certainly increasing as fears of a ban run rampant, no objection here.
I wish you both well. No more from me on this subject. Enjoy your holidays and let's hope we pick up some much needed points.
Quote from: Forever Fulham on December 21, 2012, 07:20:16 PM
I wish you both well. No more from me on this subject. Enjoy your holidays and let's hope we pick up some much needed points.
Amen to that. :merry christmas:
People are often surprised that this type of violence has only happened in rural type places... I've heard people say, I wonder why this type of thing has never happened in innercity schools... my guess would be that there are already police stationed at these schools and are therefore somewhat of a deterant. My other guess is, its probably just a matter of time.
Quote from: A Humble Man on December 21, 2012, 06:26:51 PM
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun. Armed guards on every school is the only way to protect our children.
The hoped for conciliatory words from the gun lobby.
Weep and cry.
Seems my satirical post earlier regarding having armed guards in each corridor wasn't too far from the mark, was it? Unfortunately, I made it in a very sarcastic tone, and mentioned it wasn't feasible, seems the NRA and I do not see eye-to-eye then, like that's a surprise.
So, whose first to suggest we have a gun ban now then? Hopefully those that believe all Americans must just be acting 'macho' because of the love of guns have learnt something from this discussion, and that is there is no machismo here, just a deep ground belief in a persons rights as given to them by the Constitution.
I can see the same discussion next year, when the next shooting atrocity occurs, but until then, I hope everybody a great Christmas and a very, very merry New Year.
Quote from: Forever Fulham on December 21, 2012, 07:20:16 PM
I wish you both well. No more from me on this subject. Enjoy your holidays and let's hope we pick up some much needed points.
Fair enough and pray I caused no offense. Here's to some marks in the win column.
This comes under the heading of :dead horse: , but is indicative of how gun control does not work. The examples are from England and from down under, not from the uncivilized colony.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h)
copy & paste
Quote from: YankeeJim on December 27, 2012, 06:02:09 PM
This comes under the heading of :dead horse: , but is indicative of how gun control does not work. The examples are from England and from down under, not from the uncivilized colony.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323777204578195470446855466.html?mod=djemEditorialPage_h)
Excellent bring YJ, I have reproduced it below so it can be easily read ..
Joyce Lee Malcolm: Two Cautionary Tales of Gun ControlAfter a school massacre, the U.K. banned handguns in 1998. A decade later, handgun crime had doubled.Americans are determined that massacres such as happened in Newtown, Conn., never happen again. But how? Many advocate more effective treatment of mentally-ill people or armed protection in so-called gun-free zones. Many others demand stricter control of firearms.
We aren't alone in facing this problem. Great Britain and Australia, for example, suffered mass shootings in the 1980s and 1990s. Both countries had very stringent gun laws when they occurred. Nevertheless, both decided that even stricter control of guns was the answer. Their experiences can be instructive.
In 1987, Michael Ryan went on a shooting spree in his small town of Hungerford, England, killing 16 people (including his mother) and wounding another 14 before shooting himself. Since the public was unarmed—as were the police—Ryan wandered the streets for eight hours with two semiautomatic rifles and a handgun before anyone with a firearm was able to come to the rescue.
Nine years later, in March 1996, Thomas Hamilton, a man known to be mentally unstable, walked into a primary school in the Scottish town of Dunblane and shot 16 young children and their teacher. He wounded 10 other children and three other teachers before taking his own life.
Since 1920, anyone in Britain wanting a handgun had to obtain a certificate from his local police stating he was fit to own a weapon and had good reason to have one. Over the years, the definition of "good reason" gradually narrowed. By 1969, self-defense was never a good reason for a permit.
After Hungerford, the British government banned semiautomatic rifles and brought shotguns—the last type of firearm that could be purchased with a simple show of fitness—under controls similar to those in place for pistols and rifles. Magazines were limited to two shells with a third in the chamber.
Dunblane had a more dramatic impact. Hamilton had a firearm certificate, although according to the rules he should not have been granted one. A media frenzy coupled with an emotional campaign by parents of Dunblane resulted in the Firearms Act of 1998, which instituted a nearly complete ban on handguns. Owners of pistols were required to turn them in. The penalty for illegal possession of a pistol is up to 10 years in prison.
The results have not been what proponents of the act wanted. Within a decade of the handgun ban and the confiscation of handguns from registered owners, crime with handguns had doubled according to British government crime reports. Gun crime, not a serious problem in the past, now is. Armed street gangs have some British police carrying guns for the first time. Moreover, another massacre occurred in June 2010. Derrick Bird, a taxi driver in Cumbria, shot his brother and a colleague then drove off through rural villages killing 12 people and injuring 11 more before killing himself.
Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens who have come into the possession of a firearm, even accidentally, have been harshly treated. In 2009 a former soldier, Paul Clarke, found a bag in his garden containing a shotgun. He brought it to the police station and was immediately handcuffed and charged with possession of the gun. At his trial the judge noted: "In law there is no dispute that Mr. Clarke has no defence to this charge. The intention of anybody possessing a firearm is irrelevant." Mr. Clarke was sentenced to five years in prison. A public outcry eventually won his release.
In November of this year, Danny Nightingale, member of a British special forces unit in Iraq and Afghanistan, was sentenced to 18 months in military prison for possession of a pistol and ammunition. Sgt. Nightingale was given the Glock pistol as a gift by Iraqi forces he had been training. It was packed up with his possessions and returned to him by colleagues in Iraq after he left the country to organize a funeral for two close friends killed in action. Mr. Nightingale pleaded guilty to avoid a five-year sentence and was in prison until an appeal and public outcry freed him on Nov. 29.
***
Six weeks after the Dunblane massacre in 1996, Martin Bryant, an Australian with a lifelong history of violence, attacked tourists at a Port Arthur prison site in Tasmania with two semiautomatic rifles. He killed 35 people and wounded 21 others.
At the time, Australia's guns laws were stricter than the United Kingdom's. In lieu of the requirement in Britain that an applicant for permission to purchase a gun have a "good reason," Australia required a "genuine reason." Hunting and protecting crops from feral animals were genuine reasons—personal protection wasn't.
With new Prime Minister John Howard in the lead, Australia passed the National Firearms Agreement, banning all semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump-action shotguns and imposing a more restrictive licensing system on other firearms. The government also launched a forced buyback scheme to remove thousands of firearms from private hands. Between Oct. 1, 1996, and Sept. 30, 1997, the government purchased and destroyed more than 631,000 of the banned guns at a cost of $500 million.
To what end? While there has been much controversy over the result of the law and buyback, Peter Reuter and Jenny Mouzos, in a 2003 study published by the Brookings Institution, found homicides "continued a modest decline" since 1997. They concluded that the impact of the National Firearms Agreement was "relatively small," with the daily rate of firearms homicides declining 3.2%.
According to their study, the use of handguns rather than long guns (rifles and shotguns) went up sharply, but only one out of 117 gun homicides in the two years following the 1996 National Firearms Agreement used a registered gun. Suicides with firearms went down but suicides by other means went up. They reported "a modest reduction in the severity" of massacres (four or more indiscriminate homicides) in the five years since the government weapons buyback. These involved knives, gas and arson rather than firearms.
In 2008, the Australian Institute of Criminology reported a decrease of 9% in homicides and a one-third decrease in armed robbery since the 1990s, but an increase of over 40% in assaults and 20% in sexual assaults.
What to conclude? Strict gun laws in Great Britain and Australia haven't made their people noticeably safer, nor have they prevented massacres. The two major countries held up as models for the U.S. don't provide much evidence that strict gun laws will solve our problems.
Ms. Malcolm, a professor of law at George Mason University Law School, is the author of several books including "Guns and Violence: The English Experience," (Harvard, 2002).A version of this article appeared December 27, 2012, on page A13 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: Two Cautionary Tales of Gun Control.
Just a few thoughts in response to my friends on this board.
The Heller Supreme Court decision was 5-4, splitting on ideological (political) lines, with Justice Kennedy the swing vote, this time siding with the ideologues on the Right. Any 5-4 ruling is inherently suspect. The Wall Street Journal, quite the right wing voice, especially under its current owner (of whom the British are all too familiar), loves to engage (pay?) Prof. Malcolm for her historical-political (opinion) pieces. Indeed, she was hired to write an amicus brief to the Supreme Court on behalf of the respondent in the Heller case. It's often been said that "There are lies; there are damn lies; and then there are statistics." I've been around statistics and statistical science enough to know that statistics are easily manipulated. It often gets down to how you ask a question, to whom you ask it, what controls and variables are in place, are not in place, and so on. Without more, I don't trust Professor Malcolm's use of statistics. Writing that exposes me, of course, to challenge, because I haven't yet pointed to a single particular statistic she has used, and offered up different conclusions or challenges. Fair enough. She's the gun lobby's legitimizer-in-chief. I leave it to others to decide whether her analysis of British gun controls, and the effects thereof, have been fairly presented. Here's a very different amicus brief, though, before the Court in the Heller case—on behalf of the other side:
http://www.oyez.org/sites/default/files/cases/briefs/pdf/brief__07-290__1.pdf (http://www.oyez.org/sites/default/files/cases/briefs/pdf/brief__07-290__1.pdf)
I've often heard the pro-gun rights crowd claim that no massacre with firearms has yet occurred where there was a "good guy" (as NRA's Wayne LaPierre likes to characterize them) with a gun. More to the point, I've heard it argued that if only we'd arm someone in each of our schools, then these sorts of massacres wouldn't take place, or they would be minimized, or the death count would be reduced. Columbine had an armed guard. He regularly ate lunch with the students. Neil Gardner. http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/DEPUTIES_TEXT.htm (http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2000/columbine.cd/Pages/DEPUTIES_TEXT.htm)
Deputy sheriff Gardner had training in the use of his weapon, a semi-automatic with, I believe, ten rounds. He wasn't a school teacher or counselor or a member of the Administration. He was a trained professional. Just the kind of "good guy" the lobby says is needed to stop the "bad guys". So much for that argument.
From Talkingpointsmemo.com, here's a report on the views of the conservative (Bush appointment) judge who presided over the trial of Jared Laughner, accused of shooting U.S. Representative Gabby Gifford (Tucson, Ariz.) :
Larry Alan Burns, the federal district judge in San Diego who just last month sentenced Tuscon shooter Jared Lee Loughner to seven consecutive life terms plus 140 years in federal prison, is no darling of the gun control movement.
Burns is a self-described conservative, appointed to the bench by President George W. Bush, and he agrees with the Supreme Court's decision in District of Columbia vs. Heller, which held that the 2nd Amendment gives Americans the right to own guns for self-defense. He is also a gun owner.
But while sentencing Loughner in November, Burns questioned the need for high-capacity magazines like the one Loughner had in his Glock, and said he regretted how the Federal Assault Weapons Ban was allowed to lapse in 2004. On Thursday, reacting to last week's mass shooting in Newtown, Conn., Burns publicly called for a new assault weapons ban "with some teeth this time," in an op-ed published by The Los Angeles Times.
"Ban the manufacture, importation, sale, transfer and possession of both assault weapons and high-capacity magazines," Burns wrote. "Don't let people who already have them keep them. Don't let ones that have already been manufactured stay on the market. I don't care whether it's called gun control or a gun ban. I'm for it."
Burns argued that while the ban that expired in 2004 wasn't very stringent, "at least it was something." Half of the nation's deadliest shootings, Burns pointed out, have occurred since the ban expired. In his view, high-capacity magazines fall outside the scope of good-faith debates about gun violence.
"I get it." Burns wrote. "Someone bent on mass murder who has only a 10-round magazine or revolvers at his disposal probably is not going to abandon his plan and instead try to talk his problems out. But we might be able to take the 'mass' out of 'mass shooting,' or at least make the perpetrator's job a bit harder."
Here's how Burns concluded his piece:
There is just no reason civilians need to own assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Gun enthusiasts can still have their venison chili, shoot for sport and competition, and make a home invader flee for his life without pretending they are a part of the SEAL team that took out Osama bin Laden.
It speaks horribly of the public discourse in this country that talking about gun reform in the wake of a mass shooting is regarded as inappropriate or as politicizing the tragedy. But such a conversation is political only to those who are ideologically predisposed to see regulation of any kind as the creep of tyranny. And it is inappropriate only to those delusional enough to believe it would disrespect the victims of gun violence to do anything other than sit around and mourn their passing. Mourning is important, but so is decisive action.
Congress must reinstate and toughen the ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines.
The killers at Columbine had a Semi-Automatic Tec-9 mm handgun with a 32 bullet magazine. It can shoot dozens and dozens of bullets a minute, and can hold magazines that hold over 70 bullets. It was banned under the Assault Weapons ban.
Further, here's a current article about the former loophole-ridden Assault Weapons ban. The writer claims it wasn't as ineffective as the pro-gun crowed would like to claim:
NRA misleads on assault weapons
Don't believe the NRA spin: The '94 assault weapons ban was full of loopholes, but studies prove it was effective
BY ALEX SEITZ-WALD
As Democrats move to once again ban assault weapons and NBC host David Gregory gets investigated for using a high-capacity magazine, banned in D.C., as a prop in his interview with the NRA's Wayne LaPierre, one key question still hasn't been properly addressed by the media thus far — did the 1994 Assault Weapon Ban actually work?
Even Gregory, who convincingly played a devil's advocate to LaPierre Sunday, was dismissive of its effect on Sunday. "I mean the fact that that it just doesn't work is still something that you're challenged by if you want to approach this legislation again," he said of the ban to New York Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer, a supporter of the ban.
There's a dearth of quality empirical research on the efficacy of the ban, thanks in part to Congress' statutory limitations on the type of gun violence research the federal government is allowed to conduct. Pro-gun lawmakers made it illegal for research agencies to advocate for gun control, which effectively means looking for any connection between guns and gun violence, but the evidence suggests the law had positive effects, if not as much as advocates would like.
The single formal assessment of the ban, as required by Congress in passing the law, was conducted by criminologists Christopher Koper, Jeffrey Roth and others at the University of Pennsylvania (Koper is now at George Mason). The National Institute of Justice, the research arm of the Department of Justice, paid for the evaluation, which was first conducted in 1999 and updated in 2004, and looked at everything from homicide rates to gun prices.
A few key findings emerged. Overall, banned guns and magazines were used in up to a quarter of gun crimes before the ban. Assault pistols were more common than assault rifles in crimes. Large-capacity magazines, which were also prohibited, may be a bigger problem than assault weapons. While just 2 to 8 percent of gun crimes were committed with assault weapons, large-capacity magazines were used in 14 to 26 percent of of firearm crimes. About 20 percent of privately owned guns were fitted with the magazines.
But even though assault weapons were responsible for a fraction of the total number of gun deaths overall, the weapons and other guns equipped with large-capacity magazines "tend to account for a higher share of guns used in murders of police and mass public shootings," the study found.
This shouldn't be surprising to anyone paying attention to the recent history of mass shootings. In just the past year, the same .223 Bushmaster AR-15 assault rifle was used in the Aurora, Colo., theater massacre, the shooting at the Clackamas Mall in Oregon, the Newtown elementary school shooting, and, just a few days ago, the killing of two firefighters in upstate New York. Jared Loughner used 33-round high-capacity magazines in a handgun to shoot former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords and more than a dozen others. Seung-Hui Cho used a 15-round magazine to kill 32 and wound 17 at Virginia Tech in 2007.
An October 2012 study from Johns Hopkins, which looked at newer data than Koper's, concluded that that "easy access to firearms with large-capacity magazines facilitates higher casualties in mass shootings."
So, according to the official study, was the ban effective in stopping killings? The short answer is yes, though it's a bit unclear because of the massive loopholes in the law. "Following implementation of the ban, the share of gun crimes involving AWs [assault weapons] declined by 17 percent to 72 percent across the localities examined for this study (Baltimore, Miami, Milwaukee, Boston, St. Louis, and Anchorage)," the Koper study concluded.
Data from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) also shows a significant drop in assault weapon usage in gun crimes. In the five-year period before the enactment of the ban, the weapons constituted almost 5 percent of the guns traced by the Bureau (the ATF is responsible for tracking guns used in crimes), while they accounted for just 1.61 percent of gun traces after the ban went into effect — a drop of 66 percent. The effect accelerated over time, as the guns presumably became harder to find.
The problem with the ban, as both gun rights advocates (seeking to cast aspersions on the law) and gun control proponents (seeking to explain its limited impact) agree, is that it was weak to the point of being meaningless. As the bill made its way through Congress, gun lobbyists managed to create bigger and bigger carve-outs, the largest being the grandfathering in of guns and magazines produced and owned before the ban went into effect. The guns and magazines could also continue to be imported, as long they were produced before the law went into effect.
At that time of the ban, there were already more than 1.5 million privately owned assault weapons in the U.S. and 25 million guns equipped with large-capacity magazines. Another almost 5 million large-capacity magazines were imported during the ban. These could continue to be used and traded completely legally.
"The ban's exemption of millions of pre-ban AWs and LCMs ensured that the effects of the law would occur only gradually. Those effects are still unfolding and may not be fully felt for several years into the future," Koper and his colleagues added.
The other big exemption in the law was the narrow definition of what the government considers an assault weapon. The ban initially targeted 18 gun models, and then prohibited any future models that contained two or more "military-style" features. Some of these features are decidedly superficial, such as a collapsable stock or muzzle shroud, leading the NRA to dismiss the category of assault weapons as artificial and "cosmetic." Indeed, gun manufacturers were able to legally produce and sell nearly identical guns to ones that were now prohibited by making a few minor tweaks.
Since the ban was allowed to lapse in 2004, there hasn't been another comprehensive national study. There is, however, some encouraging data on the state level. A Washington Post analysis of gun seizures in Virginia showed a significant drop in the number of high-capacity magazines seized by police during the 10 years the ban was in effect, only for the number to return to pre-ban levels after the law expired. In 1994, the year the ban went into effect, police in the state seized 1,140 guns with high-capacity magazines. In 2004, its last year on the books, that number had dropped to 612. By 2006, it was back to over 1,000.
Garen Wintemute, the director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California, Davis Medical School, looked at his state's experience and found a troubling pattern in who purchases guns that were once banned. First, "among those purchasing handguns legally, those with criminal records were more likely than others to purchase assault-type handguns," he told Salon. Second, "among those purchasing handguns legally who had criminal records, those purchasing assault-type handguns were much more likely than those purchasing other types of handguns to be arrested for violent crimes later." He wasn't able to study rifles because the state's archive of purchases was limited to handguns.
Abroad, the data is even more convincing. In Australia, a 1996 mass shooting that left 36 dead led the conservative government to act swiftly to ban semi-automatic assault weapons with a much stronger law. They did not grandfather in old guns and paid to buy back old ones. Gun-related homicide plummeted by 59 percent between 1995 and 2006, with no corresponding increase in non-firearm-related homicides. Meanwhile, gun suicides — which are responsible for most firearm deaths in most developed countries — dropped by a whopping 65 percent. Robberies at gunpoint also dropped significantly. In the decade prior to the ban, there were 18 mass shootings. In the decade following it, there were zero.
The resounding success of the Australian model shows where the U.S.'s attempt to ban assault weapons failed. By the same token, it shows where we could succeed by implementing a real ban without the carve-outs of the the 1994 law.
So Prof. Malcolm is a political hack who is "the gun lobby's legitimizer-in-chief" while Alex Seitz-Wald, dispite being the assistant editor of ThinkProgress (a decidedly leftist blog) and a litany of liberal groups on an amicus brief (hardly groups w/o an axe to grind) are open minded, clear & fair thinkers? :kettle pot:
We have simply , as all discussions such as this do, come full circle.
I understand the need of some to react in some way, any way, in the face of the horrible events in Newtown. All I ask is that it be something that will work. I made some suggestions that would have a real effect on the capability of fire arms. Hesedmedia disagrees with me and it would seem that you feel the need to do something else. What exactly? If you support the confiscation of fire arms, say so. If you think registration will positively effect gun violence, tell me how.
YJ, we both know I didn't call her a "hack" or a "political hack". You ask me what I feel the U.S. needs to do. I support the confiscation of assault rifles (automatic and semi-automatic) and large capacity pistols/handguns from citizens. They don't need them for hunting or to protect themselves from a burglar. I seek reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions by the state on carrying concealed weapons otherwise permitted. For instance, I am against allowing them in a church or a bar. If you think guns should be allowed in church, please tell me why? I've met some very odd people in church. If you think guns should be allowed in drinking establishments, where men's judgments get clouded with alcohol, act irrationally, impulsively, and all that, then please tell me why? I want a comprehensive system of background checks, and registrations, for all firearms owned by private citizens. Honest decent people have nothing to fear from a background check and from registration. If you are a convicted felon, or if you suffer from a mental disease or disability or recognized personality problem--from a list to be determined by a panel of noted authorities, with ample opportunity to appeal such determinations--then you don't get a gun. That would be my starter wish list. While we're at it, I would ban the use of lead in shot/bullets. I wouldn't allow for such laws to be riddled with loopholes either. Will my wish list be realized? Probably not in its entirety. Not with 300 million plus firearms in existence in the U.S., and increasing. But I'll be happier if some of what I want occurs. I'll accept half a loaf. Never let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
No you didn't call her a "hack" exactly but calling her a mouthpiece for the gun lobby while presenting others who share your view as objective isn't accurate either. That being said, I have no doubt that if we sat in a room together we'd come up with a solution. Well, an agreement anyway. I doubt that there is a solution in this matter short of re-educating society. Compromise is something that is rare today. All you have to do is look at the hack who is Boehner & the ego that is POTUS to see that.
I complement you on your demeanor and the presentation of your arguments. Being reasonable is a talent which you possess. 065.gif
You disarm me with your generosity. Thanks, YJ. I never meant to imply that lefty Alex Seitz-Wald is objective, or any less subjective than Prof. Malcolm. I was offering up counter presentations of facts. I think Malcolm's work is result-oriented. Same thing for Seitz-Wald. They say the two things you should never discuss in public are religion and politics. You're sure to alienate most people one way or the other. We can add gun control or gun laws to that short list too, I suppose. Best regards.
I hate to return to this subject, as it makes me no friends. But, in a time of high emotion, rationality must take her rightful place, or tyrants will.
"They don't need them for hunting or to protect themselves from a burglar."
Again, as gently and respectfully as I can possibly say this: you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about when you say things like this. You would have people attempting to defend their homes with, what, dove-hunting shotguns? Almost every CCW weapon carried in the modern world, is semi-automatic. Even if you thought that your prohibition would stop violent criminals from using semi-automatic weapons, they can also figure out to show up in groups of 2 or more. Surely you are not serious in saying that citizens do not need semi-automatic firearms. Have you ever seen a CCW-related shooting? Any footage of police engaged with even a single armed suspect? I can't underline enough how much it does not happen like you see in the movies. People do not get hit with a round from a handgun and fly backwards as if at the extended length of a bungee cord.
Furthermore, neither hunting nor protection from bandits (of the dis-organized variety) is the purpose of the 2A or the reason many American gun owners purchase arms and training in their use. The purpose and reason, at bottom, is as a warning to would-be tyrants, be they domestic or foreign.
"For instance, I am against allowing them in a church or a bar."
Yes, places that are publicized as being gun-free zones are never a target for violence, right?
"If you think guns should be allowed in church, please tell me why?"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wisconsin_Sikh_temple_shooting)
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57556741-504083/pennsylvania-church-shooting-man-shoots-kills-ex-wife-during-church-service-police-say/ (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57556741-504083/pennsylvania-church-shooting-man-shoots-kills-ex-wife-during-church-service-police-say/)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville_Unitarian_Universalist_church_shooting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knoxville_Unitarian_Universalist_church_shooting)
I could go on, if you need more.
"Honest decent people have nothing to fear from a background check and from registration."
Because tyrannical governments have never demonstrated a propensity to disarm the populace they intend to tyrannize, right? But, based on your context, I imagine that no honest or decent person (as you mean it) could look at history and infer anything of substance about the present that doesn't hold state power in high regard.
"While we're at it, I would ban the use of lead in shot/bullets."
Why? Are you under the impression that people with GSW's are dying of lead poisoning?
Hesed, you and I are never going to see eye to eye. I think if someone is trying to get into your home at night, and you have a handgun with 6-8 bullet capacity, you have enough to protect your home and your loved ones. You don't need a 30-round magazine. Same thing for a shotgun holding several shells. If you are that poor of a shot that you think you really need such extra capacity, then I don't know what to add. What are you so scared of that you think you need a semi-automatic rifle for protection? I've heard the "tyrannical government" argument before, and the quick allusions to Nazi Germany. I'm not buying that argument. Not for a minute. There is a direct relationship between the use of lead shot and its impact upon wildlife, how spent lead ammunition sickens them.
Hesed, here's what I'm referring to re: the environmental impact of lead shot.
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=environmental+impact+of+lead+shot&oq=environmental+impact+of+lead+shot&gs_l=hp.3..0i30.5839.17334.0.17594.49.30.8.11.11.2.298.5432.0j23j7.30.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.SnOim25v5jA&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.b2U&fp=c341db92e3d4d65d&bpcl=40096503&biw=1466&bih=769 (http://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&q=environmental+impact+of+lead+shot&oq=environmental+impact+of+lead+shot&gs_l=hp.3..0i30.5839.17334.0.17594.49.30.8.11.11.2.298.5432.0j23j7.30.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.SnOim25v5jA&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.b2U&fp=c341db92e3d4d65d&bpcl=40096503&biw=1466&bih=769)
"Hesed, you and I are never going to see eye to eye."
That's fair enough. Is there any argument or set of data that you can imagine that might change your mind? I mean that genuinely, is there an X for "If X were true, I might consider a legitimate use for effective defensive firearms"?
" I think if someone is trying to get into your home at night, and you have a handgun with 6-8 bullet capacity, you have enough to protect your home and your loved ones."
Suspects in police shootings routinely fail to stop after being shot several times, this is simply recorded fact (http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf (http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf)). Handgun-calibers do not work the way Dirty Harry would lead you to believe. Furthermore, those 6-8 rd. handguns, in modern times, are almost always going to be semi-automatics, which you're advocating be confiscated by men with semi- or fully automatic, high capacity guns. And what makes you feel qualified to arbitrate what the woman facing sexual assault should be allowed to defend herself with?
"If you are that poor of a shot that you think you really need such extra capacity, then I don't know what to add."
It is specifically because I have trained toward skill at arms with the defensive handgun that I realize how ineffective they are at stopping people. The myth of 'blowing someone away' with a handgun is borne out of film and television, not any real experience, as that DOJ/FBI study to which I alluded can attest. I would never deign to call the home owner with several large fire extinguishers paranoid because all the fires I see on TV are put out with the first one.
"What are you so scared of that you think you need a semi-automatic rifle for protection? I've heard the "tyrannical government" argument before, and the quick allusions to Nazi Germany. I'm not buying that argument."
That's fine. A good argument need not compel assent, only demonstrate that its premisses are more likely than their negation.
1. Every tyrannical, despotic government in history has sought to disarm its populace.
2. There are no good reasons to think that this particular feature of history can not or will not be replicated.
3. Therefore, it is likely that any future tyrannical, despotic government would seek to disarm its populace.
I am happy to let the reader decide whether bald incredulity is sufficient defeater to that inductive argument.
Furthermore, I don't live on the US-Mexico border. But, if I did, I would be facing the genuine-article, fully automatic assault weapons given to Mexican drug cartels by my own government. What kind of mad man would I be to publicly take every effective means of defense those ranchers and such have against the sort of barbaric lunacy that leaves heads on pikes and skins people on their property, and leave them only with a dove-hunting sporting arm? Do you think this is hyperbole? I have been there, and talked to people who have found these things. Do you think that any of their lives, let alone their homes, would be worth anything when the cartel gets wind that there are no more riflemen over there on the other side of those Border Patrol agents that can be bought for a wink and 1/100 of a pot shipment?
"There is a direct relationship between the use of lead shot and its impact upon wildlife, how spent lead ammunition sickens them."
I was under the impression that it was illegal already in most states to hunt game (particularly small game) with lead shot. I fail to see how the use of lead in ammunition not manufactured for that application should be outlawed.
I would ask again if there is any set of data or any argument, which, if true, would lead you to think differently on this subject?
The only problem with your arguement hess is that in every great society there is compromise, sadly the gun lobby won't compromise one iota. We need to do what is best for everyone, not just those that want bigger and better killing sticks. A large segment of the population want fewer guns and smaller clips. No one is suggesting taking away all your guns. We just don't think an entire arsenal is necessary to defend yourself. What good do all your guns do you while you are separated from your children. An arsenal will not protect your children or your loved ones if you aren't there with them.
...apart from the sadness it brings this debate has nothing to do with a Brit, and so you can and will tell me to mind my own business, but I will not look in on this debate again as people with entrenched views keep digging until the ladder becomes too short to get out.
All I will say is that in my view the it appears the bigger the weapon the safer certain people feel, so when mini nukes come on sale in the shopping malls it will make everyone feel safer, and maybe you can build giant walls surrounded by mine-fields and have neighbourhood funded watchtowers and searchlights and machine gun posts too.
Proliferation is like a cancer, it grows and it spreads and unless it it treated it causes many deaths.
OK, said my bit, now extradite me...
To all, especially LB, if I thought government regulation would do one thing to reduce gun violence, I'd support it. The simple fact is that, as the zealots at the NRA say, guns don't kill people, people kill people. The self appointed regulators of other's actions are even more hypocritical than the nuts that want their own armory. The capacity of weapons should be controlled and the nuts that are a threat to themselves or others, should be committed against their will. Fect the ACLU.
Quote from: McBridefan1 on December 30, 2012, 11:19:03 AM
The only problem with your arguement hess is that in every great society there is compromise, sadly the gun lobby won't compromise one iota. We need to do what is best for everyone, not just those that want bigger and better killing sticks. A large segment of the population want fewer guns and smaller clips. No one is suggesting taking away all your guns. We just don't think an entire arsenal is necessary to defend yourself. What good do all your guns do you while you are separated from your children. An arsenal will not protect your children or your loved ones if you aren't there with them.
I agree with every claim you make here. I am doing my best to direct attention to history and data and demonstrate reason to the effect that disarming the populace is bad for everyone. If prohibition worked, we could outlaw every societal ill, but prohibition doesn't work, as YJ has noted in several posts. Advocates for state action never seem to notice this, but it's a violent proposition to advocate that some group of men that enjoy a monopoly on the use of force take things under threat of that force. It starts with that threat, and the violence then continues until it collects in the black and grey markets that invariably arise in reaction to prohibitions. Imagine any other prohibition and ask if it has really benefited the most people -- who do you think benefits from the prohibition of marijuana and other drugs?
I don't think an entire arsenal is necessary, either. I wasn't advocating for an entire arsenal. And being separated from your family is indeed a way to prevent being able to help them, but I don't see how it's relevant, my wife trains as well.
"All I will say is that in my view the it appears the bigger the weapon the safer certain people feel, so when mini nukes come on sale in the shopping malls it will make everyone feel safer, and maybe you can build giant walls surrounded by mine-fields and have neighbourhood funded watchtowers and searchlights and machine gun posts too."
This is a fallacy referred to argumentum ad absurdum. No one has advocated for larger weapons or more deadly weapons or weapons of indiscriminate area of effect, and to show that conclusions based on that advocacy would have absurd implications is just irrelevant. I have presented arguments and data supporting the position that firearms that are already legal have legitimate use, and that stealing and prohibiting them at gunpoint makes no one safer, but does prevent those legitimate uses.
I happen to agree with you about proliferation as it applies to governments, but that has more to do with the nature of governments than the nature of weapons.
Hesed, you sprinkle around the words "tyrant", "tyrants", "tyranny", and "tyrannical" a lot in your postings. Tyrants under the bed, in the closet, next door, everywhere, just waiting for their chance. Do you have a tri-pointed hat? Do you attend tea party meetings? Belong to a militia movement in Idaho perhaps? Did you booby trap your backyard with wires and explosives to stop the tyrants from storming the zoyzia and making their way to your gun cabinet in the master bedroom closet or perhaps the basement? You've taken gun shooting/handling classes. Good for you. I have too. I've seen what 9mm and .38 bullet can do from a simple handgun with a limited round chamber. You assert such bullets fired by police routinely fail to stop suspects. I'm calling bullpoo on that. And as to the odd "Dirty Harry" reference, I've seen what a .45 does to a watermelon at 30 yards. Doesn't stop the bad guy from continuing his assault? Are you crazy?You segue into a Mexican border discussion about (the Bush Administration's) ill-conceived plan to supply marked weapons to Mexican drug gangs (in the hope of tracking their activities through the use of such identified weapons)--a plan continued for a time under the first Obama Administration. I don't recall all of the particulars. I'd have to research it more. But what does such a crazy scheme cooked up by the Bush people have to do with any of the points you are trying to make? "Heads on pikes"? No, though this outrageous claim was repeated by Jan Brewer of Arizona during the last campaign in that state, there was not one scintilla of evidence of 'heads on pikes' or otherwise impalements of Caucasians by illegal Hispanics. Just more scare lies cooked up by the Right, likely given the semblance of credibility by Fox network. Behaviour modification by scary lies and distortions presented as facts. It doesn't advance any serious discussion of addressing gun massacres to throw up the simplistic jingo that 'Guns don't kill people; people kill people." We all know people pull the trigger. But we also know that some guns have excessive mass-killing capability. So, in a sense, then, guns do kill people. A lot of them, and quickly. We don't need or want guns in church or in bars. Such laws were rammed through by reactionaries. They are an abomination and must be rescinded as soon as possible.
Heads on pikes... 2010 Arizona election campaign lunacy. Pretty much put to bed here:
Governors debate takes an ugly turn (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AL5KQ4Ao0ro#)
"Hesed, you sprinkle around the words "tyrant", "tyrants", "tyranny", and "tyrannical" a lot in your postings. Tyrants under the bed, in the closet, next door, everywhere, just waiting for their chance. Do you have a tri-pointed hat? Do you attend tea party meetings? Belong to a militia movement in Idaho perhaps? Did you booby trap your backyard with wires and explosives to stop the tyrants from storming the zoyzia and making their way to your gun cabinet in the master bedroom closet or perhaps the basement?"
Ad hominem is the last retreat of those that have lost the argument on logic, mate. The answer to all of those questions is 'no', but I won't respond in kind, stooping to the level of detailing all of the ways I can imagine you nursing at the state teat, because I am primarily interested in presenting reason to the rational, and indulging in this sort of thing is the first marker for a man that has abandoned rationality to further entrench himself in an unjustified position.
" You've taken gun shooting/handling classes. Good for you. I have too. I've seen what 9mm and .38 bullet can do from a simple handgun with a limited round chamber. You assert such bullets fired by police routinely fail to stop suspects. I'm calling bullpoo on that. And as to the odd "Dirty Harry" reference, I've seen what a .45 does to a watermelon at 30 yards. Doesn't stop the bad guy from continuing his assault? Are you crazy?"
...Me, the DOJ and the FBI: http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf (http://www.firearmstactical.com/pdf/fbi-hwfe.pdf)
If you think a person is a watermelon, we have larger issues, and Callahan is supposed to have carried a .44 magnum (which still doesn't do what you see in the film). One shot stops are in the extreme minority, and it is not at all rare for officer-involved shootings to involve the expending of well more than 10 rounds. Defensive shooting is not shooting on a range, and it is not done in scientifically-controlled conditions.
If you cannot accept nor engage the evidence of the best available data, nothing I can say will make a difference.
"You segue into a Mexican border discussion about (the Bush Administration's) ill-conceived plan to supply marked weapons to Mexican drug gangs (in the hope of tracking their activities through the use of such identified weapons)--a plan continued for a time under the first Obama Administration. I don't recall all of the particulars. I'd have to research it more. But what does such a crazy scheme cooked up by the Bush people have to do with any of the points you are trying to make?"
It goes to the moral bankruptcy of that same government to turn about and disarm the people they put at risk. That's the point.
" "Heads on pikes"? No, though this outrageous claim was repeated by Jan Brewer of Arizona during the last campaign in that state, there was not one scintilla of evidence of 'heads on pikes' or otherwise impalements of Caucasians by illegal Hispanics. Just more scare lies cooked up by the Right, likely given the semblance of credibility by Fox network. Behaviour modification by scary lies and distortions presented as facts. "
I've spoken face-to-face with people that live on the border and claim to have discovered bodies without heads, human skins, and so-called 'rape trees' on the edges of their property. Do you imagine these people are lining up to appear on national television to be more readily identified? I do not work for Fox News, nor am I affiliated with them. If you doubt my honesty, that's fine, but do you imagine that the cartels respect the imaginary line between our two countries, and keep their violence on the Mexico side? Do you suppose that they would submit to your assault weapons ban?
"It doesn't advance any serious discussion of addressing gun massacres to throw up the simplistic jingo that 'Guns don't kill people; people kill people." We all know people pull the trigger. But we also know that some guns have excessive mass-killing capability. So, in a sense, then, guns do kill people. A lot of them, and quickly."
Guns are less effective than explosives for the suicide attacker. Tim McVeigh killed far more than any of these mass shootings, but no one called for stricter regulation of fertilizer or rental trucks. Furthermore, you can't stop a suicide attacker with fertilizer, but the only historically demonstrated method by which one can stop an active mass-killer is with a firearm. Massacres do not stop until the killer is engaged with a firearm or they choose to stop.
"We don't need or want guns in church or in bars. Such laws were rammed through by reactionaries. They are an abomination and must be rescinded as soon as possible."
Who is 'we'? In many states, the largest number genuinely do want those things allowed. Do you know better than they what they need or should want in their churches or bars? You're starting to invoke the language of religion to justify these assertions, and it is an oft-stated, although usually unfair, characterisation of the religious that their faith exists to counter all evidence contrary. Based on your level of engagement with argument and evidence, I think the characterization is fair in this instance.
Not one scintilla of evidence of 'heads on pikes'. But you claimed to have spoken with a guy who says he saw it. No published photos. No corroboration. But you know a guy who knows a guy.
Your reply offers up nothing of substance. Here's something to chew on:
While I agree the Bush Administration was morally bankrupt, the Fast and Furious gun running--or whatever it was called--was a bad idea, nothing more. It doesn't support your theory of equivalence--that the dumb idea would indicate a government willing to confiscate privately owned firearms. That's just paranoia.
Sunday, Dec 30, 2012 06:00 AM CST
Silencers: The NRA's latest big lie
Silencers could give the next Adam Lanza even more time to kill -- but to the NRA, they protect kids' hearing
By Alexander Zaitchik
A gruesome holiday season exercise: Think of some firearms and accessories that might have added to the body counts of Aurora and Newtown. More starkly, imagine the means by which coming Auroras and Newtowns will be made more deadly.
The exercise starts with a militarized baseline, as both shooters unloaded designed-for-damage rounds from high-capacity magazines loaded into assault rifles. Improving their killing efficiency would require one of two things: the ability to shoot more bullets faster, or more time. A fully automatic machine gun would provide the first. More minutes to hunt, meanwhile, might be gained by employing a noise suppressor, those metallic tubes better known as silencers. By muffling the noise generated with every shot by sonic booms and gas release, a silencer would provide a new degree of intimacy for public mass murder, delaying by crucial seconds or minutes the moment when someone calls the police after overhearing strange bangs coming from Theater 4 or Classroom D. The same qualities that make silencers the accessory of choice for targeted assassination offer advantages to the armed psychopath set on indiscriminate mass murder.
It should surprise no one that the NRA has recently thrown its weight behind an industry campaign to deregulate and promote the use of silencers. Under the trade banner of the American Silencer Association, manufacturers have come together with the support of the NRA to rebrand the silencer as a safety device belonging in every all-American gun closet. To nurture this potentially large and untapped market, the ASA last April sponsored the first annual all-silencer gun shoot and trade show in Dallas. America's silencer makers are each doing their part. SWR Suppressors is asking survivalists to send a picture of their "bugout bag" for a chance to win an assault rifle silencer. The firm Silencero — "We Dig Suppressors and What They Do" — has put together a helpful "Silencers Are Legal" website and produced a series of would-be viral videos featuring this asshole.
This Silencer Awareness Campaign is today's gun lobby in a bottle. The coordinated effort brings together the whole family: manufacturers, dealers, the gun press, rightwing lawmakers at every level of government, and the NRA. Each are doing their part to chip away at federal gun regulation in the name of profits and ideology. Together, they plan to strip the longstanding regulatory regime around silencers, and reintroduce them to the gun-buying public as wholesome, children-friendly accessories, as harmless as car mufflers.
In case you're wondering, the answer is yes, the gun lobby's grand strategy rests grotesquely on fake concern for child hearing health. Among the opening shots in the campaign was a feature in the February 2011 issue of Gun World, "Silence is Golden," penned by the veteran gun writer Jim Dickson. "One only has to look at children in the rest of the world learning to shoot with silencers, protecting their tender young ears, to see what an innocent safety device we are talking about here," writes Dickson. "To use an overworked propaganda phrase, legalize silencers 'for the sake of the children.'" [Emphasis mine.]
Proponents of healthy hearing will be heartened to know the NRA shares Gun World's concern for America's tender young ears. The organization officially entered the silencer-awareness fray in November of 2011, around the time the Utah-based American Silencer Association was founded. It's opening statement took the form of an article posted to its lobbying division website: "Suppressors: Good for our hearing... And for the shooting sports." With this piece, the NRA finally acknowledged the relationship between health care costs and guns.
"Billions of dollars are spent every year in our healthcare system for hearing loss conditions, such as shooting-related tinnitus," explained the NRA. It was a very important point that had long been overlooked in the gun control debate; because if there is a single pressing gun safety issue in America today, it is the hearing, comfort and convenience of recreational shooters who find orange earplugs unsightly. The NRA is also extremely concerned about the fright children may receive from shooting or standing near the reports of high-caliber weapons. These jolts could have a lasting and detrimental developmental impact, possibly imbuing America's impressionable and tender young brains with the notion that guns are loud, dangerous things. The NRA firmly believes that American freedom is best served by giving 9mm gunfire the feel and sound of a toy cap gun. As the NRA's Lacey Biles put it during last April's Dallas Silencer Shoot, silencers are good for "getting younger folks involved [in guns]. They're less afraid of the loud bang."
For these reasons, the NRA believes America must "move to eliminate the laws, regulations and policies that discourage or prohibit suppressor use."
And move we have. The NRA has enjoyed state-level success chipping away at restrictions on the use of silencers around the country, an effort that has proceeded largely unnoticed in the shadows of higher-profile battles over the spread of Concealed Carry and Stand Your Ground laws. Silencers are currently legal with permit in 40 states, a growing number of which are rescinding bans on their use while hunting.
The gun lobby's silencer campaign has bigger prey in mind than state hunting laws. Silencers are among the few accessories regulated by the National Firearms Act. To purchase or transfer a silencer, you must acquire a special license, enter the serial number in a federal registry, and pay a $200 fee. (The fee, which equaled a de facto ban in 1934, has not been adjusted for inflation in 79 years.) For gun extremists who struggle with introductory-level American history and political theory, the licensing regime is half Stamp Act, half Yellow Badge. What most outrages the manufacturers about the regime is that it works. By licensing silencers, tracking and taxing their exchange, the government has kept them from flooding the market like so many other military-market gun accessories with cameos in recent massacres and serial sniper attacks. "Simple licensing requirements weeds out both blatant criminals and a certain kind of stockpiling insurrectionist who refuses to engage with the federal government," says Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence. "The law has been effective."
Aside from offering a very expensive alternative to earplugs, what conceivable sporting or personal-defense purpose is served by pouring silencers into a gun market dominated by semi-automatic pistols and assault rifles? If history offers any useful clues, and it usually does, the answer is none. The history of the silencer is a twentieth century tale populated by Mafiosi hits, hidden snipers, and special ops ambush teams. It all adds up to decades worth of "negative branding baggage" that the gun lobby is now trying to scrub away like a used car-salesman winding back the speedometer on a lemon.
The silencer began innocently enough. When Hiram Percy Maxim patented the first silencer in 1908, he was just a nice fellow working in the family business, a guy who simply enjoyed finding ways to make loud things quiet. Among Maxim's many other inventions was an early muffler design for car engines. A quarter-century later, silencers still hadn't acquired the bad rep they have today. Their best-known criminal use at the time of the 1934 law was as an aid in late-night poaching.
Society did not form its lasting perceptions of the silencer in the decades of Percy's .22 pistols and midnight pig poaching. The image the NRA must scrub is the one that formed early in what might be called the Second Silencer Age, when a new breed of steel "cans" emerged and became associated with rapid, discreet, controlled killing. The silencers the gun lobby is trying to mainstream can make ninjas of high-caliber handguns, long-barrel sniper rifles, and assault weapons, all commonly featured in military-themed silencer ads. The Second Age that produced these tools was commenced not by a charming dynastic American industrial engineer with wide interests like Percy Maxim. Rather, it was born in the rural Georgia kill-gadget lab of a notoriously cracked and ruthless CIA black ops contractor, known in gun circles as the Wizard of Whistling Death.
* * *
Mitch WerBell gained his reputation for cold-blooded efficiency during his days with the CIA's wartime precursor, the OSS. After the war he maintained his ties to the Agency as a man who could be depended on to figure out how make problems go away. His accomplished his revolutionary leap in silencer technology in 1967, during a short break from international intrigue. The previous year, federal agents raided WerBell's mercenary training camp in Florida, where he was in the final stages of preparing an army of Miami-based Cubans to invade Haiti and oust "Papa Doc" François Duvalier.
WerBell patented his silencer under the name of his boutique weapons development firm, SIONICS, or Studies In the Operational Negation of Insurgents and Counter-Subversion. WerBell's silencer was the first to successfully muffle automatic and semi-automatic weapons fire. On some weapons, the silencer also increased accuracy and power. Knowing he had a big breakthrough on his hands, WerBell convinced a group of rich investors that his invention would make them new fortunes, and just maybe win the Cold War for the West along the way. Oddly, the gang of investors included the eccentric and liberal antiwar philanthropist Stewart R. Mott. According to some accounts, WerBell sold Mott by telling him the principles behind the silencer could be adapted to lawn mowers and other devices to reduce suburban noise pollution.
WerBell's silencer not only decreased the volume of the gun's report and increased its accuracy; it also reduced the powder flash of machine gun fire, opening up new possibilities for nighttime ambush and assassination missions. WerBell packed his silencer and flew to Indochina, where he wowed American and South Vietnamese brass. Orders from the Pentagon soon followed, and in 1968 WerBell began large-scale production of his silencers under a SIONICS subsidiary he named Environmental Industries, a sarcastic reference to his intended contribution to solving the strains of overpopulation.
The timing of the new silencer's introduction to Vietnam was just right for business. By 1968, the U.S. had pivoted from away from its early strategy that included an effort to "win hearts and minds," and had embraced a model of search-and-destroy exemplified by the death squads of the CIA's Phoenix Program. The M-16s carried by these special units were retrofitted with SIONICS silencers. They soon reported increased lethality and accuracy in ambushes and targeted killings. In his out-of-print 1978 masterpiece, "Spooks," former Harper's editor Jim Hougan reports that Green Beret officers singled WerBell's invention out for praise in Congressional budget hearings.
According to Hougan, WerBell consumed the Army's official kill counts like a 12-year-old reads box scores. From his compound in Georgia, he relished Pentagon data demonstrating his silencer's economy and lethality. In the late 1970s, he boasted to Hougan that Army rifles equipped with his silencers helped kill nearly 2,000 Vietcong in the first six months, and reduced the number of bullets per kill to one-point-three rounds, a feat he boasted was "the greatest cost-effectiveness the Army's ever known." Whatever the actual numbers, the SIONICS silencer was widely recognized as a huge advance in the science of killing. WerBell emerged from the shadows to become a patriotic cult hero to the fathers of those now agitating for silencer deregulation. In 1972, WerBell played a starring role in David Truby's admiring study of these new tools and their uses, "Silencers, Snipers, and Assassins: An Overview of Whispering Death."
WerBell didn't stop tinkering after reinventing the silencer. He also developed the gun he thought his silencer deserved. The result was the ultimate greaser. The ultra-sleek and compact MAC 11 weighed and sized little more than a conventional pistol and spat 14 bullets per second, or 850 a minute. Had WerBell been working today, he might have produced a semi-automatic version for the civilian market. In the early 1970s, the Pentagon was the only game in town. WerBell fought hard for but failed to land a massive contract to make the MAC a standard-issue weapon. Had he succeeded, SIONICS might be a household name today. (This is how gun empires are born. Gaston Glock designed his first gun competing in an open tender bid to produce a sidearm for the Austrian Army.)
The Pentagon's rejection was the first of two that deepened WerBell's bitterness at the government he served for so long. As he courted clients among foreign intelligence agencies, the State Department denied him an export license, arguing that the spread of WerBell's silencers was likely to increase the risk of assassinations around the world. A sign of saner times gone by, there was in the early 1970s no American Silencer Association to help WerBell market his products to preppers with "bugout bags," and no Wayne LaPierre or Chris Cox to strategize state and national-level assaults on the National Firearms Act. Instead, WerBell the Wizard of Whistling Death hit the road to peddle his remaining inventory on the global grey and black markets. He sold his wares out of a suitcase like the house-calling gun dealer in Taxi Driver, shooting up stacks of telephone books before giddy prospective clients who marveled over the little machine gun emitting such seductive sibilance, ssyyyt ssyyyt ssyyyt, the contract killer's lullaby.
Before leaving the sideshow stage of history, WerBell made one last lunge for greatness. His hopes of building a gun empire stymied, in 1972 WerBell began planning an amphibious invasion of a tiny Bahamanian archipelago known as Abaco, which was home to a small separatist movement. WerBell enlisted financial support from real estate mogul and Libertarian Party leader Mike Oliver, whose Phoenix Foundation existed to seed utopic Libertarian projects like the one WerBell imagined on the beaches of Abaco — an independent global tax haven, home of SIONICS headquarters, and the Undisputed Silencer Capital of the World. As with his planned invasion of Haiti eight years prior, WerBell was still training his mercenaries when the whole thing fell apart from infighting and a surprise visit from the Feds.
* * *
Telling Mitch WerBell's story is just a long way of demonstrating why the new NRA-backed Hearing Heath First! silencer-promotion campaign is a particularly hideous and towering architectural example of the Gun Lobby's Nouveau Bat poo Style, which if not ridiculed and condemned is guaranteed to crash down on all of us, leading to new and yet more lethal mutations in our national plague of gun violence.
There are very good reasons why the silencer industry is contending with a nasty case of Vietnam Syndrome. The reason the public associates silencers with death squads, assassination raids, and mafia hits is because these were the uses WerBell had in mind when he engineered them. They are also the uses to which they are best suited and most needed, if that's the word. It wasn't all that long ago that even the Freaks of Fairfax understood that the silencer's dark reputation was deep and well deserved. As recently as 2000, the NRA showed a rare sensitivity for public perceptions and forbade a silencer manufacturer from exhibiting its wares at the NRA's national convention. Kevin Brittingham, of the silencer maker Advanced Armament Co., says the NRA's executive office called him before the millennial year convention in Charlotte and told him not to come. "We don't want the news media focusing on your table and putting guns in a bad light," the NRA explained.
A decade later, the NRA has cozied up to the industry view that everyone should have a silencer, and that the days are over when WerBell's toys were the accessory love that dare not speak its name. The NRA now sees the widespread negative view of silencers as a branding problem to be corrected through advertising and public relations.
Toward this end, the gun lobby is on multiple fronts advancing the argument that silencer-phobia is the product of popular culture demonization and sensationalism.
"Unfortunately, too many Americans (including some gun owners) still fall victim to the unfair portrayals of silencers by Hollywood," the NRA-ILA gently chides its members. Gun World's Jim Dickson, meanwhile, prays for an America that allows its film industry to assist in "the transformation of an innocuous safety and noise-reduction device to a sinister assassin's tool in the public mind."
If anybody reading this needs one more nudge before abandoning in finality the idea of any kind of "dialogue" with the gun lobby, I suggest reading the NRA and the gun press bleat about the way violent movies have besmirched the good name of the honorable American silencer. They're pointing to the same Hollywood gun makers routinely employ to product-place its wares, from best-selling pistols to fully automatic shotguns. (In 2011, Glock handguns made corporate cameos in 15 percent of No. 1 films.) The gun lobby pointing to Hollywood is as rich as Wayne LaPierre censuring video games, which thrives at the service of the gun-industry in ways we're just now beginning to understand.
If the current campaign succeeds in delisting silencers from NFA regulation, the gun lobby likely won't wait long before targeting the remaining regulatory regimes limiting the circulation of fully automatic machine guns and even hand grenades. Do not be surprised when you see a 2014 Gun World feature extolling freshwater blast fishing as a great way to connect kids and nature, while reducing the risks of fishing with sharp steel hooks, some of which have dangerous double jags. If you can't see the safety rationale here, or the Freedom Logic that undergirds it, then you obviously do not care about America's children and their millions of young tender fingers.
"Not one scintilla of evidence of 'heads on pikes'. But you claimed to have spoken with a guy who says he saw it. No published photos. No corroboration. But you know a guy who knows a guy."
No, I've spoken to a few different residents of Arizona that live on the border that claim to have discovered and reported several disturbing remnants of cartel violence. That is second-hand evidence, not third-hand. Further, when I asked if you imagined the cartels respect the border, or would abide by an assault weapons ban, you gave no response.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/04/us-beheading-arizona-idUSTRE7230L320110304 (http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/04/us-beheading-arizona-idUSTRE7230L320110304)
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/us/23border.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0 (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/us/23border.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)
http://abcnews.go.com/US/bodies-found-arizona-related-drug-cartels-police/story?id=16485975#.UOFBOG9QV8E (http://abcnews.go.com/US/bodies-found-arizona-related-drug-cartels-police/story?id=16485975#.UOFBOG9QV8E)
Are these less violent than heads on pikes? Are those right-wing conspiracy news sources?
"Your reply offers up nothing of substance."
This is the level of engagement to which I've grown accustomed in this discussion. Sheer incredulity and bald contradiction belong to the level of rhetoric that offers nothing.
"While I agree the Bush Administration was morally bankrupt, the Fast and Furious gun running--or whatever it was called--was a bad idea, nothing more. It doesn't support your theory of equivalence--that the dumb idea would indicate a government willing to confiscate privately owned firearms. That's just paranoia."
I'm starting to get the impression that you aren't bothering to read anything I post in response. I clearly said that wasn't the point, there is no theory of equivalence. The point is that it is a morally bankrupt sort of hypocrisy you're advocating to arm the violent criminal and then publicly disarm the victim. You are the one advocating the confiscation of all effective means of defense for these people that must deal with the threat of US-armed, cartel-backed violence in their collective backyard.
And then you drag yet another red herring -- sound suppressors this time -- across the trail.
This will be my last contribution to this debate, as I'm quite happy to let the objective reader come to their own conclusion about which position is supported by evidence and sound reasoning, and it feels as if the discussion has reached a level of ad hominem I haven't any interest in continuing to facilitate. I do want to review some threads of the discussion here, though, before I cry off. (this will be lengthy - though not as many words as your silencer article- fair warning)
(If you skip reading the rest) I truly hope I've caused no offence, and I wish you and yours a safe and happy New Year (also, FFS, let's get a point or three)!
I initially gave a few observations and arguments:
1. Active shooters always attack soft targets in which personal defensive firearms are prohibited.
2. A firearm is the only practical means of defense for the physically less-capable against the more physically-imposing.
3. Every time a spree killer is engaged with a firearm, they stop. They do not stop until then, or until they choose to stop.
4. Your unwillingness to use a firearm defensively does not grant you moral authority to arbitrate someone else's ability to do so.
5. Prohibitions have predictable results: trade becomes violent and less predictable, and those disposed toward criminality engage in the most trade, and prohibitions expand in scope until unqualified failure is achieved.
To these arguments, you responded with:
1. Ft. Hood as a counter-example of a spree-killer attacking a hard target
2. No response - assume argument stands
3. Accusation that engagement of a spree-killer with a firearm is a 'pipe-dream' -- I'll mark that unsupported incredulity.
4. No response - assume argument stands
5. Incredulity, call for justifying rationale.
In addition, you introduced some observations and arguments:
1A. Armor piercing rounds should be illegal.
2A. Armed personnel in schools are equally likely to hit children as the assailant, so arming personnel is not acceptable.
3A. The idea of oppressive government is laughable, at least insofar as it is used to object to registration of arms.
To this, I responded:
1. The victims at Ft. Hood were unarmed, the location of the shooting a gun-free zone.
2. Argument stands.
3. The historical fact that spree-killers either stop when engaged with a firearm, or when they choose to stop.
4. Argument stands.
5. I ask "How many government agencies can you think of that have relinquished their role and declared 'job done'? How many government agencies can you think that have gradually expanded their defined mission until they are bickering with other agencies over the areas they overlap?"
1A. The three most recent spree-killers were wearing body armor. Stopping a spree-killer is a legitimate use for armor-piercing ammunition.
2A. Armed personnel could be trained to roughly twice the standard to which police officers are without undue expense.
3A. Laughability is irrelevant. Historical fact is that every oppressive government has sought to disarm its populace.
Your response as follows:
1. Ft. Hood had security details on the base, and guns at training ranges.
2. No response - argument stands
3. No response - argument stands
4. No response - argument stands
5. You attribute something another poster said to me, then on those grounds charge me with changing an argument from blaming the left to characterizing governments in general.
1A. You engineer a straw man -- "because law enforcement might need AP rounds, they should be legal", then meet the straw man with incredulity.
2A. No response - rebuttal stands.
3A. Expansion in scope by government agencies does not entail expansion in scope of prohibition, at least not to the realm of total confiscation. TSA as an example(?)
In addition, you add another point:
4A. Demand for support for the claim (I didn't make) that crimes with assault weapons didn't increase when the AWB was lifted.
My response:
1. Quote the Ft. Hood CO to the effect that personal defensive arms were not permitted in the area Hassan attacked.
2. Argument stands
3. Argument stands
4. Argument stands
5. Correction on assertion that I had charged the left only with mission creep: it is a feature of all state efforts.
1A. Identify the straw man, the point is that police are not there in time to make a meaningful difference in spree-killer cases, what they have is irrelevant.
2A. Rebuttal stands
3A. The inevitability of confiscation is a straw man, the point is that oppressive governments seek to disarm the intended oppressed, whether by degree or in total is a methodological difference, not an essential one. I agree with your TSA example.
4A. Evidence: "Updated Assessment of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban: Impacts on Gun Markets and Gun Violence, 1994-2003", a Federally-funded study from 2004.
Your response:
1. No response - argument stands
2. Argument stands
3. Argument stands
4. Argument stands
5. Argument stands
1-4A. No response - rebuttals stand
5A. The NRA lobbies in a bullying, heavy-handed, and dishonest manner.
My response:
5A. Lobbying is evil, expectations of grace and decorum in political lobbying are misplaced.
I add:
1B. Sportsmanship has nothing to do with debate of the Second Amendment.
Your response:
6A. I am engaging in sophistry
7A. The Newtown shooter might have been unable to secure the rifle with which he committed the crime if his mother had not had it.
8A. The killer was too quick to allow for armed response.
9A. Your second grade teacher would not want to be armed, and would be ineffective if pressed into service.
My response:
6A. Ad hominem is a sign of a weak position
7A. Many tools are available, a few more effective, to the spree-killer.
8A. The killer was an untrained 20-year-old, with no special ability or training. Speculation about the speed of the attack is sheer conjecture. To insist that only mad men can effectively handle weapons is insulting, unfounded, and dangerous for those that would otherwise defend life with force.
9A. No one wants to arm your second grade teacher, or any other unwilling personnel.
Your response:
6A. Apologise
7A. You say my counter-argument doesn't support arming school staff.
8A. No response - rebuttal stands
9A. No response - rebuttal stands
My response:
7A. Of course not, it isn't meant to. It goes to the level of impact on facilitation of spree killing the AWB would have.
Your responses at this point, I think, turn to YJ. Would that we had won a game or two, maybe this would be over :).
So, at that point,
1-5 of my original arguments stand un-rebutted.
1A-9A of your arguments have been rebutted without response.
Now, you introduce new points:
10A. Semi-automatic weapons are unnecessary for defensive or hunting application.
11A. There is no need for guns in church, demand for counter-reasons.
12A. Good people don't fear registration of arms.
13A. Lead bullets and shot should be illegal.
My response:
10A. The evidence of CCW-involved shootings requiring multiple rounds. The evidence of police-involved shootings requiring multiple rounds. Criminals will still use semi-automatic weapons, even if the victims will not, and even if prohibition is successful in limiting criminal access, criminals sometimes have been known to show up in pairs or more.
11A. I give several examples of spree-killers in churches.
12A. I question your definition of 'good people', and note that some good people apply lessons from history in a different manner than you do.
13A. I ask for justification for prohibiting lead bullets.
Your response:
10A. Your assertion that 8 rounds is enough for a defensive handgun, and that the only need for any capacity beyond that is down to poor marksmanship.
11A. No response - rebuttal stands
12A. Bald incredulity -- "I'm not buying that argument"
13A. Lead shot makes animals sick.
14A. You will never agree with me.
My response:
10A. Sourced DOJ/FBI document on the wounding properties of handgun cartridges to the effect that multiple shots are almost always required to stop an assailant. Note that even lower-capacity firearms are going to be largely semi-automatic, which you've advocated prohibiting.
11A. Rebuttal stands
12A. I give an inductive argument from recorded history for thinking that "oppressive governments seek disarmament of the populace"
13A. Concede the argument, note being under the impression that lead shot for small game was already prohibited in many states.
14A. I ask for clarification: does this mean that there is literally no argument or evidence that would change your mind on the matter?
I add:
2B. What qualifies you to arbitrate what a potential sexual assault victim of small stature may be allowed to defend herself from a larger assailant?
3B. Show a legitimate use for semi-automatic, high-capacity rifles: defense from military-grade equipment in the hands of cartels operating within US borders in the Southwest that have noted dispensation for violence.
Your response:
10A. Your experience watching 9mm and .38 shells fired from lower-capacity handguns, and your experience watching a .45 hit a watermelon at 30 yards as counter-examples to the DOJ/FBI report I cited.
11A. You again assert that 'we don't need or want guns in churches or bars'
12A. Ad hominem about where I may live, political leanings, etc; essentially to the effect that no, no good (on your definition) person could infer the possibility of government oppression from history.
13A. Argument stands
14A. No response - Assume literally no argument or reason could change your position.
2B. No response - argument stands
3B. You charge that border violence in view of the Fast and Furious business is irrelevant to the discussion, and that one of the evidences I gave for the Mexican cartels dispensation to do violence on both sides of the border is a spurious claim.
Then you add:
15A. Guns are really effective at killing lots of people, really quickly.
My response:
10A. Note that people are not watermelons. I am happy to let the reader decide between your experience with ballistic-ly testing said watermelons and the DOJ/FBI document I've cited twice now.
11A. I point out that, in addition to churches already being targets for spree-killers, the people in many states really do want guns allowed in these places, and ask for your qualification to arbitrate what they can have under threat of force.
12A. Identify the ad hominem. Rebuttal stands.
13A. Argument stands
15A. Explosives created with commonly available ingredients are far more effective. Also, firearms can be used by good men to stop evil men.
2B. Argument stands
3B. I appeal to my personal experience speaking with border-area residents, and also note that, irrespective of whether or not heads were ever discovered on pikes on the US side of the border (perhaps all of the AZ residents with which I spoke were lying), the sort of people that decapitate, skin people, set fire to them, and mark the spots they commit rapes, are probably not the sort to abide by US firearms law. Source the information.
Your response:
10A. No response - rebuttal stands
11A. No response - rebuttal stands
12A. No repsonse - rebuttal stands
13A. Argument stands
15A. No response - rebuttal stands
2B. No response - argument stands
3B. You charge that my personal claim is spurious, again. And invent a straw man: "Fast and Furious equates to arms confiscation", then knock it down.
So far as I can count, then:
1-5 of my original arguments stand un-rebutted.
1-12A of your arguments have been rebutted without response.
13A Your argument in favor of outlawing lead shot -- I concede in ignorance -- stands.
15A has been rebutted with no response
1-2B of my additional arguments stand un-rebutted
3B stands or falls on whether or not the reader thinks that the Mexican drug cartels will respect US law along the border.
I am quite happy at this point, then, to let the reader determine which position is the more rationally defensible.
...my apologies for coming back on, but I have just seen this and I think it is extremely relevant:-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/533742_462726493763563_941853397_n.jpg)
Quote from: LBNo11 on December 31, 2012, 12:49:25 PM
...my apologies for coming back on, but I have just seen this and I think it is extremely relevant:-
(https://fbcdn-sphotos-h-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/533742_462726493763563_941853397_n.jpg)
Funny and strangely accurate!
As to the fisticuffs between our other two, I don't know about beheaded bodies in Arizona but the reality of our southern border is one of lawlessness. Mexico, which has draconian gun laws, has managed to slaughter in excess of 40,000 of its people in the last 6-7 years. Next time I am on Interstate 8, which runs along the border, I'll snap a picture of one of the federally installed signs warning people not to stop for any reason due to the potential violence.
You offer up nothing of substance. The support you offer for heads on pikes is a story about a drug deal decapitation over 400 pounds of stolen marijuana. It doesn't support your claim that we need assault rifles to stop the illegal border crossing Mexican drug gangs from killing innocent Arizonans and putting their heads on pikes. Violent crime numbers have actually been going down in Arizona.
And as to your tyranny theory, consider Nazi Germany, Iraq during Saddam Hussein's reign, and, at all times, Switzerland. Germany never confiscated guns from any of its citizens except the Jews. My grandmother fled Germany with her brother and sister. I have her first hand stories, as well as historical reports. Did the non-Jewish German citizens--those who kept their guns--rise up against the tyranny of the Nazi regime? No. Were there enough Jews in Germany that if they had been able to keep their privately owned guns they could have stopped the holocaust from happening to them? No. Saddam Hussein did not disarm the heavily-armed citizens of Iraq when he rose to power and maintained his grip on power. He was certainly a tyrant. No argument there from me. Did all of the privately owned guns prevent or overthrow tyranny? No. The U.S. military did it. People like to claim that Switzerland is the most armed country on earth. I don't know where they get that statistic--maybe from the same people who talk of heads on pikes. The Swiss have mandatory military service. They are issued a semiautomatic rifle. They keep it for life. Other than those individuals, there is very strict gun control in that country. 13% of the country have such guns. 13%, Hesed. Heard of any tyrants subjugating the Swiss people? After all, it's only 13%... Neither have I.
Let's agree to stop. You aren't going to convince me, nor I, you. We are both fairly entrenched in our views. At this point, we are really addressing the larger audience (which is likely getting tired of this back and forth). I promise to stop, just as you have promised to stop. No more then. Let's see how all this plays out, post-Newtown. You're a Fulham fan, so I like you. Period. Next game I get to, if you're there, I'm buying the first two pints. I leave you with this piece from the NY Times:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
December 28, 2012
The Deadly Fantasy of Assault WeaponsAdam Lanza shot 20 children and six adults at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn., using a semiautomatic, military-style assault rifle made by Bushmaster. William Spengler Jr. used the same type of Bushmaster rifle to kill two firefighters last week in Webster, N.Y. The Washington snipers, John Allen Muhammad and Lee Boyd Malvo, also used a Bushmaster in a spree that killed 10 people in 2002.
Bushmasters are by no means the only assault weapons of choice among mass killers (the Aurora shooter used a Smith & Wesson), but the brand's repeated presence in murderous incidents reflects Bushmaster's enormous popularity in the gun world, the result of a successful marketing campaign aimed at putting military firepower and machismo in the hands of civilians. Gun owners once talked about the need for personal protection and sport hunting, but out-of-control ad campaigns like Bushmaster's have replaced revolvers and shotguns with highly lethal paramilitary fantasies.
The guns, some of which come in camouflage and desert khaki, bristle with features useful only to an infantry soldier or a special-forces operative. A flash suppressor on the end of a barrel makes it possible to shoot at night without a blinding flare. Quick-change magazines let troops reload easily. Barrel shrouds allow precise control without fear of burns from a muzzle that grows hot after multiple rounds are fired. But now anyone can own these guns, and millions are in civilian hands.
"There is an allure to this weapon that makes it unusually attractive," Scott Knight, former chairman of the International Chiefs of Police Firearms Committee, told USA Today, speaking of the Bushmaster rifles. "The way it looks, the way it handles — it screams assault weapon."
The company's catalog and ads show soldiers moving on patrol through jungles, Bushmasters at the ready. "When you need to perform under pressure, Bushmaster delivers," says the advertising copy, superimposed over the silhouette of a soldier holding his helmet against the backdrop of an American flag. "Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered," said a 2010 catalog, peddling an assault rifle billed as "the ultimate military combat weapons system." (Available to anyone for $2,500.)
In case that message was too subtle, the company appealed directly to the male egos of its most likely customers. "Consider your man card reissued," said one Bushmaster campaign (pulled off the Web after the Newtown shooting), next to a photo of a carbine. "If it's good enough for the professional, it's good enough for you."
The effect of these marketing campaigns on fragile minds is all too obvious, allowing deadly power in the wrong hands. But given their financial success, gun makers have apparently decided that the risk of an occasional massacre is part of the cost of doing business.
Agreed, time to get back to Fulham with one exception. Had the Jews been armed and rose up in self defense, the rest of the world, to say nothing of decent Germans, would have had to take notice. Likely too, the Roma people as well as gay folks and perhaps even the relatives of the handicapped would have joined in. Thing is, we'll never know. What I do believe is that the reason for the belligerent stance of Israel is based on the fact that they were unable to fight back and have resolved to never be a helpless victim again.
Nevermore!
"You're a Fulham fan, so I like you. Period. Next game I get to, if you're there, I'm buying the first two pints."
I feel the same, and I've got the next two. Happy New Year!
Quote from: Forever Fulham on December 31, 2012, 04:28:08 AM
Not one scintilla of evidence of 'heads on pikes'. But you claimed to have spoken with a guy who says he saw it. No published photos. No corroboration. But you know a guy who knows a guy.
Your reply offers up nothing of substance. Here's something to chew on:
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/12/us-mexico-drugs-zetas-idUSTRE69B3LZ20101012
(http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/10/12/us-mexico-drugs-zetas-idUSTRE69B3LZ20101012)
Whilst not wishing to intervene, or take sides with any of those in this interesting and informative debate, I would ask that it not take the form of the recent presidential debates with the 'prove it' shouts.
Above is a link to a story about Mexican cartel, using a gang of thugs, that do, in fact, behead people and put their heads on spikes. Just because a witness is unwilling to publicly identify themselves, the fear of retribution must be obvious to any reasonable person, does not mean it doesn't happen, and to someone out whilst first failing to check what they say is correct or not, displays a somewhat presidential manner of debate. I do not believe I need to explain that term after what we witnessed this past year.
So, keep it clean, keep it honest, and above all keep it respectful.
I'm not arguing with hesed on this board anymore about guns no matter what. However, moderator Logicalman, I'd like to reply to your last comment. You provided a hyperlink to a Reuters story about elite Mexican soldiers who sold out to the Mexican drug cartels and have subsequently conducted grotesque and heinous acts of violence against fellow Mexicans. One of the subheads to that article was entitled, "Heads on Pikes". But nothing, absolutely nothing in that article provided any support for the claim that illegal foreign nationals are entering the country and murdering ordinary decent U.S. citizens, putting their heads on pikes, or otherwise. The original salient quote in this call-and-response thread read as follows: "If I were living in the Naco region in Arizona, with cartel-backed coyotes literally skinning people and putting heads on pikes around my property,"... Still waiting for proof of that. Your Reuters article doesn't get there.
