US Gun Massacres: Groundhog Day? (READ MOD WARNING)

Manic Moran

Be like Nutella wrote: »

exsqueeze me? hunting is not done with rifles by and large in America no?

Sorry, I thought you were referring to firearms in general, not rifles specifically. I am unsure of the number of rifles purchased for hunting vs defence vs target shooting.

BlaasForRafa

Amerika wrote: »

I disagree. Intelligence indicates that Senator Diane Feinstein is already working to ban pistol grips and "high-capacity" magazines. Why would you put the wording of "pistol grips" you might ask. Perhaps because some liberal judge might decide to interpret what the term "pistol grip" might mean, which is potentially just about every gun in America.

I'd imagine its because semi-autos generally have pistol grips and bolt-action rifles don't. The "pistol grip" thing may be to make the issue more understandable to the layman (or the average politician) who might not understand the differences in the internal mechanisms of rifles.

I heard on newsnight that the proposal was that magazines and stripper-clips of more than 10 rounds would be banned.

As for judges, liberal or otherwise, I think you are being a bit over-dramatic, such a decision, in the extremely unlikely eventuality that it was ever made, would go to the Supreme court and its panel of judges I would have thought.

Manic Moran

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

I wonder how many times that the "civil power" in Mississippi has exercised that particular clause, I'd imagine that its extremely rare if ever. Most governments want someone employed by them to sort out anything that needs use of weapons rather than untrained civilians.

Probably not any time en masse since WW2 anyway. That doesn't invalidate the fact that the provision exists, or that the intent was always for the citizenry to be well equipped with capable arms. And while I'm reasonably sure that deputisations are not massively common, I do know that they still occur, both in federal and state jurisdictions.

Conflict against who though? The chances of a "Red Dawn" scenario are infinitesimal, the citizenry aren't going to be needed to defend against foreign invasion are they? And even if they were, then the weapons we are discussing could be issued from State arsenals rather than be held in citizens homes.

It is hard to see the future. Certainly there doesn't seem to have been a practical exercise in the citizenry actively taking up arms against the authorities in the US since 1946. Though in that case (Athens, TN), a lot of the modern weapons were liberated from the local National Guard armory, that was with the fact that the Guardsmen with the keys to the rifles were part of the uprising. The question of government armouries vs keeping at home is one which is oft mentioned in Europe as well, particularly Switzerland and Norway. There is something to be said for not needing to go muster in one location and instead just grabbing and going.

Just taking a quick look at DC vs Heller I notice this statement "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:" Which indicates that a renewal of laws like the lapsed Assault Weapons ban are feasible, no?

They are. And indeed there is currently no legal holding stating that a new assault weapons ban cannot be made. There is the practical argument that it didn't work, and the potential argument that the AWB would fall afoul of the protections of 'weapons in common use.' There is no way that an AR-15 cannot be considered to be a weapon in common use. A case to keep an eye on is Haynie vs City of Pleasanton et al currently working its way through the California court system. A related case is Richard v Harris. California still has an assault weapons ban (generally based on aesthetics, but anyway), so is probably the best indicator to the legal standing of a Federal one. Until those cases finish working their way through, the long-term legal viability of an AWB is an open question.

I'd imagine the chances of anyone challenging the full-auto restrictions in the near future are probably slim to zero.

Agreed. But mainly because they want to set the conditions first. It's a game of strategic chess. The first move was getting the Supreme Court to acknowledge the individual right of people to own a firearm. The second case is the right to people to have firearms outside the home (such as the Illinois case ruled last week). Then there's the issues of minor-effect laws such as California's 'Safe Handgun Roster' (again not a list based on rational characteristics), also going through the courts. And the Haynie case against the assault weapons ban. With every ruling comes more foundation upon which to make a stronger case in the more sensitive areas, such as machineguns.

NTM

Manic Moran

I'd imagine its because semi-autos generally have pistol grips and bolt-action rifles don't. The "pistol grip" thing may be to make the issue more understandable to the layman (or the average politician) who might not understand the differences in the internal mechanisms of rifles.

The lawmakers have no such difficulty. California's assault weapon ban is very clear on the understanding between 'pistol grip' and 'semi-auto'.

Pistol grips are more of an era thing than a mechanism thing. Once designers realised that pistol grips (or thumbhole stocks, which perform pretty much the same function and are also banned in the California legislation) provide a more comfortable and effective way of holding a rifle, they started becoming common on all sorts of rifles, bolt action and semi-auto both. I don't know if they even make competition single shot air rifles without pistol grips any more.

They may not be 'pretty', and on occasion can be an impediment to hunters as they work their way through the brush, which is why traditionally-shaped rifles are still more common for hunting, but their effect on usability is valid on every rifle ever made with them regardless of mechanism.

NTM

Duck Soup

To take a look at how fast a semi-automatic gun can fire rounds, here's someone trying out a Tec 9, a semi-automatic that was used in the Columbine massacre.

He takes a couple of minutes to get into the swing of things, but then you start to see how fast the bullets can be discharged.

Amerika

I don't believe Remington even offers a rifle or shotgun that does not have what would be considered to be a pistol grip.

Manic Moran

Amerika wrote: »

I don't believe Remington even offers a rifle or shotgun that does not have what would be considered to be a pistol grip.

Remington 870MCS. I believe the 1100 also has a pistol grip option.

Paleface

There is a serious culture change needed in America with regard to gun ownership if any change in the law is to be met with approval.

Incredibly guns sales are surging in the wake of the massacre as people scramble to gain access to these weapons before they are potentially banned!

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/12/18/gun-sales-surge-after-connecticut-massacre/

With regard to how the media handles these types of incidents I am always reminded of the following short clip from Bill Hicks album Rant in E-Minor. The gunman is always a quiet loner!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y6kEtserdo

asherbassad

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Napalm was not used at Fallujah in 2005. So it could not have been used against kids as you so emotively put it.

No?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/us-forces-used-chemical-weapons-during-assault-on-city-of-fallujah-514433.html

It's not called napalm anymore because that is bad PR. It's still deployed though as an improved version of the original naphthalene palmitate.

As for white phosphorous....they claim it's used for illumination, yeah right. What's wrong with flares.....or helicopters with spotlights. I don't see the LAPD launching white phosphorous shells over the city when chase a suspected car thief at night.

Anyway....it was used in Fallujah and caused horrific injuries and deaths.

It was also used in the original invasion. Even admitted by troops and pilots:

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/121004_fallujah_napalmed.shtml

I know this is completely unrelated to the thread but I'm just responding to your denial.

Innocent civilians are dying at a rate of a hell of a lot more than 27 a day thanks to America's wars for control of Asia yet you don't hear so much as a mouse-fart of mourning or a smidgen of the hand-wringing that is attributed to this Newtown massacre which is once again a direct consequence of America's nutcase gun culture and paranoid paralysing fear of everything from germs on the door handle to North bloody Korea.

AFAIK the majority of people who are killed in the US are killed either by their own guns or by someone they know. Yet they arm themselves to protect themselves against some nameless, faceless bogeyman who's just waiting to break in to their house and steal their fucking tupperware.

BlaasForRafa

asherbassad wrote: »

No?

Exactly, no.

Napalm was not used at Fallujah, Mark 77 bombs were not used at Fallujah. White Phosphorous is NOT napalm and WP was used in accordance with the laws of war at Fallujah. No matter how hyperventilate you can not change the facts.

asherbassad

Amerika wrote: »

Laws makes it next to impossible to be a gun owner in Chicago. Yet there have been over 470 homicides in Chicago this year. Perhaps because of the heavy gun laws?

Well someone's getting the guns from somewhere.
And looking at the Illinois gun laws....it seems anyone can own a shotgun.

asherbassad

Amerika wrote: »

Hmmm… I have seen statistics shown that 100,000 deaths each year in the US are caused by the use of alcohol, that include:
5% of all deaths from diseases of the circulatory system are attributed to alcohol.
15% of all deaths from diseases of the respiratory system are attributed to alcohol.
30% of all deaths from accidents caused by fire and flames are attributed to alcohol.
30% of all accidental drowning are attributed to alcohol.
30% of all suicides are attributed to alcohol.
40% of all deaths due to accidental falls are attributed to alcohol.
45% of all deaths in automobile accidents are attributed to alcohol.
60% of all homicides are attributed to alcohol.

Based on the amount of horrors caused by the sale of alcohol, wouldn’t there be a greater reasoning to stop the sale of alcohol than of guns?

And more deaths can be attributed to alcohol than can be linked directly or indirectly to human trafficking, paedophilia and sex slavery. So why outlaw these??

FFS!!

asherbassad

Amerika wrote: »

Typical. So since you don’t like guns or hunting, you believe it’s acceptable to force your agenda on a society whose constitution protects it’s citizens the right to own firearms. But if I would happen to believe alcohol is a product that produces far more evil on society than guns, I’m the one being unreasonable. Sound about right?

When a gun related death occurs, it is usually the gun that was used to kill the person.

I don't ever remember alcohol being used as a weapon to take someone's life. When was the last time someone was murdered by being force-fed liquor until they died of alcohol poisoning?

Amerika

Paleface wrote: »

Incredibly guns sales are surging in the wake of the massacre as people scramble to gain access to these weapons before they are potentially banned!

Completely understandable and expected! Because all the gun ban/control/regulation talk isn’t really about the tragic killings at the Hewtown CT elementary school. It’s about potential loss of our rights under the second amendment. The killer wasn’t able to get guns himself… he got them illegally from someone who purchased them legally (his mother). IMO, there are nearly one gun for every American, so anyone who wants to acquire them for evil will find a way to get them. And regulation won’t do anything to stem the tide of sick minds doing horrendous things. Gun ban/control will do little more than eliminate constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. Personally I think crime and these awful type of things might actually increase because of increased gun regulations.

Do you hear much talk about mental illness... no it's pretty much about gun control. And mental illness is the true killer here.

If there is a consensus to change the second amendment, then get it done by constitutional amendment, not by questionable pseudo-legal and illegal methods from our President and lawmakers!!!!

asherbassad

Be like Nutella wrote: »

Amerika you're right I don't agree with shooting a deer for fun... if you're not killing it for food. If for food then I have no problem at all.

This event will cause the outlawing of large capacity magazines and what is reasonably considered assault rifles or nothing will. And even if all that happens there are still 100 million semi auto handguns capable of 4 or more shots per second out there anyway so it wont make a damn difference as it didn't during the 1994-2004 ban period.

Hunting has no place in the debate - nobody is against hunting and the tools needed for hunting, nobody.

AR-15's should be banned if not explain why Amerika?

I would go further regarding your hunting for food angle. The so-called hunters in America who claim to hunt for food really only do it for sport and bloodlust. If they want to eat meat they can buy it. Real hunters who still live in the wild like Innuits, Eskimos, etc can justify their ownership of a rifle to kill a seal for meat and fur. In the past they used spears and arrows. The development of the gun just made their task a little easier. Other real hunters, i.e. those who have to hunt everyday or starve would include various tribesmen in remote parts of the world like jungles or sparsely inhabited wildernesses of Africa, Asia and Oceania.

The guy with the $2000 Bushmaster who goes out on a Saturday and blasts a buck deer and then straps it to the roof of his $75k truck and sells it to the local butcher and returns to the comfort of his leather recliner to talk about his "conquest" with his buddies doesn't really fall into this category. The guy isn't hunting to survive. He's doing it to feel big.

Amerika

asherbassad wrote: »

I would go further regarding your hunting for food angle. The so-called hunters in America who claim to hunt for food really only do it for sport and bloodlust. If they want to eat meat they can buy it.

Bull$h!t! The culling of wildlife here through hunting is necessary in many parts of the country to control their numbers in order to insure sustainable, healthy and non-dangerous levels. Actually, my cars have killed more deer than my guns. Every year the various state commissions here (by county) issue permits to take deer based on the number of licenses and deer population levels. In my state, this year some hunters can take up to 9 deer because the herds are too large. Almost every evening on my drive home I have to deal with deer on the roadways. Yesterday, I passed an accident scene involving several cars, two ambulances, several wreckers and numerous police officers because someone tried to avoid a deer and caused a crash involving multiple cars. Also, every hunter I know process their harvest into meat at butcher shops. So please get your facts straight.

asherbassad

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Exactly, no.

Napalm was not used at Fallujah, Mark 77 bombs were not used at Fallujah. White Phosphorous is NOT napalm and WP was used in accordance with the laws of war at Fallujah. No matter how hyperventilate you can not change the facts.

I don't believe you.

asherbassad

Amerika wrote: »

Bull$h!t! The culling of wildlife here through hunting is necessary in many parts of the country to control their numbers in order to insure sustainable, healthy and non-dangerous levels. Actually, my cars have killed more deer than my guns. Every year the various state commissions here (by county) issue permits to take deer based on the number of licenses and deer population levels. In my state, this year some hunters can take up to 9 deer because the herds are too large. Almost every evening on my drive home I have to deal with deer on the roadways. Yesterday, I passed an accident scene involving several cars, two ambulances, several wreckers and numerous police officers because someone tried to avoid a deer and caused a crash involving multiple cars. Also, every hunter I know process their harvest into meat at butcher shops. So please get your facts straight.

Right .... so your damn anecdotal evidence and personal experience equates to the absolute manner in which hunting is conducted. And your throwing in about the accident is cretinous. It's akin to alluding to the fact that killing deer saves lives.

Paleface

Amerika wrote: »

Completely understandable and expected! Because all the gun ban/control/regulation talk isn’t really about the tragic killings at the Hewtown CT elementary school. It’s about potential loss of our rights under the second amendment. The killer wasn’t able to get guns himself… he got them illegally from someone who purchased them legally (his mother). IMO, there are nearly one gun for every American, so anyone who wants to acquire them for evil will find a way to get them. And regulation won’t do anything to stem the tide of sick minds doing horrendous things. Gun ban/control will do little more than eliminate constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. Personally I think crime and these awful type of things might actually increase because of increased gun regulations.

Do you hear much talk about mental illness... no it's pretty much about gun control. And mental illness is the true killer here.

If there is a consensus to change the second amendment, then get it done by constitutional amendment, not by questionable pseudo-legal and illegal methods from our President and lawmakers!!!!

Criminals will get guns if they want them for sure. This is the norm in most countries.

Whats not the norm however is having a stockpile of weapons lying around a normal family home, which were purchased legally by one member of that household, but appear to have been readily available to anyone in that home. That is the very essence of lax gun control.

Brian?

Amerika wrote: »

If there is a consensus to change the second amendment, then get it done by constitutional amendment, not by questionable pseudo-legal and illegal methods from our President and lawmakers!!!!

No need to change the 2nd amendment to control gun ownership. You're a member of the Tea Party aren't you? The Tea Party is big on the original wording of the constitution:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.[8]

So there we have it. Want to bear arms? Join your local militia. A militia that is well regulated by the federal government.

I could never see how this gave free reign for everyone to own guns. The "well regulated militia" part is completely ignored by anyone anti gun regulation.

Be like Nutella

asherbassad wrote: »

Yet they arm themselves to protect themselves against some nameless, faceless bogeyman who's just waiting to break in to their house and steal their fucking tupperware.

100% agree with this.

this is a quote from Learnabout guns.com

" Like the millions of law abiding gun owners in America, I am a peace loving person. I own firearms so that I can defend myself and my family, should that need arise. While I sincerely hope that I am never in the position of having to fire a gun in self defense, I rest easier at night knowing that I could stop an armed robber, racist attacker, terrorist, or home invader if the need arose. I also rest easier knowing that my wife could stop a rapist or murderer, rather than becoming a victim. The simple fact is that gun control laws don't stop criminals from getting guns, and instead only disarm the law abiding citizens, making them easier targets for the criminals. Nor is it justifiable to deprive law abiding citizens of their constitutional right to keep and bear arms for self defense, just because criminals misuse guns, just as criminals misuse other tools.

Given those facts, I would encourage my fellow law abiding citizens who do not yet own a gun to do the following: go shooting for the first time, choose the proper gun for self defense, purchase that gun, store the gun in a responsible manner, and become proficient at safely using that gun. Next, join the NRA to protect your right to have a gun for self defense. Doing so may save your life one day, and can also benefit society as a whole. "


It sounds like a strong and sensible argument but unfortunately the facts and stats do not support maintaining American society's easy access to all these guns given the destruction that this access to guns causes to so many people each year. Banning assault rifles, semi auto guns of all kinds, heavily restricting hand gun sales and putting in place a severely rigorous vetting procedure and banning the secondary market would 100% save people from dying simple as that. Not wanting your society to be safer because you just love guns is not a valid argument. Hunting is done with rifles - so rifles should be legal.... small magazine or single shot rifles are fine... pistol grip assault type rifles developed for war like the AR-15/M16 are not. Hand guns do not save peoples lives. Most murders are carried out by gangs in poor areas. Middle class gun owners are not safer because they own their guns simple as that and that accounts for a huge number of guns bought so easily every year.... pointless purposeless collections of hand guns used on ranges now and then or just to be cool or just out of pure paranoia caused by the belief that you are safer with a gun in your middle class home than without one which is simply not true. IF people simply owned guns to shoot in matches or to hunt with and they were the right guns to do that then America would suffer less gun violence. Nobody should be allowed to buy a gun easily... nobody should then be allowed to carry that gun around public places concealed..... that's just plain mental.
None of this is rocket science. American guns owners just love their guns and that's all there is to it and they are not willing to sacrifice this love of guns for greater society's safety no matter how many mass shootings or suicides or accidents happen involving guns every year. THE INSANE NRA ACTUALLY ARE TRYING TO EDUCATE PEOPLE THAT MORE GUNS = SAFER SOCIETY... THAT'S WHAT THEY GENUINELY BELIEVE. PEOPLE HAVE COME OUT ALREADY SAYING THAT THE TEACHER SHOULD HAVE BEEN PACKING.... AND THAT THE CINEMA AUDIENCE WOULD HAVE BEEN PACKING GUNS IN ANY OTHER THEATER THAT MANIAC WENT TO. That's all bleeding mental how you can subscribe to that way of thinking is so beyond me there's no way of reaching people who's brains operate that way.

asherbassad

Amerika wrote: »

Completely understandable and expected! Because all the gun ban/control/regulation talk isn’t really about the tragic killings at the Hewtown CT elementary school. It’s about potential loss of our rights under the second amendment. The killer wasn’t able to get guns himself… he got them illegally from someone who purchased them legally (his mother). IMO, there are nearly one gun for every American, so anyone who wants to acquire them for evil will find a way to get them. And regulation won’t do anything to stem the tide of sick minds doing horrendous things. Gun ban/control will do little more than eliminate constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. Personally I think crime and these awful type of things might actually increase because of increased gun regulations.

Do you hear much talk about mental illness... no it's pretty much about gun control. And mental illness is the true killer here.

If there is a consensus to change the second amendment, then get it done by constitutional amendment, not by questionable pseudo-legal and illegal methods from our President and lawmakers!!!!

Loss of rights under the 2nd Amendment!!!!

Newsflash for the Constitution fundamentalists. The Constitution was changed 27 times. It can be changed again. In fact the 2nd Amendment is just that....a change in the Constitution. It wasn't there at first.

In fact, the Second Amendment only prevents the federal government from infringing "the right to keep and bear Arms." States could have all the gun control they want if it weren't for the later 14th Amendment that extends rights under the federal Constitution to apply to state actions as well.
Even this thin reed of gun rights has only existed since 2010. In the 2010 McDonald v. Chicago case, the activist US Supreme Court reversed 142 years of precedent to extend the meaning of the 14th Amendment to prohibit states from prohibiting guns.


It did so by a 5-4 margin. In other words, the nationwide Constitutional protection for gun ownership only came into existence in 2010 (not 1791) and even then by one single vote. So much for the everlasting, inalienable right to own a gun.


So the whole right to keep and bear arms is bollocks....much like the talk out of the mouths of pro-gun people.

Manic Moran

Brian? wrote: »

So there we have it. Want to bear arms? Join your local militia. A militia that is well regulated by the federal government.

The Federal Militia is currently defined in law by the federal government to include every able-bodied male US citizen aged 17 to 45.

That's before you get to the State Constitutions, which are even more specific as to the right to bear arms.

It did so by a 5-4 margin. In other words, the nationwide Constitutional protection for gun ownership only came into existence in 2010 (not 1791) and even then by one single vote. So much for the everlasting, inalienable right to own a gun.

Legal understanding fail. The right to arms was recognised in 2008 as one which had been pre-existing prior to the establishment of the US. Just nobody had ever gotten around to asking the Supreme Court the question for two hundred years. The closest was 1934, and even then the question was side-stepped.

NTM

old hippy

Amerika wrote: »

Bull$h!t! The culling of wildlife here through hunting is necessary in many parts of the country to control their numbers in order to insure sustainable, healthy and non-dangerous levels. Actually, my cars have killed more deer than my guns. Every year the various state commissions here (by county) issue permits to take deer based on the number of licenses and deer population levels. In my state, this year some hunters can take up to 9 deer because the herds are too large. Almost every evening on my drive home I have to deal with deer on the roadways. Yesterday, I passed an accident scene involving several cars, two ambulances, several wreckers and numerous police officers because someone tried to avoid a deer and caused a crash involving multiple cars. Also, every hunter I know process their harvest into meat at butcher shops. So please get your facts straight.

How are deer dangerous to man, though?

Amerika

old hippy wrote: »

How are deer dangerous to man, though?

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration there are about 1.5 million car accidents with deer each year in the US. Those accidents result in about $1 billion in vehicle damage. It also accounts for about 150 human fatalities and over 10,000 personal injuries. My state is highest nationwide for car accidents involving deer.

Perhaps we should forget about guns and consider banning deer.

old hippy

Amerika wrote: »

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration there are about 1.5 million car accidents with deer each year in the US. Those accidents result in about $1 billion in vehicle damage. It also accounts for about 150 human fatalities and over 10,000 personal injuries. My state is highest nationwide for car accidents involving deer.

Perhaps we should forget about guns and consider banning deer.

Or cars. Or people.

What have the deer ever done to hurt us?

rockonollie

Brian? wrote: »

So there we have it. Want to bear arms? Join your local militia. A militia that is well regulated by the federal government.

I could never see how this gave free reign for everyone to own guns. The "well regulated militia" part is completely ignored by anyone anti gun regulation.

Except the District of Columbia vs Heller Supreme court ruling supported the right of an individual to possess a firearm for self protection, regardless of whether or not the individual is part of a militia.

Lirange

Manic Moran the interpretation of the amendments needn't be rigidly and impracticably absolute. The first amendment hasn't led to the use of foul language on network day time television in America or the right to shout fire in a packed cinema.

Likewise, arms ... armaments can refer to nukes, grenade launchers, anti-aircraft batteries. I would assume and hope that we could agree there are limits ... boundaries here? Forget for a brief moment that we may disagree on what those boundaries should be... just want to know that you accept that there are boundaries? That there are some weapons that shouldn't be available to ordinary citizens?

Now as to the boundaries: Why should an average citizen be allowed to own an AR-15? This is not a hunting weapon. This is not a protect life and property weapon. It is a massacre weapon. It is a battlefield weapon. The shooter left his shotgun in the car, killed himself with the handgun, and not surprisingly chose the most efficient killing weapon at his disposal to gun down his victims. Any gun can kill. But let's be honest ... some are more effective than others.

The 1994 legislation was deemed constitutional. There's no reason why banning the AR-15 and other "military style" assault weapons would not be constitutional too.

BlaasForRafa

Amerika wrote: »

Do you hear much talk about mental illness... no it's pretty much about gun control. And mental illness is the true killer here.

Perhaps the gun and ammo companies could start a fund up to assist with mental illness and potentially help stop their products being used to murder innocent people.

Or a tax on gun and ammo sales which would be ringfenced for mental health issues. I wonder which would scare the gun crowd more, restrictive legislation or more taxes lol.

rockonollie

Amerika wrote: »

Do you hear much talk about mental illness... no it's pretty much about gun control. And mental illness is the true killer here.

The only problem is that regardless of how well funded mental health car may become, there will always be people with undiagnosed conditions, or families in denail who do not bring their child for treatment.

BlaasForRafa

Amerika wrote: »

According to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration there are about 1.5 million car accidents with deer each year in the US. Those accidents result in about $1 billion in vehicle damage. It also accounts for about 150 human fatalities and over 10,000 personal injuries. My state is highest nationwide for car accidents involving deer.

Perhaps we should forget about guns and consider banning deer.

More whataboutery I'm afraid.

Guns are responsible for 10000+ murders per year (thats not counting accidents and suicides) so action on gun restrictions would seem to about 66 times more important than action on deer restrictions....although Deer are already subject to restriction, ie they are hunted quite extensively

wexie

Lirange wrote: »

Now as to the boundaries: Why should an average citizen be allowed to own an AR-15? This is not a hunting weapon. This is not a protect life and property weapon. It is a massacre weapon. It is a battlefield weapon.

You're forgetting the mindset of some of our brethren from across the aul pond.
One of my colleagues very proudly showed me footage of one of his 'hunting' trips which involved him hanging out of a helicopter (vietnam style) firing a FULL AUTO AR-15 (apparently the conversion is something any reasonably competent gunsmith can do in an afternoon or so) at wild boar.

They killed a dozen or so of them in about 30 minutes, never ever bothered landing to collect any of the carcasses, they literally just killed them for the sake of killing....and apparently this is considered perfectly normal and acceptable behaviour.

Hunting for some Americans is simply to kill as many and as quickly of whatever you're allowed to kill legally, be that boar, squirrels, rabbits or whatever happens to be in season. And if you're of the opinion that that's normal behaviour then it makes perfect sense to have an assault rifle as your 'hunting' weapon of choice.

It's important that weapons like these are taking out of society as much as possible (and feasible) and people are taught that slaughtering animals like that isn't a normal passtime.

However when something like that is considered normal behaviour somehow I fear that just banning semi automatic weapons is going to make much of an impact on the recurrence of killings like these.

The same person could just as easily sat in the proverbial bell tower somewhere with a bolt action rifle and caused carnage.

rockonollie

wexie wrote: »

You're forgetting the mindset of some of our brethren from across the aul pond.
One of my colleagues very proudly showed me footage of one of his 'hunting' trips which involved him hanging out of a helicopter (vietnam style) firing a FULL AUTO AR-15 (apparently the conversion is something any reasonably competent gunsmith can do in an afternoon or so) at wild boar.

They killed a dozen or so of them in about 30 minutes, never ever bothered landing to collect any of the carcasses, they literally just killed them for the sake of killing....and apparently this is considered perfectly normal and acceptable behaviour.

Hunting for some Americans is simply to kill as many and as quickly of whatever you're allowed to kill legally, be that boar, squirrels, rabbits or whatever happens to be in season. And if you're of the opinion that that's normal behaviour then it makes perfect sense to have an assault rifle as your 'hunting' weapon of choice.

It's important that weapons like these are taking out of society as much as possible (and feasible) and people are taught that slaughtering animals like that isn't a normal passtime.

However when something like that is considered normal behaviour somehow I fear that just banning semi automatic weapons is going to make much of an impact on the recurrence of killings like these.

The same person could just as easily sat in the proverbial bell tower somewhere with a bolt action rifle and caused carnage.

That's called a redneck.....and he was breaking the law. It is illegal to kill animals while hunting and leave the carcasses. It's also not normal behaviour and you need to find a new friend.

Brian?

rockonollie wrote: »

Except the District of Columbia vs Heller Supreme court ruling supported the right of an individual to possess a firearm for self protection, regardless of whether or not the individual is part of a militia.

I'm aware of that I just don't see why.

Manic Moran

Lirange wrote: »

Manic Moran the interpretation of the amendments needn't be rigidly and impracticably absolute. The first amendment hasn't led to the use of foul language on network day time television in America or the right to shout fire in a packed cinema.

Likewise, arms ... armaments can refer to nukes, grenade launchers, anti-aircraft batteries. I would assume and hope that we could agree there are limits ... boundaries here? Forget for a brief moment that we may disagree on what those boundaries should be... just want to know that you accept that there are boundaries? That there are some weapons that shouldn't be available to ordinary citizens?

Oh, we all accept that there are boundaries. The prohibitions on passenger arms on aircraft is pretty universally accepted as a good thing, as are the prohibitions on felons or the mentally ill. It is generally accepted that there are time/place/manner restrictions which can be emplaced on individuals much as there is in speech. If the state legislature wants to ban the open carrying of arms, it may do so, if the other state legislature wants to ban the concealed carrying of arms it may do so. Most people will also accept that the right does not extend to crew-served weapons such as machineguns (common, not legal term), tanks etc, and the 1934 NFA which puts a number of hoops on ownership of such items is not likely to be challenged any time soon.

Now as to the boundaries: Why should an average citizen be allowed to own an AR-15? This is not a hunting weapon. This is not a protect life and property weapon.

Erm, yes it is. It's a killing (well, technically, incapacitating, but death is a common outcome: See selection process for 5.56mm as NATO standard) weapon. If it takes shooting someone else to protect life and property, it's very good at it. It's very good at doing a lot of things which involve hurling small projectiles at high speed in a specific direction.

It is a massacre weapon. It is a battlefield weapon. The shooter left his shotgun in the car, killed himself with the handgun, and not surprisingly chose the most efficient killing weapon at his disposal to gun down his victims. Any gun can kill. But let's be honest ... some are more effective than others.

I suspect that the final outcome would not have been dramatically different had the shotgun or semi-auto pistol been used. They've been battlefield weapons since at least WWI. My gunner in my M1 tank was issued a shotgun in Iraq, and we all carried semi-auto sidearms. They are plenty lethal and plenty useful on the modern battlefield.

The 1994 legislation was deemed constitutional.

Was it? I don't recall it ever being challenged to begin with.

NTM

Black Swan

Please be advised that 2 in-thread warnings had been issued, including this FINAL WARNING (below), yet some posters decided to ignore those mod warnings, and 5 cards have been issued between that Final Warning and this post. And if you entered the thread late and did not read all the posts, a warning had been given in the thread title and the warning post had been duplicated in the OP.

Black Swan wrote: »

FINAL WARNING:
Please be advised that going off-topic may result in official warnings, infractions, and bans.

Please also be advised that US Politics mods do not have to issue in-thread mod warnings before carding or banning. See quote from charter below:

Dr Galen wrote: »

2. Posting in Threads

Replies should be kept on-topic.

If you wish to discuss a separate issue which has arisen in a discussion, then take it to a separate thread, and post a link in the original thread if you feel it appropriate.

Thread derailing will be treated particularly harshly.

Amerika

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Guns are responsible for 10000+ murders per year (thats not counting accidents and suicides)

I don't belive the 10,000+ number is correct. Perhaps you can share with us a source to back up your claim.

And if we are to have a real meaningful disscussion on guns, it should perhaps include how many lives are actually saved by those who have guns and use them for protection. Or how many lives have been sacrificed because of strict gun control laws.

I have read reports that about 1/6th of people who use guns in defense believe that they saved an innocent life by doing so. If true, the ultra conservative underestimate of the number of times people use guns in self-defense, we could be looking at over 13,000 lives saved each year by armed citizens. If we use other estimates of 1,000,000 incidents where citizens use guns to protect themselves each year, we could be talking over 165,000 lives saved.

That (as I’ve read) it is historically proven that the more right to arms are taken away from the regular citizenry, the more crime increases and more innocent lives are lost. Australia recently being a prime example.

And states with the most strictest gun control laws like Illinois and New York have the worst gun crimes, whereas states like Texas with the least gun control have some of the lowest gun crimes.

asherbassad

Interesting fact:

The Newtown killer fired 100+ shots in this massacre.

Last year 87 shots in total were fired by the police in Germany.....in the entire country. 46 of those shots were warning shots.

asherbassad

Forget about the hunting thing, let's talk about defence.

Now....a lot of these people say they need something to defend themselves in the event that an intruder enters their home with the intention of killing them. So, I would ask, what is needed to allay this persistent fear that so many people seem to have?

What would pretty much protect your house from any determined person breaking in and killing you?

We could start off with a moate, then steel shutters on all doors and windows and a sophisticated alarm system. A well-trained dog could detect someone's presence long before they even came near the house as well. So it's pretty safe to assume that one could be protected from an invader before they "invaded" so to speak.
But let's just say that the invader gets past the moate, alarm, shutters, dogs, etc. What next to stop him? Would a taser suffice to stop him in his tracks? What about a crossbow? Or a bat?

Amerika

asherbassad wrote: »

But let's just say that the invader gets past the moate, alarm, shutters, dogs, etc. What next to stop him? Would a taser suffice to stop him in his tracks? What about a crossbow? Or a bat?

I’ll quote President Obama: "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"

If the life of myself, or any of my family was in jeopardy from a person intending to do violent harm or death, the idea of a fair fight is ludicrous. I would want the most powerful deterrence that is easily accessible, effective, and legal, behind me to save the life of an innocent. Personally, anyone put in that circumstance whom would say differently is being disingenuous IMO.

asherbassad

Amerika wrote: »

I’ll quote President Obama: "If they bring a knife to the fight, we bring a gun"

If the life of myself, or any of my family was in jeopardy from a person intending to do violent harm or death, the idea of a fair fight is ludicrous. I would want the most powerful deterrence that is easily accessible, effective, and legal, behind me to save the life of an innocent. Personally, anyone put in that circumstance whom would say differently is being disingenuous IMO.

Jesus, must be terrible to go through one's life so petrified by fear. Seems that people who are terrified of everything, mythical home invaders, mythical terrorists, mythical bloody disease outbreaks, a mythical hell, will lie on their death beds having never experienced the joy of true freedom and not knowing or being able to control what happens in life.

I couldn't forgive myself for wasting my one and only life in such a manner

BlaasForRafa

asherbassad wrote: »

Forget about the hunting thing, let's talk about defence.

Now....a lot of these people say they need something to defend themselves in the event that an intruder enters their home with the intention of killing them. So, I would ask, what is needed to allay this persistent fear that so many people seem to have?

What would pretty much protect your house from any determined person breaking in and killing you?

We could start off with a moate, then steel shutters on all doors and windows and a sophisticated alarm system. A well-trained dog could detect someone's presence long before they even came near the house as well. So it's pretty safe to assume that one could be protected from an invader before they "invaded" so to speak.
But let's just say that the invader gets past the moate, alarm, shutters, dogs, etc. What next to stop him? Would a taser suffice to stop him in his tracks? What about a crossbow? Or a bat?

Steel shutters would be pretty expensive I'd imagine plus would be crushingly hot in somewhere with a hot climate. I don't like dogs so that would be out.

Crossbows are pretty much one shot devices, then you need to fumble around for a reload, pretty useless if there are 2 burglars. Same for the taser, its a one shot deal, also one shot from a taser won't always put someone down, especially if they're high on something like pcp or meth.

I have a short steel bar for home defence but then I'm in Ireland and I don't expect a burglar to be armed with a gun. If I was in America then I'd imagine something like a replica M1911 would drop just about anyone.

Amerika

asherbassad wrote: »

Jesus, must be terrible to go through one's life so petrified by fear. Seems that people who are terrified of everything, mythical home invaders, mythical terrorists, mythical bloody disease outbreaks, a mythical hell, will lie on their death beds having never experienced the joy of true freedom and not knowing or being able to control what happens in life.

I couldn't forgive myself for wasting my one and only life in such a manner

Not petrified at all. I sleep rather well at night. I take it your life or that of your family has never been threatened from those intending to do violent bodily harm. Mine and my own has on more than one occasion. And advice from police was to arm myself for protection.

asherbassad

Amerika wrote: »

Not petrified at all. I sleep rather well at night. I take it your life or that of your family has never been threatened from those intending to do violent bodily harm. Mine and my own has on more than one occasion. And advice from police was to arm myself for protection.

Seems you are.

Everybody who is constantly in fear are always trying to dream up "what if" scenarios rather than living their lives. What are the chances of your home being attacked and you being assaulted/killed?

Allowing yourself to be consumed by the fear that someone is always out to do you harm is pathetic.

Statistically you are much more likely to get into a fight in a bar or in the street. Judging by the size of most Americans they're certainly not in any condition to fight back or run in the event of this possibility.

And yes I have had cause to fear for my safety. I've been involved in street violence on a few occasions. One time as a teenager I was set upon and took a thrashing. On another occasion I came to the aid of a little gay guy being punched up by a few savages. I lost 3 teeth and got a smashed cheek bone in that encounter but one of the dickheads lost a couple of pints of blood and nearly an eye. But I don't see any need for me to walk the streets sh!tting my pants with a gun holstered under my jacket and certainly not when I'm lying in bed.

Most of these armed-to-the-teeth clowns will never have the need to use their guns for the purpose for which they claim they need them. Oh, they'll throw out a cliche like "better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it" as if they're living in a Steven Segal movie or some nonsense.

But they will stuff their faces with junk food and soda and die of diabetes despite being told that this will definitely kill them.

Fearing a non-existent threat and ignoring a real one is to me the height of absurdity.

asherbassad

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Steel shutters would be pretty expensive I'd imagine plus would be crushingly hot in somewhere with a hot climate. I don't like dogs so that would be out.

Crossbows are pretty much one shot devices, then you need to fumble around for a reload, pretty useless if there are 2 burglars. Same for the taser, its a one shot deal, also one shot from a taser won't always put someone down, especially if they're high on something like pcp or meth.

I have a short steel bar for home defence but then I'm in Ireland and I don't expect a burglar to be armed with a gun. If I was in America then I'd imagine something like a replica M1911 would drop just about anyone.

Why don't you just sleep in a bullet-proof sarcophagus. The intruder will make off with your juicer and golf clubs and nobody gets hurt. Insurance will replace them and hopefully your in-house camera and/or your alarm connected to the police dispatcher will be enough to apprehend the villain.

Go....dream up another laughable "what if" scenario. What if the intruder sets fire to the house while I'm in the sarcophagus? What if he releases his vial of sarin nerve gas and I didn't pack my gasmask in with me?

But I would like to know what the stats are for those who were killed in their home by an intruder for lack of having a gun and indeed how many even had a gun and defended themselves from certain harm.

Amerika

asherbassad wrote: »

Seems you are.

I guess we’ll just have to disagree on that.

Everybody who is constantly in fear are always trying to dream up "what if" scenarios rather than living their lives.

Do you own insurance? And if so why?

What are the chances of your home being attacked and you being assaulted/killed?

Don’t rightly know, but I have read:
38% of all assaults occur during a home invasion.
60% of all reported rapes occur during a home invasion.
Over 2.7 Million Burglaries were reported to law enforcement agencies (from 1994 from what I could find), with 2 out of 3 being residential. And 67% of all burglaries involved forcible entry.

Allowing yourself to be consumed by the fear that someone is always out to do you harm is pathetic.

Don’t know anyone like that, so I don’t rightly know.

Statistically you are much more likely to get into a fight in a bar or in the street. Judging by the size of most Americans they're certainly not in any condition to fight back or run in the event of this possibility.

Perhaps, but I don’t frequent bars or hang out on the street, so I couldn't say one way or the other.

And yes I have had cause to fear for my safety. I've been involved in street violence on a few occasions. One time as a teenager I was set upon and took a thrashing. On another occasion I came to the aid of a little gay guy being punched up by a few savages. I lost 3 teeth and got a smashed cheek bone in that encounter but one of the dickheads lost a couple of pints of blood and nearly an eye. But I don't see any need for me to walk the streets sh!tting my pants with a gun holstered under my jacket and certainly not when I'm lying in bed.

I have been through roughly the same. Even as such, I don’t have a Carry and Conceal permit, and don’t carry a gun on my presence.

Most of these armed-to-the-teeth clowns will never have the need to use their guns for the purpose for which they claim they need them. Oh, they'll throw out a cliche like "better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it" as if they're living in a Steven Segal movie or some nonsense.

Don’t know anyone like that. Perhaps there are, but I gather they would represent a miniscule percentage of the 1 in 4 American’s who own firearms.

But they will stuff their faces with junk food and soda and die of diabetes despite being told that this will definitely kill them.

LOL so you think gun owners are all fat and die of diabetes?

Fearing a non-existent threat and ignoring a real one is to me the height of absurdity.

I agree.

Raphael

Amerika wrote: »

I don't belive the 10,000+ number is correct. Perhaps you can share with us a source to back up your claim.

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html

Average is 10,930 firearm homicides per year 2006-2010. That figure was going down in 09 and 10 though.

Amerika

Raphael wrote: »

http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/data-and-analysis/homicide.html

Average is 10,930 firearm homicides per year 2006-2010. That figure was going down in 09 and 10 though.

Thank you. Interesting that that figure has been going down as the US population increases, and the amount of legally purchased firearms has also increased... isn't it? (Everything I have read as of late indicates that number has been under 10,000.)

Manic Moran

asherbassad wrote: »

Jesus, must be terrible to go through one's life so petrified by fear. Seems that people who are terrified of everything, mythical home invaders, mythical terrorists, mythical bloody disease outbreaks, a mythical hell, will lie on their death beds having never experienced the joy of true freedom and not knowing or being able to control what happens in life.

I couldn't forgive myself for wasting my one and only life in such a manner

It's not fear. It's just another tool in the collection of tools that I have in the house to deal with various contingencies. I have a wind-up flashlight in event of power failure. I have several days' supply of food and water, in case of natural disaster (read: Earthquake). I have a couple of fire extinguishers in case of fire. And I have firearms in case of danger from others. I don't live in fear of an earthquake, even though I know one is liable to hit me eventually. We're already overdue a reasonably large one. I don't live in fear of a fire, though I respect the threat that fire poses. I'm just prepared for as many eventualities as I can be reasonably easily prepared for. Most people would call that being sensible.

Paleface

Americans just love guns. As I said before in an earlier post its a culture thing.

They regularly go to firing ranges and like to collect guns as a hobby or pastime.

When their right to do so is threatened in some way they throw out the usual lines

We need guns for self defence.
Its in our constitution to bear arms.
Video games and violent movies are to blame for massacres.
Bad people will always do bad things.

They need to wise up. There are cetain types of weapons an ordinary person should never have access to.

From what I have read Australia used to allow the general public to purchase semi-automatic weapons but after a number of massacres they banned them. The massacres stopped.

EDIT: I also meant to add that its a huge industry also which the NRA will lobby the government to maintain. In Australia when they banned the guns they had to compensate people to voluntarily give them up.