Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'The OT' started by cj9788, Dec 14, 2012.
So you opine.
Agreed. It was not an assault rifle because it was not selective fire, not because it wasn't fully automatic.
Depends on whose rights are impinged in the process. And that is the big issue.
Then again, the really big issue is are we putting little tiny band-aids on huge, gaping wounds?
The largest massacres at schools did not use guns. The potentially largest failed plot did not use guns. (And I had been in the building the night before.)
Let's solve real problems rather than legislate 176 year old gun technology out of existence.
Selective fire, as I understand it, only means fully automatic or not fully automatic as a setting. (With a common 3 round burst mode.)
The action inside an assault rifle is purposefully quite different to prevent simple machining to enable fully automatic firing.
The key is whose definition should be used? Traditional definitions or any of a number of "assault style" definitions that really only change how a gun looks. No new changes to the action were required. (And therefor did not actually produce a safer environment. But hey, some people felt better...)
If it matters, from Wikipedia:
In a school, apparently a guy can kill 22 primary school children with a knife. I think it was a political mistake to make the Newtown situation about gun control. The guns were all properly registered and purchased according to some of the stricter rules in the U.S. And I think it's foolish to suggest more armed security in schools which in much of the country have lost funding.
I'm done reading this thread. Too many disturbing posts supporting the use of assault weapons, like the one used in Newtown. The NRA and so-called "responsible" gun owners who fight effective gun legislation continue to aide the murderers.
Why would the funding need to come from the schools or the education budgets?
There is one thing our government does and does well and that is spend money in response to a crisis, real or perceived. Congress could appropriate $20B a year in the blink of an eye right now for this program, and would likely have already done so if the directive had come from the White House instead of the NRA.
If President Obama had included "I call on congress to create the Federal School Potection and Law Enforcement Assistance Act and provide the funding necessary to place a trained police officer in every school", the local departments would already be hiring them.
Language is a funny thing. That example usage for instance... "suddenly" and "berserk"...
Think about that and let it roll around in your brain...
When has anyone ever said that someone calmly and rationally and with great expectation went berserk. Berserk is always a "sudden" thing, no? Seems like a case of language use where "suddenly" is probably not really needed and "he went berserk" would suffice.
It would be like saying... "Suddenly, he did something that surprised all of us"... it sounds cool rolling off the tongue, but doing something that surprises you kind of has to occur suddenly, or it wouldn't be much of a surprise.
Just thought we all needed a break from the rest of the thread where we all know we really aren't going to solve the problem in a neat and tidy fashion... unfortunately.
Why does this whole discussion remind me of the Cold War arms race?
Then it was missiles countered by anti-missile missiles.
Now it's crazies with heavy firepower versus security guards.
Was the Backfire a strategic or a tactical bomber? That made a difference as to how it was regulated.
This thread can't define what an assault rifle is.
The US negotiated with the USSR for years on the START treaty, which took each sides number of nuclear warheads on missiles and heavy bombers from over 10,000 down to a mere 6,000.
Now we are arguing over an assault weapon ban that would still leave over 300,000,000 guns in the United States.
Thirty years ago the real problem was too many nuclear weapons on hair triggers. The solution was the break up of the Soviet Union and removing the animosity. While rogue weapons are still a great concern, there isn't an over-arching worry about an all-out, nuclear first strike by either the US or the USSR against the other country.
Similarly, in high school I didn't worry about being killed by a classmate even though kids in Minnesota had their hunting rifle in the trunk of their car in the high school parking lot because they'd been out deer hunting that morning before class. Now that would get you expelled and probably thrown in jail.
Instead of more firepower and ineffective regulations, we need to change our social norms. The end of the Cold War removed the threat of overnight nuclear Armageddon. Similarly, the end of the gun culture, where you have to be armed to protect yourself from crazies who are equally well armed, needs to happen, too.
It's an arms race for economic reasons. If the NRA can manipulate laws and bribe politicians and judges to allow more guns in more places, sales of guns and ammo go up. NRA gets more members, more donations, thus providing more funds to bribe more politicians and judges.
Bribery is an act of giving money or gift giving that alters the behavior of the recipient.
defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official or other person in charge of a public or legal duty.
When that doesn't work, blackmail or extortion might be used.
In short, we'll pay you to do what we want, but if you refuse, we'll make you pay, one way or another, even if it means smearing you and backing your opponent in the next election.
Perhaps ... but as with anything suggested by members of the federal government unless 1) there is a mandate passed to require the states/local government to act or 2) there is funding passed to pay for the program nothing much will happen.
Calling on Congress to pass an act does not immediate create the mandate or funding. And it is just as effective as calling on the citizens and residents of the United States and asking they they stop using guns for violent acts. Which every criminal would be willing to do if asked nicely, right?
There are an average of 30 people killed by guns each day in the US (based on 2011 figures) plus an additional 54 people who take their own lives with a gun ... but that isn't talking about the tragedy in Newton - that is talking about a larger issue. And while the "assault rifle" attacks easily make the headlines, they account for very few of the deaths each year.
Solving the problem is a challenge - and while I'm sure something will be tried to stop the violence I am also sure that Newton will not be the last tragedy.
Positive ID and a 2 box maximum per month on ammunition.
Just like some cold tablets.
What effective legislation has been introduced? How has its efficacy been measured?
The most recent "assault weapon" ban only banned semi-automatic weapons that looked like an assault rifle. It didn't actually ban the exact same model that had a rifle stock. So in effect it banned "brown colored" guns whilst leaving all the colors of the rainbow available for purchase. (That is an example, brown was actually an ok color, but some black parts were not.)
And as a general trend, since 1934 gun regulations have become more and more restrictive. And in that same time, as a general trend, massacres have increased. (Columbine happened while the "brown colored" gun ban was 5 years old.)
Well maybe. But then there's this in an article today:
Just in case we didn't have enough to worry about....
Slow down. I'd like to see some actual stats relating 'massacres' pre-1934 as a percentage of the total population to after 'more restrictive' gun regulations went into effect. Our population back then was around 125 million as compared to almost 315 million today.
And what weapons used in Columbine were banned?
My rough point was back in the 30s we seemed to have "a few" massacre events, a few more in the 60s, more in the 70s, and more in the 80s, climbing to the point were we seem to have roughly 2 per year? Again, very, very rough numbers, not a serious accounting. And over the same time we've continued to tighten gun laws. Rough evidence seems to indicate more of the same laws will produce more of the same results...
My point about Columbine is exactly that Columbine happened even while the much touted "assault weapon ban" was in effect and none of the actually used weapons were banned! Because the Columbine shooters used the weapons of the legal "color", they could be legally obtained.
The almost event that personally scares me the most, because I was in the very building targeted the day before the almost event, planned to use no guns. Only explosives. So I'm instantly in a perspective that guns ain't really the problem. (But I'm willing to explore ways to really secure people without infringing on our rights.)
Aiding murderers? :sure:
So, creating more control laws are the "solution"? Again, that falls into Einstein's definition of insanity, "doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results".