So I'm out. Never should have taken the bait to begin with. I will conclude with the wisdom of Senior Drill Instructor GySgt. Hartmann: "Your rifle is only a took. It is a hard heart that kills!"
Perhaps a more productive endeavor would be to wonder why American society produces so many violent antisocial shitbags who indiscriminately murder complete strangers.
Again, I don't think you realize how people from other countries, including free, democratic capitalist countries, are completely perplexed by America's obsession with guns.
I don't think you realize that many of us don't give a flying fuck about the opinions of foreigners.
Sure, uneducated rednecks don't care about the opinions of foreigners - but a lot of Americans do especially those that do business internationally, travel outside of the US, have a college education or have friends and family in other countries. If you are Billy Bob in northern Georgia who has worked in a local plant after graduating from high school, considers any trips across the Mississippi river to be "overseas" travel and spends his leisure time hunting and fishing, he could not care less about whether someone in Europe or Canada thinks his country's gun laws are backwards.
Again, I don't think you realize how people from other countries, including free, democratic capitalist countries, are completely perplexed by America's obsession with guns.
I don't think you realize that many of us don't give a flying fuck about the opinions of foreigners.
Sure, uneducated rednecks don't care about the opinions of foreigners - but a lot of Americans do especially those that do business internationally, travel outside of the US, have a college education or have friends and family in other countries. If you are Billy Bob in northern Georgia who has worked in a local plant after graduating from high school, considers any trips across the Mississippi river to be "overseas" travel and spends his leisure time hunting and fishing, he could not care less about whether someone in Europe or Canada thinks his country's gun laws are backwards.
Wow.
I would hope that you've come to that conclusion by being around and knowing a lot of Billy Bob's. It would surprise me though, as it is much different than the image I have of Billy Bob.
Billy Bob the gap toothed yokel from backwoods GA huh? Â
I like you and have always enjoyed you on the forum but with all due respect you come off like a snob with that last post.
I needed to counterbalance Greg's middle finger to the opinions of all foreigners
With bigotry? Seems reasonable...
And Greg's middle finger (I believe) was to the notion that the opinion of people who don't vote, don't pay taxes, don't reside here, etc. should be given any weight in a national debate seems pretty sound.
Do you care what your neighbor is going to think when you buy new sheets?
I like you and have always enjoyed you on the forum but with all due respect you come off like a snob with that last post.
I needed to counterbalance Greg's middle finger to the opinions of all foreigners
With bigotry? Seems reasonable...
And Greg's middle finger (I believe) was to the notion that the opinion of people who don't vote, don't pay taxes, don't reside here, etc. should be given any weight in a national debate seems pretty sound.
Do you care what your neighbor is going to think when you buy new sheets?
it is pure ignorance to disregard how other jurisdictions do things and their results
First, this incident began very similarly to Sandy Hook (murdered parent then short trip to nearby school), so thankfully it turned out much less bad. That firefighter is a badass for neutralizing the shooter.
I’d like to thank buford for weighing in. She always offers a layered and incisive viewpoint on issues such as this.
While 2nd amendment absolutists/literalists (and our dear profiteer friends in their preferred lobbying group) are among the most vapid and unbearable weirdos among us, one should allow that the loose 21st century equivalent of muskets – 15 round glocks or the like – reasonably fall under the purview of that codification. In that sense (and even without the Bill of Rights’ guarantee), I think Uconn is on fairly solid ground here. I concur.
Beyond handguns (add hunting weapons), attempts to appropriate the amendment to extol the ownership of their larger friends fast becomes a silly affair (familiar terrain for the aforementioned weirdos). Right, Ronnie?
Which is not to trivialize the ongoing role that handguns play in violence in America. It’s a major problem which can hopefully be solved in part by technology.
Regarding xmead’s inelegant simplification…a majority of Americans did support certain Federal gun control measures after Sandy Hook. (Those who have an hour interested in that would like this Frontline). But that’s not how laws are made.
Why is our favorite lobbying group in the driver’s seat wrt this issue? It’s not because of money. Bloomberg has more money than they’ll have in 100 years. It’s due to Gerrymandered house districts catering to single-issue (underline, bold, italics) members who are devoutly involved in the political process and who are very effectively mobilized. Compare it loosely to how a small Florida contingent of anti-Castro Cubans for decades influenced national policy (something that’s slowly changing, as we’ve seen).
The pendulum will not swing meaningfully until their yang regularly mobilizes in a commensurate manner, which includes actually voting in midterm elections. This does not look likely to happen. Whether you lament or celebrate that depends in part on to what degree you believe the weapons themselves and access to them are responsible for these incidents, but that’s the reality.
Lastly, I resent that the name Billy Bob is employed in order to portray backward rednecks. To me, it more appropriately represents drunken, pants-pissing Santas. Which reminds me: anyone who’s hoping our leaders will come together for even basic, sensible reforms (say, the oft-mentioned “mental health” angle):
I like you and have always enjoyed you on the forum but with all due respect you come off like a snob with that last post.
I needed to counterbalance Greg's middle finger to the opinions of all foreigners
With bigotry? Seems reasonable...
And Greg's middle finger (I believe) was to the notion that the opinion of people who don't vote, don't pay taxes, don't reside here, etc. should be given any weight in a national debate seems pretty sound.
Do you care what your neighbor is going to think when you buy new sheets?
it is pure ignorance to disregard how other jurisdictions do things and their results
Is that your backpedal on this one? That you were somehow implying that you were arguing from some sort of fact based analysis of gun control polices, and not simply making an idiotic attempt at a social proof?
Nice try, no one is buying it - go back and try and figure on what concealed means, that was at least entertaining.
I don't care whether you own a gun or not, but I do think guns should be much harder to get a hold of, and automatic weapons shouldn't be available to the public. IIRC, Sweden has some of the strictest gun control measures, where it takes a year to get your permit, and you're not guaranteed to get one if you have certain priors. It just seems like the most zealous supporters of the 2nd Amendment act like they're living out in the wild west.
Now how do we go about convincing states south of the Mason Dixon to enact similar laws - without even getting in to whether Conn's new legislation is worth a damn. We can't even get our wonderful Reps to agree on controls on suspected terror suspects for fear that they'll be challenged in a primary that's closer on the horizon than any actual sensible action to get guns our of the hands of nutjobs - or get regular joes and Jane's to better secure their existing guns.
Wrt Mental Health legislation as it relates to gun purchases, where do we even begin too determine what types of mental illness should preclude on from gun ownership? One in four Americans suffers from one type or another if we're to include depression. Even if we were to successfully reach a consensus on poses the greatest risk - how do we get around equal protection, since most agree it's a Constitutial right that shall not be abridged.
This is the problem. One side has dug in so deep on the issue and has done such a wonderful job of conflating and deflecting the discussion that we don't even have a starting point.
I will agree on one thing, much of CT's legislation is window-dressing, enacted under cover of darkness by legislators who were desperate to be seen as doing something.
There are very useful things that most gun owners would agree with that can and should be done - but these are seen as half measures by the segment of the population that is busy trying to wish guns away.
Many cases of mental illness go undiagnosed. Mostly because it's an inexact science, but also because we do such a poor job as a country in investing in mental health services. So any potential legislstion prohibiting say, Bi-polars or boderline personalities from owning a firearm probably won't do a heck of a lot in grand scheme of things.
It's a red herring. The answer is federal gun laws that supercede any existing legislation. Whatever that may be - so long as it's uniform and applied equally in each check state. Unfortunately, that's unlikely.
I will agree on one thing, much of CT's legislation is window-dressing, enacted under cover of darkness by legislators who were desperate to be seen as doing something.
There are very useful things that most gun owners would agree with that can and should be done - but these are seen as half measures by the segment of the population that is busy trying to wish guns away.
As I'd said earlier in the thread, I think the answer is a total ban. However, I'm not opposed to a middle ground solution of permitting gun ownership with strict background checks and uniform legislation. I think a majority of the America falls somewhere in the middle, with the zealots on either fringe driving actual policy. The far left wants all guns gone and the far right/NRA wants no restrictions.
To be clear, I was/am citing a mental illness component as the most basic of reforms. And did so in order to illustrate that even “no brainer” reform with little political opposition goes nowhere due largely to the wider digging in of heels (to which you accurately referred). Worries of a slippery slope.
It is most definitely used as a red herring by aggressively brazen profiteers, but need not necessarily be one as a portion of an overall good-faith approach to addressing the problem.
"Assault weapons" get a lot of play I. The media following mass shootings, but the vast majority (nearly all) gun deaths are caused by handguns.
Hand guns are the problem.
Sandy Hook was a bushmaster XM15 30-magazine rifle that did the damage. Lanza had a Glock and a Sig handgun with plenty of ammo for both, but I don't believe there was evidence either was fired other than the Glock with which Lanza took his own life.
Columbine there were both sawed off shotguns and handguns not to mention pipe bombs.
Dylan Roof used a .45 handgun
Omar Mateen (Orlando) used a 30-magazine capacity .223 S&W (I believe) rifle and a glock
Sayed Farook (San Bernardino) used two AR-15 rifles and illegally modified them one to be automatic (modifications were not successful, still remained semi) and a modification to one to make it larger magazine capacity
not saying handguns don't do damage, but in mass shooting it does not seem they are weapon of choice.
handguns are not reliably accurate for anyone other than a marksman from distances of more than 15 yards or so.
rifles and shotguns, much more accurate at much further distances.
As Rob was saying about Scary Black Rifle syndrome Â
That looks pretty hardcore, doesn't it? All tactical 'n shit. Now look at this rifle:
Looks a lot less scary, doesn't it?
They're the same rifle, the Springfield Armory M1A, chambered in .308 Winchester/7.62 NATO. One has a bunch of extra, largely cosmetic shit on it, plus that scary black synthetic stock instead of walnut.
Here's a video of three people who could probably obtain a gun in this situation regardless if they were outlawed or not.
Notice how they entered the house with their guns already drawn. Fortunately, the lone female house-sitter had her own firearm for self-defense, imagine how loud that must have been.
You'd rather emphatically stated earlier that you're "out", so good to see that you've been reading and have re-joined us.
The 1st gun you posted has a larger magazine, so not merely cosmetic differences. That said, you're accurate that a confusion about weapons is fairly common. Oftentimes a deliberate conflation (typically by politicians), but also frequently, I suspect, an honest confusion. Especially by those heartbroken parents who, yes, are not firearms experts but who are genuine in their attempts to prevent more violence like that which they suffered.
But it's an important point you bring up about weapon types and nomenclature. We should be debating where the "line" is when it comes to owning firearms, as we've been doing long before Sandy Hook or Columbine. Reagan, with 86's Firearm Owner's Protection Act, effectively (one can still get them via absurdly onerous avenues) put the quash on hold-down-trigger automatic weapons, even though a literalist reading of the Constitution indisputably would allow them.
Other things we should debate: "smart gun" technology (likely the best way to cut down on accidental child deaths), more aggressive universal background checks, federalized trafficking crimes, shorter magazine capacity (Lanza's gun had, I believe, 30 rounds). There are others and all offer debatable levels of efficacy. I'm not proposing any as a panacea, but reasonable people should explore them as a means to reduce violence.
What is not helpful is a fingers-in-ears, feet-stamping opposition to sensible reforms by those who make a lot of money catering to a very small contingent which I cited above. Whose power is in part magnified via illegitimate means (that is to say, cynically fashioned Congressional districts).
however magazine capacity is something that should be reasonably debated when discussing the role of firearms in home defense, hunting, and (regrettably) mass shootings.
So it is a notable difference when comparing the 2 photos, though he's correct about the guns themselves.
however magazine capacity is something that should be reasonably debated when discussing the role of firearms in home defense, hunting, and (regrettably) mass shootings.
So it is a notable difference when comparing the 2 photos, though he's correct about the guns themselves.
Absolutely open for discussion. However, does switching them change the functionality?
To someone who is planning to wreak havoc with a gun, switching out a clip quickly is an easy skill to master.
Lastly, large capacity magazines are more prone to jamming.
That being said, I have no problem limiting them to a reasonable capacity.
This to me is the sticking point because it can't be a one size fits all for various reasons.
In regards to making a magazine at home or learning to be very proficient in the skill of reloading; doing both and carrying out a horrible crime means there is a larger problem.
Not bringing that up to dump everything on mental health, but a handgun with 6/7 rounds (like mine) instead of the 14/15 you used to be able to carry is a pretty reasonable start and definitely limits what any joe schmo can do.
"In regards to making a magazine at home or learning to be very proficient in the skill of reloading; doing both and carrying out a horrible crime means there is a larger problem."
Absolutely agree 100%
Being handy in a metal shop and having fun at the range is completely different from planning a mass murder.
Absolutely open for discussion. However, does switching them change the functionality?
It does not.
The 2nd photo, though, is "less scary" for reasons beyond cosmetics like the bucolic hue. One would rather someone with ill intentions be armed with the latter gun. No guarantee of less carnage, obviously, but it does add that extra step. I imagine law enforcement is trained to fire back while a shooter is re-loading (I could be wrong).
I like you and have always enjoyed you on the forum but with all due respect you come off like a snob with that last post.
I've spent a great deal of time in Toronto. This is the norm for most people there. Opinionated, snobby metros that have nothing good to say about anything American. America is the root of all evil.
I read where the shooter was expelled from school last year (2015) for Â
Absolutely open for discussion. However, does switching them change the functionality?
It does not.
The 2nd photo, though, is "less scary" for reasons beyond cosmetics like the bucolic hue. One would rather someone with ill intentions be armed with the latter gun. No guarantee of less carnage, obviously, but it does add that extra step. I imagine law enforcement is trained to fire back while a shooter is re-loading (I could be wrong).
But functionally identical, you're correct.
Who's firing back though? You want everyone disarmed, don't you?
In any case, I've been round and round on this one. Go ahead and ban hi-capacity mags. I don't really have a problem with that, although it won't have any real practical effect. Watch the linked video to see why. Those are Marines, yes, but it's not rocket science. Anyone who practices it can learn a fast magazine exchange.
And let's say you want to ban external magazines altogether. Even with a bolt action rifle with an internal magazine, a proficient marksman can fire twenty or more aimed shots per minute and reload with a stripper clip in maybe four or five seconds.
Who's firing back though? You want everyone disarmed, don't you?
Either you possess exceedingly poor reading comprehension skills, or you didn't read what I wrote.
I don't want that (if only for selfish reasons given that I like the range), nor did I state as much anywhere on this or any other thread. In fact I wrote something directly contradictory yesterday circa east coast Jeopardy.
Nor did I assuredly advocate banning high cap magazines as a solution, only said that it's something to consider as part of making progress toward reducing gun murders.
Let me know if any of that is not clear enough for you.
As a gun owner and in general a supporter of the 2nd amendment Â
I do admit I find the unwillingness to compromise of the gun lobby/NRA a little frustrating. Especially when so much is state driven right now and I feel like what I had to do in MA wasn't easy, but should be a bare minimum and many states don't even have this much rigor and process around acquiring a firearm.
There are some common sense measures I think make sense that should be federally mandated. Many are mentioned. Intensive background checks to own a gun, mandatory safety training that needs to be re-certified periodically, magazine capacity limits, automatic weapon restrictions, etc.
I do understand the NRA perspective of if you give even a millimeter they'll take a foot and gradually chip away at our "freedoms", but I think that POV does them more harm than good (among their detractors) and they could make some common sense compromise that isn't even a middle ground, it's more on their side, that would be seen as true compromise comparatively speaking.
However, I still believe the knee jerk reaction to each mass killing is ill-informed, presumptive and misplaced, because IMO most mass killings would not and will not be prevented by even removing 100% (or whatever realistic percent a complete ban would get) of the legal and registered firearms.
just out of curiosity, why more restrictions on automatic weapons?
Since 1934 since they were banned, there has been 2 murders committed with legally owned machine guns. The only way a private citizen can own one is by obtaining a class 3 licence. You give up a few constitutional rights to get that.
Appears the regulations in place are working just fine.
just out of curiosity, why more restrictions on automatic weapons?
Since 1934 since they were banned, there has been 2 murders committed with legally owned machine guns. The only way a private citizen can own one is by obtaining a class 3 licence. You give up a few constitutional rights to get that.
Appears the regulations in place are working just fine.
Other than that, agree with the rest.
I'd just close the trust loophole for automatic weapons or close the trust loophole in general.
It might have even been already closed, Obama had been trying to do it for a while through executive order. It allowed people to create trusts or incorporate and buy guns, specifically illegal guns like machine guns or other illegal gun parts like some silencers, without getting either local jurisdiction approval or even without a background check.
Perhaps a more productive endeavor would be to wonder why American society produces so many violent antisocial shitbags who indiscriminately murder complete strangers.
Quote:
Again, I don't think you realize how people from other countries, including free, democratic capitalist countries, are completely perplexed by America's obsession with guns.
I don't think you realize that many of us don't give a flying fuck about the opinions of foreigners.
Quote:
In comment 13148244 Les in TO said:
Quote:
Again, I don't think you realize how people from other countries, including free, democratic capitalist countries, are completely perplexed by America's obsession with guns.
I don't think you realize that many of us don't give a flying fuck about the opinions of foreigners.
Sure, uneducated rednecks don't care about the opinions of foreigners - but a lot of Americans do especially those that do business internationally, travel outside of the US, have a college education or have friends and family in other countries. If you are Billy Bob in northern Georgia who has worked in a local plant after graduating from high school, considers any trips across the Mississippi river to be "overseas" travel and spends his leisure time hunting and fishing, he could not care less about whether someone in Europe or Canada thinks his country's gun laws are backwards.
Wow.
I would hope that you've come to that conclusion by being around and knowing a lot of Billy Bob's. It would surprise me though, as it is much different than the image I have of Billy Bob.
Personally, I feel mystified and dismayed by Canada's lack of free expression, but que sera sera.
He sure did ruin the image of Georgia for the rest of the world.
Didn't he Les?
fixed it for you.
Personally, I feel mystified and dismayed by Canada's lack of free expression, but que sera sera.
Quote:
I like you and have always enjoyed you on the forum but with all due respect you come off like a snob with that last post.
I needed to counterbalance Greg's middle finger to the opinions of all foreigners
With bigotry? Seems reasonable...
And Greg's middle finger (I believe) was to the notion that the opinion of people who don't vote, don't pay taxes, don't reside here, etc. should be given any weight in a national debate seems pretty sound.
Do you care what your neighbor is going to think when you buy new sheets?
Quote:
In comment 13148416 steve in ky said:
Quote:
I like you and have always enjoyed you on the forum but with all due respect you come off like a snob with that last post.
I needed to counterbalance Greg's middle finger to the opinions of all foreigners
With bigotry? Seems reasonable...
And Greg's middle finger (I believe) was to the notion that the opinion of people who don't vote, don't pay taxes, don't reside here, etc. should be given any weight in a national debate seems pretty sound.
Do you care what your neighbor is going to think when you buy new sheets?
First, this incident began very similarly to Sandy Hook (murdered parent then short trip to nearby school), so thankfully it turned out much less bad. That firefighter is a badass for neutralizing the shooter.
I’d like to thank buford for weighing in. She always offers a layered and incisive viewpoint on issues such as this.
While 2nd amendment absolutists/literalists (and our dear profiteer friends in their preferred lobbying group) are among the most vapid and unbearable weirdos among us, one should allow that the loose 21st century equivalent of muskets – 15 round glocks or the like – reasonably fall under the purview of that codification. In that sense (and even without the Bill of Rights’ guarantee), I think Uconn is on fairly solid ground here. I concur.
Beyond handguns (add hunting weapons), attempts to appropriate the amendment to extol the ownership of their larger friends fast becomes a silly affair (familiar terrain for the aforementioned weirdos). Right, Ronnie?
Which is not to trivialize the ongoing role that handguns play in violence in America. It’s a major problem which can hopefully be solved in part by technology.
Regarding xmead’s inelegant simplification…a majority of Americans did support certain Federal gun control measures after Sandy Hook. (Those who have an hour interested in that would like this Frontline). But that’s not how laws are made.
Why is our favorite lobbying group in the driver’s seat wrt this issue? It’s not because of money. Bloomberg has more money than they’ll have in 100 years. It’s due to Gerrymandered house districts catering to single-issue (underline, bold, italics) members who are devoutly involved in the political process and who are very effectively mobilized. Compare it loosely to how a small Florida contingent of anti-Castro Cubans for decades influenced national policy (something that’s slowly changing, as we’ve seen).
The pendulum will not swing meaningfully until their yang regularly mobilizes in a commensurate manner, which includes actually voting in midterm elections. This does not look likely to happen. Whether you lament or celebrate that depends in part on to what degree you believe the weapons themselves and access to them are responsible for these incidents, but that’s the reality.
Lastly, I resent that the name Billy Bob is employed in order to portray backward rednecks. To me, it more appropriately represents drunken, pants-pissing Santas. Which reminds me: anyone who’s hoping our leaders will come together for even basic, sensible reforms (say, the oft-mentioned “mental health” angle):
Quote:
In comment 13148450 Les in TO said:
Quote:
In comment 13148416 steve in ky said:
Quote:
I like you and have always enjoyed you on the forum but with all due respect you come off like a snob with that last post.
I needed to counterbalance Greg's middle finger to the opinions of all foreigners
With bigotry? Seems reasonable...
And Greg's middle finger (I believe) was to the notion that the opinion of people who don't vote, don't pay taxes, don't reside here, etc. should be given any weight in a national debate seems pretty sound.
Do you care what your neighbor is going to think when you buy new sheets?
it is pure ignorance to disregard how other jurisdictions do things and their results
Is that your backpedal on this one? That you were somehow implying that you were arguing from some sort of fact based analysis of gun control polices, and not simply making an idiotic attempt at a social proof?
Nice try, no one is buying it - go back and try and figure on what concealed means, that was at least entertaining.
We just had some great BBQ right here in North Georgia. You damn Yankees don't know what you are missing. Enjoy the snow!
Now how do we go about convincing states south of the Mason Dixon to enact similar laws - without even getting in to whether Conn's new legislation is worth a damn. We can't even get our wonderful Reps to agree on controls on suspected terror suspects for fear that they'll be challenged in a primary that's closer on the horizon than any actual sensible action to get guns our of the hands of nutjobs - or get regular joes and Jane's to better secure their existing guns.
Wrt Mental Health legislation as it relates to gun purchases, where do we even begin too determine what types of mental illness should preclude on from gun ownership? One in four Americans suffers from one type or another if we're to include depression. Even if we were to successfully reach a consensus on poses the greatest risk - how do we get around equal protection, since most agree it's a Constitutial right that shall not be abridged.
This is the problem. One side has dug in so deep on the issue and has done such a wonderful job of conflating and deflecting the discussion that we don't even have a starting point.
There are very useful things that most gun owners would agree with that can and should be done - but these are seen as half measures by the segment of the population that is busy trying to wish guns away.
It's a red herring. The answer is federal gun laws that supercede any existing legislation. Whatever that may be - so long as it's uniform and applied equally in each check state. Unfortunately, that's unlikely.
Where are automatic weapons publicly available?
There are very useful things that most gun owners would agree with that can and should be done - but these are seen as half measures by the segment of the population that is busy trying to wish guns away.
As I'd said earlier in the thread, I think the answer is a total ban. However, I'm not opposed to a middle ground solution of permitting gun ownership with strict background checks and uniform legislation. I think a majority of the America falls somewhere in the middle, with the zealots on either fringe driving actual policy. The far left wants all guns gone and the far right/NRA wants no restrictions.
Quote:
automatic weapons shouldn't be available to the public.
Where are automatic weapons publicly available?
My apologies, I meant assault weapons. I'm certainly no scholar on the subject, but there are 7 states that have banned them, right?
It is most definitely used as a red herring by aggressively brazen profiteers, but need not necessarily be one as a portion of an overall good-faith approach to addressing the problem.
Hand guns are the problem.
Hand guns are the problem.
Sandy Hook was a bushmaster XM15 30-magazine rifle that did the damage. Lanza had a Glock and a Sig handgun with plenty of ammo for both, but I don't believe there was evidence either was fired other than the Glock with which Lanza took his own life.
Columbine there were both sawed off shotguns and handguns not to mention pipe bombs.
Dylan Roof used a .45 handgun
Omar Mateen (Orlando) used a 30-magazine capacity .223 S&W (I believe) rifle and a glock
Sayed Farook (San Bernardino) used two AR-15 rifles and illegally modified them one to be automatic (modifications were not successful, still remained semi) and a modification to one to make it larger magazine capacity
not saying handguns don't do damage, but in mass shooting it does not seem they are weapon of choice.
handguns are not reliably accurate for anyone other than a marksman from distances of more than 15 yards or so.
rifles and shotguns, much more accurate at much further distances.
That looks pretty hardcore, doesn't it? All tactical 'n shit. Now look at this rifle:
Looks a lot less scary, doesn't it?
They're the same rifle, the Springfield Armory M1A, chambered in .308 Winchester/7.62 NATO. One has a bunch of extra, largely cosmetic shit on it, plus that scary black synthetic stock instead of walnut.
Notice how they entered the house with their guns already drawn. Fortunately, the lone female house-sitter had her own firearm for self-defense, imagine how loud that must have been.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KyQV2dR_tT8
Tragically, only one of these three home invaders were killed in this incident.
The 1st gun you posted has a larger magazine, so not merely cosmetic differences. That said, you're accurate that a confusion about weapons is fairly common. Oftentimes a deliberate conflation (typically by politicians), but also frequently, I suspect, an honest confusion. Especially by those heartbroken parents who, yes, are not firearms experts but who are genuine in their attempts to prevent more violence like that which they suffered.
But it's an important point you bring up about weapon types and nomenclature. We should be debating where the "line" is when it comes to owning firearms, as we've been doing long before Sandy Hook or Columbine. Reagan, with 86's Firearm Owner's Protection Act, effectively (one can still get them via absurdly onerous avenues) put the quash on hold-down-trigger automatic weapons, even though a literalist reading of the Constitution indisputably would allow them.
Other things we should debate: "smart gun" technology (likely the best way to cut down on accidental child deaths), more aggressive universal background checks, federalized trafficking crimes, shorter magazine capacity (Lanza's gun had, I believe, 30 rounds). There are others and all offer debatable levels of efficacy. I'm not proposing any as a panacea, but reasonable people should explore them as a means to reduce violence.
What is not helpful is a fingers-in-ears, feet-stamping opposition to sensible reforms by those who make a lot of money catering to a very small contingent which I cited above. Whose power is in part magnified via illegitimate means (that is to say, cynically fashioned Congressional districts).
The 1st gun you posted has a larger magazine, so not merely cosmetic differences.
You can put a larger or smaller magazine in either so it's not a functional difference.
So it is a notable difference when comparing the 2 photos, though he's correct about the guns themselves.
So it is a notable difference when comparing the 2 photos, though he's correct about the guns themselves.
Absolutely open for discussion. However, does switching them change the functionality?
To someone who is planning to wreak havoc with a gun, switching out a clip quickly is an easy skill to master.
Lastly, large capacity magazines are more prone to jamming.
That being said, I have no problem limiting them to a reasonable capacity.
This to me is the sticking point because it can't be a one size fits all for various reasons.
To someone who is planning to wreak havoc with a gun, switching out a clip quickly is an easy skill to master.
Lastly, large capacity magazines are more prone to jamming.
That being said, I have no problem limiting them to a reasonable capacity.
This to me is the sticking point because it can't be a one size fits all for various reasons.
In regards to making a magazine at home or learning to be very proficient in the skill of reloading; doing both and carrying out a horrible crime means there is a larger problem.
Not bringing that up to dump everything on mental health, but a handgun with 6/7 rounds (like mine) instead of the 14/15 you used to be able to carry is a pretty reasonable start and definitely limits what any joe schmo can do.
Absolutely agree 100%
Being handy in a metal shop and having fun at the range is completely different from planning a mass murder.
It does not.
The 2nd photo, though, is "less scary" for reasons beyond cosmetics like the bucolic hue. One would rather someone with ill intentions be armed with the latter gun. No guarantee of less carnage, obviously, but it does add that extra step. I imagine law enforcement is trained to fire back while a shooter is re-loading (I could be wrong).
But functionally identical, you're correct.
I've spent a great deal of time in Toronto. This is the norm for most people there. Opinionated, snobby metros that have nothing good to say about anything American. America is the root of all evil.
This was clearly an unstable boy with mental problems.
The question is even with that type of warning how does a parent proceed?
Quote:
Absolutely open for discussion. However, does switching them change the functionality?
It does not.
The 2nd photo, though, is "less scary" for reasons beyond cosmetics like the bucolic hue. One would rather someone with ill intentions be armed with the latter gun. No guarantee of less carnage, obviously, but it does add that extra step. I imagine law enforcement is trained to fire back while a shooter is re-loading (I could be wrong).
But functionally identical, you're correct.
Who's firing back though? You want everyone disarmed, don't you?
In any case, I've been round and round on this one. Go ahead and ban hi-capacity mags. I don't really have a problem with that, although it won't have any real practical effect. Watch the linked video to see why. Those are Marines, yes, but it's not rocket science. Anyone who practices it can learn a fast magazine exchange.
And let's say you want to ban external magazines altogether. Even with a bolt action rifle with an internal magazine, a proficient marksman can fire twenty or more aimed shots per minute and reload with a stripper clip in maybe four or five seconds.
Link - ( New Window )
Either you possess exceedingly poor reading comprehension skills, or you didn't read what I wrote.
I don't want that (if only for selfish reasons given that I like the range), nor did I state as much anywhere on this or any other thread. In fact I wrote something directly contradictory yesterday circa east coast Jeopardy.
Nor did I assuredly advocate banning high cap magazines as a solution, only said that it's something to consider as part of making progress toward reducing gun murders.
Let me know if any of that is not clear enough for you.
There are some common sense measures I think make sense that should be federally mandated. Many are mentioned. Intensive background checks to own a gun, mandatory safety training that needs to be re-certified periodically, magazine capacity limits, automatic weapon restrictions, etc.
I do understand the NRA perspective of if you give even a millimeter they'll take a foot and gradually chip away at our "freedoms", but I think that POV does them more harm than good (among their detractors) and they could make some common sense compromise that isn't even a middle ground, it's more on their side, that would be seen as true compromise comparatively speaking.
However, I still believe the knee jerk reaction to each mass killing is ill-informed, presumptive and misplaced, because IMO most mass killings would not and will not be prevented by even removing 100% (or whatever realistic percent a complete ban would get) of the legal and registered firearms.
Since 1934 since they were banned, there has been 2 murders committed with legally owned machine guns. The only way a private citizen can own one is by obtaining a class 3 licence. You give up a few constitutional rights to get that.
Appears the regulations in place are working just fine.
Other than that, agree with the rest.
Since 1934 since they were banned, there has been 2 murders committed with legally owned machine guns. The only way a private citizen can own one is by obtaining a class 3 licence. You give up a few constitutional rights to get that.
Appears the regulations in place are working just fine.
Other than that, agree with the rest.
I'd just close the trust loophole for automatic weapons or close the trust loophole in general.
It might have even been already closed, Obama had been trying to do it for a while through executive order. It allowed people to create trusts or incorporate and buy guns, specifically illegal guns like machine guns or other illegal gun parts like some silencers, without getting either local jurisdiction approval or even without a background check.
Otherwise nothing further.
but again, I'm certainly not an expert on this but I wouldn't be surprised if the bulk of gun violence is perpetrated by non-legal gun owners.
So all the banning and regulations I'm not sure what it will change, but people still scream for it.
so it's why I feel some common sense control measures might be a good step.