Shooting at the Empire State Building

Public safety officials, public health officials, weapons manufacturers, etc. with greater expertise than us lay people (but not as much expertise as gun owners like yourself, Doc Gun or the NRA) might have solutions, but in today's climate and the instant over-reaction by the gun rights crowd, even discussions are not possible.

 

redux,

I'm all for solutions, man. My problem is that individuals such as yourself often talk about aspects they have no idea about like maybe they actually matter. Buzzword gibberish. I'm surprised you haven't busted out the term "assault weapon" or "sniper rifle." All your AWB '94 lingo shows me exactly how much you know about the technical and operational aspects of the wrench-and-hammer simple item on which you so desperately wish to place limitations. A lot of Reefer Madness craziness. Good times, though. You sure you don't need an explanation on optics, muzzle devices and caliber/projectile effectiveness versus body armor? Given my double-digit IQ, I'm sure you won't have any problems digesting the simple concepts.

 

I should have paid more attention when I worked at the National Crime Prevention Council instead of getting high with my co-worker in the McGruff the crime dog suit.

But that doesnt change the fact that a national dialogue among experts is just not possible w/o it being fear-mongered as trashing Second Amendment rights.

 

Lemme guess... you learned about how a .44 Magnum can blow up a car at the NCPC.

"We need to restrict this item." "Why?" "It hurts/kills people... and it looks scary!"

 

I'm more then willing to listen to laws that would reduce gun violence. Just haven't seen any that would do so lately. The latest incident n NY would be changed by more restrictive gun laws how?

I understand what you're saying about drunk driving deaths but is driving or car ownership protected by the USC?
--- merged: Aug 25, 2012 at 7:13 PM ---

What has been done to non-military firearms in the past 25 years to make them more deadly?

 

What's the difference between a military and non-military firearm? The US military used lever action rifles and bolt action rifles for a long, long time.

 

The latest incident in NYC is not the issue other than to stimulate debate.....again and again and again, after every incident that draws national attention.

Good public policy development on reducing gun violence should put everything on the table for discussion other than that which is unconstitutional. That does not mean every proposal should be adopted, but simply that a national dialogue shout not be so fucking hard to have because of the fear or scare politics of one side.
--- merged: Aug 25, 2012 at 7:22 PM ---

Nope. I did research and surveys on community policing (and neighborhood watch programs).

Its a shame the Republicans in Congress who talk about better policing and better enforcement of existing laws wont support programs like these with funding.

 

speaking of circle jerks...

on what planet does loving attention to the particularities of guns amount to anything remotely like an argument about the question of whether levels of gun-related violence in the states are acceptable? what this looks like is an attempt to discredit an argument about gun-related violence by dick-waving over mastery of gun terminology. that's a form of ad hominem. awesome.

the other awesome argument: gun controls didn't eliminate this case therefore laws regulating guns are a waste of time. so laws prohibiting murder don't stop all murders so therefore laws prohibiting murder are a waste of time. so drunk driving laws do not stop all drunk drivers so all laws prohibiting drunk driving are a waste of time. no laws prevent the things they regulate or prohibit from happening so all laws are a waste of time.

great stuff.

the problem with this situation is that it's difficult to move from the particular to the general based on it. it raises the problem of police violence but not in a way that's easy to point to and make general arguments about police violence. like that.

 

Firearms are also continually redesigned to be 'safer'... Most all modern firearms designs feature physical firing pin blocks to prevent discharge when dropped among other safety features.

With regard to your assertions in the posts following the one I have quoted:

Sure, weapons have improved incrementally over time. But it is an incremental improvement rather than a wholesale paradigm shift. My work-gun still uses an old fashioned birdcage flash hider.... Nothing new here.

My personal carry pistol is a 1911 (named for the year it was adopted by our military)... Sure, mine has a few modern safety features and tritium sights, but basically it is the same weapon with the same limitations as the original. The sights allow me to shoot without having to use a flashlight... They don't increase my lethality per se but rather decrease my odds of getting shot.

Armor piercing ammunition: Pretty much the same as during WW2... Our latest armor piercing stuff for small arms performs about as well as what was available generations ago, it is just issued to more soldiers and is cheaper to produce. Why is this relevant at all? Have there been ANY confirmed cases where a civilian shot and killed someone through their armor in the United States, using true armor piercing ammunition?

By the way, what about a 'modern' flash suppressor makes a gun deadlier in the hands of a civilian in the United States? All a flash suppressor does is make it slightly more difficult for an adversary to identify where someone is firing from... It isn't a big difference and doesn't matter unless you are able to shoot back with your own gun after locating a shooter...

Optics have improved tremendously in the past 50 years... They allow you to see your target more clearly and they hold their zero better when the rifle gets knocked around. But during the Civil War we had optics that were sufficiently advanced to allow snipers to take out enemy soldiers from extreme distances.... Really in the overall scheme of things not much has changed. Iron sights are still perfectly fine for shooting people out to 400 or 500 meters.



I am happy to discuss gun control with you. I am not against the discussion and I will happily debate the potential merits of any 'solution' you may have. We may even be able to agree that doing X would result in a significant reduction in violent crime, murder, shootings, etc. But in order for that discussion to happen you need to put forward specific things you would change about our laws and what, specifically you expect to happen as a result.

Separate from that issue is the discussion of whether a law *should* be implemented even if it could save lives and where the line should be regarding personal freedom vs. 'public safety' and whether it is an individual concern (I carry a gun to protect myself) or a herd issue (nobody should have a gun so I don't get shot) . I am willing to have that conversation as well. Of course I already have strong opinions on the subject, but am willing to change them if you or someone else can show me I am wrong.

Third is the constitutional issue with the 2'nd Amendment. Here is where you constantly mischaracterize the majority of the gun-rights people on this forum. First, we are not all super-right wing religious zealots who willfully refuse to consider science or any information that could be used to reduce gun violence. I am pretty sure my personal politics are very different from Plan 9's and Tully Mars'. The debate here is the debate that will be the most difficult to hold on this forum, but I am willing to discuss it. However, I am of the opinion that regardless of the concessions I may make in the above two areas, the 2'nd Amendment is pretty clear and needs to be honored. I also feel this way about the rest of the constitution and support the other amendments with equal fervor. I also shake my head in equal horror when we willingly erode to nothing the protection provided by those amendments. Right now I am of the opinion that the 2'nd Amendment exists for one reason only: So the people could enter into armed revolt against the government with a fair chance of winning, provided the citizens supported the revolt. You may be able to convince me otherwise, but I doubt it. I also doubt you can convince me our government will stay 'good' forever.

I promise that if you can show me reasonable steps or laws that we can take to reduce murders in the US without effectively trashing the constitution then I will support them.

If you want to have this discussion then consider starting a new thread dedicated to that discussion... This thread should get back to how absolutely incompetent the NYPD appeared to be with the recent mass-shooting by police.

 

roachboy,

What this looks like is a guy waving around terms that mean absolutely nothing as if it is useful to categorize a particular type of item for the purpose of legislation. I didn't bring up terms like "scopes" and "flash suppressors" and "armor piercing." You know why? Because I know what they mean and they're not pertinent. Guns are guns are guns, whether you're Lee Harvey Oswald and slinging an old Italian bolt action or you're some Call of Duty psycho toting a cherry M4. If you're going to say that "we want to restrict guns" then you should probably say what kinds and why and know what the fuck you're talking about. Given that those that make the laws often have lofty degrees in various fields, it seems reasonable that they understand something that an 18 year old high school kid can master in a few weeks with the help of a screaming DI. The differences, and if they really matter.

Please, Roachboy, tell me how any of the features Redux brought up have actually assisted criminals and psychotics in committing a crime.

...

Italy, for example, has restricted all weapons that use military calibers. Said gun control is based on controlling firearm types through ammunition.

Such a law would be extremely difficult to use in the United States because of the overwhelming number of military surplus and styled weapons.

...

I concur with Snake Eater. TFP should have a fixed, stickied Gun Control Debate thread.

 

I agree completely... You wrote this while I was working on my post.

So let's have that discussion then.

 

Nothing personal towards you and the Plan man, but I'll pass. Been there and done that, with the same response in every discussion...."gun control wont eliminate all gun violence, therefore discussing gun regulations is a waste of time."

​

Evidently, I dont meet the Plan standards of technical expertise to discuss gun laws and in a previous discussion with you on reducing child/teen suicides, you made it clear that you are "not interested in saving those who dont want to live."

My interest is in seeing a national-level dialogue that could lead to meaning solutions to reduce gun violence, not more circle jerking in our little corner of the world.

 

I can play all sorts of games and arguments about the USA and gun control, but it's pointless. It's a very different environment from mine and the same rules cannot apply. The type of gun control that I would like to see in place simply cannot work there, as I see it.

I guess, if anything, I'd like to see some oversight of buying patterns of ammunition and weaponry (not helpful in this case, maybe, but could have bee for Aurora).

I'd like to see a little bit more on checking people out before they were allowed to buy guns, too (like keeping them in locked cases, separate from ammo, etc.) but I'm not sure that would work i the USA. There are so many guns out there, control become a real issue. A recall would probably only work on the people who don't concern me, honestly.

 

The very nature of your antagonistic response justifies my comment. If you are of the opinion that the restrictions imposed on gun ownership over the past 30 years are adequate I would have to question if you've kept up to date with the recent spate of mass shootings, which I suspect you have but for some reason have chosen to completely removed the weapons from the equation. Tough to counteract that sort of thinking.

What limitations?

For starters, regulate, monitor, and restrict the purchase of ammunition by private citizens.
Limit the number of rounds a clip can hold to the standard for the weapon.
Ban semi-automatic weapons.
Create a national database on individuals based on gun registry which picks up things such as incidences of domestic violence or brandishing a weapon in public for instance. Firearms of those individuals are confiscated.
All confiscated weapons are destroyed (this may or may not already be the case. Don't know).

I'm sure there are a slew of ideas out there waiting for the roll out as soon as the political wall is lowered.

No one's talking about you or your responsible gun owner ilk, Plan. Talking about finding a way to keep the nuts from getting and retaining their toys and keeping the body count to a minimum.

You in or out?

 

As cynthetiq put it a while ago: It inconveniences them.

 

There's far too many guns in the wrong hands today. Something has to be done to reduce that and eliminate the resupply. All of the rational arguments here defending gun rights are valid. However, those are being made by rational people, not gangbangers or punks that have guns as part of their culture.

 

Really glad to hear Skogafoss wasn't there Cynthetiq, but I hope this doesn't squash our plans to get Lan to the top of that building when she returns to the US.

These are the type of things that give me anxiety sometimes.

 

Ok, so what, specifically should be done about it?

My concern is that outlawing guns is not likely to work any more than outlawing heroin and cocaine has...

I think the solution is multi-part, here are a couple of the avenues I would like to see explored:

Social... The areas with the most gun violence are also typically the areas with the most violence and crime in general. People in these communities will not talk to the police and tolerate criminals and gang members living in their neighborhoods. That is, IMHO, one of the primary underlying problems, but it is also fixable through education, cash rewards and a 'public service campaign' designed to influence the population similar to 'this is your brain on drugs' etc.

Supply... Obviously if criminals can buy guns (legally or illegally) then it is easier for them to use them in a crime. I think there are simpler ways to reduce the supply than by banning gun-sales among law abiding citizens. By the time a weapon gets into the hands of the average person who will eventually use it for a crime (typically not someone with a clean record) the weapon is already 'illegal' in some capacity. I would like to see some simple programs to make illegal sales less appealing and to get rid of the conduits funneling weapons to criminals. To do this: Offer a large cash reward and amnesty for anyone who turns in an illegal weapon AND helps the authorities catch/convict the person who sold it to them. I suspect a $10,000 dollar reward would be more than enough to encourage max participation yet still considerably cheaper than the cost of the murders they would prevent. Offer that kind of money and enough people will turn in enough 'arms dealers' that it will become very difficult to purchase a weapon illegally.

 

Let's say I own my own reloading press. Is that now illegal? Do I have to announce to the government that I roll my own? Do we ban presses?

The correct term is detachable magazine. Already in place in many states, including NY. Does nothing to prevent crime.

What type of actions would you allow? Bolt? Lever? Revolvers? Single shot breech loaders only?

Many are sold at police auctions to help support underfunded police departments.

What's the difference between me and a nutjob? Or you and a nutjob? Is there a litmus test for it? The Falling Down detector?

How many of these spree shooters have prior records? All good questions.

Let me put it this way: I vote.