|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Gun control in the US
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
I've been following along on this one and enough bad information has been put out here that I'd like to clear up a few things about current, past, and proposed US gun laws.
First some definitions since I know we're not all familiar with the terminology being used here and in the media.
Automatic One pull of the trigger will fire multiple times. The firearm will continue to fire until the trigger is released or all ammunition is expended.
Semi-Automatic One pull of the trigger will fire once. No other action is required to load the next round to be fired.
Single-fire One pull of the trigger fires one round. Some action must be taken by the shooter to load the next round before firing a second shot. This would include bolt-action, black powder muzzle loaders, and certain revolvers.
Assault Weapon Certain semi-automatic firearms with 2 or more attachments listed in the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 that we'll get to later. The term is also used in a generic way to describe any civilian version of a firearm originally designed, or that appears to have been designed, for modern military use.
Suppressor aka Silencer. We all know what they look like. They're not as magical as Hollywood would have us believe. Legitimate civilian purposes include reducing noise pollution when a range is in a populated area and hearing protection when hunting where it's legal to use them for hunting.
High powered This is a media term. It means nothing.
High capacity Usually any magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds or shells.
BATFE Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco Firearms and Explosives. Sometimes called ATF. Federal agency that enforces federal gun laws.
These 4 are the main federal laws.
National Firearms Act of 1934 (NFA).
Automatic firearms and suppressors are not banned in the US. They are strictly controlled, expensive, and uncommon outside of wealthy enthusiasts.
Gun Control Act of 1968 (GCA)
This defined who could and could not engage in the buying and selling of firearms, banned the importation of certain firearms, and required serial numbers on all newly manufactured and imported firearms.
Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 (FOPA).
FOPA was meant to reign in the BATFE who were very aggressively going after legitimate businesses under the 1968 GCA. It includes the Hughes amendment that banned civilian ownership of all automatic weapons not registered prior to May 19, 1986. This stopped all production and importing of automatic firearms for civilian use. FOPA also prohibits the BATFE from keeping a registry of ownership, but they sort-of have parts of one anyway.
Assault Weapons Ban of 1994(AWB)
This law defined an assault weapon. It's any semi-automatic rifle, handgun, or shotgun with certain combinations of attachments. The law also capped magazine capacity across all 3 categories at 10. Any banned items already in existence with those characteristics were fine (grandfathered in), but no new ones could be made or imported for civilian use. This law expired in 2004.
These major acts had a few other items that aren't relevant to this thread.
The proposed legislation that will be coming from Sen. Feinstein looks a lot like the 1994 AWB with some variations in the grandfather clause and no sunset date.
Carrying (openly or concealed) in public
This is controlled at the state level, not the federal level. Each state (and in some cases each county or city) has its own laws regulating the carrying of firearms outside the home or personally-owned business. Carrying is never required (sorry Wesley J, you got some bad info). The states and municipalities are free to regulate as they please as long as they don't become too overbearing or try to ban outright. Then the Supreme Court makes them back off. See D.C. vs. Heller and McDonald vs. Chicago along with a recent case headed there now challenging Illinois' complete ban on public carrying. With 50 states plus the cities it gets confusing real fast.
Gun registration
There is no federal gun registration outside of some of those NFA items. Some states and cities have registration laws.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
When the bullet hits, that it came from the military version or the commercial version will not be the first thing to consider.
That doesn't even make sense given your last post. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
Consider also, when hunting with a shotgun here (waterfowl, upland game), it is illegal to have a magazine that holds more than 3 shells. Shotguns are 'plugged' so the 5 shell magazine hold only 3. I think they're making some now that only hold 3.
Not here they aren't.
quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
Hunting? No one needs these large magazines.
Most hunting rifles (guns that fire smaller rounds sometimes do) don't have large magazines. Large clips are for weapons intended for home defense. How many rounds you need for that is debatable. If you come at it from the standpoint that nobody should own a gun for self defense, any number higher than 0 will be unacceptable.
quote:
originally posted by Eutychus:
Beeswax Altar, just for my education, perhaps you would like to explain why:
Let's say you own a bolt action rifle with a scope. You'll need to periodically sight in the scope which can take a box of ammunition. You'll need to do target practice to stay proficient. Then, you'll need bullets for hunting. Most of the animals classified as varmints have either no limit or a high limit (10 squirrels a day if I'm not mistaken) on how many can be taken in one day and some don't even have a season. So...you justify the need for a whole bunch of ammo.
As for the type of ammo, I'd say two things. Yes, the cartridge in question is lethal. It is also less likely to go through what it hits and keep going. Suppose you have a ranch with cows and are shooting at a wild pig. Do you want a .30 caliber round that will go through the pig and hit one of your cows? What if you miss? Hunting rifles have a greater effective range than guns chambered for the .223. And, if used for home defense, stopping power is exactly what you want.
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by Eutychus:
Beeswax Altar, just for my education, perhaps you would like to explain why:
That wasn't originally posted by me, but I live in hope of you answering my last post all the same.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
Darllenwar, where did you hear about disintegrating ammo? Outside of some super specific and very expensive kinds, I'm not aware of any disintegrating ammo. I assumed he was using hollow points (HP) in his handguns. It's made to expand on impact to minimize over penetration (passing through the target and striking something or someone on the other side). It's not banned evil cop killer ammo. It's what every law enforcement agency in the country uses and what every armed citizen uses if they know what they're doing. It's not necessarily more lethal than other kinds, but it does behave differently. A 6 year old being shot at point blank range with a regular non-HP round would be just as dead.
My opinion on gun laws
Generally speaking, I don't like restrictions. I recognize that we do have a need as a society to watch certain things more closely. The NFA of 1934 and the GCA of 1968 were by-and-large decent legislation. I'm mixed on the 1984 FOPA. I think the Hughes amendment was a solution looking for a problem and didn't reduce crime.
The AWB of 1994 was the worst gun legislation ever passed. Under the AWB this is OK and this is not.
What the untrained eye doesn't see is that the 2 rifles in are identical except for some attachments that do nothing to make the rifle more powerful or accurate. Here's a less drastic comparison: This is OK but this is not. The difference between the 2 is the little "cage" on the very end of the barrel. All 4 of these rifles shoot the exact same round with nearly identical ballistic performance. Two were OK. Two were banned.
The AWB did little to prevent crime but it drove up prices of grandfathered items and limited the ability of responsible owners to customize certain firearms to better meet their shooting styles or personal preferences.
I think the 1994 AWB's 10 round magazine capacity limit was misguided and didn't really help prevent crime or limit a criminal's capabilities. Changing a 10 round magazine twice to equal the same capacity as a 30 round magazine adds maybe 2 seconds for the average shooter who has done it a few times. Training can make it even faster. Watch 12 shots from a revolver in under 3 seconds. The 10 round cap does make it harder for a novice to wreak mass havoc which IIRC is a point Mousethief has made and it's valid. But someone who knows their own firearm pretty well can change magazines fast. The reason I don't like the cap personally is because I hate spending valuable and limited range time loading magazines. I can load them up at home then spend my range time shooting. I'm not vehemently opposed to a capacity limit on rifles because it's just an inconvenience to me. I do think it's just "feel-good" legislation that doesn't have meaningful impacts to crime. Handguns are more likely to be used in self-defense shootings where multiple rounds may be needed so I don't support capacity limits on them. 10 rounds go really fast. One shot does not often mean one kill outside Hollywood, very well trained shooters, and dumb luck.
Keep in mind that a person commiting a crime isn't going to be worried about whether or not they're using a banned 30 round magazine on a rifle with a pistol grip, adjustable stock, and a mount to put on a bayonet. Practically, the only way that the magazine capacity issue and speed of changing them can be solved is to require detachable magazines on rifles to need a tool to remove them. California does this in some cases. It makes magazine changes take more time. Very inconvenient to the hobby shooter, but it could slow down a murdering nut-job. How much it would slow them down, I couldn't say. Enough training/practice could get those mags changed pretty quick too, but it does add time. But what do you do with existing rifles that don't have that "feature" and can't be retrofit?
We don't need new legislation on civilian-owned automatic firearms. We could ban them completely, but I wonder if it that would hold up to SCOTUS scrutiny. Like it or not, the 2nd Amendment is the law of the land. There's not a lot to be gained by banning them. They are controlled under the NFA and have a finite supply under the FOPA Hughes amendment. Automatics are used in under 2% of all crimes. It's a rather uncommon style. There have only been 2 murders commited with legally owned automatics since 1934 and both were done by police officers with department-owned automatic firearms, not by private citizens.
The big catch to any gun legislation is that it will impact law abiding citizens more than it impacts criminals. Any impacts on criminals are indirect trickle-down effects. If law abiding citizens don't have certain things, then criminals can't steal them for example.
The "gun show loophole" is a misnomer. It refers to the fact that a private sale of a firearm does not have to go through a background check (certain exclusions apply). This kind of sale is common at gun shows, but is by no means limited to them. An FBI study from 1997 where they interviewed convicted criminals in California. Only 2% of their guns came from gun shows or flea markets. 80% came from street deals, frineds/family, or other illegal sources. I'd be fine with mandatory BG checks for private sales, and would actually support it if the process can be made easy, accessible, and reasonably priced. Now it's optional and is none of those 3 things. A mandatory BG check won't stop those ilegal street deals but will add extra steps for law abiding citizens. Like I said, I'm not opposed to it, but I don't think it will have a huge impact on keeping guns away from criminals. Certainly it will have some, but not as much as proponents think. I'd like to have an easy way to know I'm not buying a stolen gun or dealing with a felon. Right now that's expensive and inconvenient.
Quantity of ammo I know that "100's of rounds" sounds like a lot to a non-gun person. and in a crime, it is. I buy mine by the thousands because the cost per round is cheaper, just like anything else you buy in bulk. A 10 gallon jug of olive oil at Costco is less per oz. than the 12 oz. bottle at Trader Joe's. I can go through a few hundred rounds in an hour on the range. Many training classes require 500-1,000 rounds or more for a one day class. If I have friends or family shoot with me, they begin to understand how quickly it goes and why I'd rather pay $10 a box x 100 boxes at a time than to buy them one at a time for $14 a box at the local Wal-Mart.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
quote:
originally posted by no prophet:
When the bullet hits, that it came from the military version or the commercial version will not be the first thing to consider.
That doesn't even make sense given your last post.
Because it is a response to you. I generally don't respond to myself.
But since you are trying to be learned about it. The point is that the military version is that it may have a large clip. So may the commercial version in your country. The commercial version than begins to resemble the military version and vice versa, with relatively minor differences. The specific casing, size and design of bullet, type and amount of powder, shape of stock and material become less relevant.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
I've been following along on this one and enough bad information has been put out here that I'd like to clear up a few things
That post was far too informative. For the sake of us Europeans, can't we stick with the media guide to firearms?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
The big catch to any gun legislation is that it will impact law abiding citizens more than it impacts criminals.
In this context we're talking about a guy and his mum who had no criminal record at all that I know of. It's a completely different issue to "conventional" gun crime.
The debate here was sparked by one of these massacres which typically seem to be perpetrated by people with little or no priors who suddenly go haywire and for whom this behaviour seems to have gained some sort of legitimacy; it's "what you do" when you go haywire in certain countries*.
I think overturning that involves a fundamental change in broad attitudes towards guns - to borrow from an idea upthread, desacralising them in the public mind. Adding some more legislation might help that.
==
*Here, the done thing seems to be to throw yourself under an intercity train. Also has a social impact but far fewer casualties. Maybe the solution is for the US to build more high-speed rail lines?
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
The big catch to any gun legislation is that it will impact law abiding citizens more than it impacts criminals.
But impact them how? They won't be able to buy weapons nobody not in the military needs. Boo hoo. And the fewer of those around, the harder it is for potential murderers to steal them.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jbohn
Shipmate
# 8753
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
I've been following along on this one and enough bad information has been put out here that I'd like to clear up a few things
That post was far too informative. For the sake of us Europeans, can't we stick with the media guide to firearms?
Why not? Congress used that guide for the last ban...
--------------------
We are punished by our sins, not for them.
--Elbert Hubbard
Posts: 989 | From: East of Eden, west of St. Paul | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
rolyn
Shipmate
# 16840
|
Posted
Apologies Kaplan Corday for grabbing a line from your post and misquoting . I can assure you that I'm not out to trivialise these events , they sicken me everytime they happen, (anywhere in the world).
--------------------------------------------
quote:
Originally posted by DonLogan2:
I am allowed to hold 600 rds of centre fire ammo, 600 of subsonic rimfire and usually @ 3000 shotgun cartridges (I could hold up to @ 10 000) and I am not out of the ordinary in any way for the firearms I own.
I am surprised at the amount of ammo you are allowed to hold Donlogan2 . I guess it's down to your profession . Would someone who is not into pest control or hunting be allowed to keep that amount ?
The logical solution for competitive shooting would surely be for gun clubs to hold the ammunition .
----------------------------------------------
OK on a separate subject, (and I want to make it absolutely clear I'm accusing any one here), but I do get a bit unnerved by the way some gun-owners react to random shooting incidents.
For example after the Cumbria shooting a gun-owner said to me something along the lines of -- well, that's what those taxi-drivers got for taking the piss out of the bloke,(Derek Bird).
It is this type of unhelpful macho-speak that divides the gun-owner from the non gun-owner.
--------------------
Change is the only certainty of existence
Posts: 3206 | From: U.K. | Registered: Dec 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Otter
Shipmate
# 12020
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
Darllenwar, where did you hear about disintegrating ammo? Outside of some super specific and very expensive kinds, I'm not aware of any disintegrating ammo.
Darllenwar's comment that led to this question didn't stick with me, but I can address it in an indirect way, in general terms.
.17 HMR (.22 calibre cartridge necked down to hold a 0.172" or 4.4 mm diameter bullet) ammunition tends to fragment pretty badly on impact, because it is a very high-velocity round, typically tipped with a hard plastic point. It's a round that's very popular with "varmint" (small game often of the nuisance variety) hunters. It is more expensive than .22LR, but not ruinously so. Wikipedia says .17 is less expensive than most centerfire ammunition...which is admittedly a pretty wiiiiiide generalization.
Also, I've recently seen boxes of various calibres of centerfire ammunition with the same type of plastic tip in hollow points. I think its done to encourage fragmentation of the round. I really DIS-like the latest marketing schtick for these kinds of rounds, where the plastic tip is bright green, and they're being marketed as anti-zombie rounds. I dislike the marketing of "tactical" (the new "assault", IMO) guns and ammunition in general.
--------------------
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data", YMMV, limited-time offer, IANAL, no purchase required, and the state of CA has found this substance to cause cancer in laboratory aminals
Posts: 1429 | From: Chicago, IL 'burbs | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
So what gun would Jesus use?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It amuses me that the same swath of society -- the right wing, Tea-Party types -- that are screaming "this is about mental health, not gun availability" is by and large the same swath that is screaming about the evils of the government paying for health care.
Disconnect, anyone?
Exactly. I said this on another thread, so feel free to skip past, but I think it's all a shell game. When the topic is gun control, they'll blame mental health. But the minute we're debating increased access/ funding for mental health care they'll say it's about guns. Gotta look fast to follow the ball.
The real disconnect to me though, is to frame any discussion of sensible gun regulation as an issue about "losing our freedoms" while suggesting that the solution is to turn our schools (and, presumably, malls, workplaces, sports arenas, and any other public space) into armed camps.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
@Ruth W - no, I don't think that all Americans are nuts. Reading some of the posts on this thread I do begin to wonder at times ... ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Seriously, no, I don't. I'm more than happy to accept your very good point that this situation needs a US solution and not a European or Antipodean one - but I notice that your close neighbours north of the border up Canada way are offering various solutions that are being dismissed and pooh-poohed by certain posters. Sure, I understand that Canada is different to the USA but there'll be more features in common than they would be with the UK, Germany, France etc.
It doesn't stop me expressing an opinion though, although I am happy to be guided by voices on the ground and I'm not dismissing the views of those who've used guns and know a heck of a lot more about them than I'd ever care to know.
Just as it doesn't stop Beeswax Altar inferring that incrementally we in Western Europe have conceded our freedoms to interfering 'Big Government' ... ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
I'm quite happy over here, thank you very much, as I'm sure Beeswax is happy where he is ... and thanks for the invitation and recommendations, Beeswax Altar ... ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ... I'd love to visit but can't see my being to afford the fare for a good while ... thanks all the same. My brother hitch-hiked from Maine up into Canada, across to Vancouver, down to San Francisco then back across the States to Washington DC and back up to New York for the flight home ... that was back in 1980 and he had a great time ... met some terrific people (and one or two screwballs) but he hitched all that way without major incident ... although he had a few close-shaves both in Canada and in the US.
Anyway, tangent over ...
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Silent Acolyte
Shipmate
# 1158
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
The gun situation in the US has gone through a transformation in my memory.
I'm guessing this transformation was a result of our becoming the arms merchants to the world—and to ourselves. Dwight D. Eisenhower wasn't just whistling Dixie when he warned about the grave spiritual influence of the rise of the military-industrial complex.
America used to be able transform its commercial industry into an armaments industry—and back again: quote:
American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United State corporations.
Since Eisenhower, the USA has been in a constant state of war abroad and at home.
It is little wonder,then, that this standing armaments industry seeks to maximize its profit internationally as well as domestically.
Posts: 7462 | From: The New World | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So what gun would Jesus use?
I'm guessing a Crosman...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Ruth W's reminded us of Waco and other incidents where the authorities have acted heavy-handedly - point taken.
But does that justify civilians having pretty high-spec arms - in order to defend themselves against heavy-handed police/FBI tactics?
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
I'm not defending any of these incidents - they are deplorable - but the storming of the Waco compound occurred in a situation where the besieged were heavily armed and the whole scene was volatile. I'm not sure how a siege of that kind would have ended over here - I can't really think of an analogous situation. We don't tend to have armed apocalyptic cults. Sure, there have been sieges and shootings of armed criminals and terrorists etc but I can't think of an analogous incident at all ...
Incidentally, it's been reported over here that Lanza's mother was a 'survivalist' and had been stock-piling food and supplies because she believed the apocalypse to be imminent or that the world economy was about to collapse ... and that she had the guns because she lived alone (apart from her son in the basement with his violent computer games ...).
I don't know how true that is, but it is does give some context. It seems to me that there are pockets of very kookie and paranoid views/mindsets over in the US that lend themselves to serious incidents like this - and yes, the whole mental health issue is part of that too.
I'm not saying we don't have a fucked up society over here, we certainly do to some extent, but in our case it spawns other problems to the one we're discussing here.
We can debate the rights and wrongs of our respective societies and systems - and I'm happy to concede that we've got issues of our own. Pointing out that the US appears to have an unacceptably high level of gun-crime for a developed, Western democracy isn't to absolve other Western democracies of their particular problems. But we don't have as many people shot.
That's a fact you cannot ignore.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So what gun would Jesus use?
I'm guessing a Crosman...
--Tom Clune
Pump-action or CO2?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
Otter, I'm familiar with .17 HMR. Great round for varmints up to coyote sizes. The breaking apart that you're referring to is called frangibility, or frangible ammunition. It's normally only used for live-fire close quarters training to reduce ricochets and on certain "green" ranges because there is little or no lead in them. I was just curious to know if that was indeed what was used in Connecticut. I had not seen that in any news reports that I have read. Not that it matters. Any kind of ammo would have had the same effect in this case. I guess I was just wanting to avoid something like the old "Teflon bullet" scare or the Black Talon "cop-killer" scare of the 1980s. Both of which were just media hype and not based in facts at all.
I think you're incorrect about the plastic (or sometimes wax) plug in the hollow point though. It's not meant to make the bullet frangible. that's based on the metalurgy of the bullet itself. The plug is meant to help the bullet keep its shape to pass through light barriers (heavy clothing, glass, thin door, etc.) before expanding like it should.
I agree with the comment about marketing ammo and gear as "tactical" or "zombie". It's marketing hype that honestly looks bad. Hornady has a "Zombie" round which is exactly the same as their "Critical Defense" round, but with a neon green plug instead of a red one plus an extra $3 a box on the price. Suckers.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
In this context we're talking about a guy and his mum who had no criminal record at all that I know of. It's a completely different issue to "conventional" gun crime.
I know. So where does that take us with gun laws? It's not a conventional crime, so presumably conventional laws won't work. What of we had a national registration, extensive background check on all sales including private sales, limited magazine capacity, no useless bayonet lugs or rifle-mounted grenade launchers from WW2 etc., and even required all guns to be locked up in a safe? How would those steps have prevented Connecticut? They have the 4th most restrictive gun laws in the country and get high marks from the Brady Campaign. Yet it still happened there.
An outright ban isn't going to happen. The supreme law of the land says so. To repeal the 2nd A would be a monumental effort, and if it succeeded, I'm afraid it would plunge us into another civil war/revolution.
So where does that leave us? I caught an interesting interview on NPR radio late last week in the afternoon, probably on All Things Considered, but I'm not sure. They had some criminal psych expert on who said there really were not more multiple homicides happening now than there have been. We have averaged about 20 per year for the past few decades. The difference now is the media coverage from 24 hour news cycles, and in some cases like Sandy Hook, we do have some shocking fatality numbers. Other similar events have lower fatalities (Oregon mall) and don't stay in the news cycle as long or never get there at all. I'd like to see the data he was using.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
So what gun would Jesus use?
I'm guessing a Crosman...
--Tom Clune
Pump-action or CO2?
Either way, he'd carry it in a crossdraw holster.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
DonLogan2
Shipmate
# 15608
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by rolyn:
......
quote:
Originally posted by DonLogan2:
I am allowed to hold 600 rds of centre fire ammo, 600 of subsonic rimfire and usually @ 3000 shotgun cartridges (I could hold up to @ 10 000) and I am not out of the ordinary in any way for the firearms I own.
I am surprised at the amount of ammo you are allowed to hold Donlogan2 . I guess it's down to your profession . Would someone who is not into pest control or hunting be allowed to keep that amount ?
The logical solution for competitive shooting would surely be for gun clubs to hold the ammunition .
The amount I have is due to the fact that not one shotgun cartridge, or possibly rifle round, will do for all situations, therefore The majority of mine are for shooting woodpigeon, which could amount to 1-2K cartridges in a day (unlikely but not unreasonable). The main reason is for cost, buying in 000`s costs considerably less than buying in 25`s.
The amount of cartridges a person may hold in the UK is based on the amount of powder, I believe to do with Guido and his mates. The amount of rounds of ammunition is negotiated with the local firearms dept, my first certificate needed to be re-newed within a few months of receiving it due to overly zelous FEO`s and the fact I had overfilled it with multiple trips to the shop to re-supply.
Third parties holding rounds etc would be hard to work and extremely hard to run efficiently as it may need to be run 24/7/365.
I am not a pro pest controller, but part of my recreation is culling deer and shooting pests, however my main employment is as a youth worker.
--------------------
“I have of late, but wherefore I know not, lost all my mirth... "
Posts: 359 | From: the very depths | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
DonLogan2
Shipmate
# 15608
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
Otter, I'm familiar with .17 HMR. Great round for varmints up to coyote sizes....
I think you're incorrect about the plastic (or sometimes wax) plug in the hollow point though. It's not meant to make the bullet frangible. that's based on the metalurgy of the bullet itself. The plug is meant to help the bullet keep its shape to pass through light barriers (heavy clothing, glass, thin door, etc.) before expanding like it should.
17hmr for coyote 17 rem possibly.
The plastic tips are polymer usually and do make it extremely frangible, the idea is like you say, to pass through light skinned animals and then to expand very fast and not exit if at all possible and expend all energy inside the animal for an almost instantaneous kill.
Also the .223 (strictly speaking .224) calibre is a good hunting round and not just a military round, like the 6.5x55 swede....
--------------------
“I have of late, but wherefore I know not, lost all my mirth... "
Posts: 359 | From: the very depths | Registered: Apr 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
Sorry, you're correct. I meant .17 REM.
I didn't know that about the polymer-filled JHPs. I thought it was to keep the shape through light barriers and to help prevent feeding problems. I learn something new every day.
I agree with the .223 being a good general purpose hunting round. It's used here for white-tail deer and smaller. I wouldn't want to hunt elk or bear with it. That's all that's bigger than white-tail around here.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Timothy the Obscure
Mostly Friendly
# 292
|
Posted
It should be pointed out that the current interpretation of the Second Amendment is really very novel--no one took the idea of an unrestricted individual right to bear arms seriously until 30-40 years ago. Jeffrey Toobin sketches the history in the New Yorker.
The gunfight at the OK Corral was largely about the Earps trying to enforce Tombstone's very strict gun control law. Nobody back then believed a city couldn't ban people from carrying guns.
--------------------
When you think of the long and gloomy history of man, you will find more hideous crimes have been committed in the name of obedience than have ever been committed in the name of rebellion.
- C. P. Snow
Posts: 6114 | From: PDX | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Interesting. So the current conservative stance on gun control is based upon violating two major tenants of American Conservatism: No "Legislating from the Bench" and an inviolate Constitution.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
So where does that take us with gun laws? It's not a conventional crime, so presumably conventional laws won't work.
Like I say, I think what conventional laws might do is change the culture of what is acceptable (even when you go mad) and what is not.
In France until the 1970s, in road accidents being drunk at the wheel was a mitigating circumstance. That's pretty much unimaginable now. Even the people who drink and drive know somewhere that it's off-limits. What I'm trying to say is that popular culture can be affected by laws.
At this distance I agree with you that the Second Amendment isn't going to be overturned any time soon, but, again from this distance, on paper it looks, over the long term, as if its interpretation could be changed a lot. Increasing obligations on gun-owners to belong to (and attend) gun clubs would seem to make perfect sense in the light of the Constitution and not be too annoying for bona fide users. I think over time that could make a difference.
quote:
They had some criminal psych expert on who said there really were not more multiple homicides happening now than there have been.
I'm sure it's true. The murder rate has remained pretty stable in Western nations for about a century, I think, and the media is responsible for hyping it. But as you admit, the number of casualities in mass shootings has apparently shown a tendency to rise. Which I think takes us back to the availability and usefulness of large magazines and automatic/semi-automatic weapons.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
At this distance I agree with you that the Second Amendment isn't going to be overturned any time soon, but, again from this distance, on paper it looks, over the long term, as if its interpretation could be changed a lot.
Increasing obligations on gun-owners to belong to (and attend) gun clubs would seem to make perfect sense in the light of the Constitution and not be too annoying for bona fide users. I think over time that could make a difference.
I think that's the point. There will be an ongoing battle for hearts and minds on this. No quick fix is possible. Small gains are better than no gains.
I think that was what Obama meant by "if we save one life". Putting a block in the way of one person which doesn't currently exist may, as others have observed, may simply push that person to use other means. But it may be enough to prevent the madness.
The "shell game" argument upthread is disturbing. But I think a similar "small gains" argument applies to mental health reforms. I found some of the scenarios described on that other thread very disturbing, but given the divisions in the US over public health care, I guess marginal improvement is the best that might be expected.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
It's more than likely crocodile tears, but the NRA have said today -
quote:
"The National Rifle Association of America is made up of 4 million moms and dads, sons and daughters, and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown," the organization said in a statement. "The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again."
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I see they plan to hold a major news conference in a couple of days time. The NRA organisers and representatives will have been as shocked and saddened as everyone else. I'm not second-guessing the impact of that.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
this thread is demonstrating the tactic that has kept ANY gun control measures from enactment: Keep throwing up side issues to obfuscate the original simple clear resolve: to ban assault guns. The NRA and its legislative lackeys will take any chance to broaden the issue and start debates about what IS an assault gun?
Keep it simple. Ban assault guns. If that can be achieved then the NRA is on a level playing field for subsequent legislation.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
this thread is demonstrating the tactic that has kept ANY gun control measures from enactment: Keep throwing up side issues to obfuscate the original simple clear resolve: to ban assault guns. The NRA and its legislative lackeys will take any chance to broaden the issue and start debates about what IS an assault gun?
Keep it simple. Ban assault guns. If that can be achieved then the NRA is on a level playing field for subsequent legislation.
I think you are confusing the NRA tactics with the underlying reality. To my mind, the NRA has been seen as formidable because the gun-nut minority in this country are single-issue voters. The NRA, as their proxy, is recognized as having the ability to sway elections even though the majority of Americans have always favored stricter gun laws.
If the Newtown incident proves to be a tipping point, it will be because a significant fraction of that pro-control majority has become so fed up that they will also become single-issue voters. If that is true, talk of the "tactics" of either group are irrelevant -- the votes will simply be opposed to the continued craziness.
--Tom Clune
[ 19. December 2012, 12:46: Message edited by: tclune ]
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It's more than likely crocodile tears, but the NRA have said today -
quote:
"The National Rifle Association of America is made up of 4 million moms and dads, sons and daughters, and we were shocked, saddened and heartbroken by the news of the horrific and senseless murders in Newtown," the organization said in a statement. "The NRA is prepared to offer meaningful contributions to help make sure this never happens again."
I saw that same opinion of "crocodile tears" on some right-leaning sites regarding Pres. Obama diring his press conference. They were wrong and so are you.
We can debate about what the NRA means by "meaningful contributions" but to imply that NRA leaders and members aren't shocked, saddedned, angry, and all the other things all of us felt is insulting, narrow minded, and downright wrong.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mdijon
Shipmate
# 8520
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Silent Acolyte:
I'm guessing this transformation was a result of our becoming the arms merchants to the world—and to ourselves.
I'm a bit puzzled by the nature of the link. In that the UK, France and Russia all do a lot of arms trading internationally, but that doesn't seem to spill over into a domestic market.
I'm not saying that's the moral high ground, just observing that domestic and international trade isn't necessarily linked.
--------------------
mdijon nojidm uoɿıqɯ ɯqıɿou
ɯqıɿou uoɿıqɯ nojidm mdijon
Posts: 12277 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
Keep it simple. Ban assault guns. If that can be achieved then the NRA is on a level playing field for subsequent legislation.
First of all, what's really meant by "assault" weapons are generaly only held by the military and very few civilians. Those are automatic or burst-fire rifles and sub machine guns.
Even operating under the definition I posted above spelled out in the 1994 AWB and proposed to be reborn by Sen. Feinstein, banning them would have done nothing to prevent the Connecticut killings. He would have been using this instead of this. The only difference would have been using 10 round magazines instead of 30, assuming he didn't have some 30's that would still be legal to own and sell, just at an inflated price. It takes under 2 seconds to swap them out. 5 if you're clumsy. It was 4 minutes from the 911 call to the last shot fired. Plenty of time for a few extra magazine changes.
When you say "assault gun" I assume you mean something black and scary looking rather than looking at the facts.
Even if there was some way to ban the AR platform, he could have used this and had the exact same effect.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Cool heads needed all round.
I'm sure there's as much of a knee-jerk reaction against the NRA - 'it must be crocodile tears' - as there is against Obama from the right. Neither helps.
I'll hold my hands up and admit that I can't fathom the NRA at all and wonder why it even exists in the first place - although I'm sure it isn't simply a haven/mouth-piece for right-wing gun nuts. I s'pose if you are going to allow almost unlimited access to guns across the general population then it makes sense to have some kind of representative body ...
Whatever the case, I wouldn't accuse the NRA of being so heartless and cold-blooded that they don't have similar reactions to the latest mass-shooting incidents to everybody else - irrespective of where they stand on the gun control issue. The NRA have children too.
I would be worried, though, that any federal attempt to crack down on gun ownership beyond a particular limit might excite a violent reaction from some of these types - at the more kooky end of the spectrum. I'm surprised that some jerk hasn't tried to take Obama out yet. I was half expecting him to be blown away by some fascist half-wit from one of the Fly Over States the first time he was elected ...
And yes, Beeswax Altar, I am aware that the gun lobby is wider than the Red States and the former Confederacy and I am aware that US politics is more nuanced than sensible New England Democrats on the one side and snake-handling Republican hillbillies on the other ... so please don't anyone think I'm trying to reduce everything to those kind of stereotypical terms.
It's been suggested here that ANY further form of gun control or limitation would be understood as an attempt to clampdown on all guns per se.
There do appear to be more moderate NRA members who would countenance some kind of middle-ground solution. Would they be outweighed by the gun nuts?
I've chatted to Monkeylizard in the Cafe a few times and he sounds like the antithesis to the gun-nut of popular imagination - although I find his encyclopaedic technical knowledge on the subject rather disturbing ... in the way I wouldn't find it disturbing if he were going into technical detail about vehicle engines or sound-equipment etc - and I suspect there's a Pond difference there as we don't tend to get up close and personal with guns of any kind over here unless we're some kind of hobbyist or a farmer with some shot guns.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Monkeylizard,
It matters not that anyone's emotions are real if their actions do not change
Under the UK's much more restrictive gun laws, hunters get along fine and the government has not marched in and stolen its citizen's rights.
I think the ban should be on semi-automatics. The average person has no need of these. The argument that many are already in private hands therefore a ban is ineffective is specious.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Beeswax Altar
Shipmate
# 11644
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
this thread is demonstrating the tactic that has kept ANY gun control measures from enactment: Keep throwing up side issues to obfuscate the original simple clear resolve: to ban assault guns. The NRA and its legislative lackeys will take any chance to broaden the issue and start debates about what IS an assault gun?
Keep it simple. Ban assault guns. If that can be achieved then the NRA is on a level playing field for subsequent legislation.
So we are banning "assault guns" but actually talking about the definition of "assault guns" is obfuscating. ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
--------------------
Losing sleep is something you want to avoid, if possible.
-Og: King of Bashan
Posts: 8411 | From: By a large lake | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Getting away totally from arguments about calibre and whether one can swagger around the street with a holster, or has to hide one's weapon inside one's jacket/handbag, there was a minister of religion from Connecticut interviewed on the BBC who said that this shouldn't really be seen as about gun control at all. He pointed out that Connecticut already had stricter gun controls than other parts of the US.
Has he got a point?
Ready access to firearms may make it more likely that run of the mill domestics and street crime will end up with a body on the floor. But that is a different question.
Here, I still think the issues are why some people suddenly go mad and start randomly killing their fellow citizens, and why this seems to happen more in some countries than others?
Nobody can ask those who do it, why, as they usually seem to reserve the final bullet for themselves. Why do people do something that must be a first class ticket to the lake of fire?
Does France, which has an obsession with 'la chasse', and where there must be a lot of weapons about, have mass shootings?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Getting away totally from arguments about calibre and whether one can swagger around the street with a holster, or has to hide one's weapon inside one's jacket/handbag, there was a minister of religion from Connecticut interviewed on the BBC who said that this shouldn't really be seen as about gun control at all. He pointed out that Connecticut already had stricter gun controls than other parts of the US.
Has he got a point?
Yes-- but perhaps not the one he wanted to make.
There are a number of issues involved, but the gun issue is one of the sheer prevalence of guns in our culture, the mythology that surrounds them, the embedded message that conveys throughout our culture about violence and the way we resolve our problems.
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Ready access to firearms may make it more likely that run of the mill domestics and street crime will end up with a body on the floor. But that is a different question.
Here, I still think the issues are why some people suddenly go mad and start randomly killing their fellow citizens, and why this seems to happen more in some countries than others?
I think the latter paragraph shows precisely why it's not a "different question". Just as ready access to guns means that a domestic dispute or street crime is more likely to end in gunfire, so ready access to guns makes it more like that a psychotic break is more likely to end in gunfire.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Monkeylizard,
It matters not that anyone's emotions are real if their actions do not change
Under the UK's much more restrictive gun laws, hunters get along fine and the government has not marched in and stolen its citizen's rights.
I think the ban should be on semi-automatics. The average person has no need of these. The argument that many are already in private hands therefore a ban is ineffective is specious.
That's why I said we can debate what the NRA means by "meaningful change".
As for US vs UK, A right is never granted. It exists. Laws protect rights and grant priviledges.
This is a very critical point when comparing the US to the UK and many others. In the UK there are no gun rights. There are laws that allow civilian gun ownership under certain conditions. It's an "all doors closed" default position where laws grant a priviledge.
In the US we have gun ownership as a right that is protected in our constitution, the supreme law of the land. It's an "all doors open" default position. Certain doors are closed by laws with an eye toward public safety, but by their nature are to some extent infringing on that declared right.
Some of us think those laws are stupid and should be overturned. Some of us think the 2nd A is stupid and should be overturned. I don't have a problem with gun legislation if it actually helps prevent crime, either the traditional kind or this nut-job kind, without putting some undue burden on the vast majority of us who are law abiding citizens. Bringing back the 1994 AWB accomplishes neither. Mandatory background checks on private sales would help somewhat with the first but not the second.
I fear that a ban on all semi-automatics would be disastrous. At some point, it won't only be snake handling hillbilly Republicans that will say enough is enough.
Remember that the 2nd A is not about hunting, and has only recently been held by the Supreme Court to encompass self-defense*. It has always been about armed revolt against the government. Its purpose was and is to keep the final power in the hands of the governed instead of the government. That sounds crazy to some and patriotic to others.
Gamaliel, thanks for the compliment...I think. It's actually the same over here for most of us. The shooting sports are growing in popularity, but most people here do not shoot. Many households have firearms, but they include family heirlooms(grandpa's shotgun over the fireplace) and people who got a gun to put in their nightstand "for protection" but never learned to use it. Only hobbyists like me keep up with the little details. It's no different than any other hobby in that respect.
*I'm as surprised by that as the anti-gun crowd is. I'm happier about it than they are, but just as surprised.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
I fear that a ban on all semi-automatics would be disastrous. At some point, it won't only be snake handling hillbilly Republicans that will say enough is enough.
monkeylizard is obviously making veiled threats on this thread: we should work to silence him/her.
On a more serious note your post at the top of this page is to my sketchy memory the best post ever, here.
Thank you.
And DAYUM: quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
Watch 12 shots from a revolver in under 3 seconds.
Wow. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Finally, I imagine many prudent investing types are now stockpiling large capacity magazines.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by monkeylizard:
Remember that the 2nd A is not about hunting, and has only recently been held by the Supreme Court to encompass self-defense*. It has always been about armed revolt against the government. Its purpose was and is to keep the final power in the hands of the governed instead of the government. That sounds crazy to some and patriotic to others.
...
*I'm as surprised by that as the anti-gun crowd is. I'm happier about it than they are, but just as surprised.
So everyone has a constitutional right to armed rebellion, and to take potshots at the US military?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
There are a number of issues involved, but the gun issue is one of the sheer prevalence of guns in our culture, the mythology that surrounds them, the embedded message that conveys throughout our culture about violence and the way we resolve our problems.
You're definitely on to something here. That "mythology" to me includes the mystique about them. Kids and adults who are not familiar with them have some sort of skewed image of firearms. That can be seeing them as a symbol of power and authority or as evil things or as toys or as something to be afraid of or something else. The only way to remove those incorrect and unhealthy views of guns is to either remove the guns both in the real world and in the culture (TV, movies, games, etc) or to promote familiarity with them. I can't do anytihjng about the former so I do what I can with the later.
There was a time in our country not long ago where high school kids kept shotguns and rifles in their trucks in the school parking lots legally and openly. They would go hunting early before school, or in the afternoons after school. Coaches, teachers, and administrators might even be joining them in the field. Guns were prevalent then too but the kids didn't shoot up their 3rd period chemistry class. So it can't just be about availability.
We have a serious problem that people are not taught the value of human life.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
So everyone has a constitutional right to armed rebellion, and to take potshots at the US military?
To the 1st, sort of. The 2nd a refers to militias, which were at the time regulated by cities and states rather than as a standing army of the federal government. In theory, those are sort of replaced by the national guard today, but the fed has some control over those units so it's not exactly the same. The amendment basically setup the states to have their own on-demand armies as a check-and-balance against the federal government. If the fed started imposing its will by force on the states, the states could fight back. It's not so much an individual right as a state right. But if the citizens of a state are unarmed, how can the state exercise that right? So we have an individual right to keep and bear arms, but technically would have to look to our individual state to start a legal revolution. We had a big debate about state power vs federal power back in the 1860s. The states lost.
To the 2nd, no. That's called homicide.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
Originally posted by IconiumBound
Keep it simple. Ban assault guns. If that can be achieved then the NRA is on a level playing field for subsequent legislation.
Originally posted by BeeswaxAltar
So we are banning "assault guns" but actually talking about the definition of "assault guns" is obfuscating. [Killing me]
I wouldn't mind if our legislators could use this opportunity to pass anything that is simple and gives the NRA a defeat from which true bargaining can begin.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Well, Monkeylizard, the Second Amendment has been quoted sufficiently on this thread to demonstrate that it had bugger all to do with facilitating armed rebellion and everything to do with maintaining a 'well-regulated militia' at a time when the USA had either no standing army or a very small one and was under threat from incursions from Canada where the British were only too ready to stir up the Native American tribes to make things difficult for the new Republic.
I would be very, very surprised if any of the signories thought to themselves, 'Here we are, we are giving our citizens the right to rise up against us in rebellion if they so choose ...'
They were no more expecting an armed rebellion from within their own borders than they were expecting space-ships to land from the moon.
I would agree that there is more to it than the availability of guns - I don't doubt that people had access to all kinds of shootin'-iron back in the 1950s and so on - and would leave them in the back of pick-ups and go squirrel shooting after school and so on ...
Things have changed and got a lot darker. I would agree, to an extent, with the NRA contention that Hollywood and violent computer games have played their part too - no doubt about that.
There are rights and responsibilities. If your country - for whatever reason - wants to sanction widespread gun ownership then fine, as long as it also builds in the checks and balances that are needed to ensure that incidents like the one we're discussing - and smaller scale ones like the shopping mall shooting earlier - are less likely to take place. You can't legislate against them entirely - but you can improve the current situation.
There doesn't seem to be much acknowledgement in some quarters that something is actually 'wrong'.
The Second Amendment meant perfect sense in its day. It needs modifying now.
Over here you'll hear urban myths along the lines that it is still ok on the statute books if a citizen of Chester or Carlisle were to shoot with a longbow a Welshman or a Scotsman (delete as appropriate) lurking within the city walls after twilight. Whether such laws actually existed or were ever enforced is a moot point ... but if anyone ever did such a thing then they'd be taken to task - quite rightly - irrespective of whether it was enshrined in some ancient by-law or other.
The Second Amendment made sense in 1789. It doesn't make a great deal of sense when applied to the kind of weaponry available today.
It's a red herring going on about which types of guns shoot faster than others and so on - and the finer points of detail between military hardware and hunting hardware - the issue is where you are going to draw the line on the amount of ammo people have, the rapidity of fire the weaponry is capable of and whether there is any political WILL to even tackle a problem that mars the reputation of your country in the eyes of the world.
If you don't give a fart about that then that's up to you. It would if I were in your shoes.
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gamaliel
Shipmate
# 812
|
Posted
Moron has lived up to his name and only made a selective quote from that source.
Cockburn also says this:
'An armed response to government oppression is not effective other than as an attention getter. '
--------------------
Let us with a gladsome mind
Praise the Lord for He is kind.
http://philthebard.blogspot.com
Posts: 15997 | From: Cheshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
monkeylizard
Ship's scurvy
# 952
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
So we are banning "assault guns" but actually talking about the definition of "assault guns" is obfuscating.
That's mostly because the term is meaningless on a practical level. It often just means "Any evil black rifle with stuff on it that I as an uninformed person have no idea what it does but I think I saw a soldier's gun on the news in Afghanistan that looked something like that so what does a civilian need with anything like that?". Nevermind that old surplus rifles are readily avalaible which don't come anywhere close to meeting any definition of "assault rifle" and those could just have easily been used in Colorado, Oregon, Arizona, and Connecticut.
In other words, banning "assault rifles" is a knee-jerk emotional feel-good response that does very little to address a very serious problem.
--------------------
The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools. ~ Herbert Spencer (1820 - 1903)
Posts: 2201 | From: Music City, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Moron has lived up to his name and only made a selective quote from that source.
Cockburn also says this:
'An armed response to government oppression is not effective other than as an attention getter. '
please note the lower case m
tia
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
