Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0
It sounds like they are both, to use a medical term, bonkers.
It sounds like they are both, to use a medical term, bonkers.
USCHO Fan Forum
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.
Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0
- Thread starter Kepler
- Start date
- Status
unofan
Well-known member
Booze and (especially) cars are both more regulated than guns. The combination of the two is illegal in all fifty states. So what's your point?
Scooby - if you have the $$, somebody will sell you one. Maybe from an out of the way warehouse or from tbe back of a truck/car, but for a price, anything is available.
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0
My two cents.
I understand the natural reaction people have to tragedies. "We gotta pass a law." It seems to be the reaction we have in this country to every tragedy, hence the encyclopedia of laws named after individual people. Anybody who asks why is usually shouted down with some variant of, "so, then we should do nothing??!!?!", and another law gets passed. Fine.
Here is the thing about the gun debate that you have to remember. You are going to have to pass a law banning the sale and possession of all guns. If you don't, then you are not going to accomplish what you think you are accomplishing.
It is true that due to the widespread availability of firearms in this country, guns are generally the weapon of choice for people who decide to go on killing sprees. However, as we have seen in this country, and especially around the world, madmen with intent to do mass harm or inflict mass terror find a way.
50 deaths and as many more injured is a significant tragedy. It pales in comparison with what Tim McVeigh was able to accomplish with a Ryder van and Mohamed Atta with a set of box cutters, but significant nonetheless.
We've had the "gun debate" numerous times in these threads. But there are some basic realities that continue to nag at me whenever I wonder what, if anything, is the solution.
This country has existed as an organized entity for now going on 240 years. In terms of restrictions on the buying, selling, owning, possessing or carrying of guns, we are certainly in our most restrictive period as a country. Religious fanaticism and mental illness have been around far longer than our country. Even the AR-15 has been sold to civilians in this country for well over 50 years.
So why is it that nearly all of these mass shootings have occurred here in the past 30-35 years? Did we just discover the AR-15? Did we reach some tipping point where some of us decided "enough is enough?"
I have my own theory, and like all my theories I believe it is absolutely correct.
I believe proliferation of these events is almost solely a creature of the rise of cable tv. The expansion of cable news channel, the twenty-four hour a day news cycle, followed by the internet, social media, .....
You commit one of these mass shootings, you become famous. You are talked about, the world over, for days or weeks or months, or at least until the next guy comes around.
Personally, I think if you "passed a law" that said you can't publicly discuss or write about a mass shooting for a period of say two years following the event, we would see these largely disappear, or at least go back to levels observed 60-70 years ago.
Of course, such a law could never and should never be passed. But if you're looking for a "cause", I don't think it would hurt us to look hard in the mirror and think about the way we cover and follow these events publicly.
My two cents.
I understand the natural reaction people have to tragedies. "We gotta pass a law." It seems to be the reaction we have in this country to every tragedy, hence the encyclopedia of laws named after individual people. Anybody who asks why is usually shouted down with some variant of, "so, then we should do nothing??!!?!", and another law gets passed. Fine.
Here is the thing about the gun debate that you have to remember. You are going to have to pass a law banning the sale and possession of all guns. If you don't, then you are not going to accomplish what you think you are accomplishing.
It is true that due to the widespread availability of firearms in this country, guns are generally the weapon of choice for people who decide to go on killing sprees. However, as we have seen in this country, and especially around the world, madmen with intent to do mass harm or inflict mass terror find a way.
50 deaths and as many more injured is a significant tragedy. It pales in comparison with what Tim McVeigh was able to accomplish with a Ryder van and Mohamed Atta with a set of box cutters, but significant nonetheless.
We've had the "gun debate" numerous times in these threads. But there are some basic realities that continue to nag at me whenever I wonder what, if anything, is the solution.
This country has existed as an organized entity for now going on 240 years. In terms of restrictions on the buying, selling, owning, possessing or carrying of guns, we are certainly in our most restrictive period as a country. Religious fanaticism and mental illness have been around far longer than our country. Even the AR-15 has been sold to civilians in this country for well over 50 years.
So why is it that nearly all of these mass shootings have occurred here in the past 30-35 years? Did we just discover the AR-15? Did we reach some tipping point where some of us decided "enough is enough?"
I have my own theory, and like all my theories I believe it is absolutely correct.
I believe proliferation of these events is almost solely a creature of the rise of cable tv. The expansion of cable news channel, the twenty-four hour a day news cycle, followed by the internet, social media, .....
You commit one of these mass shootings, you become famous. You are talked about, the world over, for days or weeks or months, or at least until the next guy comes around.
Personally, I think if you "passed a law" that said you can't publicly discuss or write about a mass shooting for a period of say two years following the event, we would see these largely disappear, or at least go back to levels observed 60-70 years ago.
Of course, such a law could never and should never be passed. But if you're looking for a "cause", I don't think it would hurt us to look hard in the mirror and think about the way we cover and follow these events publicly.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0
I think the sane end state is pistols and rifles are legal and regulated, while weapons used to spray bullets everywhere like AR-15s are illegal except for law enforcement and the military.
The gun control argument should be decoupled from home security and hunting. The best people to do this are gun owners themselves who also understand that flooding the world with weapons increases the frequency of these mass murders.
The gun lobby's aim is to sell guns. They oppose any regulation of guns for the same reason that every lobby always works to deregulate itself. That's fine -- that's what they're supposed to do. But in so doing they also make a lot of specious arguments like slippery slope. Just as we laugh at Philip Morris when they "debunk" cancer research or Exxon when they "debunk" climate change, we should laugh at the NRA when they say limits on guns won't change anything. Of course they will.
I think the sane end state is pistols and rifles are legal and regulated, while weapons used to spray bullets everywhere like AR-15s are illegal except for law enforcement and the military.
The gun control argument should be decoupled from home security and hunting. The best people to do this are gun owners themselves who also understand that flooding the world with weapons increases the frequency of these mass murders.
The gun lobby's aim is to sell guns. They oppose any regulation of guns for the same reason that every lobby always works to deregulate itself. That's fine -- that's what they're supposed to do. But in so doing they also make a lot of specious arguments like slippery slope. Just as we laugh at Philip Morris when they "debunk" cancer research or Exxon when they "debunk" climate change, we should laugh at the NRA when they say limits on guns won't change anything. Of course they will.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0
A poster on DKos came up with the following. Gun owners among us, what do you think of these ideas?
1. Ban all Assault weapons and limitations on high capacity magazines
2. Universal background checks on all gun sales
3. Close the Charleston loophole: no firearm sale without a completed background check
4. Close the terror gap by prohibiting gun sales to those on the No-Fly list
5. End the CDC ban on gun violence research
6. Domestic violence restraining order to prevent abusers with a temporary restraining order from possessing firearms
7. Repeal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)
8. Child access prevention law for safe storage of firearms
A poster on DKos came up with the following. Gun owners among us, what do you think of these ideas?
1. Ban all Assault weapons and limitations on high capacity magazines
2. Universal background checks on all gun sales
3. Close the Charleston loophole: no firearm sale without a completed background check
4. Close the terror gap by prohibiting gun sales to those on the No-Fly list
5. End the CDC ban on gun violence research
6. Domestic violence restraining order to prevent abusers with a temporary restraining order from possessing firearms
7. Repeal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA)
8. Child access prevention law for safe storage of firearms
unofan
Well-known member
That makes for a nice sound bite, but what laws have been passed in the wake of any of the mass shootings? The last gun bill I can recall is the Brady bill, and that took six years to pass (introduced in 87, signed into law in 93).
I think the point is we don't pass any laws, or do anything else, because the NRA owns Congress (or at least the party that currently controls Congress).
Last edited:
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0
Re #6: Are you saying that if someone gets a restraining order against a gun owner, they are immediately required to sell their guns? Or did you mean that they should not be allowed to *carry* firearms?
I'm good with the rest.
You were doing great until your 3rd word... What, exactly, is an "assault" rifle?
Re #6: Are you saying that if someone gets a restraining order against a gun owner, they are immediately required to sell their guns? Or did you mean that they should not be allowed to *carry* firearms?
I'm good with the rest.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0
Gun owners, how would you define it? I take your point that the language should point to the issue -- high capacity -- not purported "use" which is open to endless discussion and litigation (purposeful litigation to prevent any changes).
From Wikipedia:
If you can't take down Bambi with 10 shots you probably shouldn't be out in the woods.
Gun owners, how would you define it? I take your point that the language should point to the issue -- high capacity -- not purported "use" which is open to endless discussion and litigation (purposeful litigation to prevent any changes).
From Wikipedia:
If you can't take down Bambi with 10 shots you probably shouldn't be out in the woods.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0
What happens when your driver's license is revoked? Are you required to sell your car, or can you just not drive it?
What happens when your driver's license is revoked? Are you required to sell your car, or can you just not drive it?
St. Clown
Liberal Rebel Scum, apparently
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0
Others have replied on their issues, so I'll not rehash them, only add that the No-Fly list provision would be a no-go from the start because the No-Fly list is known to be highly flawed. There are babies - terryifying and mean infants - on that list because they have the misfortune of sharing a name with someone else who's on the list. It's horribly flawed.
Others have replied on their issues, so I'll not rehash them, only add that the No-Fly list provision would be a no-go from the start because the No-Fly list is known to be highly flawed. There are babies - terryifying and mean infants - on that list because they have the misfortune of sharing a name with someone else who's on the list. It's horribly flawed.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0
It all comes back to banning bribes. Before anything else we have to get our democracy back. Maybe we won't be able to get a sufficient number of votes to pass a band when elected officials are responding to their constituents rather than their donors. Maybe. But we have to return government to democracy or we know that business lobbies will always win.
It all comes back to banning bribes. Before anything else we have to get our democracy back. Maybe we won't be able to get a sufficient number of votes to pass a band when elected officials are responding to their constituents rather than their donors. Maybe. But we have to return government to democracy or we know that business lobbies will always win.
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0
1. Meaningless, imho, since there is literally no difference between "assault" weapons as they are legally sold to the public and your standard semi-automatic rifle.
2. No problem with that.
3. If we do #2, seems like we have #3 covered.
4. No problem with that.
5. No problem with that.
6. I thought we already had something like this, although it might just be in individual states.
7. Opposed to this. I just don't think you can impose civil responsibility on a company for the intervening criminal acts of another. The problem is that the plaintiffs bar would simply kill the gun industry through the cost of defending these cases.
8. No problem with this, although I think it would be largely meaningless. With a few random exceptions, most of these killings are by adults.
One of the problems with the whole "assault rifle" reaction people have is demonstrated perfectly in your earlier post where you suggest that weapons used to "spray bullets everywhere" should be banned. People think assault weapon and they think Al Pacino in Scarface. That's not what happens. One trigger pull, one bullet.
1. Meaningless, imho, since there is literally no difference between "assault" weapons as they are legally sold to the public and your standard semi-automatic rifle.
2. No problem with that.
3. If we do #2, seems like we have #3 covered.
4. No problem with that.
5. No problem with that.
6. I thought we already had something like this, although it might just be in individual states.
7. Opposed to this. I just don't think you can impose civil responsibility on a company for the intervening criminal acts of another. The problem is that the plaintiffs bar would simply kill the gun industry through the cost of defending these cases.
8. No problem with this, although I think it would be largely meaningless. With a few random exceptions, most of these killings are by adults.
One of the problems with the whole "assault rifle" reaction people have is demonstrated perfectly in your earlier post where you suggest that weapons used to "spray bullets everywhere" should be banned. People think assault weapon and they think Al Pacino in Scarface. That's not what happens. One trigger pull, one bullet.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0
Dr. Mrs. works for DHS CRCL. Believe me, I know all about No Fly. There are, however, different levels of databases which do have an evidenciary standard and could be used, and do make sense.
Dr. Mrs. works for DHS CRCL. Believe me, I know all about No Fly. There are, however, different levels of databases which do have an evidenciary standard and could be used, and do make sense.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0
Hey, I'll take 6 out of 8.
The thing is I am woefully uneducated about guns (though less so then when I started meeting gun owners regularly), and from issues like climate change I know what happens when dummies who know nothing start trying to contribute to a discussion which is technical. That's why I want sportsmen and veterans and cops and others who know all about guns to lead this debate. My understanding is a huge majority of NRA members want restrictions. They are the people who really know. I suspect they are the people who are most at-risk when guns get into the wrong hands, because they frequent places where guns are prevalent. Also, they have loved ones who are at risk of school or mall shootings. And they may even be the majority of the electorate.
Just as I want nuclear scientists evaluating nuclear energy and meteorologists, biologists, and chemists evaluating fossil fuels, I want "gun nuts" evaluating guns. I don't know enough to make an informed argument.
Hey, I'll take 6 out of 8.
The thing is I am woefully uneducated about guns (though less so then when I started meeting gun owners regularly), and from issues like climate change I know what happens when dummies who know nothing start trying to contribute to a discussion which is technical. That's why I want sportsmen and veterans and cops and others who know all about guns to lead this debate. My understanding is a huge majority of NRA members want restrictions. They are the people who really know. I suspect they are the people who are most at-risk when guns get into the wrong hands, because they frequent places where guns are prevalent. Also, they have loved ones who are at risk of school or mall shootings. And they may even be the majority of the electorate.
Just as I want nuclear scientists evaluating nuclear energy and meteorologists, biologists, and chemists evaluating fossil fuels, I want "gun nuts" evaluating guns. I don't know enough to make an informed argument.
Kepler
Si certus es dubita
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0
What about a limitation on the magazine to ten rounds?
What about a limitation on the magazine to ten rounds?
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0
An AR-15 is semi-automatic (one trigger pull = one round fired) just like a semi-automatic handgun.
A fully automatic weapon is illegal (save for some very specific licensing/ownership criteria).
Modifying a semi- to full auto is illegal.
An AR-15 is semi-automatic (one trigger pull = one round fired) just like a semi-automatic handgun.
A fully automatic weapon is illegal (save for some very specific licensing/ownership criteria).
Modifying a semi- to full auto is illegal.
The Sicatoka
Kicizapi Cetan
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0
1. What is an assault weapon? A pistol grip? A front grip? Ghost sights?
2. Uh, go and buy a gun today. The store owner (the FFL) has to call the FBI and get a sale to you approved.
3. What percent of sales are person-to-person (that use this provision)?
4. This concerns me. I'm big on "due process of law" and the no-fly list has a history and track record not so great on due process.
5. Sure, but be careful what you wish for. It might not be the guns. It might be the people.
6. Isn't that standard in most states?
7. Unfamiliar. No comment at this time.
8. Every gun today is sold with a lock. I'm big on safe handling and storage. But I don't want the cops to have a warrantless search to check that my safe is locked.
1. What is an assault weapon? A pistol grip? A front grip? Ghost sights?
2. Uh, go and buy a gun today. The store owner (the FFL) has to call the FBI and get a sale to you approved.
3. What percent of sales are person-to-person (that use this provision)?
4. This concerns me. I'm big on "due process of law" and the no-fly list has a history and track record not so great on due process.
5. Sure, but be careful what you wish for. It might not be the guns. It might be the people.
6. Isn't that standard in most states?
7. Unfamiliar. No comment at this time.
8. Every gun today is sold with a lock. I'm big on safe handling and storage. But I don't want the cops to have a warrantless search to check that my safe is locked.
unofan
Well-known member
Do rifles generally shoot heavier bullets at faster speeds and with more accuracy than handguns?
Do rifles generally have larger clips than handguns?
A car and a semi both have internal combustion engines, but there is a reason we require a more stringent license to drive a semi.
- Status