All Things Second Amendment

[Stripe]

I don't know why I keep thinking China is more south.

Nothing good comes from the southern hemisphere.

 

[Lon]

Nope. Assault weapons are civilian replicas of the real things, with permanently and largely irreversibly reduced functionality. (Any military commander who authorized their troops to be armed only with ARs, would be criminally negligent and derelict in their duty to their troops.)

The first one's I ever saw were military AK-47's bought in surplus.

Military sniper rifles and semiauto pistols are identical to their 'civilian counterparts.'

They are?

Spoiler

Nobody's advocating confiscating all guns, but will Americans resist violently somewhere before that extreme? and if so, where is that line?

I'm not friends with anyone in a militia, but there are quite a number of them. There have been a few tragic conflicts in the past.

 

[Idolater]

The first one's I ever saw were military AK-47's bought in surplus.

You saw civilian replica semiautos---unless someone was flagrantly violating federal law, since the NFA regulates real AKs, and has been in force since 1934.

They are?

Spoiler

Yes.

I'm not friends with anyone in a militia, but there are quite a number of them. There have been a few tragic conflicts in the past.

OK.

 

[Lon]

I don't believe I've ever said or will say, unless it's sarcastic, "the right kind of values." Reasonable sounds like me, and I'd need "decent" in some context. I'm only speaking to these because you've hit this note a few times without quoting me and I can't really respond to it.

Okay. Moving on then.

Me too, but one more thing, just for perspective: I think sometimes, and surely without meaning to do so, you get painted and labelled by some of this. Know you, I think a lot of it is unfair, at least for anyone truly trying to get to know you, but I simply want you to be aware of it as well as know what I'm sometimes/at times, seeing. :e4e:

I think it's a human problem. You should read M. Scott Peck's People of the Lie. We don't know how to process that sort of evil. It's often what paralyzes people when they come into direct contact with it. We try to put some sort of human face on it to make it comprehensible.

Road Less Traveled (great read), I'm familiar but haven't read this one. Thanks.

If we stop watching it and demanding more we'll get more and they'll stop making it...maybe. It couldn't hurt.

Agree. I stopped watching when I had kids in the house (25 years ago).

Box cutters are a non-issue for the reason noted, principally because weren't capable of doing what the the planes did and the planes weren't designed to do what they were used to do. Neither of these things are like the other, by which I mean the AR.

Its a good point. We can never stop madmen (kind of piggybacking off of your Peck recommend) from desire. We can remove the instruments. I'm keeping an eye on what happens in WA state in regulation of these and other weapons.

Anecdotal unease from a citizen against a twenty plus range of mass shooting free years? It's a tough call, but I'm going with the absence of slaughter.

Some of those were charts. Both the American and the Australian, I agree, are commentary.

What does it say about deaths from mass shootings. Because that would be on the point.

If that's all that is of interest. What it means is those who wanted to kill, still killed AND more of them decided to do so. Their death rate, assault, and rape crimes rose. The point (I think, from what I read): "If you take away my steak knife, I'll just use a butter knife." I agree that having to **** between shots slows people down. How could I not?

What statistics did you find that negated my note about states and nations with stronger gun control laws? Because that's the shooting match, so to speak.

As with above, a change in weapons rather than slowing anybody down (except I do very much agree that single-shot slows people down). Slowing evil down, might be good enough.

They do work. But they need to be sustained. Doesn't matter if they're an overwhelming success, since time and attrition coupled with the inability to obtain replacements will do the rest.

It is the difference between politics and actuals for discussion. Nobody believes the politician out of the gates on these issues.

Unimpeded (see: we managed it for most of our nation's history).

It depends if you have one or two zombies or a hoard attacking your farmhouse. I'm not sure what those who own these believe. They cannot possibly fend off rocket launchers, sniper rifles, or tanks with the assault weapon, so I'm not yet sure why the believed need. As I said, I'm not really for or against these weapons at the moment, just default 'pro' in not voting for gun restrictions in general, but, in thread, I'm looking to be better informed (thank you for it, btw, good thread).

Fun against the potential for a schoolyard of dead children. I'm going to go with protect innocent life over recreational joy. If shooting is fun there will be a lot of guns to do that with. If it's the thrill of a near machine gun, there are disappointments in life.

On this, a gun range and with even fully automatic is no problem in my mind. Responsible fun is fine. If one can afford it, a space flight, or even shooting a tank at an abandoned car (the latter they just have to join the military and a lot of them do).

They're are all sorts of weapons across a range and ARs eat ammo, which is no longer cheap. So probably more expensive over time if not up front.

I could have looked it up, but that alone is worth self-regulation on my part

No. Penetration is about the ammo. Otherwise we're talking about rate of fire, which comes with an increased chance of killing unintended people.

Not quite. Having shot and having read, I'd much rather be shot with a pistol than a rifle and my chances of living are significantly favored for it. There was a fish and game hiking in AK that emptied his 9mm into a grizzle which killed him and partial ate him. The F&G that took the bear out, I believe did so with a single rifle shot.

People suck at shooting when they're upset. By all means run away. Unless someone has an AR and is then spraying a wide area. That gun is going to lower your chances.

The speaker said yes, but chance is that it won't kill you. It was an interesting conference (and I wasn't there!).

Fences can be jumped or cut and metal detectors are expensive to buy and operate. Given how the government these days is trying to cut support for schools and states are often cash strapped or have competing priorities and interests...and then you could stand apart and kill a lot of people in a great many schools. There are a lot of them that were designed in an open campus setting.

There's got to be a cheap cellphone metal-detecting app... Yes fences can be cut, but I'm not sure the cost is that large.

What we're doing here is essentially designing new schools like old Roman homes, with few points of entry, locked and set apart so that if there was a breech there would be options. Our high school doesn't have window facing out and has an open courtyard only accessible once you're inside the school. There's an officer on duty to respond to threats of a breech and augment security in general.

All good implementation.

Could make for a fetching dead centerpiece. lain: I'll be here all week.

:chuckle:

We have to have cars for all sorts of reasons and, again (not to put to sharp a point on it) cars aren't designed to kill people. In fact, we try to make them as safe as we can for all involved. And we heavily regulate cars, what's drivable, who can drive them. You need a test, a license and, wait for it, registration.

I've been wanting to get the table saw that stops immediately if your finger is nicked. I'm careful but I've way too many friends who are missing fingers and hands.

All sorts of things you can't do with motorcycles that would remove them as a reasonable alternative for a great many Americans before we ever get to weather, animals, and how safe they actually aren't, comparatively. Especially for transporting children.

Sidecars. Give 'em a chance! lain:

Rather, noting there are a number of solutions (check Europe) while noting the best involve removing these weapons from the stream of commerce. And the people who are valuing something more than they are human life are logically and necessarily those resisting a thing that will save those lives without (unlike your car or other analogies) removing from them the right to bear arms.

In the UK, there have been bombings, cars, and derailments. At that point, it is 'pick your poison' so I'm still up for looking at all answers and really hoping somebody will come up with some that haven't even been tried yet. What about putting a taser into everybody and tattooing their taser # on their forehead? Sure, we'll all get tazed unconscious, but we won't die,(just twitch a little for the rest of our lives), and the guy/gal that does it, loses that app from their cellphone.... :think: (I KNOW! I KNOW!....)

I think it's a straightforward proposition largely opposed by people for reasons unrelated to the protection of human life. There are the "tree of liberty" folks, who are essentially nuts if they think they'd stand a chance against the Marines. There are those who won't get to the question at all because their consideration stops at the most expansive reading of the right possible, period. There may be and probably are a few who think they're safer with the weapon, but then we're back to examining the rational need for it, the rarest scenarios where that capacity will matter, etc.

1) They have to be convinced of the 'rightness' and 'only' black and white as well as 2) making sure everyone in your target audience in America actually cares. I'm not sure all do.

I agree. I think they reflect value, not generate it.

I agree with your position on drugs, but don't want to get that far afield.

You'll want to bypass that next-to- last comment I made too then

The suicide weapon of choice. 2/3rds of deaths by weapon are suicide, according to a data summary by 538.

Not only that, you've said you'd want semi-auto handguns banned too, but I'm only wondering why not them first? We are on ARs so no need to get off that, but I was wondering why the thread didn't start semi-auto handguns?

Some people think more guns are the answer. I haven't really cared about that argument, but I recently came across data looking at that from Safehome. Interestingly, my current state of residence is 8th in terms of the most guns per citizen. It also is rated by Gifford's as having some of the worst/weakest laws relating to gun deaths, and is one of the highest rated in terms of deaths per 100k. I also noted that NY, with an A rating for gun laws has one of the lowest rates of gun ownership and among the lowest rate of death by firearms.

I'm going to factor in gun ownership, state by state, at some point. It's more estimate than absolute given the lack of mandatory registration laws, and given I haven't predicated any part of my argument on who owns how many of what...but I think it's interesting.

Even so, it also adds to the conversation here on 'what can or has worked.'

Well, none of my proposals is singularly about semi-automatics and aids. I also want mandatory gun safety courses, mental health checks with probable cause, registration of guns. In fact, I'd really like to get past the opening and into an examination of our cousins, especially looking at common measures adopted across the best of them in terms of stopping gun violence.

Cousins? You've some of those relatives too?
Whatever works within confines of what can and cannot be implemented, it's a good idea to do something. I'd think we all are on page (I'd hope) for stopping mentally ill, deranged people, from having or obtaining guns.

Even tracking purchases is problematic and requires a clearinghouse and sophisticated monitoring.

Even slowing people down, helps in getting to these people before they do something horrendous. I like the gun instructions program idea as well. It used to be (as with you), your dad or grandfather would do a wonderful job. Now, in a world without dads or often enough grandfathers, I think we need to do something to fill that gap responsibly.

Better a ban on semi automatics all together, but if it's only ARs we do take a hard swing at mass murders of the sort we found in those churches and other venues I noted. That's not hay, even if it's a statistical sliver of the overall death by gun outlay.

Especially if your class idea, manages to also produce better shots as well. The need for 20 shots over 2 just goes away (unless a hoard of zombies shows up, but then maybe we could raid the National Guard arsenal :think: ) .

You either have to ban them outright or make the ownership contingent on serious measures that in themselves will seriously reduce the numbers in circulation and make the owners a minor and known quantity. The safest and best is elimination.

That's part of the thread discussion. Have you convinced anyone in thread (besides me, I'm not fully convinced, but if this was the only option set before me on a vote, I'd likely make a few of my gun-owning family members mad).

Measuring the impact of banning ARs on the homicide rates will be problematic because, while horrific, they're comparatively minor events in terms of overall deaths. So while the loss of life is significant, morally and in terms of its impact in a larger, connective sense...

If Las Vegas and Columbines never happen with the amount of lost lives....

Europe has its own criminal class. It still works. Sometimes, the easy availability of a thing makes it more likely to happen...it's like beer and the prom.

Beer? HOW redneck WAS your prom!? (I think they had beer here too, I just didn't...). If it actually works, if lives are actually saved, while it will make many NRA members unhappy, it'd be worth the pain. The larger picture is the fear of what granting government 'more authority' and 'more reasons to spend more of our money' would do to our children's future. IOW, it is also about what danger we put others in, by our choices. We can give government too much control where we lose liberty, well-being, and way of life. Big government is democratic, not republican, so it is a bit of a partisan issue.

But we never get a sense of the rule by asking the people who want to tell us the most and say it the loudest, do we?

Both ways. It isn't those who demonstrate the loudest either. There does at least seem to be more at stake than just your and my immediate concerns.

 

[Idolater]

Another suicidal mass murderer with an assault weapon has struck California.
He killed three innocent people, two of them kids, and wounded 12, bringing the legal total of murders, including prima facie attempted murders, to 15 for this mass murder.

He had an assault weapon, and nobody else did, in the venue. It looks to be another case of a "human fish barrel," full of unarmed innocent people, all fenced in.

afaik it is illegal for anybody to publicly carry an assault weapon (or any other longgun for that matter), even though it is legal to own them, in California. I do not know whether the venue screened entrants with metal detectors or not, but it is also extraordinarily difficult in California to obtain a permit to licitly carry a gun concealed, so even if they didn't make entrants walk through a metal detector, it's unlikely that there were many armed innocent people there.

Additionally, because it's difficult to obtain a concealed carry permit, and if there were innocent people who defiantly carried a concealed gun anyway, they would be motivated to run away and not protect anybody else, because of subsequent penalization of them for carrying a concealed gun without a permit, even if they were able to and did save lives, in so doing.

The suicidal mass murderer was killed by police, who were there and who were armed.

This is the most important philosophical dispute we're having right now, irl, here in America---the Second Amendment.

 

[Idolater]

afaik it is illegal for anybody to publicly carry an assault weapon (or any other longgun for that matter), even though it is legal to own them, in California. I do not know whether the venue screened entrants with metal detectors or not

Just to tie up a possible loose end here, the reason why the suicidal mass murderer was armed with an assault weapon in the fenced-in venue was because he found a part of fence without a gate, and cut a gate for himself to enter, away from any attendants who might have been able to either stop him or who could have warned people that he was coming. Instead he just cut a gate for himself in the fence. Innocent people go through gates, and suicidal mass murderers don't regard gates.

 

[Right Divider]

Just to tie up a possible loose end here, the reason why the suicidal mass murderer was armed with an assault weapon in the fenced-in venue was because he found a part of fence without a gate, and cut a gate for himself to enter, away from any attendants who might have been able to either stop him or who could have warned people that he was coming. Instead he just cut a gate for himself in the fence. Innocent people go through gates, and suicidal mass murderers don't regard gates.

... or much of anything else...

 

[Idolater]

... or much of anything else...

That's right. Suicidal mass murderers ruin everything. And one of the worst things about them, is that they look just like people, and live among us invisibly.

 

[ok doser]

And the only way to protect ourselves from them (thinks the idiot leftist) is to have the government take away from the innocent the very same tools that law enforcement uses to stop the crazies

 

[annabenedetti]

That's right. Suicidal mass murderers ruin everything. And one of the worst things about them, is that they look just like people, and live among us invisibly.

In this country, they mostly look like right-wing domestic terrorists.

Gilroy Garlic Festival Shooting Suspect Posted About Far-Right Book Moments Before Shooting

Also:

The rise in domestic terrorism — as profiled in a captivating New York Times Magazine report from 2018 — is largely driven by an uptick in far-right extremism. Of the 263 acts of domestic terrorism that occurred between 2010 and the end of 2017, 92, around a third, were committed by Americans on the far right. “If you have politicians saying things like our nation is under attack, that there are these marauding bands of immigrants coming into the country, that plays into this right-wing narrative,” Gary LaFree, a criminologist at the University of Maryland, told the Post. “They begin to think it’s okay to use violence.”

 

[Idolater]

In this country, they mostly look like

That's what I said: People.

 

[ok doser]

"around a third" =/= "most"


I know math is hard for girls, but try to do better

 

[annabenedetti]

That's what I said: People.

And I said: Right-wing domestic terrorists.

 

[Idolater]

And I said: Right-wing domestic terrorists.

So then what do you propose that we do, once we identify someone as a "right-wing domestic terrorist?"

 

[annabenedetti]

FBI DIRECTOR CHRISTOPHER WRAY SAYS A MAJORITY OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM CASES ARE MOTIVATED BY WHITE SUPREMACIST VIOLENCE

 

[annabenedetti]

So then what do you propose that we do, once we identify someone as a "right-wing domestic terrorist?"

Prosecute them.

The Latest: Kansas Militia Member Gets 26 Years in Bomb Plot
A militia member who authorities say helped make and test bombs in a foiled plot to massacre Muslims in southwest Kansas has been sentenced to 26 years in prison.

 

[Town Heretic]

Another suicidal mass murderer with an assault weapon has struck California.
He killed three innocent people, two of them kids, and wounded 12, bringing the legal total of murders, including prima facie attempted murders, to 15 for this mass murder.

You mean 3 murders and 12 attempted murders.

He had an assault weapon, and nobody else did, in the venue.

You should have stopped at weapon. Because it's as easy (or easier) to believe that had everyone been armed with them we'd be talking about a much higher if inadvertent body count as it is to believe anything else.

The young man's name is Santino Legan. One of the people he killed was a six year old child. Legan is just another angry white supremacist, who posted neo-Nazi crap on his Instagram post before opening fire on people who had done nothing to anyone.

At 19 years of age he legally purchased his assault rifle in Nevada.

It looks to be another case of a "human fish barrel," full of unarmed innocent people, all fenced in.

Easy to kill a lot of people in that situation if you have the right weapon.

The suicidal mass murderer was killed by police, who were there and who were armed.

And trained to identify and kill the right person, though even they get that part wrong from time to tragic time.

This is the most important philosophical dispute we're having right now, irl, here in America---the Second Amendment.

No, that's what defenders of the status quo are calling it.

The debate is not over whether we have or even should have the right, but what should or shouldn't constitute the legal means of exercise.

The kind of gun he owned and used was designed to kill a great many people in a small window of time. We are fortunate the body count wasn't higher. Every country that forbids the manufacturing and sale of this type of weapon is far safer than we are as a people.

 

[Idolater]

Prosecute them.

Well I guess that solves our problem. Good work.

 

[Idolater]

You mean 3 murders and 12 attempted murders.

No I mean what I said.

You should have stopped at weapon. Because it's as easy (or easier) to believe that had everyone been armed with them we'd be talking about a much higher if inadvertent body count as it is to believe anything else.

Easier for you.

The young man's name is Santino Legan.

You mean the suicidal mass murderer.

One of the people he killed was a six year old child.

As I mentioned, two of the killed were kids.

Legan is just another angry white supremacist, who posted neo-Nazi crap on his Instagram post before opening fire on people who had done nothing to anyone.

At 19 years of age he legally purchased his assault rifle in Nevada.


Easy to kill a lot of people in that situation if you have the right weapon.

A lever action rifle wouldn't have fired as many rounds as quickly, and a bolt action would've fired even fewer, and a single shot or double barreled weapon would've fired even fewer, and a selective fire weapon would've fired more.

And trained to identify and kill the right person, though even they get that part wrong from time to tragic time.

The suicidal mass murderer was the one with the assault weapon firing upon innocent and unarmed people. And nobody else as far as we know so far was firing back at him either.

No, that's what defenders of the status quo are calling it.

You don't think this is the most important philosophical dispute in the world right now.

The debate is not over whether we have or even should have the right, but what should or shouldn't constitute the legal means of exercise.

We mean different things when we each say the words "the right to bear arms." You mean one thing, and I mean another thing. We are talking past each other.

The kind of gun he owned and used was designed to kill a great many people in a small window of time.

Do you have a citation for that? Some record, from in this case Mikhail Kalashnikov, that that is in fact one of the specifications he was shooting for, when he actually did the design the AK?

Wait. He didn't design that. He designed the selective fire AK, not this suicidal mass murderer's civilian reduced functionality replica of the AK that Kalashnikov designed.

I'll look past that oversight on your part, and will accept a citation proving your assertion here, that the actual, real AK selective fire weapon was in fact as you claim that it was "designed to kill a great many people in a small window of time." Otherwise it's just spin, again, on your part.

We are fortunate the body count wasn't higher. Every country that forbids the manufacturing and sale of this type of weapon is far safer than we are as a people.

15 murders all at one go is serious enough to think that this philosophical dispute is at least among the most important one happening irl right now. I think that it is the most important one, and you don't.

 

[ok doser]

15 murders all at one go is serious ....

How does that compare to those guys with box cutters?