XregnaR wrote:

Angry enough to shoot someone?

Anything anyone says on this topic is going to be seen as a troll.  Since I'm a big nobody around here let me see what I can do.
 

I once mentioned to my shooting buddies, that I thought incidences like this would eventually curtail our gun owning rights. But they scoff at every one of these shooting incidents. They point out that popular opinion will keep guns readily available to any who wants to buy them.  Any politician who suggests otherwise will lose their job and never get another chance at office if they can help it.  Notice that both politicians running for president said little more than, "My condolences."

The people who commit gun violence are usually insane or mentally malformed in some way.  If you want someone to blame, drop your dead at the doors of the APA.  Psychologists treat every psychological order as a disease. They allow the crazy roam the streets with little more regualtion than a bottle of pills.

Guns don't shoot people, crazy people use guns to shoot other people. We don't need gun laws, we insanity laws.

Last edited by Platymingo (2012-07-23 07:44:29)

YES, all we need to do to keep our AR 15s, full body armor, and tear gas is to lock up every single person who someone, somewhere has designated to be unbalanced. Once those millions are detained, we can freely enjoy our right to own weapons for which there is no legitimate use.

You gun people need to seriously weigh the pros and cons of your little hobby. Blaming the APA is just stupid, and assumes that psychiatrists are some kind of omniscient, Minority Report predictors of the future.

There is no right for unfettered access for all to any kind of weapon, just like free speech doesn't extend to yelling FIRE in a crowded theater. I can't make anthrax in my garage or buy a stinger missile; likewise, AR 15s should be illegal.

Gun nuts have this mentality that says "I have a right to do this, therefore it must be done" without thinking whether it should be done. As in, "it is my right to openly carry a sidearm into Starbucks; I will do it for the sole reason that I can. Fuck everybody else."

And ranger, I genuinely like all your other posts. We'd probably get along--you seem like a pretty cool guy who doesn't afraid of anything. That said, take this in the spirit with which it's intended: the "If you don't like it, get the fuck out of the US" argument is the last refuge for scoundrels.

Meh, I have been accused of scoundrelry in the past. It was an emotional reaction to something that chafes at my mind.  See, I am all sensitive and shit. I will stop flinging hyperbole such as my previous post so we can have (as civilized as is possible here) an ernest discussion. 

The 2nd Amendment was never about hunting/sporting purposes.  It is about revolution, pure and simple.  The founders wanted to ensure that "The People" had the means at their disposal to overthrow the government.  the AR-15 is just part of the evolutionary path of that.  If you truly believe that weapons such as the AR-15 should be illegal, then you should by extrapolation believe that the 2nd Amendment should be repealed.  that is an entirely different discussion altogether.

---------------------------------------------------------

So to put a little focus on the AR-15.  As stated in all the exaggerated news articles, the semi-automatic AR-15, a civilian model of the M-16/M-4, can fire 50-60 projectiles in a minute.

1st, this is a gross underestimation.  I shoot 3-Gun competitions on a regular basis, and I can fire my AR at a much more rapid rate than that, accurately, somewhere in the region of 120-180 rounds per minute, including magazine changes.

2nd, the military full-auto version can fire at a base rate of 600 rounds per minute, and with tuning, upwards of 800 rounds per minute.

All of this is for nought.  Psycho-sick-fuck's AR jammed almost immediately.  After that he resorted to his shotgun.  A firearm readily available even in most of the more restrictive countries. Now I have a 12 gauge pump which can hold a total of 9 shells.  Doesn't seem like a lot.  For zombie/neighborhood cat repelling, I keep it stuffed with #4 buckshot.  Each shell hold 27 pellets that are larger than the .223 bullets used in an AR.  Now I can run mine better than most, so I can empty it, reload & empty again (lather, rinse, repeat) at a rate of about 30 rounds per minute.  That is 810 projectiles headed downrange in 1 minute.  This is significant, particularly in closed spaces.

As such, this particular case would be a poor argument for assault weapons bans.  More effective for banning shotguns, or particular kinds of ammo.

---------------------------------------------------------

You have a very valid point in can vs. should.  I have a carry permit, but I find it to be severe asshole behavior when people open carry.  I also feel like we should be doing a much better job of A)enforcing the laws we already have & B)ensuring better mechanism to prevent unlawful purchases.
---------------------------------------------------------

Now to switch directions for a moment.  Right now, I can get a gun very easily through legal means, and somewhat easily through illegal means.  The same does not apply to drugs.  it is far easier for a teenager to get pot, coke, etc. than it is for alcohol.  So think of guns as a drug (Hi, my name is XregnaR and I am an addict).  Yes, there  are severe problems associated with drugs, but more-so around their illegality.  The same would apply to guns.  Legality allows for regulation, compliance, standard, etc. 

---------------------------------------------------------

I am not a big fan of banning things simply because some people think they are bad.  this is part of why I compared guns to drugs.  Once you ban things, the black market flourishes.  Another thing to consider is that if this guy was intent on mass murder, he has already displayed intelligence enough to have built any number of instruments for committing this atrocity.  Explosives, chemical weapons, etc. come to mind immediately.  dude could have easily converted some of his smoke grenades to dispense cyanide gas.

Fair point about the black market business. I, too, am a dainty flower, and I get all pissy when pro-gun nuts go on TV or go to town hall meetings openly carrying guns. They invariably have this shit-eating grin and say "I have the right to carry this; now let's move on and have a rational discussion," knowing full well that the gun is an implied threat and they're making you nervous as shit. I'm really sorry for them getting picked on so much as kids that this is how they feel they can exercise power over people.

----------

You're getting into dodgy territory when you invoke the founders. I don't think that what the founders were thinking was "Hey, let's keep everybody armed so they can take us out someday." American colonials were notoriously fickle with their political leaders, and really prone to violence. After all, a Stamp Tax isn't that big a deal in the bigger picture of 18th century injustices. I think the founders' more immediate concern was to keep the citizens armed in case of British re-invasion, which actually happened in 1812.

Now I'm going to wade into dicey territory and try to divine the founders' intent from their point of view. First off, the founders didn't have it in their minds that they were laying down a framework that would govern the country over the centuries; lots of their letters say things to the effect of "hey, if the government still exists in three years we should do x, y, and z." The notion that their writings are instructions to us in 2012 is partly true (they were aware that they were historical figures and operated with posterity in mind), but their primary concern was with their own 18th century problems. Hell, Jefferson even suggested that the world is for the living, and that people shouldn't be bound by the rules set out by previous generations--he wanted to rewrite the constitution every 19 years (James Madison, who heard this shortly after spending a hot summer wrangling with asshole aristocrats to settle the first constitution, replied something to the effect of "FUCK THAT, SON").  In a lot of ways the constitution can be seen as a specific response to King George's specific abuses of power, for instance the protection against quartering of troops.

My point is this: you can't answer contemporary questions by trying to figure out what the founders would have thought because nobody really knows. This is especially true for technologies they weren't familiar with. In fact, if you traveled back in time and showed them an AR 15 and asked "is this the kind of thing you think citizens should be able to have," the only thing you could say for sure is that they would just shit themselves. It's just not logical to invoke the founders' intent when dealing with weapons they couldn't possibly have imagined.

Of course, the problem with this line of reasoning--which is a legitimate concern--is that calling one amendment into question undermines them all.

And no, I don't think the whole second amendment should be repealed. There are all kinds of regulations and bans against weapons that are perfectly constitutional. See, everybody--EVERYBODY--has a line between what is acceptable and what is unacceptable for a private citizen to own. Some people draw that line at the atomic bomb, others draw it at BB guns. All I'm doing is saying I think the AR 15 and ballistic armor belong on the unacceptable side of the line.

I should mention, too, that there's a huge difference between an ex-Army ranger, who's proven he can be trusted, owning a weapon, and that same weapon in the hands of some... guy with a credit card and internet access.

The question is, what are you guys all afraid of who own guns?  You're little avoidance dance with Thanatos is a bit much, and after this last incident, I am not in your camp as I once was as support personnel because of the constitution. 

There comes a point when one grows up, and faces what is in store for all of us.

You have some great points about the Founders, particularly how they viewed the potential longevity of their ideas of government.  the whole Tree of Liberty quote demonstrates that perfectly.  What I would submit is that each generation (at least those that actually care & participate), has confirmed the validity of everything in the Constitution by not doing anything to it, or rectifying those portions they saw lacking.  We have numerous examples of the citizenry changing things via amendments.  some went well, others, not so much.  The 15th, 16th & 18th come to mind. 

As to your last point, this is something I do agree with.  I have a somewhat radical position on this.  I believe that basic firearms safety should be a compulsory subject in school, somewhere around age 8, when most children have the strength to work the actions of modern firearms.  I don't want this because I believe everyone should own & use guns, but rather for safety reasons.  We do live in a society that is saturated with firearms, legal and otherwise.  I want ALL children to know how to safely deal with a firearm should they encounter one in day-to-day life.  this includes guns in the home, but more importantly what to do when a gun is found "in the wild". 

-----------------------------------

To the discussion about someone in the theatre having a CCW....

IF the theatre had allowed CCW on premise, the likelihood of a high number of people carrying is actually pretty low.  Colorado has issued ~21000 licenses, with over 5 million residents.  this is roughly 2.1 CCW holders per 500 people.  Now the average movie theatre holds around 250 people, so maybe one person would have had a CCW, and no telling if they would actually have been carrying that night.  BUT I do believe that if even that 1 had been there, properly trained and having some nerve to them, this would have played out differently.  There would still have been tragedy, no mistake, but not to this scale.

Despite the nocturnal emissions of the NRA, a lot more people don't carry than do.

The perp was clearly seen by the audience members... from Wikipedia Few in the audience considered the perpetrator a threat when he first entered the theater. He appeared to be wearing a costume, which would not have been out of the ordinary as others had dressed up for the movie. Some thought the gunman was playing a prank,[7] while others thought he was part of a special effects installation set up for the premiere as a publicity stunt by the studio or cinema.[8]

Of course this scenario being speculative, you're welcome to ignore the fact that the shooter was clearly visible.

XregnaR wrote:

Dmtdust wrote:

The question is, what are you guys all afraid of who own guns?  You're little avoidance dance with Thanatos is a bit much, and after this last incident, I am not in your camp as I once was as support personnel because of the constitution. 

There comes a point when one grows up, and faces what is in store for all of us.

Well, consider this.  Even given our current saturation level of firearms, we still have police frequently acting like jack-booted thugs.  What do you think it would be like if they didn't have the temperance of an armed populace?

Yes, but when the inevitable dictator appears, manages to subvert all constitutional checks on his power, and declares martial law, he'll have to contend with an assemblage of irregularly armed, untrained, physically unfit citizens with no hierarchy or effective means of resistance. Things like 30-round clips are ESSENTIAL in keeping the power of the US Air Force in check, which has invisible planes that can stop in mid-air. Look at how well it's working in Syria, whose army is less equipped, and whose citizens are better trained than ours.

Until then, we'll just have to tolerate an endless stream of bodies in the name of FREEDOM from a despot to be named later.

To your other point--the 15th amendment was a bad idea? Really?

I'd also like to point out that there was a trained CCW at the Gabby Giffords shooting--he pulled his gun and almost shot the kid that wrestled the gun away from the shooter.

This is my point about the theater. Say you're well-trained, you hear shooting, turn around and pull your gun. You see the actual shooter and a couple other people who are confused and pulled guns as well--who do you shoot? Are the others accomplices? Will they shoot you?

That's the empirical evidence I'm basing my position on. I'm saying that the more guns there are in that theater, the more people get shot accidentally.

No, the 15th was the good example.  the others, not so much.

As to the band of misfits statement, that is actually one of the arguments used to keep a standing army, the only thing Jefferson feared more than banks.

do keep in mind that among those misfits would be some folks like myself, well trained and experienced, albeit a bit pudgier around the edges.  Militias historically are trained by the veterans of previous conflagrations.

Each year we suffer ~35000 deaths in the name of convenient transportation.  ~195000 deaths per year because we don't have stringent enough education standards for the medical profession.  Hell, obesity is much more dangerous than firearms from a people dying perspective.  So while firearms policy may need re-examining, it is not at the top of the list.

I think democracies like Norway can behave more rationally because the stakes aren't as high as they are here. The decisions they make don't affect trillion-dollar industries, and won't change regimes elsewhere in the world, so they don't have the same kinds of pressures from lobbies and such.

And I don't like the car analogy. Cars' main purpose is to move people around; when accidents kill people, it is a side effect of that other goal. When people are murdered, it's because the gun did exactly what it was designed to do: to kill people.

Dmtdust wrote:

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/07/how_the_norwegi.html

Tangentially...

Yeah, we definitely have some cultural dysfunction to cope with here in 'Merica.

Another tangent.  if they ever do constrain firearms to the point that I can't enjoy my favorite activity, I will be heading straight to Europe.  Outside of going to the range, I don't feel remotely compelled to remain here, or tied to any place because of nationalism.

AH wrote:

This is my point about the theater. Say you're well-trained, you hear shooting, turn around and pull your gun. You see the actual shooter and a couple other people who are confused and pulled guns as well--who do you shoot? Are the others accomplices? Will they shoot you?

Tell the truth.  Would you rather be pinned down in a theater or restaurant by a gunman who could casually walk up and shoot you, or would you rather there were three or four CCWs pinned down with you?  I have a CCW and my experience with others who carry is that they are very concientious people.  I would much rather trust their aim and judgment than pray the murderer runs out of ammo or fails to find me.

phreddy wrote:

AH wrote:

This is my point about the theater. Say you're well-trained, you hear shooting, turn around and pull your gun. You see the actual shooter and a couple other people who are confused and pulled guns as well--who do you shoot? Are the others accomplices? Will they shoot you?

Tell the truth.  Would you rather be pinned down in a theater or restaurant by a gunman who could casually walk up and shoot you, or would you rather there were three or four CCWs pinned down with you?  I have a CCW and my experience with others who carry is that they are very concientious people.  I would much rather trust their aim and judgment than pray the murderer runs out of ammo or fails to find me.

Tell the truth, would you rather be pinned down in a theater or restaurant by a gunman who could casually walk up and shoot you, or pinned down in a theater or restaurant with 20 other gun-fetish idiots holding their guns up over the tables shooting wildly?

I have a large shotgun under my bed.  You can damned well bet I would use it if the appropriate situation came up...  I know how to clean and shoot it, and I don't have any kids in my house so I keep it loaded. However, I obviously don't carry it around (duh).  If I had a handgun, I might be inclined if one could actually get a CCW in MD.

Actually, I considered using it on the raccoon I found digging in my trash last night.  Maybe if I had had something with a silencer, I would have.  However, I fear the shotgun blast may have alarmed my neighbors...

Roger_That wrote:

If I had a handgun, I might be inclined if one could actually get a CCW in MD.

RT, there are new developments in the CCW law in Maryland.  A judge recently struck down the arbitrary law that gives authorities the right to determine whether or not you have a legitimate reason to carry a concealed weapon.

Personally, I believe every woman should have a little 9 mm in her purse.

I have one of these and it's a great little concealed weapon and very accurate.

Wow, who would have thought that the People's Republic of Maryland would finally come around and join 39 other states for "Shall Issue". Sure, it won't happen right away, but the right wasn't taken away all at once either.

Dmtdust wrote:

The question is, what are you guys all afraid of who own guns?  You're little avoidance dance with Thanatos is a bit much, and after this last incident, I am not in your camp as I once was as support personnel because of the constitution. 

There comes a point when one grows up, and faces what is in store for all of us.

Just like this fine gentleman did.

Decadence wrote:

What Thomas Jefferson actually did say, as opposed to your rather misleading paraphrasing there, disproves your opening sentence.

Thomas Jefferson wrote:

God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.  The people cannot be all, and always, well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented, in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions, it is lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.  And, what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to the facts, pardon and pacify them.  What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.  It is its natural manure.

And they say Americans don't understand irony.

Wait, what?

I've always found that to be the most distasteful part of the various hypocrisies of the NRA & ACLU.

choad wrote:

Have printer, will travel.

https://cruelery.com/sidepic/WileECoyote.Genius.png

...making it feasible to print an entire gun...

I call bullshit on this one. Printing a receiver is one thing, and I have no doubt it would work for a time. Printing a barrel is something else entirely and you're entirely welcome to try firing one as long as I'm nowhere nearby.  No need to go for something big like a .50 caliber sniper rifle. Why not start small? Print yourself a .270 and let me know how it goes.

Auto-edited on 2020-08-02 to update URLs