Post: #351

(12-18-2012 11:22 PM)dragnet Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 08:11 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  The NRA speaks...

"The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again."

http://news.msn.com/us/nra-breaks-silenc...-massacres

As of now, the organization hasn't laid out specifics as to what it wants to do to help prevent these kinds of incidents. They've taken a beating on social media, and had to shut down their Facebook page. They've remained silent up until now out of respect, and frankly, they've had to figure out just how to address this. Usually, they respond immediately after a shooting. They're the natural whipping boy after shootings (which isn't totally fair), but with largely children being the targets of this one, there was pretty much nothing they could say. Joe Scarborough, the host of "Morning Joe" on MSNBC, made a 10 minute statement a couple of days ago which I watched online yesterday. He's a former Congressman, and received the highest rating you can get from the NRA. Even he changed his tune on this one, because it felt more personal (which is usually the thing thats people to back off of a previously held position). He's a father of 4 I think, and one of his kids has Asperger's. It's the absolutists on both sides of the debate that have the loudest voices. Each side accuses the other of arguing on emotion, devoid of logic. Both are right. All guns aren't going to disappear, while it's equally ridiculous to believe that there should be no restrictions to acquiring any kind of weapon you want. Scarborough focused on assault weapons and high-capacity mags, and that's where the discussion should start. There's skepticism on the Hill regarding the NRA's sincerity, so we'll need to see exactly what they intend to do to prevent future mass shootings. In the past, the NRA has used intimidation against candidates and Congressmen if they didn't feel their stance on guns wasn't in line with the organization. They'd fund opponents to run against them. If the NRA takes the lead on softening their stance on certain issues regarding guns, everyone else will fall in line. Let's see how far they're willing to budge.

It will be interesting to see what they propose, but I'm not holding my breath for meaningful change from these guys. The best they could do is come out in support of a ban on assault (automatic) weapons, high-capacity magazines and armor-piercing rounds...but I doubt it will happen. More likely they will offer increased funding for gun safety classes and agree to limited background checks at gun shows or other relatively toothless reforms.

You can still be pro-gun and oppose widespread private ownership of automatic weapons---but that badly need message will never get heard from the NRA.

The NRA is getting the same cheque from Big-Ammo just like the lawmakers. If D.C. was serious about squeezing access to dangerous arms they would go after the top end of the manufactures. Limiting low level access still eaves the loopholes in place to still keep these guns finding their way to whomever wants to get one.

This push back is simply a power grab by Washington and the NRA and D.C. for all their hot rhetoric on opposite sides of this debate will still business go on as usual.

More people are buying guns (NRA wins)

Gov't now has the ability to monopolize force by limiting or even taking away guns (D.C. wins)

Post: #352

(12-18-2012 11:22 PM)dragnet Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 08:11 PM)Timoteo Wrote:  The NRA speaks...

"The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again."

http://news.msn.com/us/nra-breaks-silenc...-massacres

As of now, the organization hasn't laid out specifics as to what it wants to do to help prevent these kinds of incidents. They've taken a beating on social media, and had to shut down their Facebook page. They've remained silent up until now out of respect, and frankly, they've had to figure out just how to address this. Usually, they respond immediately after a shooting. They're the natural whipping boy after shootings (which isn't totally fair), but with largely children being the targets of this one, there was pretty much nothing they could say. Joe Scarborough, the host of "Morning Joe" on MSNBC, made a 10 minute statement a couple of days ago which I watched online yesterday. He's a former Congressman, and received the highest rating you can get from the NRA. Even he changed his tune on this one, because it felt more personal (which is usually the thing thats people to back off of a previously held position). He's a father of 4 I think, and one of his kids has Asperger's. It's the absolutists on both sides of the debate that have the loudest voices. Each side accuses the other of arguing on emotion, devoid of logic. Both are right. All guns aren't going to disappear, while it's equally ridiculous to believe that there should be no restrictions to acquiring any kind of weapon you want. Scarborough focused on assault weapons and high-capacity mags, and that's where the discussion should start. There's skepticism on the Hill regarding the NRA's sincerity, so we'll need to see exactly what they intend to do to prevent future mass shootings. In the past, the NRA has used intimidation against candidates and Congressmen if they didn't feel their stance on guns wasn't in line with the organization. They'd fund opponents to run against them. If the NRA takes the lead on softening their stance on certain issues regarding guns, everyone else will fall in line. Let's see how far they're willing to budge.

It will be interesting to see what they propose, but I'm not holding my breath for meaningful change from these guys. The best they could do is come out in support of a ban on assault (automatic) weapons, high-capacity magazines and armor-piercing rounds...but I doubt it will happen. More likely they will offer increased funding for gun safety classes and agree to limited background checks at gun shows or other relatively toothless reforms.

You can still be pro-gun and oppose widespread private ownership of automatic weapons---but that badly need message will never get heard from the NRA.

The gun show loophole is so obvious - it makes buying a gun no different than buying groceries. Yet they have refused to budge in the past. They've been against manufacturers including trigger locks also, as a means of making guns safer within the home. Even after incidents where kids have gotten hold of their parents gun and shot either themselves or a sibling, they've held fast. They don't want ANY form of waiting period. That's always been my problem with the NRA - the complete lack of reason. They always use the slippery-slope argument, in that if they budge a little, it's simply a trojan horse to take away their guns. The light is definitely shining on them now, with this initial statement. They HAVE to follow up with something real, or they could see some of that influence they have over the pro-gun legislators on the hill wane. This last shooting could be a tipping point in the endless debate. It's interesting that having one of their own, Gabrielle Giffords, take one to the head in a gun-loving state like Arizona didn't even create a ripple, but a lot of dead children forces everyone to at least come back to the table. I hear you regarding the NRA though...history tells us they won't budge, but this one is different. What legislators care about most is getting re-elected, and I can bet they'll have their ears to the ground in their home districts to get idea of where their constituents stand on what happened in Connecticut.

Post: #353

(12-18-2012 11:22 PM)dragnet Wrote:  It will be interesting to see what they propose, but I'm not holding my breath for meaningful change from these guys. The best they could do is come out in support of a ban on assault (automatic) weapons, high-capacity magazines and armor-piercing rounds...but I doubt it will happen. More likely they will offer increased funding for gun safety classes and agree to limited background checks at gun shows or other relatively toothless reforms.

You can still be pro-gun and oppose widespread private ownership of automatic weapons---but that badly need message will never get heard from the NRA.

I've made it clear in my previous posts that for all practical purposes, "automatic" weapons are virtually impossible for private citizens to obtain. Even if you jump through all the hoops, the slightest infraction of the rules will cost you your gun and more than likely, your freedom.

Armor piercing? WTF? Are you referring to the mythical teflon coated "cop killers"? Guess what, the teflon reduced the level of penetration on Kevlar. Someone's not doing their homework. Or maybe you're talking about green tipped "SS109/M855" round the US military used that had a steel penetrator tip that was intended for use against enemies wearing body armor? Guess what? The military stopped using the shit because it was rather ineffective when the target wasn't wearing body armor.

As for the high-cap mags, most guns have a feature that keeps the action open after the last round is fired. This makes it so all you have to do is push a button to release the magazine, put in a fresh mag, and hit the button/lever that closes the action/bolt/slide while chambering a fresh round and cocking the gun again. Having to reload is a trivial matter.

Post: #354

(12-19-2012 12:15 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  I've made it clear in my previous posts that for all practical purposes, "automatic" weapons are virtually impossible for private citizens to obtain.

Over 350 posts into this discussion, and the anti-gun crowd still doesn't seem to understand the difference between automatic and semi-automatic.

I'm gonna second Samseau here:

Post: #355

Obama backs Feinstein gun control initiative, aides say:

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-...4127.story

Quote:Carney expressed the president's support for the renewal of the assault weapons ban and closure of the gun show loophole, and said that restrictions on high-capacity ammunition clips is a step that Obama is “interested in looking at.”

Post: #356

I say this loosely but outside of America nearly every other country thinks its moronic that citizens have access to guns the way they do. And to be quite frank it is.

Post: #357

(12-19-2012 12:20 AM)MSW2007 Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 12:15 AM)porscheguy Wrote:  I've made it clear in my previous posts that for all practical purposes, "automatic" weapons are virtually impossible for private citizens to obtain.

Over 350 posts into this discussion, and the anti-gun crowd still doesn't seem to understand the difference between automatic and semi-automatic.

I'm gonna second Samseau here:

This quote is still relevant.

(12-16-2012 11:40 PM)basilransom Wrote:  I found a blog post from a girl making the same points you and I made: thedailyspork.com/2012/12/16/on-a-serious-note/

But otherwise, this dimension has been studiously ignored by the media. Of course, if the media acknowledged that the guns were stored improperly, that would detract from their argument for more gun control. Speaking from personal experience, almost anyone who is pro gun control and does not own a gun is a damn retard when it comes to discussing guns - they're so emotionally repulsed by them that they can't discuss them maturely; all they can muster is 'get rid of them!' This would be like a bitter cyclist seeing a senile old guy run people over, and then declaring that private car ownership should be abandoned.

They're only harming themselves - if they put some of their energy into making gun ownership more secure, instead of just opposing guns completely, they might be more effective in reducing disasters like these. Instead, when the gun opponents lose, they lose influence over how guns are used.

Post: #358

(12-18-2012 12:48 PM)dragnet Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 12:39 PM)Barbarossa Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 12:01 PM)dragnet Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 11:26 AM)Blackhawk Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 08:11 AM)dragnet Wrote:  How about a better plan: you ban all automatic weapons and issue exception permits to own them to the 0.001 percent of individuals who can actually show cause to do so.

The assumption here is you can always trust your government. Which historically is not true.

The largest massacres of civilians have been by governments that disarmed their own populace, time and time again.

Allowing a government to decide what is cause for owning arms invariably means the politically inconvenient are disarmed. And then murdered in a state sanctioned, entirely legal way.

If you actually think that your M-16 is going to stop a gov't massacre when the gov't has access to tanks/missiles/nukes/artillery/warplanes you are sadly mistaken. By that same logic, individuals citizens should be able to own missile launchers, anti-tank guns, anti-anticraft systems---the works. It's absurd on its face.

And the notion that an armed citizenry can pushback gov't overreach has no real basis in history in this country. There has not been a single case in American history of gov't overreach that was pushback by armed citizens or significant change that was initiated by private arms. The New Deal, Civil Rights, universal suffrage, feminist revolution, Prohibition, westward expansionism, etc---never were any of these major undertakings and historic changes the product of action by an armed citizenry against the gov't. The Civil War doesn't count (it was not an action by an armed citizenry but by treasonous Southern gov'ts that mutined and seized Federal forts and other military hardware---private arms weren't the driving factor).

Forget the constutional concept for a moment and think about actual lived history and you will realize that there was never one instance, during the entire 225-odd year history of this country where gov't tyranny was counteracted by private citizens applying second amendment remedies. And this was before the era of tanks/missiles and other advanced weaponry. The vast majority of all major changes (except the Civil War which is different for the reason I explained above) were secured at the ballot box.

Just face it--for people like you, owning guns isn't about opposing gov't tyranny. It's about having fun and blowing shit up. And that's totally fine--but it needs to be regulated and balanced against other imperatives (ie, social saftey). The notion that your AR-15 is the key to American liberty isn't about freedom and it isn't even nationalism---it's a twisted kind of civic narcissism that now has the blood of children on its hands.

Proving yet again that everyone in favor of more gun control is too ignorant to be allowed to vote.

If you try to ban guns and impose tyranny you'll see that we WILL use them to maintain our freedom. Do you really want another Civil War?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

You have got to be kidding me. A few yahoos with rifles in a bumfuck Tennessee town does not even come close to counting as sustained armed citizen action against the federal gov't to effect change. And if you seriously think your machine gun is going to win the day in Second Civil War against a federal gov't armed with drones/bombers/nukes/etc then you are barely sentient. No doubt you also believe the earth was created in six days, that climate change is a hoax and that 911 was an inside job.

Stop offering looney, far-right, fringe talking points as gospel. You've got your whole life ahead of you, son---if you start now, change is possible.

*yawn* If you try to confiscate firearms you'll see what happens, that's all I have to say.

Are you ACTUALLY suggesting the government use bombs against US citizens? Just what do you think the military can do against anonymous citizens engaged in covert action? Yeah all those planes and bombs will come in handy, let's just fucking carpet bomb those rednecks!

War isn't how it was in 1865 or 1945, the rules changed. But you have absolutely no idea how it works so you still think the military is relevant when it comes to fighting insurgents.

Post: #359

Broad Gun Control Efforts Introduced in Wake of Shooting:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/19/us/sta...ns.html?hp

Quote:The first concrete responses to the massacre in Newtown, Conn., began emerging on Tuesday, as state leaders proposed measures to curb gun violence, corporations distanced themselves from an event that has traumatized the nation and the White House pointed to gun control measures that President Obama would champion in the months ahead.

The reactions were considerably more broad-based than what had followed previous mass shootings, coming from Republicans as well as Democrats, from gun control advocates and those who have favored gun rights in the past, and even from the corporate and retail worlds. Proponents of stricter controls on firearms said they were cautiously optimistic that, perhaps this time, something concrete and lasting would be enacted.

Post: #360

(12-19-2012 03:06 AM)Barbarossa Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 12:48 PM)dragnet Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 12:39 PM)Barbarossa Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 12:01 PM)dragnet Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 11:26 AM)Blackhawk Wrote:  The assumption here is you can always trust your government. Which historically is not true.

The largest massacres of civilians have been by governments that disarmed their own populace, time and time again.

Allowing a government to decide what is cause for owning arms invariably means the politically inconvenient are disarmed. And then murdered in a state sanctioned, entirely legal way.

If you actually think that your M-16 is going to stop a gov't massacre when the gov't has access to tanks/missiles/nukes/artillery/warplanes you are sadly mistaken. By that same logic, individuals citizens should be able to own missile launchers, anti-tank guns, anti-anticraft systems---the works. It's absurd on its face.

And the notion that an armed citizenry can pushback gov't overreach has no real basis in history in this country. There has not been a single case in American history of gov't overreach that was pushback by armed citizens or significant change that was initiated by private arms. The New Deal, Civil Rights, universal suffrage, feminist revolution, Prohibition, westward expansionism, etc---never were any of these major undertakings and historic changes the product of action by an armed citizenry against the gov't. The Civil War doesn't count (it was not an action by an armed citizenry but by treasonous Southern gov'ts that mutined and seized Federal forts and other military hardware---private arms weren't the driving factor).

Forget the constutional concept for a moment and think about actual lived history and you will realize that there was never one instance, during the entire 225-odd year history of this country where gov't tyranny was counteracted by private citizens applying second amendment remedies. And this was before the era of tanks/missiles and other advanced weaponry. The vast majority of all major changes (except the Civil War which is different for the reason I explained above) were secured at the ballot box.

Just face it--for people like you, owning guns isn't about opposing gov't tyranny. It's about having fun and blowing shit up. And that's totally fine--but it needs to be regulated and balanced against other imperatives (ie, social saftey). The notion that your AR-15 is the key to American liberty isn't about freedom and it isn't even nationalism---it's a twisted kind of civic narcissism that now has the blood of children on its hands.

Proving yet again that everyone in favor of more gun control is too ignorant to be allowed to vote.

If you try to ban guns and impose tyranny you'll see that we WILL use them to maintain our freedom. Do you really want another Civil War?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

You have got to be kidding me. A few yahoos with rifles in a bumfuck Tennessee town does not even come close to counting as sustained armed citizen action against the federal gov't to effect change. And if you seriously think your machine gun is going to win the day in Second Civil War against a federal gov't armed with drones/bombers/nukes/etc then you are barely sentient. No doubt you also believe the earth was created in six days, that climate change is a hoax and that 911 was an inside job.

Stop offering looney, far-right, fringe talking points as gospel. You've got your whole life ahead of you, son---if you start now, change is possible.

*yawn* If you try to confiscate firearms you'll see what happens, that's all I have to say.

Are you ACTUALLY suggesting the government use bombs against US citizens? Just what do you think the military can do against anonymous citizens engaged in covert action? Yeah all those planes and bombs will come in handy, let's just fucking carpet bomb those rednecks!

War isn't how it was in 1865 or 1945, the rules changed. But you have absolutely no idea how it works so you still think the military is relevant when it comes to fighting insurgents.

Bro, you're unwell you should seek help.

Post: #361

(12-19-2012 03:34 AM)mikeymike Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 03:06 AM)Barbarossa Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 12:48 PM)dragnet Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 12:39 PM)Barbarossa Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 12:01 PM)dragnet Wrote:  If you actually think that your M-16 is going to stop a gov't massacre when the gov't has access to tanks/missiles/nukes/artillery/warplanes you are sadly mistaken. By that same logic, individuals citizens should be able to own missile launchers, anti-tank guns, anti-anticraft systems---the works. It's absurd on its face.

And the notion that an armed citizenry can pushback gov't overreach has no real basis in history in this country. There has not been a single case in American history of gov't overreach that was pushback by armed citizens or significant change that was initiated by private arms. The New Deal, Civil Rights, universal suffrage, feminist revolution, Prohibition, westward expansionism, etc---never were any of these major undertakings and historic changes the product of action by an armed citizenry against the gov't. The Civil War doesn't count (it was not an action by an armed citizenry but by treasonous Southern gov'ts that mutined and seized Federal forts and other military hardware---private arms weren't the driving factor).

Forget the constutional concept for a moment and think about actual lived history and you will realize that there was never one instance, during the entire 225-odd year history of this country where gov't tyranny was counteracted by private citizens applying second amendment remedies. And this was before the era of tanks/missiles and other advanced weaponry. The vast majority of all major changes (except the Civil War which is different for the reason I explained above) were secured at the ballot box.

Just face it--for people like you, owning guns isn't about opposing gov't tyranny. It's about having fun and blowing shit up. And that's totally fine--but it needs to be regulated and balanced against other imperatives (ie, social saftey). The notion that your AR-15 is the key to American liberty isn't about freedom and it isn't even nationalism---it's a twisted kind of civic narcissism that now has the blood of children on its hands.

Proving yet again that everyone in favor of more gun control is too ignorant to be allowed to vote.

If you try to ban guns and impose tyranny you'll see that we WILL use them to maintain our freedom. Do you really want another Civil War?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

You have got to be kidding me. A few yahoos with rifles in a bumfuck Tennessee town does not even come close to counting as sustained armed citizen action against the federal gov't to effect change. And if you seriously think your machine gun is going to win the day in Second Civil War against a federal gov't armed with drones/bombers/nukes/etc then you are barely sentient. No doubt you also believe the earth was created in six days, that climate change is a hoax and that 911 was an inside job.

Stop offering looney, far-right, fringe talking points as gospel. You've got your whole life ahead of you, son---if you start now, change is possible.

*yawn* If you try to confiscate firearms you'll see what happens, that's all I have to say.

Are you ACTUALLY suggesting the government use bombs against US citizens? Just what do you think the military can do against anonymous citizens engaged in covert action? Yeah all those planes and bombs will come in handy, let's just fucking carpet bomb those rednecks!

War isn't how it was in 1865 or 1945, the rules changed. But you have absolutely no idea how it works so you still think the military is relevant when it comes to fighting insurgents.

Bro, you're unwell you should seek help.

Because I actually know what I'm talking about? Just go read Brave New War, it was an NYT best seller by an ex-special forces soldier and pilot who made millions doing consulting. He wrote it in 2004 and predicted how the Iraq war would go. And if you're going to insult me, just keep your fucking mouth shut.

Post: #362

(12-18-2012 09:35 PM)houston Wrote:  How many hardcore anti gun people on here have ever shot one? Don't lie or your dick will fall off.

This isn't arachnophobia we're talking about. Would you also try to bash gay rights' opponents for not having ever sucked dick?

Post: #363

Its a fools game to think Government is not a force that has its own interests and seeks its own protections. The Gov't happily signed off on its expansion ins scope during the Civil Rights movement while with the other hand systemically destroying every group which protested it during the struggle.

Does Dragnet not remember MOVE?





How about Fred Hampton?


Hell even more recent. You can have you views on David Koresh and his cult but you can't deny the fact that the Gov't used excessive force which killed a ton of innocent people in the Wacco incident:





In those Civil Rights/ Anti-war/Revolution days (60's and 70's) the FBI had policy in place to suppress the revolutionary movement from gaining any real traction. America in that time was supposed to have a real and legitimate revolution when the tension of race and creed was thrown out the window and all Americans we're about to unite over the bullshit of Vietnam and inequality back home. The power structures were at its knees so it signed some pieces of paper and then did a 10 year sweep in the barren cities of American killing or locking up any dissidents they could.

America would of created the more tolerant society which would of prevented the messes you have now if the push for Revolution would of went through. A new/heavily amended Constitution would of been formed with modernized provisions to reflect the different America of that time. It would of contained Government, expelled the crony-ism, The war machined limited and down-scaled heavily, and new law to reflect the real diversity of the nation.

The Gov't always desires to seek a monopoly of force that it inevitable uses against its own people. Any time any Gov't tries to tell you they are limiting access to guns for safety and security they are full of shit. Safety and security to them.. yes.. but of the general public.. no way.

The Gov't has no ability to offer its citizens safety. Society creates that environment not Government. all government can do is react (either by defending its interests... The Status Quo... or by attacking to restore its interests...The Status Quo) to a certain issue it has no capacity to limit or stop anything in regards to Safety and Security.

Post: #364

I have already manifested anti-guns opinions in this forum, but here is a well grounded and pondered opinion about the subject:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424...24036.html Wrote:Guns, Mental Illness and Newtown

By DAVID KOPEL

Has the rate of random mass shootings in the United States increased? Over the past 30 years, the answer is definitely yes. It is also true that the total U.S. homicide rate has fallen by over half since 1980, and the gun homicide rate has fallen along with it. Today, Americans are safer from violent crime, including gun homicide, than they have been at any time since the mid-1960s.

Mass shootings, defined as four or more fatalities, fluctuate from year to year, but over the past 30 years there has been no long-term increase or decrease. But "random" mass shootings, such as the horrific crimes last Friday in Newtown, Conn., have increased.

Alan Lankford of the University of Alabama analyzed data from a recent New York Police Department study of "active shooters"—criminals who attempted to murder people in a confined area, where there are lots of people, and who chose at least some victims randomly. Counting only the incidents with at least two casualties, there were 179 such crimes between 1966 and 2010. In the 1980s, there were 18. In the 1990s, there were 54. In the 2000s, there were 87.

If you count only such crimes in which five or more victims were killed, there were six in the 1980s and 19 in the 2000s.

Why the increase? It cannot be because gun-control laws have become more lax. Before the 1968 Gun Control Act, there were almost no federal gun-control laws. The exception was the National Firearms Act of 1934, which set up an extremely severe registration and tax system for automatic weapons and has remained in force for 78 years.

Nor are magazines holding more than 10 rounds something new. They were invented decades ago and have long been standard for many handguns. Police officers carry them for the same reason that civilians do: Especially if a person is attacked by multiple assailants, there is no guarantee that a 10-round magazine will end the assault.

The 1980s were much worse than today in terms of overall violent crime, including gun homicide, but they were much better than today in terms of mass random shootings. The difference wasn't that the 1980s had tougher controls on so-called "assault weapons." No assault weapons law existed in the U.S. until California passed a ban in 1989.

Connecticut followed in 1993. None of the guns that the Newtown murderer used was an assault weapon under Connecticut law. This illustrates the uselessness of bans on so-called assault weapons, since those bans concentrate on guns' cosmetics, such as whether the gun has a bayonet lug, rather than their function.

What some people call "assault weapons" function like every other normal firearm—they fire only one bullet each time the trigger is pressed. Unlike automatics (machine guns), they do not fire continuously as long as the trigger is held. They are "semi-automatic" because they eject the empty shell case and load the next round into the firing chamber.

Today in America, most handguns are semi-automatics, as are many long guns, including the best-selling rifle today, the AR-15, the model used in the Newtown shooting. Some of these guns look like machine guns, but they do not function like machine guns.

Back in the mid-1960s, in most states, an adult could walk into a store and buy an AR-15 rifle, no questions asked. Today, firearms are the most heavily regulated consumer product in the United States. If someone wants to purchase an AR-15 or any other firearm, the store must first get permission for the sale from the FBI or its state counterpart. Permission is denied if the buyer is in one of nine categories of "prohibited persons," including felons, domestic-violence misdemeanants, and persons who have been adjudicated mentally ill or alcoholic.

Since gun controls today are far stricter than at the time when "active shooters" were rare, what can account for the increase in these shootings? One plausible answer is the media. Cable TV in the 1990s, and the Internet today, greatly magnify the instant celebrity that a mass killer can achieve. We know that many would-be mass killers obsessively study their predecessors.

Loren Coleman's 2004 book "The Copycat Effect: How the Media and Popular Culture Trigger the Mayhem in Tomorrow's Headlines" shows that the copycat effect is as old as the media itself. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe's 1774 classic "The Sorrows of Young Werther" triggered a spate of copycat suicides all over Europe. But today the velocity and pervasiveness of the media make the problem much worse.

A second explanation is the deinstitutionalization of the violently mentally ill. A 2000 New York Times study of 100 rampage murderers found that 47 were mentally ill. In the Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry Law (2008), Jason C. Matejkowski and his co-authors reported that 16% of state prisoners who had perpetrated murders were mentally ill.

In the mid-1960s, many of the killings would have been prevented because the severely mentally ill would have been confined and cared for in a state institution. But today, while government at most every level has bloated over the past half-century, mental-health treatment has been decimated. According to a study released in July by the Treatment Advocacy Center, the number of state hospital beds in America per capita has plummeted to 1850 levels, or 14.1 beds per 100,000 people.

Moreover, a 2011 paper by Steven P. Segal at the University of California, Berkeley, "Civil Commitment Law, Mental Health Services, and U.S. Homicide Rates," found that a third of the state-to-state variation in homicide rates was attributable to the strength or weakness of involuntary civil-commitment laws.

Finally, it must be acknowledged that many of these attacks today unfortunately take place in pretend "gun-free zones," such as schools, movie theaters and shopping malls. According to Ron Borsch's study for the Force Science Research Center at Minnesota State University-Mankato, active shooters are different from the gangsters and other street toughs whom a police officer might engage in a gunfight. They are predominantly weaklings and cowards who crumble easily as soon as an armed person shows up.

The problem is that by the time the police arrive, lots of people are already dead. So when armed citizens are on the scene, many lives are saved. The media rarely mention the mass murders that were thwarted by armed citizens at the Shoney's Restaurant in Anniston, Ala. (1991), the high school in Pearl, Miss. (1997), the middle-school dance in Edinboro, Penn. (1998), and the New Life Church in Colorado Springs, Colo. (2007), among others.

At the Clackamas Mall in Oregon last week, an active shooter murdered two people and then saw that a shopper, who had a handgun carry permit, had drawn a gun and was aiming at him. The murderer's next shot was to kill himself.

Real gun-free zones are a wonderful idea, but they are only real if they are created by metal detectors backed up by armed guards. Pretend gun-free zones, where law-abiding adults (who pass a fingerprint-based background check and a safety training class) are still disarmed, are magnets for evildoers who know they will be able to murder at will with little threat of being fired upon.

People who are serious about preventing the next Newtown should embrace much greater funding for mental health, strong laws for civil commitment of the violently mentally ill—and stop kidding themselves that pretend gun-free zones will stop killers.

Mr. Kopel is research director of the Independence Institute and co-author of the law school textbook, "Firearms Law and the Second Amendment" (Aspen, 2012).

Post: #365

(12-19-2012 03:06 AM)Barbarossa Wrote:  *yawn* If you try to confiscate firearms you'll see what happens, that's all I have to say.

Are you ACTUALLY suggesting the government use bombs against US citizens? Just what do you think the military can do against anonymous citizens engaged in covert action? Yeah all those planes and bombs will come in handy, let's just fucking carpet bomb those rednecks!

War isn't how it was in 1865 or 1945, the rules changed. But you have absolutely no idea how it works so you still think the military is relevant when it comes to fighting insurgents.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story...Id=4651126

Municipal governments already have bombed weapons stockpilers. If there were a widespread, armed uprising, the federal government would certainly get involved and use necessary force.

What exactly do you mean by "anonymous citizens engaged in covert action"? Are you talking about attacking military bases/government centers, or civilian targets?

Do you think the US military is irrelevant in the context of modern warfare? Should it be disbanded?

Post: #366

(12-18-2012 11:22 PM)MaleDefined Wrote:  As a teacher, I've been preparing a long winded thread in response to Newtown, but the one sentiment I have is that this is not a gun problem.

There was a case from several years back where a student when on a shooting rampage at school (with a hunting rifle that would not have been affected by an 'assault weapons' ban). Principal heard the shots, ran out to his vehicle, got his unloaded gun and ammo, loaded the gun and stopped the killer. Probably could have reduced the # of victims if he had the gun on his person (illegal of course - gun-free zone and all!).

(12-18-2012 11:22 PM)dragnet Wrote:  It will be interesting to see what they propose, but I'm not holding my breath for meaningful change from these guys. The best they could do is come out in support of a ban on assault (automatic) weapons, high-capacity magazines and armor-piercing rounds...but I doubt it will happen. More likely they will offer increased funding for gun safety classes and agree to limited background checks at gun shows or other relatively toothless reforms.

You can still be pro-gun and oppose widespread private ownership of automatic weapons---but that badly need message will never get heard from the NRA.

???

1. Porscheguy described the state of play w/r/t to automatic firearms.
2. Military grade armor piercing rounds are already not available to civilians. And you certainly don't need armor piercing or even XM855 green tips to kill people. I guarantee that not one of the mass murders using an AR involved armor piercing rounds.
3. The high cap mag issue is a red herring, as anyone who actually owns pistols and rifles knows. Dropping the spent mag and inserting a fresh one is a very easy and quick procedure.

So basically, we pass all these silly suggestions, along with banning certain 'evil' looking features like bayonet lugs and collapsible stocks, and this is supposed to reduce the likelihood of a school shooting, or gun-free zone shootings in general? It is to laugh.

Real issues:
1. gun-free zones are a psychopath magnet
2. the psychotropic meds these young men are taking - we'll never discuss this because the money involved for Big Pharma dwarfs the civilian firearms industry
3. boys being raised without fathers in a feminist society - too taboo to discuss

Post: #367

I think it's marvelous that this massacre was committed and the weapons used were not ever the murderers own!

Even if his mother had these guns locked away in a safe, the boy would've been able, had he been motivated, to acquire the combination lock and retrieve them to commit his crime.

How many massacres have there been by how many individuals in the past 20 years? 50?

How many Americans own weapons? 100 million?

That's 50 out of 100,000,000, or 1 per 2,000,000, or, better yet, 0.00005 percent of gun-owners who commit similar massacres.

Yet it is obvious in the rhetoric from the media and Obama that this is a cultural problem, and has to do with America, not these few individuals.

Somehow America the country is sick and warped, and that means every American regardless of age or background is accountable and somehow guilty in this atrocity, because it is American gun-culture that lets this stuff happen, and by refusing to see that the problem is guns, you are somehow letting this happen again, and are guilty too.

It's a typical and old-school liberal ploy to say the problem is society at large, American herself, white people, whatever. How can you derive a statistically significant result of a non-random sample size of so few individuals out of population so huge is so fundamentally, scientifically flawed, wrong - it has everything to do with an ideological agenda of progressives to force everyone to live and behave the way they say you should, and nothing to do with stopping this from happening again.

Post: #368

1. Armor piercing bullets are not widely available and never used in this type of shooting. If you are shooting at people without body armor they may actually be less lethal because the tungesten/steel penetrator will not mushroom out like lead core rounds will.

2. These incidents involve semi automatic rifles/pistols or revolvers. Automatic weapons are regulated under the national firearms act of 1934. Legal automatic weapons are never used in crimes and illegal automatic weapons are rare. In the military, you are trained to use the semi-automatic mode on your m-16 most of the time because it is the most accurate. Fully automatic or 3 round burst mode is reserved for surpressive fire when you want to make the enemy keep their heads down.

3. I would consider an assault rifle a rifle that is capable of a mode that allows it to fire more than 1 round with 1 trigger squeeze and has a detachable magazine. Assault rifle as in the assault weapons ban of 1994 is redefined as something that looks scary and has certain cosmetic features(bayonet lug, pistol grip, etc) that really have no bearing on how the weapon functions. An ar-15 would be considered a scary black assault rifle while a mini 30 would not be even though they function in almost exactly the same manner and use the same cartridge.

4. All these guys seem pasty and white and look like they don't know what a barbell is. The pastiness is because they don't go outside or eat vegetables. The carotenoids found in vegetables give your skin a healthy glow which people perceive as attractive(link). The guys that do these things are most likely uniformily eating bad diets and chronically nutrient deficient. No man in their life ever taught them how to eat a healthy diet or workout. If you eat a bad diet you will get fat, sick and look run down. Imagine what the effects are going to be on your mind, even though people might not make the connection.

5. I agree with the other guys the long term or deletrious effects of these psychiatric drugs are still unknown or unacknowledged even though prescriptions are being handed out like candy to all comers instead of looking at other factors that may effect psychological health(diet, exercise, crazy parents, being raised to be a extremely fearful)

Post: #369

(12-19-2012 03:41 AM)Barbarossa Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 03:34 AM)mikeymike Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 03:06 AM)Barbarossa Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 12:48 PM)dragnet Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 12:39 PM)Barbarossa Wrote:  Proving yet again that everyone in favor of more gun control is too ignorant to be allowed to vote.

If you try to ban guns and impose tyranny you'll see that we WILL use them to maintain our freedom. Do you really want another Civil War?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Athens_(1946)

You have got to be kidding me. A few yahoos with rifles in a bumfuck Tennessee town does not even come close to counting as sustained armed citizen action against the federal gov't to effect change. And if you seriously think your machine gun is going to win the day in Second Civil War against a federal gov't armed with drones/bombers/nukes/etc then you are barely sentient. No doubt you also believe the earth was created in six days, that climate change is a hoax and that 911 was an inside job.

Stop offering looney, far-right, fringe talking points as gospel. You've got your whole life ahead of you, son---if you start now, change is possible.

*yawn* If you try to confiscate firearms you'll see what happens, that's all I have to say.

Are you ACTUALLY suggesting the government use bombs against US citizens? Just what do you think the military can do against anonymous citizens engaged in covert action? Yeah all those planes and bombs will come in handy, let's just fucking carpet bomb those rednecks!

War isn't how it was in 1865 or 1945, the rules changed. But you have absolutely no idea how it works so you still think the military is relevant when it comes to fighting insurgents.

Bro, you're unwell you should seek help.

Because I actually know what I'm talking about? Just go read Brave New War, it was an NYT best seller by an ex-special forces soldier and pilot who made millions doing consulting. He wrote it in 2004 and predicted how the Iraq war would go. And if you're going to insult me, just keep your fucking mouth shut.

No cause you're suggesting domestic terrorism and the idea your bandying about would be putting innocent lives at risk over your play toys (we know assault weapons are more weapon than needed for self defense purposes)...if that's real steps you'd entertain you should be institutionalized. And I'll work on keeping my fucking mouth shut...

Post: #370

(12-18-2012 09:35 PM)houston Wrote:  How many hardcore anti gun people on here have ever shot one? Don't lie or your dick will fall off.

I'm not hardcore anti gun. In fact I love guns and i'm a big fan of everything military and shows on the history/discovery channel but I do think all guns big and small should be hard to come by and heavily licensed.

You talking to me, troll?
[attachment=9166]

Post: #371

What I find strange is how emotional the pro-gun people get when anyone recommends sensible gun control measures. They immediately assume that people are going to outlaw guns. Sure, there is a very small minority that would like to see that happen, but for the most part people acknowledge that guns are here to stay.

The measures that are being seriously considered by the media and Congress are small fry stuff:

- Closing the gun show loophole on background checks

- Renewing the assault weapons ban

- Limiting high capacity magazines for handguns & rifles

Personally, for home defense a shotgun with an 18 inch barrel is ideal. Also, you don't need handguns with high capacity mags for home defense either since spraying lots of bullets around your house is just going to kill a family member. As for assault rifles, give me a break. Only a fool would shoot an AR-15 inside of a house since again (like the high cap mags for handguns) this is just going to get a family member killed by spraying bullets around.

Realistically, the reason the pro-gun people get all emotional is that they don't want their toys taken away.

Post: #372

(12-19-2012 02:30 PM)mikeymike Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 03:41 AM)Barbarossa Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 03:34 AM)mikeymike Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 03:06 AM)Barbarossa Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 12:48 PM)dragnet Wrote:  You have got to be kidding me. A few yahoos with rifles in a bumfuck Tennessee town does not even come close to counting as sustained armed citizen action against the federal gov't to effect change. And if you seriously think your machine gun is going to win the day in Second Civil War against a federal gov't armed with drones/bombers/nukes/etc then you are barely sentient. No doubt you also believe the earth was created in six days, that climate change is a hoax and that 911 was an inside job.

Stop offering looney, far-right, fringe talking points as gospel. You've got your whole life ahead of you, son---if you start now, change is possible.

*yawn* If you try to confiscate firearms you'll see what happens, that's all I have to say.

Are you ACTUALLY suggesting the government use bombs against US citizens? Just what do you think the military can do against anonymous citizens engaged in covert action? Yeah all those planes and bombs will come in handy, let's just fucking carpet bomb those rednecks!

War isn't how it was in 1865 or 1945, the rules changed. But you have absolutely no idea how it works so you still think the military is relevant when it comes to fighting insurgents.

Bro, you're unwell you should seek help.

Because I actually know what I'm talking about? Just go read Brave New War, it was an NYT best seller by an ex-special forces soldier and pilot who made millions doing consulting. He wrote it in 2004 and predicted how the Iraq war would go. And if you're going to insult me, just keep your fucking mouth shut.

No cause you're suggesting domestic terrorism and the idea your bandying about would be putting innocent lives at risk over your play toys (we know assault weapons are more weapon than needed for self defense purposes)...if that's real steps you'd entertain you should be institutionalized. And I'll work on keeping my fucking mouth shut...

If people like you aren't going to listen to reason, and you're going to support the use of government violence against us, to remove the rights our ancestors fought and died for, we do what we have to do defend ourselves. I'm telling you that you're putting innocent lives at risk by putting into a chain of events that will result in civil conflict. If you're going to act like a child then you need to smacked down like one.

Post: #373

(12-19-2012 03:50 PM)Barbarossa Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 02:30 PM)mikeymike Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 03:41 AM)Barbarossa Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 03:34 AM)mikeymike Wrote:  

(12-19-2012 03:06 AM)Barbarossa Wrote:  *yawn* If you try to confiscate firearms you'll see what happens, that's all I have to say.

Are you ACTUALLY suggesting the government use bombs against US citizens? Just what do you think the military can do against anonymous citizens engaged in covert action? Yeah all those planes and bombs will come in handy, let's just fucking carpet bomb those rednecks!

War isn't how it was in 1865 or 1945, the rules changed. But you have absolutely no idea how it works so you still think the military is relevant when it comes to fighting insurgents.

Bro, you're unwell you should seek help.

Because I actually know what I'm talking about? Just go read Brave New War, it was an NYT best seller by an ex-special forces soldier and pilot who made millions doing consulting. He wrote it in 2004 and predicted how the Iraq war would go. And if you're going to insult me, just keep your fucking mouth shut.

No cause you're suggesting domestic terrorism and the idea your bandying about would be putting innocent lives at risk over your play toys (we know assault weapons are more weapon than needed for self defense purposes)...if that's real steps you'd entertain you should be institutionalized. And I'll work on keeping my fucking mouth shut...

If people like you aren't going to listen to reason, and you're going to support the use of government violence against us, to remove the rights our ancestors fought and died for, we do what we have to do defend ourselves. I'm telling you that you're putting innocent lives at risk by putting into a chain of events that will result in civil conflict. If you're going to act like a child then you need to smacked down like one.

No one is going to be confiscating guns, so you can quit it with the nutty revolutionary talk. Step away from the computer and take a few deep breaths. You are obviously too emotional to talk about this subject right now.

Post: #374

(12-18-2012 05:20 PM)Giovonny Wrote:  

(12-18-2012 04:04 PM)WestCoast Wrote:  We're given everything easy, food, water, shelter.

Yes, these things come easy -- but what about strong families, strong community ties, friendship, support, a sense of belonging, a sense of purpose, faith, hope???

These things do not come so easy in America. We don't focus on these things, we only focus on profit!

Shit, for many poor people, even food and shelter don't come easy. Many people struggle to pay the rent and put food on the table. This type of stress can cause people do do some drastic things.

I know this, many Americans are depressed. We are over worked and over stressed.

Many people are lonely and without love in their life.

America can be a cruel place if you don't have a support system in place.

Reminds me of Maslow's Hierachy of Needs.

We have our basic needs such as food, water, sex.

But as human beings are needs go much beyond those such as emotional comfort and a sense of belonging. So many factors come together which make someone a well-balanced individual.

If many of these elements out of sync and it can produce things like we see here.

Post: #375

(12-19-2012 04:24 PM)dk902 Wrote:  

Great post!

I think most people slave away much of their life in the "safety" zone". Many Americans don't even get to the "love and belonging zone".

I'm trying to get all the way to the top! "SELF-ACTUALIZATION" -- "PEAK EXPERIENCES" !!!

THATS WHERE I'M GOING!!!