Gun Control in the US

AbusesToilets

FatherTed wrote: »

Are you saying the anti-gun folks are the ones obsessed with guns?

I am, yes

FatherTed

AbusesToilets wrote: »

I am, yes

I don't think so. It ain't us who are doing the killings. Now tell me what do you need to have to perform mass gun killings? Hint: it's not that hard to figure out.

AbusesToilets

FatherTed wrote: »

I don't think so. It ain't us who are doing the killings. Now tell me what do you need to have to perform mass gun killings? Hint: it's not that hard to figure out.

It's not me or people like me either.

As to your point, all you need is an imagination and the will to act.

FatherTed

AbusesToilets wrote: »

It's not me or people like me either.

As to your point, all you need is an imagination and the will to act.

Ok so you couldn't even answer the question. It's the guns.

As a society we have shown we are unable to safely regulate and possess them. The pro gun supporters are not interested in any leverage as to regulating guns and who gets to own one because blah blah blah it's your right to have one/2nd amendment tells me so/etc.

But to me that's bullshyte because you're right to own a gun doesn't trump(pun not intended) anybody's right to live. Our right to live trumps yours to own a gun. Since there will never be any leverage with the pro gun crowd combined with having politicians who gleefully protect the NRA because of their massive donations we are stuck. So it's my opinion the 2nd amendment is a load of balls and should be repealed as there is no place for civilian gun ownership.

AbusesToilets

FatherTed wrote: »

Ok so you couldn't even answer the question. It's the guns.

As a society we have shown we are unable to safely regulate and possess them. The pro gun supporters are not interested in any leverage as to regulating guns and who gets to own one because blah blah blah it's your right to have one/2nd amendment tells me so/etc.

But to me that's bullshyte because you're right to own a gun doesn't trump(pun not intended) anybody's right to live. Our right to live trumps yours to own a gun. Since there will never be any leverage with the pro gun crowd combined with having politicians who gleefully protect the NRA because of their massive donations we are stuck. So it's my opinion the 2nd amendment is a load of balls and should be repealed as there is no place for civilian gun ownership.

I did answer your question, you not liking it doesn't change the matter.

There are plenty of laws that govern gun ownership, unfortunately, crimes tend to be carried out by folks who don't care about laws.

Enzokk

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Perhaps it's because we have seen what happens in countries where the government can act without fear of its citizens.

I am interested to know, but can you list the countries where a armed insurgence from the citizens helped overthrow their government?

AbusesToilets

Enzokk wrote: »

I am interested to know, but can you list the countries where a armed insurgence from the citizens helped overthrow their government?

Well, of recent years, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Chechyna, Zimbabwe. It's a fairly regular occurrence, in fairness.

Cookie_Monster

Manic Moran wrote: »

Yet, there are no particular problems resulting from the prevalence of people carrying handguns in the Czech republic. Thus we can infer that (1) Allowing handguns but denying rifles will not result in a particular reduction in mass shootings, and (2) allowing handguns need not result in mass shootings in the first place. Is focusing on the rifle going to achieve anything?

Or you could infer that the Czechs have a mature and grown up attitude both to owning weapons & their use and to their fellow citizens in general, whereas that seems to be sorely lacking in the US.

Brian?

It’s a lost cause lads and ladies. The genie is out of the bottle. It’s time to arm teachers and have armed guards on schools. It’s the only way to protect the children.

My American friends are on Facebook offering free gun safety lessons and campaigning for the elimination of gun free zones. Be safe, be armed.

gimli2112

yeah came in to say the same thing. It's too late. Too many people, too many guns.
I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit [everybody looks at Ripley] It's the only way to be sure.

Manic Moran

Or you could infer that the Czechs have a mature and grown up attitude both to owning weapons & their use and to their fellow citizens in general, whereas that seems to be sorely lacking in the US.

I completely agree with you, and have said as much on several occasions. The US used to have such an attitude. Something has changed in recent decades. After a school shooting in Spokane County, the local Sheriff didn't bypass this point. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P89CBU8E6jU

Itssoeasy

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Enzokk wrote: »

I am interested to know, but can you list the countries where a armed insurgence from the citizens helped overthrow their government?

Well, of recent years, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Chechyna, Zimbabwe. It's a fairly regular occurrence, in fairness.

Afghanistan and Iraq were in part because of the us army. Syria the government isn't overthrown. Chechnya is part of Russia so how is that relevant ? Zimbabwe ? That was the most polite coup ever and not a shot was fired in anger. Also Mugabe needed to be ****ed out of power. So abusestoilets with respect try harder.

Itssoeasy

Also the line about the 2nd amendment preventing a tyrannical government. Can the US posters state a time when the US government has come even close to being tyrannical ?

Cookie_Monster

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Also the line about the 2nd amendment preventing a tyrannical government. Can the US posters state a time when the US government has come even close to being tyrannical ?

why you class trying to implement taxpayer funded universal healthcare as tyrannical its easy to come up with plenty of examples.

AbusesToilets

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Afghanistan and Iraq were in part because of the us army. Syria the government isn't overthrown. Chechnya is part of Russia so how is that relevant ? Zimbabwe ? That was the most polite coup ever and not a shot was fired in anger. Also Mugabe needed to be ****ed out of power. So abusestoilets with respect try harder.

Afghanistan was taken over by the Taliban, coming after a war in which the Mujihadeen defeated the Soviet military.

IS in Iraq conquered swathes of the country and held off concerted efforts from the US et al for years.

Chechan rebels soundly defeated the Russian Army in the first of the two wars, and precipitated a brutal second campaign on the part of the Russian's the second time around.

The government of Syria was on the brink of defeat before the direct intervention of the Russians and Iran.

Zimbabwe came into existence after an exhaustive insurgency by the Zanu PF against the government of Rhodesia.

Did you make any effort to look that stuff up before you replied? Basic history, hardly obscure.

AbusesToilets

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Also the line about the 2nd amendment preventing a tyrannical government. Can the US posters state a time when the US government has come even close to being tyrannical ?

Well, it's looking pretty dicey at the minute. One could point to perhaps the era of FDR and Nixon as times when things were fairly sketch too.

Itssoeasy

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Afghanistan and Iraq were in part because of the us army. Syria the government isn't overthrown. Chechnya is part of Russia so how is that relevant ? Zimbabwe ? That was the most polite coup ever and not a shot was fired in anger. Also Mugabe needed to be ****ed out of power. So abusestoilets with respect try harder.

Afghanistan was taken over by the Taliban, coming after a war in which the Mujihadeen defeated the Soviet military.

IS in Iraq conquered swathes of the country and held off concerted efforts from the US et al for years.

Chechan rebels soundly defeated the Russian Army in the first of the two wars, and precipitated a brutal second campaign on the part of the Russian's the second time around.

The government of Syria was on the brink of defeat before the direct intervention of the Russians and Iran.

Zimbabwe came into existence after an exhaustive insurgency by the Zanu PF against the government of Rhodesia.

Did you make any effort to look that stuff up before you replied? Basic history, hardly obscure.

Of course I do but you're ignored the actual facts and picked convenient time periods to take away from the American involvement.

I could say the very same about you who seems to value the right to bear arms over the right the children to go to school in a safe environment and not be faced go with the treat of getting killed.

AbusesToilets

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Of course I do but you're ignored the actual facts and picked convenient time periods to take away from the American involvement.

I could say the very same about you who seems to value the right to bear arms over the right the children to go to school in a safe environment and not be faced go with the treat of getting killed.

The question was asked about armed insurgencies taking on governments, with reference to the ideas in the 2nd Amendment. I provide examples. Not sure what point you're trying to make there re: American involvement or lack thereof.

As to your last point, the right to bear arms is not mutually exclusive from wishing for a safe society, free from crime. But strawman away as you deem appropriate.

Manic Moran

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Also the line about the 2nd amendment preventing a tyrannical government. Can the US posters state a time when the US government has come even close to being tyrannical ?

That depends, are you black?

Most current gun control laws started as a result of being afraid of black folks with guns. The idea seemed to cause concern in the Southern states, for example, particularly in the post-bellum period, but not exclusively so. California's open carry law came about during the civil rights movement in the 1960s after the legislature realised, to their horror, that there was no law stopping black folks with guns visiting them in Sacramento. The violence of the civil rights era was partially propogated by the black communities in cities being armed, and they were fighting back.

However, for 'Whitey', I can't think of anything requiring armed resistance to government bodies since 1948 (Battle of Athens).

Itssoeasy

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The question was asked about armed insurgencies taking on governments, with reference to the ideas in the 2nd Amendment. I provide examples. Not sure what point you're trying to make there re: American involvement or lack thereof.

As to your last point, the right to bear arms is not mutually exclusive from wishing for a safe society, free from crime. But strawman away as you deem appropriate.

My point was the current situation in the countries you named.I didn't say america was at fault for all these situation. I'm aware of the situation regarding the right to bear arms. The sandy hook killer took his mother's legally held gun so the the illegally got guns isn't a valid point in all situations.

look my point is for someone outside of america can you see the conflict with seeing people killed in a mass killing and nothing seems to be done on this issue ?

Itssoeasy

Manic Moran wrote: »

That depends, are you black?

Most current gun control laws started as a result of being afraid of black folks with guns. The idea seemed to cause concern in the Southern states, for example, particularly in the post-bellum period, but not exclusively so. California's open carry law came about during the civil rights movement in the 1960s after the legislature realised, to their horror, that there was no law stopping black folks with guns visiting them in Sacramento. The violence of the civil rights era was partially propogated by the black communities in cities being armed, and they were fighting back.

However, for 'Whitey', I can't think of anything requiring armed resistance to government bodies since 1948 (Battle of Athens).

Really ? that's not something I was aware of.

AbusesToilets

Itssoeasy wrote: »

My point was the current situation in the countries you named.I didn't say america was at fault for all these situation. I'm aware of the situation regarding the right to bear arms. The sandy hook killer took his mother's legally held gun so the the illegally got guns isn't a valid point in all situations.

look my point is for someone outside of america can you see the conflict with seeing people killed in a mass killing and nothing seems to be done on this issue ?

There are plenty of things that could be done, that would have real effects , that don't involve banning certain types of guns. But those aren't measures that enjoy support politically.

ClanofLams

The 2nd amendment is such a tiresome excuse. It may have represented the best wisdom of 200 plus years ago but it’s nonsense now.

Manic Moran

Itssoeasy wrote: »

Really ? that's not something I was aware of.

There are a number of articles which touch upon the matter. Here's one from Al Jazeera.

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2017/10/gun-control-racist-present-171006135904199.html

or http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/civil-rights/347324-the-racist-origin-of-gun-control-laws

Colion Noir (Black gun advocate) goes on for about ten minutes on this one. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m-l7TO01-Sg

Where I am in California , the law prohibiting my gaining a permit to carry a pistol was developed after it was made very clear that any regulation which prohibited blacks or hispanics from carrying a gun would not pass constitutional muster. As a result, the wording was changed to allow the Sheriff to make a personal judgement that the applicant for a license was "of good character and had good cause". For some reason, being hispanic tended to indicate you neither had good character nor good cause.

This has since changed in practice though, with racial equality. Now it's down to political opinion. Some sheriffs give to everyone, some give to nobody, and some depend on how much you contributed to their re-election campaign.

Mellor

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Not as significant as you seem to believe it to be. I can reload a pistol or rifle in a couple of secs, a shotgun somewhat more slowly. Neither would present much of a barrier to a prepared and determined shooter.

I'm not sure why you are suggesting a difference of seconds is insignificant when you are looking at a cycles of 100+ rounds.
Larger magazines, plus rates of fire approaching full-auto will dramatic changes to the total output.

A recent anachronism, which will be removed soon I hope.

Anachronism is a very odd choice of words. Can you explain the logic there.

FatherTed wrote: »

As a society we have shown we are unable to safely regulate and possess them.

By "as a society, we" you are referring to americans, right.
As the rest of the civilized world seems to manage without difficultly.

Manic Moran

I'm not sure why you are suggesting a difference of seconds is insignificant when you are looking at a cycles of 100+ rounds

It’s not number of bullets fired that determines casualties, it’s number of targets to shoot and the time taken to aim at them. They are not all standing in a convenient line, waiting to be mown down as quickly as someone can pull the trigger. There are always pauses of a couple of seconds as the shooter rotates to find another target, or walks from one room to the next, those pauses not being any shorter than a magazine change. As a result, the practical rate of fire is not determined by magazine size. Magazine size mainly affects ergonomics of the weapon, reliability, and carriage of reloads more than rate of fire. This is why the military does not go with extended magazines of 50 or 100 rounds for its M4s and sticks with 30s. (I always carried a 20 for the first magazine).

Mellor

Manic Moran wrote: »

It’s not number of bullets fired that determines casualties, it’s number of targets to shoot and the time taken to aim at them.

I'm not sure why you are presenting it as a "one or the other" scenerio.

Of course the availability of targets is a factor. I never suggested otherwise. I have no idea how you think that proves rate of fire isn't a factor. Bit of a logic gap there.

There are always pauses of a couple of seconds as the shooter rotates to find another target, or walks from one room to the next, those pauses not being any shorter than a magazine change.

That's fair enough. But it's not relevant to my post. I'm referring to rate of fire once the shooter has targets sighted.
Look at the Vegas shooter. How many rounds did he discharge. Are you honestly saying that large magazines and modified rifles did increase that number? Don't be ridiculous.

As a result, the practical rate of fire is not determined by magazine size. Magazine size mainly affects ergonomics of the weapon, reliability, and carriage of reloads more than rate of fire. This is why the military does not go with extended magazines of 50 or 100 rounds for its M4s and sticks with 30s. (I always carried a 20 for the first magazine).

If he is walking room to room with multiple 30 round magazines at hand it doesn't affect the practical rate of fire compared with a 100 round mag. No argument there. But I think you've misunderstood. A 30 rounds magazine is still the issue I'm referring to. That's a military capacity magazine - there's no civilian need imo.

A guy with 4 x 30 plus one loaded had 150 rounds within seconds reach, may as well be a 150 round mag (as you pointed out). But there a practical limit as to how many loaded mags you can carry.
What's the practical rate of fire look like when options are restricted to 5 round mags? Very different.

Enzokk

AbusesToilets wrote: »

The question was asked about armed insurgencies taking on governments, with reference to the ideas in the 2nd Amendment. I provide examples. Not sure what point you're trying to make there re: American involvement or lack thereof.

I guess the question then becomes, did those soldiers who overthrew their government have weapons to do it or did they acquire it by fair or fowl means? It seems to me that in all those cases you mention that there are outside actors involved in supplying weapons or training that creates a civil war and thus the overthrow of a government. I can remember a lot more peaceful protests that have lead to changes in government where a war was not needed.

Unless I am missing something, but is the US really sliding towards a situation where a civil war will be started? If you are using the defence that there may be a time where I would need to arm myself to fight the government, then the self defence argument seems moot. Or if you use the self defence argument then the need for weapons that could help with an insurgency (automatic rifles to fight the automatic rifles, drones, aircraft and bombs of your own government and army) doesn't seem needed and should be controlled.

For me, the gun argument in the US is as silly and stupid as Brexit. The reason for this is because it deal with feelings. How can someone be persuaded to feel different about a situation? If you feel unsafe without your gun, then no amount of facts will convince you otherwise, because you feel unsafe. We can see the UK is on the way to deliberately hurting the economy because of feelings. The US seems fine with tragedies that involve children (that is kids being slaughtered) because some want to feel safer.

Manic Moran

First, the theory. I address the practice at the bottom.

Mellor wrote: »

I'm not sure why you are presenting it as a "one or the other" scenerio.

Of course the availability of targets is a factor. I never suggested otherwise. I have no idea how you think that proves rate of fire isn't a factor. Bit of a logic gap there.

Mechanical rate of fire need only be equal to the availability of things to shoot at. I submit that the required rate of fire can be easily met by more limited capacity magazines as well as standard or high capacity. We conduct annual active shooter drills, and we use blank ammo and 30-round mags, gives us a reasonable assessment.

That's fair enough. But it's not relevant to my post. I'm referring to rate of fire once the shooter has targets sighted.
Look at the Vegas shooter. How many rounds did he discharge.

About 1,100 over a period of eleven minutes.

Are you honestly saying that large magazines and modified rifles did increase that number? Don't be ridiculous.

Is it ridiculous? How would he have managed if he had had enforced cooling pauses instead of encountering the multiple weapons jams he suffered due to his lack of fire discipline? The reason the Army considers the sustained rate of fire of the M4 to be 12-15 rounds per minute is because the weapon isn't designed to fire faster than that.

In any case, even that wouldn't have been sufficient cooling pause, it would just have kept him going a little longer before the next stoppage: He was in a prepared position, it's not that hard to keep three stacks of 10-round magazines within reach in the about the same floorspace as a stack of 30s, he'd have still beaten the rifle's capability.

Now, in theory, he could have had a weapon designed to fire sustained. For example, FN has a civilian version of the M249 (You may know it as the Minimi). It's $8,000 plus tax, add another thousand or for a spare barrel to keep it going a bit longer, which makes it a rarity. Still, he certainly seems to have had the money for it, so we are talking about another matter entirely there. Even at that, though, the M249 is designed to fire short bursts: The Army says sustained rate of fire of 100 rounds a minute, rapid fire is 200 rounds a minute. Given the cyclic is 800 rpm, in sustained fire, that's one second of firing for every eight seconds of not firing. I think most people can change a magazine in eight seconds.

A guy with 4 x 30 plus one loaded had 150 rounds within seconds reach, may as well be a 150 round mag (as you pointed out). But there a practical limit as to how many loaded mags you can carry.
What's the practical rate of fire look like when options are restricted to 5 round mags? Very different.

Yes, I will agree with you there. But then, you start running into problems at the other end of the scale. Police, on average, score one hit out of five rounds fired. That's hit, not stopping hit. Shooting at live targets tends to result in misses, even if the live target isn't trying to threaten you (150 rounds fired in Florida, he missed with most). Those of us who keep firearms for defense tend not to have spare magazines lying around, what is in the weapon is all we get. I am reminded of the chap in Oklahoma last year who shot three intruders (and then grandfather of one complained it wasn't fair he had an AR and they only had brass knuckles), I don't think I could do that with my 10-round limit here in California. And it's not unusual, from my neck of the woods two weeks ago, three-man home invasion crew. http://kron4.com/2018/01/26/video-3-robbers-hold-piedmont-couple-house-guests-at-gunpoint-during-home-invasion/

Then you have the really big practical problem. The number of standard capacity magazines currently in the US begins with a 'b' (plus an estimated 40 million high capacity). Like most Californian gun owners, I have a whole bunch of the things in my garage. Because I follow the law, I don't insert them into the weapon within the State borders, but that's hardly an affirmative prevention. And the other minor issue is that, being non-stress-bearing-parts, 3D-printing the things is easy with a cheap printer. So, even if a magazine ban were to be enacted, good luck actually doing any good with it while you inhibit the law-abiding.

ArthurDayne

Manic Moran wrote: »

First, the theory. I address the practice at the bottom (...)

A well-written post (which I cut out just to keep the length of this post digestible) but I’m struggling to understand the point. This seems to be a common trend of the gun law debates, where the discussion gets mired in technical specifications which to me seem awfully akin to smokescreening the issue. I can’t help but feel that if these now frequent mass murders and attempted mass murders were being perpetrated by terrorist organisations, the American public would be clamouring for action in unison – that appropriate and proportionate measures be taken to try to stop terrorists from operating within the country by both attempting to address the root cause of the issue and depriving terrorists as far as reasonably possible from acquiring with ease the tools they require to inflict mass death or destruction. Let us suppose the last 5 mass shootings in America had been committed by terrorists and the government advocated a stance of doing nothing. It would be unfathomable.

We can talk about Australia, the Czech Republic or Switzerland ad nauseum. But the only thing that matters is context – and whether Americans can squint hard enough in the mirror to self-diagnose the firearm-supplemented sickness in their society does not change the fact that all discussion around American gun control comes in the context of the mass slaughter of tens of thousands of its people on an annual basis. In that context, the concept of a society awash with guns in the interests of “self-protection” seems to be more self-defeating than self-protecting. Again, in that context, the right to bear arms in the interest of shooting some fowl or having a jolly good time at the target range both pale into microscopic insignificance.

So the key questions which leave many of us smacking our head off the proverbial wall are, in the context of tens of thousands slaughtered Americans per year and schoolchildren being gunned down by maniacs:

- If self-protection is the issue, can Americans not simply carry a single handgun with a limited and regulated amount of ammo? I don’t think it’s ideal and still leaves scope for murderers to get their hands on weapons but, in the interest of eventually reducing the absurd number of guns in the States and at the very least helping to create a more controllable gun-universe, is this not a valid compromise? If not, why not?

- If you like hunting, fair enough. I’ll not get into a debate on the merits or necessity of that activity right now but, even if we assume that it’s perfectly fine, does the right to bear arms in the interests of hunting really need constitutional protection? I don’t see how repealing the 2nd Amendment should serve to prevent hunters from owning and using a hunting rifle.

- As for the rise of a tyrannical government (and I am at pains to even treat this one with any seriousness, but it has been cited), your government already has the most powerful military on the planet, with global bases and capability of launching aircraft from any of its naval carries or international airbases. It would be an utter massacre. Does this highly unlikely scenario really justify accepting the current reality that American people, including children, are being gunned down en masse. Perhaps, if the fear of tyranny is so great, Americans could start by calling for a scaling-back of military spending? It is interesting that many of the gun lobby voted for and support a President who promises increasing military power. Turkeys voting for a tyrannical Christmas one might say!

- The overall question is : in the context of the killing of tens of thousands of Americans every year, and the terrifying sub-context of innocent people being subjected mass shootings, can Americans really not see the value of making some first steps to properly address this problem rather than dance around it with ‘mming and aahing’ over how difficult it would be or engaging in faux-patriotic theatrics? The first steps are taking real and decisive action to reduce the number of weapons in the country and creating a more controllable environment. Sitting around waiting for a solution which will end all violent crime is an exercise of extreme and dangerous procrastination. There is a murder problem in America and guns are supplementing that problem - it's a huge issue and it may take years to address effectively - but doing nothing will solve nothing.