General Political Thread

[Hixter]

It's all well and good to be disgusted by those politicizing this and for pushing their agendas before the blood is even dry but only as long as you condemn everybody doing so fronted Nugent to Alex jones and the whole Fox News network. 

As I've said many times before, I've never watched Fox News. I couldn't pick Alex Jones out of a lineup, but I will admit to wearing out an 8-track tape of Double Live Gonzo in the seventies.

 

 

By the way when did the phrase "so called assault weapon" become what it is today?

 

By definition, actual assault rifles are selective fire: safe, semi-auto and auto. The civilian AR15 is not capable of automatic fire and is really no different than grandpa's .22: one shot per trigger pull. Let's not forget that it is the anti-gun faction which has changed the description. Now all you have to do is attach a folding stock, plastic grip or a bayonet mount onto grandpa's hunting rifle and it magically transforms into an "assault rifle."

[John Smith]

Semantics you, and I can unload a 30 round magazine in seconds grandpas .22 was more likely bolt action and actually fired .22 longs . .22 long is a lethal round if it hits a vital and less lethal if not. The 5.56mm or .223 has a much higher muzzle velocity and the lead is unbalanced so it spins with a slight wobble. The velocity causes huge damage due to cavitation while the wobble can cause the round to go in almost any direction. True story...I was zeroing a night scope using tracers and a round hit the paper target and shot upwards at probably a 45 degree angle, it's what the round was designed to do. So there is really absolutely no equivalency between grandpas .22 and any weapon in the at-16 family. That attempt at equating the two is a fallacious argument aimed at duping rubes who only see .22 and. .223 and think the size makes them similar. I'm done here.

[Hixter]

grandpas .22 was more likely bolt action

Most .22 rifles are semi-auto and not bolt action. The Ruger 10/22 has been America's most popular .22 rifle for the last 50 years and it is semi-auto.

 

So there is really absolutely no equivalency between grandpas .22 and any weapon in the at-16 family. That attempt at equating the two is a fallacious argument aimed at duping rubes who only see .22 and. .223 and think the size makes them similar.

I was discussing the firing mechanism, not the ballistic properties of the cartridges they use. But if you want to go there, pretty much every caliber above .22LR used in hunting rifles is more powerful and deadly than the .223/5.56 used in an AR15 or M16. Grandpa's deer rifle is more deadly than an assault rifle and fires armor-piercing bullets!

[John Smith]

No my .22 was bolt action, my father in laws was bolt action, regardless there is no comparison between a military grade weapon and a weapon that fires .22 longs no comparison on any level. The argument has been crafted over the years to force a false equivalency between a .22 round and a .223 round because of the size. One is far more deadly. Bringing hunting rifles into the conversation? Gee think a 30-30 is more lethal than a .223? Think my 7.62 is more lethal? No kidding. But that was not the conversation was it?

 

I enjoy shooting I really do. I can go out and be shooting within 10 minutes of arriving home legally and on private property. I do it regularly, bows and arrows too. But regardless of what I enjoy doing the conversation needs to be about reducing the violence and how do you keep these weapons out of the hands of those who should not have them. Every time any attempt is made to identify buyers the NRA cries out about rights. Ok what is a realistic proposal to try to keep these weapons out of the hands of the wrong people. I have yet to see anything from the NRA, and saying "we need to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable" is not a proposal it's a goal and I think it's a common goal but sometimes I wonder.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

As I've said many times before, I've never watched Fox News. I couldn't pick Alex Jones out of a lineup, but I will admit to wearing out an 8-track tape of Double Live Gonzo in the seventies.

When I read a statement like this, it's hard to agree with the statement "the opponents don't just dislike each other's stance on guns, they dislike each other."

[LouieB]

Actually the sad part about this event is that it is barely registering any more.  As I said a few months back, we have this stuff happen so often that we have become numb to it.  This stuff is just going to keep happening over and over again, so we might as well get used to it. 

 

LouieB

[ih8music]

Well, after 20 little kids get mowed down and literally nothing happens it shouldn't be surprising that people lose faith that anything will ever change.    The gun lobby won.  

 

Just pray that you & your loved ones aren't in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[NoJ]

  

 

Just pray that you & your loved ones aren't in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

There are several high foot traffic areas in Chicago's Loop that I avoid on a daily basis for that very reason.

[Hixter]

In the U.S. last year, I heard on the news that there were 11,000 deaths related to gun violence. In the U.K., it was something like 200. If we adjusted for population size, the U.K. % would have been something like 400. Contrast that with 11,000.

 

The number of firearm murders in the U.S. was 8583 in 2011; the UK's figure is usually around the 100 mark. I think the source you quoted may have included suicides, but those don't belong in this discussion. Also, the United States has 5 times as many people as the UK, not twice as many.

 

That said, it's pointless to compare two countries. Some countries and cultures just have more murders than others. Japan has an extremely low murder rate, but it doesn't have anything to do with the availability of guns -- it's a cultural thing.

 

 

No one is talking about coming and taking your precious guns away. No one is denying that gun deaths are largely caused by criminals who obtained guns illegally. 

There are 300 million privately owned firearms in the United States. A typical firearm remains function for a century or more, so how will restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens result in fewer gun crimes committed by criminals? Even if we give it a century or two until most of the guns have fallen apart, the bad guys of tomorrow will just simply print out more machine guns on their 3D printers.

 

No my .22 was bolt action, my father in laws was bolt action, regardless there is no comparison between a military grade weapon and a weapon that fires .22 longs no comparison on any level. The argument has been crafted over the years to force a false equivalency between a .22 round and a .223 round because of the size.

As I've already said, I was not making any comparison of ballistics or lethality, I was pointing out that AR15s are semi-automatic just like many other non-banned firearms.

 

 

 

 Ok what is a realistic proposal to try to keep these weapons out of the hands of the wrong people.

 

There is none. If our current laws don't work, what makes anyone think that additional laws will magically solve the problem? All we can do is punish those who break the laws.

 

Actually the sad part about this event is that it is barely registering any more.

 

I think it's actually a good thing that they fall off the news reports rather quickly. People have gone on killing sprees since the dawn of mankind and there's nothing that will ever stop it. Endless media coverage only eggs on those who seek to go out in a blaze of gunfire and notoriety.

 

Well, after 20 little kids get mowed down and literally nothing happens

 

You haven't been paying attention to the news, because numerous new laws were enacted right after the tragedy in Sandy Hook. They won't do a damn thing to prevent future tragedies, but they did succeed in eroding our constitutional rights just a little bit more.

[LouieB]

Well, after 20 little kids get mowed down and literally nothing happens it shouldn't be surprising that people lose faith that anything will ever change.    The gun lobby won.  

 

Just pray that you & your loved ones aren't in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Exactly.  Hixter keeps saying we should enforce the current guns laws and I suppose there is some truth to that, but ultimately the NRA doesn't even want that.  I am particularly fond of him saying that this kind of thing has been going on since the beginning of time, so I guess we just have to accept that humans are stupid and violent and live with it. No point in ever thinking that things can get better.  Nice world view.

 

LouieB

[Hixter]

Exactly. 

If you, too, think that nothing has changed, then you need to pay more attention to the news.

 

the NRA doesn't even want that. 

Absolutely untrue.

 

I am particularly fond of him saying that this kind of thing has been going on since the beginning of time, so I guess we just have to accept that humans are stupid and violent and live with it. 

It's called realism. 

 

No point in ever thinking that things can get better.  Nice world view.

I've never said that and I don't believe that. Our world is more peaceful than it has even been in the past. Crime rates in the United States continue to drop even as gun ownership rises.

[John Smith]

I will still disagree on the .223/.22 comparison. The unstated intent of the argument is to make those weapons appear as equivalents, when in fact they are anything but equivalent. That argument was formatted by people outside this conversation so I guess it'd pointless.

 

Do the laws not work? Proof other than the shootings? Is the proof that criminals and mentally I'll still get firearms? Where do they get them? I would say that statistically 100% of all firearms start out day one as legal. How do they make it into the wrong hands? And how to stop it? Arming everyone else is not the answer, and simply saying that we should keep weapons out of their hands is not actionable. Maybe use the Swiss method since I hear Switzerland's name bandied about? It's is painfully obvious that dolly stating that the laws don't work is not an answer, if that is the case them getting laws that do work is a solution except the NRA will work to have any new laws blocked. It's what they specialize in.

 

BTWy G'pa was born in the 1880's and his rifle was not even bolt action. It was a breach block loading percussion cap firing monster, so. Not every one has the same perspective on terms.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

The number of firearm murders in the U.S. was 8583 in 2011; the UK's figure is usually around the 100 mark. I think the source you quoted may have included suicides, but those don't belong in this discussion. Also, the United States has 5 times as many people as the UK, not twice as many.

 

That said, it's pointless to compare two countries. 

I was just going off my memory of the news story I watched, but the statistic I had was from 2010:

 

"Guns were used in 11,078 homicides in the U.S. in 2010, comprising almost 35% of all gun deaths, and over 68% of all homicides."

 

I understand the "there is no point comparing countries" argument. I really do. But the fact remains, in the U.K., after they imposed stricter gun laws, the rates of homicide by firearm - in particular, mass shootings - dropped significantly. I believe we could do the same, with similar results, but for the resistance of the gun lobby.

 

Because, you see, most of our mass shootings are not performed by criminals with lengthy rap sheets. In fact, many are committed by people who were "law-abiding gun owners"...right up until the moment they opened fire on a crowd of innocents.

 

Stat from U.K.:

"In 2012 the Home Office reported that, in 2010/11, firearms were involved in 11,227 recorded offences in England and Wales, the seventh consecutive annual fall."

"In 2010, roughly 70% of US homicides were by gun whereas in Britain including Northern Ireland only 9% were by gun." 

 

On a per capita basis, the U.S. vs. U.K. info is that the U.S. had 34 times more gun homicides per capita. That is a sobering statistic.

 

http://sandiegofreepress.org/2013/01/some-factual-gun-statistics-part-2-of-a-cultural-comparison-gun-violence-in-the-us-and-europe/

[Hixter]

I will still disagree on the .223/.22 comparison. The unstated intent of the argument is to make those weapons appear as equivalents, when in fact they are anything but equivalent.

That was not my intent and I am not a liar. To be honest, I've never heard anyone try to claim that the two cartridges are similar. But the fact remains that both are lethal (the Australian athlete in Oklahoma was killed by a .22 pistol) and that it's ridiculous to call a .22 an "assault rifle" if someone puts an adjustable stock on it.

 

How do they make it into the wrong hands? And how to stop it?

Good question. There are already laws against doing so, so how will additional laws stop it from happening? Making something illegal-er doesn't prevent crime.

 

But the fact remains, in the U.K., after they imposed stricter gun laws, the rates of homicide by firearm - in particular, mass shootings - dropped significantly.

You're forgetting one crucial fact: they made handguns illegal and severely restricted ownership of most rifles and shotguns. People were forced into turning over their formerly legal firearms: yes, they came and took their 'precious guns.' Criminals ignored the law of course, as is made clear by the thousands of gun crimes that take place in the UK every year.

 

 I believe we could do the same, with similar results

Answer me this:

 

1) Should Americans have to turn in their firearms? How do you think repealing the Second Amendment would go over with the citizens?

 

2) How would criminals be forced to give up their already illegal weapons? Do you expect them to just hand them over?

 

3) How would disarmed Americans protect themselves against armed criminals? (Why not disarm our cops like they do in the UK to make the question even more interesting?)

[LouieB]

Oh yea, I forgot, actually the NRA doesn't want more people killed, they just more people armed to shoot back at shooters......silly me.

 

Louieb

[John Smith]

You may not have made that comparison but it has been made over and over. I'm basic when we were issued our weapons pep lie bitched about the glorified .22's we were receiving. Vets I knew bitched about the stopping power of the m-16 vs the ak. I've heard it for years and quite frankly am shocked that a person who is an enthusiast has not heard it. Beyond that there is the implied equivalence when the .223 is compared to the .22. It's like comparing tornados to hurricanes after the swirling winds the comparison fails miserably. Enough of that though this topic grows tiresome.

 

How about let's delve into the "gums don't kill people, video games do" or gin free zones are unsafe (of course that young man ( seal? Ranger?) was armed and in an area that allows weapons, the range, when he was killed this summer) what other arguments are out there?

[KevinG]

screw it.  I just typed out a sound and well reasoned response on this gun debate.  I then re-read it and deleted it, because it is just a waste of time.  No one's mind is going to change and it will just get me all riled up, with the obtuse nature of both sides of the argument really.

 

This is my prediction, this will be debated for another week or so, then we will move on to something else.  Then in 4 months time someone else will shoot somebody else (or many people) and then we will talk about it again.  People will get all keyed up and then it will die again.  Nothing will get done.  People will die.  This is the society we live in.    

[ih8music]

You haven't been paying attention to the news, because numerous new laws were enacted right after the tragedy in Sandy Hook. 

 

Should have been more precise -- nothing changed at the federal level.  Yes, a few states and local jurisdictions passed tougher gun control laws (while twice as many relaxed theirs)... but as long as I can go into the next county or buy something online, it doesn't really matter how tough my local laws are.  There needs to be a consistent national standard for how firearms are bought, sold & tracked.

 

And yes, criminals are always going to have access to guns on the black market.  That's a law enforcement issue and I agree that we need to everything we can to strictly enforce the laws already on the books.  But when someone with a history of violence and mental issues can just walk into a gun shop and legally buy a weapon, it's clear that there are still gaps in the system.

 

But yeah, what KevinG just said... this is all pretty much pointless debate at this point.  I shudder to think what will have to happen to change the national dialogue in a meaningful way.  I just hope to avoid the crossfire.

[Hixter]

This is my prediction, this will be debated for another week or so, then we will move on to something else.  Then in 4 months time someone else will shoot somebody else (or many people) and then we will talk about it again.  People will get all keyed up and then it will die again.  Nothing will get done.

That works for me. I'd rather the government do nothing if the 'something' is something like turning me into a felon for owning a piece of plastic with a spring inside.

 

But when someone with a history of violence and mental issues can just walk into a gun shop and legally buy a weapon

They can't. That's just the point: those people can't legally buy a weapon.

[ih8music]

They can't. That's just the point: those people can't legally buy a weapon.

 

 

 

WASHINGTON -- U.S. law enforcement officials are telling The Associated Press that the Navy contractor identified as the gunman in the mass shootings at the Washington Navy Yard had been suffering a host of serious mental issues, including paranoia and a sleep disorder. He also had been hearing voices in his head, the officials said.

Aaron Alexis, 34, had been treated since August by the Veterans Administration for his mental problems, the officials said. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the criminal investigation in the case was continuing. The Navy had not declared him mentally unfit, which would have rescinded a security clearance that Alexis had from his earlier time in the Navy Reserves.

Family members told investigators that Alexis was being treated for his mental issues.

[Winston Legthigh]

They can't. That's just the point: those people can't legally buy a weapon.

 

Am I missing something? Didn't Aaron Alexis do just that? Didn't Aaron Alexis have a history of violence and mental issues? Didn't he pass all background checks when he bought the shotgun?

[Mr. Heartbreak]

 

You're forgetting one crucial fact: they made handguns illegal and severely restricted ownership of most rifles and shotguns. People were forced into turning over their formerly legal firearms: yes, they came and took their 'precious guns.' Criminals ignored the law of course, as is made clear by the thousands of gun crimes that take place in the UK every year.

 

Answer me this:

 

1) Should Americans have to turn in their firearms? How do you think repealing the Second Amendment would go over with the citizens?

 

2) How would criminals be forced to give up their already illegal weapons? Do you expect them to just hand them over?

 

3) How would disarmed Americans protect themselves against armed criminals? (Why not disarm our cops like they do in the UK to make the question even more interesting?)

Oh, I didn't forget that gun ownership was severely restricted. In fact, I would encourage that.

 

Interesting info on the 2nd amendment via wikipedia:

 

In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.^[2] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."

 

To answer your questions: I have never felt any need to own a gun of any sort. And by the actual definition of the 2nd amendment, it would be perfectly fine by me if private citizens were required to turn them in. They could belong, then, to law enforcement and, yes, obviously, criminals would still keep theirs.

 

How do I think it would go over with the citizens? Shittily, with some. For me, couldn't care less. I would actually feel safer, not less safe, knowing there are very few guns out there instead of 300 million.

 

"Disarmed citizens" would have to protect themselves the same way unarmed citizens do now: security systems, crowbars, or judo.

 

Really, you don't have to worry about these kinds of things happening. You are more likely to win the lottery than you are to see any of them enacted during our lifetimes.

[Hixter]

Convicted felons, people under indictment for a felony, people deemed mentally ill, people charged with domestic violence, people with restraining orders and people who use illegal drugs (even marijuana) are all legally forbidden to purchase firearms. If they do so (or attempt to do so) they are breaking the law.

[Sir Stewart]

You mean "people who have been convicted of possession of illegal drugs (even marijuana)" right?

[Hixter]

You mean "people who have been convicted of possession of illegal drugs (even marijuana)" right?

No. The exact wording on the ATF form is: "Are you an unlawful use of, or addicted to, marijuana or any depressant, stimulant, narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?"