[Obdigore]

nacht, on 17 December 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

So is this a good summary of the available options.

1. Ban Guns
2. Ban Assault weapons
3. Change Society to become nicer and more caring
4. Detect and treat potential perpetrators early
5. Take some defensive measures
6. Do Nothing

Or we could, you know, try multiple at the same time. Acting as there could be only one cause for the number of firearm deaths in the US is pretty black and white thinking, and something most reasonable people try to avoid when approaching or attempting to resolve a topic that literally permeates what a portion of the US views as a core value of being an American.

[Obdigore]

Tapper, on 17 December 2012 - 11:35 AM, said:

My 2 cents on the discussion: nothing will happen.

Even if Obama (after all, he has been re-elected, so has his hands free) gets something done, the program will take years and years to have a noticable effect, simply because of the NRA slowing things, and the amount of weaponry stashed in private armories. I don't think that weapon related incidents like this one, or the Dark Knight Rises shooting, will lower in frequency for a long, long time.

That will be exploited by politicians who want to play to the gun lobby/ gun owners. "we cannot carry (an assault rifle) anymore, but the incidents haven't gone down. I see no point in continuing this socialist, federal experiment that runs against what the Founding Fathers intended, and if you vote me, on my first day in office, I will undo this Obamanation (harr harr how clever)."

As anti-gun as I am (and I'd love if the police in the Netherlands would not carry at all, unless part of a specially trained unit - too many accidents where the aim of policemen proves to be off, leading to killing/maiming shots, often in panic, where a warning shot or disabling shot would do), I can't see the european/Japanese gun crime casualty ratings ever becoming an US reality.
The system is too advanced and even with all the measures Amph (as an example) suggests, you're not getting there due to the stockpile already in place. That being said, the government buying up guns, and installing a system of permits, tests, checks, enforced training, and a limit of 1 hand-gun per person for defense and 1 long-barrelled for sport (hunting only) would be a sane alternative that allows civilians firepower, recreation and a sane limit.

Most pro-gun proponants already argue that bans don't work, and their main points are Chicago and D.C, which banned or put huge limitations on all weapons, and still have high crime rates and murder rates. They ignore the fact that the murder rates have been going down and the fact that you can literally go across a border, buy a gun at a gun show, and come back with your illegal firearm. That would be different if the entire nation had bans/controls in place, as it is a bit harder to smuggle illegal stuff through customs checkpoints on the border than between states (I drive between states at least once a week, I could walk across the line if I was inclined).

1) Acting as if the founding fathers were some sort of uber-humans that can do no wrong and could foresee any and all problems that may come up is foolish.
2) Basing the supposition that you can have any amount of, and whatever kind of firearms you want, on the above thought is also foolish.
3) Ignoring the socio-economic issues that lead to a majority of crime is also foolish.

[Illuyankas]

nacht, on 17 December 2012 - 11:25 AM, said:

So is this a good summary of the available options.

1. Ban Guns
2. Ban Assault weapons
3. Change Society to become nicer and more caring
4. Detect and treat potential perpetrators early
5. Take some defensive measures
6. Do Nothing

I pick 2, 3, 4, and 5. Wait, it isn't multiple choice? I guess government can only work on one problem at once or something.

[QuickTidal]

I'm confused.

I've lived in and around Toronto for 35+ year now...and no one around me family or friends or neighbors have ever had (in their house or on their person) a gun. None of them has ever felt the need to own a gun of any kind. I don't feel unsafe, nor have I ever felt unsafe enough to WANT a gun (I grew up in some shitty places with some really shitty folk where the criminal element was strong)...it's just not something I know of anyone thinking about getting. So for me the argument presented that people in the States "need them to defend themselves or their property" seems like the height of lunacy. You need an instrument of death-giving (its ONLY purpose, unlike a knife which has another purpose in cutting tasty tasty steaks), to defend yourself and your stuff?

It just baffles me that the USA can't look around the planet and notice that everywhere else (which have some form of gun control) the gun death rate is MUCH lower...

...and then we have the silly argument about knives or other instruments being able to cause death as well...sure they do/can....but if you can find me a person (of ANY mental stability or lackthereof) who can kill 27 people in a matter of minutes with his magical, super-powered, repeating KNIFE...I'll eat my hat and make it look tasty. That's the point a lot of people are making here. There are VERY few other items that can be used so efficiently to kill in such large numbers, in close quarters, and so quickly and repeatedly.

I don't think anything quite baffles me more in fact when hearing about this type of thing on the news.

This post has been edited by QuickTidal: 17 December 2012 - 03:56 PM

[rhulad]

Shinrei, on 16 December 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

An interesting blog re: the mental health issue

http://thebluereview...-lanzas-mother/


Sorry, the website has been overloaded, so I'll try and post the text tomorrow or you can try it via the link yourself.

Here's the Mother Jones article referenced in the above article: Link

It makes a very good point about how even though it is becoming increasingly easier to own a gun in the United States, there has not been one instance where a civilian has stopped a mass shooting by shooting the shooter. I can personally see the need for some people to own a hunting rifle (I grew up on a farm, and have personally used a rifle to defend livestock from predators which is why I can understand the need for farmers to own one), but I don't get why anyone other than someone who works law enforcement would need to own a hand gun or assault rifle.

[Gnaw]

HoosierDaddy, on 16 December 2012 - 06:03 AM, said:

Gust Hubb, on 16 December 2012 - 05:46 AM, said:

worrywort, on 16 December 2012 - 03:22 AM, said:

Oops, I am trying out mobile and messed something up, will clean that up later. Re: GH, you say "the problem" like mental illness is the only one. Guns are problematic, in and of themselves. Gun culture is a problem, in and of itself. I'm glad Shin used bombs in that comparison instead of some generic tool vs User claptrap...it at least didn't hide the fact that the purpose of these guns, like those bombs, is to kill people.

I didn't say mental illness was the only problem. It's a major problem, but there are a lot of factors that contribute to the formation of a such a malignant person. It's not a fix one thing and solve the problem kind of issue. Just like the elimination of guns in the USA public won't solve the problems caused by these individuals.


Gun culture does have problems. I'm just saying in the context of school shootings, the problem lies more within the person's psychology than their access to weaponry.

A crazy person will bring havoc and destruction. A crazy person with weapons designed solely to kill multiple things in instants CAN cause far more havoc and destruction in a shorter time frame.

You want better mental health care? I'd agree. A single payer system for mental and physical health care would do so. You want less gun crime? Criminalizing ownership of certain guns will do so. Tie the two together and you'll lessen these events. You won't eliminate them though, because there are so many guns in this country that these events will occur until we realize the 2nd Amendment is as applicable today as the 3/5ths person rule.

I highlighted that last part because it is the most important. For those who want to 'get rid of the guns' you have to get a constitutional amendment. Period. Full stop.


I'm going to list my biases first: I am libertarian in many ways, but recognize that a "pure libertarian" society is every bit as dystopian and impossible as a communist one. Humans are not rational animals. We do not always do what is in our best interest. We are greedy, self serving, egotistical, and social in a negative sense: most of us want to be a part of a society, but none wants to be inferior to others, and there are quite a few who want to feel and be superior to others. (Fascism scares me because fascism would actually work - it is built to feed on all the negatives in human nature.)

I am heavily influenced by the writings of political theorist Hannah Arendt. I recommend to anyone her "On the Human Condition", "On Violence", "Eichmann in Jerusalem" (the source of the phrase 'the banality of evil'), and "Crises of the Republic" a collection of some of her essays which includes iirc "On Violence".

I have read and have some understanding (meaning I've not re-read them multiple times) Adam Smith, Hume, Rousseau, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, Machiavelli, and Thomas Hobbes among others. My interests at the time of reading those was 1) the human condition and human nature, 2) the 'social contract' and how "civil" societies are and should be formed, 3) how horrible shit happens, i.e. genocides.

I view the Founders of the US as what they are: intelligent, learned people (mostly men, but a few women managed to get some minor influence through their husbands), who were doing their best to create a state that maximized individual freedom while still being functional. One based upon laws that all would have to live by. They were all human, with human flaws and foibles, and almost all had a rather narrow view of who actually qualified as 'human'. The Constitution is not inspired by god, it is not perfect by any means, it was constructed in secrecy because the men writing it knew that letting too many people into the process would make their task impossible (and, in no small part, because they didn't want their own friends and family to know which parts they had fought for and against.)

I am not a Constitutional Originalist in the sense that it is used today, Mostly because those who use that term seem to want to go back and re-do that whole "definition of human" bit. I also do not believe that the Constitution is a "fluid, living document' because most who like that phrase seem to want to be able to do anything 'constitutionally' that they want to do without all those pesky rules.

I have been a member of the NRA, but quit when they started getting a bit crazy(ier). I have been a member of the ACLU and only quit because the bastards rented out their membership list to every 3rd organization with a fund raising objective.

Now, back to my point about guns, individuals, and the 2nd amendment. For the "militia == national guard" folks. Yep. You are right. But you all tend to miss the comma.

Quote

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

These men were deeply afraid of the state and when they wrote the Constitution, "the state" and "my nation" were defined as New Hampshire, Virginia, etc. They had as an example the Shay's Rebellion in Massachusetts where the militia was shooting at the citizens. This was happening during the time they were in Independence Hall. The Governor of Massachusetts was at that very time using the state "militia" to shoot "the people". Those who like to say that the "well regulated militia" and "the people" are the same tend to ignore Shay. As Thomas Hobbes wrote "what do you do when the sheriffe IS the highwayman."

Does that mean that I think 'guns for all' would solve problems? Fuck no. As several have pointed out, technology has moved on. For those who want to base the argument upon the "right of the individual to keep and bear arms" they need to extend that to all arms. By that argument, I should be allowed to legally purchase an F-16 complete with combat load. I should be able to drive an Abram's to the grocery store. I should be able to build and utilize a safe range for practicing with my RPGs. And I should be allowed to own surface to air missiles. You know, just in case. Reductio ad absurdum ad infinitum ad nauseum.

The problem I have with the ACLU (other than renting of membership list) is that, as an organization, they really like to pretend that the 2nd Amendment doesn't exist. In the same way that many religious political groups like to pretend that the freedom of speech and press parts don't exist (unless applied to them, then they're all for it.) Suggested reading "Free Speech for Me, But Not for Thee".

The problem I have with the NRA as a defender of a civil right is that they stopped being that years ago. Their sole purpose now appears to me as being the political action arm of weapon's manufacturers. My evidence for this is the astonishingly successful campaign for "concealed carry permit" laws. I have in the past carried a pistol concealed. I can foresee doing so again. (Late night travel on interstate roads is not always safe.) But I would never obtain a concealed carry permit. (For those of you in the "the gubmint can't be trusted" camp, let me point out that "concealed carry permit" is essentially identical with "national gun owner registration".)


All of the proceeding is bring us around to my thesis statement: If you want to get rid of guns entirely, you need to get a constitutional amendment. Because, every chisel mark, every legislative end run around the amendment, every single method used to attack that right WILL BE USED to weaken the others.

I dislike that churches are tax exempt. But I understand that that comes as part of the price for not having government control of religion. Because when government can control religion, religion becomes a tool of the state. See Russia: Pussy Riot. And for those of you who think religious control of government was a popular idea at the time really need to look at what the Founder's considered recent history: the English Civil War. The men in Philadelphia's Independence Hall were only too aware of what can happen State and Religion clash.


Ok, so I've listed what can't be done and why I think so. Now let me address what can be done within the confines of the 2nd amendment.

There is no interpretation (other than the 'I get to own tanks, jets, and nuclear missiles" idiocy) that bars:

• Limits on clip sizes. Somebody please explain to my what legal purpose they have for 15+ round clips. Other than "cause I can". And there is no rational explanation for 100 round clips.
• Background checks for all sales by licensed dealers and those purchased at gun shows. The gun show organizer should be responsible for having on-site a police officer with access to, at the very least, state criminal database.

• Does that do anything to stop somebody from buying the gun outside the show? Nope. Not a thing. But if the "vast majority of people buying guns at gun shows are law abiding" then what exactly is the problem with walking over to that cop and getting a check done? Make it part of the entrance process: get your name ran, get a single day date stamped photo pass and shop your heart out. All sellers to go through the same process before setting up. Personally I would never buy a gun without a bill of sale from the seller with verified information as to who the person was. I.e. photo ID. I don't want to have to find out later that I have in my possession a firearm that was used to kill somebody in a robbery without having a very solid piece of evidence that I didn't own it at the time. Or simply a stolen firearm. If the seller won't give one, there's something fishy about it to begin with.
• Private seller to private buyer? Don't see a way to slow those down.

• Assault weapons. Yes, the ban on assault weapons was in reality a "ban on guns that look scary". But that's because the NRA got to fiddle with the language. I'm fairly certain that such a law could be written with definitions that would meet the needs. First place to look for those definitions is military order specs.
• Silencers. Really? They are legal in over half the states. They save hearing! So do earplugs. Hunter safety! yeah. right.
• Mandatory waiting period. I like it. But it is probably unconstitutional.
• Limits on quantities of same day ammo purchase. Again, I like it, but it may not be constitutional.
• Banning civilian use of certain ammunitions. Possible, but. I'd be much more willing to argue this one than the preceding two.

I'm sure there are many other things that could be done to limit access without bumping against that pesky 2nd amendment. But that would require that the two extremes are willing to actually do constructive actions. Pro gun side needs to accept that they have went too far with the guns for everybody thing and the Gun Control side needs to admit that the 2nd amendment actually does exist and means what the other side say it means.

It would also mean that all sides have to agree that protecting the Bill of Rights is the top priority. And that's not going to happen.

How many of you think any single part of the Bill of Rights could be passed today as an amendment? The third maybe. But I would wager high dollar amounts that there would be people coming up with arguments why it is ok to quarter troops in private property.

[blackzoid]

Guns in America, as an outsider looking in, it seems like a cultural thing to me.
Many Americans seem to accept the mass-shootings as an acceptable price for having private gun ownership. Freedom and all that.

This post has been edited by blackzoid: 17 December 2012 - 06:54 PM

[Gnaw]

blackzoid, on 17 December 2012 - 06:53 PM, said:

Guns in America, as an outsider looking in, it seems like a cultural thing to me.
Many Americans seem to accept the mass-shootings as an acceptable price for having private gun ownership. Freedom and all that.

That point has been raised by a lot of folks over the years. Some even from the pro gun side. Gun violence is statistically prominent even when weighted by gun/population comparisons with other countries.

I am personally hesitant to use anything from this particular case because accurate information is still not available. "Journalists" are all doing the "I hate to speculate, but..."

There are 3 reasons to commit murder. Profit, Compulsion, and Impulse/Passion.

Profit: they already think they're going to get away with it. So there really is no deterrence.

Impulse/Passion: here we have a strong case for some form of gun control. Yes, a man coming home and catching his wife in bed with the neighbor who shoots them would commit assault regardless of the presence of a gun. But the availability of the gun means a higher likelihood of fatal violence. And a higher body count. The argument that "well he'd just grab a lamp and beat them to death" is specious false equivalence at its worst. And the workplace shootings would be less likely.

Compulsion: This person is going to commit a crime. But body counts would probably be so much lower with more difficulty getting firearms. And clip restrictions.

[Silencer]

Gnaw, on 17 December 2012 - 07:43 PM, said:

blackzoid, on 17 December 2012 - 06:53 PM, said:

Guns in America, as an outsider looking in, it seems like a cultural thing to me.
Many Americans seem to accept the mass-shootings as an acceptable price for having private gun ownership. Freedom and all that.

That point has been raised by a lot of folks over the years. Some even from the pro gun side. Gun violence is statistically prominent even when weighted by gun/population comparisons with other countries.

Prominent is kind of an understatement. It's practically astronomical, EVEN with per capita measurement. In fact, gun crime is so damn prolific in the US, I do start to wonder why exactly there are many Americans left...


More to the point; can't the US just look at countries with reasonable gun legislation like NZ and Australia and pilfer the shit out of our licensing system? A-Cat, B-Cat, C-Cat, E-Cat licenses for different levels of weapon...anything that is "Military-Style Semi-Automatic" rifles (that is to say; anything with more than a 7-round magazine, anything with a "pistol style grip"...there are a few other criteria that classify a weapon as an E-cat "MSSA" rifle) are freaking hard to obtain because you need to demonstrate why, within reason, you need to own one. And "why" specifically does not include "self-defence" for ANY category of weapon (I guess in the states you could change that for A-cat rifles, an B-cat (which is pistols) if you really felt you had to in order to protect that absurd amendment).

I mean really. How hard is it?

Second of all, fuck the Second Amendment. Get it repealed. I know that you guys have a ludicrously tough process for changing this kind of crap, but seriously, look at other nation's Bill of Rights'. Notice the lack of things analogous to the Second Amendment. Notice that these countries also don't have even a fraction of the mass shootings you guys do, let alone everyday gun violence. Repeal it, go forth and strip people of their weapons unless they can demonstrate a reasonable need for one or two of them (same use does not justify ten different guns). Why? Because your precious Second Amendment is FRAKKING POINTLESS. Not only does it mean guns proliferate at a phenomenal rate (rather like the Cold War arms race), if you actually need guns to defend yourself from the government/state militia...you are fucked. Or you are in a state of civil war stemming from rebellion and have secretly armed yourself ANYWAY. Thus the Second Amendment actually does jack shit - you would be fighting tanks, jets, helicopters, and so forth. The government can park a missile cruiser 100 miles off the coast and rain unholy death upon everyone without ever putting themselves within visual range of the target. What the fuck is the point of those guns now?!??! For self-defence against criminals and whatnot...if guns were not so easy to obtain, you wouldn't need to play the stupid arms race game with these criminals! Besides which, that is exactly what the police are there for! Sure, the police aren't perfect and they can't be everywhere at once...but look at all these other countries without a Second Amendment...what are our crime statistics like compared to yours? What are our PRISONS like compared to yours? Oh, that's right...considerably better.

All we ever get when the Second Amendment comes up are people who are against it, and people who practically scream 'You just don't understand!' - either the Infallibility of the Founding Fathers or the "necessity" of having the SA or the fact that changing one incredibly stupid part of the BoR will invalidate the whole thing somehow - well, guess what...we don't understand. We don't understand how people can sit there and defend a "right" for which there is no reasonable basis nor contemporary equivalent in any of a dozen other developed countries, NONE of which have the problems America has in terms of gun crime, despite repeated massacres, shooting sprees, horrific accidents, and a generally increased constant threat of danger. We don't understand. How could you expect us to understand the "logic" that continues to support that Amendment when America is the only country who seems to think it is necessary in any way, shape, or form? The obsession-level defence of that Amendment is, quite frankly, chilling. You don't need to go beyond the faces of the mothers who have lost kids to the crap this Amendment practically justifies - or you'd think it does, given the frequency of such events. You don't need to justify the historical context of the document. You don't need to go into the fear of oppression or violent response of the government to protests, you don't even need to into the political machinations that keep this Amendment alive. None of those are honestly compelling in the least, compared to families who have had their kids shot, killed, gone forever. Mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, aunts and uncles and cousins. That's all. And the knowledge that out of all the "developed" countries in this world, America is pretty much the only one that constantly puts itself through these horrendous incidents over and over again, and never seems to change anything to make them stop...all because of that stupid fucking Second Amendment.


I'm not normally one to go the route of touchy-feely, "think of the children" arguments. But for crying out loud, isn't enough, ENOUGH, this time? D:

[Shinrei]

I could come out and make a big post in defense of the 2nd Amendment, but I know that what I would have to say would not be well received. I will make a short post instead, and you can beat me up or neg rep me or whatever. What it boils down to will sound really terrible to some, and even sounds terrible to me sometimes, but I stand by it.

I feel that removing the rights of million law abiding Americans on the chance that it will save lives on occassion is not a trade I wish to make. Just like I don't support enhanced security measurements or racial/religious profiling at airports that remove any sort of personal rights just on the infintisimly small chance that a crazy has chosen my plane to bomb. Sure, the odds are higher of gun violence in the US than in many other countries as Silencer said. But odds are still infintisimly low that you will find yourself in the middle of a shooting spree. If its a trade the people of your country are willing to make, thats fine. I just find myself thinking about a comic I saw a few years ago of 2 dogs on the way to the Vet. One was going to be neutered, and was going on about how he'd fight back until the very end to prevent the loss of his balls. Then, afterwards when they are riding home the first asks "So how do you feel now that its over?" "Pretty mellow actually." was the reply. Sure, you may be "pretty mellow" now that you have banned guns, but just hope that in the future you wont find out that you really would have liked to have kept them. The possibility for evil and tyranny are alive and well and the "it could never happen here" argument rings false. Just this past Sunday, we have taken a decided swing to the right in Japan, with parties advocating a standing Japanese army and open xenophobia gaining seats in the parliament. Are we as human beings really that far removed from the 1930s?

Yeah, maybe you think Im crazy or an idiot, or both, but there it is.

In the meantime, here is an interesting article on prevention NOW, since no matter what your opinion is, gun wrangling isnt going to be settled overnight:

The short point, and then the full article.

Quote

Congress can ban anything they want short of an unprecedented gun grab but it will take 10+ years to really have any sort of real impact on the situation as millions of existing hi-capacity magazines already in circulation will have to become too expensive to afford or just wear out before they stop accompanying these shooters on their horrific one way trips. Waiting periods, deeper mandatory background checks, mandated insurance and training, and so on are all ideas to look at, but they would not have stopped the last two incidents in any way, so let’s get something that can, a well paid, well-trained, decorated ex-US Army Ranger or Marine with a personal defense weapon hidden under his sport coat. Sure this is not cheap, but we have spent TRILLIONS “fighting terrorism” in debatable wars overseas and spent billions on building others nation’s armies and security forces yet the worst kind of terrorism is right here at home. Let’s fight it the only way immediately possible and put this dark decade or so of mass school shootings largely behind us. Once we have secured our schools, then lets talk gun control, our culture of violence, our failing public school system and the inability for the deranged and mentally ill among us to get the mental health care they so desperately need…

http://aviationintel...ly-here-is-how/

Quote

This site is about security, technology, and solutions to our problems related to these issues. Last week was a horrible one for the US, I need to address this as right now nobody is actually talking about ways to stop these acts in the short-term, only long-term policy changes that will have questionable results. This piece is not about the Second Amendment or a position paper on what gun regulations should be enhanced, created or eliminated. If you believe that guns should be outlawed in the US I totally respect your opinion the same as if you think there should be very little regulation regarding their ownership. I am not trying to debate these issues, I just want to provide a way to allow our children to feel safe in their classrooms once again and deny these inhuman monsters the opportunity to prey on our youth for whatever insane reason they may justify doing so by. I want to dispel a few myths as well in the process. This was adapted from a response to a chain of emails from concerned citizens in my community and I pitched this idea live on the radio hours after the Connecticut atrocity:

First off if you are not a gun owner, have not been through the buying process or been to a gun show in the last decade you are most likely totally wrong when it comes to modifying our laws in an attempt to keep firearms out of non-rational actors and criminals. This is not a mark against you, I applaud your choice to go about your life unarmed, but it took me years of being associated with firearm culture, and the laws associated, with it to get a grip on understanding exactly how they work. Reading a NYT editorial or two is not an education on this matter and often times these writers are simply wrong or are actively supporting their views with false claims and facts. In my opinion the mainline media is almost 100% wrong on any gun related reporting and this sickens me. You would think that a talking head of Fox or CNN who knows they will be talking about guns for months after any of these terrible events would sit down one evening and actually learn a bit about what they are talking about? No, this obviously has not happened. Catch terms chronically used inappropriately like “high-powered” and “fully automatic weapon” have only distorted the public’s ability to actually make changes that will save lives pertaining to these very serious issues. Men like Piers Morgan, who I enjoy watching from time to time for their interviewing talents, fall apart journalistically when discussing firearm related issues because they simply will not educate themselves on the realities of the technology and the industry. Instead they are blinded by pure hatred for inanimate objects and are thus totally bias in their reporting so that they can push their agenda. This hurts discourse in this country and it’s a shame. Both gun advocates and the opposition to their very existence should be upset by this polarizing and inaccurate reporting.

Some things I would like to clear up:
People think commercially available assault rifles and battle rifles (AR-15, AK-47, M-14 etc) are fully automatic “machine guns” like you see in the movies. They are not, you pull the trigger once one round comes out, the same as a handgun. To own a fully automatic weapon, where it shoots a string of bullets as long as you hold down the trigger until the magazine is empty, you need to have a Class III permit issued very strictly (including physical inventory checks) by the ATF or if your state allows it, pay a $200 fee for a NFA stamp, receive a thorough background check and wait up to 6 months for approval. Keep in mind that these weapons cost thousands of dollars and have to be manufactured before 1986. The Class III permits, where you can buy and sell “new” fully automatic weapons as well as pre-ban guns are for big money collectors, firearms manufacturers, and often places where you can shoot something “cool” like a “Tommy Gun” at a controlled range. NONE of the high-profile school shootings that have broken our collective heart over the last decade have been prosecuted by a criminal using a fully automatic weapon that I know of. What makes AR-15s and AR-47s different from a repeating hunting rifle is the available magazine capacity choices, some ergonomic features, and usually a menacing black color and shape, that is all. They all go bang ONCE when you pull the trigger just like a handgun.

On firearm and magazine bans like the Brady Bill:

Banning assault weapons actually means that they just cost more money, $1300 instead of $900, hi-capacity mags go from $20 to $90, and super-hi-capacity drums and beta-mags go from $100 to $250. Over a long period of time these items will become more scarce and thus much more expensive, but once again this is nowhere near immediate. There is no such thing as a “turn in your guns” precedent in this country when it comes to semi-automatic weapons, and even though Connecticut was a very bad event, this country is nowhere near as anti-gun as it was in the mid 1990s. I am not saying that these policies will not help, they very well could, especially in the area of decreasing the body count during such shooting via limiting magazine sizes, but this will happen over many years, not months.

Now lets talk about what can be done to actually end or dramatically decrease these tragedies immediately:If you really want these “active shooter” events to stop happening, especially in our schools, you need to immediately begin fielding armed security persons in schools that are proficient in close quarters battle tactics, otherwise known as “CQB.” Luckily, many of our job hungry and highly decorated soldiers who are returning home with incredible combat experience are fully proficient in this demanding mission set. Much like Air Marshals on airplanes, these folks would be constantly trained, tested and evaluated to keep their position. We must come to terms that there is no door system or passive security measure that will stop a suicidal shooter. Only having a top of the line operator on site, or perceived to be on site, with much better training and equipment will stop this from happening PERIOD.So, politics of the possible here people, I would model a school security program similar to the one used on our airliners everyday, let teachers arm themselves if they wish and train to do so under a special program just like pilots do on our airplanes, and put undercover roving “School Marshals” at our schools so a potential shooter has no clue if one is inside or not. I find it odd that we do all this on our airplanes, that already have multiple screening services and layers of security, down to back-scatter machines, but we leave our schools totally unsecured.

One point that nobody seems to talk about is that all these mutants have one thing in common: they do not want to fight another gunmen even though they are already on a “one way trip.” Almost 100% of these assailants have popped themselves before SWAT/SERT entered the facility to neutralize them. Why don’t they go attack police stations, gun shows or army posts? Simple, something about their thought process does not want a fair fight, it’s all about exerting their “power” over innocents, that is their incredibly sick kick apparently. So harden the target (schools and even malls if they will pay for it) with actual security personnel just there to protect innocent life alone from the criminally insane, not to discipline kids or watch for petty school infractions, and these shooters will stop showing up. Once again, this is not my opinion, it is a wildly peculiar commonality among these freaks that validates the rationale. One again, just like our airplanes, let teachers, like pilots, pack if they choose and train them well to do so, and immediately launch a School Marshal based on the good components of the Air Marshal program.

Congress can ban anything they want short of an unprecedented gun grab but it will take 10+ years to really have any sort of real impact on the situation as millions of existing hi-capacity magazines already in circulation will have to become too expensive to afford or just wear out before they stop accompanying these shooters on their horrific one way trips. Waiting periods, deeper mandatory background checks, mandated insurance and training, and so on are all ideas to look at, but they would not have stopped the last two incidents in any way, so let’s get something that can, a well paid, well-trained, decorated ex-US Army Ranger or Marine with a personal defense weapon hidden under his sport coat. Sure this is not cheap, but we have spent TRILLIONS “fighting terrorism” in debatable wars overseas and spent billions on building others nation’s armies and security forces yet the worst kind of terrorism is right here at home. Let’s fight it the only way immediately possible and put this dark decade or so of mass school shootings largely behind us. Once we have secured our schools, then lets talk gun control, our culture of violence, our failing public school system and the inability for the deranged and mentally ill among us to get the mental health care they so desperately need…

Thanks for listening, and just like you, my thoughts are with the families who lost loved ones this last week.

I never ask, but if you like what you just read please pass it on to your friends, family and co-workers, we need this solution put in place ASAP.

This post has been edited by Shinrei: 18 December 2012 - 05:15 AM

[Obdigore]

Yes, arm the teachers, because a firefight in a school is clearly what we need.

[worry]

But Shin, would you even care about this Right at all if the 2nd Amendment hadn't brought it up? Most people don't want to own missiles, or tanks, or tear gas canisters, or grenades, or any other such nonsense -- it never even occurred to them -- but they want the right to own any old type of gun? Like if the 2nd was never written, and it naturally developed that people generally owned hunting rifles and such but automatic and semi-automatic weapons had only been in the hands of the military all along, do you think it would even occur to you to care about it? Seems to me like the all-guns-are-equal reading of the 2nd opened up a whole lot of space, and the stupid grew to fill all the space it could.

If the 2nd said you had the Right to Bear Brass Knuckles, there'd be people wearing huge ones, sharpening the corners, adding fish hooks, making them more dangerous in all kinds of ways. And it might be nice to protect you or your family with them in like a mugging or burglary situation, with significantly lower probability of a death...and sure there'd be the rogue Walmart security guard beating a suspected shoplifter to death in front of her two children every once in a while (and that'd the price we pay for freedom). But since there's no such Amendment, lots of states and localities ban them outright or otherwise regulate them, and nobody cares at all whatsoever.

[Shinrei]

Obdigore, on 18 December 2012 - 05:17 AM, said:

Yes, arm the teachers, because a firefight in a school is clearly what we need.

The idea of school marshals was what I liked ,not necessarily the teacher bit.

But that being said, a shootout is potentially a lot better than one guyshooting sitting ducks with no interference.

[Obdigore]

Shinrei, on 18 December 2012 - 07:31 AM, said:

Obdigore, on 18 December 2012 - 05:17 AM, said:

Yes, arm the teachers, because a firefight in a school is clearly what we need.

The idea of school marshals was what I liked ,not necessarily the teacher bit.

But that being said, a shootout is potentially a lot better than one guyshooting sitting ducks with no interference.

Not with military-like hardware that literally shoots through walls. I'm not really into the idea of turning our schools further into prisons, but I do agree there is a lot that can be done.

The coroners reports I've read said that almost all the fatalities were shot between 3 and 11 times with the .223 Rifle.

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 18 December 2012 - 07:39 AM

[Shinrei]

This whole thing makes me so goddam angry. Sad and helpless feeling at the same time, It is very very easy to find myself wanting to go along with HD and say ban the fucking things outright.

[Obdigore]

Shinrei, on 18 December 2012 - 08:17 AM, said:

This whole thing makes me so goddam angry. Sad and helpless feeling at the same time, It is very very easy to find myself wanting to go along with HD and say ban the fucking things outright.

Guns aren't the CAUSE of someone going violent and snapping. We need to address the cause, but any and all scientific studies by any government institution is blocked by the NRA and the people doing the studies lose funding.

Meanwhile guns are a tool that allow someone to harm more people, faster, than almost any other tool we have (except potent explosives, but oddly after the McVeigh incident there are now notifications and checks setup on anyone buying a lot of fertilizer or other explosives), yet there aren't any checks on firearms or ammuniton, especially with the 'gun show loophole'.

This post has been edited by Obdigore: 18 December 2012 - 08:21 AM

[Macros]

It doesn't matter if a gun is fully automatic or a single bolt shot. The next shot can still pop out in under a second. That's a rate of death dealing lead that enables aforementioned mad men to kill a hell of a lot more people than if they were running with, say, a baseball bat.

you do not.
Do Not
need a gun unless you are in the military, law enforcement or hunting (game or pest control)

[Shinrei]

Or an olympian?

I mean, there are a lot of things we forumites have that are made only for killing. Look up my old weapons collecting thread and there are a bunch of us with weapons of war such as swords and axes. So I can understand the gun collectors enthusiasm, and shooting is a genuine skill you can hone as sport or for competition.

[Morgoth]

Yet why would a bolt action rifle not be enough for that? In competitive sports that's what they typically use as far as I've seen.

Sweden, Finland and Norway all allow hunting rifles and shotguns to be owned by private individuals, and have one of the highest rates of gun ownership in the world. Bolt action is typically required unless you're in a gun club, in which case you were also alowed to own semi-automatic rifles (though that's probably changing following recent events).

Pistols are illegal unless you are a member of a gun club, or have a special collectors permit. Again, those rules are up for review in light of recent events.

To own a gun you need to complete a safety course, and there are streneous background checks. In addition you need to show that you own a secure weapon cabinet, and that all guns are locked away when not in use. Nor are guns allowed to be loaded outside of hunting zones/gun ranges.

Finally, every gun is registered on you, and though selling a gun is legal you are required to report the sale to the government. Much the same way we (and also the US I'm sure) deal with cars.

[Cause]

It might be worthy of an entire discussion all of its own but Gun control alone is not wholly the answer (though I think america could benefit from much more of it). I say this because I think it has to be in part cultural. Take countries like Switzerland and Israel. Everyone receives military training, everyone is given a rifle and everyone has to keep it on them or in their home in case of a call up. Thousands of guns, guns everywhere and yet to my knowledge incidents like school shootings are unheard of. Why? That's the real question. The form that gun violence takes in America is somewhat unique to america. Why do some countries have gangs and others not? Why do criminals in my country use the maximum amount of force, often shooting their victims when they offer no resistance.

I would argue that its not video games (every country has them). Similarly so for movies and even the news. Your not the only country to have recently fought a war. Its quite the mystery