VA Tech shooting and politics (THIS IS THE THREAD FOR TALK OF "gun control", ETC)

[Rekna]

A new bill has been placed in congress that calls for stricter background checks which include mental health. It is supported by the Dems and the NRA. I hope this passes.

[debaser]

Sounds like a good idea, let's hope they don't screw it up in the execution.

[Willravel]

The NRA is backing it?! That's like a miracle or something.

[samcol]

The NRA really is a false opposition to gun-control. Gun owner's of America and Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership are much better imo.

[debaser]

I quit the NRA when they rolled over on the "assault weapons" ban.

[Willravel]

Do you think they should have assault weapons training in schools, too?

I keep wondering, why in god's name you think you need all these horrible things? What possible reasonable use could anyone but a military officer in the field need with an assault weapon?

[samcol]

Originally Posted by willravel

Do you think they should have assault weapons training in schools, too?

I keep wondering, why in god's name you think you need all these horrible things? What possible reasonable use could anyone but a military officer in the field need with an assault weapon?

The title of the bill has little to do with the actual text. It should of been titled guns that look scary ban but otherwise perform like a hunting rifle.

[Willravel]

Assault weapon = assault rifle, yes? If so, then I disagree. The M16 and AK47 are not hunting rifles.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by willravel

Assault weapon = assault rifle, yes? If so, then I disagree. The M16 and AK47 are not hunting rifles.

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It is about ensuring that the people, thats you and me, have at our disposal the means to fight off....why am I even bothering with this for you?

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. It is about ensuring that the people, thats you and me, have at our disposal the means to fight off....why am I even bothering with this for you?

If you're going to respond to my posts, then maybe you should read a few posts before it for context. This is the second time in the past few days that you've done this. Let me make this as clear as possible:

Originally Posted by Samcol

The title of the bill has little to do with the actual text. It should of been titled guns that look scary ban but otherwise perform like a hunting rifle.

See where he said that the assault weapon ban was against 'scary guns' that 'perform like a hunting rifle'? THAT is what I was responding to. Understand? If you respond like this again, I'll just ignore you.

Or would you like to tell me that the M16 and AK47 are hunting rifles?

[samcol]

Originally Posted by willravel

Assault weapon = assault rifle, yes? If so, then I disagree. The M16 and AK47 are not hunting rifles.

Assault weapon or rifle is a weird term.

Most Civilians cannot get fully automatic weapons since the 30's I believe (if that's what you think of by Assault Rifle). All AK-47 or M16 type guns you get in America are NOT fully automatic. Therefore it does perform similarly to a semi-automatic hunting rifle. It's the LOOK that was banned, not what the rifles did.

Here is an excellent video that shows what I'm talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysf8x477c30

[Willravel]

Oh snap, that guy's from San Jose! Odd coincidence.

Okay, the video is very informative. I happen to know the difference between a semi and full auto gun, but I was unaware that newsmedia mislabels guns. I'll have to keep an eye out for that.

Going back for a moment, the assault rifle has some key differences from a hunting weapon:
-Selective fire
-Use of the magazine

It's important, in my mind, to point out these differences as they change the functionality of the weapon considerably. Hunting rifles, as I understand them, do not use burst fire. Also, hunting rifles can only keep a small amount of ammunition in the weapon. This means that you have like x number of shots to hit the deer (or the person, if you're a violent criminal). A magazine carries a substantially larger number of bullets that can be fired without reloading.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by willravel

Oh snap, that guy's from San Jose! Odd coincidence.

Okay, the video is very informative. I happen to know the difference between a semi and full auto gun, but I was unaware that newsmedia mislabels guns. I'll have to keep an eye out for that.

Going back for a moment, the assault rifle has some key differences from a hunting weapon:
-Selective fire
-Use of the magazine

It's important, in my mind, to point out these differences as they change the functionality of the weapon considerably. Hunting rifles, as I understand them, do not use burst fire. Also, hunting rifles can only keep a small amount of ammunition in the weapon. This means that you have like x number of shots to hit the deer (or the person, if you're a violent criminal). A magazine carries a substantially larger number of bullets that can be fired without reloading.

so you're saying that a rifle that has a detachable magazine holding, say 15 rounds, is an assault rifle but a rifle that only has 5 rounds in a loading tube is not?

[Willravel]

So you're saying that an assault rifle and a hunting rifle are the exact same thing?

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by willravel

So you're saying that an assault rifle and a hunting rifle are the exact same thing?

Pardon me, I misspoke myself. I meant assault weapon, not assault rifle.

Also, not sure why this went to hunting because hunting is not the subject of the right to keep and bear arms.

[Willravel]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

Pardon me, I misspoke myself. I meant assault weapon, not assault rifle.

Also, not sure why this went to hunting because hunting is not the subject of the right to keep and bear arms.

If you think there is a threadjack, then say something. Samcol and I were discussing assault weapons.

[Vitalsigns2000]

"Gun Control" in the U.S. this is an Oxy Moron!

[Willravel]

, that was out of left field!

[debaser]

Originally Posted by willravel

Going back for a moment, the assault rifle has some key differences from a hunting weapon:
-Selective fire
-Use of the magazine

Assault rifles are not selective fire. They are semi-automatic only.

A select fire weapon is known as a Class 3 weapon or a machine gun (technically not correct). Anyone can buy once once they pay a $200 tax stamp and complete a very thorough background check.

[Willravel]

But the class 3 weapons were banned under the ban, right? I think I need more reading on this...

[debaser]

Originally Posted by willravel

See where he said that the assault weapon ban was against 'scary guns' that 'perform like a hunting rifle'?

Actually he said "scary looking" guns. And he is right. Most weapons outlawed by the ban weren't nearly as dangerous as a "hunting rifle", they just had a scary looking part, like a bayonette lug or a pistol grip.

Originally Posted by willravel

But the class 3 weapons were banned under the ban, right? I think I need more reading on this...

Not at all, they are a completely separate entity under the law and were not effected at all under the AWB.

[ubertuber]

Will - if this helps, there are some GREAT threads here with all of this info. Check in the politics forum with last posts in the fall of 2004. If I remember correctly, Lebell and Seretogis did a great job explaining why both gun control advocates AND proponents should regard the AWB as junk legislation. I think it was one of the few times that several people changed their opinions on an issue publicly.

[Deltona Couple]

Originally Posted by Willravel

Maybe the real question should be, why, in my 23 years on this Earth, have I never had to use a gun? I don't even think I've ever been offered the opportunity. I'll tell you I've never actively seeked to learn about or aquire a gun, but really...you're suggesting mandatory gun training for everyone. For me it would be as useless as spelling.

First let me state Will, that I for one am not trying to change your opinion on this discussion. I am merely stating my OWN opinion as information to absorb.
Just because in your 25 years YOU have not needed a firearm, does NOT mean that nobody else has had the need. Consider yourself fortunate. While I am appaled that you were shot once before(I will say thank GOD that you are ok afterward) Not everyone that has been shot is as fortunate as you. I have a very good friend of mine that is alive today because of the fact that I carry, and no, I have absolutely no doubt that she would be dead if I hadn't intervened. You asked before If I had ever shot a criminal, and my answer was yes. Here is the situation. I had a good friend of mine who always seemd to date the wrong guys. One of those ladies you see in the movies always picking the guys who beat her up all the time. She was dating this guy who was always mean to her, but she kept telling me that it was "her fault" and whenever I called the cops after hearing them fighting, she would NEVER press charges.(needless to say he didn't like me much...I didn't care if he did) One Friday night, she had finally had enough, and told me that she was going to move out. He was out of town, and we were packing her things so she could move. Well he came home, and at the time I was in my apartment getting more boxes. I heard the yelling, and immediately went over to see what was going on, and he was standing over her with a pistol, screaming at her. He saw me, and while he was starting to point his gun toward me, I drew, and fired. 3 shots, center mass. The police of course arrived, I was arrested (don't think that if you use your firearm, even legally, that you WONT get arrested) and arraigned on Monday morning. When I got out, the charges were already dropped against me.
I got back home, and my friend was obviously distressed, but hugged me and thanked me. We found out a few days later that her "boyfriend" had rope, a roll of plastic construction plastic, a shovel, and an axe in the trunk of his car. So yes, I FULLY believe in the right to own and bear arms. If it weren't for my quick thinking and TRAINING THAT I RECEIVED IN SCHOOL(back then Firearm safety was IN school, and they trained you in safe operation and safety of MANY firearms) then things may have gone differently. Am I saddened that I had to kill someone? YES...I relive the fact that I killed someone....another human being. But I can also feel better knowing that it was done to save another person's life. Someone who was a dear friend.

I now step off my soapbox...

[Paq]

can a gun-owner PM me, i have a couple of serious questions, but i don't want to take up room in this thread.

Thank you

[Willravel]

Deltona, that's really, really sad. I'm very glad they you were there to rescue your friend from that sick individual. I'm also very sorry that you needed to kill him and I recognize that it's not my place to say whether it was necessary or not mainly because I wasn't there. The only thing I'm left wondering, and hope you don't find this offensive, is was it necessary to fire center mass? I'm not familiar with firearms, but I'm handy with a bow and arrow and I would be confident to hit someone in, say, the shoulder from 25 feet off. It's a difficult question to ask because it's clear that your life and the life of your friend were in immediate danger, so please don't misunderstand: I think you're a hero for being brave enough to make a serious decision to save your friend. As someone who would die in order to avoid killing another human being, I'm just trying to understand.

To be clear, I can't say with certainty what I'd do in a similar situation. If a friend or family member of mine were in a dire and life threatening situation, it's possible that something in me would kick in and I could take a life. Speaking outside of that situation, though, I'd like to think that I would find all reasonable methods of saving my friend that avoided taking a life. As an atheist, I find life to be especially precious because I know I won't have an afterlife to atone or to see those who have died again.

[samcol]

I just shot a handgun for the 2nd time this weekend, needless to say it was a very humbling experience. The short barrel of a handgun makes it very hard to aim well compared to a rifle. Plus real targets don't stand still so imo it would take some real skill to purposely hit a moving person's shoulder at 25 ft.

[debaser]

will

I hope I don't come off cold blooded saying this, but every time you shoot a firearm at a person you should aim center mass. This is for several reasons:

1. It is much easier to hit. Gunfights are high stress situations, and your shot placement rarely achieves parity with what you can do on a target range.

2. If you are shooting at a person, you have decided to use deadly force. The fact that you are shooting a gun implies that you need to incapacitate the target as quickly as possible, the most reliable way to accomplish this is center mass shots to the torso (the head is too hard to hit in a fluid situation).

3. Legaly you are much more justified in shooting a person in the chest, regardless if you kill him or not, than you are trying to "shoot the gun out of his hand", or shoot him in the leg. Once you discharge your weapon you have applied dealy force, whether you hit him or not. That is the standard you will be judged on.

The real trick is you never want to fire a gun in this situation, period. But once a person has forced you to the point where there is no other option you go with training and neccessity.

Deltona Couple, my condolences and appreciation for your story.

[1010011010]

samcol, what were you shooting?

The only pistol I've shot in recent experience is a Beretta M9A1. It's fairly user friendly, IMO.

[samcol]

Originally Posted by 1010011010

samcol, what were you shooting?

The only pistol I've shot in recent experience is a Beretta M9A1. It's fairly user friendly, IMO.

It was a 9mm Beretta. Yes, it was pretty easy to use, but I was just anticipating the shot and flinching on the trigger pull. It was enlighting to actually shoot one because all I knew before that was whats on tv and video games. So, I could see why someone would only want to aim for the chest once you make the decision to use deadly force.

[opus123]

Originally Posted by Carno

How do you stop any type of crime from happening?

It's impossible in my opinion.

I'll bet all my money that you don't work at a bank. LOL

Jonathan

[pig]

it's kind of funny, in a way, to read about the huge debate about gun ownership in a general sense from my perspective. i just grew up with them. they were tools, and remain so. not great savers of liberty, not evil doers of mischief. i grew up popping off bottle tops with .22's, firing .45's, shotguns, rifles; i have no particular fascination with guns, but i'd rather have them around than not. it seems like every other discussion; quickly devolving into the die hard ends of the spectrum. i don't know if i speak for the middle or not; regardless of the particular interpretation you have of the 2nd amendment, i think we should be able to agree that different people seem to have different interpretations of the scope and intent of the amendment. we could go around about the 'correctness' of the individual interpretations til the cows come home without actually resolving the issue. i kind of like it the way it more or less is now, in terms of the legal standpoint. my state isn't a concealed carry state, as far as i know; but if someone broke into my house or my parents' house; they'd probably be pretty severely fucked. i am pretty sure you can get a license to carry a piece around; but it takes some effort and justification to do so. furthermore, there are places - like schools and certain private businesses, where i believe it is illegal to carry a weapon. i rather like it that way.

[opus123]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

You sound like every other gun control spokesperson out there that has zero evidence or facts to back up your position

The Brady Bill was implemented in February of 1994. In 1997, the number of violent crimes committed with firearms had fallen 25% since 1994, while the overall number of violent crimes had declined 14%. Do you dispute this ?

http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

Crime and mortality statistics are often used in the gun control debate. The number of homicides committed annually with a firearm by persons in the 14- to 24-year-old age group increased by 173% from 1985 to 1993, and then decreased by 47% from 1993 to 1999.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/guns.shtml

Do you dispute any of this evidence ?

Jonathan

[Deltona Couple]

Will, to answer your question, the majority of which was touched correctly by Debaser, if you choose to fire a weapon you are using deadly force, and as such, you must be prepared for the result. Accuracy is a big issue. If you aim center mass, then any error in trigger pull, nervous twitch, etc, it still gives you the best chance of hitting your intended target. He was raising his gun in my direction at the time, and in order to prevent him from shooting ME, I had to make the determination that he was an iminent threat. Because of this I felt that it was required to make sure he wouldn't have a chance to fire back. I HAT the fact that it happened, and it is something that I have to live with for the rest of my life. One thing to consider is that I have been raised around firearms all my liffe, and spent 8 years in the Marines, so I had EXTENSIVE training in firearms, and the use of such. It is my opinion that if I were NOT as well trained as I was, I might have flinched, gotten too scared, or worse, and there would have been more than one person who died that day. This is why it is MY belief that everyone should atleast UNDERSTAND the correct use and safety of a firearm. I am not saying it should necesarrily be a required course, but atleast be AVAILABLE in our schools for those who choose to learn. NOTHING in this world is worse in the case of firearms than someone who thinks he knows EVERYTHING about weapons. This makes them twice as dangerous. Yes it is unfortunate that our country has such a higher percentage of firearm deaths. But look again at the statistics. It is hard to make a comparison with such different cultures and populations. Very few countries have the population that we have, or the crime rates that we have. We have been breeding our own problems, and I truly don't see us being able to come to a quick resolution to what is going on. As I said, I would be more than willing to give up every gun I own, if I could be guaranteed the same were done in the entire country. But realistically it will never happen in my lifetime.Think back to prohibition. If we outlawed firearms, then the criminals would import them illegally, and then we would be in more danger as a populace. I am not saying, as was implied of me before, that we shouldn't try. I am saying that we need to make small steps, and gradual EDUCATED steps to help reduce the crimes by firearms. Stronger regulations, stricter requrements for ownership, stiffer crimes for criminals. I like one of the laws in Florida. It is called 10-20-life. If you brandish a weapon while commiting a crime, automatic 10 years, if the firearm is discharged, automatic 20 years, and if you shoot or kill someone, automatic life. It HAS reduced the number of gun commited crimes in Florida. Also, I am not sure where the statistic is, but the it has been shown that the number of person-on-person crimes since the inception of the concealed handgun permit was enacted in Florida has gone down, AND we are showing a decline in other crimes as well. Orlando unfortunately is our problem spot, with crimes on the increase, but hey, can't be perfect...and I don't want anyone thinking I am being biased here...lol. I certainly applaud you Will, for being the way you are....we should have more of you out there. I personally like the check and ballance you give us on this thread, and in the country.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by opus123

The Brady Bill was implemented in February of 1994. In 1997, the number of violent crimes committed with firearms had fallen 25% since 1994, while the overall number of violent crimes had declined 14%. Do you dispute this ?

http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

Both gun and non-gun murder rates fell during the same period, 1992 to 1997. In 1992, 68% of U.S. murders were committed with guns; in 1997, it was still 68%. Thus, the decreased gun homicide rate was part of an overall declining crime rate, not an effect of the Brady Bill.

FBI Uniform Crime Reports for 1992 and 1997

Violent crime started falling in 1991, three years before passage of the Brady law. The Brady law did not apply in 18 states, yet violent crime in those states fell just as quickly.

FBI Uniform Crime Statistics for 1990s and the U.S. Justice Department Crime Victimization Survey

Gun possession by criminals has risen in the Brady years – 18% of state prisoners (was 16% before Brady) and 15% for federal prisoners (was 12% before Brady) are caught with firearms.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, “Firearm Use by Offenders”, November 2001

Originally Posted by opus123

Crime and mortality statistics are often used in the gun control debate. The number of homicides committed annually with a firearm by persons in the 14- to 24-year-old age group increased by 173% from 1985 to 1993, and then decreased by 47% from 1993 to 1999.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/crime/guns.shtml

Do you dispute any of this evidence ?

Jonathan

see what I posted above, yes I dispute it.

Anyone can play with numbers to get the desired result they want.

[Willravel]

Deltona, I appreciate your candor. If Florida is working, then maybe something along the same lines at the federal level is in order.

[archetypal fool]

Ok, this is some scary shit. I just received an email from my university (University of South Florida) which says they found a 47 year-old man sleeping in his car today at 12:00-1:00, with a loaded .38 caliber handgun on the seat next to him, and a search of his car resulted in finding a knife and a shotgun. Scary thing is, I was at school all day today. Could this VA scenario become commonplace? If there's another university shooting anywhere in the US any time soon, you can bet gun control is going to change big-time. If it happens once, it's a fluke, but if it happens twice within a couple of weeks, what is it? Shenanigans?

I'm glad this situation didn't escalate any further, but I wonder what would've happened if it had. I'm still debating with myself about what I would do if given the opportunity to carry a weapon into campus. I mean, sure, I'd feel a whole lot safer, but in the back of my mind there would always be that feeling that someone around me is also armed. On the other hand, if it were allowed, how many student do you think would actually go through the trouble to get the gun, and be allowed to bring it to school (you'd probably have to fill out loads of paperwork with the university). I mean, how many people around you when you walk down the street have a concealed weapon permit? I'd assume not many. Isn't it reasonable to assume the same ratio of students would bring one to school (i.e, not many)?

[nolan36]

it is sad but its nearly impossible to stop it. The government would have to change laws regarding gun control, which is in the Bill of rights.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by archetypal fool

Ok, this is some scary shit. I just received an email from my university (University of South Florida) which says they found a 47 year-old man sleeping in his car today at 12:00-1:00, with a loaded .38 caliber handgun on the seat next to him, and a search of his car resulted in finding a knife and a shotgun. Scary thing is, I was at school all day today. Could this VA scenario become commonplace? If there's another university shooting anywhere in the US any time soon, you can bet gun control is going to change big-time. If it happens once, it's a fluke, but if it happens twice within a couple of weeks, what is it? Shenanigans?

what law did this guy break?

Originally Posted by archetypal fool

I'm glad this situation didn't escalate any further, but I wonder what would've happened if it had. I'm still debating with myself about what I would do if given the opportunity to carry a weapon into campus. I mean, sure, I'd feel a whole lot safer, but in the back of my mind there would always be that feeling that someone around me is also armed. On the other hand, if it were allowed, how many student do you think would actually go through the trouble to get the gun, and be allowed to bring it to school (you'd probably have to fill out loads of paperwork with the university). I mean, how many people around you when you walk down the street have a concealed weapon permit? I'd assume not many. Isn't it reasonable to assume the same ratio of students would bring one to school (i.e, not many)?

There are nearly 350,000 concealed license holders in Florida and that does not include those that are carrying without a license, who would otherwise be law abiding citizens. Then you could include criminals and gangbangers and you've probably got about half a million people in your state carrying on a daily basis.

[archetypal fool]

Originally Posted by dksuddeth

what law did this guy break?

There are nearly 350,000 concealed license holders in Florida and that does not include those that are carrying without a license, who would otherwise be law abiding citizens. Then you could include criminals and gangbangers and you've probably got about half a million people in your state carrying on a daily basis.

1. Well, since they arrested him and made a huge deal about it, I'd assume he broke some law. He was parked inside the school, and it's illegal to posses a gun(s) within the school. Besides, I don't know about you, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the average gun owner doesn't take his gun(s), drive to a local university, park inside, put them in plain sight (e.i, on the passenger seat), loaded and ready to fire, and then go to sleep. I don't see any possible chain of events which would account for this odd behavior, so forgive me for being troubled by this.

2. Exactly. Assuming 14M adult Floridians, if ,say, 500K own guns, that's 3.6% of the adult population. Assuming it becomes legal to bring firearms to campus, and this same percentage finds itself within my university (though unlikely), where, at any given moment, there are ~5K students and faculty present, that's 180 armed peoples. I don't know about you, but I feel O.K. with that number, considering the size of our campus. And just like all the gun advocates here, I assume if you go through the trouble of buying a gun and registering for a CCW, then you're responsible and also spend time at the range practicing, in which case, I trust that you're responsible with a gun, so I don't expect you to whip it out when a cashier overcharges you accidentally, for example.

[dksuddeth]

Originally Posted by archetypal fool

1. Well, since they arrested him and made a huge deal about it, I'd assume he broke some law. He was parked inside the school, and it's illegal to posses a gun(s) within the school. Besides, I don't know about you, and correct me if I'm wrong, but the average gun owner doesn't take his gun(s), drive to a local university, park inside, put them in plain sight (e.i, on the passenger seat), loaded and ready to fire, and then go to sleep. I don't see any possible chain of events which would account for this odd behavior, so forgive me for being troubled by this.

You can be troubled by it all you wish, but the law is such that if a person is in his/her own vehicle, whether on college grounds or public school grounds, then he/she is legally allowed to posess a weapon in that vehicle. Now, just because that person was arrested doesn't mean anything. A cop can arrest you for anything they choose and let the court system sort it out. The big deal was simply because of the VT tragedy. I carry mine everyday when I drop my kids off or pick them up so simply having a gun in the car really doesn't mean anything. This person may have simply been looking for a quiet place to rest, but we don't really know that for sure, do we?

Originally Posted by archetypal fool

2. Exactly. Assuming 14M adult Floridians, if ,say, 500K own guns, that's 3.6% of the adult population. Assuming it becomes legal to bring firearms to campus, and this same percentage finds itself within my university (though unlikely), where, at any given moment, there are ~5K students and faculty present, that's 180 armed peoples. I don't know about you, but I feel O.K. with that number, considering the size of our campus. And just like all the gun advocates here, I assume if you go through the trouble of buying a gun and registering for a CCW, then you're responsible and also spend time at the range practicing, in which case, I trust that you're responsible with a gun, so I don't expect you to whip it out when a cashier overcharges you accidentally, for example.

Now that is a completely suitable and respectable position to take.