gun control

[DrDonkeyLove]

You cited Lamb as the authority. Do you stand by his statement that .223/5.56 is the best round for self defense?

I believe his article lays out a clear argument for the weapon system he describes (AR-15 chambered in 5.56x45 mm, 30 round magazine) being the best weapon for assaulting a high school or public venue and maximizing the body count.

This is a question not an argumentative point. Ignore if you wish.

What's the best answer to the problem you see from this type of weapon?
Stop selling them?
Confiscate them?
Require special permits?
Maximize magazines to 10 rounds?
Mandate changes to the platform that slows down the speed of magazine changes by a second or two?

I ask because I don't see much nuance in the anti crowd beyond banning (or confiscating) this "weapon of war". That's because I think step-by-step banning of most everything is the real agenda of most of the anti's.

[Turdacious]

You cited Lamb as the authority. Do you stand by his statement that .223/5.56 is the best round for self defense?

I believe his article lays out a clear argument for the weapon system he describes (AR-15 chambered in 5.56x45 mm, 30 round magazine) being the best weapon for assaulting a high school or public venue and maximizing the body count.

This is a question not an argumentative point. Ignore if you wish.

What's the best answer to the problem you see from this type of weapon?
Stop selling them?
Confiscate them?
Require special permits?
Maximize magazines to 10 rounds?
Mandate changes to the platform that slows down the speed of magazine changes by a second or two?

I ask because I don't see much nuance in the anti crowd beyond banning (or confiscating) this "weapon of war". That's because I think step-by-step banning of most everything is the real agenda of most of the anti's.

Plus confiscation-- which they'll most likely want to finance via an unfunded mandate for local PDs.

[Grandpa's Spells]

I ask because I don't see much nuance in the anti crowd beyond banning (or confiscating) this "weapon of war". That's because I think step-by-step banning of most everything is the real agenda of most of the anti's.

This thinking is really only possible if you only consume right wing news. Most of the legislation promoted by the March for our lives crowd is overwhelmingly popular in the general electorate, and never mentions confiscation.

“Slippery slope” arguments are made when the argument at hand is a losing one. “This may be reasonable but will lead to future unreasonable legislation.” That’s silly.

[johno]

What are the legislative proposals of the "March for Our Lives" crowd?

They say they oppose more school shootings, and attack Marco Rubio, and the NRA. But I haven't heard concrete solutions. In that way they remind me of Black Lives Matter.

It's difficult to not suspect the worst when the emoting is so heavy. And so media-hyped.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_Again_MSD

Is "Never Again" a proposal?

[johno]

What are the legislative proposals of the "March for Our Lives" crowd?

They say they oppose more school shootings, and attack Marco Rubio, and the NRA. But I haven't heard concrete solutions. In that way they remind me of Black Lives Matter.

It's difficult to not suspect the worst when the emoting is so heavy. And so media-hyped.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_Again_MSD

Is "Never Again" a proposal?

To my ears, "Never Again" and "Common Sense Gun Laws" just sound like "restrictions now, and more restrictions after the next shooting."

[Grandpa's Spells]

Sure, I will google for you.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/won ... f0310169c2

[johno]

Thanks. Because Wiki gave me nothing useful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Never_Again_MSD

Good luck with the "searchable data base" and ban on magazines and "assault weapons."

[nafod]

You cited Lamb as the authority. Do you stand by his statement that .223/5.56 is the best round for self defense?

I believe his article lays out a clear argument for the weapon system he describes (AR-15 chambered in 5.56x45 mm, 30 round magazine) being the best weapon for assaulting a high school or public venue and maximizing the body count.

This is a question not an argumentative point. Ignore if you wish.

What's the best answer to the problem you see from this type of weapon?

The starting point is information and research, otherwise you're just a bunch of guys on a forum.

Spend the money to gather the data, do the analysis, get the hard truths, and have the hard discussions. Change the law now so that rather than implicitly barring the research and throwing up friction in gathering the data, you are explicitly directing it to be carried out, and fund it so its not a bullshit unfunded mandate. Find out the connection between weapon type, mental illness, violent act, economic status, etc. Find out how the guns get from the loading dock to the criminal. Etc. Unfortunately we have plenty of data if we look for it.

We (in theory) elect reps because they have ideas and solutions. The repubs hold the house, senate, and white house. It is put up or shut up time. Waving arms around and complaining about the other guys not having enough nuance and you don't like their ideas is not a solution.

“This American carnage stops right here and stops right now,” said somebody last 20 January 2017.

[Fat Cat]

I still can't understand Nafod's obsession with "mass shooters" when they are fundamentally a footnote to the broad pattern of gun violence in America.

I'll give you the short answer. These mass shootings are terrorist attacks. Their purpose is terror, and the fact that they aren't wearing turbans and yelling dirka-dirka changes nothing. So I treat them the same.

The long answer is I worked for three years and deployed from my family overseas for a full year (what's the longest you've ever been away from yours?) on a counter-terror mission, where in my mind we were killing them over there to avoid a Beslan Massacre over here. They'd have loved to broke into a school and kill scores of childen, like they did in Beslan.

I got home, and Sandy Hook occurred. Kindergartners gunned down while cowering under tables. And then more. And then more terror attacks. And guess who the enemy is? Us. We are shooting ourselves. Not them. Six per year die from foreign terrorists. Not even worth an article in the paper.

Up to that point I was your standard low information gun rights supporter, digesting what was fed to me. But intellectual honesty demanded I needed to drop all of that shit and get the source facts, and let them take me where they take me, even if it pisses people off. I guess I could have been a coward like Herv100 and go along to get along, regurgitating the circle-jerks from AR15.com, but that path is for chicken-shits who lack the courage of their convictions.

Thank you for your answer. I appreciate your sincerity.

Re: everything else. I can't agree with your redefinition of the term "terrorism". I subscribe to the classic definition, which is something along the lines of the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. I suppose I have a negative reaction to this type of redefinition, it comes across like manipulation of language in a creepy, Newspeak type of way.

These "mass shooters" are not political operatives. They don't have a cause. They are common murderers. While I totally agree that the threat of terrorism is inflated for use by partisan politicians and press, my view is that the black kid shot in the ghetto is as important as the white kid shot in a high school. If you agree, then I can't understand why you don't want to address the 5,773 black victims of firearm violence and focus on the few dozens of "mass shooting" casualties. That one small part of the population represents more than half of all gun-related deaths and it was largely (3/4ths) done with handguns by people they were familiar with. No terrorists, no psychopaths, just poor ignorant people.

If the goal is to save lives, and in particular the lives of children, then discussions of terrorism, mass shootings, so-called assault weapons, etc. are way down the line.

[nafod]

I still can't understand Nafod's obsession with "mass shooters" when they are fundamentally a footnote to the broad pattern of gun violence in America.

I'll give you the short answer. These mass shootings are terrorist attacks. Their purpose is terror, and the fact that they aren't wearing turbans and yelling dirka-dirka changes nothing. So I treat them the same.

The long answer is I worked for three years and deployed from my family overseas for a full year (what's the longest you've ever been away from yours?) on a counter-terror mission, where in my mind we were killing them over there to avoid a Beslan Massacre over here. They'd have loved to broke into a school and kill scores of childen, like they did in Beslan.

I got home, and Sandy Hook occurred. Kindergartners gunned down while cowering under tables. And then more. And then more terror attacks. And guess who the enemy is? Us. We are shooting ourselves. Not them. Six per year die from foreign terrorists. Not even worth an article in the paper.

Up to that point I was your standard low information gun rights supporter, digesting what was fed to me. But intellectual honesty demanded I needed to drop all of that shit and get the source facts, and let them take me where they take me, even if it pisses people off. I guess I could have been a coward like Herv100 and go along to get along, regurgitating the circle-jerks from AR15.com, but that path is for chicken-shits who lack the courage of their convictions.

Thank you for your answer. I appreciate your sincerity.

Re: everything else. I can't agree with your redefinition of the term "terrorism". I subscribe to the classic definition, which is something along the lines of the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims. I suppose I have a negative reaction to this type of redefinition, it comes across like manipulation of language in a creepy, Newspeak type of way.

These "mass shooters" are not political operatives. They don't have a cause. They are common murderers. While I totally agree that the threat of terrorism is inflated for use by partisan politicians and press, my view is that the black kid shot in the ghetto is as important as the white kid shot in a high school. If you agree, then I can't understand why you don't want to address the 5,773 black victims of firearm violence and focus on the few dozens of "mass shooting" casualties. That one small part of the population represents more than half of all gun-related deaths and it was largely (3/4ths) done with handguns by people they were familiar with. No terrorists, no psychopaths, just poor ignorant people.

Thanks for the reply.

I agree that it is sad that it takes a bunch of white kids getting killed in a mass shooting cause the gun violence issue to bubble up, only to submerge a short while later, but there it is. Deaths in small numbers just don't seem to matter as much, and race has a role. The 212,000 students subjected to school gun violence that I cited in another post included those folks, though.

[Fat Cat]

My point is that the type of gun control being talked about wouldn't have any effect on the vast majority of firearm deaths, or the related people who are secondary victims. What's being talked about is a false narrative. If the few hundreds of victims of school shootings resulted in 200,000+ secondary victims, the 5,000+ victims in the black American community must logically have resulted in far, far more secondary victims.

[johno]

...
Let’s begin with a statistic: The number of guns in America rose nearly 50% between 1993 and 2013. During the same period, gun homicides fell by nearly 50%. The notion that more guns mean more crime is simplistic and false.

Yet we still see frightening outbursts of armed violence—whether sudden, as in 17 dead within minutes at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, or in slow motion, as in 20 dead during January in Chicago—an improvement from last year.

A University of Chicago study found that only 3% of Windy City gun crimes were committed with legally purchased guns. A federal study in 2004 put the percentage of gun crimes committed with legal guns at 11%. By and large the problem isn’t guns—it’s that people who shouldn’t have them are getting them and using them.

...
First, to reduce street violence, dramatically increase penalties for stealing a firearm. According to FBI statistics, in the four years from 2012-15, 1.2 million guns were stolen from people, and another 22,000 were stolen from gun stores. Criminals respond to incentives like everybody else. A mandatory four-year prison term for illegally possessing a firearm, and a six-year term per gun for selling stolen firearms, would, if seriously enforced, escalate the risk of the crime past the point of anticipated benefits. Sentences should be so severe that a burglar would avoid taking the victim’s guns rather than face the consequences of being caught with them. Similarly harsh sentences should apply to felons carrying firearms. We don’t need a war on guns, but we do need a war on illegal guns. This will save more lives than any other single policy change.

Second, enforce the law against straw purchases of handguns. A straw purchase happens when someone who is legally allowed to buy a gun walks into a store, completes the required paperwork, takes possession of the firearm—and then gives it or sells it to someone who isn’t allowed to own one. Federal law makes it a crime punishable by up to 10 years in prison and a $250,000 fine.

But those laws are rarely enforced. In the eyes of the federal government (and straw purchasers) it’s a low priority. If that changed, illegal guns from straw purchases would start to dry up. This requires no change in laws, only priorities. The president and attorney general could make it happen immediately.

Third, find practical, legal ways of preventing seriously mentally ill people from acquiring firearms.
...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/real-solut ... ge=1&pos=2

[DrDonkeyLove]

I ask because I don't see much nuance in the anti crowd beyond banning (or confiscating) this "weapon of war". That's because I think step-by-step banning of most everything is the real agenda of most of the anti's.

This thinking is really only possible if you only consume right wing news. Most of the legislation promoted by the March for our lives crowd is overwhelmingly popular in the general electorate, and never mentions confiscation.

“Slippery slope” arguments are made when the argument at hand is a losing one. “This may be reasonable but will lead to future unreasonable legislation.” That’s silly.

I looked at the Parkland students 5 points agenda from the WaPo link you provided to Johnno

The students call for an assault weapons ban, as well as either a national registry or buyback program to deal with the large number of such guns already in circulation.

I saw things worth considering in their list. I also clearly saw ban and confiscation (buy back, if mandatory) clearly stated. This isn't Alex Jones stuff, it's a Grandpa's Spells approved source.

Here's a quote from the governor of NY

...Confiscation could be an option. Mandatory sale to the state could be an option...

Hillary Clinton expresses her interest in Australian style confiscation and more in the Huffington Post.
The ultimate objective of the left is clear in their own words and it's not silly for a civil libertarian to be concerned (see my sig below).

If any liberty guaranteed by the BoR needs to be restricted, it should be in the most minimal way possible. And, it's good for society that serious hell gets raised when restrictions are even being considered. That may be radical, but it's not right or left wing radical.

[JimZipCode]

If any liberty guaranteed by the BoR needs to be restricted, it should be in the most minimal way possible.

Question. And this is kinda off-topic, nothing to do with solutions or the Left's evil plan to disarm the Right or whatever this thread has been talking about.

The Second Amendment says that the right "shall not be infringed". Isn't licensing a form of "infringement"? If a license is required; and if a license may be denied; that's a form of infringement, is it not? Or do I misunderstand?

[DrDonkeyLove]

If any liberty guaranteed by the BoR needs to be restricted, it should be in the most minimal way possible.

Question. And this is kinda off-topic, nothing to do with solutions or the Left's evil plan to disarm the Right or whatever this thread has been talking about.

The Second Amendment says that the right "shall not be infringed". Isn't licensing a form of "infringement"? If a license is required; and if a license may be denied; that's a form of infringement, is it not? Or do I misunderstand?

Lots of people smarter than me can give you conflicting answers to your question. All BoR rights are limited to some degree including the 2nd. I'm simply a less is generally better than more person when it comes to the gov't controlling people - especially their most fundamental rights which includes self defense.

I'd be surprisingly open to a variety of limitations if I thought they were truly common sense: not knee jerk, not part of a slippery slope (that 'Spells doesn't believe in), and were part of an honest comprehensive approach to school shooter safety.

Newtown rocked me like few things ever have, and this latest shooting in TX with a shotgun and revolver has changed the script again. I regularly drop kids off at school and am uneasy every time.

[Gene]

I still can't understand Nafod's obsession with "mass shooters" when they are fundamentally a footnote to the broad pattern of gun violence in America.

I'll give you the short answer. These mass shootings are terrorist attacks. Their purpose is terror, and the fact that they aren't wearing turbans and yelling dirka-dirka changes nothing. So I treat them the same.

International terrorism: Perpetrated by individuals and/or groups inspired by or associated with designated foreign terrorist organizations or nations (state-sponsored).
--for example, the December 2, 2015 shooting in San Bernardino, CA, that killed 14 people and wounded 22 which involved a married couple who radicalized for some time prior to the attack and were inspired by multiple extremist ideologies and foreign terrorist organizations.

Domestic terrorism: Perpetrated by individuals and/or groups inspired by or associated with primarily U.S.-based movements that espouse extremist ideologies of a political, religious, social, racial, or environmental nature.
--for example, the June 8, 2014 Las Vegas shooting, during which two police officers inside a restaurant were killed in an ambush-style attack, which was committed by a married couple who held anti-government views and who intended to use the shooting to start a revolution.

https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/terrorism

The Newtown shooter, the Los Vegas shooter, the Parkland shooter - none of them said a thing about a political message. By the above definition from the US FBI these were not terrorist acts. Nafod can posture all he likes, the FBI is probably a better authority on what constitute "terrorism" than he.

The mass shooter who did mention politics, Omar Mateen, wasn't credited with getting payback for Abu Wahid, who was killed in a drone strike by the US. The Obama administration blamed "hate" and "intolerance", which the media blamed on Omar's "homophobia". (see http://www.cityoforlando.net/cityclerk/ ... c-records/ Under Transcripts of calls with the suspect). Mateen called himself an "islamic soldier".

[Gene]

I ask because I don't see much nuance in the anti crowd beyond banning (or confiscating) this "weapon of war". That's because I think step-by-step banning of most everything is the real agenda of most of the anti's.

This thinking is really only possible if you only consume right wing news. Most of the legislation promoted by the March for our lives crowd is overwhelmingly popular in the general electorate, and never mentions confiscation.

“Slippery slope” arguments are made when the argument at hand is a losing one. “This may be reasonable but will lead to future unreasonable legislation.” That’s silly.

Gradual Incrementalism has been part of the gun control lobby's approach since the 1970s....

We’ll take one step at a time, and the first is necessarily – given the political realities – very modest. We’ll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law and again and again. Our ultimate goal, total control of handguns, is going to take time. The first problem is to slow down production and sales. Next is to get registration. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and ammunition (with a few exceptions) totally illegal.”

Pete Shields, founder of Handgun control Inc. New Yorker Magazine, June 26 1976


Diane Feinstein on a general confiscation of "assault weapons" in 1994.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzDO86iSKWU


Hillary Clinton on Australian gun control.... "automatic weapons". Which was a lie. Note the firearms, most of which were sporting purpose.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkncBHJdzxQ

The Australian "solution" required a firearm registration.

This thinking is really only possible if you only consume right wing news. Most of the legislation promoted by the March for our lives crowd is overwhelmingly popular in the general electorate, and never mentions confiscation.

If "sensible gun control" were popular with voters the Congress have passed it years ago. Certainly during the Democratic Party monopoly between 2009 and 2011. The Democrats remembered what happened in 1994. They lost the Congress.

The NRA gets way too much credit for this sort of thing. It's not the "right wing press" either. We're talking a pretty well entrenched ideology, especially in rural areas. Troy is probably one, maybe two generations removed from Hillbillies who moved to Chicago, hence his love for banjos. He's forgotten his roots apparently or maybe he's ashamed of them.

[Gene]

Pretty sad when someone doesn't know who is pulling their strings...... I'm amazed that you did not know about the Oligarchs...

Billionaire Michael Bloomberg is refocusing his efforts at curbing guns in America

Microsoft cofounder Bill Gates and his wife Melinda donated $1 million to the Washington Alliance for Gun Responsibility

Warren Buffett
The Berkshire Hathaway Chairman and CEO sits on the advisory board of Bloomberg’s organization Everytown for Gun Safety.

In 2014, Microsoft cofounder Paul Allen donated $500,000 to a campaign advocating expanded background checks in Washington state.

Former Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer, who is valued at $23.2 billion, was a major proponent of Initiative 594 in Washington state, the same provision on background checks that Bill Gates and Paul Allen supported.

George Soros also donated $50,000 to the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence in the wake of the Newtown shooting.

Oh! Holy shit! Everything makes so much sense now!

Thanks for opening my eyes.

Must hurt your feelings to know that you're being the Oligarchy's unpaid helper. Pursuit of the truth will set you free, Jim.

[JimZipCode]

Must hurt your feelings to know that you're being the Oligarchy's unpaid helper.

Yes indeed. I'm ashamed to have bought into a liberal ideology promulgated solely by rich oiligarchs.

Clearly what I should have been doing is giving myself over to a conservative ideology that's championed by blue-collar salt-of-the-earth types like Sheldon Adelson, William J. Dore, Foster Friess, Charles & David Koch, Robert Mercer, Geoff Palmer, Bob Perry, Julian Robertson, Harold Simmons, Paul Singer, Warren Stephens, Peter Thiel, Richard Uihlein, Frank VanderSloot, and Steve Wynn.

Not by rich people. Ugh.

[Gene]

Must hurt your feelings to know that you're being the Oligarchy's unpaid helper.

Yes indeed. I'm ashamed to have bought into a liberal ideology promulgated solely by rich oiligarchs.

Clearly what I should have been doing is giving myself over to a conservative ideology that's championed by blue-collar salt-of-the-earth types like Sheldon Adelson, William J. Dore, Foster Friess, Charles & David Koch, Robert Mercer, Geoff Palmerl, Bob Perry, Julian Robertson, Harold Simmons, Paul Singer, Warren Stephens, Peter Thiel, Richard Uihlein, Frank VanderSloot, and Steve Wynn.

Not by rich people. Ugh.

Nobody listens to blue collar people, Jim. Nice try.

Carlos Slim, George Soros, Mike Bloomberg, Bill Gates, Paul Allen, Warren Buffett, General Electric, Disney, Viacom, Time Warner and CBS are all altruists and modern day saints who just want to make everyone's life happier. That they all promote Progressive views and support "gun control" just means that as society's leaders they know the One True Ideology. Right?

You're a good boy, Jim. Maybe someday George will pat you on the head for you hard work.

[JimZipCode]

Maybe someday George will pat you on the head for you hard work here.

I'd be happier if he tutored me in trading tactics & strategies.

[Gene]

Maybe someday George will pat you on the head for you hard work here.

I'd be happier if he tutored me in trading tactics & strategies.

Here you go....

"I am basically there to make money. I cannot and do not look at the social consequences of what I do."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Alyi7PjZljI

[nafod]

The Newtown shooter, the Los Vegas shooter, the Parkland shooter - none of them said a thing about a political message. By the above definition from the US FBI these were not terrorist acts. Nafod can posture all he likes, the FBI is probably a better authority on what constitute "terrorism" than he.

I like the first line from the Wikipedia page...”Terrorism is, in the broadest sense, the use of intentionally indiscriminate violence as a means to create terror among masses of people.”

In that sense, what the Vegas shooter, the Newtown shooter, and the Parkland shooter did was pure terrorism. Generating terror with essentially zero rational argument for doing so, and therefore no ability to coerce a different behavior. Just...inducing terror.

Again, to the victims it mattered zero whether the shooter was a raghead on a mission for Allah, or a teen living the nihilist dream. Indistinguishable.

[Gene]

Again, to the victims it mattered zero whether the shooter was a raghead on a mission for Allah, or a teen living the nihilist dream. Indistinguishable.

Don't change the subject, please. You claimed that the school shooters were "terrorists". The US FBI doesn't agree with you, Nafod. Going to Wikipedia over the top US law enforcement agency isn't even a good try.

Well, then again, Omar Mateen was a terrorist. President Obama chose not to admit as much. Easier to blame the NRA.

Always easier to blame the NRA.

[nafod]

Again, to the victims it mattered zero whether the shooter was a raghead on a mission for Allah, or a teen living the nihilist dream. Indistinguishable.

The US FBI doesn't agree with you, Nafod.

I’m ok with that. Their immediate purpose was to cause terror. You think of a better name.