HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » "There were at least...

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:34 AM

"There were at least 6 weapons to choose from immediately at hand. The fact that he didn't take

the hunting rifle or shotgun should be a major argument in favor of assault-style gun control.

He made a conscious choice of the semi-automatic assault rifle and hand guns that were sure to swiftly inflict the desired damage..."

Joe Klein (TIME) made this paraphrased but pertinent observation earlier on Morning Joe. Germane to the discussion, IMO.

161 replies, 11744 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 161 replies Author Time Post
Reply "There were at least 6 weapons to choose from immediately at hand. The fact that he didn't take (Original post)
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 OP
alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #1
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #2
Jester Messiah Dec 2012 #3
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #6
Sunlei Dec 2012 #159
RC Dec 2012 #4
Recursion Dec 2012 #7
RC Dec 2012 #17
Orrex Dec 2012 #23
Recursion Dec 2012 #25
Exultant Democracy Dec 2012 #53
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #61
GliderGuider Dec 2012 #127
renie408 Dec 2012 #65
Recursion Dec 2012 #70
renie408 Dec 2012 #84
tblue Dec 2012 #78
bobclark86 Dec 2012 #81
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #88
renie408 Dec 2012 #100
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #120
creeksneakers2 Dec 2012 #131
lolly Dec 2012 #146
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #155
Care Acutely Dec 2012 #158
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #160
Care Acutely Dec 2012 #161
Bettie Dec 2012 #67
RC Dec 2012 #121
Bettie Dec 2012 #136
Hoyt Dec 2012 #28
Recursion Dec 2012 #29
Hoyt Dec 2012 #34
Recursion Dec 2012 #37
Hoyt Dec 2012 #50
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #86
ReRe Dec 2012 #41
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #93
Hoyt Dec 2012 #97
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #36
bighart Dec 2012 #54
jpak Dec 2012 #111
ThoughtCriminal Dec 2012 #137
Recursion Dec 2012 #138
ThoughtCriminal Dec 2012 #143
Recursion Dec 2012 #144
ThoughtCriminal Dec 2012 #145
DBoon Dec 2012 #151
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #9
ReRe Dec 2012 #44
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #66
Recursion Dec 2012 #5
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #10
Recursion Dec 2012 #12
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #14
Recursion Dec 2012 #26
AlexSatan Dec 2012 #30
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #16
Recursion Dec 2012 #27
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #31
Recursion Dec 2012 #33
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #40
Recursion Dec 2012 #45
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #55
snooper2 Dec 2012 #38
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #42
snooper2 Dec 2012 #52
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #60
Raine1967 Dec 2012 #118
Recursion Dec 2012 #139
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #13
alcibiades_mystery Dec 2012 #19
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #21
Recursion Dec 2012 #24
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #39
Recursion Dec 2012 #43
Ikonoklast Dec 2012 #87
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #107
Ikonoklast Dec 2012 #112
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #122
ReRe Dec 2012 #64
Recursion Dec 2012 #68
ReRe Dec 2012 #76
progressoid Dec 2012 #94
Recursion Dec 2012 #96
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #123
progressoid Dec 2012 #135
slampoet Dec 2012 #77
Recursion Dec 2012 #85
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #125
Lilma Dec 2012 #8
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #18
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #11
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #15
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #20
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #22
ReRe Dec 2012 #74
Euphoria Dec 2012 #47
Recursion Dec 2012 #56
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #71
Euphoria Dec 2012 #148
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #57
laundry_queen Dec 2012 #91
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #113
SCVDem Dec 2012 #32
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #49
B Stieg Dec 2012 #35
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #46
laundry_queen Dec 2012 #92
bighart Dec 2012 #48
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #51
AtheistCrusader Dec 2012 #59
Recursion Dec 2012 #62
bighart Dec 2012 #89
Recursion Dec 2012 #90
bighart Dec 2012 #95
Recursion Dec 2012 #98
bighart Dec 2012 #102
Recursion Dec 2012 #103
bighart Dec 2012 #104
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #117
Kaleva Dec 2012 #58
yardwork Dec 2012 #69
Recursion Dec 2012 #101
yardwork Dec 2012 #106
Recursion Dec 2012 #108
lolly Dec 2012 #147
Recursion Dec 2012 #156
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #150
Recursion Dec 2012 #157
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #124
Kaleva Dec 2012 #132
yardwork Dec 2012 #140
Kaleva Dec 2012 #142
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #126
MrYikes Dec 2012 #63
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #73
Dems to Win Dec 2012 #152
yardwork Dec 2012 #72
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #80
yardwork Dec 2012 #105
Recursion Dec 2012 #109
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #130
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #119
JPZenger Dec 2012 #75
Recursion Dec 2012 #79
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #83
Hoyt Dec 2012 #99
sir pball Dec 2012 #82
PD Turk Dec 2012 #110
HooptieWagon Dec 2012 #114
bongbong Dec 2012 #116
RC Dec 2012 #141
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #133
bixente Dec 2012 #115
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #128
nachosgrande Dec 2012 #129
Surya Gayatri Dec 2012 #134
Warren Stupidity Dec 2012 #149
kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #153
ManiacJoe Dec 2012 #154

Response to Surya Gayatri (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:36 AM

1. He chose the appropriate tool for his task - no question about that

The first child was shot eleven times.

That's all you need to know about the appropriateness of the Bushmaster rifle for public consumption.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:39 AM

2. ^^^This^^^!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #1)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:12 AM

3. It certainly seems to have compensated for his shitty trigger discipline.

I know... what an odd thing to think of at this point. But it's true, if he'd had only a 10 round mag, his bad trigger discipline would have resulted in a much lower body count.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Jester Messiah (Reply #3)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:19 AM

6. Joe Klein didn't talk about high capacity ammo clips...

but only because Joe Scar cut him off.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #1)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 09:07 AM

159. a disturbed person, a gun loving mother, any med side effects? his exposure to todays gun games.

home school, todays doomsday media, like a recipe for disaster.

The exposure to todays ingame live chat in the popular shooter games, I don't think is much good for anyone but most people know it's just a game. But an over cloistered young disturbed person will grab on to the virtual 'life' like it's reality.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:18 AM

4. Which is more intimidating? More macho?

 


A .223 Bushmaster. This is a military knockoff, originally designed to hunt humans. This can be easily fitted with a 100 round drum.
The main difference between this and the military version is that this not auto fire...
Unless you put a bump stock on it. Then, for all intents and purposes, it is fully automatic.
Add the 100 round drum, and well, what's this doing in civilian hands?
Do you think anyone is going to hunt rabbits with this?


A .223 hunting rifle, 5 rounds, Bolt action. Use to hunt small game. Cannot be made automatic, or even semi-auto.
Designed for the purpose of hunting small game. Rabbits, coyotes, small animal pests.

There are those that say these weapons are the same thing. They say both are hunting rifles. Why? Because they both use the same ammunition.
Really? Think about that. Are these weapons really the same?
The last time a bolt action was used in an assassination was 40 years ago. The last time a bushmaster was used for mass murder was this past week... again.

Anyone else see the problem here?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:22 AM

7. No, those two aren't the same thing

One is semi-automatic and one is bolt-action.

A rifle that's "the same thing" as the Bushmaster is something like this:



though that's a different brand.

People react viscerally to the shape of the grip and the stock (that's what ended up getting banned) but that's not what's important, the cycle of operations is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:41 AM

17. You are missing the point.

 

Your selection of weapons looks like a hunting weapon. It the military styling that attracts the fringe and the crazies.
Would anyone take your rifle and put a 100 round drum under it and make a Youtube video to show off their masochism? Highly doubtful.
How about a bump stock on that thing? I'm betting it would have to be a custom, one of a kind.
So no, they are not the same.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #17)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:06 AM

23. Someone on NPR's All Things Considered Yesterday talked about the AR-15

He identified it as the most popular assault-style weapon currently on the US market, and he identified the "coolness" and the "Rambo factor" as primary driving forces behind its popularity. He actually used those terms.

To her credit, Melissa Bloch actually called him on it, asking him how he could use the term "coolness" in the wake of the massacre, and he was quick to assert that he doesn't own one and doesn't want one. Although I find the term "coolness" to be in extremely poor taste, I'm afraid that he was probably correct in his choice of wording.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #17)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:15 AM

25. The people who post gun porn youtube videos aren't the people who shoot up schools and malls

So, yes, it would strike a blow against gun culture, but it wouldn't make anybody safer. You certainly could put a 100 round drum on the rifle I posted. Then again I'm not even sure how much of a blow against gun culture it would be, since people who know guns aren't nearly as tied up with the look of them as people who don't know guns seem to think they are (and seem to be themselves). FWIW, the features that seem to bother people so much (matte black finish, pistol-style grip, modern stock) are preferred because they're safer, which is the same reason the military likes them.

I'd be interested in banning the AR-15 and the gun I posted, if I could figure out how to get back the hundred million or so people already own. But as long as people who don't know guns are more upset by the shape and color of the rifle than by its actual firing characteristics, it's only the ones that look like M16's that will get banned.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #25)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:58 AM

53. blow against gun culture may very well makes us safer

The people who build their own little arsenals are where you find the mass shooters. Less then half of Americans own guns and out of that group only 20% own the majority of guns in America.

Put that together with the fact that society at large is getting less violent and criminal means that this 10% of the population, the real gun nuts are the source of the problem. Anything to put a dent in the gun hoarders acquisition of new murder tools is a good start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Exultant Democracy (Reply #53)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:06 AM

61. Tell it, ED! Can I get an "AMEN" on that?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #61)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:20 PM

127. AMEN!! (-50% for this endorsement coming from Canada, though...) nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #25)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:09 AM

65. We get them back through attrition.

Nothing we do TODAY is going to fix the gun problem by TOMORROW. But how about by the time our grandkids are in school? How about a buy back program? That might eliminate a good many right there. How about making them illegal to trade or sell? That will slow down some people right there. Start education campaigns to gradually change the social mindset.

It is just ridiculous to say "Oh, there is no point in trying to ban the AR-15, there are so many of them already out there." That's like saying, "Oh, there is no point in making it illegal to litter, everybody does it and there is already so much trash out there." But we did and, over time, we managed to make it so that most of my children's generation cannot even imagine throwing something out of a car window. They ALWAYS wear their seatbelts. There are many fewer smokers. All of these things were imbedded in our culture 30-40 years ago. Now they aren't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to renie408 (Reply #65)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:18 AM

70. Yeah, I mean I do agree with that

It would be better to have a less armed future than a more armed one. These things last a long time though. MADD is probably the most effective public safety campaign in history and they did very little of their work through legislation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #70)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:40 AM

84. Drunk driving laws have tightened exponentially over the past thirty years.

So, that observation is wrong.

Do you think drunk driving would have been reduced as much as it has SOLELY through the efforts of MADD? It takes a multi-faceted approach. I have not heard anyone propose ONLY regulating guns more closely.

Except that gamer guy and he has a dog in the fight.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #25)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:30 AM

78. If it saves one life, confiscate all of them.

If 99.99% remain at large, if it saves ONE LIFE, make possession illegal. The life saved could be your own, or another little child's. it's worth it.

"It's not possible to get them all" is no excuse not to try or not to start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue (Reply #78)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:36 AM

81. If it saves one life...

outlaw tobacco, alcohol, cars, electricity, fast food and coffee. Combined, they kill far, far more people than guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobclark86 (Reply #81)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:44 AM

88. Stop penning hackneyed horsepucky and go stroke your penile extension...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #88)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:16 PM

100. I think I love you.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to renie408 (Reply #100)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 01:43 PM

120. Well, I mean, enough's enough. Just calling it

like I see it. Happier hugs to you, renie!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobclark86 (Reply #81)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:25 PM

131. I don't know of coffee killing anyone.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bobclark86 (Reply #81)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:09 PM

146. Not that this deserves an answer, but

Tobacco, alcohol, and cars are heavily regulated and taxed already. There are laws against driving drunk, and they have saved many lives. Cars are licensed; you can get a ticket if your car is in an unsafe condition.

Bartenders can be sued if they serve drinks to someone who is clearly intoxicated if they know he/she will be driving home.

Public service announcements constantly warn kids of the dangers of tobacco. Seen any of those warning them that guns are for losers?

Fast food kills the eaters--and it is starting to be subject to regulation on calorie counts, marketing to children.

Electricity--there are thousands of pages of legal building codes written about electricity. You can't just hook electricity up any which way you want in a house. You can't sell products that use electricity unless they meet certain standards.

As for coffee--really? It kills more people than guns? It kills anybody? The jury is actually out on whether it's a net gain or loss health-wise.

So, in other words, all these things that are recognized as dangerous are already regulated more than guns.

And they all have other purposes--guns have one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tblue (Reply #78)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:11 AM

155. What if saving that one life costs two lives? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #155)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:46 AM

158. It won't. Only NRA gun-humpers have that idiotic notion. Fucking idiots one and all.

Any human being with more than two brain cells and a head that doesn't reside directly up their asshole - deep - knows that guns take and destroy far more lives than they save by literally thousands of times over.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Care Acutely (Reply #158)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 03:41 PM

160. If any sort of restriction is passed

 

I think that we need to ensure that it applies to the police as well.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ComplimentarySwine (Reply #160)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 10:01 PM

161. Cast your pearls amongst your own swine

They are unwelcome and worthless here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #17)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:10 AM

67. I agree with you, but had to smile at one thing you said....

I think you meant machismo instead of masochism!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Bettie (Reply #67)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 01:52 PM

121. You're correct, I did. But both fit, so I'll leave it.

 

Thanks.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #121)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:16 PM

136. I figured they both fit, it just made me giggle a little

Which is a good thing today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:20 AM

28. You are correct --gun cultists drool over the more menacing looking gun.


Good reason to restrict them, and their less menacing version if easily modifiable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #28)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:22 AM

29. Well, no, that's what I'm saying

Actual gun owners don't, but people who don't know guns and are viscerally upset by simply seeing them do.

Shooters prefer modern grips because they're safer, but if you require them to use a less-safe traditional grip, they will.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #29)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:36 AM

34. No "shooters" prefer the modern grips/stocks because they look/feel more lethal than already lethal


base models. When manufacturers market these guns -- they call them tactical or strategic weapons (or some other BS) to pump up the killer instinct of potential customers.

I know people are into ergonomics, although I think it is more that they can sit in their recliners and shoot people while relaxing.

Ban/restrict them both, along with semi-auto pistols and you'll all but shut down the gun industry -- which would be a good thing for society.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #34)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:41 AM

37. *shrug* Maybe it depends on what you grew up with

Like I said upthread, I grew up spending my summers on a ranch where a gun is something you carry in case you run into a coyote while you're bringing the emus back (yes, emus. Some cows, too). I associate them with hot manual labor and tedious cleaning. They're about as interesting to me as a weedwhacker, which is why I find this assumption that people fetishize them as kind of alien to my experience. I'm sure there are pictures of me as a teenager wading into the Brazos while holding a shotgun (a tactical shotgun, for that matter; less likely to drop it). I'm sure there are also pictures of me using a chainsaw on a mesquite tree. Those have pretty much the same associations to me: damn, it's hot, and damn there are a lot of mosquitos.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #37)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:54 AM

50. Lanza grew up with guns as well. Not criticizing that, but it is what needs to be changed.


I grew up with guns too, some serious target shooting. Fortunately I matured, saw the errors of my ways, and decided I didn't want to be like the gun nuts a lot of prior friends became.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #50)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:40 AM

86. Not according to reports.

The mother had only taken up target-shooting since divorce. I haven't heard whether father had guns, but apparrently had been separated from mother for quite a few years before divorce. So it doesn't seem accurate that the son was raised around guns.
It also seems unclear whether mother took son to gun range. She apparently didn't leave him unsupervised, and likely took him to range. No evidence he did shooting. Local range doesn't recall him there, let alone shooting.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #34)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:44 AM

41. Amen to that last sentence!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #34)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:03 PM

93. There are several reasons.

As you mentioned, ergonomics is one. Adjustibility of stock length is another. Also lighter weight. And there are undoubtedly some who simply like the look.

Marketing - Its all about selling a fantasy...whether selling cars, liquor, cigars, yachts, ...or guns.
Buy this Jeep and you won't look like the soccer-mom you really are. Drink this liquor and you'll be recognized as a man with class and taste. Drive this Corvette, and your pot-bellied, balding, middle-aged self can pick up beautifull young blonde women. With our boat, you can sail away to beautiful tropical islands. Buy this gun and you'll never have to be a victim.
Its ALL about selling a fantasy. Some people recognize that, and see past it. Others don't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #93)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:08 PM

97. Yep, just the old Charles Atlas stuff -- buy this gun and you can stand your ground.

. . . . .and no one will kick sand in your face.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #28)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:38 AM

36. "Good reason to restrict them"...precisely, just as plastic,

but realistic toy machine guns were banned at one point.

Just the look of them made them dangerous. People were inadvertently killed and crimes committed with them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #7)


Response to Recursion (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:54 PM

111. That rifle has a 4 round magazine - not a 30 round magazine

Big diff.

yup

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:22 PM

137. He didn't pick the Bushmaster for style.

He picked it so that he could massacre a school with 100 rounds in a couple of minutes.

The whole Gun-Fetish NRA talking point about people "reacting to the shape" is stupid beyond belief. They are reacting to the ability high rate of fire and ammunition capacity. We don't give a shit what it looks like.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThoughtCriminal (Reply #137)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:35 PM

138. Yes, people do. The AWB has greater support than a ban on all semi-automatics

So, yeah, there are enough people who react to the shape as opposed to the characteristics that an AWB can pass and a ban on all semi-autos can't.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #138)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:53 PM

143. It's not the "Military Look" that people want to ban

As much as the gun fanatics would like to pretend, it's a lame straw-man. We're not talking about the loophole riddled 1994 FAWB. This time we should not allow high capacity magazines just because they lack a flash suppressor and pistol grip.

ABC News/Washington Post poll

On specific measures, 52 percent favor banning semi-automatic handguns and 59 percent support banning high-capacity clips that carry more than 10 bullets.

Nothing about "Cosmetics" there.

Now , back to my first point. Do you honestly believe that Lanza picked the Bushmaster because of how it looked?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ThoughtCriminal (Reply #143)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 06:57 PM

144. I'm the one saying he picked it because of how it fires

And that that should be the basis for regulation, not whether or not it looks military

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #144)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 07:39 PM

145. Yeah, sorry

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #7)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:52 PM

151. Sort of like an old VW Bug with a Porsche engine

the difference in both cases being the attitude of the owner

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:26 AM

9. Just yesterday, some freak was bragging about blowing away pesky

raccoons in his backyard by bump firing his beloved Bushmaster, for christ's sake!

These people are certifiably deranged--how else to explain such aberrant ideas and actions?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #9)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:48 AM

44. Reminds me of...

...sticking a firecracker up a frogs bum and blowing it up. (GW?, or was it a cat?) How disgusting. Psychopaths, the whole lot of them...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to ReRe (Reply #44)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:10 AM

66. It was frogs, and yes, these freaks are all somewhere on

the sociopathy/psychopathy scale!

Edit: typo

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:19 AM

5. Connecticut bans assault-style guns, and the rifle was legal in connecticut

So... umm?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:28 AM

10. Go make love to your metal maiden...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:29 AM

12. I don't own a gun; I live in DC

Stop pretending you have deep insight into people based on whether they think legal prohibition is effective at reducing murders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:30 AM

14. Legal prohibition reduces murders all over the world.

Go look it up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:16 AM

26. Look at the flag in my avatar

It certainly didn't work here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #14)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:26 AM

30. OK. I looked it up

 



http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/homicide.html

Look at the chart and tell me when they implemented strict guns laws.

On Edit: Forgot to add that this is for Australia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:40 AM

16. Then go salivate over your gun catalogues...

No deep insight, just probable guesses.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #16)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:17 AM

27. How many gun owners do you actually know?

Just curious.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #27)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:27 AM

31. One of my brothers is a long-time, committed hunter of big game...

My other brother and I loathe firearms of any stripe.

Guess which brother is the more RW libertarian?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:34 AM

33. Well, if he's a hunter he's unusual among gun owners

That's less than 20% of gun owners, and big game hunters are an even smaller population. And, yes, they freak me out too.

I wonder how much of it is what you grow up with? I spent all my summers on my grandfather's ranch in Texas where a gun was something you carry in case there's a moccasin or coyote on the way to the river when you're going to fetch the cows. They're about as mundane and uninteresting to me as a chainsaw or a weed whacker, and they mostly bring memories of doing work and spending a lot of boring time I could have been outside playing cleaning them. (Like I said in another thread: want to dissuade a teenager from getting a gun? Show him how tedious cleaning one is.)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #33)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:43 AM

40. Bet that 'rattle-snake rifle' didn't look or function anything like an AR15 or it's imitations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #40)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:49 AM

45. Actually the rifle I had was a semi-automatic .223

which is to say, a functional equivalent of the AR, though it did have a traditional grip and stock. But I didn't carry the rifle very often (didn't want to hit a cow or emu... God I hated those emus...), I usually carried a small shotgun loaded with birdshot. The AWB was harder on shotguns than on rifles, so you couldn't buy the shotgun under the AWB because it had a tactical grip, but you could still buy the rifle.

Anyways, other than reminiscing about the God-awful stupidity of farmed emus, my point is just that there are plenty of people who own guns, even assault weapons, without fetishizing them, and I used to be one of them (I don't own one now because I live in DC).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #45)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:01 AM

55. The last time my brother or I carried a gun was when

Last edited Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:53 AM - Edit history (1)

I went along with him to "hunt" with his BB gun.

He actually managed to kill some sort of vole with it, but promptly broke down in tears of regret. He's never touched a gun since and neither have I.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #31)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:41 AM

38. So your brother who loathes firearms is only a little RW libertarian?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #38)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:44 AM

42. No, the hunter-gun guy...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #42)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:56 AM

52. You wrote "which brother is the more RW libertarian?"

By saying, which is the more, you are telling the reader BOTH are RW libertarian,

Just one is a more so than the other...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to snooper2 (Reply #52)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:05 AM

60. True enough, they're both on the RW libertarian end of the scale.

But, the gun-guy is much more doctrinaire and less compassionate. Stands to reason.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #12)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 01:29 PM

118. YOu are aware that in DC, you can own a gun, right?

What you just asked of that poster, you should require of yourself.If you live in DC, you should know that you CAN get a gun, especially after SCOTUS ruled so in 2008.

You can't carry -- openly or concealed. Stop being disingenuous-- Most of the guns that are found illegally in DC come from Virginia and Maryland. That's a law problem--not a lack of gun access.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Raine1967 (Reply #118)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 03:36 PM

139. Well, in theory I could have always had a long gun

Except that it would be illegal to transport it to my apartment, and I don't think long guns are appropriate in urban settings.

I could get a revolver now, if I felt like convincing DCPD that I should have one, which I don't feel like doing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #5)


Response to Recursion (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:53 AM

19. Quite right: CT should have far tougher restrictions than it currently does

These bans on assault weapons have always been way too watered down to please the gun nut imbeciles. A velvet glove touch for the gun manufacturers. We need new laws that actually restrict this type of weapon and others.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #19)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:55 AM

21. Thank you for being a voice of reason.

I'm reduced to gibbering and insults at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to alcibiades_mystery (Reply #19)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:09 AM

24. It's not that assault weapons bans are watered down, it's that they're just silly

They ban a gun that has both a pistol grip and a bayonet mount, but don't do anything about guns that look more traditional and fire in exactly the same way, because those guns don't scare suburban people.

If you want to actually ban semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines, and look past the "military-style assault weapon" distraction, that would do something, as long as you could figure out what to do about the hundred million or so of them already in people's houses. Though in any case these are the guns that are used the least often in crimes, though they are used in some of the most horrendous ones.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #24)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:43 AM

39. Uhhh, good luck.

All reason and logic have flown out the window. DU isn't interested in any meaningful action, they are interested in an emotional knee-jerk reaction that demonstrates their "power", even if the end result is meaningless. Its the left's version of teabaggers.

I don't own guns either. I've shot other people's gun a few times in the long ago past. I do read up on statistics, including FBI's own report. I conclude that banning "assault" style rifles would expend political capital with little to show for it. They simply aren't used very often in gun deaths...that is why the ban was allowed to expire.

If I may make an analogy... Supposed a segment of the public got in a panty-twisting uproar over the number of concussions in football. After a huge campaign, they patted themselves on the back for successfully persueding Congress to face down the NFL and ban kneel-down plays. Okay, they won. And kneel-down plays aren't essential to the game of football. But they lost- because they expended a large amount of political capital banning a play that isn't responsible for many injuries.

If the gun control crowd really wants to make a difference, as opposed to just boosting their egos, they should take on limiting handguns. That is where the most deaths are, and where the biggest impact can be made.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #39)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:44 AM

43. I'd love for it to be much more difficult to get handguns

That also has the genie-out-of-the-bottle problem since there are so many of them, but that would be a much better idea.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #39)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:41 AM

87. "Boosting their egos"? Really? You think that not wanting to see murdered kids is about ego?

Words fail.

Limiting handguns without restricting semi-automatic fire rifles with large capacity magazines would be a waste of time.

We need to do both, and it has NOTHING to do with ego.

This isn't some stupid game, no one is keeping points, there are no winners here.

Only losers, and they are already dead.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #87)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:48 PM

107. Yes. Going after military-styled rifles is just an ego-trip.

Yes, you took on the NRA. You flexed your political muscle. Perhaps you'll even win tne battle, and feel proud of yourself.
You haven't done a bloody thing. Not many gun deaths are from a rifle of any type, let alone an assault rifle. These mass shooters aren't gun enthusists, they are idiots. They want to go out in a blaze of glory and be famous. The assault rifle is merely part of the costume. They think it makes them look bad-ass. Handguns probably would have been more lethal though. Thats what will be used if assault rifles are banned. Most of the Columbine deaths were from handgun and shotgun. Most gun deaths, period, are by handgun. Hand guns are easy to conceal. They are easy to keep in glovebox or nightstand, available for instant use. They are easy for kids to get a hold of...carry to school in backpack even.

Get a limit on the proliferation of handguns, and you've really done something. Banning assault-styled weapons is just a placebo...makes you feel good but cures nothing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #107)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:56 PM

112. Ban one type of high-capacity firearm, and if there is another type available, that type will take

its place.

The need is to do both, at the same time.

There is no need for a high rate of fire, high capacity semi-automatic rifle to used for either self-defense or hunting or target shooting.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ikonoklast (Reply #112)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 01:53 PM

122. Do you know what weapon was used in US largest mass shooting?

Do you know what weapon was used in US largest school killing?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #24)


Response to ReRe (Reply #64)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:12 AM

68. You do know CT has an assault weapons ban, right? And that the Bushmaster was legal under it?

I'm tired of being called a psychopath for pointing out the actual facts of what the AWB said. That rifle was completely legal because it didn't have a bayonet lug. It's a stupid law.

You want to ban (and figure out a way to actually confiscate) all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines? That might actually have prevented this, and that's not what the assault weapons ban did, and fuck you for calling me a psychopath for pointing that out.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #68)


Response to Recursion (Reply #68)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:04 PM

94. So you agree that we need stronger gun control laws.

Eristic


Eristic, from the ancient Greek word Eris meaning wrangle or strife, often refers to a type of argument where the participants fight and quarrel without any reasonable goal.

The aim usually is to win the argument and/or to engage into a conflict for the sole purpose of wasting time through arguments, not to potentially discover a true or probable answer to any specific question or topic. Eristic is arguing for the sake of conflict as opposed to the seeking of conflict resolution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #94)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:07 PM

96. I think licensing and registration is a great idea

I think bans on types of firearms will be as ineffective (and even counterproductive) as bans on types of drugs have been.

That said, if our starting point is banning weapons, it needs to be a real one and not another repeat of the AWB fiasco: actually ban semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines. It's not my favorite idea, but I prefer it to nothing at all.

Also, I'd really like us to finally figure out why murder rates have dropped by 50% in the past 20 years, and see if we can keep doing whatever that is.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to progressoid (Reply #94)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 01:55 PM

123. Thanks for teaching us a new word, progressoid!

ERISTIC...who knew?

"Eristic is arguing for the sake of conflict as opposed to the seeking of conflict resolution."

Describes some of these gun "enthusists" to a tee...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #123)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:49 PM

135. There does seem to be a lot of needless pot stirring lately. n/t



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:29 AM

77. The shooting was just 38 miles from where they MAKE assault rifles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slampoet (Reply #77)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:40 AM

85. And?

The assault rifles they make can only be sold to the military and law enforcement. I don't think any have been stolen in recent memory.

Remington also makes rifles that look like the ones they sell to the military and law enforcement but have completely different mechanisms inside of them. Some states (CT among them) prevent them from selling those rifles if they also have a place to put a bayonet or a stock that can be adjusted. That is what the law defines an assault weapon as, not simply "a rifle that is semi-automatic", and I'm getting really sick of being called crazy for pointing out what the law actually says and how stupid of a law it is.

One of those rifles that didn't have a bayonet mount was used by this asshole to kill a bunch of children. Now we have a huge petition to reinstate nationally a law under which the weapon he used was still legal, and apparently I'm the crazy one for pointing out that that seems like a stupid idea?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #85)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:18 PM

125. To understand the gun- banners...

They are more interested in a political "victory" than they are in fixing the problem. They have no interest in making informed decisions, an emotional knee-jerk response is required. They operate on the same wavelength as teabaggers, and will earn the same reputation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:25 AM

8. One of these

One of these these things is NOT like the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Lilma (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:51 AM

18. Gun-crazed "enthusiasts" are NOT like normal human beings...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:28 AM

11. It's so sickening to me that these guns are around.

Just so sickening.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:38 AM

15. Me too, Chlorphyll. They're obscene, grotesque

and unspeakable. They exist for no other purpose than to annihilate people and eradicate life.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #15)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 09:54 AM

20. And I'm sorry that a couple of people had to choose this thread

to post gun-porn photos. I don't care what point they're trying to make. I don't want to see those fucking things.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #20)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:01 AM

22. I can't stand to look at the things either, but I think

RC's point in his post was to "know your enemy":
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022019130#post4

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #20)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:22 AM

74. Seriously!

..... The discussion is meant only to antagonize and incite, at least by one that I know of for sure. That's right... GUN-PORN. In GD!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:49 AM

47. that's what's totally insane about this situation

these types of guns (call them what you will, i.e. semis, assaults, quickly reloading, etc.) are totally NOT, in any way or form, appropriate/suitable for private use and private ownership.
Why?
These types of 'products' are for shooting lots of bullets very, very fast, without much accuracy but to splatter bullets all over.

Also, these 'products' are being marketed with all sorts of allusions to enhancing individual power/importance/superiority by, by and large, generating feelings of fear or distrust or suspicion.

So there is the combination of a totally inappropriate (because they are designed to be dangerous) product with marketing message that's inimical to the idea of common good and shared space.

These types of guns should NOT be in private hands whereby they can enter into any arena where they are carried and thus used.

Great profit, in selling these things, is being made. Esp. when there are very little negative consequences for the end results of using this extraordinary product.

Responsible owners of guns, esp. those owning guns like I'm decrying right now, have had decades, repeat, decades, of seeing the negative consequences of how these guns are being used. And the support for organizations that works to enhance their private
profit at the expense of people's lives has continued or even increased. Gun owners and their representatives could have added a lot to the dialogue of protecting people from death. They could have worked for responsibility and common sense laws. Maybe they did, maybe they tried.

But now it is time, we've had enough of these situations, to say no more assault weapons, semis, quick loading, military-styled or style gun ownership in the private sector.

I am certain that posters will be calling me up on my gun/weapon designations and asking me all sorts of things regarding specifics and technicalities. And I know that technicalities are important. But jeez, let's not play this delaying and purposefully confusing interaction. And fyi I won't be entering into discussions regarding which weapon/what features/etc. I won't.

You all know what I'm talking about. And what I'm talking about is common sense -- if the aim and goal of this is about preserving and supporting a civil society. Let's make sure our kids and their parents and teachers and firemen/women and movie-goers and shoppers and church-goers and temple-goers and pizza-guy deliverers and pedestrians and office colleagues... and... and...
can go about their day and get home to see the family at night.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Euphoria (Reply #47)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:01 AM

56. We seem to have reached a tipping point of equating "assault weapon" with "semi-automatic"

Trying to stop that will probably be as useless as my repeatedly failed rear-guard attempt at getting people to distinguish the meanings of "nauseous" and "nauseated". So, fine. If what you're talking about is semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines, that's what I'll read "assault weapon" to mean. A couple of things, though:

1. That's not what the 1994 Federal AWB or any subsequent state AWB banned, so reinstating the AWB won't get rid of those.
2. You're talking about a very widely owned class of firearm, much more widely owned than anything we've banned or tightly controlled in the past (we've placed incredibly strong restrictions on machine guns, for instance, which very few people owned or even wanted in the first place).
3. If a ban is extended to include all semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines, we lose the "scare" factor that the original assault weapons ban had, because people aren't scared of their grandfather's snake rifle despite the fact that it works exactly the same way as the scary-looking black weapon with a pistol grip

The same thing that made the '94 ban so useless will confront us today: nobody has a realistic idea for getting rid of the hundred million or so semi-automatic rifles in people's homes today, so any law will be either impossible to enforce or wind up with so many grandfathered or excepted weapons that it's kind of pointless.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Euphoria (Reply #47)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:19 AM

71. What you said, Euphoria...! And welcome to DU, too!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #71)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:47 PM

148. Thank you, Surya Gayatri. Glad to be here :)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #11)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:03 AM

57. Not directed at you specifically, but the bulk of the thread.

I don't own guns.
And I must say the crowd of DU gun-banners sounds exactly like teabaggers. "Don't bother me with facts, I demand a socialized healthcare ban". Yep, there's a whole lot of ignorance being spewed, and a whole lot of pointless demands for useless legislation.
Look, banning "assault "weapons will not make a dent in gun deaths, that is why the previous AWB was allowed to expire. And such a ban would be used by the NRA as a rally the troops moment. Get serious...if you want to actually reduce gun deaths (which are in decline, anyway), take on handguns. Push for legislation that limits their spread. Tax them. And yea, the NRA will holler, but at least you're accomplishing something meaningful.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HooptieWagon (Reply #57)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:00 PM

91. Well, as one of those gun banners

I agree handguns should be the first thing tackled. Here in Canada, you have to go through a background check, a course and licencing, then registration for each gun (and if it's never been registered before, you have to get it 'approved' by a gov't verifier before you can register it) and you are limited to a 5 (semi-automatic long gun) to 10 (handguns) capacity magazine. In addition to a background check, the authorities are required to notify any spouses or former (within the last 2 years) spouse so they have a chance to challenge the license of the individual buying a gun. Everything must be kept up to date or you risk criminal charges.

I think those restrictions would be a good place for the US to start.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to laundry_queen (Reply #91)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 01:05 PM

113. Those are all sensible ideas. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:27 AM

32. One starting point on gun laws,

Is to get rid of all existing laws and replace them with a unified set of laws.

Too many details were written for pandering and others written in reaction to events and progress.

It's time to standardize and inject commom sense into the legislation.

We have plenty of laws, too many loopholes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to SCVDem (Reply #32)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:51 AM

49. Excellent point...and start by bringing the 2nd Amendment into the 21st Century!.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:37 AM

35. Guns

Guns don't make you brave
Guns don't make you safe
Guns don't make you an American
Guns don't make you a hero

Guns just make you dead

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B Stieg (Reply #35)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:49 AM

46. Word! +1,000!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to B Stieg (Reply #35)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:01 PM

92. Bingo! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:51 AM

48. Not a gun person here so forgive my lack of knowledge

What are the functional differences of these 2 rifles, both are listed as .223 semi automatics?
http://www.google.com/imgres?q=.223+semi+auto+rifles&num=10&hl=en&tbo=d&biw=1366&bih=667&tbm=isch&tbnid=7R1JeWTXNsr3eM:&imgrefurl=http://molot.biz/product-e/vepr-pioner.php&docid=-alWQQduJPWNcM&imgurl=&w=500&h=128&ei=oY_QUP6ULqbQ2wWojIGwAQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=215&sig=103272706890773076158&page=3&tbnh=62&tbnw=237&start=60&ndsp=34&ved=1t:429,r:60,s:0,i:276&tx=61&ty=23

http://www.google.com/imgres?q=.223+semi+auto+rifles&start=119&num=10&hl=en&tbo=d&biw=1366&bih=667&tbm=isch&tbnid=Ho-QUyz44alCjM:&imgrefurl=http://www.slickguns.com/product/colt-ar-15a2-r6520-le-marked-semi-auto-rifle-223-good-very-good-condtion-used-84995&docid=88-RFMl-i60hCM&imgurl=&w=800&h=507&ei=q5DQUO74JYbLqQHa7IH4DQ&zoom=1&iact=rc&dur=395&sig=103272706890773076158&page=5&tbnh=156&tbnw=234&ndsp=28&ved=1t:429,r:42,s:100,i:130&tx=98&ty=65

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bighart (Reply #48)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:55 AM

51. Sorry, bighart, I'm no expert. Best address this question

to RC. He/she seems to know the finer points of firearms. Here:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022019130#post4

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bighart (Reply #48)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:04 AM

59. About 2kg, as fitted.

Also, the scary looking one is more comfortable to shoot from the shoulder.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bighart (Reply #48)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:07 AM

62. The second one is moderately safer

You get fewer dropped weapons and better muzzle control with an ergonomic grip; that's why the military uses them.

The first one is designed for firing prone or from a supported position like sitting; the second one is designed for firing while standing or kneeling (which is how you usually fire when you hunt or shoot competitively).

Both are appropriate for hunting smallish animals like coyotes and groundhogs, but would be iffy to take down a deer.

Both could be used by someone to kill a lot of people in a short amount of time, assuming they have standard magazine wells.

Also, both were legal under the 1994 AWB and all the current state AWB's I know of except CA's (again, assuming that's a standard magazine well). Unless the 2nd one has an adjustable stock.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #62)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:54 AM

89. What about rate of fire,

muzzle velocity, cartridge capacity are there major differences?
These are terms I hear friends that are hunters and general gun enthusiasts throw around.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bighart (Reply #89)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:59 AM

90. I'd have to look at the actual bolt to know for sure, but nothing you can see would affect...

...any of those.

The color and shape of the weapon does not affect rate of fire, muzzle velocity, or magazine capacity.

Aristotle once used an analogy of a ship: suppose bit by bit you replace every plank and rope of a ship, is it still "the same ship"? The things that makes it "the same gun" are the upper receiver and bolt, which are (or at least easily can be) the same for both of those weapons. In fact, you can generally buy all of the parts to turn gun A into gun B at any outdoors store -- the reason they're not regulated is that they have no effect on how the weapon operates, just which positions of firing it are more comfortable.

And, as I keep yelling into the wind here, it's only the parts that don't actually affect how the gun itself fires that are regulated by assault weapons bans.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #90)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:06 PM

95. So from a practical and functional standpoint

the differences are mostly cosmetic and allow for more accurate shooting from one position over another. In terms of firing rate and the amount of injury inflicted on impact little to no difference.
So it would seem that the brown likes less intimidating and the black one looks more meanacing but really no difference between the two?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bighart (Reply #95)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:12 PM

98. Right. As a political matter we were capable of banning the black ones back in 94

but not the brown ones because they didn't scare as many suburban people.

And even then the way the law ended up getting written was stupid, because you could still have the black one as long as it didn't have a place to put a bayonet. (I'm simplifying a little bit; the brown one could be banned if it had a bayonet lug *and* a folding stock *and* a threaded barrel, but I can't think of any rifle that had those characteristics).

Part of the reaction to the AWB certainly was rednecks worried about the gubmint taking away their guns. But part was people saying "holy shit that's a stupid law, written by people who didn't bother to research what they're regulating."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #98)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:25 PM

102. Did a quick search

and found that in general prices are about equal for either a "traditional" style semi automatic rifle in this caliber and the "military" style.
Is that a fair statement?

Reason for all of my questions is a curiosity why a purchaser would choose one over the other.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bighart (Reply #102)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:31 PM

103. I haven't bought a firearm in over a decade, but that sounds right

The stock and grip and stuff aren't the expensive parts of the weapon, anyways.

Reason for all of my questions is a curiosity why a purchaser would choose one over the other.

It's a fair question, but it's sort of along the lines of why people like different colors of cars. It could even come down to which style of rifle the person first learned to shoot with.

And, frankly, I'm sure some people choose the military looking one because it bothers the kind of people who post on DU. Which is stupid, but there we are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #103)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:40 PM

104. Knowledge is power

The more educated I am on a given subject the better.
Thank you for your feedback, I have a better understanding as a result.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bighart (Reply #48)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 01:28 PM

117. Style. Both function the same.

There are some features of the "assault" that make it popular.
1) ergonomics - more comfortable grip, adjustable stock to fit different size shooters.
2) lighter weight.
3) safety - more securely carried, more control when firing.
4) durability - composites more robust and durable than wooden stocks.
5) and of course looks. Some people buy something strictly on appearance, be it car, shoes, handbag, or gun.

Often, a rifle is built in several styles including those above. Same working parts, different appearance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:03 AM

58. Semi-automatics are the weapon of choice for those intent on mayham.

Here is what I wrote to my Representative about suggestions for gun control:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/117293954

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #58)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:14 AM

69. Thank you for that helpful information and for taking proactive steps.

I've noticed an effort to distract and intimidate on the part of some posters by jumping on people who don't know the difference between various kinds of weapons. As a Supreme Court justice once said about pornography (paraphrased): "I can't define it but I know it when I see it."

We don't have to have expert understanding of the difference between "assault" and "semiautomatic" - or the arcane definitions of what is and is not a "semiautomatic" weapon - to hold the reasonable opinion that there are weapons that don't need to be legal in our country.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #69)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:23 PM

101. Well, an understanding would be helpful if you're writing a law

Are there other subjects you think people shouldn't know about when they write legislation?

to hold the reasonable opinion that there are weapons that don't need to be legal in our country.

Nobody, and I mean literally nobody, thinks there aren't weapons that should not be legal in the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #101)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:42 PM

106. Your post is a good example of the kind of distraction and intimidation I'm talking about.

I'm not a legislator, so I'm not going to be writing laws. My post said nothing about legislators not needing to know the details. My point - which I believe was crystal clear - is that it's not necessary for me (an anonymous poster on a message board) to know all those details in order to reach a reasonable opinion.

Good try at intimidation, though.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #106)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:48 PM

108. No, sorry. Specifics are not distractions

Specifics are exactly what matters in regulations.

You're claiming that you don't care what the difference between assault weapons and assault rifles are, despite the fact that they are mutually exclusive sets, and despite the fact that the weapon the shooter used was neither of them. I take issue with that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #106)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 08:20 PM

147. Yep.

Whatever they're called, weapons that can kill a lot of people really fast should NOT be available for civilians to purchase. Period.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lolly (Reply #147)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:29 AM

156. Agreed! That's why I'm so adamantly against the assault weapons ban

Because it makes people think that's what's happened, when in fact all it's done is require that those weapons not have bayonet mounts on them. Yes, really.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #106)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:43 PM

150. It is standard gungeoneer argumentation.

The idea is to appear reasonable while nit picking to death over technicalities and irrelevancies any proposal to limit unfettered access to their precious toys.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Warren Stupidity (Reply #150)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 08:31 AM

157. Dude, I've been talking about banning semi-automatic weapons with detachable magazines

I point out factual errors because our party has made a tremendous mistake on these exact errors in the past and I'd like to not see it repeated. I'm nitpicking because we fucked this up so badly in 1994.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #69)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:14 PM

124. Same goes for gun porn: "I can't talk in detail about it, but I know it when I see it."

So true, yardwork, the denizens of the gungeon have slithered out and up to GD.

They're trying to derail the discussion and to "distract and intimidate" anybody who's not an initiated member of "Gun Humpers Unanimous".

"We don't have to have expert understanding...to hold the reasonable opinion that there are weapons that don't need to be legal in our country." You said it!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #69)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:28 PM

132. You're welcome!

My representative, even though he is a Republican, has been pretty good about responding to my calls and -email by replying in a letter which he addresses the points I brought up. So I'm eager to read his response to my latest.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #132)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:19 PM

140. Please post his response if you receive one. I will be interested to hear what he says.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #140)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:34 PM

142. I'll do that and let you know where I posted it.

It probably will be posted in my thread in GC/RKBA.

I lead a very tame life and it's exciting to get a letter from Congress! LOL!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Kaleva (Reply #58)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:18 PM

126. Word! MAYHEM! plus Murder, Massacre, etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:07 AM

63. A person shall be put to death quickly if convicted of a crime while in possession of a firearm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrYikes (Reply #63)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:20 AM

73. Can't agree with the DP, but prison without parole, yes!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MrYikes (Reply #63)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:30 PM

152. How absurd. Your ridiculous threat means nothing to a man intent on suicide, as most rampage

killers are.

Macho threats will do nothing at all to a person intent on suicide, self-evidently.

Get rid of the guns to end the gun massacres.

Repeal the Second Amendment now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:19 AM

72. This is an interesting point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #72)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:33 AM

80. I believe it's at the heart of the "assault weapons" debate.

When you associate disturbed "impulse"
(i.e. a diseased psyche) with easy "opportunity" (access to weapons designed for mass killing), the danger of catastrophic outcomes rises exponentially.

Result: A deadly combination of "impulse" and "opportunity" crime.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Reply #80)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:40 PM

105. Yes. And reducing the opportunity reduces the risk.

We're not going to be able to identify and head off the impulse in most people. Our best chance at reducing the frequency of massacres is to reduce the opportunity.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #105)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:50 PM

109. Then concentrate on handguns

They're what most mass shooters use, and the firearms used in nearly all murders.

I'm with you on that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #109)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:25 PM

130. Also used in most suicides, which are most gun deaths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yardwork (Reply #105)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 01:38 PM

119. That's it in a nutshell...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:24 AM

75. I didn't realize handguns could also have high round clips

I just read that some handguns have clips that can hold 12 or 15 rounds. In some states only law enforcement can buy them. In my state, there are no limits on ammo clips or magazines - you can buy a 100 round ammo magazine for your assault weapon. The neighboring states outlaw their purchase, but can't stop anyone from crossing the state line for a purchase.

That is why we need a federal law, similar to what was in effect across the country before George W. became President.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JPZenger (Reply #75)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:31 AM

79. The VA tech shooter used them

I just read that some handguns have clips that can hold 12 or 15 rounds

The magazine is a box with a spring in it; there's no particular limit on how big it can be other than the fact that the bigger it is, the more often it fails. We had magazines that could take 20 rounds when I was in the military but we never put more than 10 in because they would fail too often if they were full. The huge hundred-round drums are notorious for not working.

That is why we need a federal law, similar to what was in effect across the country before George W. became President.

If you mean the '94 ban, that prohibited the new manufacture of them, so that meant that the hundreds of millions of them already out there cost somewhat more. Unlike the ammo itself, the magazine is pretty durable and doesn't get used up when you shoot.

Also, while I would gladly tie George W. Bush to an anthill, not everything is that asshole's fault: he was willing to sign an extension of the AWB if one had passed Congress, but it never did. Which was fine because it didn't do what everybody here seems to think it did.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JPZenger (Reply #75)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:37 AM

83. Mass-marketing this lethal crap to the deranged gun humpers is Wal-Mart's retail wet-dream...

Federal interstate prohibition--the only way!!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to JPZenger (Reply #75)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:14 PM

99. With more and more folks walking around with a handgun strapped to their bodies, they need to be

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:37 AM

82. Shotguns are probably WORSE than "assault rifles", and just as military

You want to restrict "weapons of war"/"military assault-style weapons", you need to put the Remington 870 on that list...half the armies use the damn thing, it's quite possibly the most lethal close-range firearm ever created.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #82)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 12:54 PM

110. Agreed

A 12 ga in close quarters can be absolutely devastating . Unfortunately, in field configuration it is also one of the most popular hunting weapons around. For that reason I don't think they would outright ban shotguns like the 870 or Mossberg 500.

But in truth, a pair of cut down 12 ga pumps could probably do comparable damage to what we've seen with this latest tragedy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #82)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 01:11 PM

114. Yes. Germany complained greatly

about shotguns used by Allies in WW1 trenches. Wanted them banned, they were so lethal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #82)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 01:21 PM

116. Shotguns are extremely dangerous

 

As you said. And as the other reply to your post said, the carnage would have been as bad if the Delicate Flower in CT had a shotgun.

So why don't more of the Delicate Flowers brandish shotguns? It reflects the deranged mindset of the Flowers...

1) military style semi-automatics look tougher
2) they've seen Rambo movies and fantasize they'll be a Mighty Warrior like him
3) their fantasies involve spraying lots of bullets
4) they're too out of shape to fire a shotgun, and would be knocked down on the first blast

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bongbong (Reply #116)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 04:29 PM

141. You got it.

 

It IS the machismo or masochism or whatever. In simple terms, the Ramboism that the Bushmaster military styling generates, that the standard versions of the same guns do not.
All the bullshit about the main working parts being the same, etc., is just distractions from the biggest problem of the abnormal and sometimes outright psychotic world view of too many gun enthusiasts. It is the look and feel of a gun originally designed for war and the killing of humans and not really designed for hunting, that causes problems in all too many people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sir pball (Reply #82)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:31 PM

133. Fine, take a thorough inventory of the nasty netherworld of lethal firepower

and ban the whole frigging lot for private ownership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 01:13 PM

115. We've been discussing this tragedy in Australia

A few nights ago there was a discussion program on the radio and this old woman called up and so she's saying - I'm old, I live by myself in a wheelchair, I feel perfectly safe, I don't have any guns, I've never felt the need to have one in my life. Why would this woman - Nancy Lanza - feel the need to possess such an arsenal, indeed, why feel the need to own any guns at all?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bixente (Reply #115)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:24 PM

128. And that's the question underlying the whole debate:

WHY? WHY? WHY? An obsessive, deranged gun humper will answer with some platitude about "protecting the family" or "being free to fight the Feds), ad nauseum.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bixente (Reply #115)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:25 PM

129. Because they are toys

These weapons are toys to these folks. Plain and simple. It's not really about survival or protecting themselves. They buy and play with these things because they find them fun. They're overgrown children with the shiniest, most powerful, baddest new toy on the block. I work with dudes who own multiple assault rifles and they've told me as much. They actually dragged me to the range with them to fire their AR-15s once they discovered I had never as much as held a gun. I'm open-minded so I gave it a shot. Personally, I found it terribly boring and a waste of time.

And these aren't simpletons either. These are highly educated (Ph.D.'s, docs, lawyers, etc.) folks who are in all other aspects completely sane. But they love their guns and they'll never give them up. It's just this ingrained gun culture we have in America. It's puzzling to me, but some of these guys really dig it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nachosgrande (Reply #129)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 02:38 PM

134. Fascinating look behind the veil of the vapid but vicious

gun sub-culture. Dull and deadly at the same damn time. So foreign to me I can't get my brain around it...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bixente (Reply #115)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:40 PM

149. If you browse through the many gun discussions here you will learn

That there are quite a few people who can't imagine going outside without at least one gun and tens of rounds of ammunition.

I've never met such a bunch of scared people in my life. I can't imagine living like that, in such dread and fear, day after day without end.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Surya Gayatri (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:57 PM

153. WTH, were they all just laying out on the coffee table for him to look over

and choose a few?????

WTF????

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #153)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:01 AM

154. Probably not on the coffee table, but

apparently not locked up in a safe like they should have been.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread