Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

What's the threat of having multiple guns locked up safe in a cabinet? His guns, my guns and the vast majority of gunowners guns aren't the issue at play here. The issue is guns in the hands of the wrong people and an acceptance of who the wrong people are. The wrong people are the gang bangers (of all colors), the criminals, the mentally ill and unstable, the drug dealers and the mafia's.

Although generally that's true, people with guns become criminals when the temptation arises to use it, or an accident occurs. And if the gun gets stolen by a criminal, then the criminal has the gun.

Originally Posted by Deb C

It doesn't concern you that you use a a version of an M-16 to kill animals? They must be pretty scary creatures for you to have to use such a weapon.

An M-16 (and an AR-15) fires teeny-tiny bullets. Consider the fact that most deer are taken with .30-.30 rifles -- which are easily twice the size of the bullets an M-16 shoots. For example, this guy here:



Shoots a bigger bullet than that scary, scary M16. What you appear to be afraid of is a cosmetic difference. And cosmetics aren't really so scary, once you see them for what they are*.

Oh, and since we're sharing scary pictures, this:

Is a basic, 12-gauge hunting shotgun. With the big clip as shown, it holds 5 shells, total (fewer than in most pistols).

This:



Is the exact same thing in terms of function and capabilities. Since the shells aren't stacked side-by-side, but end-to-end, it only holds 5. Same as the above.

----
*unless it's eyeliner being tested and you're a bunny. But that's a different matter entirely.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

1-Talk to Hezbollah

Why not talk to the Israelis? They are the ones bombarding Gaza. What Israel does is all out of proportion to what Gaza does, and they are being blockaded too.

2/3-Talk to the Taliban-Al'Queda

Again, we are the ones doing the attacks. The question is whether our war is stopping the Taliban.

4-Talk to the gangbangers and Stress to novice/lax gunowners that gun ownership comes with the responsibility of keeping their guns out of the hands of children.

I'm not sure what the use of a locked-up gun is. How does that protect a homeowner against an invader? And how do guns get in the hands of the gangs?

5-Talk to Al'Queda-Baathists

We had no business invading Iraq

6-Talk to their parents and convince them to give up their children.

Who's going to do that? Who decides who abuses a child before it happens?

7-Talk to their warlords and their governments and convince them to make feeding children their priority.

We and other rich nations have a responsibility to help. Poor nations can't do it on their own. We don't even do what we should be doing here in the USA, thanks to you conservatives who are against the government feeding children. How can we convince other governments to do what we refuse to do, then?

Originally Posted by Deb C

Sometimes pictures are worth a million words.

But -- and this is key -- not every time.

We have words because words are useful and good.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

He means on the defense for personal responsibility and he is correct. Personal responsibility (and those who are responsible) is under constant attack and requires constant defense. Vultures are always drawn to carcasses. It's in their nature after all.

Like I said, a follower, and followers are very important tools for increasing power and control.

Your materialist philosophy robs all people of any acknowledgement whatsoever that humans have a free will or any responsibility for their actions whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The thing is, it would have only taken a person like me with a gun and a few bullets and a moment of opportunity to end the violence.

You are a trained marksman able to win in a shootout with a guy with automatic weapons?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You are a trained marksman able to win in a shootout with a guy with automatic weapons?

Nobody had automatic weapons.

You do realize that those are actually a thing, right? And that since they're a thing, there are other things that are not-them?

This, for example:



Is one of the many, many thing that are not an automatic weapon.

Originally Posted by B Butler

You might start by admitting this is a values level problem. If one is part of the gun culture, one is aware that the first responders are going to arrive far too late. This is an obvious truth well illustrated by the Newtown and Aurora incidents. Being aware of this obvious truth, one has to take personal responsibility for the defense of one's self and one's own. This involves responsibility, duty, training and an exercise of natural rights guaranteed by the Constitution and God.

If one is not part of the gun culture, guns are something to be afraid of. The fewer guns present the better.

The founding fathers came from a gun culture. In many parts of the country, the gun culture is currently in the minority.

I agree with the point that teachers are not soldiers. They did not become teachers in order to become soldiers. They do not want the responsibility for defending the children given into their care. Thing is, if they don't want the responsibility, whose responsibility is it? Who is to be given the training, funds and access necessary to do the job?

On other threads I've been pushing the notion that there are reasons old traditional values came into existence, and there are reasons why new progressive values often come to supersede the old ways. The gun question is just another example of this. It is not that the other side is stupid, evil, insane, communist, fascist or otherwise anathema. The country was formed in revolution, expanded in frontier conflict with the natives, growing up with a deeply held and easily justified by example belief that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. Alas, a well regulated militia implies training and discipline. The modern gun culture remembers they have rights, but often comes up well short on accepting the regulations, training, discipline and duties.

Anyway, both sets of values can be and are deeply held. There are lots of reasonable and unreasonable statistics and incidents to verify or reject either set of values. In the aftermath of tragedy lots of emotion and propaganda is thrown about. The problem is deeper than that.

One nitpick detail. Modern 'hunting rifles' are generally designed to take down animals larger and heavier than your typical human. Thus, they will carry larger more powerful rounds than are typically used in law enforcement, military assault weapons, or personal defense. If one is going after humans, one wants lots of smaller rounds rather than fewer more powerful rounds.

World War I rifles were designed at a time when cavalry was still perceived of as a possible threat. World War I and some World War II era weapons were literally designed to stop horses. These days, rounds carried and rate of fire are considered more important the pure power.

I grew up in a gun culture, not a weapon culture. All of my relatives had them for hunting and target shooting. Heck, even I've shot at a few tin cans in my time. So my values didn't arrive from a hate of guns. Those values were developed after I was educated in how weapons have morphed into a technology that, while it can be useful in defense, has mainly been used to attack and a power *over* other countries and people.

It's a shame that we can't see our intrinsic value and have to feel protected by an over abundance of militaristic weapons.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

An M-16 (and an AR-15) fires teeny-tiny bullets. Consider the fact that most deer are taken with .30-.30 rifles -- which are easily twice the size of the bullets an M-16 shoots. For example, this guy here:



Shoots a bigger bullet than that scary, scary M16. What you appear to be afraid of is a cosmetic difference. And cosmetics aren't really so scary, once you see them for what they are*.

Oh, and since we're sharing scary pictures, this:

Is a basic, 12-gauge hunting shotgun. With the big clip as shown, it holds 5 shells, total (fewer than in most pistols).

This:



Is the exact same thing in terms of function and capabilities. Since the shells aren't stacked side-by-side, but end-to-end, it only holds 5. Same as the above.

----
*unless it's eyeliner being tested and you're a bunny. But that's a different matter entirely.

Unfortunately, you left out the detail that shot guns are not capable of rapid fire with 30 and 100 rounds of bullets. This, IMHO, makes a huge difference in how many lives can be affected by a single shot or a weapon with the ability to fire numerous rounds in a few seconds.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Except, you know, for the very obvious context that a normal person can purchase far more componants for easy to render explosives far more cheaply than they can purchase fire arms.

We're very lucky the weapons of choice have been knives and guns and not explosives in these events. There is absolutely no way you can prevent attacks by blocking methodology, because the most effective means in an industrialized society are extremely cheap, and can be found under most sinks and manufactured with no oversight or scruitiny and nor do we want oversight and scruitiny on them.

This is a fundamental issue of will and desire. The problem isn't that we have produced people with the means to do terrible acts, as people will always have the means, it's that we have forged within them the will to do terrible acts.

Actually, the materialism that you and most others here espouse has taken AWAY peoples' will. The consensus of opinion has emerged among younger educated people during the 3T that people are just automatons, since they are just brains or victims of their society. Corporate commercialism rules the land, which means that people are just numbers, and no concern is given by companies to anything except their own profits-- believing high profits will "trickle down" if allowed to grow "freely." And the surge in addictive (and often violent) entertainment, drug prescription, workaholism, poverty, and other such means of pacifying the populace, has worked very well.

The problem is not a "will" having been forged; it is a lack of will, and a lack of virtue, because this is not taught. On the contrary, we are taught that free will does not exist. If we have no will, or don't know we have one, and have no spiritual source of guidance, we cannot stop our anger and fear, and that causes violence, because we react rather than act.

If we want a non-violent culture, then the spiritual and moral teaching must become different than it currently is in the USA, where we worship violence, and do not teach any virtues or any respect for the innate dignity, free will and spirituality of the people, or any higher or inner source of guidance, but instead view people as commercial commodities and automatons. Most Asian and European countries have a better view of human nature than we have, and a greater amount of moral and spiritual teachings among the people.

The most common spiritual teaching in the USA (and in hispanic countries too) is just another form of pacification: traditional and evangelical Christianity, which is instead a training in fear and reactive intolerance.

In addition to all that, ease of access creates more opportunity for use. Most people don't kill by making bombs, unless they are in a civil war like Iraq or Afghanistan or Syria. If guns are lying around, they will more likely be used.

People in hispanic and other poor countries have high crime rates, and many have a violent culture. Some rich countries have a gun culture because they are rural, or interested in self-defense. In general, rich countries with lax controls have higher murder rates. Exhibit A is the USA, which has by far the highest rate of gun ownership, and by far the highest murder rate among rich countries.

None of the guns used in any spree shooting have had rapid fire. They're semi-autos.

Originally Posted by Deb C

Unfortunately, you left out the detail that shot guns are not capable of rapid fire with 30 and 100 rounds of bullets. This, IMHO, makes a huge difference in how many lives can be affected by a single shot or a weapon with the ability to fire numerous rounds in a few seconds.

Actually, the shotguns I showed in the second two pictures indeed are capable of shooting as many bullets roughly as quickly as the AR15. Or "as slowly" -- since semiautomatics are one-pull-one-shot weapons, they don't fire at nearly the rate of an actual automatic.

What's more, since shotguns fire shot rather than a bullet, each individual shotgun trigger-pull into a crowd is going to hit a lot more people than would a pull from an AR15.

I've found it a good idea to try to let the strength of my opinions be limited by the degree of my ignorance on a subject.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Nobody had automatic weapons.

Don't obfuscate. The point was clear. The shooter in Connecticut had more firepower than some principal with a gun would have had. Be more informed about the incident. His Mom had a storehouse of firearms and assault weapons and the guy used them (I don't care what the creep's name was and I don't remember). Don't play games about what is what. We need to ban military and assault weapons from civilian possession. A rifle that shoots 5 bullets is not an assault weapon, and it's not what the guy in Conn. used. Support Sen. Feinstein's bill.

People in rural areas need non-military shotguns, I suppose. People in cities don't need handguns and assault weapons.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

You are a trained marksman able to win in a shootout with a guy with automatic weapons?

Yes, I could win in a shootout with a guy with an automatic weapon.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Don't obfuscate. ... Don't play games about what is what.

If you consider knowing what one is talking about and making sure that other people are talking about the same thing to be "obfuscation", then I wonder how you ever expect anything to turn out the way you intend.

I mean crackle snurf banana poppity poppity pa-ching. Maximum basalt hierarchy youthful verb accentuate groom. Twig pools violet fragmented realistic? Emetic fumigation horse wheedle!

Originally Posted by Deb C

Unfortunately, you left out the detail that shot guns are not capable of rapid fire with 30 and 100 rounds of bullets. This, IMHO, makes a huge difference in how many lives can be affected by a single shot or a weapon with the ability to fire numerous rounds in a few seconds.

Actually they are capable of that level of performance.

Edit: Oops. Justin wins.

Originally Posted by Kepi

Okay, since you completely missed my point, I'll make it anyway.

An AR-15 is a semi-automatic knock off off an M-16. It's mechanically the same as any of the most commonly used hunting rifles. Round size wise, an AR-15 actually packs bullets that are smaller than a lot of your more popular hunting rifles, meaning the AR is going to be pound for pound less likely to be lethal than your .30- variants.

The AR-15 is the original, and was named the AR by it's developer, ArmaLite. The M-16 is the first miltarized (i.e. fully automatic) version. There are many other varients as well. As far as being lethal, the smallish round is fired at realtively high velocity (hence, it has a lot kientic energy), and, unique at the time, the AR has rifling that creates a slow spin, keeping the rounds at the raw edge of stability. When they strike anything, they begin to tumble, creating the kind of havoc only approriate to miltary waepons ... if even for them.

.... and no, they are not the same as hunting rifles. They use a rapid recovery gas piston to eject and reload. The potential cyclical rate is high and the recoil is controlled ... as one would expect in a miltary weapon.

Originally Posted by Kepi ...

Same with the hand guns. They're semi-automatic hand guns, mechanically the same as any of the most commonly used hunting side arms. Round size, they're actually smaller than some of the more popular .40 to .45 sizes.

Both handguns are composite based, and light enough to permit oversized magazines. They aren't popular with the gangbangers becaue they look pretty.

Originally Posted by Kepi ...

There is no law that a person could write that would ban the sale of these kinds of weapons that would not have a negative impact on every practical application for fire arms. The guns that can be banned because you can parse out what makes them different from standard, practical use fire arms either already are, or are so expensive they are effectively banned based on price rationing or both.

There is no difference between these semi-automatic guns and any other semi-automatic gun you could show me save round size.

I think I hit on enough differences to make your argument weak at best. Weapons, and these are weapons first and foremost, need to be limited to miltary and police uses. The advent of CNC and other robotic production techniques have made these weapons affordable, albeit on the high end. A $2,000 rifle or a $1,000 pistol are not unaffordable in today's word.

Originally Posted by Copperfield

Actually they are capable of that level of performance.

Edit: Oops. Justin wins.

This is not a competition for me. I realize this is what so much of our culture is about these days. However, conversation among people with different points of view is what some might consider putting the various pieces of a perplexing puzzle on the table, so we can eventually sort this mess out.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Yes, I could win in a shootout with a guy with an automatic weapon.

You're kidding yourself. But then, that's what you folks do I guess. Fool yourselves.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

If you consider knowing what one is talking about and making sure that other people are talking about the same thing to be "obfuscation", then I wonder how you ever expect anything to turn out the way you intend.

The issue is this creep, and what weapons he had, and they were not hunting rifles.

I mean crackle snurf banana poppity poppity pa-ching. Maximum basalt hierarchy youthful verb accentuate groom. Twig pools violet fragmented realistic? Emetic fumigation horse wheedle!

I like that. Are you planning to set it to music?

We still need to seriously address the mental health issues in this country. Sadly, jail seems to be the only option for violent prone people with mental illness. And if we have a person living with us that has this illness, then why would we have an array of weapons in the house?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The issue is this creep, and what weapons he had, and they were not hunting rifles.

They also were not monotremes, as I believe we established above. So ultimately, the issue is the guy.

I like that. Are you planning to set it to music?

I'm pretty sure they already are lyrics to something by Attila. I didn't follow perfectly well last night, to be honest.

Experience of a drone pilot

The Woes of an American Drone Operator

Bryant was one of them, and he remembers one incident very clearly when a Predator drone was circling in a figure-eight pattern in the sky above Afghanistan, more than 10,000 kilometers (6,250 miles) away. There was a flat-roofed house made of mud, with a shed used to hold goats in the crosshairs, as Bryant recalls. When he received the order to fire, he pressed a button with his left hand and marked the roof with a laser. The pilot sitting next to him pressed the trigger on a joystick, causing the drone to launch a Hellfire missile. There were 16 seconds left until impact.

"These moments are like in slow motion," he says today. Images taken with an infrared camera attached to the drone appeared on his monitor, transmitted by satellite, with a two-to-five-second time delay.


With seven seconds left to go, there was no one to be seen on the ground. Bryant could still have diverted the missile at that point. Then it was down to three seconds. Bryant felt as if he had to count each individual pixel on the monitor. Suddenly a child walked around the corner, he says.


Second zero was the moment in which Bryant's digital world collided with the real one in a village between Baghlan and Mazar-e-Sharif.


Bryant saw a flash on the screen: the explosion. Parts of the building collapsed. The child had disappeared. Bryant had a sick feeling in his stomach.


"Did we just kill a kid?" he asked the man sitting next to him.


"Yeah, I guess that was a kid," the pilot replied.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...rectedFrom=www

@ Marx&Lennon

Every single manufacturer offers a semi-auto hunting rifle, they are almost always use a gas chambering system, and a light weight synthetic version is generally offered and prefered.

The slow spin on the round, is, I agree an issue. However, it doesn't make the weapon more lethal, it makes it more likely to maim human targets. A larger round or high quality ammo would negate any advantages (if there are any) banning slow spin barrelling created.

Similarly, synthetic construction is very common and desireable in any and all hunting side arms. There's a reason that Glocks and Sigs are amongst the most popular pistols on the market, and it's got very little to do with criminality and everything to do with the fact that they're great.

When it comes to why these are desireable for hunting, first, it's an issue of dependability. I don't want a gun that is heavy and difficult to operate. I want something light, easy to aim, and reliable that I know is going to do what it is supposed to. Second, it's an issue of speed. If I hit an animal and I see it getting up, I want a gun that's as quick as my response. I don't want to have to chamber another round myself and I really don't want to have to pull the gun away from my face or jerk it and botch my aim. Finally, it's a matter of safety. If I approach an animal, and it's gone down, but is still alive, and it rears up on me for my sake I want both my rifle and my pistol (if I lose my rifle in the process) to be light weight, quick, and to offer me as many rounds as I need. Finally, it's good conservation. When I shoot an animal, I want it dead as fast as possible. Prolonging an animal's suffering is not cool.

Magazine limits aren't a bad idea, it's just that it's not hard to carry a bunch of . Safe storage requirements are something I'm very in favor of. But banning gas systems, synthetics, and all these sort of elements would be largely detrimental. It'd keep me from going hunting and put me at the range (where I'd rather shoot a revolver).

But my guess is that the reason so many people are dying in these events are true responsetime issues. It's not just that people are shot, it's that people are shot and they're having to wait for the duration of the event (which involves police handling the shooter and being sure that the threat is mitigated) before sending in EMS. Working out new operations for that could potentially save a lot of lives.

More or less, though, these guns are just guns. There's nothing that makes them special.

Originally Posted by the bouncer

uhhh...you do know that morgan freeman "quote" circulating on facebook was a hoax, right?

Yep. And your point is... what, exactly? That I read this Morgan Freeman copypasta chain letter thing and that's what I'm advocating?

Nope. Sorry to disappoint, but this is something that I've been pushing since long before the appearance of that spurious Morgan Freeman quote.

Originally Posted by the bouncer

i think this argument is a smokescreen. the problem *does* boil down to the easy availability of high-powered weapons in this society and the reluctance of too many people to do something about it.

Is a 9mm semi-automatic pistol a "high-powered" weapon? Is a .22 LR pistol a "high-powered" weapon? Is a pump-action shotgun a "high-powered" weapon? Is a break-action double-barrel shotgun a "high-powered" weapon?

The first two were the only weapons used in the deadliest school shooting in our nation's history (the Virginia Tech massacre). The second two were used to devastating effect (along with a 9mm carbine and a 9mm pistol, neither of which are exactly high-powered military grade weapons) in the most famous (the Columbine massacre).

What's the definition of "high-powered" that you're working from here?

The Bushmaster used in the Sandy Hook massacre fires an intermediate cartridge that's under powered for most hunting purposes. The .22 LR pistol used in the Virginia Tech massacre is near the bottom end of the scale, in terms of the power of the round. The thing that you (and Deb and others) don't get is that the relative lack of power of the weapons typically used in such shootings is the very reason that the shooters choose them. The 5.56 NATO round (the military equivalent of the .223 used in the recent massacre) isn't used in the M16 and M4 family of military weapons because it's especially powerful. It's used because it results in a lighter weapon with less recoil that's all around easier to handle. Incidentally, that's the same reason that the 9mm parabellum round is used by militaries and police forces around the world.

And that's exactly why the .223 has found a niche in the civilian market, not as a hunting rifle that can bring down deer or other relatively large game (hint: deer aren't actually all that large), but as a varmint rifle or, in some cases, a brush gun, roles in which ease of handling is privileged over killing power. It's why Copperfield uses a weapon chambered for that round to hunt woodchucks, not bears. It's why ranchers use the same weapon to kill coyotes and wild dogs.

So when people like you (and Deb) run around saying, "High-powered weapons! High-powered weapons!" not only does it indicate that you literally don't know the first thing about the subject, it suggests that legislators motivated by your appeals won't actually craft laws that are likely to do anything about the problem. Because those lawmakers will consult with people who do know what they're talking about, and they'll find out that the problem isn't high-powered weapons, it's weapons of low to intermediate power that are relatively easy to handle. And if those lawmakers don't do that, then the judges who strike those laws down certainly will. At best, you'll end up with laws like the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, which focus primarily on the appearance of a weapon, not its function. So the AR15 gets banned, because its appearance gives people the vapors, but the functionally equivalent Ruger Mini-14 does not. Or the TEC-9 gets banned specifically by name (because it's so scary looking) but functionally equivalent 9mm semi-automatic pistols, pistols that are superior across the board (and easier to conceal on top of that), remain readily available on store shelves.

Originally Posted by the bouncer

so instead we talk obliquely about censoring the media. i hope that is not what you are suggesting, semo '75.

Nice strawman, bro.

The media is already censored. Have you ever seen the Columbine shooters' manifesto tape? No? Neither have I. The manifesto tape exists, people have viewed it, and still frames have been released. Quite some time after the shooting vague details surfaced about what was actually on it. But you and I will probably never see it, because it has been censored by the authorities. There are any number of things that are routinely suppressed or even destroyed (like the Homolka tapes) by authorities investigating high profile crimes. The specifics of novel or exotic murders are routinely kept from the press. Censorship in criminal investigations is actually pretty routine.

Media self-censorship is common, too. There is a kind of gentleman's agreement among news media outlets to minimize coverage of youth suicides, for example. This is based on the not exactly unsupported theory that coverage of suicides can trigger additional suicides. It used to be that the news media would refuse to broadcast the manifestos and demands of terrorists or other violent criminals, on the not exactly unsupported theory that it would only encourage the use of violence by people who want to get their message out. Of course, that has broken down since the 1990s. For example, NBC was quite comfortable blaring the Virginia Tech shooter's tape from coast to coast. Other news outlets blasted NBC for that decision but, of course, they showed clips and aired transcripts, too.

Whenever a massacre like this happens, we are treated to sensationalistic coverage that is impossible to escape. Grainy pictures of the killer are blown up. His name is drilled into our heads. We get computerized reenactments of the crime. We get detailed timelines of the killer's preparations. Reporters thrust microphones in the faces of people that the killer had some tangential relationship to because they have to find something to put on the air so people don't change the channel. We even get (as in the case of the Virginia Tech shooting) Stephen King commenting on the incoherent play the murderer wrote for a creative writing class.

Now, all of that would be objectionable for the reason that the overwhelming majority of it tends to be complete and utter bullshit, especially during the first few days of the story, when interest is highest.

But, more importantly, it sends the crystal clear message that all someone has to do to get the attention of the entire nation, from regular citizens on up to the President of the United States, is to walk into a place that's lightly defended and start killing innocent people. "Do that," we tell troubled young people, "and you will become a household name. People hundreds, even thousands, of miles away will discuss the conditions of your life over dinner. You will force movie studios to change their release schedules, schools to revise their safety plans, experts to puzzle over the mystery that was you, and politicians to debate. Just pull the trigger and, for the length of about one news cycle, you will be the talk of the nation. Your name will go down in history."

Some people will work tirelessly their entire lives for just the opportunity to become a household name. Meanwhile, we offer a pretty much guaranteed shortcut to the same level of fame, a method that just happens to be tailor made for troubled and suicidal young men.

You don't think that has an impact? Really?

Am I suggesting "censoring" the media?

No. At least not in the sense that government agents should be dispatched to the networks to control news coverage. But maybe a little restraint is in order. Maybe it's not a particularly fantastic idea for the news media to turn mass murderers into superstars. Maybe bullhorning every little detail of a mass murderer's life across the country (and to a certain extent around the world) makes it more likely for troubled young men who believe that they haven't gotten the attention or respect from the world that they feel they deserve to decide to pull the trigger. Maybe we should listen to the psychiatrists, psychologists, and sociologists who point out that these massacres tend to cluster, that coverage of one such event seems to trigger others. Maybe we should listen to the investigators who have pored over these people's lives and tell us that these murderers are aware that their murder sprees will generate media coverage and make their decisions based on that.

Maybe?

Nah. Just a smokescreen, right, "Bouncer"?