Gun Talk - News, Laws, etc.

[Presideo]

To further emphasize my point. Here is a collection of people, in this thread, focusing on "assault" weapons, "automatic" weapons, etc. Keep in mind, CT law already outlaws assault weapons. This rifle is legal and it is NOT an automatic. Summary: freak the fuck out about the shooting and demand bans on shit we have no idea about.

Most of those quotes were our general stances about gun control. They weren't meant to be specific statements about the Newtown shooting or Connecticut law. Don't misrepresent our statements in an attempt to make us seem uninformed. You're grasping at straws now.

One week. I'm asking for a one week moratorium on the gun control issue, both sides. Now is not the time for it.

I can agree with that! Whatever your goal is, do it without the emotion and do it consistently... not just when something happens on the news. If it's an important problem then it will still be important in 1 week. Now if only the rest of the country could table this for a week My bet is on the majority completely forgetting this with their 24-hour-news-cycle-damaged-brains.

They told Martin Luther King to wait. They said to talk about civil rights later, as if there was actually going to be a convenient time discuss a major injustice within our society. If he adhered to that way of thinking we might still have segregation. Thankfully, he understood the urgency of the situation, and took immediate action….but fuck it, lets go back to discussing our hatred of WBC as we all sing kumbaya around the campfire while 'liking' each others posts. That's definitely more meaningful and on-topic than gun control (at least get an admin to separate the gun control posts into a new thread where we can continue the conversation; a moratorium on what should be a civilized discussion seems unneeded)

[Jinsai]

I like how people post pictures of the rifle used as if it's self explanatory why the gun is "bad." Look at this gun guys, it's just so fucking SCARY, look at it!

What is so bad about the gun other than it scares you?

Would you like me to explain the differences between a handgun and a semi-automatic rifle?

Hell, I'm not even taking a hard line stance here on the issue either way. I'm just saying that it might not be a good idea to put one in the hands of someone who is unstable, train him how to use it, and then not restrict access to it.

[Leviathant]

You know what's going to stick with me for the rest of my life, well beyond the 24-hour news cycle? Twenty bullet wounds in a single elementary school kid. Not a single kid with fewer than two bullet wounds. Twenty minutes from my friend's house.

I also feel this goes a long way to pointing out that guns as a defense mechanism in the home are all but useless, even with training. You think you'd be invincible if you carried the kind of gun that could mow down twenty children and seven adults in no time flat, but apparently owning of those (and several other firearms) does not preclude you from being killed and having someone else use it to mount an offensive attack.

If this were a news flash on a television in an early 90s dystopian action flick, I'd have thought it was absurdist. But in the year 2012, I feel like even if some guy shot up a hospital nursery, you'd still end up with folks living in their own little bubble, saying more guns is the solution, not less.

I'm also pretty sick of the "Let's not talk about it now" crowd. When is it okay to talk about the gun problem in this country? Are you suggesting we wait until nobody's been shot-and-killed for a week? Yeah, I'll hold my breath. Better not talk about it, people might still be mad about massacring elementary school students.

This thing was LEGAL under CT law. Even the most successful federal changes to gun control would be lucky to match CT law.

This is indicative to me that there is a problem with the law. Nitpicking on what's legally construed as an assault weapon is practically absurd at this point. Whatever you want to call the gun this kid used when he pumped hundreds of bullets into elementary school classrooms, it's absurd that he even had access to it. Which well regulated militia did he train with that he justified owning a device meant for killing lots of people very quickly? Since it's not technically an assault weapon, can we call it a killing-lots-of-people-very-quickly weapon?

[marodi]

I like how people post pictures of the rifle used as if it's self explanatory why the gun is "bad." Look at this gun guys, it's just so fucking SCARY, look at it!

What is so bad about the gun other than it scares you?

What "scares" me about that gun is not the gun itself; it's the fact that I cannot find one logical and/or rational reason why someone, anyone in the society we live in would feel the need to own a firearm like this.

[aggroculture]

One of the main problems I see with guns is that while they may be legal, the very thing they are intended for, their purpose - to kill people - is, in most cases illegal.
All these millions and millions of guns sitting around with no-one to kill. Except that in the US, eight children are killed by guns every day. Eight children a day. That's one hell of a massacre. A daily one. So yeah we should be having this conversation every day.
http://jezebel.com/5968971/that-woma...chool-shooting

[DigitalChaos]

Would you like me to explain the differences between a handgun and a semi-automatic rifle?


Hell, I'm not even taking a hard line stance here on the issue either way. I'm just saying that it might not be a good idea to put one in the hands of someone who is unstable, train him how to use it, and then not restrict access to it.

not much. The rifle can basically send a round farther and with better accuracy.
I completely agree that the kid should never have had his hands on it. The need for personal responsibility lies in everything and the mother failed on that topic. Those guns should have been locked up.

apparently owning of those (and several other firearms) does not preclude you from being killed and having someone else use it to mount an offensive attack.

As above, personal responsibility is required for any tool. Those things should have been locked up. I am for sane gun control but I disagree with this justification. That weapon is owned by millions. This woman does not negate their responsibility. I wouldn't ask for more controls on cars because a kid stole his mom's car keys and ran over 30 kids on a basketball court either.

If this were a news flash on a television in an early 90s dystopian action flick, I'd have thought it was absurdist. But in the year 2012, I feel like even if some guy shot up a hospital nursery, you'd still end up with folks living in their own little bubble, saying more guns is the solution, not less.

Agree. If anyone in this thread were making that case, I would call them out too!

I'm also pretty sick of the "Let's not talk about it now" crowd. When is it okay to talk about the gun problem in this country? Are you suggesting we wait until nobody's been shot-and-killed for a week? Yeah, I'll hold my breath. Better not talk about it, people might still be mad about massacring elementary school students.

1 - When was the last time gun control was in the national spotlight WITHOUT riding the wave of a mass shooting? That is the point. Remember when Obama and Romney were debating gun control in the debates? Neither do I... If gun control was important, it wouldn't have to leverage the "think of the children" angle that you commonly find in other prohibitionary pushes (anti-porn, internet censorship, abortion, etc). You will give yourself MORE credibility by not doing it this way.


2 - By doing this, you could actually be making the issue worse. I think most of us can agree with this: Now tell me how many gun-control/gun-ban articles contain the shooter's face, name, body-count, etc. You are contributing to that problem. So again, do it WITHOUT riding the wave of a shooting that dominates national news. Hell, you can even have the debate at the same time, just don't center the debate on the shooting!

This is indicative to me that there is a problem with the law. Nitpicking on what's legally construed as an assault weapon is practically absurd at this point. Whatever you want to call the gun this kid used when he pumped hundreds of bullets into elementary school classrooms, it's absurd that he even had access to it. Which well regulated militia did he train with that he justified owning a device meant for killing lots of people very quickly? Since it's not technically an assault weapon, can we call it a killing-lots-of-people-very-quickly weapon?

This is a very important point as it address making the actual change you are looking for.


1- Show me a law that actually DOES what you want. Every state that has heavy gun-control on the books has problems with the law. Feinstein is one of the leading politicians on the topic. I live in Feinstein's state (CA). There are a lot of ways to bypass the laws here (just like in CT). Feinstein's ban on high capacity mags doesn't do a whole lot. Columbine was done entirely with 10 round mags!


2- "Assault Weapon"... That term exists only due to law. The law creates and DEFINES what an "assault weapon" is. It actually creates the need to nitpick. That is exactly why there are so many ways to circumvent the law. Many of the definitions are purely aesthetic. I haven't seen one "assault weapon ban" that isn't insanely flawed.


I have little faith that the politicians trying to push the control/ban laws are going to create something that stops the mass shootings. They are just too ignorant on the topic to create something effective.
Here is one person behind the Assault Weapon ban who doesn't understand her own law:
Here is another person (standing next to the lady from the above video) who has no idea what she is dealing with:


If we want someone to make solid laws, we need someone who understands the topic. Why is it we can't find a politician who actually understands the topic?




edit: ugh, auto video embedding...

[onthewall2983]

[DigitalChaos]

What "scares" me about that gun is not the gun itself; it's the fact that I cannot find one logical and/or rational reason why someone, anyone in the society we live in would feel the need to own a firearm like this.

There are many millions of this type of gun in ownership. It is commonly used for target practice and intended for self defense. Not every situation is just 1 unarmed bad guy walking into your house. On the extreme side of self defense, remember the LA riots? Huricane Katrina? Quite a few people people defended their property and/or life with those types of weapons. I live in a densely populated area that is prone to earthquakes. Looting will happen the next time a "big one" like the 1906 quake hits. I wouldn't hesitate to arm myself with one of those weapons for a situation like that. Less than 40% of California has the FEMA minimum recommendation of 72 hours of food/water/supplies. 60% are without? Looting & intrusions are going to be worse than the 1906 quake... The local police force couldn't do a thing. Multiple branches of military had to police the streets for nearly 3 months after the 1906 and it still wasn't enough. I have always been a self sufficient person. Relying on others frequently leads to disappointment.

This is just one of the many justifiable reasons.

[DigitalChaos]

One of the main problems I see with guns is that while they may be legal, the very thing they are intended for, their purpose - to kill people - is, in most cases illegal.
All these millions and millions of guns sitting around with no-one to kill. Except that in the US, eight children are killed by guns every day. Eight children a day. That's one hell of a massacre. A daily one. So yeah we should be having this conversation every day.
http://jezebel.com/5968971/that-woma...chool-shooting

Lock up the fucking guns! California does this one right... mostly.

"All these millions and millions of guns sitting around with no-one to kill." yea.... I run daily backups of my company's data. How many times have I had to restore backups? none! There are very frequent situations where people ARE successfully stopping crime because they had a gun. Many are home invasions. Millions of guns sitting around with no-one to kill AND stopping crime? Sounds good to me

[Presideo]

Remember when Obama and Romney were debating gun control in the debates? Neither do I...

Took me a grand total of 5 seconds to find that clip using google.

It also seems like gun advocates like to use the notion that even if we have comprehensive gun control there will still be those who will break the law to get them. Of course they will, nobody is debating that. But suppressing the avenues to legally get a semi-auto/automatic will go a long way. Example: cocaine is illegal, and I can't go to a store to buy cocaine. However, if I really wanted to get cocaine I'm sure I could find connections. It would likely be really hard, but if I wanted the stuff badly enough I guess I could invest a lot of time to get it. On the other hand, I could buy alcohol within minutes if I wanted to without any major problems.

In that example, law for alcohol is akin current gun control in Anywhere USA; laws controlling cocaine is akin to where we want to go. Are there still coke fiends roaming the US? Sure. Is there likely far fewer than if cocaine were legal? Yep.

[Jinsai]

However, if I really wanted to get cocaine I'm sure I could find connections. It would likely be really hard, but if I wanted the stuff badly enough I guess I could invest a lot of time to get it.

Not to drift the conversation completely off the rails, but (I guess depending on where you live), it wouldn't be very hard. Your point still holds though.

And really, there's a double standard here coming from DigitalChaos. One second you're saying that there's practically no difference between a handgun and an assault rifle, but then you're suddenly justifying the necessity of owning an assault rifle because if there was a big earthquake or a zombie apocalypse, a handgun wouldn't be good enough.

[DigitalChaos]

youtube.com/watch?v=9m6Ep9LucTk
Took me a grand total of 5 seconds to find that clip using google.

Well, I'm wrong there. I suppose all the other points in my post are valid since this is all you addressed.

Hate to say it, but I agree with Romney on the part of "we need to fix our current laws, not make more." Have you seen the 2011 report from Mayors Against Illegal Guns (pro gun-control group)? The NICS background check that was implemented in 1999 is not working anywhere near the level it should be. 23 states are showing major failures in providing background info. 4 states have provided nothing! They specifically cite the Tuscan AZ shooting of Giffords as something that would have been stopped if states were compliant.
http://www.mayorsagainstillegalguns....mimeo_revb.pdf

And really, there's a double standard here coming from DigitalChaos. One second you're saying that there's practically no difference between a handgun and an assault rifle, but then you're suddenly justifying the necessity of owning an assault rifle because if there was a big earthquake or a zombie apocalypse, a handgun wouldn't be good enough.

If you see no advantage to a weapon that can travel farther with much more accuracy in the zombie apocalypse... i don't know what to tell you. For close quarters, I totally choose a handgun. I choose the right tool for the job. I remember seeing a bunch of store owners ontop of their building with rifles during the LA riots. They were successfully defending the building against looters.

[aggroculture]

You have no right to kill someone, even if they're stealing your shit and trashing your house. It's just stuff. Unless they are clearly intent on killing you, you have no right to shoot them.

[Jinsai]

If you see no advantage to a weapon that can travel farther with much more accuracy in the zombie apocalypse... i don't know what to tell you. For close quarters, I totally choose a handgun. I choose the right tool for the job. I remember seeing a bunch of store owners ontop of their building with rifles during the LA riots. They were successfully defending the building against looters.

I don't think you're acknowledging what I'm saying. You're the one who originally claimed there wasn't much difference between a handgun and a semi automatic rifle. And here we are talking about how good it is to fend off a LARGE CROWD of rioters, and we're not talking about clip capacity.

Also, I live in LA, but the riots happened when I was 12. I can't say I remember seeing "a bunch of store owners on top of their buildings with rifles" blowing people away in self defense.

[jessamineny]

If you see no advantage to a weapon that can travel farther with much more accuracy in the zombie apocalypse... i don't know what to tell you. For close quarters, I totally choose a handgun. I choose the right tool for the job. I remember seeing a bunch of store owners ontop of their building with rifles during the LA riots. They were successfully defending the building against looters.

Why in the world would you want something that would travel farther with much more accuracy if you're defending your home from looters? Or are you planning to fortify your apartment building/block off your street/isolate your community and protect it from outsiders?

[DigitalChaos]

I don't think you're acknowledging what I'm saying. You're the one who originally claimed there wasn't much difference between a handgun and a semi automatic rifle. And here we are talking about how good it is to fend off a LARGE CROWD of rioters, and we're not talking about clip capacity.

Also, I live in LA, but the riots happened when I was 12. I can't say I remember seeing "a bunch of store owners on top of their buildings with rifles" blowing people away in self defense.

I specified the difference many times. This is the 2nd time doing it for just you: the difference is in the distance and accuracy (at distance) that you can send a round. This is not a very valuable trait for someone walking into a room trying to clear it. A high capacity mag can be attached to ANY magazine based firearm. Pistol, etc. Those would be desirable in situation where your target could move in on you in the 1-2 seconds it takes to change a magazine. In a school masacre, nobody is moving in on the aggressors to stop them. This is how Columbine happened with an abundance of "low capacity" mags and this is why I am not seeing the magazines as important to the school shooting topic. I don't really have an issue with limiting magazine capacity, just don't see a value in it for school shootings.

Where did I say "blowing people away"?? I said "defending." There is a pretty well known video of a group of koreans sitting ontop of the store with rifles and shotguns. Some were on the ground shooting at people with their handguns. I don't condone the way the went about it. I do condone protecting yourself if people start breaking into your property and you feel that your life is threatened. There are a lot of home invasion news stories where all sorts of guns were successfully used, many of them were using rifles.

[DigitalChaos]

Why in the world would you want something that would travel farther with much more accuracy if you're defending your home from looters? Or are you planning to fortify your apartment building/block off your street/isolate your community and protect it from outsiders?

As I pointed out a few posts back: tons of people are irrationally scared of their looks Intimidation goes a long way in defense. You can thank tv/movies and anti-gun people for that one. Barrel shrouds and forward grips are scary!

There are plenty of usage situations for a rifle over a handgun. If that is the ONLY thing people have an issue with after my detailed posts (one, two) from earlier today, I consider my argument successful.

[jessamineny]

That is not what you said. But you can change your argument if it suits your need. Sokay.

[orestes]

Okay, let's reel the discussion back into reality and not hypothetical situations like a zombie apocalypse.

[DigitalChaos]

I, too, thought Jinsai's hyperbolic comment about the zombie apocalypse was outside reality. But hey, if you want to know how to survive one...

[aggroculture]

You're the one who's living in a Cormac McCarthy novel. Jinsai was merely picking up on that.

[DigitalChaos]

Yes, I've noticed that some people fall back onto stereotyping when they don't have anything else. The other night it was something about me liking bibles and hating the liberal media... or something.

[DigitalChaos]

Required watching for anyone who talks about "assault" weapons or rifles.
Required watching for anyone who is having issues understanding why legislation against them is prone to failure.

I recommend sitting through the entire thing but 5:55 is one of the best parts. Hunting rifle to "assault" rifle in 90 seconds!

[Hazekiah]

I don't think anyone discussing this matter seriously is worried about how a firearm LOOKS.

They're worried about its ability to facilitate the desire of someone holding it who wishes to spray an entire magazine of bullets into a crowd with a single pull of a trigger.

So when the uninitiated say "assault" weapon just assume they mean "automatic" and then we're all on the same page and ready for a rational discussion again.

[allegro]

I don't think anyone discussing this matter seriously is worried about how a firearm LOOKS.

They're worried about its ability to facilitate the desire of someone holding it who wishes to spray an entire magazine of bullets into a crowd with a single pull of a trigger.

So when the uninitiated say "assault" weapon just assume they mean "automatic" and then we're all on the same page and ready for a rational discussion again.

That big gun is semi-auto, you have to keep pulling a trigger. Full auto is illegal in this country (for civilians) and I haven't read that the kid modified it.

But, there is the possible "Rambo" mentality that a gun like that might produce in an unstable person.

I have held that kind of gun (my best friend's husband with a midlife crisis and too much expendable cash bought one) and it was surprisingly light. It felt like a toy gun. It even had a laser sight. (I guarantee you the CT shooter kid didn't use a sight.)

As I've said before, I own two revolvers (6 bullets, no magazine) including a .357 Magnum. To me, anybody who needs one of those Rambo guns is a lazy person who doesn't know how to shoot; keep shooting a bunch of bullets and hope at least one hits your target. However, with a revolver you only have 6 bullets and no magazine so you better know how to shoot. (My saved paper targets will prove that I actually do. Competition level.)

The shooter's mother was getting $240,000 a year in alimony. This is one of those "I can afford it" guns. She allegedly told her sister-in-law that she feared chaos was near because of the fiscal cliff.

edit
Regarding Assault Weapons Ban: The ban went into effect in 1994 and expired in 2004. See this. Note that it was not called the "assault rifle" ban.

[Deepvoid]

On December 14, 2012 ...

... it has been 3 days since the Oregon Mall shooting. Is that enough time?
... it has been 132 days since the Sikh Temple shooting.
... it has been 148 days since the shooting in Aurora Colorado.
... it has been 707 days since the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords and others in Tuscon
... it has been 1136 days since the Fort Hood shooting.
... it has been 2070 days since the Virginia Tech shooting.
... it has been 4988 days since the Columbine shooting.

Can we talk about those shooting NOW? Can we not wait another week or even another day?
If you don't wanna talk about it now, it's because you don't wanna talk about it ever!

(transcript from from TYT)

[DigitalChaos]

I don't think anyone discussing this matter seriously is worried about how a firearm LOOKS.

They're worried about its ability to facilitate the desire of someone holding it who wishes to spray an entire magazine of bullets into a crowd with a single pull of a trigger.

So when the uninitiated say "assault" weapon just assume they mean "automatic" and then we're all on the same page and ready for a rational discussion again.

Yea, you are the exact type of person who needs some basic gun and gun law education. Automatic weapons are already illegal across the country. This was even stated in the video.

This is another good example of people having irrational fear of something and laws being unable to help that. Gotta stop those automatic weapons!

[october_midnight]

Maybe people would ease up a bit without the constant condescending horseshit?

Gotta stop those automatic weapons!

Barrel shrouds and forward grips are scary!

Look at this gun guys, it's just so fucking SCARY, look at it!

The norm on here with similar threads is usually about three pages until someone starts in with posts like this...were we over or under this time?

[DigitalChaos]

Maybe people would ease up a bit without the constant condescending horseshit?

What do you imagine people will ease up about? The continual failure to understand gun tech and gun law? Will they suddenly be able to present a solution that fixes the problem of mass shootings instead of just temporarily pacifying their own fear? I think not...

[Deepvoid]

What do you imagine people will ease up about? The continual failure to understand gun tech and gun law? Will they suddenly be able to present a solution that fixes the problem of mass shootings instead of just temporarily pacifying their own fear? I think not...

So what you're saying is that those mass shootings are inevitable in the US. It's how this country is?
Sure hope you're not thinking that you're still the greatest country in the world.