The Money Mustache Community
Other => Off Topic => Topic started by: Peter Parker on February 20, 2018, 12:50:37 PM
-
If you want change, be the change
If you are as sick as I am regarding school shootings and ineffective gun laws, here's your chance to make your voice heard...I will be out there MARCH 24, 2018.
AND I WILL BE VOTING IN NOVEMBER
https://www.marchforourlives.com
Anyone else going to march?
-
What specific changes are you marching for?
-
What specific changes are you marching for?
This wasn't really relevant to my question. I was curious as to who was going to put feet to ground....
I've expressed my feelings about specific changes in other threads--there are several at this point.
-
https://www.marchforourlives.com
"The mission and focus of March For Our Lives is to demand that a comprehensive and effective bill be immediately brought before Congress to address these gun issues. "
I wish there were a more simple, specific, and concrete demand... but I will probably march. Probably not in DC though.
I don't think it's possible to have meaningful legislation until the NRA is severely weakened or destroyed. So I will be marching to urge voters to vote against any candidate who accepts money from the NRA.
That's a good enough reason for me to go....
-
I certainly want to go, but not sure I can that weekend. Will do my best to rearrange things so I can.
-
I certainly want to go, but not sure I can that weekend. Will do my best to rearrange things so I can.
I hope you can make it. I know its hard to balance "life" and our desire to make a difference--I was lucky in that it's my daughter's birthday, and she couldn't think of a better way to spend the day :-)
-
https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/22/politics/cnn-town-hall-full-video-transcript/index.html
These kids are so damn inspiring. Give 'em hell.
-
I have sat on the sidelines for too long.
I didn't contribute to the Sandy Hook children, or the victims of Vegas, Orlando, etc., and I feel guilty as hell, because maybe if Americans would have united earlier, there wouldn't have been a Parkland.
But we didn't, and there was.
So I'm off the sidelines. I donated to the Parkland kids, and I'll talk with my wife this weekend about doing more. See link. Most of the ways to help are entirely non-political (pay for medical bills, for example). But yes you can also fund their march next month.
https://www.today.com/parents/how-support-students-parkland-school-shooting-t123708
-
I love seeing the kids talk back to the politicians.
Politician starts their bland oatmeal statement that amounts to willful inaction and its just not enough for the people anymore especially the kids at the center of this tragedy.
-
I have sat on the sidelines for too long.
I didn't contribute to the Sandy Hook children, or the victims of Vegas, Orlando, etc., and I feel guilty as hell, because maybe if Americans would have united earlier, there wouldn't have been a Parkland.
But we didn't, and there was.
So I'm off the sidelines. I donated to the Parkland kids, and I'll talk with my wife this weekend about doing more. See link. Most of the ways to help are entirely non-political (pay for medical bills, for example). But yes you can also fund their march next month.
https://www.today.com/parents/how-support-students-parkland-school-shooting-t123708
I am so glad you are off the sidelines. Thanks for joining in. It doesn't always feel like we are changing minds, but the more we say we want change, the more we show up for change, the more we vote for change, the greater the chance for real reform. I can promise you, that at the very least, you will feel great after marching on March 24, 2018. You will know you are not alone in this fight. And you will have taught these Parkland kids that their voices were heard.
In the meantime, if you want something to do....Here's a list of representatives who have taken money from the NRA. I've been feeling GREAT all week taking some time out of my day and giving them a call....
NAME NRA FUNDING* PHONE NUMBER
ALABAMA
REP. ROBERT ADERHOLT $49,928 (202) 225-4876
REP. MO BROOKS $5,000 (202) 225-4801
REP. BRADLEY BYRNE $8,237 (202) 225-4931
REP. GARY PALMER $5,000 (202) 225-4921
REP. MARTHA ROBY $6,000 (202) 225-2901
REP. MIKE ROGERS $33,079 (202) 225-3261
SEN. RICHARD SHELBY $259,464 (202) 224-5744
ALASKA
REP. DON YOUNG $246,285 (202) 225-5765
SEN. LISA MURKOWSKI $141,536 (202) 224-6665
SEN. DAN SULLIVAN $565 (202) 224-3004
ARIZONA
REP. ANDY BIGGS $2,000 (202) 225-2635
REP. PAUL GOSAR $12,591 (202) 225-2315
REP. MARTHA MCSALLY $68,234 (202) 225-2542
REP. DAVID SCHWEIKERT 77,687 (202) 225-2190
SEN. JEFF FLAKE $365,302 (202) 224-4521
ARKANSAS
REP. RICK CRAWFORD $8,977 (202) 225-4076
REP. FRENCH HILL $543,612 (202) 225-2506
REP. BRUCE WESTERMAN $9,504 (202) 225-3772
REP. STEVE WOMACK $9,500 (202) 225-4301
SEN. JOHN BOOZMAN $82,352 (202) 224-4843
SEN. TOM COTTON $1,968,714 (202) 224-2353
CALIFORNIA
REP. KEN CALVERT $61,125 (202) 225-1986
REP. PAUL COOK $8,000 (202) 225-5861
REP. JEFF DENHAM $46,861 (202) 225-4540
REP. DUNCAN HUNTER $13,000 (202) 225-5672
REP. DARRELL ISSA $37,636 (202) 225-3906
REP. STEVE KNIGHT $13,487 (202) 225-1956
REP. DOUG LAMALFA $9,590 (202) 225-3076
REP. KEVIN MCCARTHY $33,940 (202) 225-2915
REP. TOM MCCLINTOCK $52,842 (202) 225-2511
REP. DEVIN NUNES $23,030 (202) 225-2523
REP. DANA ROHRABACHER $34,817 (202) 225-2415
REP. ED ROYCE $38,800 (202) 225-4111
REP. DAVID VALADAO $51,428 (202) 225-4695
REP. MIMI WALTERS $4,000 (202) 225-5611
COLORADO
REP. KENNETH BUCK $800,544 (202) 225-4676
REP. MIKE COFFMAN $112,054 (202) 225-7882
REP. DOUGLAS LAMBORN $32,560 (202) 225-4422
REP. SCOTT TIPTON $105,214 (202) 225-4761
SEN. CORY GARDNER $1,231,079 (202) 224-5941
FLORIDA
REP. GUS BILIRAKIS $16,450 (202) 225-5755
REP. VERNON BUCHANAN $19,940 (202) 225-5015
REP. RON DESANTIS $5,000 (202) 225-2706
REP. MARIO DIAZ-BALART $32,002 (202) 225-4211
REP. NEAL DUNN $5,199 (202) 225-5235
REP. MATT GAETZ $1,000 (202) 225-4136
REP. BRIAN MAST $32,519 (202) 225-3026
REP. BILL POSEY $15,936 (202) 225-3671
REP. TOM ROONEY $10,500 (202) 225-5792
REP. DENNIS ROSS 19,375 (202) 225-1252
REP. JOHN RUTHERFORD $1,000 (202) 225-2501
REP. DANIEL WEBSTER $37,788 (202) 225-1002
REP. TED YOHO $4,092 (202) 225-5744
SEN. MARCO RUBIO $1,012,980 (202) 224-3041
GEORGIA
REP. RICHARD ALLEN $4,000 (202) 225-2823
REP. SANFORD BISHOP $49,496 (202) 225-3631
REP. BUDDY CARTER $4,352 (202) 225-5831
REP. DOUG COLLINS $11,140 (202) 225-9893
REP. DREW FERGUSON $3,000 (202) 225-5901
REP. TOM GRAVES $13,650 (202) 225-5211
REP. KAREN HANDEL $24,997 (202) 225-4501
REP. JODY HICE $4,000 (202) 225-4101
REP. BARRY LOUDERMILK $5,000 (202) 225-2931
REP. AUSTIN SCOTT $7,500 (202) 225-6531
REP. ROB WOODALL $2,000 (202) 225-4272
SEN. JOHNNY ISAKSON $130,809 (202) 224-3643
SEN. DAVID PERDUE $355,854 (202) 224-3521
IDAHO
REP. RAUL LABRADOR $14,813 (202) 225-6611
REP. MIKE SIMPSON $385,731 (202) 225-5531
SEN. MIKE CRAPO $59,989 (202) 224-6142
SEN. JAMES RISCH $18,850 (202) 224-2752
ILLINOIS
REP. MIKE BOST $8,760 (202) 225-5661
REP. RODNEY DAVIS $45,269 (202) 225-2371
REP. RANDY HULTGREN $16,254 (202) 225-2976
REP. ADAM KINZINGER $6,030 (202) 225-3635
REP. DARIN LAHOOD $17,990 (202) 225-6201
REP. JOHN SHIMKUS $59,304 (202) 225-5271
INDIANA
REP. JIM BANKS $2,000 (202) 225-4436
REP. SUSAN BROOKS $3,000 (202) 225-2276
REP. LARRY BUCSHON $11,379 (202) 225-4636
REP. TREY HOLLINGSWORTH $4,865 (202) 225-5315
REP. LUKE MESSER $8,000 (202) 225-3021
REP. TODD ROKITA $7,000 (202) 225-5037
REP. JACKIE WALORSKI $20,572 (202) 225-3915
SEN. TODD YOUNG $450,095 (202) 224-5623
IOWA
REP. ROD BLUM $45,279 (202) 225-2911
REP. STEVEN KING $63,404 (202) 225-4426
REP. DAVID YOUNG $384,121 (202) 225-5476
SEN. JONI ERNST $331,984 (202) 224-3254
SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY $235,907 (202) 224-3744
KANSAS
REP. RON ESTES $6,979 (202) 225-6216
REP. LYNN JENKINS $8,000 (202) 225-6601
REP. ROGER MARSHALL $3,500 (202) 225-2715
REP. KEVIN YODER $52,938 (202) 225-2865
SEN. JERRY MORAN $34,149 (202) 224-6521
SEN. PAT ROBERTS $707,084 (202) 224-4774
KENTUCKY
REP. ANDY BARR $11,274 (202) 225-4706
REP. JAMES COMER $11,192 (202) 225-3115
REP. BRETT GUTHRIE $10,500 (202) 225-3501
REP. THOMAS MASSIE $2,000 (202) 225-3465
REP. HAL ROGERS $60,429 (202) 225-4601
SEN. MITCH MCCONNELL $820,375 (202) 224-2541
SEN. RAND PAUL $104,456 (202) 224-4343
LOUISIANA
REP. RALPH ABRAHAM $4,974 (202) 225-8490
REP. GARRET GRAVES $5,900 202) 225-3901
REP. CLAY HIGGINS $3,500 (202) 225-2031
REP. MIKE JOHNSON $7,223 (202) 225-2777
REP. STEVE SCALISE $36,250 (202) 225-3015
SEN. BILL CASSIDY $419,651 (202) 224-5824
SEN. JOHN KENNEDY $215,788 (202) 224-4623
MAINE
REP. BRUCE POLIQUIN $135,636 (202) 225-6306
MARYLAND
REP. ANDY HARRIS $25,447 (202) 225-5311
MICHIGAN
REP. JUSTIN AMASH $1,000 (202) 225-3831
REP. JOHN BERGMAN $6,450 (202) 225-4735
REP. MIKE BISHOP $10,082 (202) 225-4872
REP. BILL HUIZENGA $11,650 (202) 225-4401
REP. PAUL MITCHELL $3,000 (202) 225-2106
REP. JOHN MOOLENAAR $10,554 (202) 225-3561
REP. DAVE TROTT $5,435 (202) 225-8171
REP. FRED UPTON $12,106 (202) 225-3761
REP. TIM WALBERG $96,138 (202) 225-6276
MINNESOTA
REP. TOM EMMER $3,000 (202) 225-2331
REP. JASON LEWIS $7,619 (202) 225-2271
REP. ERIK PAULSEN $31,613 (202) 225-2871
REP. COLLIN PETERSON $46,759 (202) 225-2165
MISSISSIPPI
REP. GREGG HARPER $8,150 (202) 225-5031
REP. TRENT KELLY $2,000 (202) 225-4306
REP. STEVEN PALAZZO $7,250 (202) 225-5772
SEN. THAD COCHRAN $65,833 (202) 224-5054
SEN. ROGER WICKER $89,406 (202) 224-6253
MISSOURI
REP. SAM GRAVES $97,394 (202) 225-7041
REP. VICKY HARTZLER $10,359 (202) 225-2876
REP. BILLY LONG $10,500 (202) 225-6536
REP. BLAINE LUETKEMEYER $39,375 (202) 225-2956
REP. JASON SMITH $6,500 (202) 225-4404
REP. ANN WAGNER $8,187 (202) 225-1621
SEN. ROY BLUNT $1,488,706 (202) 224-5721
MONTANA
REP. GREG GIANFORTE $73,009 (202) 225-3211
SEN. STEVE DAINES $85,432 (202) 224-2651
NEBRASKA
REP. DONALD JOHN BACON $18,328 (202) 225-4155
REP. JEFF FORTENBERRY $21,628 (202) 225-4806
REP. ADRIAN SMITH $16,800 (202) 225-6435
SEN. DEB FISCHER $14,309 (202) 224-6551
SEN. BEN SASSE $68,623 (202) 224-4224
NEVADA
REP. MARK AMODEI $18,640 (202) 225-6155
SEN. DEAN HELLER $65,022 (202) 224-6244
NEW JERSEY
REP. FRANK LOBIONDO $1,536 (202) 225-6572
REP. THOMAS MACARTHUR $7,280 (202) 225-4765
NEW MEXICO
REP. STEVE PEARCE $88,314 (202) 225-2365
NEW YORK
REP. CHRIS COLLINS $5,000 (202) 225-5265
REP. JOHN FASO $44,939 (202) 225-5614
REP. JOHN KATKO $46,001 (202) 225-3701
REP. TOM REED $22,162 (202) 225-3161
REP. ELISE STEFANIK $7,179 (202) 225-4611
REP. CLAUDIA TENNEY $46,529 (202) 225-3665
REP. LEE ZELDIN $56,281 (202) 225-3826
NORTH CAROLINA
REP. TED BUDD $4,000 (202) 225-4531
REP. VIRGINIA FOXX $22,078 (202) 225-2071
REP. GEORGE HOLDING $8,797 (202) 225-3032
REP. RICHARD HUDSON $18,926 (202) 225-3715
REP. WALTER JONES JR. $56,655 (202) 225-3415
REP. PATRICK MCHENRY $43,070 (202) 225-2576
REP. MARK MEADOWS $4,150 (202) 225-6401
REP. ROBERT PITTENGER $12,113 (202) 225-1976
REP. DAVID ROUZER $2,427 (202) 225-2731
REP. MARK WALKER $3,000 (202) 225-3065
SEN. RICHARD BURR $1,399,698 (202) 224-3154
SEN. THOM TILLIS $1,971,554 (202) 224-6342
NORTH DAKOTA
REP. KEVIN CRAMER $12,711 (202) 225-2611
SEN. JOHN HOEVEN $21,050 (202) 224-2551
OHIO
REP. STEVE CHABOT $113,689 (202) 225-2216
REP. WARREN DAVIDSON $2,000 (202) 225-6205
REP. BOB GIBBS $10,442 (202) 225-6265
REP. BILL JOHNSON $58,985 (202) 225-5705
REP. JIM JORDAN $15,878 (202) 225-2676
REP. DAVID JOYCE $47,840 (202) 225-5731
REP. ROBERT LATTA $42,423 (202) 225-6405
REP. JIM RENACCI $45,656 (202) 225-3876
REP. STEVE STIVERS $70,402 (202) 225-2015
REP. MICHAEL TURNER $22,866 (202) 225-6465
REP. BRAD WENSTRUP $7,000 (202) 225-3164
SEN. ROB PORTMAN $1,472,789 (202) 224-3353
OKLAHOMA
REP. JAMES BRIDENSTINE $3,000 (202) 225-2211
REP. TOM COLE $26,521 (202) 225-6165
REP. FRANK LUCAS $52,121 (202) 225-5565
REP. MARKWAYNE MULLIN $8,311 (202) 225-2701
REP. STEVE RUSSELL $4,000 (202) 225-2132
SEN. JAMES INHOFE $66,758 (202) 224-4721
SEN. JAMES LANKFORD $18,955 (202) 224-5754
OREGON
REP. GREG WALDEN $45,746 (202) 225-6730
PENNSYLVANIA
REP. LOU BARLETTA $7,500 (202) 225-6511
REP. MIKE KELLY $32,109 (202) 225-5406
REP. TOM MARINO $8,000 (202) 225-3731
REP. SCOTT PERRY $8,500 (202) 225-5836
REP. KEITH ROTHFUS $5,500 (202) 225-2065
REP. BILL SHUSTER $82,150 (202) 225-2431
REP. LLOYD SMUCKER $222,736 (202) 225-2411
REP. GLENN THOMPSON $10,500 (202) 225-5121
SOUTH CAROLINA
REP. JEFF DUNCAN $12,500 (202) 225-5301
REP. TREY GOWDY $7,150 (202) 225-6030
REP. RALPH NORMAN $10,029 (202) 225-5501
REP. TOM RICE $6,000 (202) 225-9895
REP. MARK SANFORD $12,290 (202) 225-3176
REP. JOE WILSON $20,271 (202) 225-2452
SEN. LINDSEY GRAHAM $50,946 (202) 224-5972
SEN. TIM SCOTT $18,513 (202) 224-6121
SOUTH DAKOTA
REP. KRISTI NOEM $7,769 (202) 225-2801
SEN. MIKE ROUNDS $89,433 (202) 224-5842
SEN. JOHN THUNE $632,486 (202) 224-2321
TENNESSEE
REP. DIANE BLACK $22,991 (202) 225-4231
REP. MARSHA BLACKBURN $32,951 (202) 225-2811
REP. SCOTT DESJARLAIS $9,511 (202) 225-6831
REP. JOHN DUNCAN JR. $24,201 (202) 225-5435
REP. CHUCK FLEISCHMANN $8,922 (202) 225-3271
REP. DAVID KUSTOFF $3,000 (202) 225-4714
SEN. LAMAR ALEXANDER $25,293 (202) 224-4944
SEN. BOB CORKER $79,203 (202) 224-3344
TEXAS
REP. JODEY ARRINGTON $2,000 (202) 225-4005
REP. BRIAN BABIN $7,500 (202) 225-1555
REP. JOE BARTON $63,912 (202) 225-2002
REP. KEVIN BRADY $30,005 (202) 225-4901
REP. MICHAEL BURGESS $17,214 (202) 225-7772
REP. JOHN CARTER $27,014 (202) 225-3864
REP. MIKE CONAWAY $16,064 (202) 225-3605
REP. HENRY CUELLAR $26,344 (202) 225-1640
REP. JOHN CULBERSON $41,389 (202) 225-2571
REP. BLAKE FARENTHOLD $9,500 (202) 225-7742
REP. BILL FLORES $12,000 (202) 225-6105
REP. LOUIS GOHMERT JR. $13,450 (202) 225-3035
REP. KAY GRANGER $19,014 (202) 225-5071
REP. JEB HENSARLING $29,539 (202) 225-3484
REP. WILL HURD $27,771 (202) 225-4511
REP. SAM JOHNSON $35,014 (202) 225-4201
REP. KENNY MARCHANT $14,814 (202) 225-6605
REP. MICHAEL MCCAUL $28,916 (202) 225-2401
REP. PETE OLSON $17,950 (202) 225-5951
REP. TED POE $15,500 (202) 225-6565
REP. JOHN LEE RATCLIFFE $4,500 (202) 225-6673
REP. PETE SESSIONS $108,111 (202) 225-2231
REP. LAMAR SMITH $41,014 (202) 225-4236
REP. MAC THORNBERRY $31,514 (202) 225-3706
REP. RANDY WEBER $2,000 (202) 225-2831
REP. ROGER WILLIAMS $6,500 (202) 225-9896
SEN. JOHN CORNYN $71,995 (202) 224-2934
SEN. TED CRUZ $77,450 (202) 224-5922
UTAH
REP. ROB BISHOP $24,302 (202) 225-0453
REP. JOHN CURTIS $1,000 (202) 225-7751
REP. MIA LOVE $4,013 (202) 225-3011
REP. CHRIS STEWART $8,000 (202) 225-9730
SEN. ORRIN HATCH $140,748 (202) 224-5251
SEN. MIKE LEE $8,291 (202) 224-5444
VIRGINIA
REP. DAVE BRAT $4,000 (202) 225-2815
REP. BARBARA COMSTOCK $124,301 (202) 225-5136
REP. TOM GARRETT $7,174 (202) 225-4711
REP. BOB GOODLATTE $136,424 (202) 225-5431
REP. MORGAN GRIFFITH $11,352 (202) 225-3861
REP. SCOTT TAYLOR $5,290 (202) 225-4215
REP. ROB WITTMAN $25,221 (202) 225-4261
WASHINGTON
REP. JAIME HERRERA BEUTLER $95,298 (202) 225-3536
REP. DAN NEWHOUSE $4,000 (202) 225-5816
REP. DAVE REICHERT $18,436 (202) 225-7761
REP. CATHY MCMORRIS RODGERS $26,766 (202) 225-2006
WEST VIRGINIA
REP. EVAN JENKINS $4,000 (202) 225-3452
REP. DAVID MCKINLEY $10,500 (202) 225-4172
REP. ALEX MOONEY $15,016 (202) 225-2711
SEN. SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO $112,992 (202) 224-6472
WISCONSIN
REP. SEAN DUFFY $54,514 (202) 225-3365
REP. MIKE GALLAGHER $40,262 (202) 225-5665
REP. GLENN GROTHMAN $4,000 (202) 225-2476
REP. RON KIND $10,550 (202) 225-5506
REP. PAUL RYAN $61,401 (202) 225-3031
REP. JAMES SENSENBRENNER JR. $20,468 (202) 225-5101
SEN. RON JOHNSON $1,015,173 (202) 224-5323
WYOMING
REP. LIZ CHENEY $1,000 (202) 225-2311
SEN. JOHN BARRASSO $21,489 (202) 224-6441
SEN. MIKE ENZI $24,722 (202) 224-3424
-
Thank you for that list! Passed it along to people I know.
-
Thank you for that list! Passed it along to people I know.
It may be just us replying for awhile...@justjoe. But I hope others will join.
While it is important to take action and ask for action from those who are taking NRA money, it is equally important to THANK those who have stepped up and done the right thing....Below is a list of companies that have severed ties with the NRA after their despicable and "fringe worthy" show at CPAC yesterday. Tweet your thanks to those companies. It will only take a few minutes....and support them when you can (I just opened a credit card with the First National Bank of Omaha)
Best Western
Wyndham Hotels
Alamo Rent a Car
National Rent a Car
Enterprise Rent a Car
First National Bank of Omaha
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/enterprise-ends-car-rental-discount-060216050.html
-
Thank you for that list! Passed it along to people I know.
It may be just us replying for awhile...@justjoe. But I hope others will join.
While it is important to take action and ask for action from those who are taking NRA money, it is equally important to THANK those who have stepped up and done the right thing....Below is a list of companies that have severed ties with the NRA after their despicable and "fringe worthy" show at CPAC yesterday. Tweet your thanks to those companies. It will only take a few minutes....and support them when you can (I just opened a credit card with the First National Bank of Omaha)
Best Western
Wyndham Hotels
Alamo Rent a Car
National Rent a Car
Enterprise Rent a Car
First National Bank of Omaha
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/enterprise-ends-car-rental-discount-060216050.html
I will warn you about 1st national bank of omaha - their website can be very finicky. Especially when you move. Pain in the butt sometimes.
Re the March, I just found out there's another one in the next town over, which is a lot closer than the BIG city. And also much more doable for my schedule. So the odds are going up.
-
Fantastic! @Sibley Hope you can go!
-
Who is organizing the march?
Seems like there is a lot of money flowing in and no info on who the sponsors actually are. I wonder whose pockets are getting lined in this.
-
Who is organizing the march?
Seems like there is a lot of money flowing in and no info on who the sponsors actually are. I wonder whose pockets are getting lined in this.
I'm going to guess (based upon your 10 previous posts) that this thread and march isn't for you. You might have other things you want to do....
-
I apologize for curiosity coming to fruition. I looked at the websites and there is minimal information about who they are, what they want, and where the money is going.
With the prior issues of Russia meddling in US politics, I thought trying to find out who is running this would be a common sense type of thought.
Oh, and here is an article about Russian bots going into the gun debate- http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43127529 (http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-43127529)
-
March For Our Lives is created by, inspired by, and led by students across the country who will no longer risk their lives waiting for someone else to take action to stop the epidemic of mass school shootings that has become all too familiar.
My name is Cameron Kasky. I am a student at Stoneman Douglas.
I created the #NeverAgain movement as well as the March for Our lives. Our team has been working hard since day one.
The funds will be spent on the incredibly difficult and expensive process that is organzing a march like this. We have people making more specific plans, but for now know that this is for the march and everything left over will be going to the victims' funds.
Do you lack reading comprehension or are you just trolling?
-
No, not trolling.
You think it is normal that a junior in high school is going to utilize an anonymization service to create and register a website, along with the funding collection?
Does that seem odd to you?
It does to me.
-
While I think this conspiracy stuff is eye roll worthy, if it takes a Russian botnet to finally effect gun change, bravo Russia.
-
No, not trolling.
You think it is normal that a junior in high school is going to utilize an anonymization service to create and register a website, along with the funding collection?
Does that seem odd to you?
It does to me.
http://www.godaddy.com
Create a nonsense hostname, add it to the cart, and then look at your cart. The privacy option is literally at the top. ??
As for the funding, it's a gofundme.
????
-
Here's some information on the March. It doesn't cost a thing to attend. Sister cities throughout the states will be holding their own march.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/organizers-plan-for-500000-attendees-at-march-for-our-lives-rally-in-washington/2018/02/22/a9ff1992-17f9-11e8-8ac5-84161111ace0_story.html?utm_term=.ea702dc39195
If this isn't your thing, that's cool. Do your own thing. And perhaps start another thread.
-
No, not trolling.
You think it is normal that a junior in high school is going to utilize an anonymization service to create and register a website, along with the funding collection?
Does that seem odd to you?
It does to me.
You think the most social media savvy generation CANT do that?
-
No, not trolling.
You think it is normal that a junior in high school is going to utilize an anonymization service to create and register a website, along with the funding collection?
Does that seem odd to you?
It does to me.
http://www.godaddy.com
Create a nonsense hostname, add it to the cart, and then look at your cart. The privacy option is literally at the top. ??
As for the funding, it's a gofundme.
????
My understanding, is that you should always anonymously register a website. Otherwise you open yourself up to be doxed.
-
No, not trolling.
You think it is normal that a junior in high school is going to utilize an anonymization service to create and register a website, along with the funding collection?
Does that seem odd to you?
It does to me.
It's not rocket science.
-
Lots of my students are going. I'll probably go to the starting point, but marching is physically not an option, and since public transit will be packed, taking my scooter would probsbly be more trouble than it's worth.
-
Lots of my students are going. I'll probably go to the starting point, but marching is physically not an option, and since public transit will be packed, taking my scooter would probsbly be more trouble than it's worth.
Being there to support the students is what it all about. I'm sure they will appreciate it...
-
Who is organizing the march?
Seems like there is a lot of money flowing in and no info on who the sponsors actually are. I wonder whose pockets are getting lined in this.
I'm going to guess (based upon your 10 previous posts) that this thread and march isn't for you. You might have other things you want to do....
+1
-
Lots of my students are going. I'll probably go to the starting point, but marching is physically not an option, and since public transit will be packed, taking my scooter would probsbly be more trouble than it's worth.
Up to you of course, but I've been to 2 Really Big marches in Chicago. I saw plenty of people in motorized and nonmotorized wheelchairs and scooters. I also saw other people helping out if they needed a hand. So it's doable. Definitely plan ahead and be prepared for a long day, just in case.
-
I'm marching in the one in DC.
I opened my house to some out of town students for the women's march, and I hope to do the same for this one. Not really too sure how to get in touch with the right people but I hope they'll have similar coordination for out-of-towners.
-
I'm marching in the one in DC.
I opened my house to some out of town students for the women's march, and I hope to do the same for this one. Not really too sure how to get in touch with the right people but I hope they'll have similar coordination for out-of-towners.
AirBNB?
-
I'm marching in the one in DC.
I opened my house to some out of town students for the women's march, and I hope to do the same for this one. Not really too sure how to get in touch with the right people but I hope they'll have similar coordination for out-of-towners.
That's awesome!
Pressure needs to be applied. I saw Trump's "listening session" with congressional members--and it sounded good....But we've seen the flip/flops before. And if congress doesn't see the will of the people, nothing will be done (as usual). Mostly, I want to be there to support the kids who have the guts to fight back.
-
I'm also sick of ineffective gun laws, ineffective law enforcement investigations, and ineffective law enforcement response.
Those signs saying "Gun free zone" are extremely ineffective.
There must be some way to enforce those signs, so that it isn't a guarantee there will be no resistance. All without stripping people of their rights, and due process.
If only there were a way we could protect ourselves when the authorities don't care to.
-
If gun laws are going to be changed, these two congressmen say it will take people marching in the street.
It seems like we have already let the news of killing 17 high school kids pass us by. We seem to be on to the next big thing. Oh, sure, we still moan and groan endlessly on other threads (here and other places) endlessly debating the nuances of each other's positions on gun control. But that won't do a thing to change the minds of congress people. These two bipartisan congressmen admit as much.
I'm going to march. That way when other's don't do anything, and the next school shooting happens, I can say I tried. Are you going to do something? Or just talk about it?
https://www.cnn.com/videos/tv/2018/03/05/lead-guns-convo-on-hill-rep-king-rep-suozzi-live-jake-tapper.cnn
-
I'm marching in the one in DC.
I opened my house to some out of town students for the women's march, and I hope to do the same for this one. Not really too sure how to get in touch with the right people but I hope they'll have similar coordination for out-of-towners.
That's awesome!
Pressure needs to be applied. I saw Trump's "listening session" with congressional members--and it sounded good....But we've seen the flip/flops before. And if congress doesn't see the will of the people, nothing will be done (as usual). Mostly, I want to be there to support the kids who have the guts to fight back.
Thanks! I found a few organizations that are matching hosts with marchers looking for housing. I was matched with a BIG family from the midwest. So of course that gets me to worrying: what if they're different from me? What if they have different values? What if they...blah blah blah. The bottom line is that no matter their religion or political preference, we're all in this to accomplish one thing. So even if they're evangelical Trump supporters, I'll respect them for being here for THIS and try to avoid any talk about other topics. THIS ONE THING is the most important thing right now and if we can set aside our differences, we might be able to accomplish something.
These kids from Parkland are giving me real hope and I truly hope something very meaningful happens.
And for just another piece of the puzzle: how many parents here buy or bought their children toy guns? My mother outlawed it in our family, even going so far as not allowing us to point sticks at each other if we were pretending they were guns. I distinctly remember her taking sticks away from my brothers and telling them they can never point a gun at another person, even just in pretend. I think this aspect is as important as it was to get candy cigarettes out of penny candy stores.
-
The March is 2 days away! Who's going?
I will be attending the smaller one 15 minutes from me rather than battling my schedule and weather to attend the BIG one downtown. Still need to either find or buy poster board (I could swear I have some left over from the last march, but my house is a disaster zone of plaster dust right now, so good luck finding anything).
Thinking of putting on my sign:
Today's children are tomorrow's voters. They will not forget active shooter drills.
-
I'll be at my local march in Oakland! Should be huge.
I am going to march on my way to the airport to fly down to LA, where I will be staying at a Best Western, so I guess I'll have to make a point to tell them I appreciate them distancing themselves from the NRA at the same time!
-
Until the politicians fear the numbers in the streets more than NRA nothing will happen....So I will be out there Marching with my family....
For those of you too busy to join in, when the next mass shooting happens you will be welcome to join the next march.
-
Until the politicians fear the numbers in the streets more than NRA nothing will happen....So I will be out there Marching with my family....
For those of you too busy to join in, when the next mass shooting happens you will be welcome to join the next march.
Or welcome to vote NRA-backed politicians out in November.
-
Who is organizing the march?
Seems like there is a lot of money flowing in and no info on who the sponsors actually are. I wonder whose pockets are getting lined in this.
I’ve attended and helped arranged marches and other forms of protests since I was in a pram being pushed by my mother, many years ago. March 8th and May 1th every year, and a few other when we felt like it.
So please take it from an “expert”: These things are dead easy to arrange, and cost next to nothing. Set a time and date, spread the info on social media, paint some banners, and go. If you need amplifiers and sound equipment, there is always someone who knows someone. Ok; the bed sheet and paint might cost a couple of quid, but I’ve also used worn out card board, old curtains, etc. You don’t need sponsors to arrange a march.
Now, this march you are planning is quite large, and there might be need for buses, and maybe some other stuff. But again; those things are not expensive. Even in a high cost country as Norway, you can easily get a bus with a driver for a day for $500. And if I had a good cause, it shouldn’t take me long to find someone willing to drive for free. Many more people than you think have their own buses and licenses, and big hearts.
-
Who is organizing the march?
Seems like there is a lot of money flowing in and no info on who the sponsors actually are. I wonder whose pockets are getting lined in this.
I’ve attended and helped arranged marches and other forms of protests since I was in a pram being pushed by my mother, many years ago. March 8th and May 1th every year, and a few other when we felt like it.
So please take it from an “expert”: These things are dead easy to arrange, and cost next to nothing. Set a time and date, spread the info on social media, paint some banners, and go. If you need amplifiers and sound equipment, there is always someone who knows someone. Ok; the bed sheet and paint might cost a couple of quid, but I’ve also used worn out card board, old curtains, etc. You don’t need sponsors to arrange a march.
Now, this march you are planning is quite large, and there might be need for buses, and maybe some other stuff. But again; those things are not expensive. Even in a high cost country as Norway, you can easily get a bus with a driver for a day for $500. And if I had a good cause, it shouldn’t take me long to find someone willing to drive for free. Many more people than you think have their own buses and licenses, and big hearts.
Huh, I think it's quite different depending on the locale. Most municipalities I've studied in the US (while at ACLU doing first amendment research) require permits to hold marches and they can require the march organizers to pay the marginal costs of police/public safety, other municipal services, and other necessary private services like refuse collection and those metal barricades to block off streets. That's just off the top of my head. I think my local Women's Marches cost in the thousands if not well over ten thousand to hold.
-
My teen son is going and so will I. The students in his school were warned not to try to walk out last week or they would get suspension, so many chickened out. Those that did so anyway, got detention. Of course, if you want something to happen, tell a bunch of 14 year olds not to do it...
-
I'm heading to a new city today, so if I can find a march there, I'll go and bring my friend.
-
We're going. In our city, they've asked non-students to leave the march to students, but to go to the rally, so that's what we're going to do.
-
Who is organizing the march?
Seems like there is a lot of money flowing in and no info on who the sponsors actually are. I wonder whose pockets are getting lined in this.
I’ve attended and helped arranged marches and other forms of protests since I was in a pram being pushed by my mother, many years ago. March 8th and May 1th every year, and a few other when we felt like it.
So please take it from an “expert”: These things are dead easy to arrange, and cost next to nothing. Set a time and date, spread the info on social media, paint some banners, and go. If you need amplifiers and sound equipment, there is always someone who knows someone. Ok; the bed sheet and paint might cost a couple of quid, but I’ve also used worn out card board, old curtains, etc. You don’t need sponsors to arrange a march.
Now, this march you are planning is quite large, and there might be need for buses, and maybe some other stuff. But again; those things are not expensive. Even in a high cost country as Norway, you can easily get a bus with a driver for a day for $500. And if I had a good cause, it shouldn’t take me long to find someone willing to drive for free. Many more people than you think have their own buses and licenses, and big hearts.
Huh, I think it's quite different depending on the locale. Most municipalities I've studied in the US (while at ACLU doing first amendment research) require permits to hold marches and they can require the march organizers to pay the marginal costs of police/public safety, other municipal services, and other necessary private services like refuse collection and those metal barricades to block off streets. That's just off the top of my head. I think my local Women's Marches cost in the thousands if not well over ten thousand to hold.
Yes! Here in DC, a few blocks of Pennsylvania Ave were closed for four full days. Jumbotrons and sound speakers were being set up on Friday afternoon. Thousands of port-potties were set up Thursday night. Ambulances, police, and fire trucks lined the streets adjacent on the day of. Metro ran weekday schedule instead of weekend schedule. Multiple law enforcement agencies brought in many extra hands. The Capitol Police, even though blocks away, had more in force than I've ever seen, other than for inaugurations. They weren't even on the route of the march/rally. All of those resources cost a lot of money and all that overtime doesn't come from taxpayer dollars so it has to come from permits and fees.
This rally was incredibly well orchestrated and the logistics were very well done.
-
A local non-profit paid for the cost of my local march - $10000! Permits, portable toilets, audio equipment, other costs I am not aware of. There were an estimated 3000-4000 attendees [so $3.33 - $2.50 per person)
I can’t even imagine what the costs would be at the very large events!
-
My sign was "Big Gun Tiny Hands"
Tons and tons of people at the DC march. Probably as big as the first Women's March. Lots of young people. The young speakers were excellent.
-
Our town (population < 30K, about half conservative) had a surprisingly large march of 2K people. We passed out flyers listing the sensible gun safety bills that have passed the state assembly but not the state senate, because our Republican majority does not let them go up for a vote. They were very favorably received.
Unfortunately, we have found it doesn't matter what our "moderate" Republican reps want or promise, as long as they keep supporting the majority leaders who are in the pocket of the NRA!
-
My little town March had about 400, which is HUGE given the demographics (conservative, GOP, NRA, etc). I was there with someone who knows all the local history, people, etc. There were some fairly important people in the community there too - the kinds of people who don't make decisions, but help guide and encourage.
And several people there with the paperwork to register to vote. Big emphasis placed on voting, and checking who's taking money from the NRA.
-
I'm against senseless killing. Is there anyone who isn't?
But these marchers seem angry and directionless, just lashing out at those they disagree with politically more than offering solutions.
Screaming that "the NRA is killing babies" and similar is just plain stupid and inflammatory- it isn't helping.
I've been using guns for ~40 years. Never killed anything. And unless you break through my front door at 3 AM looking to steal or kill my family, you are in no danger from my guns.
Taking our guns away is not going to stop mentally disturbed people from running amok.
I would suggest that demonizing solid citizens like my wife and I is probably not the best solution.
And yeah, I own an AR-15. Not because I plan on a killing spree. Not because I think it "looks bad ass."
I prefer an AR-15 because it is the home defense weapon I feel most comfortable using due my military experience. Confidence in your ability to use a weapon is very important during stressful situations.
I just renewed my lapsed NRA membership (and my wife's)...
-
Taking our guns away is not going to stop mentally disturbed people from running amok.
Strawmen are fun to rage against, huh? Try again.
-
Taking our guns away is not going to stop mentally disturbed people from running amok.
Strawmen are fun to rage against, huh? Try again.
Just one of many invisible enemies...
-
Marching is fine, but what does it accomplish? I too am libertarian and I also happen to have a couple of guns (one is an AR-15). Wouldn't we be better served by listening to the other side, whatever that is. I would fall into whatever side fell into the side of liberty. In other words, I am in favor of the second amendment.
But with that said, I can acknowledge that controlling some large magazine weapons might result in fewer deaths during a shooting event. If that's the case, let's talk about it. Talking about banning assault rifles would presuppose there was a definition of an assault rifle. The differentiator seems to be the quantity of ammo in the magazine.
But in my opinion, none of this addresses the root of the problem. The laws haven't changed significantly for many, many years. What's changed in the past 20 years? Too many people among us without any moral clarity or respect for human life. How did we get here? Something to ponder.
But both sides need to be flexible and thoughtful. The gun totin' right needs to realize that some small changes in gun control won't take away guns for law abiding citizens. And the left crazies need to realize that there are good people out there that have guns and they have a right to be concerned about their rights. is there nobody in the center?
-
Marching is fine, but what does it accomplish? I too am libertarian and I also happen to have a couple of guns (one is an AR-15). Wouldn't we be better served by listening to the other side, whatever that is. I would fall into whatever side fell into the side of liberty. In other words, I am in favor of the second amendment.
But with that said, I can acknowledge that controlling some large magazine weapons might result in fewer deaths during a shooting event. If that's the case, let's talk about it. Talking about banning assault rifles would presuppose there was a definition of an assault rifle. The differentiator seems to be the quantity of ammo in the magazine.
But in my opinion, none of this addresses the root of the problem. The laws haven't changed significantly for many, many years. What's changed in the past 20 years? Too many people among us without any moral clarity or respect for human life. How did we get here? Something to ponder.
But both sides need to be flexible and thoughtful. The gun totin' right needs to realize that some small changes in gun control won't take away guns for law abiding citizens. And the left crazies need to realize that there are good people out there that have guns and they have a right to be concerned about their rights. is there nobody in the center?
The center may very well be the majority, we just don't make as good of a news story. And I think an awful lot of the "center" came out for this march because it's become more and more clear that NRA leadership is not interested in compromise, they're interested in lobbying for gun manufacturers. Too many politicians are being bought and the people are not being represented.
If you're interested in discussing the logic and practicality of specific bans and restrictions on firearms, there is one active thread and several older ones:
http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/11-school-shootings-in-26-days/
You might want to skip the first few pages, that's where most of the "emotional outrage" is gotten out of the way.
-
Marching is fine, but what does it accomplish? I too am libertarian and I also happen to have a couple of guns (one is an AR-15). Wouldn't we be better served by listening to the other side, whatever that is. I would fall into whatever side fell into the side of liberty. In other words, I am in favor of the second amendment.
But with that said, I can acknowledge that controlling some large magazine weapons might result in fewer deaths during a shooting event. If that's the case, let's talk about it. Talking about banning assault rifles would presuppose there was a definition of an assault rifle. The differentiator seems to be the quantity of ammo in the magazine.
But in my opinion, none of this addresses the root of the problem. The laws haven't changed significantly for many, many years. What's changed in the past 20 years? Too many people among us without any moral clarity or respect for human life. How did we get here? Something to ponder.
But both sides need to be flexible and thoughtful. The gun totin' right needs to realize that some small changes in gun control won't take away guns for law abiding citizens. And the left crazies need to realize that there are good people out there that have guns and they have a right to be concerned about their rights. is there nobody in the center?
The center may very well be the majority, we just don't make as good of a news story. And I think an awful lot of the "center" came out for this march because it's become more and more clear that NRA leadership is not interested in compromise, they're interested in lobbying for gun manufacturers. Too many politicians are being bought and the people are not being represented.
This is exactly right.
-
Marching is fine, but what does it accomplish? I too am libertarian and I also happen to have a couple of guns (one is an AR-15). Wouldn't we be better served by listening to the other side, whatever that is. I would fall into whatever side fell into the side of liberty. In other words, I am in favor of the second amendment.
Well, thousands of new voters got registered for the first time on Saturday. The movement also defined their 3 policy goals on guns:
1) Universal background checks
2) Limiting high-capacity magazines
3) Assault weapons ban
I assume #3 is where you might get held up.
But do you believe the Civil Rights Act would have passed with the protests? Without the marches? Sometimes, in order to enact change, demonstrations are needed.
Wouldn't we be better served by listening to the other side
Curious...why are you not asking this of the NRA/gun-toting right? There's been no major policy change in a long time - nothing through Congress since Sandy Hook. Wouldn't we be better served by listening to the victims of all these shootings?
No one is calling for abolishing the 2nd Amendment, but rather to update it and provide the regulation in "well-regulated" and update our laws for the advanced weapons of war we see all across the country now.
"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result."
This movement and the marches on Saturday were to say we have to stop doing the same thing over and over (nothing) and start to enact policy changes that will help prevent guns from ending up in the hands of killers. I don't care if that's left, center, or right...it's the correct stance to take.
-
Upped mine and the wife's NRA membership to Life yesterday.
Dropped a bit of extra into the NRA coffers as well.
Good for voicing you're political opinions and I shall voice mine as well. :)
As far as the theory that Gun Manufacturers give to NRA who gives to canidates... Well...
Hopefully CNN isn't too biased for anyone here... (http://money.cnn.com/news/cnnmoney-investigates/nra-funding-donors/index.html)
I predict by the end of this year, NRA rolls will have expanded to 10 million people. Maybe more.
(Edit to fix a broken link)
-
I prefer an AR-15 because it is the home defense weapon I feel most comfortable using due my military experience. Confidence in your ability to use a weapon is very important during stressful situations.
Ehh, why stop there then if applying that logic? How about an MP3, or an M249! You could really lay waste waste to that intruder(s). Although I prefer a radio with a pair of A-10s on station circling overhead. I mean even if they got away with jewelry or something laying down some 30mm on top of their vehicle would be sweet vengeance!
-
Here are some gun owners explaining why they support and attended the March for Our Lives: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1cDnmkorwk
-
Here are some gun owners explaining why they support and attended the March for Our Lives: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1cDnmkorwk
As a gun owner myself, I add my voice to theirs.
-
Here are some gun owners explaining why they support and attended the March for Our Lives: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1cDnmkorwk
As a gun owner myself, I add my voice to theirs.
Ditto. I own three guns and I was out there marching on Saturday
But these marchers seem angry and directionless, just lashing out at those they disagree with politically more than offering solutions.
.
I think you should go out and join one of these marches. I've never met so many pleasant and hopeful people. Angry? Where? Who? The survivors? sure...of course they're angry, their friends were murdered in front of their eyes. But the people in the streets? No. hopeful and inspired by the courage of the students.
If you want to do something, why not be the person who tries to understand the other side rather than sitting on the sidelines and assuming you know what the rest of us think? Talk to us. Learn what we feel. Try to see it from a different perspective. That's what discussion and debate are about....not about being right.
-
I'm against senseless killing. Is there anyone who isn't?
But these marchers seem angry and directionless, just lashing out at those they disagree with politically more than offering solutions.
Screaming that "the NRA is killing babies" and similar is just plain stupid and inflammatory- it isn't helping.
I've been using guns for ~40 years. Never killed anything. And unless you break through my front door at 3 AM looking to steal or kill my family, you are in no danger from my guns.
Taking our guns away is not going to stop mentally disturbed people from running amok.
I would suggest that demonizing solid citizens like my wife and I is probably not the best solution.
And yeah, I own an AR-15. Not because I plan on a killing spree. Not because I think it "looks bad ass."
I prefer an AR-15 because it is the home defense weapon I feel most comfortable using due my military experience. Confidence in your ability to use a weapon is very important during stressful situations.
I just renewed my lapsed NRA membership (and my wife's)...
On behalf of the 14 to 18 year olds who saw their classmates gunned downed, I apologize that they were angry and this upset you so....
On behalf of the eloquent and thoughtful students, I apologize that they seem "directionless." Rest assured that they won't be when it comes time to vote.
On behalf of those children from Columbine to Parkland who have frightened you so much that you think they can erase the 2nd Amendment and take ALL guns away, I'm sorry you got so scared....
On behalf of those of us who used to support the NRA, but can no longer take the looney-toon rhetoric of their spokespeople, I'm sorry that these children gave your "adults" a piece of their own medicine....
On behalf of those you have not shot with your AR-15, thank you for being so upstanding (but if you go on a bender, I take it all back)
And I am personally sorry that I matched your contribution to the NRA, by donating to the Sandy Hook Promise, along with my wife....
-
Here are some gun owners explaining why they support and attended the March for Our Lives: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1cDnmkorwk
As a gun owner myself, I add my voice to theirs.
Most, if not all, of my gun-owning friends feel the same way. Thank you for showing there are reasonable people out there....You and my other gun-owning friends restored my faith in humanity....
The hunters in the video echo, almost verbatim, the position of my hunting friends.
-
I have a friend in NYC who owns guns, grew up in a rural area around lots of guns, and went to Albany to lobby for common sense gun reform with Moms Demand Action. There are a lot of centrist activists on this issue, because the "other" side is so disconnected from sanity that being moderate is seen as radical.
-
[I think you should go out and join one of these marches. I've never met so many pleasant and hopeful people. Angry? Where? Who? The survivors? sure...of course they're angry, their friends were murdered in front of their eyes. But the people in the streets? No. hopeful and inspired by the courage of the students.
If you want to do something, why not be the person who tries to understand the other side rather than sitting on the sidelines and assuming you know what the rest of us think? Talk to us. Learn what we feel. Try to see it from a different perspective. That's what discussion and debate are about....not about being right.
I went to two Marches--I had only planned to go to one. But as you pointed out, the positivity, courage, hopefulness, the fun, and the laughter was inspiring. After all the negativity in the news, the tribal lines, and the spewing of hatred, it felt good to be surrounded by people of hope. And when I saw my local "hunting" friends marching with a sign that read "Gun Owners for Common Sense Gun Control," I felt like maybe something can be done.
Thanks for lending your voice!
-
Here are some gun owners explaining why they support and attended the March for Our Lives: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1cDnmkorwk
As a gun owner myself, I add my voice to theirs.
Ditto. Former gun toting military member as well.
-
Yep. We don't own a gun because kids in the house, but let our oldest learn to shoot when he had the opportunity. We mig buy one for range shooting sometime in the future when they grow up. Never been involved in gun control before now.
-
Upped mine and the wife's NRA membership to Life yesterday.
Dropped a bit of extra into the NRA coffers as well.
Good for voicing you're political opinions and I shall voice mine as well. :)
As far as the theory that Gun Manufacturers give to NRA who gives to canidates... Well...
Hopefully CNN isn't too biased for anyone here... (http://money.cnn.com/news/cnnmoney-investigates/nra-funding-donors/index.html)
I predict by the end of this year, NRA rolls will have expanded to 10 million people. Maybe more.
(Edit to fix a broken link)
Yes that gets you to about 3% of the US population and .14% of the world population. Yippee! Go get 'em! The tobacco industry had a lot more members and funding and see how that turned out. Eventually things that make little sense get moved out. If people would just get off their soap boxes they'd understand that there is gun ownership in other parts of the world without it being written in core documents of their nation and without fear mongering NRATV blathering on for hours on end about ridiculous scary scenarios that happen about as often as the percent of people in the NRA compare to the rest of humanity. It's like my parents in Florida being convinced that they will be killed by someone driving the wrong way down the highway because it's on the news so much. You can get anyone to believe anything by feeding them enough propaganda, but if all you feed yourself is NRA TV than the world is a very scary place.
-
Taking our guns away is not going to stop mentally disturbed people from running amok.
Are these the new zombies for the NRA crowd?
Forget The Walking Dead, NRA TV presents The Walking Mentally Disturbed. Quick! Grab your shotgun!
-
Upped mine and the wife's NRA membership to Life yesterday.
Dropped a bit of extra into the NRA coffers as well.
Good for voicing you're political opinions and I shall voice mine as well. :)
As far as the theory that Gun Manufacturers give to NRA who gives to canidates... Well...
Hopefully CNN isn't too biased for anyone here... (http://money.cnn.com/news/cnnmoney-investigates/nra-funding-donors/index.html)
I predict by the end of this year, NRA rolls will have expanded to 10 million people. Maybe more.
(Edit to fix a broken link)
A surprising amount of money is given to the NRA by individuals, but this article doesn't say that the NRA doesn't receive money from the industry.
1. The specified allocation of money. While industry donations can't go directly to campaign contributions, they are still money. If I have $100,000 to spend on a house and I inherit another $100,000 with the stipulation that I can't spend it on a car, I can use the inherited money on the house and buy whatever car I want with "my" money. Allocation of funds is barely an obstacle, moreso as the pools of money get larger.
2. The NRA Institute for Legislative Action is not required to disclose the names of donors.
3. Advertising. Payment to advertise may not count as donations but it is industry money. NRA publications (like most magazines these days) are as much a way to advertise products as they are to provide articles. This is clearly a mutually beneficial relationship.
4. Even if all of the NRA's funds came from individual donors, I don't want politicians being bought to represent a minority of the population because they have the money to pay them. That gets to the much bigger issue of campaign funding and contributions in general, but it certainly applies here.
-
Taking our guns away is not going to stop mentally disturbed people from running amok.
Are these the new zombies for the NRA crowd?
Forget The Walking Dead, NRA TV presents The Walking Mentally Disturbed. Quick! Grab your shotgun!
Lol, I always enjoy that argument.
I live in a major city in Canada, I live in the neighborhood with the highest crime rate, with a rampant drug dealing presence, sex workers wandering the Main Street at all hours, and a very high population of addicts and mentally disturbed milling about. We’ve had a serial arsonist burn down several buildings within blocks of my home in the past year and a dude had his throat slit in broad daylight in front of the drug store around the corner not long ago.
We’ve only had a single shooting here in 2018 because there just aren’t many guns here and even then, the police are worried about the level of gun violence we’re seeing.
I have never ever been afraid of being shot here ever and would never think to buy a gun to feel safer. I did however follow all of the advice for minimizing my chances of having my house targeted for fire.
The only time I have ever felt genuinely afraid of being shot was when my ex and I were pulled over in the US by a state trooper who had seen us earlier at a gas station and circled our car three times with his hand over his gun and then followed us down the highway before pulling us over with his gun drawn.
We were in the states to pick up a puppy for my mom...
That makes sense. Anyone can easily buy one without a background check, guns and bullets are cheap and simple to get in most places. That must be terrifying for police officers, and I suspect that this atmosphere of pervasive fear leads to a lot of the problems between police and citizens that happen.
-
As usual, this entire backlash is against inanimate objects and their owners, instead of the actual bad guy.
TX has a program where educators can be (and are) armed. We don't have many school shootings. Attached is the sign outside Argyle HS, close to here. The school my own kids attend is protected by a teacher who has a Remington 870 12ga readily available and knows how to use it. One more way my lovely SAHM DW is awesome.
The solution of course remains: more guns in the right hands.
School shooters are cowards, bullies to the extreme. They have already decided to murder kids. 'Gun Free Zones' and other limitations on PROTECTING THE KIDS merely enable their behavior and are mind-bendingly stupid. Ever faced a bully? They respond very well to the threat of violence against their person.
People lobbying to keep guns out of schools are literally holding child safety hostage to their own ideology.
-
As usual, this entire backlash is against inanimate objects and their owners, instead of the actual bad guy.
TX has a program where educators can be (and are) armed. We don't have many school shootings. Attached is the sign outside Argyle HS, close to here. The school my own kids attend is protected by a teacher who has a Remington 870 12ga readily available and knows how to use it. One more way my lovely SAHM DW is awesome.
The solution of course remains: more guns in the right hands.
School shooters are cowards, bullies to the extreme. They have already decided to murder kids. 'Gun Free Zones' and other limitations on PROTECTING THE KIDS merely enable their behavior and are mind-bendingly stupid. Ever faced a bully? They respond very well to the threat of violence against their person.
People lobbying to keep guns out of schools are literally holding child safety hostage to their own ideology.
Lol
Nice histrionics with that last line.
Thing is, that sign is lovely bravado, but when you look at the bulk of recent school shootings (sad that I can write that phrase, isn't it?) it seems like most of the shooters see this as kind of a suicide mission. They don't intend to get out of there alive. They want to shoot as many people as they can before they go out in a blaze of glory. They are prey to the same kind of superhero fantasy as the people who put up these signs.
-
...
Shhhhh... Don't mention that Texas has been doing it for 5 years and Utah for about 8 years with no problems whatsoever. It breaks down the accidents argument.
Texas Example (https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/health/texas-guns-school-district-trnd/index.html)
Utah Example (https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/02/22/utah-already-allows-concealed-weapons-on-campus-could-arming-teachers-stop-shootings/)
The president of the 1.7 million-member American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten, called arming teachers “one of the worst ideas I have heard in a series of really, really, really bad ideas.” Nevertheless, a tweeted offer by Butler County, Ohio, Sheriff Richard Jones to train local teachers to carry a concealed handgun garnered so much interest that he quickly capped the number at 300.
Texas Campus Carry (Colleges) (https://www.texastribune.org/2017/08/01/campus-carry-one-quiet-year/)
No issues with this one either....
(Edit to correct Utah number)
-
As usual, this entire backlash is against inanimate objects and their owners, instead of the actual bad guy.
TX has a program where educators can be (and are) armed. We don't have many school shootings. Attached is the sign outside Argyle HS, close to here. The school my own kids attend is protected by a teacher who has a Remington 870 12ga readily available and knows how to use it. One more way my lovely SAHM DW is awesome.
The solution of course remains: more guns in the right hands.
School shooters are cowards, bullies to the extreme. They have already decided to murder kids. 'Gun Free Zones' and other limitations on PROTECTING THE KIDS merely enable their behavior and are mind-bendingly stupid. Ever faced a bully? They respond very well to the threat of violence against their person.
People lobbying to keep guns out of schools are literally holding child safety hostage to their own ideology.
Oh good, I was worried we weren't going to hear from you on this topic acroy. I always enjoy your strong opinions coupled with a lack of evidence and unquestioning confidence.
And of course more guns is the answer, why have we all been wasting our time with pages of debate about the pros and cons of arming teachers. A chicken in every pot and a Glock on every teacher. MAGA.
-
...
Shhhhh... Don't mention that Texas has been doing it for 5 years and Utah for about 8 years with no problems whatsoever. It breaks down the accidents argument.
Texas Example (https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/health/texas-guns-school-district-trnd/index.html)
Utah Example (https://www.sltrib.com/news/2018/02/22/utah-already-allows-concealed-weapons-on-campus-could-arming-teachers-stop-shootings/)
The president of the 1.7 million-member American Federation of Teachers, Randi Weingarten, called arming teachers “one of the worst ideas I have heard in a series of really, really, really bad ideas.” Nevertheless, a tweeted offer by Butler County, Ohio, Sheriff Richard Jones to train local teachers to carry a concealed handgun garnered so much interest that he quickly capped the number at 300.
Texas Campus Carry (Colleges) (https://www.texastribune.org/2017/08/01/campus-carry-one-quiet-year/)
No issues with this one either....
(Edit to correct Utah number)
Texas college accidental discharge:
http://www.kxii.com/content/news/Bullet-fired-through-classroom-at-Grayson-College--469653223.html (http://www.kxii.com/content/news/Bullet-fired-through-classroom-at-Grayson-College--469653223.html)
Utah accidental discharge of firearm by elementary school teacher:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/utah-teacher-hurt-when-gun-accidently-shatters-toilet-n201256 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/utah-teacher-hurt-when-gun-accidently-shatters-toilet-n201256)
-
Texas college accidental discharge:
http://www.kxii.com/content/news/Bullet-fired-through-classroom-at-Grayson-College--469653223.html (http://www.kxii.com/content/news/Bullet-fired-through-classroom-at-Grayson-College--469653223.html)
We’re told that the box did not have a lock on it, and that the instructor later left the room, taking the training firearm with him.
“One of the students thought the instrument inside the box was the training instrument so she picked it up,” Brown said.
Would have happened with or without campus carry, as this was a licensed instructor legally allowed to carry before campus carry was enacted. Campus carry does not permit openly carry or showing a gun.
Also, this guy was an idiot leaving a loaded gun outside of his possession.
But sure, try to find anecdotal evidence to prove any point. I care about real statistics.
Utah accidental discharge of firearm by elementary school teacher:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/utah-teacher-hurt-when-gun-accidently-shatters-toilet-n201256 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/utah-teacher-hurt-when-gun-accidently-shatters-toilet-n201256)
Understandable, as it was in a restroom which is, by nature, the only place a teacher should be handling their firearm instead of leaving it secured on their person. I get how it happened... But one out of thousands of teachers carrying for 5+ years hardly proves a point. Actually, it proves that accidents are extremely rare, as evidenced by how rapidly and ferociously the news jumped on that story (if there were many such incidents, the news would be shouting it from the rooftops).
-
As usual, this entire backlash is against inanimate objects and their owners, instead of the actual bad guy.
TX has a program where educators can be (and are) armed. We don't have many school shootings. Attached is the sign outside Argyle HS, close to here. The school my own kids attend is protected by a teacher who has a Remington 870 12ga readily available and knows how to use it. One more way my lovely SAHM DW is awesome.
The solution of course remains: more guns in the right hands.
School shooters are cowards, bullies to the extreme. They have already decided to murder kids. 'Gun Free Zones' and other limitations on PROTECTING THE KIDS merely enable their behavior and are mind-bendingly stupid. Ever faced a bully? They respond very well to the threat of violence against their person.
People lobbying to keep guns out of schools are literally holding child safety hostage to their own ideology.
Lol
Nice histrionics with that last line.
Thing is, that sign is lovely bravado, but when you look at the bulk of recent school shootings (sad that I can write that phrase, isn't it?) it seems like most of the shooters see this as kind of a suicide mission. They don't intend to get out of there alive. They want to shoot as many people as they can before they go out in a blaze of glory. They are prey to the same kind of superhero fantasy as the people who put up these signs.
Thank you for responding to this unsarcastically, I couldn't help myself.
Yes, characterizing these shooters as bullies is definately oversimplifying. Most of what I've read regarding the history of mass shooters and the psychiatric analysis of them suggests that the most common motivation is that they are depressed and suicidal. They've already made the decision to end their life and they either want to be remembered or they're unable to follow through with suicide, much like suicide by cop if you're familiar with the term. This isn't really an argument against concealed carry in schools becasue I don't think acroy has made any real argument for it, just commenting on acroy's oversimplification of reality that makes the answers seem so obvious.
-
As usual, this entire backlash is against inanimate objects and their owners, instead of the actual bad guy.
TX has a program where educators can be (and are) armed. We don't have many school shootings. Attached is the sign outside Argyle HS, close to here. The school my own kids attend is protected by a teacher who has a Remington 870 12ga readily available and knows how to use it. One more way my lovely SAHM DW is awesome.
The solution of course remains: more guns in the right hands.
School shooters are cowards, bullies to the extreme. They have already decided to murder kids. 'Gun Free Zones' and other limitations on PROTECTING THE KIDS merely enable their behavior and are mind-bendingly stupid. Ever faced a bully? They respond very well to the threat of violence against their person.
People lobbying to keep guns out of schools are literally holding child safety hostage to their own ideology.
OK, but the point these arguments fail to assess is you can still do whatever you want to arm the school and remove the capability of easily accessible guns for the average person who is not there protecting the kids in the school. The second amendment is not needed to do what you want. We just would need to create a process that allowed that "protection" to happen.
-
Texas college accidental discharge:
http://www.kxii.com/content/news/Bullet-fired-through-classroom-at-Grayson-College--469653223.html (http://www.kxii.com/content/news/Bullet-fired-through-classroom-at-Grayson-College--469653223.html)
We’re told that the box did not have a lock on it, and that the instructor later left the room, taking the training firearm with him.
“One of the students thought the instrument inside the box was the training instrument so she picked it up,” Brown said.
Would have happened with or without campus carry, as this was a licensed instructor legally allowed to carry before campus carry was enacted. Campus carry does not permit openly carry or showing a gun.
Also, this guy was an idiot leaving a loaded gun outside of his possession.
But sure, try to find anecdotal evidence to prove any point. I care about real statistics.
Researchers are also finding links between right-to-carry laws–which require governments to issue concealed-carry permits to citizens who meet certain requirements–and spikes in firearms crime. A 2017 National Bureau of Economic Research working paper estimates that 10 years after the adoption of right-to-carry laws, violent crime is 13% to 15% higher than it would have been without those policies.
Want to know why it's hard to find evidence ("real statistics")? Read point #5
http://time.com/5209901/gun-violence-america-reduction/
-
Researchers are also finding links between right-to-carry laws–which require governments to issue concealed-carry permits to citizens who meet certain requirements–and spikes in firearms crime. A 2017 National Bureau of Economic Research working paper estimates that 10 years after the adoption of right-to-carry laws, violent crime is 13% to 15% higher than it would have been without those policies.
Want to know why it's hard to find evidence ("real statistics")? Read point #5
http://time.com/5209901/gun-violence-america-reduction/
Link to the actual study?
For a forum that mocks crystal-ball market analysis, "violent crime is 13% to 15% higher than it would have been..." is awfully crystal-ball-ee.
;)
-
Researchers are also finding links between right-to-carry laws–which require governments to issue concealed-carry permits to citizens who meet certain requirements–and spikes in firearms crime. A 2017 National Bureau of Economic Research working paper estimates that 10 years after the adoption of right-to-carry laws, violent crime is 13% to 15% higher than it would have been without those policies.
Want to know why it's hard to find evidence ("real statistics")? Read point #5
http://time.com/5209901/gun-violence-america-reduction/
Link to the actual study?
For a forum that mocks crystal-ball market analysis, "violent crime is 13% to 15% higher than it would have been..." is awfully crystal-ball-ee.
;)
I didn't write the article. If I find a link I'll post it. For a guy who claims he wants to actually understand but won't take the effort to find it for himself.
-
Researchers are also finding links between right-to-carry laws–which require governments to issue concealed-carry permits to citizens who meet certain requirements–and spikes in firearms crime. A 2017 National Bureau of Economic Research working paper estimates that 10 years after the adoption of right-to-carry laws, violent crime is 13% to 15% higher than it would have been without those policies.
Want to know why it's hard to find evidence ("real statistics")? Read point #5
http://time.com/5209901/gun-violence-america-reduction/
Link to the actual study?
For a forum that mocks crystal-ball market analysis, "violent crime is 13% to 15% higher than it would have been..." is awfully crystal-ball-ee.
;)
Here you go buddy. Took about 15 seconds of work to find.
http://nber.org/papers/w23510
You do have to pay $5 if you care to understand the details. I'm not going to pay that for you.
-
Texas college accidental discharge:
http://www.kxii.com/content/news/Bullet-fired-through-classroom-at-Grayson-College--469653223.html (http://www.kxii.com/content/news/Bullet-fired-through-classroom-at-Grayson-College--469653223.html)
We’re told that the box did not have a lock on it, and that the instructor later left the room, taking the training firearm with him.
“One of the students thought the instrument inside the box was the training instrument so she picked it up,” Brown said.
Would have happened with or without campus carry, as this was a licensed instructor legally allowed to carry before campus carry was enacted. Campus carry does not permit openly carry or showing a gun.
Also, this guy was an idiot leaving a loaded gun outside of his possession.
But sure, try to find anecdotal evidence to prove any point. I care about real statistics.
Utah accidental discharge of firearm by elementary school teacher:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/utah-teacher-hurt-when-gun-accidently-shatters-toilet-n201256 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/utah-teacher-hurt-when-gun-accidently-shatters-toilet-n201256)
Understandable, as it was in a restroom which is, by nature, the only place a teacher should be handling their firearm instead of leaving it secured on their person. I get how it happened... But one out of thousands of teachers carrying for 5+ years hardly proves a point. Actually, it proves that accidents are extremely rare, as evidenced by how rapidly and ferociously the news jumped on that story (if there were many such incidents, the news would be shouting it from the rooftops).
I didn't comment on either accidental firearm discharge in a school. I was just pointing out that your comment:
Shhhhh... Don't mention that Texas has been doing it for 5 years and Utah for about 8 years with no problems whatsoever.
doesn't stand up to 5 seconds of googling.
-
Serious question here:
Back when the Republican Softball team was shot up, the immediate Republican response was that DC should have reciprocal carry laws with other states and that they should allow open carry (everywhere except on Federal land of course, because the Capitol building needs to be secure). But the shooting was in Alexandria VA. Why weren't these guys wearing their guns on the baseball uniforms? How would open carry or relaxed gun laws have helped?
Not-so-serious question: Am I supposed to wear a holster when I go swimming too?
-
Serious question here:
Back when the Republican Softball team was shot up, the immediate Republican response was that DC should have reciprocal carry laws with other states and that they should allow open carry (everywhere except on Federal land of course, because the Capitol building needs to be secure). But the shooting was in Alexandria VA. Why weren't these guys wearing their guns on the baseball uniforms? How would open carry or relaxed gun laws have helped?
Not-so-serious question: Am I supposed to wear a holster when I go swimming too?
Considering they (presumably) came directly out of DC and there is no "Castle Law" (IE- no guns in your car), they would have been illegally transporting their firearms. Most who have CCW licenses most likely leave the gun at home when they go to DC as they can't have it or use it in any meaningful way without risking getting arrested.
They wouldn't have had it on while on the field, sure, but in a bag or close by while on the benches could have helped.
Or do you think guns magically re-appear when you cross state lines after staying in DC?
-
My understanding (and you can correct me if I'm wrong), but the latest NRA/Republican pro-gun bill passed allows concealed carry across state lines doesn't it?
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/07/569025720/house-passes-bill-to-allow-concealed-carry-across-state-lines
-
My understanding (and you can correct me if I'm wrong), but the latest NRA/Republican pro-gun bill passed allows concealed carry across state lines doesn't it?
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/07/569025720/house-passes-bill-to-allow-concealed-carry-across-state-lines
Yes but it has to go through he Senate and the POTUS to become law.
BlueHouse's comment is regarding a past event that can be read about here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_shooting (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_shooting)
-
Serious question here:
Back when the Republican Softball team was shot up, the immediate Republican response was that DC should have reciprocal carry laws with other states and that they should allow open carry (everywhere except on Federal land of course, because the Capitol building needs to be secure). But the shooting was in Alexandria VA. Why weren't these guys wearing their guns on the baseball uniforms? How would open carry or relaxed gun laws have helped?
Not-so-serious question: Am I supposed to wear a holster when I go swimming too?
Considering they (presumably) came directly out of DC and there is no "Castle Law" (IE- no guns in your car), they would have been illegally transporting their firearms. Most who have CCW licenses most likely leave the gun at home when they go to DC as they can't have it or use it in any meaningful way without risking getting arrested.
They wouldn't have had it on while on the field, sure, but in a bag or close by while on the benches could have helped.
Or do you think guns magically re-appear when you cross state lines after staying in DC?
Edit to add: I'm glad you made this comment because I hadn't scrubbed up on DC local laws in a while. It appears that DC does now issue licenses due to Heller and does allow firearms through a fairly stringent licensing process (just to own); BUT It appears there is no permitting process for someone who is not a DC resident. In other words, to lawfully obtain, store or carry in your place of residence, you have to be a DC resident. To get a CHL (or equivalent) you have to be a DC resident.
I'm betting (among other things) their constituents may not look favorably on their representative no longer being a "resident" of the home area. Not to mention there are probably outdated crappy election laws out there that require no external residence status or something similar.
I can see several reasons they wouldn't be able to carry or possess within DC.
Also interesting: It appears the counter-barrage of gunfire from the capitol police who were present (and there were only 4 the way I read it) was able to deter the gunman until more LEOs could arrive. In other words, 4 people legally carrying guns stopped a mass shooter who had the advantages of (1) a rifle, (2) position, (3) cover (presumably), and (4) mental preparation. It is reasonable to assume that had the capitol police not been there but, lets say 8 representatives did posses their firearms and could access them, the result would have been similar. If no capitol police had been there and no representatives had their firearm, the deaths probably would have stacked up quickly...
Any opinions on that?
-
Serious question here:
Back when the Republican Softball team was shot up, the immediate Republican response was that DC should have reciprocal carry laws with other states and that they should allow open carry (everywhere except on Federal land of course, because the Capitol building needs to be secure). But the shooting was in Alexandria VA. Why weren't these guys wearing their guns on the baseball uniforms? How would open carry or relaxed gun laws have helped?
Not-so-serious question: Am I supposed to wear a holster when I go swimming too?
Wouldn't the Republican softball team travel with some sort of armed security? If so, then their weapons did not deter the shooter...
-
Also interesting: It appears the counter-barrage of gunfire from the capitol police who were present (and there were only 4 the way I read it) was able to deter the gunman until more LEOs could arrive. In other words, 4 people legally carrying guns stopped a mass shooter who had the advantages of (1) a rifle, (2) position, (3) cover (presumably), and (4) mental preparation. It is reasonable to assume that had the capitol police not been there but, lets say 8 representatives did posses their firearms and could access them, the result would have been similar. If no capitol police had been there and no representatives had their firearm, the deaths probably would have stacked up quickly...
Any opinions on that?
Yeah. You believe that Capitol police have completely useless training? Or at least so useless that they are no more effective at stopping a gunman than some random members of congress who own guns? That's what your 'reasonable assumption' seems to stem from.
-
If random people carrying guns is supposed to be better than armed police, we really need to beef up our LEO training....
-
If random people carrying guns is supposed to be better than armed police, we really need to beef up our LEO training....
No the whole pro-gun viewpoint is not based on that being better. It is the fact that not knowing who might have one acts as a deterrent through fear and intimidation. Real solid position and why I find it totally contrary to any rational viewpoint I care to hold. Living in a society that is "safe" because we are all afraid of each other sounds really sucky.
-
Also interesting: It appears the counter-barrage of gunfire from the capitol police who were present (and there were only 4 the way I read it) was able to deter the gunman until more LEOs could arrive. In other words, 4 people legally carrying guns stopped a mass shooter who had the advantages of (1) a rifle, (2) position, (3) cover (presumably), and (4) mental preparation. It is reasonable to assume that had the capitol police not been there but, lets say 8 representatives did posses their firearms and could access them, the result would have been similar. If no capitol police had been there and no representatives had their firearm, the deaths probably would have stacked up quickly...
Any opinions on that?
Yeah. You believe that Capitol police have completely useless training? Or at least so useless that they are no more effective at stopping a gunman than some random members of congress who own guns? That's what your 'reasonable assumption' seems to stem from.
Wow... That straw man came up fast.
No, I'm saying that if (8) reps had been able to have their firearms nearby, then maybe their suppressive fire would have been similar to the (4) Capitol Police that were present. Namely (8) representatives that would have not been on the field and as such could have gotten to their firearms very quickly. As in, the numbers would have helped balance out the training. Considering the goal at that point in time was suppressive fire until more assistance could arrive, it is feasible that more firearms (lets say 8) would have benefited a lack of training the LEOs go through.
Serious question here:
Back when the Republican Softball team was shot up, the immediate Republican response was that DC should have reciprocal carry laws with other states and that they should allow open carry (everywhere except on Federal land of course, because the Capitol building needs to be secure). But the shooting was in Alexandria VA. Why weren't these guys wearing their guns on the baseball uniforms? How would open carry or relaxed gun laws have helped?
Not-so-serious question: Am I supposed to wear a holster when I go swimming too?
Wouldn't the Republican softball team travel with some sort of armed security? If so, then their weapons did not deter the shooter...
Actually, no. The only reason they had capitol police on site is because the Majority Whip (leadership position in Congress) was present at the practice. Rank and file representatives do not get security details. As an example, the nearby Democratic practice did not have capitol police on site and could have been much worse as well.
It is quite possible that the shooter was unaware that security would be present. Logically speaking, I wouldn't expect LEO's armed with pistols to put up such a good defense against a rifle and some distance, but it appears he was rather close to the field as opposed to using distance as a tactical advantage. Kuddos to the capitol police for responding so well.
It still doesn't change my point that armed resistance to a mass shooter saved lives and we were lucky that capitol police were already on site and responded so well, since the representatives appear to have been disarmed by DC laws.
-
First, I just want to correct the statement about the fairly stringent licensing process: If you're referring to the registration process, it's extremely easy to register a firearm in Dc. I've done it 3 times now, most recently a week ago. The process is: Fill out a form. Provide a serial number, make, model. Pay $13.00. That's it. When I registered the first time, I did have to be fingerprinted and they do a routine background check, but they keep those on file and didn't bother looking again 2 or 3 years after I registered the first one. I don't know if you consider that stringent, but it took me about 8 minutes total, so I thought it was pretty easy.
Second, members of Congress ARE allowed to keep loaded firearms in their offices, but they have to unload if they're walking around on the capitol grounds. They can also transport over to Virginia with rules similar to any state if you don't have a carry permit. Unload and secure it until you get to your destination.
Finally, many members of Congress (most Republicans) have their local residence in Virginia (it's so much more red than DC). So they may have been coming directly from home to the ballfield, in which case, they wouldn't have even had to secure their guns. It could have been on the passenger seat or the dashboard or in a holster. Mo Brooks, who repeatedly brags about his concealed weapons permits, did not have his gun on him. Why not?
Bottom line: I'm not buying that there was any restriction for any of these guys to have their weapons on them. I think it was just a matter of practicality: who wants to carry a gun on a baseball uniform? Or a school trip? Or in your Sunday best to church? Or on a day to school? or to a concert? Or the shopping mall? What I'm saying is: why should everyone have to be armed to protect against a rare-event when a gun-nut goes crazy and shoots? Why not just keep guns out of the hands of nuts?
As for the Capitol Police taking down the gunman, that's their job. I'd much rather have fully trained, on-duty police protecting us from a lone gunman than a bunch of octogenarian politicians shooting around thinking they are Rambo.
-
If random people carrying guns is supposed to be better than armed police, we really need to beef up our LEO training....
No the whole pro-gun viewpoint is not based on that being better. It is the fact that not knowing who might have one acts as a deterrent through fear and intimidation. Real solid position and why I find it totally contrary to any rational viewpoint I care to hold. Living in a society that is "safe" because we are all afraid of each other sounds really sucky.
Texas Firearm Ownership Rate: 35,700 per 100,000
Texas Violent Crime Rate: 433.7 per 100,000
California Firearm Ownership Rate: 20,100 per 100,000
California Violent Crime Rate: 444 per 100,000
I'll stay in Texas, thank you.
Sources:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/)
http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf (http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf)
http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/ (http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/)
-
First, I just want to correct the statement about the fairly stringent licensing process: If you're referring to the registration process, it's extremely easy to register a firearm in Dc. I've done it 3 times now, most recently a week ago. The process is: Fill out a form. Provide a serial number, make, model. Pay $13.00. That's it. When I registered the first time, I did have to be fingerprinted and they do a routine background check, but they keep those on file and didn't bother looking again 2 or 3 years after I registered the first one. I don't know if you consider that stringent, but it took me about 8 minutes total, so I thought it was pretty easy.
Good to know, but what about non-residents? That is the point of reciprocal carry.
Second, members of Congress ARE allowed to keep loaded firearms in their offices, but they have to unload if they're walking around on the capitol grounds. They can also transport over to Virginia with rules similar to any state if you don't have a carry permit. Unload and secure it until you get to your destination.
Info on this? I was unaware of that being legal. And considering 'secure it' means a lockbox for the gun and another for ammo, all in the trunk, I could see how it would be a PITA.
Finally, many members of Congress (most Republicans) have their local residence in Virginia (it's so much more red than DC). So they may have been coming directly from home to the ballfield, in which case, they wouldn't have even had to secure their guns. It could have been on the passenger seat or the dashboard or in a holster. Mo Brooks, who repeatedly brags about his concealed weapons permits, did not have his gun on him. Why not?
Good question. If they choose to not carry, that is their choice, but the call for reciprocal carry to me indicates that the lack of legal carry for them in DC had at least some impact in them not having their firearms on them. Another what-if is had the practice been in DC as opposed to Virginia?
Sure its possible (and probable) that the call for reciprocity was a political move at a opportune time (just like both sides have done for decades, including more recently with Florida), but it doesn't nullify the discussion.
Bottom line: I'm not buying that there was any restriction for any of these guys to have their weapons on them. I think it was just a matter of practicality: who wants to carry a gun on a baseball uniform?
As I already said, in the bag would be fine, not needed on the field.
Or a school trip?
Illegal in basically all states
Or in your Sunday best to church?
Myself and about 35 other men carry every Sunday.
Or on a day to school?
Every day that I went to college since campus carry and I had my permit.
or to a concert?
Typically illegal in Texas, but if not I'm carrying.
Or the shopping mall?
Every time.
The point is not if someone chooses not too, its that if you have the legal right to do so, that right cannot be infringed.
What I'm saying is: why should everyone have to be armed to protect against a rare-event when a gun-nut goes crazy and shoots? Why not just keep guns out of the hands of nuts?
Careful who you are calling a gun nut... The guy was a Bernie supporter after all.
As for the Capitol Police taking down the gunman, that's their job. I'd much rather have fully trained, on-duty police protecting us from a lone gunman than a bunch of octogenarian politicians shooting around thinking they are Rambo.
Me too, but if the police aren't there I believe the representatives have the inherent right to self protection as well.
-
People lobbying to keep guns out of schools are literally holding child safety hostage to their own ideology.
And of course more guns is the answer, why have we all been wasting our time with pages of debate about the pros and cons of arming teachers. A chicken in every pot and a Glock on every teacher. MAGA.
Good, I'm glad you get it. You may be intending snark, but you state the truth. Debate is a waste of time. All valuable people and things in this world, with the sick exception of our children, are protected by guns. If on Thursday March 29th 2018 every teacher started carrying a Glock to school and knew how to use it, today March 28th 2018 would have been the last opportunity for a school mass murder. That's it, done, gone, finis, nada, zip, never happening again.
If random people carrying guns is supposed to be better than armed police, we really need to beef up our LEO training....
Think about what you just said. If you intend to commit harm, which would you rather:
- armed good guys only in easily distinguishable uniforms driving flashy cars
- armed good guys scattered amongst the citizenry, no way to tell who is ready to pop you in the face and who is not
Common misconception is that LEOs protect. Bullshit. They react. The crime is in process or complete when 911 is called. The Thin Blue Line uses the phrase 'Protect and Serve' to keep the sheep feeling safe. In reality they 'Clean Up and Chase the Baddie'. Not to disparage the LEOs by any means, but this is the truth, and they will tell you so.
-
How brainwashed do you have to be to think that the answer to the problem of too much gun violence is more guns? It's probably the most ridiculous assertion that I can think of. Anyone who thinks arming teachers (against their own wishes (https://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2018/03/22/595648318/poll-most-u-s-teachers-want-gun-control-not-guns-to-carry), mind you) will actually decrease school violence has lost all manner of common sense.
just 1 in 5 teachers agreed that arming teachers and staff members would make schools safer.
When 80% of teachers think this is a bad idea and won't make schools safer, maybe it's time for you to listen to them.
-
Good, I'm glad you get it. You may be intending snark, but you state the truth. Debate is a waste of time. All valuable people and things in this world, with the sick exception of our children, are protected by guns. If on Thursday March 29th 2018 every teacher started carrying a Glock to school and knew how to use it, today March 28th 2018 would have been the last opportunity for a school mass murder. That's it, done, gone, finis, nada, zip, never happening again.
All except the "death by cops" folks who still want to go out in a blaze of gunfire. These types of folks like to shoot it out with cops every once in a while don't they? They plan to die so they don't care who is armed as long as they, the bad guy gets to pop off a few rounds / murder a few people before they the bad guy dies. Personally I categorize most if not all school shooters as this type. They have to know that their chance of going to jail instead of the morgue is pretty small.
-
Good, I'm glad you get it. You may be intending snark, but you state the truth. Debate is a waste of time. All valuable people and things in this world, with the sick exception of our children, are protected by guns. If on Thursday March 29th 2018 every teacher started carrying a Glock to school and knew how to use it, today March 28th 2018 would have been the last opportunity for a school mass murder. That's it, done, gone, finis, nada, zip, never happening again.
All except the "death by cops" folks who still want to go out in a blaze of gunfire. These types of folks like to shoot it out with cops every once in a while don't they? They plan to die so they don't care who is armed as long as they, the bad guy gets to pop off a few rounds / murder a few people before they the bad guy dies. Personally I categorize most if not all school shooters as this type. They have to know that their chance of going to jail instead of the morgue is pretty small.
Yep. And not to mention that the stated goal of the March (to bring this back around to the topic at hand) is not just about ending school shootings. It's about gun regulations that would reduce all gun violence and while this was prompted by a school shooting, we all know that the preposterous levels of gun violence in this country are not mostly attributable to mass shootings. We don't just want to end mass shootings (at schools or not), we want to have anywhere near the levels of gun violence they have in any other industrialized country, from "gun-toting" countries like Israel and Switzerland to countries that are less so, like Australia and the UK. They all have something in common, besides their vastly lower levels of gun violence - gun regulation.
Also, no not "all valuable people and things in this world...are protected by guns." See again every other country, for a start.
-
The problem with more guns is it still does not address the desire of the nutters to kill people - especially children. If they can't have a gun they'll go for mail bombs or booby traps or arson.
We still aren't addressing the root of the problems with more guns. No single cause, no single answer. A healthier society and a sense of community might be a good start. Teaching our kids to respect each other, avoid socially isolating the "different" kids, and get to know our neighbors. A better effort to make our society better places to live would go a long way. Improve people's quality of life. Instead we have people struggling along with no end in sight for their troubles. Things always getting worse (real or not) than better.
I think the ACA was a BIG step in that direction. Of course the GOP has endlessly tried to kill it rather than improve it. Tough to get help for one's woes when healthcare access is so damn complicated.
-
I prefer an AR-15 because it is the home defense weapon I feel most comfortable using due my military experience. Confidence in your ability to use a weapon is very important during stressful situations.
Ehh, why stop there then if applying that logic? How about an MP3, or an M249!
You are being ridiculous, or you know nothing about guns (which is pretty common among the "ban" crowd).
[MOD NOTE: Manners, please. If you can't keep your tone civil, these threads will be shut down.]
An AR-15 is a civilian weapon, with no more killing capacity than many common (and rather ancient) hunting or ranch rifles.
The AR-15 LOOKS like a military weapon. It does not have the capability of one. It's a simple "one trigger squeeze, one shot" weapon like any other old semi-auto ranch rifle.
You hand an AR-15 to a soldier and tell him he has to go into battle with that thing, and he's going to look at you like you've lost your mind.
I simply prefer the AR-15 to something like a relatively harmless looking Ruger Mini-14 ranch rifle because I am more familiar with the weapon.
Not "scary" and therefore "okay?":
(https://ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/images/5801.jpg)
Scary! Ban it!
(https://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/images/84704_1.jpg)
Actually, in this case, the "non-scary" rifle is more dangerous than the "scary" AR-15. It has more "scary black plastic" on it, but is actually chambered for a less lethal round.
-
As usual, this entire backlash is against inanimate objects and their owners, instead of the actual bad guy.
Yup, they always demonize the tens of millions of decent, upstanding citizens who have never done anything wrong, rather than proposing something that will stop the nutjobs who want to commit acts of violence.
Then they wonder why people like us resist their agenda.
Propose something rational, that might reduce the violence, without demonizing the millions of good people who own guns, and we can talk.
Come at me like I've done something wrong just because I own a rifle, and you won't get cooperation.
And that's why this "movement" will fail, because it's demonizing decent folks, just like they always do...
-
The other thing I always find amusing about these "protests".
Rather than reducing the number of guns, they always result in a RISE IN GUN SALES.
Gun and ammo makers in the USA were dying with Trump in office. After Barack Obama (the best gun salesman in the history of the world-every time he'd rant about guns, sales would skyrocket) left, people stopped worrying about "bans" and gun sales tanked. Remington (bankruptcy reorganization) and others were on the ropes financially.
With the FL shooting, and all the "ban guns" protests/hoopla surrounding it, and Trump (sometimes) talking about more laws, gun sales are shooting up again.
-
Yup, they always demonize the tens of millions of decent, upstanding citizens who have never done anything wrong, rather than proposing something that will stop the nutjobs who want to commit acts of violence.
Look, there are nutjobs everywhere. America doesn't have a corner on the nutjob market. But we do have a corner on the gun violence market. So blaming nutjobs, who are everywhere, for something that only happens in America, is only gonna be partially helpful at best. I mean, I don't want to NOT do something about nutjobs, but also, we clearly have a problem that other countries don't have. And it's because we don't have good gun regulations, not because every other country somehow escaped the scourge of having nutjobs.
-
Texas Firearm Ownership Rate: 35,700 per 100,000
Texas Violent Crime Rate: 433.7 per 100,000
California Firearm Ownership Rate: 20,100 per 100,000
California Violent Crime Rate: 2,545 per 100,000
I'll stay in Texas, thank you.
Sources:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/)
http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf (http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf)
http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/ (http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/)
It looks like you may have misread property crimes in CA as violent crimes.
Here are the latest figures I could find for violent crimes/100,000 people. In parentheses are the murder rates per 100,000 people. I added my home state, NY, out of curiosity... NY rates of gun ownership are 10.3% (10,300 per 100,000 people).
2016 California: 445.3 (4.9) Texas: 434.4 (5.3) New York: 376.2 (3.2)
2015 CA: 426.3 (4.8) TX: 412.2 (4.8) NY: 379.7 (3.1)
2014 CA: 396.1 (4.4) TX: 405.9 (4.4) NY: 381.8 (3.1)
2013 CA: 402.1 (4.6) TX: 408.3 (4.3) NY:393.7 (3.3)
2012 CA: 423.1 (5.0) TX: 408.6 (4.4) NY: 406.8 (3.5)
source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-3
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-5
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-5
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/5tabledatadecpdf/table_5_crime_in_the_united_states_by_state_2013.xls
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/5tabledatadecpdf/table_5_crime_in_the_united_states_by_state_2012.xls
Also, for a different source
2007 California: 523 Texas: 511 New York: 414
source: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2009/compendia/statab/129ed/rankings.html
Population sizes in 2016 were:
CA: 38,041,430
TX: 26,059,203
NY: 19,570,261
And population densities are, per square mile (from Wikipedia, got lazy)
CA: 251
TX: 105
NY: 420
Median incomes (2015, Wikipedia)
CA: $64,500
TX: $55,653
NY: $60,850
Your point does not hold.
-
Yup, they always demonize the tens of millions of decent, upstanding citizens who have never done anything wrong, rather than proposing something that will stop the nutjobs who want to commit acts of violence.
Look, there are nutjobs everywhere. America doesn't have a corner on the nutjob market. But we do have a corner on the gun violence market. So blaming nutjobs, who are everywhere, for something that only happens in America, is only gonna be partially helpful at best. I mean, I don't want to NOT do something about nutjobs, but also, we clearly have a problem that other countries don't have. And it's because we don't have good gun regulations, not because every other country somehow escaped the scourge of having nutjobs.
You are right, to a degree. They took away guns in places like Britain and France, so over there, the nutjobs prefer ramming vehicles into crowds. Sometimes they follow the ramming with a little wetwork with a knife.
I'm not sure getting the nuts to drive a truck into a crowd is necessarily a great solution to the problem.
Mostly because I own a truck, too, and it would only be a matter of days before someone would be calling for a ban on trucks...
-
Yup, they always demonize the tens of millions of decent, upstanding citizens who have never done anything wrong, rather than proposing something that will stop the nutjobs who want to commit acts of violence.
Look, there are nutjobs everywhere. America doesn't have a corner on the nutjob market. But we do have a corner on the gun violence market. So blaming nutjobs, who are everywhere, for something that only happens in America, is only gonna be partially helpful at best. I mean, I don't want to NOT do something about nutjobs, but also, we clearly have a problem that other countries don't have. And it's because we don't have good gun regulations, not because every other country somehow escaped the scourge of having nutjobs.
You are right, to a degree. They took away guns in places like Britain and France, so over there, the nutjobs prefer ramming vehicles into crowds. Sometimes they follow the ramming with a little wetwork with a knife.
I'm not sure getting the nuts to drive a truck into a crowd is necessarily a great solution to the problem.
Mostly because I own a truck, too, and it would only be a matter of days before someone would be calling for a ban on trucks...
This is really misleading. As I said above, the goal of the March is not just to end mass shootings (and of course not to incentivize mass killing through other means). It is to end gun violence. Crime in America is much more violent and deadly than in other countries....because we have guns. Thousands more people die by suicide in America than in other countries...and they die by guns. Domestic violence is more deadly here...because we have guns.
But even so, even if we were just wanting to reduce deadly mass killing events, I invite you to show me statistics that show that they've had as many deaths by truck (or analogy) as we have by mass shootings. I'll bet it's not even close. Because we've heard all the stories of trucks being driven into crowds, and it's tragic and I definitely want it to stop. But we don't even hear of all the shootings anymore...it happens so often. We're inured to it. There is simply no comparing a few trucks driven into crowds to the thousands and thousands of deaths in mass shootings in this country.
So yeah, like I said, I don't want to do *nothing* about nutjobs, but it's pretty clear that nutjobs in those countries are a lot less dangerous and deadly than in this one.
-
I prefer an AR-15 because it is the home defense weapon I feel most comfortable using due my military experience. Confidence in your ability to use a weapon is very important during stressful situations.
Ehh, why stop there then if applying that logic? How about an MP3, or an M249!
You are being ridiculous, or you know nothing about guns (which is pretty common among the "ban" crowd).
No one needs to be an expert to know that they don't want to be mowed down in a hail of gunfire by a mad man. The idea that every man, woman, or child needs to be an expert on firearms in order to have an opinion on not dying from them is a logical fallacy.
-
Good, I'm glad you get it. You may be intending snark, but you state the truth. Debate is a waste of time. All valuable people and things in this world, with the sick exception of our children, are protected by guns. If on Thursday March 29th 2018 every teacher started carrying a Glock to school and knew how to use it, today March 28th 2018 would have been the last opportunity for a school mass murder. That's it, done, gone, finis, nada, zip, never happening again.
I can't tell if this is facetious or not. I hope so.
I was not particularly athletic in high school but I'm pretty sure I could have overpowered and disarmed more than half of my teachers if I wanted to. So now we're also training them in weapons retention, hand to hand combat, and use of force rules that dictate when they're allowed to use deadly force to defend themselves from their angriest, most impulsive students? To say nothing of the accidents and poor judgement that inevitably accompany gun ownership (in the aggregate)? Or the horrific mistakes that will happen when school shooting incidents always involve dozens of non-uniformed people running around holding weapons? When you're talking about 130,000 schools with an untold number of classrooms you would really just be trading a blessedly rare tragedy for a steady drip of injury and death that would inevitably result in a net loss of life. Your idea would kill more people.
Of course it's purely hypothetical anyways since 80% of the teachers would immediately quit and the schools would be closed anyways because they're uninsurable, but yeah, it's the people interested in slightly better gun control laws that are being irrational...
Part of the solution will almost certainly be to increase police presence in schools. Maybe even a limited number of undercover "school marshals". But the belief you can blindly add guns to any situation and always expect a DECREASE in deaths is pure fantasy. Guns are not magic.
(Standard disclaimer: I have guns and a CCW)
-
This is really misleading. As I said above, the goal of the March is not just to end mass shootings (and of course not to incentivize mass killing through other means). It is to end gun violence. Crime in America is much more violent and deadly than in other countries....because we have guns. Thousands more people die by suicide in America than in other countries...and they die by guns. Domestic violence is more deadly here...because we have guns.
Since suicide rates are frequently quoted in an attempt to promote gun control, I think it's pretty important to point out that our suicide rate is not significantly higher (or even lower) than many countries. Japan (no guns) 15.4/ US 12.6 / Austria 11.7/ Canada 10.4 / Australia 10.4. Unfortunately in the absence of firearms, people use other means to kill themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
-
This is really misleading. As I said above, the goal of the March is not just to end mass shootings (and of course not to incentivize mass killing through other means). It is to end gun violence. Crime in America is much more violent and deadly than in other countries....because we have guns. Thousands more people die by suicide in America than in other countries...and they die by guns. Domestic violence is more deadly here...because we have guns.
Since suicide rates are frequently quoted in an attempt to promote gun control, I think it's pretty important to point out that our suicide rate is not significantly higher (or even lower) than many countries. Japan (no guns) 15.4/ US 12.6 / Austria 11.7/ Canada 10.4 / Australia 10.4. Unfortunately in the absence of firearms, people use other means to kill themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/wonkblog/suicide-rates/
and "Differences in overall suicide rates across cities, states and regions in the United States are best explained not by differences in mental health, suicide ideation, or even suicide attempts, but by availability of firearms,"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries/
-
I prefer an AR-15 because it is the home defense weapon I feel most comfortable using due my military experience. Confidence in your ability to use a weapon is very important during stressful situations.
Ehh, why stop there then if applying that logic? How about an MP3, or an M249!
You are being ridiculous, or you know nothing about guns (which is pretty common among the "ban" crowd).
An AR-15 is a civilian weapon, with no more killing capacity than many common (and rather ancient) hunting or ranch rifles.
The AR-15 LOOKS like a military weapon. It does not have the capability of one. It's a simple "one trigger squeeze, one shot" weapon like any other old semi-auto ranch rifle.
You hand an AR-15 to a soldier and tell him he has to go into battle with that thing, and he's going to look at you like you've lost your mind.
I simply prefer the AR-15 to something like a relatively harmless looking Ruger Mini-14 ranch rifle because I am more familiar with the weapon.
Not "scary" and therefore "okay?":
(https://ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/images/5801.jpg)
Scary! Ban it!
(https://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/images/84704_1.jpg)
Actually, in this case, the "non-scary" rifle is more dangerous than the "scary" AR-15.
This is a rather disingenuous argument.
The AR-15 you've pictured has a pistol grip and retractable stock (both of which make it easier to use and maneuver in close quarters), a flash suppressor (makes it easier to shoot multiple rounds accurately in low light situations, makes it harder to locate a shooter), and a beveled magazine well (which aids in quickly re-loading). Sure, it's not fully automatic . . . but all you would need to do is upgrade it with a bump stock to legally make it so (something not possible to do with the Ruger). As a (apparently knowledgeable) gun owner, why don't you know any of this? If you do know it, why are you arguing that these are all cosmetic features that do not increase the effectiveness of the weapon?
It has more "scary black plastic" on it, but is actually chambered for a less lethal round.
The AR15 is capable of firing the same rounds (5.56 NATO) as the Ruger you displayed. At least according to the websites you took the images from:
https://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/79557/Core+15+100278+M4+Rifle+30%2B1+223REM%2F5.56NATO+16 (https://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/products_id/79557/Core+15+100278+M4+Rifle+30%2B1+223REM%2F5.56NATO+16)
https://ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/specSheets/5801.html (https://ruger.com/products/mini14RanchRifle/specSheets/5801.html)
Did you not know this?
-
This is really misleading. As I said above, the goal of the March is not just to end mass shootings (and of course not to incentivize mass killing through other means). It is to end gun violence. Crime in America is much more violent and deadly than in other countries....because we have guns. Thousands more people die by suicide in America than in other countries...and they die by guns. Domestic violence is more deadly here...because we have guns.
Since suicide rates are frequently quoted in an attempt to promote gun control, I think it's pretty important to point out that our suicide rate is not significantly higher (or even lower) than many countries. Japan (no guns) 15.4/ US 12.6 / Austria 11.7/ Canada 10.4 / Australia 10.4. Unfortunately in the absence of firearms, people use other means to kill themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/wonkblog/suicide-rates/
and "Differences in overall suicide rates across cities, states and regions in the United States are best explained not by differences in mental health, suicide ideation, or even suicide attempts, but by availability of firearms,"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries/
The washington post is behind a paywall.
Regarding the CBS article, it's pretty slanted, but even that acknowledges -
"the United States' suicide rate is similar to other countries, ."
Yes, people in the US tend to kill each other with guns and kill themselves with guns more often than other countries. However, our suicide rate is very similar to other first world countries.
In addition, our murder rate is 3-5x higher than that of other countries not 25x as the article would initially lead you to believe. Do guns contribute to that - to a some extent. There are other factors in play. For instance african americans tend to kill (typically other african americans at a much higher rate). I think poverty and the drug war contribute to that much more than guns. You solve that one and our murder rate drops significantly.
-
This is really misleading. As I said above, the goal of the March is not just to end mass shootings (and of course not to incentivize mass killing through other means). It is to end gun violence. Crime in America is much more violent and deadly than in other countries....because we have guns. Thousands more people die by suicide in America than in other countries...and they die by guns. Domestic violence is more deadly here...because we have guns.
Since suicide rates are frequently quoted in an attempt to promote gun control, I think it's pretty important to point out that our suicide rate is not significantly higher (or even lower) than many countries. Japan (no guns) 15.4/ US 12.6 / Austria 11.7/ Canada 10.4 / Australia 10.4. Unfortunately in the absence of firearms, people use other means to kill themselves.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/wonkblog/suicide-rates/
and "Differences in overall suicide rates across cities, states and regions in the United States are best explained not by differences in mental health, suicide ideation, or even suicide attempts, but by availability of firearms,"
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-u-s-gun-deaths-compare-to-other-countries/
The washington post is behind a paywall.
Regarding the CBS article, it's pretty slanted, but even that acknowledges -
"the United States' suicide rate is similar to other countries, ."
Yes, people in the US tend to kill each other with guns and kill themselves with guns more often than other countries. However, our suicide rate is very similar to other first world countries.
In addition, our murder rate is 3-5x higher than that of other countries not 25x as the article would initially lead you to believe. Do guns contribute to that - to a some extent. There are other factors in play. For instance african americans tend to kill (typically other african americans at a much higher rate). I think poverty and the drug war contribute to that much more than guns. You solve that one and our murder rate drops significantly.
I don't subscribe and I had no problem accessing it. It's all an interesting read, so I hate to pick out just parts, but it compares suicide in America to other countries (while the rate may not be significantly different, it's accelerating much faster in America) and the study estimates that suicide in America would decrease by 20-38% with more limited firearms availability. Another point: "One 2006 study found that from the 1980s to the 2000s, every 10 percent decline in gun ownership in a census region accompanied a 2.5 percent drop in suicide rates. There are numerous other studies that show similar results."
-
Last year, a study found that rankings of states by gun ownership were linked to overall (not just firearm) suicides from 1983 to 2013. So this contradicts arguments that people will just find another means of killing themselves.
Our findings also add to the evidence that higher gun ownership is associated with higher overall suicide rates among male persons. Based on our model, if gun ownership in Wyoming were at the average for all states (41.0%) instead of at 72.8%, the overall male suicide rate in Wyoming would be lower by 5.7 per 100 000 among male persons (a 16% decline). Unlike a number of previous studies,7,9,10,24,25 we did not find a relationship between gun ownership and overall suicide rates among female persons. Because of these conflicting results, this issue warrants further study.
They speculate that this pattern is seen in men but not women because of higher impulsiveness in men than women. Various countries have found that removing access to a fast lethal means of suicide, lowers suicide rates.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4984734/
-
I've never killed anyone and I hope never to have to. But I do believe that there's a emotional and mental difference between killing someone with your hands or a knife than with a gun.
If you kill someone with a knife, you're most likely going to have blood on you. There's an emotional reaction to touching blood - why else would people get squeamish at a minor cut? This serves as a deterrent. Not a perfect one of course.
If you kill someone with your hands - choke them, etc, there's much less likely to be blood but there's still very potent physical sensations. Again, emotional reaction. Again, this will serve as a deterrent.
Guns are different. You can shoot and kill from a distance, sometimes a very large distance. The potential for the emotional response is quite a bit less, and it's possible to have no response. Thus, much lower or no deterrent.
Now, consider accidents.
Knife - absolutely can kill you in an accident, but unless you're running and trip, there's a much higher chance of a knife accident resulting in a minor injury. Even in a stab accident, there's a pretty decent chance that it's not going to kill you.
Hands - depending on skill level, it's pretty hard to kill with hands. If you punch someone, they're getting bruised. Much less likely to die.
Guns - yeah, can injure, but it really depends on where you get shot. It's much easier to accidentally kill with a gun.
Incidentally, if you look historically, you can start to see changes in war once guns were introduced.
------
Ideally, here's what I want:
1. universal background checks every time you buy a gun.
2. registry of guns and who owns them. Federal level would be best, but state is better than none.
3. Automatic cross reference between the registries and individuals involved in violent crimes, domestic violence incidents, have a mental illness/emotional instability that makes them prone to violence. Basically, identify people who have been or reasonably could be a threat to others and figure out who's got guns.
4. no magazines (or whatever holds the bullets) which can hold more than 10 bullets.
5. no guns that allow you to fire multiple bullets without depressing the trigger each time. That might be automatic?
6. If you fall into one or more of the categories in #3, then you can't buy guns and have to give up any guns you own (with fair market value compensation)
7. requirement that to have a gun, you also have to have gun safe and the gun must be properly secured in it.
8. buy back programs for unwanted/damaged/confiscated guns, then they're destroyed.
9. minimum age to buy a gun and a minimum age to own a gun. say 21.
I think that this would go a long way to preventing accidents and overall reducing the number of "problem" guns (ie, the ones involved in shootings, etc) while still allowing responsible people to own guns. I also don't think it's unreasonable. Sure, you have some hoops to jump through, but you're trying to acquire an object capable of killing people. It's not unreasonable to ask that you demonstrate you're not likely to use it for that purpose.
-
Texas Firearm Ownership Rate: 35,700 per 100,000
Texas Violent Crime Rate: 433.7 per 100,000
California Firearm Ownership Rate: 20,100 per 100,000
California Violent Crime Rate: 2,545 per 100,000
I'll stay in Texas, thank you.
Sources:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/)
http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf (http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf)
http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/ (http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/)
It looks like you may have misread property crimes in CA as violent crimes.
Here are the latest figures I could find for violent crimes/100,000 people. In parentheses are the murder rates per 100,000 people. I added my home state, NY, out of curiosity... NY rates of gun ownership are 10.3% (10,300 per 100,000 people).
2016 California: 445.3 (4.9) Texas: 434.4 (5.3) New York: 376.2 (3.2)
2015 CA: 426.3 (4.8) TX: 412.2 (4.8) NY: 379.7 (3.1)
2014 CA: 396.1 (4.4) TX: 405.9 (4.4) NY: 381.8 (3.1)
2013 CA: 402.1 (4.6) TX: 408.3 (4.3) NY:393.7 (3.3)
2012 CA: 423.1 (5.0) TX: 408.6 (4.4) NY: 406.8 (3.5)
source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-3
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-5
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-5
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/5tabledatadecpdf/table_5_crime_in_the_united_states_by_state_2013.xls
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/5tabledatadecpdf/table_5_crime_in_the_united_states_by_state_2012.xls
Also, for a different source
2007 California: 523 Texas: 511 New York: 414
source: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2009/compendia/statab/129ed/rankings.html
Population sizes in 2016 were:
CA: 38,041,430
TX: 26,059,203
NY: 19,570,261
And population densities are, per square mile (from Wikipedia, got lazy)
CA: 251
TX: 105
NY: 420
Median incomes (2015, Wikipedia)
CA: $64,500
TX: $55,653
NY: $60,850
Your point does not hold.
Ohh, you are correct! I have fixed my previous post. Thank you for point out my error in the numbers.
However,... you are saying I am incorrect... Even though violent crime rates are equal... And Texas has 10% higher per capita gun ownership?
I though more guns would = more crime? Is that not the case?
-
People lobbying to keep guns out of schools are literally holding child safety hostage to their own ideology.
And of course more guns is the answer, why have we all been wasting our time with pages of debate about the pros and cons of arming teachers. A chicken in every pot and a Glock on every teacher. MAGA.
Good, I'm glad you get it. You may be intending snark, but you state the truth. Debate is a waste of time. All valuable people and things in this world, with the sick exception of our children, are protected by guns. If on Thursday March 29th 2018 every teacher started carrying a Glock to school and knew how to use it, today March 28th 2018 would have been the last opportunity for a school mass murder. That's it, done, gone, finis, nada, zip, never happening again.
If random people carrying guns is supposed to be better than armed police, we really need to beef up our LEO training....
Think about what you just said. If you intend to commit harm, which would you rather:
- armed good guys only in easily distinguishable uniforms driving flashy cars
- armed good guys scattered amongst the citizenry, no way to tell who is ready to pop you in the face and who is not
Common misconception is that LEOs protect. Bullshit. They react. The crime is in process or complete when 911 is called. The Thin Blue Line uses the phrase 'Protect and Serve' to keep the sheep feeling safe. In reality they 'Clean Up and Chase the Baddie'. Not to disparage the LEOs by any means, but this is the truth, and they will tell you so.
So, basically you're asking me to accept that literally everyone walking around me toting a gun is somehow safer and more trustworthy than cops? Every time I hear this stupid "good guy" line, I realize some people have spent a little too much time watching superhero movies. P.S. What about "good women", or do they just not need to bother with guns because of all those "good guys" sprinkled through the crowd?
-
I prefer an AR-15 because it is the home defense weapon I feel most comfortable using due my military experience. Confidence in your ability to use a weapon is very important during stressful situations.
Ehh, why stop there then if applying that logic? How about an MP3, or an M249!
You are being ridiculous, or you know nothing about guns (which is pretty common among the "ban" crowd).
[Struck by moderation]
Actually those are weapons that I am trained in (and what I would be completely comfortable using) among many others. As well as calling in airstrikes. But obviously when I use the same logic as you, it's ridiculous. It couldn't be that your logic is completely ridiculous as well. Funny how that is.
It's shame what you and a couple other gun nuts have turned this thread into. Your own personal vendetta against those you don't agree with. Those who are simply seeking life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Don't worry, your side is "winning."
[Mod note: Let's keep things civil without the name calling. Thanks.]
-
People lobbying to keep guns out of schools are literally holding child safety hostage to their own ideology.
And of course more guns is the answer, why have we all been wasting our time with pages of debate about the pros and cons of arming teachers. A chicken in every pot and a Glock on every teacher. MAGA.
Good, I'm glad you get it. You may be intending snark, but you state the truth. Debate is a waste of time. All valuable people and things in this world, with the sick exception of our children, are protected by guns. If on Thursday March 29th 2018 every teacher started carrying a Glock to school and knew how to use it, today March 28th 2018 would have been the last opportunity for a school mass murder. That's it, done, gone, finis, nada, zip, never happening again.
If random people carrying guns is supposed to be better than armed police, we really need to beef up our LEO training....
Think about what you just said. If you intend to commit harm, which would you rather:
- armed good guys only in easily distinguishable uniforms driving flashy cars
- armed good guys scattered amongst the citizenry, no way to tell who is ready to pop you in the face and who is not
Common misconception is that LEOs protect. Bullshit. They react. The crime is in process or complete when 911 is called. The Thin Blue Line uses the phrase 'Protect and Serve' to keep the sheep feeling safe. In reality they 'Clean Up and Chase the Baddie'. Not to disparage the LEOs by any means, but this is the truth, and they will tell you so.
So, basically you're asking me to accept that literally everyone walking around me toting a gun is somehow safer and more trustworthy than cops? Every time I hear this stupid "good guy" line, I realize some people have spent a little too much time watching superhero movies. P.S. What about "good women", or do they just not need to bother with guns because of all those "good guys" sprinkled through the crowd?
Statistically, concealed handgun license holders are, infact, safer and more trustworthy than police officers.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/8255/report-concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-most-law-aaron-bandler
Nice touch with the gender straw man though, because "good guy" definitely isn't a generic phrase for any law abiding, stand-up individual.
Going further up in your quote thing... you realize that most people aren't seriously proposing that 100% of teachers carry, right? rather, just to allow those who want to get the training and licensing to carry concealed, to do so. I know it's easier to be outraged by your strawman of arming every teacher, but you're basically the same as the gun-rights people who are worried that someone wants to take all of their guns.
-
People lobbying to keep guns out of schools are literally holding child safety hostage to their own ideology.
And of course more guns is the answer, why have we all been wasting our time with pages of debate about the pros and cons of arming teachers. A chicken in every pot and a Glock on every teacher. MAGA.
Good, I'm glad you get it. You may be intending snark, but you state the truth. Debate is a waste of time. All valuable people and things in this world, with the sick exception of our children, are protected by guns. If on Thursday March 29th 2018 every teacher started carrying a Glock to school and knew how to use it, today March 28th 2018 would have been the last opportunity for a school mass murder. That's it, done, gone, finis, nada, zip, never happening again.
If random people carrying guns is supposed to be better than armed police, we really need to beef up our LEO training....
Think about what you just said. If you intend to commit harm, which would you rather:
- armed good guys only in easily distinguishable uniforms driving flashy cars
- armed good guys scattered amongst the citizenry, no way to tell who is ready to pop you in the face and who is not
Common misconception is that LEOs protect. Bullshit. They react. The crime is in process or complete when 911 is called. The Thin Blue Line uses the phrase 'Protect and Serve' to keep the sheep feeling safe. In reality they 'Clean Up and Chase the Baddie'. Not to disparage the LEOs by any means, but this is the truth, and they will tell you so.
So, basically you're asking me to accept that literally everyone walking around me toting a gun is somehow safer and more trustworthy than cops? Every time I hear this stupid "good guy" line, I realize some people have spent a little too much time watching superhero movies. P.S. What about "good women", or do they just not need to bother with guns because of all those "good guys" sprinkled through the crowd?
Yup.
Report: Concealed Carry Permit Holders Are The Most Law-Abiding People In The Country (https://www.dailywire.com/news/8255/report-concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-most-law-aaron-bandler)
Comparing conviction rates between police and concealed carry permit holders (https://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/comparing-conviction-rates-between-police-and-concealed-carry-permit-holders/)
https://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/LTC/reports/convrates.htm (https://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/LTC/reports/convrates.htm)
-
Good, I'm glad you get it. You may be intending snark, but you state the truth. Debate is a waste of time. All valuable people and things in this world, with the sick exception of our children, are protected by guns. If on Thursday March 29th 2018 every teacher started carrying a Glock to school and knew how to use it, today March 28th 2018 would have been the last opportunity for a school mass murder. That's it, done, gone, finis, nada, zip, never happening again.
All except the "death by cops" folks who still want to go out in a blaze of gunfire. These types of folks like to shoot it out with cops every once in a while don't they? They plan to die so they don't care who is armed as long as they, the bad guy gets to pop off a few rounds / murder a few people before they the bad guy dies. Personally I categorize most if not all school shooters as this type. They have to know that their chance of going to jail instead of the morgue is pretty small.
Yep. And not to mention that the stated goal of the March (to bring this back around to the topic at hand) is not just about ending school shootings. It's about gun regulations that would reduce all gun violence and while this was prompted by a school shooting, we all know that the preposterous levels of gun violence in this country are not mostly attributable to mass shootings. We don't just want to end mass shootings (at schools or not), we want to have anywhere near the levels of gun violence they have in any other industrialized country, from "gun-toting" countries like Israel and Switzerland to countries that are less so, like Australia and the UK. They all have something in common, besides their vastly lower levels of gun violence - gun regulation.
Also, no not "all valuable people and things in this world...are protected by guns." See again every other country, for a start.
Our former Prime Minister protected himself from a knife-wielding home invader with an Inuit carving.
I heard that it was Aline who grabbed the carving! Stories differ. ;-)
-
Those of you who carry concealed, feel free to come north and walk around where no-one will be carrying concealed, and see what it feels like. And don't bother bringing your hand guns, because they are not allowed over the border. Unless you decided to smuggle them of course, but none of you would do that, because you would respect our laws. You can bring other things, but must realize that we have rules.
https://www.thoughtco.com/laws-for-taking-guns-into-canada-3321846 (https://www.thoughtco.com/laws-for-taking-guns-into-canada-3321846)
-
For instance african americans tend to kill (typically other african americans at a much higher rate). I think poverty and the drug war contribute to that much more than guns. You solve that one and our murder rate drops significantly.
THAT! No hope of life getting better. PTSD from living like this too long. Potentially serious psychological problems from being mad at the world for so long and being born into a society that has issues with you simply because of your race.
-
For instance african americans tend to kill (typically other african americans at a much higher rate). I think poverty and the drug war contribute to that much more than guns. You solve that one and our murder rate drops significantly.
THAT! Also help the mentally ill get to a doctor. A little handholding if necessary b/c they might not know who to work the system to get what they need.
As an aside, if the "no gun regulations" folks who point to the mentally ill as the problem, then how come they aren't militating for single-payer so that everyone has access to health care?
-
People lobbying to keep guns out of schools are literally holding child safety hostage to their own ideology.
And of course more guns is the answer, why have we all been wasting our time with pages of debate about the pros and cons of arming teachers. A chicken in every pot and a Glock on every teacher. MAGA.
Good, I'm glad you get it. You may be intending snark, but you state the truth. Debate is a waste of time. All valuable people and things in this world, with the sick exception of our children, are protected by guns. If on Thursday March 29th 2018 every teacher started carrying a Glock to school and knew how to use it, today March 28th 2018 would have been the last opportunity for a school mass murder. That's it, done, gone, finis, nada, zip, never happening again.
If random people carrying guns is supposed to be better than armed police, we really need to beef up our LEO training....
Think about what you just said. If you intend to commit harm, which would you rather:
- armed good guys only in easily distinguishable uniforms driving flashy cars
- armed good guys scattered amongst the citizenry, no way to tell who is ready to pop you in the face and who is not
Common misconception is that LEOs protect. Bullshit. They react. The crime is in process or complete when 911 is called. The Thin Blue Line uses the phrase 'Protect and Serve' to keep the sheep feeling safe. In reality they 'Clean Up and Chase the Baddie'. Not to disparage the LEOs by any means, but this is the truth, and they will tell you so.
So, basically you're asking me to accept that literally everyone walking around me toting a gun is somehow safer and more trustworthy than cops? Every time I hear this stupid "good guy" line, I realize some people have spent a little too much time watching superhero movies. P.S. What about "good women", or do they just not need to bother with guns because of all those "good guys" sprinkled through the crowd?
Yup.
Report: Concealed Carry Permit Holders Are The Most Law-Abiding People In The Country (https://www.dailywire.com/news/8255/report-concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-most-law-aaron-bandler)
Comparing conviction rates between police and concealed carry permit holders (https://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/comparing-conviction-rates-between-police-and-concealed-carry-permit-holders/)
https://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/LTC/reports/convrates.htm (https://www.dps.texas.gov/rsd/LTC/reports/convrates.htm)
It's true that concealed carry permit holders are arrested very rarely. However, the assumption that this makes the states they live in safer is wrong. It has been shown that violent crime has increased at a higher rate in right to carry states than in states with more strict gun control:
https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/ (https://news.stanford.edu/2017/06/21/violent-crime-increases-right-carry-states/)
https://www.thetrace.org/2017/06/good-guys-guns-right-to-carry-laws-crime-rates/ (https://www.thetrace.org/2017/06/good-guys-guns-right-to-carry-laws-crime-rates/)
Even if you accept that concealed carriers are safer and more trustworthy that the cops, there's good reason based on solid evidence to want them limited in your state.
-
Ideally, here's what I want:
1. universal background checks every time you buy a gun.
2. registry of guns and who owns them. Federal level would be best, but state is better than none.
3. Automatic cross reference between the registries and individuals involved in violent crimes, domestic violence incidents, have a mental illness/emotional instability that makes them prone to violence. Basically, identify people who have been or reasonably could be a threat to others and figure out who's got guns.
4. no magazines (or whatever holds the bullets) which can hold more than 10 bullets.
5. no guns that allow you to fire multiple bullets without depressing the trigger each time. That might be automatic?
6. If you fall into one or more of the categories in #3, then you can't buy guns and have to give up any guns you own (with fair market value compensation)
7. requirement that to have a gun, you also have to have gun safe and the gun must be properly secured in it.
8. buy back programs for unwanted/damaged/confiscated guns, then they're destroyed.
9. minimum age to buy a gun and a minimum age to own a gun. say 21.
I think that this would go a long way to preventing accidents and overall reducing the number of "problem" guns (ie, the ones involved in shootings, etc) while still allowing responsible people to own guns. I also don't think it's unreasonable. Sure, you have some hoops to jump through, but you're trying to acquire an object capable of killing people. It's not unreasonable to ask that you demonstrate you're not likely to use it for that purpose.
You make too much sense--and everytiime someone brings up some of these commonsense notions of regulation, they push back like you are trying to ban all guns. Because of this push back, and unwillingness to embrace some of these commonsense notions, I'm starting to fall into the retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens camp....
If we can't agree on gun regulation, perhaps the Second Amendment needs to be repealed....
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/politics/john-paul-stevens-second-amendment/index.html
But, before I go there, I'm going to do my best to vote in politicians who agree with me (and you) that the Second Amendment is fine the way it is--just do a better job of regulating weapons.
-
Ideally, here's what I want:
1. universal background checks every time you buy a gun.
2. registry of guns and who owns them. Federal level would be best, but state is better than none.
3. Automatic cross reference between the registries and individuals involved in violent crimes, domestic violence incidents, have a mental illness/emotional instability that makes them prone to violence. Basically, identify people who have been or reasonably could be a threat to others and figure out who's got guns.
4. no magazines (or whatever holds the bullets) which can hold more than 10 bullets.
5. no guns that allow you to fire multiple bullets without depressing the trigger each time. That might be automatic?
6. If you fall into one or more of the categories in #3, then you can't buy guns and have to give up any guns you own (with fair market value compensation)
7. requirement that to have a gun, you also have to have gun safe and the gun must be properly secured in it.
8. buy back programs for unwanted/damaged/confiscated guns, then they're destroyed.
9. minimum age to buy a gun and a minimum age to own a gun. say 21.
I think that this would go a long way to preventing accidents and overall reducing the number of "problem" guns (ie, the ones involved in shootings, etc) while still allowing responsible people to own guns. I also don't think it's unreasonable. Sure, you have some hoops to jump through, but you're trying to acquire an object capable of killing people. It's not unreasonable to ask that you demonstrate you're not likely to use it for that purpose.
You make too much sense--and everytiime someone brings up some of these commonsense notions of regulation, they push back like you are trying to ban all guns. Because of this push back, and unwillingness to embrace some of these commonsense notions, I'm starting to fall into the retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens camp....
If we can't agree on gun regulation, perhaps the Second Amendment needs to be repealed....
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/politics/john-paul-stevens-second-amendment/index.html
No NRA supporter will go for this stuff. The whole point of their lobby is to refuse any measure of increased regulation. So there's no point in talking to the hard-liners on this thread about any of it.
-
Ideally, here's what I want:
1. universal background checks every time you buy a gun.
2. registry of guns and who owns them. Federal level would be best, but state is better than none.
3. Automatic cross reference between the registries and individuals involved in violent crimes, domestic violence incidents, have a mental illness/emotional instability that makes them prone to violence. Basically, identify people who have been or reasonably could be a threat to others and figure out who's got guns.
4. no magazines (or whatever holds the bullets) which can hold more than 10 bullets.
5. no guns that allow you to fire multiple bullets without depressing the trigger each time. That might be automatic?
6. If you fall into one or more of the categories in #3, then you can't buy guns and have to give up any guns you own (with fair market value compensation)
7. requirement that to have a gun, you also have to have gun safe and the gun must be properly secured in it.
8. buy back programs for unwanted/damaged/confiscated guns, then they're destroyed.
9. minimum age to buy a gun and a minimum age to own a gun. say 21.
I think that this would go a long way to preventing accidents and overall reducing the number of "problem" guns (ie, the ones involved in shootings, etc) while still allowing responsible people to own guns. I also don't think it's unreasonable. Sure, you have some hoops to jump through, but you're trying to acquire an object capable of killing people. It's not unreasonable to ask that you demonstrate you're not likely to use it for that purpose.
You make too much sense--and everytiime someone brings up some of these commonsense notions of regulation, they push back like you are trying to ban all guns. Because of this push back, and unwillingness to embrace some of these commonsense notions, I'm starting to fall into the retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens camp....
If we can't agree on gun regulation, perhaps the Second Amendment needs to be repealed....
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/politics/john-paul-stevens-second-amendment/index.html
No NRA supporter will go for this stuff. The whole point of their lobby is to refuse any measure of increased regulation. So there's no point in talking to the hard-liners on this thread about any of it.
As a former NRA supporter, I gotta believe others might see things differently too.
But you are right that the current objectives are so looney-toon crazy that they can't see any compromise. Therefore, I see NRA contributions as indicator who NOT to vote for.
For my friends in Arizona, please vote for Doctor Hiral Tipirneni for Congress in the April 24, 2018 Election. She proudly gets an "F" rating from the NRA, while her opponent gets an "A+"
To get to know more about Doctor Tipineni, you can see her information a http://hiralforcongress.com God forbid we actually elect a smart, educated, women of color
-
Incidentally, if you look historically, you can start to see changes in war once guns were introduced.
Yes, you see a leveling of the playing field where serfs could battle opression without having to be carefully trained and specially equipped for battle. A guy with a flintlock could win against an armored knight. Before that, the only people with access to effective means of fighting were those who were rich and those who fought for the crown.
------
Ideally, here's what I want:
1. universal background checks every time you buy a gun.
Agreed.
2. registry of guns and who owns them. Federal level would be best, but state is better than none.
No way. This is not common sense regulation, this is a preamble for confiscation as has been proven time and time again.
3. Automatic cross reference between the registries and individuals involved in violent crimes, domestic violence incidents, have a mental illness/emotional instability that makes them prone to violence. Basically, identify people who have been or reasonably could be a threat to others and figure out who's got guns.
If you have universal background checks, make the above criteria for failure. Done. No need for a registry.
4. no magazines (or whatever holds the bullets) which can hold more than 10 bullets.
I'd compromise on this. 10 is about as low as I'd find feasible. Reloading takes about 3 seconds if you're practiced so it makes no real difference to me.
5. no guns that allow you to fire multiple bullets without depressing the trigger each time. That might be automatic?
These are already effectively illegal. The ones owned legally are never used in crimes, because it get a legal one is extremely expensive and there is a limited supply of ones old enough to qualify. Despite this, illegally owned ones are used regularly in crime.
6. If you fall into one or more of the categories in #3, then you can't buy guns and have to give up any guns you own (with fair market value compensation)
Agreed; provided some due-process for appealing it.
7. requirement that to have a gun, you also have to have gun safe and the gun must be properly secured in it.
Require ownership of a safe? yes... whatever. Require guns to be in it? no. How do you ever use the gun? How can I have one to use for self defense? This creates a huge gray area that could be used for harassment and tacit gun bans. I would, however, be OK with holding the owner of a gun used in a crime responsible to some degree, depending on the case.
8. buy back programs for unwanted/damaged/confiscated guns, then they're destroyed.
9. minimum age to buy a gun and a minimum age to own a gun. say 21.
Buy? yes. As long as the voting age goes with up with it. If the judgement of someone under 21 isn't good enough to own a firearm, it isn't good enough to decide the direction of our country.
I'm not sure why you separate out "owning" a gun. How do you see that being enforced; in what kinds of cases? Can those cases be differentiated between a 16 year old hunting in the woods own their own with their parents gun?
I think that this would go a long way to preventing accidents and overall reducing the number of "problem" guns (ie, the ones involved in shootings, etc) while still allowing responsible people to own guns. I also don't think it's unreasonable. Sure, you have some hoops to jump through, but you're trying to acquire an object capable of killing people. It's not unreasonable to ask that you demonstrate you're not likely to use it for that purpose.
I think some of the things you suggest are reasonable and would have a small positive effect on gun violence.
-
2. registry of guns and who owns them. Federal level would be best, but state is better than none.
No way. This is not common sense regulation, this is a preamble for confiscation as has been proven time and time again.
Except that confiscation of all firearms hasn't happened in the vast majority of first world countries that have enacted gun control laws. As seen in Canada, Australia, Britain, Norway, Switzerland, Denmark, Finland, etc. There are regulations set by democratic process, and firearms are readily available in all of these countries.
3. Automatic cross reference between the registries and individuals involved in violent crimes, domestic violence incidents, have a mental illness/emotional instability that makes them prone to violence. Basically, identify people who have been or reasonably could be a threat to others and figure out who's got guns.
If you have universal background checks, make the above criteria for failure. Done. No need for a registry.
Not true. A registry makes it significantly easier to catch straw purchasers.
5. no guns that allow you to fire multiple bullets without depressing the trigger each time. That might be automatic?
These are already effectively illegal. The ones owned legally are never used in crimes, because it get a legal one is extremely expensive and there is a limited supply of ones old enough to qualify. Despite this, illegally owned ones are used regularly in crime.
You've made the claim that illegally owned automatic weapons are regularly used in crime. Can you provide the statistics you're using to make this determination please?
It's also not true that this is illegal. It's perfectly legal to buy a bump stock for an AR-15, which transforms it into a fully automatic weapon.
7. requirement that to have a gun, you also have to have gun safe and the gun must be properly secured in it.
Require ownership of a safe? yes... whatever. Require guns to be in it? no. How do you ever use the gun? How can I have one to use for self defense? This creates a huge gray area that could be used for harassment and tacit gun bans. I would, however, be OK with holding the owner of a gun used in a crime responsible to some degree, depending on the case.
A gun owner who does not secure his firearm in a safe should be held criminally responsible for anything that happens with his or her weapon if stolen or used by another person (like a child). If you don't want to take this responsibility on, don't own a gun (or simply store it safely).
-
A gun owner who does not secure his firearm in a safe should be held criminally responsible for anything that happens with his or her weapon if stolen or used by another person (like a child). If you don't want to take this responsibility on, don't own a gun (or simply store it safely).
What are the storage requirements in Canada?
-
I hate to say this, but this is what it would take for the NRA types to (maybe?) consider some change.
Thousands of men of color organize to take their lawfully-owned weapons and open carry them (this is legal) while peacefully walking through the NICEST lily white suburbs in every town in America.
Can you IMAGINE the shitstorm? I mean, seriously, what would happen??
-
I hate to say this, but this is what it would take for the NRA types to (maybe?) consider some change.
Thousands of men of color organize to take their lawfully-owned weapons and open carry them (this is legal) while peacefully walking through the NICEST lily white suburbs in every town in America.
Can you IMAGINE the shitstorm? I mean, seriously, what would happen??
Absolutely. I honestly can't believe that BLM hasn't organized this yet.
-
Also interesting: It appears the counter-barrage of gunfire from the capitol police who were present (and there were only 4 the way I read it) was able to deter the gunman until more LEOs could arrive. In other words, 4 people legally carrying guns stopped a mass shooter who had the advantages of (1) a rifle, (2) position, (3) cover (presumably), and (4) mental preparation. It is reasonable to assume that had the capitol police not been there but, lets say 8 representatives did posses their firearms and could access them, the result would have been similar. If no capitol police had been there and no representatives had their firearm, the deaths probably would have stacked up quickly...
Any opinions on that?
Yeah. You believe that Capitol police have completely useless training? Or at least so useless that they are no more effective at stopping a gunman than some random members of congress who own guns? That's what your 'reasonable assumption' seems to stem from.
Wow... That straw man came up fast.
No, I'm saying that if (8) reps had been able to have their firearms nearby, then maybe their suppressive fire would have been similar to the (4) Capitol Police that were present. Namely (8) representatives that would have not been on the field and as such could have gotten to their firearms very quickly. As in, the numbers would have helped balance out the training. Considering the goal at that point in time was suppressive fire until more assistance could arrive, it is feasible that more firearms (lets say 8) would have benefited a lack of training the LEOs go through.
Wow, really?! So your solution that you propose is to just send out a hail of bullets to compensate for lack of training? And that is supposed to make those who are concerned about gun safety feel good as a reasonable solution? You ever seen how many people are killed by stray bullets in shootings? And the solution you want us to be comfortable with is just add a whole lot more stray bullets to the mix?! Come on!
-
A gun owner who does not secure his firearm in a safe should be held criminally responsible for anything that happens with his or her weapon if stolen or used by another person (like a child). If you don't want to take this responsibility on, don't own a gun (or simply store it safely).
What are the storage requirements in Canada?
Weapons stored unloaded, with trigger lock or in a locked cabinet/safe.
-
Also interesting: It appears the counter-barrage of gunfire from the capitol police who were present (and there were only 4 the way I read it) was able to deter the gunman until more LEOs could arrive. In other words, 4 people legally carrying guns stopped a mass shooter who had the advantages of (1) a rifle, (2) position, (3) cover (presumably), and (4) mental preparation. It is reasonable to assume that had the capitol police not been there but, lets say 8 representatives did posses their firearms and could access them, the result would have been similar. If no capitol police had been there and no representatives had their firearm, the deaths probably would have stacked up quickly...
Any opinions on that?
Yeah. You believe that Capitol police have completely useless training? Or at least so useless that they are no more effective at stopping a gunman than some random members of congress who own guns? That's what your 'reasonable assumption' seems to stem from.
Wow... That straw man came up fast.
No, I'm saying that if (8) reps had been able to have their firearms nearby, then maybe their suppressive fire would have been similar to the (4) Capitol Police that were present. Namely (8) representatives that would have not been on the field and as such could have gotten to their firearms very quickly. As in, the numbers would have helped balance out the training. Considering the goal at that point in time was suppressive fire until more assistance could arrive, it is feasible that more firearms (lets say 8) would have benefited a lack of training the LEOs go through.
Wow, really?! So your solution that you propose is to just send out a hail of bullets to compensate for lack of training? And that is supposed to make those who are concerned about gun safety feel good as a reasonable solution? You ever seen how many people are killed by stray bullets in shootings? And the solution you want us to be comfortable with is just add a whole lot more stray bullets to the mix?! Come on!
Strawman much. Specific incident calling for specific action. Or do you think the hundreds of rounds fired by the capitol police were all perfectly spot on?
Really pointless addition to the conversation.
-
A gun owner who does not secure his firearm in a safe should be held criminally responsible for anything that happens with his or her weapon if stolen or used by another person (like a child). If you don't want to take this responsibility on, don't own a gun (or simply store it safely).
What are the storage requirements in Canada?
Weapons stored unloaded, with trigger lock or in a locked cabinet/safe.
If wikipedia is accurate (always an if), a safe is only one of the options -
Restricted firearms must be unloaded and either:
Made inoperable with a secure locking device (such as a trigger lock) and securely locked in a sturdy container, cabinet or room that cannot be easily broken into; or
Locked in a vault, safe or room that was built or adapted for storing these types of firearms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Canada
I agree with you on safe storage, but I suspect we disagree on the definition of what safe storage is. My unattended weapons are unloaded, in a locked house, in a locked closet. A safe seems like an undue burden for most gun owners. With the exception of adding a trigger lock (which does nothing to prevent theft), my firearms would be stored in compliance with the laws of Canada for storage.
If I had a loaded firearm in my house, it would be in a safe because I have kids. I agree (trying to find common ground rather than argue), that dipshits who leave unattended loaded firearms within easy access of children are a problem and should be held responsible if something happens.
-
If random people carrying guns is supposed to be better than armed police, we really need to beef up our LEO training....
No the whole pro-gun viewpoint is not based on that being better. It is the fact that not knowing who might have one acts as a deterrent through fear and intimidation. Real solid position and why I find it totally contrary to any rational viewpoint I care to hold. Living in a society that is "safe" because we are all afraid of each other sounds really sucky.
Texas Firearm Ownership Rate: 35,700 per 100,000
Texas Violent Crime Rate: 433.7 per 100,000
California Firearm Ownership Rate: 20,100 per 100,000
California Violent Crime Rate: 444 per 100,000
I'll stay in Texas, thank you.
Sources:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/)
http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf (http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf)
http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/ (http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/)
Really? You feel that adding 78% more gun ownership and achieving barely a 2% decrease in crime rate somehow is a good statistic to parade out?
-
If random people carrying guns is supposed to be better than armed police, we really need to beef up our LEO training....
No the whole pro-gun viewpoint is not based on that being better. It is the fact that not knowing who might have one acts as a deterrent through fear and intimidation. Real solid position and why I find it totally contrary to any rational viewpoint I care to hold. Living in a society that is "safe" because we are all afraid of each other sounds really sucky.
Texas Firearm Ownership Rate: 35,700 per 100,000
Texas Violent Crime Rate: 433.7 per 100,000
California Firearm Ownership Rate: 20,100 per 100,000
California Violent Crime Rate: 444 per 100,000
I'll stay in Texas, thank you.
Sources:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/)
http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf (http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf)
http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/ (http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/)
Really? You feel that adding 78% more gun ownership and achieving barely a 2% decrease in crime rate somehow is a good statistic to parade out?
But guns kill people 11! 1!!!1!
The real question is why does Texas not have 78% more gun crime if guns = crime?
-
A gun owner who does not secure his firearm in a safe should be held criminally responsible for anything that happens with his or her weapon if stolen or used by another person (like a child). If you don't want to take this responsibility on, don't own a gun (or simply store it safely).
What are the storage requirements in Canada?
Weapons stored unloaded, with trigger lock or in a locked cabinet/safe.
If wikipedia is accurate (always an if), a safe is only one of the options -
Restricted firearms must be unloaded and either:
Made inoperable with a secure locking device (such as a trigger lock) and securely locked in a sturdy container, cabinet or room that cannot be easily broken into; or
Locked in a vault, safe or room that was built or adapted for storing these types of firearms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Canada
I agree with you on safe storage, but I suspect we disagree on the definition of what safe storage is. My unattended weapons are unloaded, in a locked house, in a locked closet. A safe seems like an undue burden for most gun owners. With the exception of adding a trigger lock (which does nothing to prevent theft), my firearms would be stored in compliance with the laws of Canada for storage.
If I had a loaded firearm in my house, it would be in a safe because I have kids. I agree (trying to find common ground rather than argue), that dipshits who leave unattended loaded firearms within easy access of children are a problem and should be held responsible if something happens.
Yeah, that sounds accurate. I don't know anyone with a dedicated locked room for gun storage, we always used a gun cabinet. As long as it's stored unloaded, and locked so that it can't easily be stolen I'd say you're meeting a reasonable definition of 'safe storage'.
-
Also interesting: It appears the counter-barrage of gunfire from the capitol police who were present (and there were only 4 the way I read it) was able to deter the gunman until more LEOs could arrive. In other words, 4 people legally carrying guns stopped a mass shooter who had the advantages of (1) a rifle, (2) position, (3) cover (presumably), and (4) mental preparation. It is reasonable to assume that had the capitol police not been there but, lets say 8 representatives did posses their firearms and could access them, the result would have been similar. If no capitol police had been there and no representatives had their firearm, the deaths probably would have stacked up quickly...
Any opinions on that?
Yeah. You believe that Capitol police have completely useless training? Or at least so useless that they are no more effective at stopping a gunman than some random members of congress who own guns? That's what your 'reasonable assumption' seems to stem from.
Wow... That straw man came up fast.
No, I'm saying that if (8) reps had been able to have their firearms nearby, then maybe their suppressive fire would have been similar to the (4) Capitol Police that were present. Namely (8) representatives that would have not been on the field and as such could have gotten to their firearms very quickly. As in, the numbers would have helped balance out the training. Considering the goal at that point in time was suppressive fire until more assistance could arrive, it is feasible that more firearms (lets say 8) would have benefited a lack of training the LEOs go through.
Wow, really?! So your solution that you propose is to just send out a hail of bullets to compensate for lack of training? And that is supposed to make those who are concerned about gun safety feel good as a reasonable solution? You ever seen how many people are killed by stray bullets in shootings? And the solution you want us to be comfortable with is just add a whole lot more stray bullets to the mix?! Come on!
Strawman much. Specific incident calling for specific action. Or do you think the hundreds of rounds fired by the capitol police were all perfectly spot on?
Really pointless addition to the conversation.
How is is a strawman? You seem to dismiss anything you can't argue against. You never actually came back with anything about the study that states with right-to-carry laws have a higher incidence of crime. You just somehow got really quiet. Now I respond to your proposal that 12 people shooting is better than 4 people shooting and someone I'm not addressing your specific example? And while we're at it can you explain how any of this is a conversation?
You just spend all your time telling everyone how wrong we are and how Tejas is the place to be. For all of us who do not want to live in the Wild West because we prefer a more civil environment we would love to have every gun owner stop assuming that gun regulation or severely restricting the ease of which one can obtain a firearm somehow is always intended to lead to banning weapons. Don't think gun owners are proposing a return to the Wild West? Look at all the proposals a change the wording a bit..... Arm teachers and everyone else (Make sure I have my six shooter in the holster before I head to the saloon so we can duel at high noon). A good guy with a gun is needed to stop a bad guy with a gun (Glad the Sheriff and his posse were in town to take care of Jesse James) Do you get that for those of us who arming the whole world is not a good option, what you propose is fearful and concerning?
-
If random people carrying guns is supposed to be better than armed police, we really need to beef up our LEO training....
No the whole pro-gun viewpoint is not based on that being better. It is the fact that not knowing who might have one acts as a deterrent through fear and intimidation. Real solid position and why I find it totally contrary to any rational viewpoint I care to hold. Living in a society that is "safe" because we are all afraid of each other sounds really sucky.
Texas Firearm Ownership Rate: 35,700 per 100,000
Texas Violent Crime Rate: 433.7 per 100,000
California Firearm Ownership Rate: 20,100 per 100,000
California Violent Crime Rate: 444 per 100,000
I'll stay in Texas, thank you.
Sources:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/)
http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf (http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf)
http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/ (http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/)
Really? You feel that adding 78% more gun ownership and achieving barely a 2% decrease in crime rate somehow is a good statistic to parade out?
But guns kill people 11! 1!!!1!
The real question is why does Texas not have 78% more gun crime if guns = crime?
OR you could ask another question that I think is also avoided by the gun lobby. Why does Texas not have 78% less crime if guns = safety? Do you not have enough good guys with guns?
-
If random people carrying guns is supposed to be better than armed police, we really need to beef up our LEO training....
No the whole pro-gun viewpoint is not based on that being better. It is the fact that not knowing who might have one acts as a deterrent through fear and intimidation. Real solid position and why I find it totally contrary to any rational viewpoint I care to hold. Living in a society that is "safe" because we are all afraid of each other sounds really sucky.
Texas Firearm Ownership Rate: 35,700 per 100,000
Texas Violent Crime Rate: 433.7 per 100,000
California Firearm Ownership Rate: 20,100 per 100,000
California Violent Crime Rate: 444 per 100,000
I'll stay in Texas, thank you.
Sources:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/)
http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf (http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf)
http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/ (http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/)
Really? You feel that adding 78% more gun ownership and achieving barely a 2% decrease in crime rate somehow is a good statistic to parade out?
But guns kill people 11! 1!!!1!
The real question is why does Texas not have 78% more gun crime if guns = crime?
I'm not sure that anyone is saying that more guns = more crime... I think they're saying that more guns != less crime...
-
If random people carrying guns is supposed to be better than armed police, we really need to beef up our LEO training....
No the whole pro-gun viewpoint is not based on that being better. It is the fact that not knowing who might have one acts as a deterrent through fear and intimidation. Real solid position and why I find it totally contrary to any rational viewpoint I care to hold. Living in a society that is "safe" because we are all afraid of each other sounds really sucky.
Texas Firearm Ownership Rate: 35,700 per 100,000
Texas Violent Crime Rate: 433.7 per 100,000
California Firearm Ownership Rate: 20,100 per 100,000
California Violent Crime Rate: 444 per 100,000
I'll stay in Texas, thank you.
Sources:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/)
http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf (http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf)
http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/ (http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/)
Really? You feel that adding 78% more gun ownership and achieving barely a 2% decrease in crime rate somehow is a good statistic to parade out?
But guns kill people 11! 1!!!1!
The real question is why does Texas not have 78% more gun crime if guns = crime?
I'm not sure that anyone is saying that more guns = more crime... I think they're saying that more guns != less crime...
In TexasRunner's defense I did bring up a close point (right-to-carry = more crime) a bit earlier. Summarized below:
Researchers are also finding links between right-to-carry laws–which require governments to issue concealed-carry permits to citizens who meet certain requirements–and spikes in firearms crime. A 2017 National Bureau of Economic Research working paper estimates that 10 years after the adoption of right-to-carry laws, violent crime is 13% to 15% higher than it would have been without those policies.
Want to know why it's hard to find evidence ("real statistics")? Read point #5
http://time.com/5209901/gun-violence-america-reduction/
http://nber.org/papers/w23510
-
If random people carrying guns is supposed to be better than armed police, we really need to beef up our LEO training....
No the whole pro-gun viewpoint is not based on that being better. It is the fact that not knowing who might have one acts as a deterrent through fear and intimidation. Real solid position and why I find it totally contrary to any rational viewpoint I care to hold. Living in a society that is "safe" because we are all afraid of each other sounds really sucky.
Texas Firearm Ownership Rate: 35,700 per 100,000
Texas Violent Crime Rate: 433.7 per 100,000
California Firearm Ownership Rate: 20,100 per 100,000
California Violent Crime Rate: 444 per 100,000
I'll stay in Texas, thank you.
Sources:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/)
http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf (http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf)
http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/ (http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/)
Really? You feel that adding 78% more gun ownership and achieving barely a 2% decrease in crime rate somehow is a good statistic to parade out?
But guns kill people 11! 1!!!1!
The real question is why does Texas not have 78% more gun crime if guns = crime?
I'm not sure that anyone is saying that more guns = more crime... I think they're saying that more guns != less crime...
In TexasRunner's defense I did bring up a close point (right-to-carry = more crime) a bit earlier. Summarized below:
Researchers are also finding links between right-to-carry laws–which require governments to issue concealed-carry permits to citizens who meet certain requirements–and spikes in firearms crime. A 2017 National Bureau of Economic Research working paper estimates that 10 years after the adoption of right-to-carry laws, violent crime is 13% to 15% higher than it would have been without those policies.
Want to know why it's hard to find evidence ("real statistics")? Read point #5
http://time.com/5209901/gun-violence-america-reduction/
http://nber.org/papers/w23510
Ah, I see, ignore my comment then. It's hard to keep up with all these threads moving so fast.
-
But guns kill people 11! 1!!!1!
The real question is why does Texas not have 78% more gun crime if guns = crime?
Yes guns do kill people. As do drugs, cigarettes, heart disease, cancer, etc. Yet guns are the only means of death you are actively encouraging more people to posses. Weird logic.
What I find interesting about your response is that the central claim seems to be that more guns equals less crime. And in your quest to back up this obvious faulty assumption is tossing out some impossibly perfectly correlated number involving increased gun ownership and crime. Even a modest increase in crimes blows your argument out of the water.
I think in arguments like these integrity is perceived as some sort of catch phrase reserved for the weak minded. Sad but tue.
-
Texas Firearm Ownership Rate: 35,700 per 100,000
Texas Violent Crime Rate: 433.7 per 100,000
California Firearm Ownership Rate: 20,100 per 100,000
California Violent Crime Rate: 2,545 per 100,000
I'll stay in Texas, thank you.
Sources:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/)
http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf (http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf)
http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/ (http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/)
It looks like you may have misread property crimes in CA as violent crimes.
Here are the latest figures I could find for violent crimes/100,000 people. In parentheses are the murder rates per 100,000 people. I added my home state, NY, out of curiosity... NY rates of gun ownership are 10.3% (10,300 per 100,000 people).
2016 California: 445.3 (4.9) Texas: 434.4 (5.3) New York: 376.2 (3.2)
2015 CA: 426.3 (4.8) TX: 412.2 (4.8) NY: 379.7 (3.1)
2014 CA: 396.1 (4.4) TX: 405.9 (4.4) NY: 381.8 (3.1)
2013 CA: 402.1 (4.6) TX: 408.3 (4.3) NY:393.7 (3.3)
2012 CA: 423.1 (5.0) TX: 408.6 (4.4) NY: 406.8 (3.5)
source: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-3
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/tables/table-5
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-u.s.-2014/tables/table-5
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/5tabledatadecpdf/table_5_crime_in_the_united_states_by_state_2013.xls
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/5tabledatadecpdf/table_5_crime_in_the_united_states_by_state_2012.xls
Also, for a different source
2007 California: 523 Texas: 511 New York: 414
source: https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2009/compendia/statab/129ed/rankings.html
Population sizes in 2016 were:
CA: 38,041,430
TX: 26,059,203
NY: 19,570,261
And population densities are, per square mile (from Wikipedia, got lazy)
CA: 251
TX: 105
NY: 420
Median incomes (2015, Wikipedia)
CA: $64,500
TX: $55,653
NY: $60,850
Your point does not hold.
Ohh, you are correct! I have fixed my previous post. Thank you for point out my error in the numbers.
However,... you are saying I am incorrect... Even though violent crime rates are equal... And Texas has 10% higher per capita gun ownership?
I though more guns would = more crime? Is that not the case?
You first claim that higher gun ownership is associated with lower violent crime.
Well, you are right in that your sources show that CA had a slightly higher violent crime rate than TX in the year 2016, though nowhere near the 5.9:1 ratio that you originally claimed. And this is true for three out of the last five years. However, if you look at 2014 and 2013, TX actually had a higher rate of violent crime. And TX also had a higher or equal murder rate to CA for three out of five years, but lower for 2/5 years.
Moreover, using your logic, we could equally use the TX vs NY rates to say that lower gun ownership is strongly associated with lower violence.
Fact is, there is no significant conclusion that can be drawn from the stats you or I provided. The proper thing to do would be to do a rank test comparing rankings of gun ownership and violent crime for all 50 states, to see if there is an association. And this would be much better if we had gun ownership data for all states for several years (but this is not available).
I would not be surprised if there were no association. Whether a person shoots a gun at another person, leading him to be wheelchair bound, or just throws rocks at him, leading to bruises and contusions, it will be counted in the stats as a single violent crime. I don't think that gun access will directly affect the rates at which people get angry and crazy. But the real issue is how much more damage are they doing if they have a quick easy means of destruction at hand?
The next natural claim is that if there is no association, why take the guns away, since even if they do not protect, they are doing no harm?
In Table 2 of the following study, it appears that more gun ownership by state IS significantly associated with more overall homicides.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/bc6f/104b5b658796ce6b7ca1e1afe8caeb55ff6b.pdf
I think the murder rate is a better measure, but that can be affected by the quality of medical care available in a state. The best stat to have (which I couldn't find in a 2 second google), is the number of people seriously wounded or killed in violent crimes and suicide, per state, for the past 20 years. That is what we care about.
Because yeah, if a crazy guy wants to kill badly enough, if guns aren't available, he will make a bomb or use poison or a car or a pack of attack dogs to get the job done. And your hobby guns will have been taken away for nothing. Gun regulation won't stop evil planners, though it may slow them down. But maybe there will be a drop in the severity of injuries to themselves and others caused by impulsive people. Which will be a good thing.
I'd like to see a study looking at gun ownership vs critical injury/death (not just by firearms). I haven't been able to find one so far, though you might be more successful. So support removal of the Dickey Amendment (http://"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dickey_Amendment").
-
Did you not know this?
<Edited because the post was far too long>
The particular weapons I showed were different. Yes, you can get either the 10-22 or the AR-15 chambered for anything from .22 to 5.56 NATO.
You can also get high (or low) capacity mags for either. The flash suppressor (or lack thereof) ain't much of an issue in a school shooting in broad daylight.
Also, I hate to bring this up, because I do NOT promote the use of bump stocks. But I don't think I'm going to be giving away any secrets that anyone in this forum can't figure out for himself.
You can use a bump stock with the Ruger 10-22. Anyone who puts two minutes of effort into it can figure out how to use either a commercial bump stock or a home made bump stock on a Ruger 10-22.
BTW, you can also modify semi-auto handguns to use bump stocks. Commercial or home made. "Bump stock" technology isn't something that requires a degree in mechanical engineering to figure out. Anyone with a few common materials and simple hand tools can make one at home. And you can buy magazines for pistols that can hold 100 rounds. In other words, anyone who wants to do so can turn any semi-auto pistol into a far more deadly weapon than the unmodified AR-15s used in the school shooting.
FWIW, I have no problem with "banning" bump stocks. I believe it would be completely ineffective for the reasons I mentioned, but if it will make some of you folks happy, I won't get upset about it. I have no use for bump stocks, nor do probably 99+% of us who own AR-15s.
So it comes down to this: Calling for a "ban" on just one small segment of the semi-auto market- the scary black plastic "assault style" rifles- is utterly pointless as any criminal can easily get as much (or far more) firepower by making easy modifications to essentially ANY semi-auto weapon.
You would need to ban ALL semi-auto weapons- rifles (both with and without scary black plastic), handguns, and even shotguns, and I guarantee you that isn't going to happen.
If that is your real goal- to effectively eliminate the second amendment, good luck to you. Barack Obama, with control of both houses of Congress, knew he couldn't pass even minor gun control legislation, so he didn't even try. Good luck getting rid of the 2nd amendment, which would be just a tad more difficult than trying to enhance background checks (which, btw, I could also live with-I'm not unwilling to discuss reasonable steps).
-
Ideally, here's what I want:
1. universal background checks every time you buy a gun.
2. registry of guns and who owns them. Federal level would be best, but state is better than none.
3. Automatic cross reference between the registries and individuals involved in violent crimes, domestic violence incidents, have a mental illness/emotional instability that makes them prone to violence. Basically, identify people who have been or reasonably could be a threat to others and figure out who's got guns.
4. no magazines (or whatever holds the bullets) which can hold more than 10 bullets.
5. no guns that allow you to fire multiple bullets without depressing the trigger each time. That might be automatic?
6. If you fall into one or more of the categories in #3, then you can't buy guns and have to give up any guns you own (with fair market value compensation)
7. requirement that to have a gun, you also have to have gun safe and the gun must be properly secured in it.
8. buy back programs for unwanted/damaged/confiscated guns, then they're destroyed.
9. minimum age to buy a gun and a minimum age to own a gun. say 21.
I think that this would go a long way to preventing accidents and overall reducing the number of "problem" guns (ie, the ones involved in shootings, etc) while still allowing responsible people to own guns. I also don't think it's unreasonable. Sure, you have some hoops to jump through, but you're trying to acquire an object capable of killing people. It's not unreasonable to ask that you demonstrate you're not likely to use it for that purpose.
You make too much sense--and everytiime someone brings up some of these commonsense notions of regulation, they push back like you are trying to ban all guns. Because of this push back, and unwillingness to embrace some of these commonsense notions, I'm starting to fall into the retired Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens camp....
If we can't agree on gun regulation, perhaps the Second Amendment needs to be repealed....
https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/27/politics/john-paul-stevens-second-amendment/index.html
No NRA supporter will go for this stuff. The whole point of their lobby is to refuse any measure of increased regulation. So there's no point in talking to the hard-liners on this thread about any of it.
As a former NRA supporter, I gotta believe others might see things differently too.
But you are right that the current objectives are so looney-toon crazy that they can't see any compromise. Therefore, I see NRA contributions as indicator who NOT to vote for.
For my friends in Arizona, please vote for Doctor Hiral Tipirneni for Congress in the April 24, 2018 Election. She proudly gets an "F" rating from the NRA, while her opponent gets an "A+"
To get to know more about Doctor Tipineni, you can see her information a http://hiralforcongress.com God forbid we actually elect a smart, educated, women of color
You have to be more than "smart and educated and a woman of color" to win a Congressional seat.
You also have to understand how our electoral system works.
The district she's running in is Gerrymandered R+13 PVI. It's Gerrymandered so heavily Republican that the Dems didn't even bother to field a candidate the last two elections. They knew the district was unwinnable in those elections.
Trump hanging like an albatross around the neck of all Republicans gives the Dems enough hope to take a stab at it. But it's a shot in the dark. Unless the Dems have some sort of silver bullet, like a surprise scandal they plan to unveil about the Republican woman running for the seat, the district will go Republican.
An "F" rating from the NRA helps Dems in MA and NY.
It does not help them in places like AZ and TX. Even the last Dem to hold that seat, Gabby Giffords (which was before it was redistricted so heavily Republican) made sure everyone knew she was a gun owner- because east coast liberal extremism on guns doesn't fly in the southwest.
In other words, don't bet the rent money on this one.
-
You can also get high (or low) capacity mags for either. The flash suppressor (or lack thereof) ain't much of an issue in a school shooting in broad daylight.
You sure can. But you claimed that the difference between the two guns is that the black one looks scary. That's objectively not true for all the reasons I provided. The AR15 pictured has features that aren't displayed on the Ruger, features that make it more deadly.
So it comes down to this: Calling for a "ban" on just one small segment of the semi-auto market- the scary black plastic "assault style" rifles- is utterly pointless as any criminal can easily get as much (or far more) firepower by making easy modifications to essentially ANY semi-auto weapon.
Agreed, if people were only calling for a ban on scary looking black weapons. Pretending that this is the case is dishonest.
There is absolutely valid reason to discuss regulating aspects of guns that make them more deadly and aren't cosmetic. Things like pistol grips, flash suppressors, and telescoping stocks. Things that were all displayed in your picture.
-
If random people carrying guns is supposed to be better than armed police, we really need to beef up our LEO training....
No the whole pro-gun viewpoint is not based on that being better. It is the fact that not knowing who might have one acts as a deterrent through fear and intimidation. Real solid position and why I find it totally contrary to any rational viewpoint I care to hold. Living in a society that is "safe" because we are all afraid of each other sounds really sucky.
Texas Firearm Ownership Rate: 35,700 per 100,000
Texas Violent Crime Rate: 433.7 per 100,000
California Firearm Ownership Rate: 20,100 per 100,000
California Violent Crime Rate: 444 per 100,000
I'll stay in Texas, thank you.
Sources:
https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/ (https://www.cbsnews.com/pictures/gun-ownership-rates-by-state/34/)
http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf (http://www.dps.texas.gov/crimereports/16/executiveSummary.pdf)
http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/ (http://www.ppic.org/publication/crime-trends-in-california/)
Really? You feel that adding 78% more gun ownership and achieving barely a 2% decrease in crime rate somehow is a good statistic to parade out?
But guns kill people 11! 1!!!1!
The real question is why does Texas not have 78% more gun crime if guns = crime?
Couple things:
1. Nobody is claiming a 1:1 mapping of gun increase : gun violence.
2. Cherry-picking states to suit your narrative is obvious. Comparing Texas to a state with 2x the population density is obviously problematic. You're also ignoring that California shares a border with two states with very lax gun laws (Arizona and Nevada). When presented with a reasonable example, (New York, which has 4x the population density!), you pretty much ignored it. New York (and much of the northeast) has low gun crime thanks to most of its bordering states having strong gun control laws. Crossing a state border doesn't make gun ownership easy in NY, Connecticut, Rhode Island, Hawaii, Massachusetts, etc. It's not surprising that these states have the lowest rates of gun violence.
http://lawcenter.giffords.org/scorecard/
-
A gun owner who does not secure his firearm in a safe should be held criminally responsible for anything that happens with his or her weapon if stolen or used by another person (like a child). If you don't want to take this responsibility on, don't own a gun (or simply store it safely).
What are the storage requirements in Canada?
Weapons stored unloaded, with trigger lock or in a locked cabinet/safe.
If wikipedia is accurate (always an if), a safe is only one of the options -
Restricted firearms must be unloaded and either:
Made inoperable with a secure locking device (such as a trigger lock) and securely locked in a sturdy container, cabinet or room that cannot be easily broken into; or
Locked in a vault, safe or room that was built or adapted for storing these types of firearms
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Canada
I agree with you on safe storage, but I suspect we disagree on the definition of what safe storage is. My unattended weapons are unloaded, in a locked house, in a locked closet. A safe seems like an undue burden for most gun owners. With the exception of adding a trigger lock (which does nothing to prevent theft), my firearms would be stored in compliance with the laws of Canada for storage.
If I had a loaded firearm in my house, it would be in a safe because I have kids. I agree (trying to find common ground rather than argue), that dipshits who leave unattended loaded firearms within easy access of children are a problem and should be held responsible if something happens.
Yeah, that sounds accurate. I don't know anyone with a dedicated locked room for gun storage, we always used a gun cabinet. As long as it's stored unloaded, and locked so that it can't easily be stolen I'd say you're meeting a reasonable definition of 'safe storage'.
I can agree with that. I'd like to prevent the stupid (they are stupid) accidents and deaths of children finding a loaded gun and accidentally killing or injuring themselves or others. It's not hard to unload a gun and lock it up somewhere when it's not being actively used, and it's criminal when you don't and someone is hurt or killed as a result. if you can't commit to safe storage, then I wouldn't consider you to be a safe, responsible gun owner.
-
You are being ridiculous, or you know nothing about guns (which is pretty common among the "ban" crowd).
[MOD NOTE: Manners, please. If you can't keep your tone civil, these threads will be shut down.]
The idea that anyone has to "know about guns" to have an opinion is pretty ridiculous. This strategy, started by the NRA, to make people feel foolish when they call something that is not NRA-classified as an "Assault Weapon" is really ingenious, but also pretty evil. I'm going to call an AR-15 an Assault Rifle because it is a rifle used for assaulting people or animals or things. I don't care if the gun manufacturer says it's not an "Assault Rifle". Really? Are you still arguing that hollow-point ammo isn't "cop-killer" ammo? Keep your NRA marketing tropes. I'll call it whatever I want.
An AR-15 is a civilian weapon, with no more killing capacity than many common (and rather ancient) hunting or ranch rifles.
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES. The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs. They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body. So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"
-
The solution of course remains: more guns in the right hands.
So, if we were to give a gun to every African-American, would you still feel like more guns are the answer?
Because I'm finding that a lot of people WHO LIVE NEAR ME who want to carry guns around to protect themselves and their families, are really just racists. I don't know if this would be the case in a place like Texas. How do you feel about arming every African-American in your state?
-
The solution of course remains: more guns in the right hands.
So, if we were to give a gun to every African-American, would you still feel like more guns are the answer?
Because I'm finding that a lot of people WHO LIVE NEAR ME who want to carry guns around to protect themselves and their families, are really just racists. I don't know if this would be the case in a place like Texas. How do you feel about arming every African-American in your state?
I'm cool with African-Americans who qualify owning guns. Just like any other race.
Despite assertions to the contrary, most gun owners I know could care less about your race.
-
The solution of course remains: more guns in the right hands.
So, if we were to give a gun to every African-American, would you still feel like more guns are the answer?
Because I'm finding that a lot of people WHO LIVE NEAR ME who want to carry guns around to protect themselves and their families, are really just racists. I don't know if this would be the case in a place like Texas. How do you feel about arming every African-American in your state?
I'm cool with African-Americans who qualify owning guns. Just like any other race.
Despite assertions to the contrary, most gun owners I know could care less about your race.
The assertions to the contrary appear to be backed by research. Not every person who opposes gun control is racist, obviously. The data would suggest that you may not know a representative sample of gun owners:
"Racial resentment is a statistically significant and substantively important predictor of white opposition to gun control." - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11109-015-9326-4 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11109-015-9326-4)
"The results support the hypothesis by showing that greater symbolic racism is related to increased odds of having a gun in the home and greater opposition to gun control, after accounting for all other explanatory variables." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3815007/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3815007/)
"These men claim that they are motivated by a desire to protect their wives and children, to compensate for lost strength as they age, and to defend themselves against people and places they perceive as dangerous, especially those involving racial/ethnic minority men" - http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0891243211434612 (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0891243211434612)
-
The solution of course remains: more guns in the right hands.
So, if we were to give a gun to every African-American, would you still feel like more guns are the answer?
Because I'm finding that a lot of people WHO LIVE NEAR ME who want to carry guns around to protect themselves and their families, are really just racists. I don't know if this would be the case in a place like Texas. How do you feel about arming every African-American in your state?
I'm cool with African-Americans who qualify owning guns. Just like any other race.
Despite assertions to the contrary, most gun owners I know could care less about your race.
The assertions to the contrary appear to be backed by research. Not every person who opposes gun control is racist, obviously. The data would suggest that you may not know a representative sample of gun owners:
"Racial resentment is a statistically significant and substantively important predictor of white opposition to gun control." - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11109-015-9326-4 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11109-015-9326-4)
"The results support the hypothesis by showing that greater symbolic racism is related to increased odds of having a gun in the home and greater opposition to gun control, after accounting for all other explanatory variables." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3815007/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3815007/)
"These men claim that they are motivated by a desire to protect their wives and children, to compensate for lost strength as they age, and to defend themselves against people and places they perceive as dangerous, especially those involving racial/ethnic minority men" - http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0891243211434612 (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0891243211434612)
Let's assume that's true. Why is it relevant to the discussion other than to vilify and demonize gun owners? Most legal gun owners are law abiding citizens.
It's a variation the accusation that people with guns (or sports cars...) are compensating for something else.
-
The solution of course remains: more guns in the right hands.
So, if we were to give a gun to every African-American, would you still feel like more guns are the answer?
Because I'm finding that a lot of people WHO LIVE NEAR ME who want to carry guns around to protect themselves and their families, are really just racists. I don't know if this would be the case in a place like Texas. How do you feel about arming every African-American in your state?
I'm cool with African-Americans who qualify owning guns. Just like any other race.
Despite assertions to the contrary, most gun owners I know could care less about your race.
Considering basically no LTC holders commit crimes (https://www.dailywire.com/news/8255/report-concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-most-law-aaron-bandler), and about 7% or more of Texas LTCers are black (https://www.dps.texas.gov/RSD/LTC/Reports/2017Fiscal/byRace_Gender/1LicenseApplicationsIssued.pdf), along with the fact that the african american violent crime rate of about 388.9 in (https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/43tabledatadecoverviewpdf) 100,000 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States) is still lower than the crime rate of several other countries (http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Crime/Violent-crime/Murder-rate), I have absolutely no problem with every citizen regardless of color having a firearm.
A lot like the Swiss model.
But sure, keep insinuating we all a bunch of fucking racists. Thats not derogatory at all.
-
Or, in other words and to turn this around, why would you want to keep 99,611 lawful african americans out of 100,000 unarmed? Is there some reason you brought this up other than to call 1/3rd of the country racist?
The solution of course remains: more guns in the right hands.
So, if we were to give a gun to every African-American, would you still feel like more guns are the answer?
Because I'm finding that a lot of people WHO LIVE NEAR ME who want to carry guns around to protect themselves and their families, are really just racists. I don't know if this would be the case in a place like Texas. How do you feel about arming every African-American in your state?
Only on a forum this freaking leftist could this be construed as constructive conversation and not just an attempt to paint all gun owners with a wide brush of racism.
-
It's a variation the accusation that people with guns (or sports cars...) are compensating for something else.
Anyone that claims to own a gun(s) out of fear (ie. to protect themselves) technically is compensating for that fear. The most common reason given for owning a gun is in fact for protection
-
Or, in other words and to turn this around, why would you want to keep 99,611 lawful african americans out of 100,000 unarmed? Is there some reason you brought this up other than to call 1/3rd of the country racist?
The solution of course remains: more guns in the right hands.
So, if we were to give a gun to every African-American, would you still feel like more guns are the answer?
Because I'm finding that a lot of people WHO LIVE NEAR ME who want to carry guns around to protect themselves and their families, are really just racists. I don't know if this would be the case in a place like Texas. How do you feel about arming every African-American in your state?
Only on a forum this freaking leftist could this be construed as constructive conversation and not just an attempt to paint all gun owners with a wide brush of racism.
I don't consider it constructive conversation. Are you assuming that everyone who disagrees with you on the main points about gun control is on the same page? I see lots of anecdotal and emotionally charged justification for gun control which I disagree with but it doesn't change my opinions about gun control, for or against.
In BlueHouse's defense, they did specify in pretty big letters "WHO LIVE NEAR ME" as in, this is anecdotal.
I'm sorry that you see this forum as leftist but personally I see it as one of the few places where I am likely to have reasonable debate on the internet. A lot of people on here are obsessively analytical which is probably related to the fact that they can grasp the FIRE concept despite a lifetime of having a different reality presented to them. The truth is just about everyone (myself included) views themselves as the moderate reasonable person while anyone to their left or right is a little out there. It's all relative.
-
It's a variation the accusation that people with guns (or sports cars...) are compensating for something else.
Anyone that claims to own a gun(s) out of fear (ie. to protect themselves) technically is compensating for that fear. The most common reason given for owning a gun is in fact fear.
Again. So? That's justification for painting a group of people who happen to own an object as racists?
African American's have historically had a higher murder rate per capita than whites and higher unemployment. Racists would apply that broad brush to the entire group. That's ignorant as well and irrelevant to the individual in that group.
-
It's a variation the accusation that people with guns (or sports cars...) are compensating for something else.
Anyone that claims to own a gun(s) out of fear (ie. to protect themselves) technically is compensating for that fear. The most common reason given for owning a gun is in fact fear.
Again. So? That's justification for painting a group of people who happen to own an object as racists?
African American's have historically had a higher murder rate per capita than whites and higher unemployment. Racists would apply that broad brush to the entire group. That's ignorant as well and irrelevant to the individual in that group.
So it's pretty justifiable to claim the majority of gun owners are compensating for something. We all do it on a daily basis. For some reason you folks get so freaking defensive about it. I am scared of dying in a car accident. I compensate by being a defensive driver and driving less. So what? I wouldn't take offense to someone pointing it out.
And who painted all gun owners as racist? I saw a question posed to a particular person and an anecdote provided. The only insinuation seemed to come from the highly defensive. You are perfectly capable of asking said person who posted the comment to explain further rather than jumping to immediate ill advised conclusions and likely creating straw-man arguments.
-
The solution of course remains: more guns in the right hands.
So, if we were to give a gun to every African-American, would you still feel like more guns are the answer?
Because I'm finding that a lot of people WHO LIVE NEAR ME who want to carry guns around to protect themselves and their families, are really just racists. I don't know if this would be the case in a place like Texas. How do you feel about arming every African-American in your state?
I'm cool with African-Americans who qualify owning guns. Just like any other race.
Despite assertions to the contrary, most gun owners I know could care less about your race.
The assertions to the contrary appear to be backed by research. Not every person who opposes gun control is racist, obviously. The data would suggest that you may not know a representative sample of gun owners:
"Racial resentment is a statistically significant and substantively important predictor of white opposition to gun control." - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11109-015-9326-4 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11109-015-9326-4)
"The results support the hypothesis by showing that greater symbolic racism is related to increased odds of having a gun in the home and greater opposition to gun control, after accounting for all other explanatory variables." - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3815007/ (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3815007/)
"These men claim that they are motivated by a desire to protect their wives and children, to compensate for lost strength as they age, and to defend themselves against people and places they perceive as dangerous, especially those involving racial/ethnic minority men" - http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0891243211434612 (http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0891243211434612)
Let's assume that's true. Why is it relevant to the discussion other than to vilify and demonize gun owners? Most legal gun owners are law abiding citizens.
It's a variation the accusation that people with guns (or sports cars...) are compensating for something else.
You can be racist as fuck and a law abiding citizen. Heck, you can be racist as fuck and president of the United States.
If (as the research suggests) racial fear is a large component of owning a gun and opposing gun control, then that's something that should be discussed and addressed. In the same way that it's often argued that gun controls are a band-aid for the problems of undiagnosed/untreated mental illness, it's possible that gun advocacy is merely a symptom of a problem of pervasive underlying racism in the country. Maybe rethinking our approach and ideas of race and fear is as integral to a solution to the problem as limiting access to the deadliest weapons.
-
You can be racist as fuck and a law abiding citizen.
And having an ignorant unpopular opinion isn't illegal nor should it be.
If (as the research suggests) racial fear is a large component of owning a gun and opposing gun control, then that's something that should be discussed and addressed. In the same way that it's often argued that gun controls are a band-aid for the problems of undiagnosed/untreated mental illness, it's possible that gun advocacy is merely a symptom of a problem of pervasive underlying racism in the country. Maybe rethinking our approach and ideas of race and fear is as integral to a solution to the problem as limiting access to the deadliest weapons.
If racism were a primary factor in murders in this country, you might have a point. In fact it's generally the opposite, murders tend to stay within race. Whites kill whites and so on.
If we are focusing on factors that drive homicide in this country, it's not gun ownership by fearful white people.
-
It's a variation the accusation that people with guns (or sports cars...) are compensating for something else.
Anyone that claims to own a gun(s) out of fear (ie. to protect themselves) technically is compensating for that fear. The most common reason given for owning a gun is in fact fear.
Again. So? That's justification for painting a group of people who happen to own an object as racists?
African American's have historically had a higher murder rate per capita than whites and higher unemployment. Racists would apply that broad brush to the entire group. That's ignorant as well and irrelevant to the individual in that group.
So it's pretty justifiable to claim the majority of gun owners are compensating for something. We all do it on a daily basis. For some reason you folks get so freaking defensive about it. I am scared of dying in a car accident. I compensate by being a defensive driver and driving less. So what? I wouldn't take offense to someone pointing it out.
And who painted all gun owners as racist? I saw a question posed to a particular person and an anecdote provided. The only insinuation seemed to come from the highly defensive. You are perfectly capable of asking said person who posted the comment to explain further rather than jumping to immediate ill advised conclusions and likely creating straw-man arguments.
"So, if we were to give a gun to every African-American, would you still feel like more guns are the answer? "
That was the start to this conversation about race and gun ownership. There's seems to be an implication to that statement that the average gun owner wouldn't want African Americans to have guns.
-
You can be racist as fuck and a law abiding citizen.
And having an ignorant unpopular opinion isn't illegal nor should it be.
If (as the research suggests) racial fear is a large component of owning a gun and opposing gun control, then that's something that should be discussed and addressed. In the same way that it's often argued that gun controls are a band-aid for the problems of undiagnosed/untreated mental illness, it's possible that gun advocacy is merely a symptom of a problem of pervasive underlying racism in the country. Maybe rethinking our approach and ideas of race and fear is as integral to a solution to the problem as limiting access to the deadliest weapons.
If racism were a primary factor in murders in this country, you might have a point. In fact it's generally the opposite, murders tend to stay within race. Whites kill whites and so on.
If we are focusing on factors that drive homicide in this country, it's not gun ownership by fearful white people.
They may not be committing homicides but the same fearful race driven white people are opposing measures like a gun registry, laws regarding safe storage, and universal background checks. Driving the getaway car plays a part in a bank heist, even if you didn't go in and perform the robbery yourself.
-
You can be racist as fuck and a law abiding citizen.
And having an ignorant unpopular opinion isn't illegal nor should it be.
If (as the research suggests) racial fear is a large component of owning a gun and opposing gun control, then that's something that should be discussed and addressed. In the same way that it's often argued that gun controls are a band-aid for the problems of undiagnosed/untreated mental illness, it's possible that gun advocacy is merely a symptom of a problem of pervasive underlying racism in the country. Maybe rethinking our approach and ideas of race and fear is as integral to a solution to the problem as limiting access to the deadliest weapons.
If racism were a primary factor in murders in this country, you might have a point. In fact it's generally the opposite, murders tend to stay within race. Whites kill whites and so on.
If we are focusing on factors that drive homicide in this country, it's not gun ownership by fearful white people.
They may not be committing homicides but the same fearful race driven white people are opposing measures like a gun registry, laws regarding safe storage, and universal background checks. Driving the getaway car plays a part in a bank heist, even if you didn't go in and perform the robbery yourself.
So gun owners oppose regulation because they're racist.
Got it.
Wow.
-
It's a variation the accusation that people with guns (or sports cars...) are compensating for something else.
Anyone that claims to own a gun(s) out of fear (ie. to protect themselves) technically is compensating for that fear. The most common reason given for owning a gun is in fact fear.
Again. So? That's justification for painting a group of people who happen to own an object as racists?
African American's have historically had a higher murder rate per capita than whites and higher unemployment. Racists would apply that broad brush to the entire group. That's ignorant as well and irrelevant to the individual in that group.
So it's pretty justifiable to claim the majority of gun owners are compensating for something. We all do it on a daily basis. For some reason you folks get so freaking defensive about it. I am scared of dying in a car accident. I compensate by being a defensive driver and driving less. So what? I wouldn't take offense to someone pointing it out.
And who painted all gun owners as racist? I saw a question posed to a particular person and an anecdote provided. The only insinuation seemed to come from the highly defensive. You are perfectly capable of asking said person who posted the comment to explain further rather than jumping to immediate ill advised conclusions and likely creating straw-man arguments.
"So, if we were to give a gun to every African-American, would you still feel like more guns are the answer? "
That was the start to this conversation about race and gun ownership. There's seems to be an implication to that statement that the average gun owner wouldn't want African Americans to have guns.
What exactly is the average gun owner criteria? The question was directed at Acroy so you are implying that he is representative of your "average gun owner." I mean does he speak for you? You sure you want to go that route? Or perhaps admit that you made the implication. It's ok, I am not insulting you. Again, instead of jumping to your own conclusions and making implications of your own perhaps you can address the original poster of the question and ask them directly what they meant. Seems pretty logical.
-
Accusing people of being racist/ asking people if they are racist/accusing people of accusing people of being racist does not seem to be a conversation that will lead anywhere good. FWIW, I think it's a rare person who doesn't make assumptions about people based on their looks and background. Certainly it is something that I struggle with on occasion.
A question that I would like to know the answer to (but that you don't have to answer, of course), are the reasons why specifically every gun owner here feels that they need a gun or want a gun. I sincerely would like to know, and I will try not to use this info "against" you in this debate, though I may question your reasons.
For instance,
- did you get your gun(s) for protection, whom are you protecting, and who from? For example, do you walk home late at night through a sketchy area of town, and why do you feel it is sketchy? How would you feel if you did not have your gun(s)?
- do you simply enjoy guns for their design and/or history? Have you spent a lot of money (for you) on guns?
- are they part of your job, or were they part of your job at one time?
- is gun ownership a part of your family culture?
And I guess a question to consider is
- how do you think specific proposed gun regulations would impact you?
I imagine that most regulations would present some sort of pain in the neck for many gun owners or prospective gun owners; the point of them being to present a hindrance to impulse buyers, careless people, and criminals means they would naturally also present hurdles to law-abiding users
Thanks, if you choose to answer any of these questions.
-
I can go first, even though I'm not a gun owner.
Reasons I don't have a gun
- I currently never find myself in situations where I feel a physical edge would be helpful. When a younger woman, I did live in some poor areas of several cities. I didn't worry much about property crime beyond getting my bike stolen, but as a bartender who had to take the subway home around 2am, on a few occasions I felt threatened by strange men; however I did not feel that a gun would have helped the situation... my plan if threatened was make a lot of noise, and run to a residential building and ring all the doorbells, until somebody could call the police. I had a creepy stalker ex-boyfriend once too, but would never have considered shooting him either.
- the expense therefore seems unnecessary
- I can appreciate the cool aspect of many guns, since I enjoy technology and am an equipment collector
- Never part of my job
- My dad (who had been in the military) had a handgun at one point... it was old in the 70s, never loaded in my lifetime, and eventually disappeared along with his Polaroid camera, etc. So realistically speaking it was not part of our family... never went hunting either. We do have some gifted archers in my family, so target shooting could have been fun.
- My perception is that increased regulation would not affect my life negatively, since I am not expecting regular citizens to come to my defense, beyond calling the police or filming any crimes. In fact, the only time I would expect to be impacted by other people's guns is if my kids visit friends whose parents own poorly-secured guns.
-
You can be racist as fuck and a law abiding citizen.
And having an ignorant unpopular opinion isn't illegal nor should it be.
If (as the research suggests) racial fear is a large component of owning a gun and opposing gun control, then that's something that should be discussed and addressed. In the same way that it's often argued that gun controls are a band-aid for the problems of undiagnosed/untreated mental illness, it's possible that gun advocacy is merely a symptom of a problem of pervasive underlying racism in the country. Maybe rethinking our approach and ideas of race and fear is as integral to a solution to the problem as limiting access to the deadliest weapons.
If racism were a primary factor in murders in this country, you might have a point. In fact it's generally the opposite, murders tend to stay within race. Whites kill whites and so on.
If we are focusing on factors that drive homicide in this country, it's not gun ownership by fearful white people.
They may not be committing homicides but the same fearful race driven white people are opposing measures like a gun registry, laws regarding safe storage, and universal background checks. Driving the getaway car plays a part in a bank heist, even if you didn't go in and perform the robbery yourself.
So gun owners oppose regulation because they're racist.
Got it.
Wow.
OK, let's ignore the studies entirely.
There was a well documented spike in gun sales (http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales/index.html (http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/06/news/obama-gun-control-sales/index.html)) and CCW permits (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/concealed-gun-permits-soar-215-record-145-million-explode-under-obama (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/concealed-gun-permits-soar-215-record-145-million-explode-under-obama)) issued when Obama was president . It's not like Obama was coming for guns, he actually signed two bills that expanded gun rights (https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-laws-passed-by-congress-3367595 (https://www.thoughtco.com/obama-gun-laws-passed-by-congress-3367595)). White men make up 32% of Americans, and 61 percent of gun owners (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/ (http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2017/06/22/the-demographics-of-gun-ownership/)). Violent crime has been going down for years (https://www.statista.com/statistics/191219/reported-violent-crime-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/ (https://www.statista.com/statistics/191219/reported-violent-crime-rate-in-the-usa-since-1990/)). Why do you think the spike in gun sales / CCW permits happened?
-
Accusing people of being racist/ asking people if they are racist/accusing people of accusing people of being racist does not seem to be a conversation that will lead anywhere good. FWIW, I think it's a rare person who doesn't make assumptions about people based on their looks and background. Certainly it is something that I struggle with on occasion.
A question that I would like to know the answer to (but that you don't have to answer, of course), are the reasons why specifically every gun owner here feels that they need a gun or want a gun. I sincerely would like to know, and I will try not to use this info "against" you in this debate, though I may question your reasons.
For instance,
- did you get your gun(s) for protection, whom are you protecting, and who from? For example, do you walk home late at night through a sketchy area of town, and why do you feel it is sketchy? How would you feel if you did not have your gun(s)?
- do you simply enjoy guns for their design and/or history? Have you spent a lot of money (for you) on guns?
- are they part of your job, or were they part of your job at one time?
- is gun ownership a part of your family culture?
And I guess a question to consider is
- how do you think specific proposed gun regulations would impact you?
I imagine that most regulations would present some sort of pain in the neck for many gun owners or prospective gun owners; the point of them being to present a hindrance to impulse buyers, careless people, and criminals means they would naturally also present hurdles to law-abiding users
Thanks, if you choose to answer any of these questions.
I shoot 1-2x a month at a range in a pretty diverse/working class area. As a white guy, I’m probably not the majority when I go in there. However I’ve had great conversations about all sorts of things with the other patrons of all ages, colors and genders. Everyone there has to have a FOID to shoot, and I’ve never seen anyone make another lawful gun owner or first time shooter feel unwelcome.
To answer the questions:
-Did you get your gun(s) for protection?
No. Not entirely. You see, guns are useful for a lot of different things. I hunt, I target shoot, I enjoy modifying and tweaking them, and yes, they are useful for protection. But for me protection is mostly a side benefit. There are certain aspects as to how I own and store and modify my guys to make them more useful for protection, but it’s not a main reason. For me, many of the places I go (notably to work and to my daughter’s school) I’m prohibited from carrying so I generally don’t carry anywhere except the range or the woods because most of my trips involve going to a non-gun-friendly place.
-do I enjoy guns for their design and history? Have I spent a lot of money on guns?
Yes I enjoy the craftsmanship that goes with even my lower end Weapons. Guns are fun because they’re like legos, you can add on and replace parts and even if you start with something pedestrian you can upgrade and tweak it to something better. I wouldn’t say I’ve spent a lot on guns, maybe $2k total, but I spend more on range time and ammo. Better to be good with the tools you have than to get better tools. Also, aside from hunting, I generally just punch paper at relatively short range, you don’t need anything exotic for that.
-are/we’re guns part of your job?
Not really. I served in the Navy and very occasionally carried a side arm, and qualified annually with rifle and pistol, plus did a short stint helping to run a firearms trainer, but other than that no.
-Is gun ownership part of your family culture?
My side of the family no. Many of the men on my side served but few were into guns in any meaningful way. However my wife’s dad and brother in law are huge gun nuts and much more serious hunters than I am. So I shoot with them frequently (tomorrow!).
-How would increased regulations affect you?
Generally they’re an annoyance, but thy could also be used against me to arrest me on a technicality. Arbitrarily make some aspect of my guns illegal, make me a technical offender. Many gun laws are nonsensical or ambiguous and a bully cop could give me a hard time. For instance, the rules about transporting guns are that it not be readily accessible to you in a car. It’s understood that means locked in a trunk. Well, what if you have an SUV or station wagon without a separate trunk? Is it being in the way back inaccessible enough? Another one, a gun must be transported unloaded with the ammo stored separately from the weapon. My range bag has a zippered main compartment where the gun goes, and a separate zippered compartment for magazines. Is that considered “stored separately”? That’s the kind of shit gun owners fear, some power hungry cop looking to give me a hard time on a technicality.
I also have a really hard time with rules that are arbitrary or poorly thought out. “Cooling off” periods are my favorite whipping boy. In IL to purchase a firearm I need to get a FOID. That takes a couple months. And then once I get my FOID I need to wait another 72 hours from purchase to pickup to get my gun? Come on, I just waited 2 months! Also, I already have guns. Why does waiting 72 hours to get my 4th, 5th, 6th gun do anyone any good?
I could go on and on, but the point is that generally more laws do very little to stop criminal but are a big PITA for law abiding citizens, which makes them worthless in my eyes.
-
Since we're on this topic of black gun owners, I'd really, really like to know why gun owners did not come out to protest Philando Castile's killing? I don't want to go the route of "white gun owners are racist" because that's incredibly unhelpful and unfair, so please don't take it that way, but this one really baffles me. I watched the videos, read a LOT of accounts of what happened, and it seemed a clear overreaction by the cop to the presence (he had declared it, but it was not visible at all) of a legal firearm. I even had a gun owning friend victim blame Castile by saying he didn't react perfectly so that's why he was killed, which was asinine. He declared it, then the cop started freaking out, screaming confuaing directions. A second or two later, hail of bullets.
-
Since we're on this topic of black gun owners, I'd really, really like to know why gun owners did not come out to protest Philando Castile's killing? I don't want to go the route of "white gun owners are racist" because that's incredibly unhelpful and unfair, so please don't take it that way, but this one really baffles me. I watched the videos, read a LOT of accounts of what happened, and it seemed a clear overreaction by the cop to the presence (he had declared it, but it was not visible at all) of a legal firearm. I even had a gun owning friend victim blame Castile by saying he didn't react perfectly so that's why he was killed, which was asinine. He declared it, then the cop started freaking out, screaming confuaing directions. A second or two later, hail of bullets.
I strongly suspect it was a melanin issue. Sorry, but I don't know what else it would be.
-
It's a variation the accusation that people with guns (or sports cars...) are compensating for something else.
Anyone that claims to own a gun(s) out of fear (ie. to protect themselves) technically is compensating for that fear. The most common reason given for owning a gun is in fact fear.
Again. So? That's justification for painting a group of people who happen to own an object as racists?
African American's have historically had a higher murder rate per capita than whites and higher unemployment. Racists would apply that broad brush to the entire group. That's ignorant as well and irrelevant to the individual in that group.
So it's pretty justifiable to claim the majority of gun owners are compensating for something. We all do it on a daily basis. For some reason you folks get so freaking defensive about it. I am scared of dying in a car accident. I compensate by being a defensive driver and driving less. So what? I wouldn't take offense to someone pointing it out.
And who painted all gun owners as racist? I saw a question posed to a particular person and an anecdote provided. The only insinuation seemed to come from the highly defensive. You are perfectly capable of asking said person who posted the comment to explain further rather than jumping to immediate ill advised conclusions and likely creating straw-man arguments.
"So, if we were to give a gun to every African-American, would you still feel like more guns are the answer? "
That was the start to this conversation about race and gun ownership. There's seems to be an implication to that statement that the average gun owner wouldn't want African Americans to have guns.
What exactly is the average gun owner criteria? The question was directed at Acroy so you are implying that he is representative of your "average gun owner." I mean does he speak for you? You sure you want to go that route? Or perhaps admit that you made the implication. It's ok, I am not insulting you. Again, instead of jumping to your own conclusions and making implications of your own perhaps you can address the original poster of the question and ask them directly what they meant. Seems pretty logical.
I didn't mean to imply that Acroy did or didn't represent the "average gun owner." I suspect the conversation would have ended there, but for others jumping in.
Steve's comment - "They (I'm presuming that means white people who oppose gun control) may not be committing homicides but the same fearful race driven white people are opposing measures like a gun registry, laws regarding safe storage, and universal background checks." is exactly the viewpoint I was referring to. Maybe many of us just disagree with some of the policies being proposed.
-
It's a variation the accusation that people with guns (or sports cars...) are compensating for something else.
Anyone that claims to own a gun(s) out of fear (ie. to protect themselves) technically is compensating for that fear. The most common reason given for owning a gun is in fact fear.
Again. So? That's justification for painting a group of people who happen to own an object as racists?
African American's have historically had a higher murder rate per capita than whites and higher unemployment. Racists would apply that broad brush to the entire group. That's ignorant as well and irrelevant to the individual in that group.
So it's pretty justifiable to claim the majority of gun owners are compensating for something. We all do it on a daily basis. For some reason you folks get so freaking defensive about it. I am scared of dying in a car accident. I compensate by being a defensive driver and driving less. So what? I wouldn't take offense to someone pointing it out.
And who painted all gun owners as racist? I saw a question posed to a particular person and an anecdote provided. The only insinuation seemed to come from the highly defensive. You are perfectly capable of asking said person who posted the comment to explain further rather than jumping to immediate ill advised conclusions and likely creating straw-man arguments.
"So, if we were to give a gun to every African-American, would you still feel like more guns are the answer? "
That was the start to this conversation about race and gun ownership. There's seems to be an implication to that statement that the average gun owner wouldn't want African Americans to have guns.
What exactly is the average gun owner criteria? The question was directed at Acroy so you are implying that he is representative of your "average gun owner." I mean does he speak for you? You sure you want to go that route? Or perhaps admit that you made the implication. It's ok, I am not insulting you. Again, instead of jumping to your own conclusions and making implications of your own perhaps you can address the original poster of the question and ask them directly what they meant. Seems pretty logical.
I didn't mean to imply that Acroy did or didn't represent the "average gun owner." I suspect the conversation would have ended there, but for others jumping in.
Steve's comment - "They (I'm presuming that means white people who oppose gun control) may not be committing homicides but the same fearful race driven white people are opposing measures like a gun registry, laws regarding safe storage, and universal background checks." is exactly the viewpoint I was referring to. Maybe many of us just disagree with some of the policies being proposed.
Sounds sensible.
-
It's a variation the accusation that people with guns (or sports cars...) are compensating for something else.
Anyone that claims to own a gun(s) out of fear (ie. to protect themselves) technically is compensating for that fear. The most common reason given for owning a gun is in fact fear.
Again. So? That's justification for painting a group of people who happen to own an object as racists?
African American's have historically had a higher murder rate per capita than whites and higher unemployment. Racists would apply that broad brush to the entire group. That's ignorant as well and irrelevant to the individual in that group.
So it's pretty justifiable to claim the majority of gun owners are compensating for something. We all do it on a daily basis. For some reason you folks get so freaking defensive about it. I am scared of dying in a car accident. I compensate by being a defensive driver and driving less. So what? I wouldn't take offense to someone pointing it out.
And who painted all gun owners as racist? I saw a question posed to a particular person and an anecdote provided. The only insinuation seemed to come from the highly defensive. You are perfectly capable of asking said person who posted the comment to explain further rather than jumping to immediate ill advised conclusions and likely creating straw-man arguments.
"So, if we were to give a gun to every African-American, would you still feel like more guns are the answer? "
That was the start to this conversation about race and gun ownership. There's seems to be an implication to that statement that the average gun owner wouldn't want African Americans to have guns.
What exactly is the average gun owner criteria? The question was directed at Acroy so you are implying that he is representative of your "average gun owner." I mean does he speak for you? You sure you want to go that route? Or perhaps admit that you made the implication. It's ok, I am not insulting you. Again, instead of jumping to your own conclusions and making implications of your own perhaps you can address the original poster of the question and ask them directly what they meant. Seems pretty logical.
I didn't mean to imply that Acroy did or didn't represent the "average gun owner." I suspect the conversation would have ended there, but for others jumping in.
Steve's comment - "They (I'm presuming that means white people who oppose gun control) may not be committing homicides but the same fearful race driven white people are opposing measures like a gun registry, laws regarding safe storage, and universal background checks." is exactly the viewpoint I was referring to. Maybe many of us just disagree with some of the policies being proposed.
Sounds sensible.
Obviously many gun advocates disagree with the policies being proposed. That's not in dispute.
If the reason that the policy is being opposed is "Minorities are scary to me, so I need an AR15 because I can't shoot enough immigrants with a shotgun", "The government was headed by a black guy and that's frightening to me, so I need a bump stock because that will enable me to single handedly take on the impure hordes", or "Black people kill black people, so let's make getting a gun as easy as possible for everyone, opposing anything that would prevent straw purchases / require background checks for all" then maybe the whole discussion around guns and politics needs to take a bit of a different tone.
Again, I don't believe that every gun advocate is racist. I'd be surprised if the majority of gun advocates are racist. But if there's a sizable chunk (as the evidence appears to indicate) that are, then maybe we should stop ignoring them and pretending their views don't exist.
-
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES. The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs. They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body. So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"
This is one of the reasons it is important to have at least a basic knowledge of weapons and their capabilities before discussing banning/regulating them.
The damage done is NOT based on the weapon, but the round used.
An AR-15 can fire a .22 long rifle round which does relatively mild damage. This is a common "plinking" round. You would not want to use a .22 in as a defense weapon unless you had no other choice.
Or the AR-15 can fire the NATO 5.56 round. The same round used by the military. However, it fires at a slower rate. A significantly more deadly round.
The main point, however, is that the rather innocuous "old school" looking Ruger ranch rifle can also be used to fire either the 5.56 NATO round or a .22 round.
On top of that, guns can fire a wide variety of bullet types- full metal jacket (sometimes called "ball"), hollow point, soft point, etc- some of which will do more internal damage than a 5.56 FMJ round.
I'm not saying that people should understand this stuff just to be a jerk or keep people from commenting. I'm bringing it up because knowing at least a modicum about the subject is important. You don't have to be a weapons expert, but you should at least have some understanding of the basics before discussing what limitations to put on either the weapons, the ammunition, the magazines, etc.
We can't have a substantive discussion if people don't have any idea what they are talking about, or if they are just repeating what they heard Diane Feinstein say on CNN last night.
Even if you are on the "other side," I recommend learning some of this stuff. If you can get out to a range and at least fire a few rounds, great, but if you don't want to do that, you can learn a lot just reading or watching youtube videos.
-
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES. The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs. They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body. So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"
This is one of the reasons it is important to have at least a basic knowledge of weapons and their capabilities before discussing banning/regulating them.
oh.my.gosh.
I don't know the velocity of a bullet. I guess that means I can't have an opinion on how it's dangerous to allow weapons that can kill many people in a few seconds. Does the NRA have a course I can take before I'm allowed to have an opinion?
-
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES. The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs. They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body. So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"
The damage done is NOT based on the weapon, but the round used.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html)
So this doctor, like many others, doesn't know what they are talking about? Seems to be a common theme with you.
-
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES. The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs. They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body. So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"
The damage done is NOT based on the weapon, but the round used.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html)
So this doctor, like many others, doesn't know what they are talking about? Seems to be a common theme with you.
Or since the doctor may not know which bullet type was used, maybe strict controls on bullets that cause that type of wound?
-
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES. The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs. They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body. So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"
The damage done is NOT based on the weapon, but the round used.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html)
So this doctor, like many others, doesn't know what they are talking about? Seems to be a common theme with you.
Or since the doctor may not know which bullet type was used, maybe strict controls on bullets that cause that type of wound?
That won't help.
https://www.wired.com/2016/06/ar-15-can-human-body/ (https://www.wired.com/2016/06/ar-15-can-human-body/)
-
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES. The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs. They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body. So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"
The damage done is NOT based on the weapon, but the round used.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html)
So this doctor, like many others, doesn't know what they are talking about? Seems to be a common theme with you.
While it is a common theme with him, on this I have to side with our Libertarian friend. The power of a round comes from the design of the ammunition, not really the weapon it's fired from. If there's more gun powder packed into the bullet, and the bullet is physically larger, it tends to do more damage.
Handguns typically fire smaller and lower powered powered rounds. Many hunting guns are capable of much higher powered fire (to put down a large animal like a moose safely you need a powerful round). The AR15 is certainly not alone in being able to fire powerful rounds.
The AR15 is more deadly than many more traditional style hunting rifle because of things like the flash suppressor, the collapsible stock, the pistol grip, etc. I think that the argument might also be made that there's little need for a large caliber semi-automatic rifle when hunting big game (I hunted moose for years with friends using a bolt action 30-06). If you feel the need to spray an animal with bullets while hunting, you might want to take a step back and double check that you know what you're doing.
-
Is this movement about banning the sale of all firearms? Or just the types classified as "assault weapons"?
-
Since we're on this topic of black gun owners, I'd really, really like to know why gun owners did not come out to protest Philando Castile's killing? I don't want to go the route of "white gun owners are racist" because that's incredibly unhelpful and unfair, so please don't take it that way, but this one really baffles me. I watched the videos, read a LOT of accounts of what happened, and it seemed a clear overreaction by the cop to the presence (he had declared it, but it was not visible at all) of a legal firearm. I even had a gun owning friend victim blame Castile by saying he didn't react perfectly so that's why he was killed, which was asinine. He declared it, then the cop started freaking out, screaming confuaing directions. A second or two later, hail of bullets.
I strongly suspect it was a melanin issue. Sorry, but I don't know what else it would be.
Unfortunately, I suspect you are exactly right. This right here is why I scoff every time "tyranny" pops up. Clearly gun owners who buy weapons for this reason have no clue what that is (or they only care if it's a perceived "tyranny" affecting them).
-
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES. The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs. They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body. So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"
The damage done is NOT based on the weapon, but the round used.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html)
So this doctor, like many others, doesn't know what they are talking about? Seems to be a common theme with you.
While it is a common theme with him, on this I have to side with our Libertarian friend. The power of a round comes from the design of the ammunition, not really the weapon it's fired from. If there's more gun powder packed into the bullet, and the bullet is physically larger, it tends to do more damage.
Handguns typically fire smaller and lower powered powered rounds. Many hunting guns are capable of much higher powered fire (to put down a large animal like a moose safely you need a powerful round). The AR15 is certainly not alone in being able to fire powerful rounds.
The AR15 is more deadly than many more traditional style hunting rifle because of things like the flash suppressor, the collapsible stock, the pistol grip, etc. I think that the argument might also be made that there's little need for a large caliber semi-automatic rifle when hunting big game (I hunted moose for years with friends using a bolt action 30-06). If you feel the need to spray an animal with bullets while hunting, you might want to take a step back and double check that you know what you're doing.
K.E. = 1/2 mv^2
Mass and Velocity play a role. They both absolutely affect damage. Libertarian claiming the weapon used plays no role is incorrect.
.22 Caliber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv67iJiV3So (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv67iJiV3So)
.223 Caliber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=43&v=f94Wz4ATcik (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=43&v=f94Wz4ATcik)
Notice the distinct difference in damage caused by rounds of very little weight difference. Expand it out to 500 yards and the.223 will hit it's target with almost twice the speed of the .22. If my calculations are correct this translates to the .223 is carrying 335 foot-pounds of force, while the .22 carries 70 foot-pounds.
Arguing over which is more destructive (mass or velocity) is a moot point. I only contended that arguing one doesn't matter is disingenuous.
-
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES. The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs. They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body. So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"
The damage done is NOT based on the weapon, but the round used.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html)
So this doctor, like many others, doesn't know what they are talking about? Seems to be a common theme with you.
While it is a common theme with him, on this I have to side with our Libertarian friend. The power of a round comes from the design of the ammunition, not really the weapon it's fired from. If there's more gun powder packed into the bullet, and the bullet is physically larger, it tends to do more damage.
Handguns typically fire smaller and lower powered powered rounds. Many hunting guns are capable of much higher powered fire (to put down a large animal like a moose safely you need a powerful round). The AR15 is certainly not alone in being able to fire powerful rounds.
The AR15 is more deadly than many more traditional style hunting rifle because of things like the flash suppressor, the collapsible stock, the pistol grip, etc. I think that the argument might also be made that there's little need for a large caliber semi-automatic rifle when hunting big game (I hunted moose for years with friends using a bolt action 30-06). If you feel the need to spray an animal with bullets while hunting, you might want to take a step back and double check that you know what you're doing.
K.E. = 1/2 mv^2
Mass and Velocity play a role. They both absolutely affect damage. Libertarian claiming the weapon used plays no role is incorrect.
.22 Caliber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv67iJiV3So (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv67iJiV3So)
.223 Caliber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=43&v=f94Wz4ATcik (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=43&v=f94Wz4ATcik)
Notice the distinct difference in damage caused by rounds of very little weight difference. Expand it out to 500 yards and the.223 will hit it's target with almost twice the speed of the .22. If my calculations are correct this translates to the .223 is carrying 335 foot-pounds of force, while the .22 carries 70 foot-pounds.
Arguing over which is more destructive (mass or velocity) is a moot point. I only contended that arguing one doesn't matter is disingenuous.
Agreed. Thank you for providing this explanation.
Wonder what the odds are that Libertarian will recognize his error, admit he doesn’t know enough about guns to engage in this discussion, and step away from it.
-
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES. The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs. They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body. So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"
The damage done is NOT based on the weapon, but the round used.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html)
So this doctor, like many others, doesn't know what they are talking about? Seems to be a common theme with you.
While it is a common theme with him, on this I have to side with our Libertarian friend. The power of a round comes from the design of the ammunition, not really the weapon it's fired from. If there's more gun powder packed into the bullet, and the bullet is physically larger, it tends to do more damage.
Handguns typically fire smaller and lower powered powered rounds. Many hunting guns are capable of much higher powered fire (to put down a large animal like a moose safely you need a powerful round). The AR15 is certainly not alone in being able to fire powerful rounds.
The AR15 is more deadly than many more traditional style hunting rifle because of things like the flash suppressor, the collapsible stock, the pistol grip, etc. I think that the argument might also be made that there's little need for a large caliber semi-automatic rifle when hunting big game (I hunted moose for years with friends using a bolt action 30-06). If you feel the need to spray an animal with bullets while hunting, you might want to take a step back and double check that you know what you're doing.
K.E. = 1/2 mv^2
Mass and Velocity play a role. They both absolutely affect damage. Libertarian claiming the weapon used plays no role is incorrect.
.22 Caliber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv67iJiV3So (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv67iJiV3So)
.223 Caliber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=43&v=f94Wz4ATcik (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=43&v=f94Wz4ATcik)
Notice the distinct difference in damage caused by rounds of very little weight difference. Expand it out to 500 yards and the.223 will hit it's target with almost twice the speed of the .22. If my calculations are correct this translates to the .223 is carrying 335 foot-pounds of force, while the .22 carries 70 foot-pounds.
Arguing over which is more destructive (mass or velocity) is a moot point. I only contended that arguing one doesn't matter is disingenuous.
I'm not a gun expert, but I'd figure any gun shooting the same .223 ammunition would have similar damage wouldn't it? You're comparing completely different ammunition when you compare it to a gun firing a .22.
-
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES. The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs. They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body. So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"
The damage done is NOT based on the weapon, but the round used.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html)
So this doctor, like many others, doesn't know what they are talking about? Seems to be a common theme with you.
While it is a common theme with him, on this I have to side with our Libertarian friend. The power of a round comes from the design of the ammunition, not really the weapon it's fired from. If there's more gun powder packed into the bullet, and the bullet is physically larger, it tends to do more damage.
Handguns typically fire smaller and lower powered powered rounds. Many hunting guns are capable of much higher powered fire (to put down a large animal like a moose safely you need a powerful round). The AR15 is certainly not alone in being able to fire powerful rounds.
The AR15 is more deadly than many more traditional style hunting rifle because of things like the flash suppressor, the collapsible stock, the pistol grip, etc. I think that the argument might also be made that there's little need for a large caliber semi-automatic rifle when hunting big game (I hunted moose for years with friends using a bolt action 30-06). If you feel the need to spray an animal with bullets while hunting, you might want to take a step back and double check that you know what you're doing.
K.E. = 1/2 mv^2
Mass and Velocity play a role. They both absolutely affect damage. Libertarian claiming the weapon used plays no role is incorrect.
.22 Caliber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv67iJiV3So (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv67iJiV3So)
.223 Caliber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=43&v=f94Wz4ATcik (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=43&v=f94Wz4ATcik)
Notice the distinct difference in damage caused by rounds of very little weight difference. Expand it out to 500 yards and the.223 will hit it's target with almost twice the speed of the .22. If my calculations are correct this translates to the .223 is carrying 335 foot-pounds of force, while the .22 carries 70 foot-pounds.
Arguing over which is more destructive (mass or velocity) is a moot point. I only contended that arguing one doesn't matter is disingenuous.
I'm not a gun expert, but I'd figure any gun shooting the same .223 ammunition would have similar damage wouldn't it? You're comparing completely different ammunition when you compare it to a gun firing a .22.
The velocity of an AR-15 is quite a bit faster, so the greater speed that the bullet enters the body has an effect.
-
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES. The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs. They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body. So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"
The damage done is NOT based on the weapon, but the round used.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html)
So this doctor, like many others, doesn't know what they are talking about? Seems to be a common theme with you.
While it is a common theme with him, on this I have to side with our Libertarian friend. The power of a round comes from the design of the ammunition, not really the weapon it's fired from. If there's more gun powder packed into the bullet, and the bullet is physically larger, it tends to do more damage.
Handguns typically fire smaller and lower powered powered rounds. Many hunting guns are capable of much higher powered fire (to put down a large animal like a moose safely you need a powerful round). The AR15 is certainly not alone in being able to fire powerful rounds.
The AR15 is more deadly than many more traditional style hunting rifle because of things like the flash suppressor, the collapsible stock, the pistol grip, etc. I think that the argument might also be made that there's little need for a large caliber semi-automatic rifle when hunting big game (I hunted moose for years with friends using a bolt action 30-06). If you feel the need to spray an animal with bullets while hunting, you might want to take a step back and double check that you know what you're doing.
K.E. = 1/2 mv^2
Mass and Velocity play a role. They both absolutely affect damage. Libertarian claiming the weapon used plays no role is incorrect.
.22 Caliber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv67iJiV3So (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv67iJiV3So)
.223 Caliber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=43&v=f94Wz4ATcik (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=43&v=f94Wz4ATcik)
Notice the distinct difference in damage caused by rounds of very little weight difference. Expand it out to 500 yards and the.223 will hit it's target with almost twice the speed of the .22. If my calculations are correct this translates to the .223 is carrying 335 foot-pounds of force, while the .22 carries 70 foot-pounds.
Arguing over which is more destructive (mass or velocity) is a moot point. I only contended that arguing one doesn't matter is disingenuous.
I'm not a gun expert, but I'd figure any gun shooting the same .223 ammunition would have similar damage wouldn't it? You're comparing completely different ammunition when you compare it to a gun firing a .22.
The velocity of an AR-15 is quite a bit faster, so the greater speed that the bullet enters the body has an effect.
Are you saying .223 is faster or .223 fired via an AR-15 is faster than .223 fired via another .223 rifle?
-
I'm not a gun expert, but I'd figure any gun shooting the same .223 ammunition would have similar damage wouldn't it? You're comparing completely different ammunition when you compare it to a gun firing a .22.
Not necessarily. If you could shoot the same .223 round out of a basic handgun it would not cause near the same damage as shooting it out of an AR-15 or similar. As velocity decreases, the energy imparted decreases as well (provided mass stays the same). Less energy means less destructive force.
https://fortheloveofthegun.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/chart.jpg (https://fortheloveofthegun.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/chart.jpg)
-
So if I understand the technical part clearly, the effect a bullet has on a body is a result both of the makeup of the bullet (so some bullets are more destructive) and also the velocity the rifle/handgun imparts to the bullet? So a rifle that can shoot with high velocity, and a bullet that does more damage, will together cause much more damage than a low velocity rifle shooting a low-damage bullet.
-
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES. The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs. They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body. So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"
The damage done is NOT based on the weapon, but the round used.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html)
So this doctor, like many others, doesn't know what they are talking about? Seems to be a common theme with you.
While it is a common theme with him, on this I have to side with our Libertarian friend. The power of a round comes from the design of the ammunition, not really the weapon it's fired from. If there's more gun powder packed into the bullet, and the bullet is physically larger, it tends to do more damage.
Handguns typically fire smaller and lower powered powered rounds. Many hunting guns are capable of much higher powered fire (to put down a large animal like a moose safely you need a powerful round). The AR15 is certainly not alone in being able to fire powerful rounds.
The AR15 is more deadly than many more traditional style hunting rifle because of things like the flash suppressor, the collapsible stock, the pistol grip, etc. I think that the argument might also be made that there's little need for a large caliber semi-automatic rifle when hunting big game (I hunted moose for years with friends using a bolt action 30-06). If you feel the need to spray an animal with bullets while hunting, you might want to take a step back and double check that you know what you're doing.
K.E. = 1/2 mv^2
Mass and Velocity play a role. They both absolutely affect damage. Libertarian claiming the weapon used plays no role is incorrect.
.22 Caliber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv67iJiV3So (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv67iJiV3So)
.223 Caliber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=43&v=f94Wz4ATcik (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=43&v=f94Wz4ATcik)
Notice the distinct difference in damage caused by rounds of very little weight difference. Expand it out to 500 yards and the.223 will hit it's target with almost twice the speed of the .22. If my calculations are correct this translates to the .223 is carrying 335 foot-pounds of force, while the .22 carries 70 foot-pounds.
Arguing over which is more destructive (mass or velocity) is a moot point. I only contended that arguing one doesn't matter is disingenuous.
I'm not a gun expert, but I'd figure any gun shooting the same .223 ammunition would have similar damage wouldn't it? You're comparing completely different ammunition when you compare it to a gun firing a .22.
The velocity of an AR-15 is quite a bit faster, so the greater speed that the bullet enters the body has an effect.
Are you saying .223 is faster or .223 fired via an AR-15 is faster than .223 fired via another .223 rifle?
I’m saying the muzzle velocity of a gun with a shorter barrel is slower than the muzzle velocity of a gun with a longer barrel, all things being equal. So that is a factor.
-
Does muzzle velocity matter when shooting teenagers with no body armor at close range?
-
Does muzzle velocity matter when shooting teenagers with no body armor at close range?
Well, we don’t know how close the range always is, do we?
-
Does muzzle velocity matter when shooting young adults with no body armor at an outdoor concert from far range?
-
Does muzzle velocity matter when shooting young adults with no body armor at an outdoor concert from far range?
Probably.
-
What is the appropriate solution to control the use of firearms that have the muzzle velocity capable enough of inflicting permanent disfigurement and fatal wounds at both close and far range?
-
Does muzzle velocity matter when shooting young adults with no body armor at an outdoor concert from far range?
Yes! Probably would not have been very effective trying to inflict mass casualties from a relatively far distance with a hand gun.
-
What is the appropriate solution to control the use of firearms that have the muzzle velocity capable enough of inflicting permanent disfigurement and fatal wounds at both close and far range?
Essentially, A complete ban on all rifles capable of hunting.
UT Austin Shooter, 1966
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Charles_Whitman%27s_arsenal.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_tower_shooting
Kennedy Shooter, 1963
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/CarcanoRifleNARA.gif)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy)
Beyond that, most mass shootings don't happen with "Assault Rifles", or even happen with rifles at all... But feel free to ignore the facts.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0057.htm (https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0057.htm)
-
Beyond that, most mass shootings don't happen with "Assault Rifles", or even happen with rifles at all... But feel free to ignore the facts.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0057.htm (https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0057.htm)
Chill dude. You can point out facts and leave it at that. As long as we have guns and the gun culture remains the same in the US, there will be mass shootings. There is nothing wrong with trying to limit the damage and/or increase survivability. It's also much easier to engage a mass shooter at close range than at long range (like the Vegas shooter).
-
If an assailant plans a mass shooting, knowing muzzle velocity and range are a factor, what is the appropriate solution for preventing them from using a rifle for longer distances or a handgun (or rifle) for shorter distances?
-
If an assailant plans a mass shooting, knowing muzzle velocity and range are a factor, what is the appropriate solution for preventing them from using a rifle for longer distances or a handgun (or rifle) for shorter distances?
Honestly, a better NCIS system with the ability to submit mental health / domestic violence AND due process for appealing those submittals.
That would be a great start that everyone can get on board with.
I would also approve of universal background checks provided they are fast and low cost, and they don't build a registry.
-
I don't entirely understand universal background checks without a registry. How exactly does one enforce universal background checks if there's no record of who owns what gun?
Here's a scenario:
- Universal background checks are mandated by law.
- Person A sells a gun to person B.
- Person B turns out to be a criminal, and gets caught with the gun.
- Person A is questioned by police.
- Person A says that they sold the gun to someone who passed the background check.
- The police can't do anything, because they can't refute what he just said.
If the person who sells the gun is also required by law to keep a record of who they sold it to that would fix the problem. But if so, what happens if they lose their record (say it's burned in a fire, lost in a flood, or just misplaced)?
-
Can we expect the current President to veto or pass gun control legislation if gun conrol advocates sweep the house this fall? And if a Keith Ellison Victory happens in 2020, with a Democrat controlled congress, can we expect a reform bill to be passed unlike 08-09 when they had a large majority?
-
Can we expect the current President to veto or pass gun control legislation if gun conrol advocates sweep the house this fall? And if a Keith Ellison Victory happens in 2020, with a Democrat controlled congress, can we expect a reform bill to be passed unlike 08-09 when they had a large majority?
Are the Democrats really thinking of running Keith Ellison for President?
-
I don't entirely understand universal background checks without a registry. How exactly does one enforce universal background checks if there's no record of who owns what gun?
Here's a scenario:
- Universal background checks are mandated by law.
- Person A sells a gun to person B.
- Person B turns out to be a criminal, and gets caught with the gun.
- Person A is questioned by police.
- Person A says that they sold the gun to someone who passed the background check.
- The police can't do anything, because they can't refute what he just said.
If the person who sells the gun is also required by law to keep a record of who they sold it to that would fix the problem. But if so, what happens if they lose their record (say it's burned in a fire, lost in a flood, or just misplaced)?
What if Person A sells the gun to person B and reports it stolen?
-
I don't entirely understand universal background checks without a registry. How exactly does one enforce universal background checks if there's no record of who owns what gun?
Here's a scenario:
- Universal background checks are mandated by law.
- Person A sells a gun to person B.
- Person B turns out to be a criminal, and gets caught with the gun.
- Person A is questioned by police.
- Person A says that they sold the gun to someone who passed the background check.
- The police can't do anything, because they can't refute what he just said.
If the person who sells the gun is also required by law to keep a record of who they sold it to that would fix the problem. But if so, what happens if they lose their record (say it's burned in a fire, lost in a flood, or just misplaced)?
What if Person A sells the gun to person B and reports it stolen?
There's nothing to prevent that. And without a registry there's no way for the police to prevent them from doing it over and over again, because it's extremely difficult to prove.
-
Can we expect the current President to veto or pass gun control legislation if gun conrol advocates sweep the house this fall? And if a Keith Ellison Victory happens in 2020, with a Democrat controlled congress, can we expect a reform bill to be passed unlike 08-09 when they had a large majority?
Are the Democrats really thinking of running Keith Ellison for President?
Probably. They are strategy-impaired.
-
Can we expect the current President to veto or pass gun control legislation if gun conrol advocates sweep the house this fall? And if a Keith Ellison Victory happens in 2020, with a Democrat controlled congress, can we expect a reform bill to be passed unlike 08-09 when they had a large majority?
Are the Democrats really thinking of running Keith Ellison for President?
Probably. They are strategy-impaired.
Wow. Trump beat Hillary because she was an awful candidate so we'll find a worse one?
PS - I'm not trying to start an argument on Ellison, just genuinely surprised the Democrats might run him. If my assessment of him is wrong, so be it.
-
Can we expect the current President to veto or pass gun control legislation if gun conrol advocates sweep the house this fall? And if a Keith Ellison Victory happens in 2020, with a Democrat controlled congress, can we expect a reform bill to be passed unlike 08-09 when they had a large majority?
Are the Democrats really thinking of running Keith Ellison for President?
Probably. They are strategy-impaired.
Wow. Trump beat Hillary because she was an awful candidate so we'll find a worse one?
PS - I'm not trying to start an argument on Ellison, just genuinely surprised the Democrats might run him. If my assessment of him is wrong, so be it.
I was actually saying that as someone who likes Ellison pretty well. But he's Muslim, and we are a religiously bigoted country. Even a lot of black Dems wouldn't vote for him.
-
A question that I would like to know the answer to (but that you don't have to answer, of course), are the reasons why specifically every gun owner here feels that they need a gun or want a gun. I sincerely would like to know, and I will try not to use this info "against" you in this debate, though I may question your reasons.
For instance,
- did you get your gun(s) for protection, whom are you protecting, and who from? [ ...]
- do you simply enjoy guns for their design and/or history? Have you spent a lot of money (for you) on guns?
- are they part of your job, or were they part of your job at one time?
- is gun ownership a part of your family culture?
And I guess a question to consider is
- how do you think specific proposed gun regulations would impact you?
[...]
Thanks, if you choose to answer any of these questions.
-How would increased regulations affect you?
Generally they’re an annoyance, but thy could also be used against me to arrest me on a technicality. Arbitrarily make some aspect of my guns illegal, make me a technical offender. Many gun laws are nonsensical or ambiguous and a bully cop could give me a hard time. For instance, the rules about transporting guns are that it not be readily accessible to you in a car. It’s understood that means locked in a trunk. Well, what if you have an SUV or station wagon without a separate trunk? Is it being in the way back inaccessible enough? Another one, a gun must be transported unloaded with the ammo stored separately from the weapon. My range bag has a zippered main compartment where the gun goes, and a separate zippered compartment for magazines. Is that considered “stored separately”? That’s the kind of shit gun owners fear, some power hungry cop looking to give me a hard time on a technicality.
I also have a really hard time with rules that are arbitrary or poorly thought out. “Cooling off” periods are my favorite whipping boy. In IL to purchase a firearm I need to get a FOID. That takes a couple months. And then once I get my FOID I need to wait another 72 hours from purchase to pickup to get my gun? Come on, I just waited 2 months! Also, I already have guns. Why does waiting 72 hours to get my 4th, 5th, 6th gun do anyone any good?
I could go on and on, but the point is that generally more laws do very little to stop criminal but are a big PITA for law abiding citizens, which makes them worthless in my eyes.
Thanks so much, Chris. A lot of food for thought here. Seems like the devil is really in the details here. It sounds like there needs to be clear guidelines on what storage is considered adequate, and it also sounds like there should be research done on what kind of wait is actually effective. There may be already, I just don't know.
How often do you have to get your FOID? Presumably if you have a gun already, you have a FOID already, so you just have a 3 day wait which is not too bad... it's not over 2 months for every single weapon, is it? And it probably saves money... less buyer's remorse! If the 72 hour wait is associated with drops in gun violence, it seems like a small sacrifice for somebody else's life or health (remember every violent death or hospitalization creates a strain on society in some way). But if there turns out to be no drop in gun crime, it seems like the extra wait could go.
In NY, one of the bills under consideration is ERPO (Extreme Risk Protection Order) and also another one that closes background loophole checks. These sound good to me. CT got ERPOs and I have heard that the suicide rate went down there.
There is not going to be any "magic bullet" regulation that will knock out all gun violence or even just good old violence in the U.S. But it's a clear problem in our country, and we need to try a lot of different things and do the research to see if they can REDUCE lethal or crippling violence in the US; if not, let the regulation expire. Speaking of expired regulation, it sounds like parts of the 1994 "assaults weapons ban" was associated with a drop in the number of gun massacre incidents and deaths, and its expiration was associated in the rise of same. We should consider reinstating some version of it.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2018/02/15/its-time-to-bring-back-the-assault-weapons-ban-gun-violence-experts-say
Yes, correlation is not necessarily causation, the dip in deaths and attacks could be due to chance or some other factor, but correlation is really the best tool that we humans have for decision making.
-
I was actually saying that as someone who likes Ellison pretty well. But he's Muslim, and we are a religiously bigoted country. Even a lot of black Dems wouldn't vote for him.
Shades JFK's election - Roman Catholic candidate, the Pope would run the country.
-
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES. The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs. They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body. So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"
The damage done is NOT based on the weapon, but the round used.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html)
So this doctor, like many others, doesn't know what they are talking about? Seems to be a common theme with you.
She either doesn't know what she is talking about, or is being intentionally misleading. I should point out that getting an MD does not make one an expert on weapons. She may have seen nasty wounds that were fired by an AR-15 and ASSUMED all AR-15s cause that kind of damage, which is not necessarily the case. Let me explain.
An AR-15 is capable of firing a .556 NATO military round (high velocity, and "tumbles" in the body, making it a pretty lethal round, though not the worst) or it can fire a common .22 plinking round (the round most kids use when they first learn to shoot at cans or bottles. A round with a very low lethality).
I should also point out that MANY other rifles that don't look as "scary" as the AR-15 are capable of firing that high velocity military round.
The point is, the AR-15 can fire a highly lethal round, or a far less lethal round.
Non "assault style" rifles that can fire the same lethal round I mentioned before as well (or they can fire less lethal rounds).
Why is this important? Because you have to know what you are talking about to pass a law.
If you ban all AR-15s, the next shooter can just use a Ruger 10-22 or Mini-14. Rather bland looking weapons, that are perfectly capable of firing highly lethal rounds just as fast as an AR-15. As are many other semi-autos that aren't "assault style."
Note that the doctor seemed to be obsessing about how the rounds used in Florida were more lethal than a HANDGUN. She's more or less right there- the 5.56 is far higher velocity than typical handgun rounds (9 mm, .38, etc). Most handguns do not fire high velocity rounds (and they are far less accurate). But almost any rifle can- even ancient bolt action rifles. Note that there are specialized handgun rounds that can do just as much damage, not because of their velocity, but because the bullets are designed to fragment inside the body, causing massive damage.
So a ban on "assault style" rifles would be pretty pointless, because any rifle can do the same kind of internal damage she was talking about, as can handguns, given the proper ammunition selection.
I won't even get into the kind of damage one could do with a semi-auto shotgun at close quarters. These things can have up to 23 rounds, fire ALL of them in less than 4 seconds, and in close quarters are far more devastating than an AR-15.
So are we gonna ban shotguns as well?
-
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES. The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs. They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body. So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"
The damage done is NOT based on the weapon, but the round used.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html)
So this doctor, like many others, doesn't know what they are talking about? Seems to be a common theme with you.
While it is a common theme with him, on this I have to side with our Libertarian friend. The power of a round comes from the design of the ammunition, not really the weapon it's fired from. If there's more gun powder packed into the bullet, and the bullet is physically larger, it tends to do more damage.
Handguns typically fire smaller and lower powered powered rounds. Many hunting guns are capable of much higher powered fire (to put down a large animal like a moose safely you need a powerful round). The AR15 is certainly not alone in being able to fire powerful rounds.
The AR15 is more deadly than many more traditional style hunting rifle because of things like the flash suppressor, the collapsible stock, the pistol grip, etc. I think that the argument might also be made that there's little need for a large caliber semi-automatic rifle when hunting big game (I hunted moose for years with friends using a bolt action 30-06). If you feel the need to spray an animal with bullets while hunting, you might want to take a step back and double check that you know what you're doing.
Yup, there are a lot of factors just in the ammunition alone. Get a few gun experts in a room, and they can argue all day about what the most effective close range weapon is (note: many of them will NOT choose the AR-15). The velocity of the round (e.g. how much propellant is used), the caliber of the round, and perhaps most important, the type of bullet (the part that actually hits the body) used- even relatively low velocity rounds can be highly lethal with what is often termed "home defense" rounds that break up and do massive internal damage- designed to stop (kill) an intruder in his tracks.
FWIW, despite shooting for 40-years, and serving many years in the Army, I do NOT consider myself an expert on guns. There are plenty of military folks, and even a lot of civilians, who know far more than I do, especially about more modern weapons and rounds. But I think I know enough to intelligently discuss the subject.
-
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES. The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs. They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body. So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"
The damage done is NOT based on the weapon, but the round used.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html)
So this doctor, like many others, doesn't know what they are talking about? Seems to be a common theme with you.
While it is a common theme with him, on this I have to side with our Libertarian friend. The power of a round comes from the design of the ammunition, not really the weapon it's fired from. If there's more gun powder packed into the bullet, and the bullet is physically larger, it tends to do more damage.
Handguns typically fire smaller and lower powered powered rounds. Many hunting guns are capable of much higher powered fire (to put down a large animal like a moose safely you need a powerful round). The AR15 is certainly not alone in being able to fire powerful rounds.
The AR15 is more deadly than many more traditional style hunting rifle because of things like the flash suppressor, the collapsible stock, the pistol grip, etc. I think that the argument might also be made that there's little need for a large caliber semi-automatic rifle when hunting big game (I hunted moose for years with friends using a bolt action 30-06). If you feel the need to spray an animal with bullets while hunting, you might want to take a step back and double check that you know what you're doing.
K.E. = 1/2 mv^2
Mass and Velocity play a role. They both absolutely affect damage. Libertarian claiming the weapon used plays no role is incorrect.
Mass is the same whether you use an AR-15, a Ruger 10-22 or an old fashioned bolt action rifle.
Velocity is determined by the ROUND (bullet mass, propellant load), not the rifle.
I'm just a humble engineer. But I don't see how the choice of AR-15 (scary assault style weapon) or Ruger 10-22 (plain ol' ranch rifle) makes any difference. It's the ROUND that matters, not the rifle you shoot it from (and yes, I realize we can get into details about rifling and the like, but in basic terms, the round is far more important than the rifle you shoot it from).
-
Agreed. Thank you for providing this explanation.
Wonder what the odds are that Libertarian will recognize his error, admit he doesn’t know enough about guns to engage in this discussion, and step away from it.
Unfortunately, the explanation is wrong.
So no, I won't "step away from it."
There is a huge difference in killing capacity even among rounds of the same caliber and same bullet mass/type. Go to Cabellas or any other web page selling ammo, and you will note that there are wide varieties in propellant load in any given caliber. Or, to put it simply, not all .22 rounds are the same, not are all .223 rounds are the same.
This stuff isn't simple, folks. You can't go into it shouting slogans you heard on the "Colbert Show" and think you can pass effective legislation. That's one of the reasons Senator Feinstein's first "assault weapons ban" was such a failure- because she didn't know what the Hell she was doing.
-
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES. The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs. They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body. So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"
The damage done is NOT based on the weapon, but the round used.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html)
So this doctor, like many others, doesn't know what they are talking about? Seems to be a common theme with you.
While it is a common theme with him, on this I have to side with our Libertarian friend. The power of a round comes from the design of the ammunition, not really the weapon it's fired from. If there's more gun powder packed into the bullet, and the bullet is physically larger, it tends to do more damage.
Handguns typically fire smaller and lower powered powered rounds. Many hunting guns are capable of much higher powered fire (to put down a large animal like a moose safely you need a powerful round). The AR15 is certainly not alone in being able to fire powerful rounds.
The AR15 is more deadly than many more traditional style hunting rifle because of things like the flash suppressor, the collapsible stock, the pistol grip, etc. I think that the argument might also be made that there's little need for a large caliber semi-automatic rifle when hunting big game (I hunted moose for years with friends using a bolt action 30-06). If you feel the need to spray an animal with bullets while hunting, you might want to take a step back and double check that you know what you're doing.
K.E. = 1/2 mv^2
Mass and Velocity play a role. They both absolutely affect damage. Libertarian claiming the weapon used plays no role is incorrect.
.22 Caliber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv67iJiV3So (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tv67iJiV3So)
.223 Caliber
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=43&v=f94Wz4ATcik (https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=43&v=f94Wz4ATcik)
Notice the distinct difference in damage caused by rounds of very little weight difference. Expand it out to 500 yards and the.223 will hit it's target with almost twice the speed of the .22. If my calculations are correct this translates to the .223 is carrying 335 foot-pounds of force, while the .22 carries 70 foot-pounds.
Arguing over which is more destructive (mass or velocity) is a moot point. I only contended that arguing one doesn't matter is disingenuous.
I'm not a gun expert, but I'd figure any gun shooting the same .223 ammunition would have similar damage wouldn't it? You're comparing completely different ammunition when you compare it to a gun firing a .22.
You are correct.
The caliber (diameter of the round) is similar, but they are very different rounds. And even among .223 rounds, you can have a wide variety. Different amounts of propellant (and hence varying velocities), different bullets (the "head" of the round that actually hits the body) with vastly different materials that can be manufactured for different purposes (e.g. match rounds, designed for accuracy at distance versus home defense rounds- expensive, but not terribly lethal compared to other rounds, designed to "break up" in the body and cause massive internal injuries).
I have only a little bit of familiarity with some of the modern highly engineered home defense rounds (designed to do massive internal damage, without high velocity- they aren't supposed to pass through walls where they might hit bystanders), I'm still using old school full metal jacket. I should look into upgrading my ammo to something more likely to kill an intruder, and less likely to penetrate walls.
Because I'm a responsible gun owner, and do not want to hurt anyone who isn't breaking into my home.
-
Does muzzle velocity matter when shooting teenagers with no body armor at close range?
Unfortunately, it does matter, to a degree. A high velocity round that tumbles will do more damage than a similar round with less velocity. Though at close range, any round, even handgun rounds, are going to be very lethal. And as I've stated in other posts, other factors, such as the design of the bullet, can be far more important in terms of lethality than velocity.
-
Does muzzle velocity matter when shooting young adults with no body armor at an outdoor concert from far range?
In this case, the answer is definitively "yes."
In general terms, a high velocity round is going to be more accurate at long range.
At close range, I could easily argue that an AR-15 is not the most devastating weapon. Shotguns or even pistols could be just as devastating. But at long range, a long gun (rifle) will be more dangerous- pistols (even those modified to function as carbines) and shotguns aren't as effective at long range.
-
What is the appropriate solution to control the use of firearms that have the muzzle velocity capable enough of inflicting permanent disfigurement and fatal wounds at both close and far range?
Essentially, A complete ban on all rifles capable of hunting.
UT Austin Shooter, 1966
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/Charles_Whitman%27s_arsenal.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Texas_tower_shooting
Kennedy Shooter, 1963
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5d/CarcanoRifleNARA.gif)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy)
Beyond that, most mass shootings don't happen with "Assault Rifles", or even happen with rifles at all... But feel free to ignore the facts.
https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0057.htm (https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0057.htm)
Correct.
"Assault Style" weapons account for a minuscule percentage of the gun deaths in the USA, but they seem to be the ones that get the press all worked up.
30-years ago, the anti-gun hysteria was over handguns (which account for most of the gun deaths in the USA). I specifically remember how everyone was having fits about "Saturday Night Specials" (cheap little .22 caliber revolvers that were utter shit weapons).
But sometime in the '90s, the left decided to shift their hysteria toward "assault style" weapons. I have no idea why, but I assume it's because the AR-15 looked "scarier" than a Glock? It played better in the newspapers?
-
Can we expect the current President to veto or pass gun control legislation if gun conrol advocates sweep the house this fall? And if a Keith Ellison Victory happens in 2020, with a Democrat controlled congress, can we expect a reform bill to be passed unlike 08-09 when they had a large majority?
There is a reason Obama droned on and on about the horror of guns, but made NO ATTEMPT to get any legislation passed, even when his party controlled both houses of Congress.
Because believe it or not, not all Democrats agree with the coastal elite "anti-gun" agenda.
Sure, the leftists in MA, CA, and NY are nearly 100% in agreement that the government should take away the rights of citizens, but that isn't the case everywhere. Democrats in the south, southwest, and even some parts of the NE are NOT gun banners (take Vermont for example- ultra leftist Bernie Sanders, has not exactly been tough on guns- because a lot of folks in VT own guns).
-
Velocity is determined by the ROUND (bullet mass, propellant load), not the rifle.
I'm just a humble engineer. But I don't see how the choice of AR-15 (scary assault style weapon) or Ruger 10-22 (plain ol' ranch rifle) makes any difference. It's the ROUND that matters, not the rifle you shoot it from (and yes, I realize we can get into details about rifling and the like, but in basic terms, the round is far more important than the rifle you shoot it from).
If it's only determined by the round itself then what other "details" are there?
I find it strange, that as an "alleged" engineer you are being hand wavy on the details. Then again, after witnessing your condescension towards several people, I don't find it odd at all. You have a perception to maintain. Perhaps as an Engineer myself, details do matter to me. I certainly wouldn't dismiss the details to contradict my original assessment.
-
Velocity is determined by the ROUND (bullet mass, propellant load), not the rifle.
I'm just a humble engineer. But I don't see how the choice of AR-15 (scary assault style weapon) or Ruger 10-22 (plain ol' ranch rifle) makes any difference. It's the ROUND that matters, not the rifle you shoot it from (and yes, I realize we can get into details about rifling and the like, but in basic terms, the round is far more important than the rifle you shoot it from).
If it's only determined by the round itself then what other "details" are there?
I find it strange, that as an "alleged" engineer you are being hand wavy on the details. Then again, after witnessing your condescension towards several people, I don't find it odd at all. You have a perception to maintain. Perhaps as an Engineer myself, details do matter to me. I certainly wouldn't dismiss the details to contradict my original assessment.
Truth.
-
Does muzzle velocity matter when shooting teenagers with no body armor at close range?
Unfortunately, it does matter, to a degree. A high velocity round that tumbles will do more damage than a similar round with less velocity. Though at close range, any round, even handgun rounds, are going to be very lethal. And as I've stated in other posts, other factors, such as the design of the bullet, can be far more important in terms of lethality than velocity.
The 5.56 round tumbling is one of those often misquoted/abused discussions and I wanted to add some since it seems some here only love the talking points and not facts. That is one of those old myths that have been around since the rifle was implemented in the military, as the barrel twist rate was incorrect, and the rounds would tumble in the air. The round commonly yaws after some penetration, as do most of the spitzer style of bullets. One thing it does do is fragment at close range impacts. Any obstruction will cause the round to fragment. Even the body will cause the round to fragment, which ruins the penetration argument when compared to a handgun.
The lack of penetration or over penetration is what has made this round safer for home defense. If you miss the target or hit the target, the round will not penetrate through and endanger someone else. That is not the same with a typical pistol round, other rifle rounds, or shotgun rounds.
This lack of penetration is one of the reasons SWAT teams have migrated to this set-up. It creates less of a chance of someone else being injured.
Pistols are smaller, easier to conceal, and are easier to carry more ammunition. The Virginia Tech shooter did most of his damage with the small .22 long rifle round, which is common throughout the world. It does not have the energy of rifle rounds, but the rifle is being villified by words like assault and black.
-
As someone mentioned earlier, the emphasis on control has shifted from handguns to rifles. Although rifles seem to be the popular weapon for those who want attention (i.e. mass shootings) a large part of the difference between American and Canadian stats is that in Canada the vast majority of people do not legally own handguns except for target shooting, and those are tightly controlled. Most hand guns used in shootings are illegal*, and the people using them are criminals. This means there are no (or almost no) hand guns sitting in women's purses and drivers' glove boxes and people's nightstands.
* most come in from the US, because 1. you are next door, and 2. there are lots of hand guns floating around to smuggle.
-
Yep. Controlling handguns makes a ton of sense (and one can argue that it even squares away better with the 2nd amendment), but is wildly unpopular in the US to the point that discussing it seems like a waste of time.
-
Yep. Controlling handguns makes a ton of sense (and one can argue that it even squares away better with the 2nd amendment), but is wildly unpopular in the US to the point that discussing it seems like a waste of time.
I know, but it is so depressing and sad to see the stats about handgun deaths and injuries. Sure we have mortality due to violence, I wish we didn't, but the numbers are so much lower. Plus suicide by handgun is so effective, people don't get to rethink it. It's a major reason why many women do not succeed, we tend not to go for guns, we go for pills.
Just a side note, this discussion, especially the concealed carry part, sure makes major parts of the US a less attractive tourist destination for me.
-
Yep. Controlling handguns makes a ton of sense (and one can argue that it even squares away better with the 2nd amendment), but is wildly unpopular in the US to the point that discussing it seems like a waste of time.
I know, but it is so depressing and sad to see the stats about handgun deaths and injuries. Sure we have mortality due to violence, I wish we didn't, but the numbers are so much lower. Plus suicide by handgun is so effective, people don't get to rethink it. It's a major reason why many women do not succeed, we tend not to go for guns, we go for pills.
Just a side note, this discussion, especially the concealed carry part, sure makes major parts of the US a less attractive tourist destination for me.
Sure... because concealed carriers are the problem.
It totally has nothing to do with the fact that CCW's basically NEVER commit crime.
I'm really wondering how two different parts of the same country can live in such opposite realities...
-
Sure... because concealed carriers are the problem.
It totally has nothing to do with the fact that CCW's basically NEVER commit crime.
I'm really wondering how two different parts of the same country can live in such opposite realities...
I was thinking of the purse guns that the toddlers grab - and I've had a few road rage incidents, because I keep to the speed limit - and an armed road rage? No thanks.
Um, "same country" comment? I am not part of your country, so don't worry about opposite realities. I thought I made it clear I am Canadian.
-
I’d love to see some proof that concealed carriers never commit crime...
-
I’d love to see some proof that concealed carriers never commit crime...
Obviously it’s not “never” but CCW holders are an extremely law-abiding group:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/8255/report-concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-most-law-aaron-bandler
-
If a person takes a bullet to the head from a firearm with a high muzzle velocity, what happens if they take a bullet to the head from a firearm with a slower muzzle velocity? I'm sorry I'm not very up to speed on firearms, just looking for some solutions.
-
If a person takes a bullet to the head from a firearm with a high muzzle velocity, what happens if they take a bullet to the head from a firearm with a slower muzzle velocity? I'm sorry I'm not very up to speed on firearms, just looking for some solutions.
A shot to the cerebral cortex is often lights out regardless of the high or lower velocity.
-
So muzzle velocity doesn't matter. Ok check.
-
So muzzle velocity doesn't matter. Ok check.
What about a different target? Something that is sometimes fixable and sometimes not. Like the shoulder?
-
What about a different target? Something that is sometimes fixable and sometimes not. Like the shoulder?
If not a lights out central nervous system hit, your next big risk is bleeding out. The more damage done the more likely it is for that to happen. That's why you hear about some people dying after a single gunshot wound and others taking dozens of hits and surviving. Get hit in places without major arteries and nerves and it's very survivable.
-
Can we expect the current President to veto or pass gun control legislation if gun conrol advocates sweep the house this fall? And if a Keith Ellison Victory happens in 2020, with a Democrat controlled congress, can we expect a reform bill to be passed unlike 08-09 when they had a large majority?
There is a reason Obama droned on and on about the horror of guns, but made NO ATTEMPT to get any legislation passed, even when his party controlled both houses of Congress.
Because believe it or not, not all Democrats agree with the coastal elite "anti-gun" agenda.
Sure, the leftists in MA, CA, and NY are nearly 100% in agreement that the government should take away the rights of citizens, but that isn't the case everywhere. Democrats in the south, southwest, and even some parts of the NE are NOT gun banners (take Vermont for example- ultra leftist Bernie Sanders, has not exactly been tough on guns- because a lot of folks in VT own guns).
Can you define what you mean by "coastal elite" and why that's an appropriate modifier here? Because at this point, it just sounds as if you're reading someone else's talking points.
-
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES. The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs. They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body. So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"
The damage done is NOT based on the weapon, but the round used.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html)
So this doctor, like many others, doesn't know what they are talking about? Seems to be a common theme with you.
She either doesn't know what she is talking about, or is being intentionally misleading. I should point out that getting an MD does not make one an expert on weapons. She may have seen nasty wounds that were fired by an AR-15 and ASSUMED all AR-15s cause that kind of damage, which is not necessarily the case. Let me explain.
An AR-15 is capable of firing a .556 NATO military round (high velocity, and "tumbles" in the body, making it a pretty lethal round, though not the worst) or it can fire a common .22 plinking round (the round most kids use when they first learn to shoot at cans or bottles. A round with a very low lethality).
I should also point out that MANY other rifles that don't look as "scary" as the AR-15 are capable of firing that high velocity military round.
The point is, the AR-15 can fire a highly lethal round, or a far less lethal round.
Non "assault style" rifles that can fire the same lethal round I mentioned before as well (or they can fire less lethal rounds).
Why is this important? Because you have to know what you are talking about to pass a law.
If you ban all AR-15s, the next shooter can just use a Ruger 10-22 or Mini-14. Rather bland looking weapons, that are perfectly capable of firing highly lethal rounds just as fast as an AR-15. As are many other semi-autos that aren't "assault style."
Note that the doctor seemed to be obsessing about how the rounds used in Florida were more lethal than a HANDGUN. She's more or less right there- the 5.56 is far higher velocity than typical handgun rounds (9 mm, .38, etc). Most handguns do not fire high velocity rounds (and they are far less accurate). But almost any rifle can- even ancient bolt action rifles. Note that there are specialized handgun rounds that can do just as much damage, not because of their velocity, but because the bullets are designed to fragment inside the body, causing massive damage.
So a ban on "assault style" rifles would be pretty pointless, because any rifle can do the same kind of internal damage she was talking about, as can handguns, given the proper ammunition selection.
I won't even get into the kind of damage one could do with a semi-auto shotgun at close quarters. These things can have up to 23 rounds, fire ALL of them in less than 4 seconds, and in close quarters are far more devastating than an AR-15.
So are we gonna ban shotguns as well?
There's so much to discuss in your lengthy posts here but I think this might be the one thing that really shows just how disingenuous your arguments are. The obvious answer to your question is no, we would not ban shotguns... but we would ban magazines that hold 23 shells. In fact the previous ban capped magazines at 10 rounds and if we were able to have an informed discussion like the one you say you want I suspect we could agree on a slightly lower max capacity for shotguns than handguns.
So either you're ignoring the magazine restrictions which were and would be part af an assault weapons ban or you didn't even know that it was a part of the ban. Can you tell us which it is so we know which direction to take the discussion?
-
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES. The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs. They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body. So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"
The damage done is NOT based on the weapon, but the round used.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html)
So this doctor, like many others, doesn't know what they are talking about? Seems to be a common theme with you.
She either doesn't know what she is talking about, or is being intentionally misleading. I should point out that getting an MD does not make one an expert on weapons. She may have seen nasty wounds that were fired by an AR-15 and ASSUMED all AR-15s cause that kind of damage, which is not necessarily the case. Let me explain.
An AR-15 is capable of firing a .556 NATO military round (high velocity, and "tumbles" in the body, making it a pretty lethal round, though not the worst) or it can fire a common .22 plinking round (the round most kids use when they first learn to shoot at cans or bottles. A round with a very low lethality).
I should also point out that MANY other rifles that don't look as "scary" as the AR-15 are capable of firing that high velocity military round.
The point is, the AR-15 can fire a highly lethal round, or a far less lethal round.
Non "assault style" rifles that can fire the same lethal round I mentioned before as well (or they can fire less lethal rounds).
Why is this important? Because you have to know what you are talking about to pass a law.
If you ban all AR-15s, the next shooter can just use a Ruger 10-22 or Mini-14. Rather bland looking weapons, that are perfectly capable of firing highly lethal rounds just as fast as an AR-15. As are many other semi-autos that aren't "assault style."
Note that the doctor seemed to be obsessing about how the rounds used in Florida were more lethal than a HANDGUN. She's more or less right there- the 5.56 is far higher velocity than typical handgun rounds (9 mm, .38, etc). Most handguns do not fire high velocity rounds (and they are far less accurate). But almost any rifle can- even ancient bolt action rifles. Note that there are specialized handgun rounds that can do just as much damage, not because of their velocity, but because the bullets are designed to fragment inside the body, causing massive damage.
So a ban on "assault style" rifles would be pretty pointless, because any rifle can do the same kind of internal damage she was talking about, as can handguns, given the proper ammunition selection.
I won't even get into the kind of damage one could do with a semi-auto shotgun at close quarters. These things can have up to 23 rounds, fire ALL of them in less than 4 seconds, and in close quarters are far more devastating than an AR-15.
So are we gonna ban shotguns as well?
There's so much to discuss in your lengthy posts here but I think this might be the one thing that really shows just how disingenuous your arguments are. The obvious answer to your question is no, we would not ban shotguns... but we would ban magazines that hold 23 shells. In fact the previous ban capped magazines at 10 rounds and if we were able to have an informed discussion like the one you say you want I suspect we could agree on a slightly lower max capacity for shotguns than handguns.
So either you're ignoring the magazine restrictions which were and would be part af an assault weapons ban or you didn't even know that it was a part of the ban. Can you tell us which it is so we know which direction to take the discussion?
If we ban rifle magazine capacity in excess of 10 rounds, what should the appropriate handgun capacity be? Assuming the next psychopath who attempts a mass shooting cannot get her/his hands on an illegal "banned" high capacity magazine (in the age of online international commerce I doubt we can prevent this), whats to keep her/him from using two hand guns at the same time. What laws can we pass that would keep that individual from carrying up to six handguns secured under a jacket? Each with x amount of bullets loaded in the magazine. We have determined that when carrying out a mass shooting that muzzle velocity makes no difference in the abstract of some kind of damage inflicted, only in the scale of damage. I find muzzle velocity to be negligent at this point. Would a 6 round maximum handgun capacity be sufficient? Deerfield IL recently passed a ban on certain assault type firearms. Daily fines accrue for citizens who do not turn in rifles they currently own at rate of up to $1000 per day. A federal ban of this size and scope seems to be a possible solution for both handguns and rifles to secure the a safe limit for round/volume discharge rate. The Department of Firearm Safety?
-
^ Magazine capacity doesn't matter much to someone who is bent on mass shootings. Anyone can tactical speed reload even a 5 shot revolver using multiple speed reloaders or moon clips or other legal devices to enable almost non-stop firing. With a pistol its even easier as you can have multiple magazines (even packs of mags coupled together) for the same effect. Look online for revolver or pistol speed reloading or tactical reloading for videos and into. The same can be done while reloading a shotgun on the fly. If I can do this stuff anyone can so limiting magazine capacity in most handguns, shotguns or even rifles probably won't make that much of a difference to most mass shooters who have reloading skills.
ETA I'm just passing along info not making any implications of what should or shouldn't be done. I'm a gun owner in Calif were we have most the the gun laws in place that gun control people would like to see. I personally have no problems with those laws.
No solution is perfect.
If a shooter has great speed reloading skills, maybe they'll only lose a handful of seconds rather than a handful of minutes in a shooting spree. That's still a benefit to the people being shot at though.
-
https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/ (https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/)
Gun Ownership
According to a 2013 PEW Research Center survey, the household gun ownership rate in rural areas was 2.11 times greater than in urban areas (“Why Own a Gun? Protection is Now Top Reason,” PEW Research Center, March 12, 2013). Suburban households are 28.6% more likely to own guns than urban households. Despite lower gun ownership, urban areas experience much higher murder rates. One should not put much weight on this purely “cross-sectional” evidence over one point in time and many factors determine murder rates, but it is still interesting to note that so much of the country has both very high gun ownership rates and zero murders.
Conclusion
This study shows how murders in the United States are heavily concentrated in very small areas. Few appreciate how much of the US has no murders each year. Murder isn’t a nationwide problem. It’s a problem in a very small set of urban areas, and any solution must reduce those murders.
-
^ Magazine capacity doesn't matter much to someone who is bent on mass shootings. Anyone can tactical speed reload even a 5 shot revolver using multiple speed reloaders or moon clips or other legal devices to enable almost non-stop firing. With a pistol its even easier as you can have multiple magazines (even packs of mags coupled together) for the same effect. Look online for revolver or pistol speed reloading or tactical reloading for videos and into. The same can be done while reloading a shotgun on the fly. If I can do this stuff anyone can so limiting magazine capacity in most handguns, shotguns or even rifles probably won't make that much of a difference to most mass shooters who have reloading skills.
ETA I'm just passing along info not making any implications of what should or shouldn't be done. I'm a gun owner in Calif were we have most the the gun laws in place that gun control people would like to see. I personally have no problems with those laws.
How much of a difference matters? I realize we need to weigh pros and cons and that the pros to a magazine capacity limit may be small, but what are the cons? Does anyone have a practical purpose for firing 23 shotgun shells in succession? How about 10? 5? I can see an argument for going as low as 3-4 which would still make for a viable home defense weapon and hunting tool (I've never used anything semiauto for hunting) but of course the actual number is up for debate.
Not to mention I think you are downplaying the effectiveness of a limit. For someone who is well trained to speed reload it may be a matter of seconds, but that could still save lives in specific circumstances. OR they could make a mistake while reloading. Even someone well trained with the muscle memory to reload quickly can make a mistake, especially under the pressure that comes with shooting at people in public, pressure they've almost certainly never trained for. OR the very likely scenario that the shooter hasn't had the time or resources to train. As has been discussed, many shooters are on a suicide mission. Some may be well trained and knowledgable of their weapons while others are seeking out weapons a matter of days before they plan to use them.
I'm still firmly of the opinion that mass shootings are not where our primary gun control efforts should be focused but if we can make some improvement without sacrificing practical uses of guns, why not? Just how effective a limit would be is certainly up for debate, but until the argument for why we need large capacity magazines outweighs even the smallest plausible advantage of a limit I'm going to be in favor of a limit.
-
https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/ (https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/)
Gun Ownership
According to a 2013 PEW Research Center survey, the household gun ownership rate in rural areas was 2.11 times greater than in urban areas (“Why Own a Gun? Protection is Now Top Reason,” PEW Research Center, March 12, 2013). Suburban households are 28.6% more likely to own guns than urban households. Despite lower gun ownership, urban areas experience much higher murder rates. One should not put much weight on this purely “cross-sectional” evidence over one point in time and many factors determine murder rates, but it is still interesting to note that so much of the country has both very high gun ownership rates and zero murders.
Conclusion
This study shows how murders in the United States are heavily concentrated in very small areas. Few appreciate how much of the US has no murders each year. Murder isn’t a nationwide problem. It’s a problem in a very small set of urban areas, and any solution must reduce those murders.
Good point. Most of the people who own guns for protection, do not actually need the gun for protection. That should certainly play a factor in the discussion of gun control.
-
How did the Columbine students pull off their plot under an assault weapons ban? What other event was that particular tragedy measurable against to determine the effectiveness of the ban? If we are successful in taking control of the house, senate, and presidency in 2020, and are also successful in implementing a new ban (as discussed) will Americans be satisfied that the number of fatalities and permanent disfigurements is several persons fewer (assuming that's the case, we could have another Columbine could we not)? We have agreed that we will not stop the shooter, are we assuming the country will feel "we've done something" assuming the fatalities and injuries are marginally or substantially fewer? Or will the re-occurrence of these tragedies pave a new road map for Republicans to regain control proposing their ridiculous solutions?
-
How did the Columbine students pull off their plot under an assault weapons ban?
Straw purchases. The very thing that background checks and a gun registry would prevent.
Robyn Anderson, a friend of Klebold and Harris, bought the shotguns and the Hi-Point 9mm Carbine at The Tanner Gun Show in December of 1998 from unlicensed sellers. Because Anderson purchased the guns for someone else, the transition constituted an illegal "straw purchase." Klebold and Harris bought the TEC-DC9 from a pizza shop employee named Mark Manes, who knew they were too young to purchase the assault pistol, but nevertheless sold it to them for $500.
- http://www.vpc.org/studies/wgun990420.htm (http://www.vpc.org/studies/wgun990420.htm)
See, that's the problem when there's virtually no chance of being caught at doing something illegal . . . people do the illegal thing.
-
https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/ (https://crimeresearch.org/2017/04/number-murders-county-54-us-counties-2014-zero-murders-69-1-murder/)
Gun Ownership
According to a 2013 PEW Research Center survey, the household gun ownership rate in rural areas was 2.11 times greater than in urban areas (“Why Own a Gun? Protection is Now Top Reason,” PEW Research Center, March 12, 2013). Suburban households are 28.6% more likely to own guns than urban households. Despite lower gun ownership, urban areas experience much higher murder rates. One should not put much weight on this purely “cross-sectional” evidence over one point in time and many factors determine murder rates, but it is still interesting to note that so much of the country has both very high gun ownership rates and zero murders.
Conclusion
This study shows how murders in the United States are heavily concentrated in very small areas. Few appreciate how much of the US has no murders each year. Murder isn’t a nationwide problem. It’s a problem in a very small set of urban areas, and any solution must reduce those murders.
Good point. Most of the people who own guns for protection, do not actually need the gun for protection. That should certainly play a factor in the discussion of gun control.
Yes! The thing that prevents more murders in rural areas is less people. There is less homelessness, drug dealing (well, except opiates lately, but that seems to be a whole different beast than urban gang drug problems), etc, etc. It’s not that rural people are preventing more crime just by owning a gun, and criminals target urban areas because less guns. That’s a pretty ridiculous connection.
-
How did the Columbine students pull off their plot under an assault weapons ban?
Straw purchases. The very thing that background checks and a gun registry would prevent.
How do background checks and gun registry "prevent" straw purchases? Do straw purchases and gun registry keep the said purchaser from transferring said fire arms to possible assailants? And if said purchaser is concerned about her/his well being, I believe you admitted that reporting the firearm "stolen" can never be prevented. It seems we are still at square one.
-
How did the Columbine students pull off their plot under an assault weapons ban?
Straw purchases. The very thing that background checks and a gun registry would prevent.
So, something is already illegal. A gun registry would not solve it. A background check is an element of the straw purchase. Background checks were in effect.
What would change?
Now, ask yourself how many people are actually not prosecuted for straw purchases or even dealing in firearms without a license. Knowing how picky the federal prosecution system is, I would be surprised if it was even in the double digits of cases taken to prosecution.
-
Velocity is determined by the ROUND (bullet mass, propellant load), not the rifle.
I'm just a humble engineer. But I don't see how the choice of AR-15 (scary assault style weapon) or Ruger 10-22 (plain ol' ranch rifle) makes any difference. It's the ROUND that matters, not the rifle you shoot it from (and yes, I realize we can get into details about rifling and the like, but in basic terms, the round is far more important than the rifle you shoot it from).
If it's only determined by the round itself then what other "details" are there?
I find it strange, that as an "alleged" engineer you are being hand wavy on the details. Then again, after witnessing your condescension towards several people, I don't find it odd at all. You have a perception to maintain. Perhaps as an Engineer myself, details do matter to me. I certainly wouldn't dismiss the details to contradict my original assessment.
I'm not being evasive, I just chose not to get down into the weeds on relatively trivial details that aren't germane to the discussion.
The round is the primary determinant of the damage done to the target. Other items can have a relatively minor effect. But this isn't a gun geek forum where people are going to debate minor differences. I've seen forums where gun experts, with far more experience than I have, will debate endlessly on what weapon is the most effective for home defense or whatever. I'm not enough of a gun expert to argue those minor differences. Having used guns for ~40 years, I consider myself pretty knowledgeable, but certainly not an expert in the field.
Suffice it to say, that for all practical purposes, a round fired from a non-scary Ruger ranch rifle will act essentially the same (e.g. it's just as dangerous) as a round fired from an AR15 (lots of scary black plastic) variant. Hence, a "ban" on the scary black plastic rifles will do essentially nothing to stop anyone who wants to kill someone with a high powered, semi auto weapon, because there are plenty of rather benign looking weapons that are just as dangerous. And no, this does not mean that I think we should ban ranch rifles, too. :)
This alleged engineer got his BS in Chemical Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1985. I've been doing engineering work for ever since then, except for 2006-2010, when I took early retirement.
FWIW, I find the engineering field extraordinarily dull, as are most the practitioners in the field. I certainly wasn't bragging about being an engineer, it's not something I'm all that proud of- on the scale of my life's accomplishments, "being an engineer" doesn't even fall into the top 100 things I'm proudest of.
But it's an easy way to make decent money if one has a certain set of nerdy skills. Money that can be invested and allow for financial independence at a fairly young age.
The consulting work I do now, after "failing" early retirement, isn't really engineering at all, it's more management. You couldn't pay me enough to get me to go back into an office and pore over drawings, or, even worse, write specs. I'd rather commit Seppuku than get into that again.
-
Can we expect the current President to veto or pass gun control legislation if gun conrol advocates sweep the house this fall? And if a Keith Ellison Victory happens in 2020, with a Democrat controlled congress, can we expect a reform bill to be passed unlike 08-09 when they had a large majority?
There is a reason Obama droned on and on about the horror of guns, but made NO ATTEMPT to get any legislation passed, even when his party controlled both houses of Congress.
Because believe it or not, not all Democrats agree with the coastal elite "anti-gun" agenda.
Sure, the leftists in MA, CA, and NY are nearly 100% in agreement that the government should take away the rights of citizens, but that isn't the case everywhere. Democrats in the south, southwest, and even some parts of the NE are NOT gun banners (take Vermont for example- ultra leftist Bernie Sanders, has not exactly been tough on guns- because a lot of folks in VT own guns).
Can you define what you mean by "coastal elite" and why that's an appropriate modifier here? Because at this point, it just sounds as if you're reading someone else's talking points.
By that I mean that extreme leftists/Dems in MA, NY, CA, CT, OR do not always have a lot in common with the Dems in the south and southwest, who are typically far less extreme than the coastal folks. On the issue of guns, especially, the Dems in those areas tend to NOT be big time gun banners, like the coastal liberals.
That's why Obama, despite his hot air, never bothered to try and pass any anti-gun legislation. He knew he'd not only get opposition from the Republicans, but from a lot of the Dems in the south, southwest, and even quirky states like VT. He knew that despite controlling the Presidency and both houses of Congress, he has essentially ZERO chance of passing meaningful "gun control" laws.
Y'all might not believe it, but a lot of the Dems here in TX, and places like AZ, AL, NM, CO, etc are gun owners- or at least aware that many of their Dem constituents are gun owners. They don't subscribe to the "ban" rhetoric of those in NY, MA, and CA.
-
Velocity is determined by the ROUND (bullet mass, propellant load), not the rifle.
I'm just a humble engineer. But I don't see how the choice of AR-15 (scary assault style weapon) or Ruger 10-22 (plain ol' ranch rifle) makes any difference. It's the ROUND that matters, not the rifle you shoot it from (and yes, I realize we can get into details about rifling and the like, but in basic terms, the round is far more important than the rifle you shoot it from).
If it's only determined by the round itself then what other "details" are there?
I find it strange, that as an "alleged" engineer you are being hand wavy on the details. Then again, after witnessing your condescension towards several people, I don't find it odd at all. You have a perception to maintain. Perhaps as an Engineer myself, details do matter to me. I certainly wouldn't dismiss the details to contradict my original assessment.
I'm not being evasive, I just chose not to get down into the weeds on relatively trivial details that aren't germane to the discussion.
The round is the primary determinant of the damage done to the target. Other items can have a relatively minor effect. But this isn't a gun geek forum where people are going to debate minor differences. I've seen forums where gun experts, with far more experience than I have, will debate endlessly on what weapon is the most effective for home defense or whatever. I'm not enough of a gun expert to argue those minor differences. Having used guns for ~40 years, I consider myself pretty knowledgeable, but certainly not an expert in the field.
Suffice it to say, that for all practical purposes, a round fired from a non-scary Ruger ranch rifle will act essentially the same (e.g. it's just as dangerous) as a round fired from an AR15 (lots of scary black plastic) variant. Hence, a "ban" on the scary black plastic rifles will do essentially nothing to stop anyone who wants to kill someone with a high powered, semi auto weapon, because there are plenty of rather benign looking weapons that are just as dangerous. And no, this does not mean that I think we should ban ranch rifles, too. :)
This alleged engineer got his BS in Chemical Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in 1985. I've been doing engineering work for ever since then, except for 2006-2010, when I took early retirement.
FWIW, I find the engineering field extraordinarily dull, as are most the practitioners in the field. I certainly wasn't bragging about being an engineer, it's not something I'm all that proud of- on the scale of my life's accomplishments, "being an engineer" doesn't even fall into the top 100 things I'm proudest of.
But it's an easy way to make decent money if one has a certain set of nerdy skills. Money that can be invested and allow for financial independence at a fairly young age.
The consulting work I do now, after "failing" early retirement, isn't really engineering at all, it's more management. You couldn't pay me enough to get me to go back into an office and pore over drawings, or, even worse, write specs. I'd rather commit Seppuku than get into that again.
You can avoid all of this by not speaking in absolutes. Lots of experiments have been conducted determining the affects of velocity based on muzzle length.
-
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES. The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs. They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body. So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"
The damage done is NOT based on the weapon, but the round used.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html)
So this doctor, like many others, doesn't know what they are talking about? Seems to be a common theme with you.
She either doesn't know what she is talking about, or is being intentionally misleading. I should point out that getting an MD does not make one an expert on weapons. She may have seen nasty wounds that were fired by an AR-15 and ASSUMED all AR-15s cause that kind of damage, which is not necessarily the case. Let me explain.
An AR-15 is capable of firing a .556 NATO military round (high velocity, and "tumbles" in the body, making it a pretty lethal round, though not the worst) or it can fire a common .22 plinking round (the round most kids use when they first learn to shoot at cans or bottles. A round with a very low lethality).
I should also point out that MANY other rifles that don't look as "scary" as the AR-15 are capable of firing that high velocity military round.
The point is, the AR-15 can fire a highly lethal round, or a far less lethal round.
Non "assault style" rifles that can fire the same lethal round I mentioned before as well (or they can fire less lethal rounds).
Why is this important? Because you have to know what you are talking about to pass a law.
If you ban all AR-15s, the next shooter can just use a Ruger 10-22 or Mini-14. Rather bland looking weapons, that are perfectly capable of firing highly lethal rounds just as fast as an AR-15. As are many other semi-autos that aren't "assault style."
Note that the doctor seemed to be obsessing about how the rounds used in Florida were more lethal than a HANDGUN. She's more or less right there- the 5.56 is far higher velocity than typical handgun rounds (9 mm, .38, etc). Most handguns do not fire high velocity rounds (and they are far less accurate). But almost any rifle can- even ancient bolt action rifles. Note that there are specialized handgun rounds that can do just as much damage, not because of their velocity, but because the bullets are designed to fragment inside the body, causing massive damage.
So a ban on "assault style" rifles would be pretty pointless, because any rifle can do the same kind of internal damage she was talking about, as can handguns, given the proper ammunition selection.
I won't even get into the kind of damage one could do with a semi-auto shotgun at close quarters. These things can have up to 23 rounds, fire ALL of them in less than 4 seconds, and in close quarters are far more devastating than an AR-15.
So are we gonna ban shotguns as well?
There's so much to discuss in your lengthy posts here but I think this might be the one thing that really shows just how disingenuous your arguments are. The obvious answer to your question is no, we would not ban shotguns... but we would ban magazines that hold 23 shells. In fact the previous ban capped magazines at 10 rounds and if we were able to have an informed discussion like the one you say you want I suspect we could agree on a slightly lower max capacity for shotguns than handguns.
So either you're ignoring the magazine restrictions which were and would be part af an assault weapons ban or you didn't even know that it was a part of the ban. Can you tell us which it is so we know which direction to take the discussion?
Ok. Go ahead and ban large capacity magazines.
That's a sure fire route to FAIL.
Do you realize the number of high capacity magazines that are out there in the public already? Hundreds of millions.
If you think people are going to obey some ridiculous law, like the one Cuomo passed in NY (7-round magazines, lol), you are utterly delusional. That would be "feel good" legislation that would have no effect in reality.
I won't even get into how easy it would be to produce high capacity magazines Hill Billy style (should the millions and millions already out there not be enough). This doesn't even consider how easy it would be to use 3D printing to pump out all the high capacity magazines you want should the existing massive supply ever run low.
Though if some such legislation were pending, I'd go out and buy $10,000 or so worth of magazines. A few for myself, and hundreds to SELL when the price goes up...
-
How did the Columbine students pull off their plot under an assault weapons ban? What other event was that particular tragedy measurable against to determine the effectiveness of the ban? If we are successful in taking control of the house, senate, and presidency in 2020, and are also successful in implementing a new ban (as discussed) will Americans be satisfied that the number of fatalities and permanent disfigurements is several persons fewer (assuming that's the case, we could have another Columbine could we not)? We have agreed that we will not stop the shooter, are we assuming the country will feel "we've done something" assuming the fatalities and injuries are marginally or substantially fewer? Or will the re-occurrence of these tragedies pave a new road map for Republicans to regain control proposing their ridiculous solutions?
"How did the Columbine students pull off their plot under an assault weapons ban?"
Easy. The original assault weapons ban was largely "feel good" legislation that had little practical effect.
Legislation written by clueless liberals (Feinstein et al) who didn't know a damned thing about guns.
Hence the reason I say that if people are going to discuss this, they should at least have a working knowledge about guns.
Unfortunately, many of the loudest voices on the left seem to have no idea what the heck they are talking about. They are speaking from emotion, not knowledge.
-
How did the Columbine students pull off their plot under an assault weapons ban?
Straw purchases. The very thing that background checks and a gun registry would prevent.
So, something is already illegal.
Yes. Currently illegal, but extremely difficult to prove in court. Because of that, it's not commonly prosecuted.
A gun registry would not solve it. A background check is an element of the straw purchase. Background checks were in effect.
What would change?
Notice how nobody in the case cared about performing a straw purchase for these kids? That's because they knew that there was virtually no chance they would be caught. That would change.
Now, ask yourself how many people are actually not prosecuted for straw purchases or even dealing in firearms without a license. Knowing how picky the federal prosecution system is, I would be surprised if it was even in the double digits of cases taken to prosecution.
Me too. Because it's so difficult to prove the case, they don't bother bringing them to trial very often. The case would be open and shut if a gun registry were implemented:
Who bought the gun originally? Check registry.
Was the gun transferred legally to the new owner? Check registry.
A registry provides a simple way to answer these questions, leading to an open and shut conviction.
Currently this is what happens in most states:
Who bought the gun originally? Check the original manufacturer of the gun. Figure out the firearms vendor. Spend huge amounts of time and manpower checking through paper records kept by the vendor (assuming they haven't been damaged in flood/fire) that are not legally allowed to be computerized/searchable.
Was the gun transferred legally to the new owner? There's no record of private sales. Background checks aren't required. Even asking for the ID of the guy you're selling to isn't required. This is typically unprovable, unless someone has purchased such a massive number of guns for criminals that it becomes obvious beyond a reasonable doubt that straw purchases are going on. You've got no chance of being caught if you only occasionally sell guns to criminals.
So yeah . . . it's illegal, but almost never worth prosecuting under the current system. Is a law that's unenforceable really a law?
BTW - In Maryland, a gun licensing/registry scheme was implemented and it was quite a success at keeping straw purchasers from buying guns for criminals: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/677236 (https://muse.jhu.edu/article/677236)
-
I've read a few articles recently by doctors who have operated on victims of AR-15 and other ASSAULT RIFLES. The main injuries seem to be from the velocity of the bullets, and the cavitation caused once the bullets strike a body/organs. They rip organs apart making repair much more difficult than if a moving object simply sliced through the body. So I call BS on "no more killing capacity"
The damage done is NOT based on the weapon, but the round used.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5424197/Radiologist-reveals-effects-AR-15-bullets-human-body.html)
So this doctor, like many others, doesn't know what they are talking about? Seems to be a common theme with you.
She either doesn't know what she is talking about, or is being intentionally misleading. I should point out that getting an MD does not make one an expert on weapons. She may have seen nasty wounds that were fired by an AR-15 and ASSUMED all AR-15s cause that kind of damage, which is not necessarily the case. Let me explain.
An AR-15 is capable of firing a .556 NATO military round (high velocity, and "tumbles" in the body, making it a pretty lethal round, though not the worst) or it can fire a common .22 plinking round (the round most kids use when they first learn to shoot at cans or bottles. A round with a very low lethality).
I should also point out that MANY other rifles that don't look as "scary" as the AR-15 are capable of firing that high velocity military round.
The point is, the AR-15 can fire a highly lethal round, or a far less lethal round.
Non "assault style" rifles that can fire the same lethal round I mentioned before as well (or they can fire less lethal rounds).
Why is this important? Because you have to know what you are talking about to pass a law.
If you ban all AR-15s, the next shooter can just use a Ruger 10-22 or Mini-14. Rather bland looking weapons, that are perfectly capable of firing highly lethal rounds just as fast as an AR-15. As are many other semi-autos that aren't "assault style."
Note that the doctor seemed to be obsessing about how the rounds used in Florida were more lethal than a HANDGUN. She's more or less right there- the 5.56 is far higher velocity than typical handgun rounds (9 mm, .38, etc). Most handguns do not fire high velocity rounds (and they are far less accurate). But almost any rifle can- even ancient bolt action rifles. Note that there are specialized handgun rounds that can do just as much damage, not because of their velocity, but because the bullets are designed to fragment inside the body, causing massive damage.
So a ban on "assault style" rifles would be pretty pointless, because any rifle can do the same kind of internal damage she was talking about, as can handguns, given the proper ammunition selection.
I won't even get into the kind of damage one could do with a semi-auto shotgun at close quarters. These things can have up to 23 rounds, fire ALL of them in less than 4 seconds, and in close quarters are far more devastating than an AR-15.
So are we gonna ban shotguns as well?
There's so much to discuss in your lengthy posts here but I think this might be the one thing that really shows just how disingenuous your arguments are. The obvious answer to your question is no, we would not ban shotguns... but we would ban magazines that hold 23 shells. In fact the previous ban capped magazines at 10 rounds and if we were able to have an informed discussion like the one you say you want I suspect we could agree on a slightly lower max capacity for shotguns than handguns.
So either you're ignoring the magazine restrictions which were and would be part af an assault weapons ban or you didn't even know that it was a part of the ban. Can you tell us which it is so we know which direction to take the discussion?
Ok. Go ahead and ban large capacity magazines.
That's a sure fire route to FAIL.
Do you realize the number of high capacity magazines that are out there in the public already? Hundreds of millions.
If you think people are going to obey some ridiculous law, like the one Cuomo passed in NY (7-round magazines, lol), you are utterly delusional. That would be "feel good" legislation that would have no effect in reality.
I won't even get into how easy it would be to produce high capacity magazines Hill Billy style (should the millions and millions already out there not be enough). This doesn't even consider how easy it would be to use 3D printing to pump out all the high capacity magazines you want should the existing massive supply ever run low.
Though if some such legislation were pending, I'd go out and buy $10,000 or so worth of magazines. A few for myself, and hundreds to SELL when the price goes up...
You didn't answer the question. My comment was more about your lack of sincerity in this discussion than the effectiveness of a magazine limit. You attack the "assault weapons ban" for not being specific enough but you don't actually know the specifics or you're pretending they don't exist. I'll admit, the last ban had holes but they were not as glaring as you suggest.
Regarding your points above, in cases where careful planning and sourcing of weapons are carried out, certainly the perpetrator can find ways around the ban but not everyone who attempts to shoot a bunch of people takes that time and care. How many past shooters have used any sort of modifications to circumvent current regulations? Could they not have been more effective killers with some simple modifications? And how many would be able to source or make highly reliable high capacity magazines?
None of these laws will make attacks impossible but humans on the whole are lazy (at least in certain respects) and easy to manipulate. Making something more difficult will not prevent it from happening but it will have an effect on how often it occurs.
-
Notice how nobody in the case cared about performing a straw purchase for these kids? That's because they knew that there was virtually no chance they would be caught. That would change.
No chance? This simple investigation found it. And, this ruins your other argument, as this guy was prosecuted. At the same time, what do you call a straw purchase?
Working in a field that has ran into numerous cases of straw purchases, I only know of a small handful that were actually prosecuted.
The straw purchase is most commonly done to obtain a gun for a person that cannot lawfully possess one. So, the possessor is still violating the law. They don't care and neither does the buyer.
Even in rock solid cases, they goal is rarely to go after the straw buyer. Instead of saying we need more laws, why are you not asking for the current ones to be enforced?
My local DA has never prosecuted a single case. He has refused all of them. But he wants more gun laws.
Me too. Because it's so difficult to prove the case, they don't bother bringing them to trial very often. The case would be open and shut if a gun registry were implemented:
So, we had a local gun registry. The sheriff could not identify a single criminal case that benefited from the registry.
Canada was so successful too, right? They abandoned the idea of total registration.
Who bought the gun originally? Check registry.
Was the gun transferred legally to the new owner? Check registry.
A registry provides a simple way to answer these questions, leading to an open and shut conviction.
You are under the assumption that criminals will comply. That is a mighty big assumption. If registration was the cure, then why do places that have registration still have high crime rates?
Currently this is what happens in most states:
Who bought the gun originally? Check the original manufacturer of the gun. Figure out the firearms vendor. Spend huge amounts of time and manpower checking through paper records kept by the vendor (assuming they haven't been damaged in flood/fire) that are not legally allowed to be computerized/searchable.
Was the gun transferred legally to the new owner? There's no record of private sales. Background checks aren't required. Even asking for the ID of the guy you're selling to isn't required. This is typically unprovable, unless someone has purchased such a massive number of guns for criminals that it becomes obvious beyond a reasonable doubt that straw purchases are going on. You've got no chance of being caught if you only occasionally sell guns to criminals.
So yeah . . . it's illegal, but almost never worth prosecuting under the current system. Is a law that's unenforceable really a law?
Huge amounts of time to get the records? You apparently know nothing about how easy it is. The agents are only doing the work when they are the ones that possess the records. Other than that, it is the dealer, vendor, manufacturer, etc.
You keep saying it is unenforceable. Please tell me your experience in why this is true. I will tell you, from experience, that the law is enforceable and rarely enforced. The prosecutors just don't see it as a priority.
Easy way to funnel guns in your scheme, which still occurs today. Report guns as stolen and then you can transfer the now hot guns to what ever criminal you want. How would registration stop this?
BTW - In Maryland, a gun licensing/registry scheme was implemented and it was quite a success at keeping straw purchasers from buying guns for criminals: https://muse.jhu.edu/article/677236 (https://muse.jhu.edu/article/677236)
Yep. A Baltimore is now one of the safest cities in America!
-
Canada was so successful too, right? They abandoned the idea of total registration.
That had nothing to do with effectiveness. It was a political move by the most right-wing Prime Minister we have had. Law enforcement groups and the Province of Quebec* both protested.
*Quebec was the first province to have a mass shooting in recent times. December 1989, I remember the news that evening like it was yesterday. Heidi Rathjen, a student who was in one of the classrooms Marc Lépine did not enter during the shooting, organized the Coalition for Gun Control. So students organising for better gun control is nothing new. We already had tight regulations on hand guns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre)
-
Canada was so successful too, right? They abandoned the idea of total registration.
That had nothing to do with effectiveness. It was a political move by the most right-wing Prime Minister we have had. Law enforcement groups and the Province of Quebec* both protested.
*Quebec was the first province to have a mass shooting in recent times. December 1989, I remember the news that evening like it was yesterday. Heidi Rathjen, a student who was in one of the classrooms Marc Lépine did not enter during the shooting, organized the Coalition for Gun Control. So students organising for better gun control is nothing new. We already had tight regulations on hand guns.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89cole_Polytechnique_massacre)
Emotions and desires are one thing. When the studies showed it did not impact the homicide rate, was extremely expensive, and provided no real benefit for the cost, did you expect the politicians to keep funding an ineffective program? It did not equate to complete registration either.
I just laugh at the US compared to Canada. In the US, we can't import any of the evil chinese, italian, or finnish assault rifles, but Canada can. The import process is easier. In the US we have very strict regulations on rifles with a barrel shorter than 16". In Canada, there is no difference.
Since these weapons are supposed to be more likely used in crime, is Canada's decision not to regulate these show that there is no crime impact and the US should follow suit?
One of our neighbors is a seasonal resident and is from Canada. He wanted to keep a few of his weapons in the US, but they can't be imported due to the type they are.
-
Ok. Go ahead and ban large capacity magazines.
That's a sure fire route to FAIL.
Do you realize the number of high capacity magazines that are out there in the public already? Hundreds of millions.
If you think people are going to obey some ridiculous law, like the one Cuomo passed in NY (7-round magazines, lol), you are utterly delusional. That would be "feel good" legislation that would have no effect in reality.
I won't even get into how easy it would be to produce high capacity magazines Hill Billy style (should the millions and millions already out there not be enough). This doesn't even consider how easy it would be to use 3D printing to pump out all the high capacity magazines you want should the existing massive supply ever run low.
Though if some such legislation were pending, I'd go out and buy $10,000 or so worth of magazines. A few for myself, and hundreds to SELL when the price goes up...
Heh, legislation is already floating around regarding all future magazine production to require serial numbers and dates, so that new can be identified as LEO use only. Unmarked were to be grandfathered in. However, with the incredible manufacturing available even for individuals at home, how do you prevent individuals from making their own unmarked? Anyways, it already sparked a panic buy. I want to join a precision shooting group this Summer, so I went to buy some standard capacity 308 mags (I live in a state where high capacity, except for .22lr caliber, has already been banned for quite a few years). Even the standard size 25 round mags are sitting on 2 month backorders now when last year you could pick them up same day. I can't imagine how backordered high capacity magazines are in parts of the country where they are currently legal!
-
Thanks @spartana for your response!
You are right, though violent crimes and murders seem to have dropped across the board since 1999, CA crimes seem to be relatively high as I found while researching Texasrunner's numbers. On the other hand, both murders and violent crimes have dropped considerably more in CA than in TX.
State/Violent Crime/murders per 100K
1999 CA/627.2/6 TX/560.4/6.1 NY/588.8/5
2014 CA/396.1/4.4 TX/405.9/4.4 NY/381.8/3.1 <<<Lowest point for CA and TX, I think
2016 CA/445.3/4.9 TX/434.4/5.3 NY/376.2/3.2
CA and TX have seen considerable improvement, but are not seeing the continued drop in violence that NY has enjoyed. Violence dropped by 29% in CA, 22.5% in TX, and 36% in NY over 1999-2016.
Murders dropped by 18.3% (CA), 13.1%(TX), and 36%(NY) in this time period. Why did CA and NY show more improvement than TX? Why is NY doing so much better than both?
Some have speculated that it's because NY is surrounded by states that also have relatively tight gun control, but CA is not. But it could also have to do with economics, education, birth control, cultural issues, availability of care for mental health, or improved policing... I just don't know. And of course, maybe we would find something different if we compared different states. One could probably do a statistical analysis to see if there is a relationship between gun control and drops in crime, or in states sharing a border.
One of the things NY is trying to do is start funding studies of gun control and gun violence, which would help us figure out what gun regulations are helpful and which are just red tape.
While others here may feel differently, I personally don't want to take your guns away. I just want people to not get hurt as much. It seems like common sense to me that when we make acquiring firearms a slower and more meticulous process, we'll filter out the hotheads and careless people from getting guns, at least. We'll never get violence or murders down to zero, we just want LESS. Every life saved is a win. Doesn't matter if it is handguns or shotguns or spiky black machine guns or magazines, just slow some of it down and let's get into a virtuous cycle where people are not so scared of one another.
-
While others here may feel differently, I personally don't want to take your guns away. I just want people to not get hurt as much. It seems like common sense to me that when we make acquiring firearms a slower and more meticulous process, we'll filter out the hotheads and careless people from getting guns, at least. We'll never get violence or murders down to zero, we just want LESS. Every life saved is a win. Doesn't matter if it is handguns or shotguns or spiky black machine guns or magazines, just slow some of it down and let's get into a virtuous cycle where people are not so scared of one another.
I'd agree, but I'd add that if we can't find a way for people not to get hurt as much, I'm perfectly fine with taking the guns away. As said multiple ways above, having gun owners just keep parroting the only problem is to enforce the rules we have which has about a much statistical backing as any unsubstantiated claim you could make but then doing nothing to figure out how to have that happen is not a solution. I'm very much in line with the statements above that it is the gun communities job to figure out how to get responsible management or others will eventually take that choice out of their hands.