HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Of Children and of Guns.
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 10:42 AM

Of Children and of Guns.

Last edited Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:05 PM - Edit history (1)

Let me first preface this by saying I've long prided myself with not making arguments out of base emotion. I'm a long, outspoken opponent of the death penalty, and whenever I've been asked, "Well, how would you feel if a loved one of yours was murdered?", I've always responded by stating I'd probably be very angry and upset, but that wouldn't change the basic facts that the death penalty is neither a deterrent nor a true sense of justice to the victim's loved ones, and is hypocritical to its very core.

But that aside, I will say that the entire Sandy Hook Elementary tragedy has shook me to the very core. And in the past week, I've heard the brave, haunting testimony of Neil Heslin and David Wheeler. I've read the opinion piece authored by Mark and Jackie Barden. And I will freely admit as a man who usually is a master at holding his emotions in check, I've found myself just welling up with tears on multiple occasions at the mere thought of what they've had to say. I know that none of them ever wanted that type of attention. None of them wanted their 15 minutes of fame to be having to relive the death of their child before a government panel or in the pages of a well-circulated newspaper. But out of a sense of duty and a basic sense of what is right and what is wrong, they knew they could not remain silent.

You see, I'm the proud father of two young and beautiful daughters. One of my daughters is not much younger than those first graders who perished that December morning. Every evening, they greet me with smiles and shouts of "Daddy!" when I get home from work. Every evening I get to play games with them. Every evening I get to read books to them and tuck them into bed. Yet there is the creeping thought in the back of my mind that in some extremely fucked-up alternate universe, I am Neil Heslin. I am David Wheeler. I am Mark or Jackie Barden. What I get to experience every night has suddenly been brutally robbed from 20 sets of parents. And beyond the city limits of Newtown, Connecticut, it has been robbed from countless other parents and children and husbands and wives and friends, and continues to be robbed on a daily basis.

There's been considerable talk about the Second Amendment, what it says, what it doesn't say, what it means and what it doesn't mean. And that's all fine and a worthy conversation to be had. I also know that many of the proponents of a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment are parents themselves, and they may indeed take that position because they believe their ownership of guns (including those with maximum firepower and capacity) is somehow meant to protect their own children from whatever forces that be.

But we cannot lose sight of our priorities here. As has been said over and over and over, there is no legitimate effort in this country to ban all private ownership of all guns. Many people will continue to have bolt action shotguns if they like to hunt. Many people will continue to have a pistol in their home for self-protection, hopefully secured in a proper and safe manner. And the issue staring us square in the face--gun violence--is truly a multi-faceted dilemma. It's not just about semi-automatic rifles or high-capacity clips. It's not just about background checks or mental health screening and treatment. It's not just about a violent society. It's not just about what constitutes self-defense. It's not just about securing one's weapons. It's about all those things, and more.

But for those who have honed in on ownership of high powered semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines, and what they view as an affront to the Second Amendment if there is any legislative action taken to restrict ownership of those items, I just implore them to stop and take a step back.

If one is suddenly by law prohibited from buying an AR-15 or buying a 30 round clip for their own personal use, in the end, it means nothing. Nothing You can still freely buy a less powered weapon or a smaller sized package of ammunition, and you can still achieve whatever basic sense of satisfaction that you sought from those items.

But if someone loses a child (or any sort of loved one) as a result of a shooting such as Newtown or Aurora or Virginia Tech or Tuscon or Columbine or countless others, it means everything. Every single little thing in the world.

Assuming you have a good relationship with them and they have not predeceased you, your children will show up at your funeral when you pass away. Your guns will not. Your children will carry on your family name and legacy. Your guns will not. Your children are capable of giving you grandchildren. Your guns will not. Your children will accompany you on family vacations and bless you with holiday memories. Your guns will not. Your guns will never hug you back or tell you that they love you; your children will. Even those who don't have children of their own (whether it be by fate or by choice) are someone else's children, and know all too well the power of having that sense of wonder and astonishment of the world that comes with childhood.

A gun will never, ever give the sense of satisfaction or meaning that a loved one can give you. Their interests will always be subjected to the interests of human life and human dignity.

And one more thing. Guns did not write the U.S. Constitution. People did. Keep that forever in mind when you speak of the Constitution.
___________________________________________________________________________________
The testimony of Neil Heslin:

&feature=player_embedded

The testimony of David Wheeler:



Op-Ed Piece by Mark and Jackie Barden:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/in-response-to-newtown-shootings-think-of-daniel/2013/01/29/b658933a-6a48-11e2-95b3-272d604a10a3_story.html

28 replies, 1956 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 28 replies Author Time Post
Reply Of Children and of Guns. (Original post)
Tommy_Carcetti Feb 2013 OP
aikoaiko Feb 2013 #1
Tommy_Carcetti Feb 2013 #3
Crepuscular Feb 2013 #5
Tommy_Carcetti Feb 2013 #7
Crepuscular Feb 2013 #12
aikoaiko Feb 2013 #6
aikoaiko Feb 2013 #28
el_bryanto Feb 2013 #2
Tommy_Carcetti Feb 2013 #4
Whovian Feb 2013 #8
Tommy_Carcetti Feb 2013 #26
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #9
marions ghost Feb 2013 #10
GreenStormCloud Feb 2013 #23
beevul Feb 2013 #11
Robb Feb 2013 #13
beevul Feb 2013 #16
Duckhunter935 Feb 2013 #14
Tommy_Carcetti Feb 2013 #17
beevul Feb 2013 #20
AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #27
Paladin Feb 2013 #19
beevul Feb 2013 #21
AtheistCrusader Feb 2013 #24
Recursion Feb 2013 #15
PLARS1999 Feb 2013 #18
Zax2me Feb 2013 #22
Tommy_Carcetti Feb 2013 #25

Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:21 AM

1. I'll give you a kick



I know you're sincere, but I can't see how banning AR15s is the answer when so many other firearms can kill just as many in a mass shooting.

The AWB is losing steam even in the Senate. I'm sure the mag limit bill will be detached and has a good chance of being passed as well as universal background checks for all transfers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #1)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:30 AM

3. I hear what you are saying, but consider....

....that Adam Lanza had at his house--and via his mother, who legally purchased everything--a large assortment of guns. And he chose the AR-15 to do the ultimate deed.

Ditto for James Holmes.

For me, I guess I see it as a matter of need. And sure, as with most commodities, many people buy things they don't really need, and that's not in any wrong in and of itself.

But semi-automatic rifles like the AR-15 should never be confused with your ordinary, every day product.

My question is, if semi-automatic rifles such as the AR-15 are banned for private use (and I'll agree with you, extremely reluctantly, that it will probably not happen), give me one reason why I should miss them? One reason?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:52 AM

5. Why should you miss them?

If you didn't previously own one, you probably wouldn't. I don't own a Porsche, if a law was passed banning them, I wouldn't miss them much because it would not effect me personally. However, if I owned a Porsche and the government wanted to confiscate it, I might be a little upset, especially if the guy next door who owns a Corvette is allowed to keep his vehicle.

Banning AR-15's will accomplish almost nothing, as a number of other semi-automatic rifles that use high capacity magazines are exempted from the proposed AWB and will continue to be readily available to anyone who wants to purchase one. The proposed AWB, like the last AWB, focuses on cosmetics, not functionality. Again, using a car analogy, it's like banning blue cars but allowing red cars, a meaningless distinction, especially since it really wouldn't ban blue cars, only the future production of blue cars. Is a Porsche with a whale tail somehow intrinsically different than a Porsche without one? Not by any measurable degree. The same is true regarding the weapons included in the proposed ban in comparison to the weapons which would still be fully available for purchase and ownership. I realize that frustrates a lot of people who would like to see all firearms magically vanish from private ownership but sometimes the truth hurts.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Crepuscular (Reply #5)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:59 AM

7. Except you'd probably actively use your Porshe every day.

How often would you plan on using your AR-15?

Except maybe for target practice, and even then, why bother? Is there something the AR-15 can do at target practice than a "lesser" gun could not?

And finally, guns are not cars. Never have been, never will be. They're too different a product for the analogy to ever carry water.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #7)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:24 PM

12. It depends

I don't own an AR-15 but I do own several other semi-automatic weapons, the new manufacture of one of which would be precluded under the proposed AWB. My firearms use is seasonal. During the winter, I rarely pick one up. During the summer I shoot once a week or so and during the fall I do a lot of hunting, so I'm using firearms 3 -4 times a week during that time of the year. If you have no experience using firearms, you probably would not understand it but guns are fun to shoot. Semi-auto's are just as fun to shoot as other "lesser" guns. There is nothing magical about the functional capabilities of AR-15's, they are popular for reasons that don't have much relation to their functionality, it's mostly appearance, ergonomics and ease of customization.

I'd disagree, there are a lot of similarities between guns and cars that make them analogous. Some people own cars purely as transportation, their ownership is based on functionality. Some people's choice of cars is based on vanity or to make a political statement or for some specialized purpose such as off-roading or simply because they are gearheads who are obsessed with all things automotive related. All reasons that are reflected in the different reasons that various people have for owning firearms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #3)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:52 AM

6. I have to run to a 4 hour meeting, but I will get back to you.


and this serves as another kick.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #3)

Sat Feb 2, 2013, 06:26 PM

28. I don't think you should have to miss them, but....



..., and I say this with all sincerity, the 2nd protects a civil liberty like the other Bill of Rights.

I believe the you should care about banning some firearms the way I should care about:
* Manning being denied a speedy trial even though I wouldn't be denied one for a crime.
* Habeas corpus being denied people in Gitmo even though I won't be there.
* No warrant wire taps on calls to non US residents even though I don't make phone calls to other nations.

I can live with laws and regulations, even new laws, to reduce gun violence, but I do not support bans that would do nothing to reduce killings. AR style rifles will still be available new, but with a different grip and handguard (maybe). Multiple ten round mags will produce horrific shootings, but there are so many millions of 30 round mags that they won't be difficult to acquire.




Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:22 AM

2. Frankly Guns are terrible writers in general

I mean I tried to get my Guns to ghost write my biography, but they just weren't up to the task. Now brooms - they can write.

Bryant

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to el_bryanto (Reply #2)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 11:37 AM

4. Sorry, whoosh....nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:00 PM

8. kickinf times 1000.

 

I seem to have a speck of dust in my eye.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Whovian (Reply #8)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 03:34 PM

26. Thanks.

I don't know what it is about this whole story, but it has effected me more than any other news story I can remember. Including September 11th.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:09 PM

9. Here is a Sandy Hook father who is still against gun-control.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to GreenStormCloud (Reply #9)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:20 PM

10. "the problem is not gun laws, the problem is a lack of civility" the father says

--actually the problem is both of those.

The father is still in shock. This is a horrible ordeal for him. Trust Fox to exploit him. But he spouts nonsense.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to marions ghost (Reply #10)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:20 PM

23. His views are just as valid as the anti-gun parents.

If the guy I posted is being exploited by FOX, then by that same measure the anti-gun parents are being exploited by the gun controllers.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:23 PM

11. For starters, you're going to have to learn how to talk to the people you're trying to reach.

"But for those who have honed in on ownership of high powered semi-automatic rifles and high capacity magazines, and what they view as an affront to the Second Amendment if there is any legislative action taken to restrict ownership of those items, I just implore them to stop and take a step back."

"If one is suddenly by law prohibited from buying an AR-15 or buying a 30 round clip for their own personal use, in the end, it means nothing. Nothing You can still freely buy a less powered weapon or a smaller sized package of ammunition, and you can still achieve whatever basic sense of satisfaction that you sought from those items."

For starters, many of the people it will most effect see this as dishonest in the extreme.

Standard capacity for a handgun, is however many rounds a magazine holds without protruding from the grip of the gun. Thats the generally accepted definition, right or wrong, among gun people, and in the arena of gun discussion.

Most modern handguns hold more than 10 rounds, thats a fact. One does not actually have be in that persons shoes, to understand how this can be seen as a dishonest attempt to limit rights. "Gun people" see "half a cup". If you make any attempt to say the cup is "half empty" or "half full", you've lost them, because in their eyes, you're one of those gun grabbers, and you're dishonesty and/or spin, is proof enough. Fwiw, I own a single handgun, and a ten round limit would reduce by a single round, how many I could hold in a magazine - and I have no "assault weapons" nor any intent to own any. I own a single handgun, and a single bolt action .17 caliber rifle, and a few inoperable antiques, so i have no dog in this fight, other than the principle involved.

If you want a chance at getting those people on your side, you have to be completely honest with them, no spin, no hyperbolie, and no defining for them whats "high capacity" in terms of discussion. If you want to argue there should be capacity limits, fine, but don't try to tell them that a standard capacity magazine is a "high capacity magazine", or you'll be seen and interpreted as pissing down their backs and telling them its raining.


Where ar-15 rifles and 30 round magazines are concerned, 30 rounds is standard capacity of the magazines they hold. If you wanted to ban mags over 30 I doubt you'd get any resistance at all. But lowering it to ten? Not likely. And the same thing goes with the rifle discussion. If you start calling standard capacity magazines "high capacity magazines", you've lost them. You have to remember, the people you're talking about, far more often than not, are familiar with the rifle and familiar with the mags. If they percieve the slightest bit of dishonesty, or definition changing from whats historical fact, true, and real, you'll be seen as a gun grabber, guaranteed. That doesn't mean you can't have a discussion about limiting mag capacity. it just means that you're going to have to use common definitions, or you'll lose them, if you don't.

Same thing with "high powered semi-automatic rifles". You're going to lose them the second you say that. The .223 is many things, but its not "high powered". In the eyes of most of the people that you're trying to reach, the .223 round is anemic, and a .308 or a .270 is "high powered. Again, not using commonly accepted definitions just hinders your efforts, and causes the people you're trying to reach to view you as a gun grabber, because you're using the exact same terminology that people that have an anti-gun agenda do, and as far as the people you're trying to reach are concerned, they are the enemy. If gun control proponents had any idea...any idea at all...how much damage they're done to their own cause, by referring to commonly owned low-power cartridge rifles as "weapons of war on our streets" for example, their heads would explode.

My point in all this, is having a discussion with the people you are trying to reach is fine, laudable even, but you need to understand what it takes to have credibility with the people you are trying to reach, and how easily you can lose that credibility with them, with the utterance of very few words.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #11)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:29 PM

13. Oh, please. Matthew 7:3, beevul.

If you want to reach people whose children are being slaughtered, you're going to have to at least pretend you care about their position.

That means not trying to belittle it and mock their loss by calling them "gun grabbers."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Robb (Reply #13)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:40 PM

16. I wasn't belittling anyone, robb.

I was explaining how people react, to someone who seems genuinely interested in trying to reach the group of people I was describing.

See the "corvette and porche" example above.

If the corvette owner and the porche owner go to a town meeting, and someone says, referring to their cars, "nobody needs those souped up race cars", or talking about "race cars on our streets", the person saying those things is going to lose every bit of credility with those people, and everyone else in the audience that may own one as well.

And no, I'm not "comparing cars to guns", I'm simply pointing out how people respond to nonsensical redefinition.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #11)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:35 PM

14. nicely written, thanks

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #11)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:41 PM

17. You said:

"Where ar-15 rifles and 30 round magazines are concerned, 30 rounds is standard capacity of the magazines they hold. If you wanted to ban mags over 30 I doubt you'd get any resistance at all. But lowering it to ten? Not likely."

Then get rid of the fuckers.

I sit astonished at the need for such a gun in the private sphere. I mean, really, astonished.

It's just simple plain, common sense. No need to "speak their language", or get into the technical intracasies and terminology of the various types of guns.

This is not a hostage negotiation. We shouldn't have to negotiate and coax our way with owners of weapons that have no practical purpose in the every day world. We are not the ones doing the damage here.

If all one owns is a bolt action shotgun for hunting or a handgun with a 10 round capacity for protection purposes, they aren't having those weapons taken away, nor are they prohibited from buying another.

I understand that this is all complicated by the political aspect. I also, quite reluctantly, am very bearish about the chances that this meaningful reform will pass, given the stranglehold on our politicians that the gun lobby possesses.

At this point it is more just a situation of basic common sense and decency that too many people have forgotten, and where it--in the words of Marvin Gaye--"makes me want to holler and throw up both my hands."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #17)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:57 PM

20. Yes, I did.

"It's just simple plain, common sense. No need to "speak their language", or get into the technical intracasies and terminology of the various types of guns."

And hence, this has happened before. Behold the source of the power of the nra. Sentiments like that made them what they are today. Sentiments like that have grown their ranks somewhere between 500k and a million since sandy hook, and sold more guns of the type you refer to and ammunition for them, than the best advertising that gun manufacturers could come up with.

"This is not a hostage negotiation. We shouldn't have to negotiate and coax our way with owners of weapons that have no practical purpose in the every day world. We are not the ones doing the damage here.

When you're talking about private property of individuals, of course you're going to have to play nice. The contrary is brute force, and look how much guns and ammunition playing it that way has sold. You're going to have to talk to them, like real people, because they are real people, if you ever want to get anywhere. I believe the president expressed similar sentiments recently.

And for the record, the great majority of the people that own the type of rifles that we're discussing...They aren't the ones doing the damage either.


"If all one owns is a bolt action shotgun for hunting or a handgun with a 10 round capacity for protection purposes, they aren't having those weapons taken away, nor are they prohibited from buying another."

The thing is, the only chance you have of getting to that point, is with the approval of the people you now seem content to snub. Not only do they vote too, but they are among the most energized bloc of voters in existence, if not the most energized.

"I understand that this is all complicated by the political aspect. I also, quite reluctantly, am very bearish about the chances that this meaningful reform will pass, given the stranglehold on our politicians that the gun lobby possesses."

I tend to agree, though I forsee it being worse than just about anyone here on DU is willing to believe, come election time. I could be wrong, but I doubt very much that I am.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Reply #17)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 04:17 PM

27. I enjoyed your OP. I think it brought some interesting points to the conversation.

I appreciate the time and thought you put into it. I'm afraid I don't follow you in this particular post though. I own multiple weapons on the proposed ban bill. Most of them I inherited from my father. I am not alone at DU, as an owner of various firearms proposed for restriction. I am, of course, not in fear of my firearms being collected. We don't do ex post facto type stuff in the US, I know mine are mine and will remain so. The only issue here is the sales of new ones.

Have you ever used such a rifle? You seem frustrated with the very concept of it. I can't say I'm not biased, I am, I have used them a lot. But I feel they aren't as exotic as your commentary suggests. Particularly on 'no practical purpose'. If that were literally true, I would never bother keeping them. I would sell them, or have them destroyed, because they would then be too much trouble to keep around and store safely. I am not suggesting you have to, but I would ask you consider giving one a try at the range, or sit down and talk to some non-teabagger, wouldn't-heckle-a-man-who-just-lost-his-kid, normal sort of person who owns one and ask them why, and what purpose it serves. They do exist. The NRA behaves like it is the only game in town when it comes to firearms, and that's just not true. They are simply the LOUDEST. I feel genuinely embarrassed to be associated with them at all. Not as a member, I am not. Not as a firearm owner, because I am not ashamed of that in the slightest. But I am deeply embarrassed and concerned about their rhetoric in 'defense' of firearms. (In fact, I feel they are doing gun owners all sorts of damage)


"It's just simple plain, common sense. No need to "speak their language", or get into the technical intricacies and terminology of the various types of guns."

I disagree. The proposed bill would ban new sales of my AR, but allow new sales of my Mini-14. The two rifles work the same*, have the same capacity, fire at the same rate, one has a plastic stock, the other wood. (And the wood one can be replaced with a 'tactical' plastic stock easily and legally enough) It is important that the law be respectable, for people to respect it. If the law is self-contradictory, or doesn't make sense, or seems arbitrary or capricious, it robs it of credibility and support.

(*There are some differences in operation, one is a gas impinged piston bolt, etc, but they fire at the same rate, making them essentially equivalent here)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to beevul (Reply #11)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:53 PM

19. "Heads Would Explode"?


That "low-powered" .223 you're showing such scorn for was used to explode the lives out of 20 first-graders a few weeks ago. Trying to deflect the discussion by comparing a .223 to a .308 or .270 is the rankest sort of gun esoterica intimidation, and you and anyone else who resorts to such lame tactics is showing nothing but desperation. You want to play this sort of bullshit game, count me in: the .308 and the .270 are comparatively "low powered," compared to a .375 H&H magnum round. And that "low powered" .223 has a lot more power than a 9mm pistol round. Enough of the technical tap-dancing, OK? It's not working like it used to.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #19)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:03 PM

21. Do you need help with reading comprension paladin?

"Trying to deflect the discussion by comparing a .223 to a .308 or .270 is the rankest sort of gun esoterica intimidation, and you and anyone else who resorts to such lame tactics is showing nothing but desperation. You want to play this sort of bullshit game, count me in: the .308 and the .270 are comparatively "low powered," compared to a .375 H&H magnum round. And that "low powered" .223 has a lot more power than a 9mm pistol round. Enough of the technical tap-dancing, OK? It's not working like it used to."

I was explaining how OTHERS see things paladin, specifically, people that the OP was reaching out to. Thats not technical tap dancing. Nor did I express "scorn" for the 223. I explained how others - the people the OP is reaching out to, see it.

So kindly find someone else to apply your contrived position to, or heck, maybe even apply it to someone that actually holds it.

Your applying to me in this thread, a position that I did not actually express in this thread, is what isn't working. OK?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #19)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:48 PM

24. There is no firearm mild enough to fire at a child without horrific consequences.

None. Not one. Not even a .22 CB.

Calling it high or low powered just opens the door to disassembling the argument. I can even disassemble yours. Yes, the .223 is high powered compared to a pistol round. 533 Joules, 393 ft/lbf versus 1,800 Joules/1,330 ft/lbf. Three times more force. Big deal. The context was rifles. The OP discussed 'keep your bolt action rifles'.

My .30-06 hunting rifle? 4,042 Joules, 2,981 ft/lbf. More than double a .223, and it has been exempted as not at issue.

If I might suggest a more useful metric, rather than specious uses of 'high powered', try 'high cyclic rate', meaning it fires faster. A competent user can crank out a couple hundred shots a minute with that AR. A bolt action hunting rifle is considerably constrained on cyclic rate. Yes, I can fire it fast, but I have to reload often (mine requires it every 5 shots), reloading is less convenient, working the bolt takes longer than a semi-auto.

If an adjective has to be used to describe the weapon in a manner that is relevant to the policy discussion, it needs to be accurate.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:38 PM

15. Kick

Kicking and R'ing from the "other side" of this for a very thoughtful and well-written post.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 12:41 PM

18. Good luck, Sir.

We live in a country of excess, we are taught from a young age that being able to attain excess is the sign that you have achieved your goal.

Our excessive culture takes many more forms than just private ownership of assault weapons. Look around your neighborhood.

My neighbor to the left drives a Ford F350 diesel pick up during the week and sometimes his mid 90s Corvette on the weekends. He commutes 45 miles each way to his office. He does not work in construction, does not own a trailer, is not a DIY fixer upper that hauls plywood on the weekends, he drives a 7,000 pound truck that gets 8mpg because he can. He could easily afford a Prius on the cost of fuel savings alone but doesn't care, he is happy with his truck.

My neighbor on the right easily weighs 300 pounds. He is a fantastic cook and I must say I've enjoyed it every time he invites us over. The amount of food the man eats in one sitting could feed both my wife and I with some left over. He has a family history of weight problems, makes no effort to exercise or control his intake and is comfortable enough with himself he won't make a move to change either.

Even myself. I have fairly simple tastes. I enjoy my garden, I read on occasion when my son lets me, I have even been known to throw my canoe in the water. I also have a GSX-R 750. When the weather is right you will find me anywhere from High Point to Baltimore. Some days I stay at a reasonable speed, some days with the right friends I hit 130-140mph. I know it's not safe, I know it's not legal, I know could kill myself and in the back of my head I know I could maybe even hurt someone else.

Gun owners have a right to own guns, there will always be an argument as to what is excessive for civilian ownership. There will always be hunters that say you shouldn't hunt if you need more than one shot. There will always be military enthusiasts who feel left behind if the Abrams A1 tank they buy does not come with a functioning main gun. There will always be what my Korean War Veteran grandfather called "peace loving hippies" that don't believe in any civilian gun ownership.

The problem is we have a culture of excess, we have a culture of apathy, we have a culture of violence and we have become a nation that is happy to sit at home and watch tv as long as we are warm and fed without a care for the world outside.

And here we are, you are trying to change the world by posting online in a forum were 95% of the legitimate members are just going to "hear, hear" and slap your back. You may arouse the trolls but to what end?

Get off your couch, become a Big Brother, volunteer as a coach, answer phones for a suicide hotline, give a chance to a kid who will be in prison or a gang before he is old enough to vote. There are thousands of children in this country that don't have a good home life like you give your children. Everyone here seems to have forgotten that 98% of murders that occur with firearms are not "mass shootings." Is an 8 year old getting shot on a Chicago street less tragic than the murders at Sandy Hook because it wasn't on the news? Every loss of life is tragic, get out and help those who need it, help the ones you can.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Tommy_Carcetti (Original post)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 01:04 PM

22. Well thought out , well written.

 

Great, even.
Love this post.
Bump.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zax2me (Reply #22)

Fri Feb 1, 2013, 02:05 PM

25. Thanks. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread