Planks Don’t Kill People; Pirates Do!
“William Teach,” aka Porter Good, mobile phone huckster by day and pretend pirate by night, wants anyone talking about any kind of gun control to walk the plank
Never let it be said that Liberals won’t take advantage of each and every tragedy to push their political agenda
Never let it be said that Teach won’t take advantage of each and every tragedy to push his political agenda by accusing liberals of taking advantage of each and every tragedy to push their agenda. Apparently, the correct response to each and every tragedy is a conservative shrug of the shoulders punctuated with a casual utterance of “gee, it sucks to be them” or, maybe, “stop your whining and let the fee market do its thing.”
And when liberals, who only care about their silly political agenda of preventing the murder of school children, suggest additional gun control laws, Porter has the killer argument that absolutely no one has ever thought of before and which should just shut everyone up:
[W]e already have laws against mass murder. People who break them obviously do not care about The Law.
Brilliant point, Mr. Good! Like you I’ve always been opposed to laws against mass murder because obviously mass murderers don’t care about the law in the first place. Laws against mass murder are just another example of the liberal nanny statist agenda and were no doubt, passed after some liberals shamelessly exploited some horrific mass murder by passing yet another law.
We also have laws against blowing up buildings. That did not stop Timothy McVeigh. We have laws against raping women and killing them. That didn’t stop Ted Bundy. We have laws against hijacking airplanes. That didn’t stop the 19 Islamists on 9/11.
Agreed. Let’s get rid of those laws too. If rape is criminal only criminals will be rapists.
None of the gun laws that Liberals are pushing would have stopped this tragedy. … Neither handgun used in this tragedy would be covered by any of the legislation that Democrats have proposed. They aren’t assault weapons, and they aren’t high capacity mags. The insane killer did have a .223 Bushmaster, but that was left in the car when he went on his murderous rampage.
Sadly, No. (Rhetorical question: do you think this piece of shit went back to correct his post? Bonus rhetorical question: Do you think this shameless POS will ever correct his post?)
This case is exactly why we should ban semi-automatic assault rifles. If they were banned, it is highly unlikely that Nancy Lanza would have had one lying around for her psycho son to take to Sandy Hook. He still might have killed people with ordinary guns, but not as many. If only, just once, these crazed wingnuts would extend their right to life principles beyond the womb, the world would be a better place.
The rhetorical knots that right-wing pundits are twisting themselves in are glorious to observe.
Like I have been saying, let’s stop calling guns “guns” and call them what they are, murder machines. They are specifically designed for murdering other humans and animals, so let’s call them what they really are.
Secondly, young monster Lanza killed 27 of 28 (Lanza being one of teh 27) targets he engaged. Only the efficiency and efficacy of his murder machines afforded him this.
Those who say the gun had nothing to do with this obviously obfuscate the fact that, yes, indeedy, the gun had everything to do with the amazing killing efficiency Lanza had.
phoey. I left this on the last thread…..
Fenwick said,
December 16, 2012 at 21:40
On topic: I have not owned a gun in forty years. I have never hunted and have no desire to do so. Many of my relatives, however, are avid hunters. Although I do not particularly like it, I can understand the attraction of hunting as a recreation. I’m sure there are Sadlies who enjoy hunting.
While on the subject of hunters, cranky old Fenwick disgrees with an overly-broad Canuckistani generalization about gun-owners; and the universal application of a Freudian cliche. Evidence: gun owner Major Kong. And, if I remember, tsam–where IS that boy?–and OBS are also gun-owners. (Correct me if I’m wrong.) Any other Sadlies? Sound out if you are a gun owner; I’m curious about this. (Or are you too afraid to come out of the gun cabinet about your PENIS obsession?)
———————
All of the discussion in the thread so far has not mentiioned target-shooting. I did a bit in basic training, and enjoyed the challenge–though I was an extremely bad shot. I can easily see why someone would take up target shooting for recreation, such as at skeet ranges or indoor ranges. I also see the value of target shooting as a sport; it has been an Olympic sport for a long time.
Coming up after I finish writing it: Why I should not own a gun. First thing: I’ve got to go find wiley’s terrific comment. Also ketchup the thread.
Never let it be said that Liberals won’t take advantage of each and every tragedy to push their political agenda
We should refrain from using tragedies to push our political agenda and instead just declare war on uninvolved nations, wiretap our own citizens without warrants, and torture people.
OK, sure, you might kill someone with oh let’s say a halberd. Nothing like a weapon with some old-school charm.
But you’ll need to get close and your arms are going to get pretty damn tired after the fourth or fifth victim.
You’re not going to kill 27 people, at range, in a short time period with anything but a semi-automatic firearm.
There’s a reason the Army issues AR-15s and not halberds.
Fenwick –
Mostly I own guns because I’m fascinated by history and anything mechanical.
While I enjoy target shooting I don’t hunt. I don’t have a problem with people hunting but I’m too squeamish.
Since I have the attention-span of a fruit fly, sitting perfectly still in a deer stand all morning probably wouldn’t be much fun for me.
OK, sure, you might kill someone with oh let’s say a halberd. Nothing like a weapon with some old-school charm.
But you’ll need to get close and your arms are going to get pretty damn tired after the fourth or fifth victim.
A Claymore of one type, which has even more old-school charm, would allow you to be a wee bit further away but the physical effort would be even more troublesome. A Claymore of another type which has no charm at all would involve certain troubles as well. might as well go for the AR-15.
Left a reply for you upstairs, Fenwick. To elaborate, I was an avid hunter in years gone by but never do it anymore. I was also into sharpshooting competition. My Mossberg .22 was a fine companion for that. Teh Ho – another faggy lefty gun enthusiast – is a big fan of shooting trap. As am I for that matter.
Wingnuts are right, we shouldn’t politicize this tragedy, we should go to church and pray to lord almighty Jesus to hug these dead babies and comfort them with the knowledge that America is free, so free that any moron can possess killing machines like AR-15s; pray to Jesus to tell these newly dead babies that, so sorry, tough patooties, they are the price this week for this freedom. And then everyone should go to the Olive Garden and then go Christmas shopping at the mall, and then, well, just shut the fuck up and wait for the next round of meaningless gun violence.
http://www.kgw.com/news/Clackamas-man-armed-confronts-mall-shooter-183593571.html
That is all.
This is what wingnuts should do: issue medals of honor to all these dead babies and treat them like the soldiers who waded into Normandy or Tarawa, front line troops defending our freedom, the price we pay to be free. Little Billy and Susie took one for America, folks. God bless these heroes.
And maybe the NRA is right, maybe we should arm these little kids, then the boogie men will think twice about rampaging in their classrooms. Why, each day we could assign a different kid to occupy a sniper’s hide somewhere in the classroom and arm the little bugger with one of those Barrett M82 rifles! Goddamnit, the NRA is so right, why can’t you candy-assed whiny liberals see the genius in this logic?
It’s getting a bit too cynical in here, even for me.
bbl
.
To own a gun is the mark of a free man. And with freedom comes great responsibility. Any man who truly wishes to be free must be prepared and willing to use deadly force in order to defend that freedom. That is why our Founding Fathers added the Second Amendment into our Bill of Rights. They understood the God given right of free men to defend their life, liberty, and property. Modern 21st century liberal society does not understand that right because their eyes have been darkened by leftist pop culture.
Interesting how firearms policy has been co-opted as yet another Purity Test of tribal membership, so that wanting to reduce the incidence of bullet-related death is — for Cap’n Teach — unique to Liberals. It is as if the Brady Act never happened
It’s worth paying attention to “Teach” because it clarifies something important in the wingnut psyche: they believe that their opponents are not just “gun-grabbers”, but that they are lying about their reasons — those reasons being, of course, to institute a left-wing dictatorship. Presumably, when James Brady was shot, his wife’s first reaction was “At last! Now I can begin my work towards ruling the country!” Or some such.
I don’t understand. If liberals are all weak little chumps, how awful could a dictatorship be under such a regime of wimpy poo-butt liberals?
Mandatory tofu & bean sprout breakfasts?
More bicycle lanes and less motorways?
Children raised to value science and reason?
Oh my goodness, the horror, the HORROR!
Modern 21st century liberal society does not understand that right because their eyes have been darkened by leftist pop culture.
Did you mean Die Hard 1-8 or The Expendables 1 – 6?
Modern 21st century liberal society does not understand that right because their eyes have been darkened by leftist pop culture.
Where cocksucking, fucking, and facials are rated XXX, but mass murder is rated PG & R.
Nice.
I heard somewhere that Nancy Lanza had the gun stockpile she did because she was “worried about where the country was going”
so good job right wing maniacs of stoking the fear that something bad is going to happen to the country because of the black guy running it. So much so that this white woman with nothing to fear decided she needed a gun stockpile.
Dear Mr. Good,
Haven’t we learned that Semi-Automatic Assault Rifles Are Not Healthy For Children And Other Living Things? Contrary to the wet dreams of the members of the 101st Fighting Keyboarders and others of your ilk who infest the intertubes, these weapons are hardly the affirmations of MachoHeManManliness that you imagine them to be.
Also too, fuck you very much.
With UTMOST Sincerity,
Enfant
Manly. Sooo manly.
.
(Rhetorical question: do you think this piece of shit went back to correct his post? Bonus rhetorical question: Do you think this shameless POS will ever correct his post?)
Dunno, Tintin, but I took a crack at doing so in his Comments. We’ll see how long it stays up…..
Sometimes it’s kinda fun being a provacateur.
When affluent psycho whiteboys go on a murderous rampage, it’s a tragedy of unspeakable magnitude. When much, much, much larger amounts of poor psycho black and brown boys kill each other, it’s the only time wingnuts acknowledge and accept the evolutionary process of natural selection.
This.
Lanza was wearing a bullet-proof vest.
So unless our hypothetical elementary school teacher with a concealed-carry permit was good enough to get a head-shot in they’d still be dead.
If liberals are all weak little chumps, how awful could a dictatorship be under such a regime of wimpy poo-butt liberals? — mat
He shoots; he scores. This is perhaps the most fundemental contradiction(*) of wingnuttery. The extreme mocking contempt for liberals … coupled with extreme paranoia about them.
(*) Please note this magic word from Marxist dialectics to authenticate my cred as a socialist.
Wingnuts— always handy with an argument for personal nukes, for protection.
The rhetorical knots that right-wing pundits are twisting themselves in are glorious to observe.
I love how it’s “politicizing the murder” when you point out that it couldn’t have been committed without a gun, but it’s not politicizing when you use this opportunity to push the pro-gun (“the toddlers should have been armed!”) or pro-fundiegelifascist (“it’s because Jeebus isn’t allowed in schools!”)
Wingnuts are right, we shouldn’t politicize this tragedy, we should go to church and pray to lord almighty Jesus to hug these dead babies and comfort them
My Facebook Wingnut Barometer was surprisingly (and mercifully) silent on the pro-gun angle (though their pundits and politicians were not), but all the “omg it’s so horrible let’s all pray” responses I heard from them and others managed to piss me off just the same. It’s the right wing equivalent of a hippie drum circle.
Must’ve been a happy day for the Almighty, if he exists. Get to welcome home twenty or so people who weren’t due back for another seventy years, AND THEN get to listen to an entire nation’s worth of people mewling to him to help them out in such sad times, because God (pun intend) forbid these people ever come to the conclusion that maybe THEY should be the ones taking action.
Any man who truly wishes to be free must be prepared and willing to use deadly force in order to defend that freedom.
Heh.
Yeah, the NRA’s been selling themselves for years as the last line of defense against the eventuality of fascism. Only trouble being that if fascism ever does come to America, the NRA won’t be the brave Wolverine fighters resisting them. They’ll be the brown shirted thugs volunteering to help the fascists round up Muslims, immigrants, black people, union members, intellectuals and all the like.
In the 2000s, our government gave itself the power to wiretap its citizens without oversight, the power to lock up people without trial, and reinstated the torture chamber as an instrument of state – and with very few exceptions, the militia types who’d spent the previous decade freaking out about fascism and federal government abuse cheered. The chances that these people would rally against the abuse of American freedoms are zero.
Any man who truly wishes to be free must be prepared and willing to use deadly force in order to defend that freedom.
And thank GOD there are millions of Goobers out there perched in their tree forts, armed with their squirrel guns, awaiting the fascist hordes awaiting to invade us at any minute. I sleep so much better knowing this.
In the 2000s, our government gave itself the power to wiretap its citizens without oversight, the power to lock up people without trial, and reinstated the torture chamber as an instrument of state
And I seem to recall that politicizing a tragedy allowed them to institute that particular agenda. Not to mention invade a country that had nothing to do with the tragedy.
Any man who truly wishes to be free
Who’s “truly free” anyways? Unless you happen to be extremely wealthy.
I’m free to keep showing up at work or the bank takes my house and my car.
it’s not politicizing when you use this opportunity to push the pro-gun (“the toddlers should have been armed!”) or pro-fundiegelifascist
That’s *pre-emptive* politicising, a course of action that was forced upon reluctant gun fetishists by the knowledge that those perfidious liberals were going to politicise the tragedy anyway. Shut up that’s why.
All you libral-Qaedas saying the killer was only able to kill so many people because he had a gun are forgetting about Jason Voorhees, who killed hundreds of people with a machete.
All you libral-Qaedas saying the killer was only able to kill so many people because he had a gun are forgetting about Jason Voorhees, who killed hundreds of people with a machete.
Yeah, but it took him like… 17 movies to do that — not 15 minutes.
.
Strangely related— Clouds bought a new flashlight the other day to compensate for our crappy electrical system. It was advertised on the package as a “tactical flashlight”. The personal militancy in our culture is way out of hand and being stoked with such zealotry that military terminology is being use to sell flashlights— fucking flashlights, as if anyone carrying an object that is longer than it is wide is a platoon unto themselves.
Dawg knows what a “strategic flashlight” would look like.
Dawg knows what a “strategic flashlight” would look like.
“Hey! I can see your cervix from here!”
.
It’s almost like the bullshit “Pro-life” propaganda that wingnuts like to spew out is just transparent IT’S ALWAYS PROJECTION to try and disguise their orgiastic fetish for death and misery instead of a legitimate consistent philosophy.
Made me laugh there, didn’t ya, JP?
Victoria Jackson blamed the shooting on the teaching of evolution.
“The school system taught them they are animals (evolution) for the last 20 years. Survival of the fittest. They’re just acting like animals.”
Yeah, that’s not what Survival of the Fittest means.
Made me laugh there, didn’t ya, JP?
Glad to be of some service in these darker days. 🙂
.
Fenwick,
I am by no means saying that all gun owners have issues with their self worth and are uncomfortable with the size of their PENISes. Just the ones with the messed up Second Amendment worshipping psychosis that leads them to cling to their guns despite the overwhelming evidence of their harm.
Anyways, as I was saying Repeal the Second Amendment. Start moving the Overton window. Take this pirate dipshit for example. No laws being proposed that would have prevented the massacre. Well then, the only proper response is to propose stricter laws. Why the hell is it so easy to carry a pistol anyways? It sure as fuck ain’t for hunting, unless you count six year olds as valid game.
Furthermore, if you don’t start now, then it is going to get worse. You’ve been lucky so far because gun makers are conservative fucktards steeped in tradition. Even still, guns are getting more powerful as technology marches on. And easier to use. What are you going to do when they figure out new powder formulations that vastly increase muzzle velocity, or revolutionary bullet aerodynamocs improving range and accuracy? Laser-rangefinder equipped automatic self-adjusting electronic scopes that can turn anyone into someone capable of headshots at two kilometers?
But oh no, the Second Amendment is sacred. Inviolable even for progressive liberals.
I am by no means saying that all gun owners have issues with their self worth and are uncomfortable with the size of their PENISes.
That’s right, bub.
I’ll have you know I was turned down for Harley-Davidson financing because my penis was too large.
.
Btw, my robot butler will be well-armed, and quite the marksman, too.
.
You pay extra for that, but it’s WELL worth the money.
.
Oh, she also blamed it on abortion. How lovely.
Any man who truly wishes to be free must be prepared and willing to use deadly force in order to defend that freedom.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of
patriots and tyrantschildren and schoolteachers.~
Also interesting how for all the blather about how those manly man gun carriers need them to protect all of us week-kneed liberal appeasers from the “lone wolf” “crazy people” “who are just evil in a non-political sort of way”, they end up being all the perpetrators and we end up being most of the victims and the heroes of the day who sacrifice their lives or risk their lives to save others.
It’s almost like cowardly paranoid hatred for others isn’t a good character trait for being the hero of the day when it matters.
Yes Victoria, humans who don’t believe in creationism act just like animals— animals that use weapons to kill very young members of their own species en mass because PTHT.
Chris: Great trifecta of comments!!! (1st at 23:08). Seems like a long while since your last S,N comment. Whereya bin? France?
Dawg knows what a “strategic flashlight” would look like.
Chuckled, I did.
If there ever was such a thing, it would a space-based, Bondian-villian deeleebob.
‘Strategic flashlight’ sounds like a great name for an unusual sexual positiion.
Manly. Sooo manly.
Nothing is more manly than being cowed into buying a surrogate penis
They’re just acting like animals.
Yes. Specifically, animals who are being hunted down and slaughtered.
Idiot.
They take the constitution literally except for three words: “well-regulated militia”….
Huh? WTF is that even supposed to mean? The founders must’ve been kidding, right?
“The school system taught them they are animals (evolution) for the last 20 years. Survival of the fittest. They’re just acting like animals.”
This does explain why there are so many more shootings of this sort in Europe.
Major Kong: “You’re not going to kill 27 people, at range, in a short time period with anything but a semi-automatic firearm.”
I guess you’ve never heard of the Bath School bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster) or the Happy Land Fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_Fire).
Mat said: “Lanza killed 27 of 28 targets he engaged. Only the efficiency and efficacy of his murder machines afforded him this.”
I’m sure the fact that his targets were kindergarteners trapped in a classroom had absolutely nothing to do with his effectiveness.
DKW: Thanks for elaborating and clarifying. Hey man, I am completely with you on the need for far tougher gun laws (including ammo) and much, much more rigorous enforcement. So we are certainly on the same sort of policy page. Also I thought tour Leave-Your-Guns-Where-You-Hunt idea was creative and inventive. (I don’t know about practicality; not a hunter.) Really, the thing that bothered me was what seemed to be an over-broad characterization of gun owners. Also Dr. Freud’s tired, one-size-fits-all Happiness is a Warm Gun cliche. (“But what do you REALLY think of Freud, Fenwick?”)
Anyway, let’s shake hands and be friends, say I. We are surely allies on the main issues of gun-control policy.
————–
To all: I’m unusually grouchy and cranky today. In my particular case, depression sometimes exhibits itself as anger or even rage. I’m past that, but I am deeply saddened by the massacre. The Mayor gave me a way to re-frame this horror, and that helped. Nevertheless, I’m not handling this well. I should probably just avoid all of it for a while. After I ketchup the thread, I’m gonna start a new pot of coffee and go do something else for a while.
Btw, my robot butler will be well-armed, and quite the marksman, too.
My heavily-armed monkey butler makes up in entertainment what he lacks in marksmanship.
“It is clear from this that the Court has taken sides in the culture war, departing from its role of assuring, as neutral observer, that the democratic rules of engagement are observed” – Antonin “Fat Tony” Scalia in his Lawrence v. Texas dissent.
Anyway, let’s shake hands and be friends, say I. We are surely allies on the main issues of gun-control policy.
Shaken and stirred.
Nothing is more manly than being
cowedbullied into buying a surrogate penisFuqqst for more manly manliness.
a facebook friend”someone I vaguely remember from high school 30 years ago” posted a picture of a tshirt that basically said why would god allow something like this to happen and god’s reply that it wasn’t allowed in schools.
My response was – awfully damn petty don’t you think.
This. Very much this.
And I’m a Quaker, so the jackasses who prate about requiring everyone to be armed so we’ll all be safe trip my “fuck you” response. That said, I have nothing against guns, enjoyed the times when I was a kid and Dad and I plonked at cans in the field with his .22. I have, in fact, been thinking about taking up target shooting, because I enjoy learning new things. Also, me having first-hand knowledge of firearms would blow certain people’s minds.
Sigh. And Dad and I plinked at cans in the field. He may have drunk plonk on occasion, but he was more of a Jack Daniels guy.
I actually gave my pistol to a close friend for safekeeping back in 2009, when the depression was hitting me really hard. I didn’t ask for it back until this past summer.
.
I guess you’ve never heard of the Bath School bombing (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster) or the Happy Land Fire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_Land_Fire).
You know there are these things called “fire codes” right? They are updated whenever a bunch of people die in a fire. I doubt you could get a modern school to burn at all, never mind kill dozens in the process. And Bath was done with fucking dynamite, are we going to ignore the legal challenges involved in obtaining that particular item today?
The general idea you seem to be supporting is that because it might be possible to kill lots of people with fire or bombs, we should make no effort to restrict the easiest mass-murder machines available, guns.
I’m sure the fact that his targets were kindergarteners trapped in a classroom had absolutely nothing to do with his effectiveness.
I’m sure the fact that he had a gun had nothing to do with shooting his way into the building in the first place.
when I was a kid and Dad and I plonked at cans
You killfiled cans?
He hates those cans!
.
You know there are these things called “fire codes” right? They are updated whenever a bunch of people die in a fire.
Happy Land was an illegal club that didn’t have anything remotely like code-required egress. If it did, there would have been a much lower death total.
I guess you’ve never heard of the Bath School bombing
And since Oklahoma City we’ve put very strict controls on ammonium nitrate fertilizer.
Modern firearms are highly efficient killing tools. That’s why we used them in the military.
a facebook friend”someone I vaguely remember from high school 30 years ago” posted a picture of a tshirt that basically said why would god allow something like this to happen and god’s reply that it wasn’t allowed in schools.
I saw this t-shirt too, and was struck by the fact that guns are blocked from schools also. The very powerful rules that keep Gawd out can’t keep the guns out. I think the rules are not the problem.
1. Prohibition on prayer keeps god out.
2. Prohibition on guns does not keep guns out.
Therefore, ispo fatso, guns are more powerful than god.
You guitar players kept this from me, you bastards. I’m sure you all knew about it but just wouldn’t fucking share, you pigfuckers. Gawdam, Santana and Clapton and YOU NEVER TOLD ME ABOUT IT?!!?!??! Bastards.
And all these people who keep claiming that “God’s been banished from school” are talking through their hats, as usual. What’s been banished from school is organized prayer. Nothing’s stopping anyone from praying privately. And the more privately the better. People who make a big deal of praying make me wonder “and who are you trying to convince?” I believe Rabbi Yeshua had something to say about that.
Therefore, ispo fatso, guns are more powerful than god.
The worshipers certainly seem more fervent.
their eyes have been darkened by leftist pop culture.
Tinted contact lenses. Legitimate medical reasons. Harumph.
Covering up our reptilian eyes, actually
Covering up our reptilian eyes
Weirdest masturbation euphemism I’ve ever heard.
Pup, I like the way that Clapton looks like he is dropping in on the way back from the beach.
Thought G-d was everywhere. Have they been lying about this too?
VCarlson skrev:
Matthew 6:5-6, in fact (NIV courtesy Bibble Gateway):
Selah.
Bouffant, you can see God jamming with Santana in the video posted by Pupi. 🙂
Weirdest masturbation euphemism I’ve ever heard.
Sir, not everything is about choking the chook.
Sir, not everything is about choking the chook.
NOW you tell me…!
.
TIL “chook.”. How do you say that? Yeah, I know you say it with some silly accent but that’s not what I want to know,
The Tragically Flip said “The general idea you seem to be supporting is that because it might be possible to kill lots of people with fire or bombs, we should make no effort to restrict the easiest mass-murder machines available, guns.”
My position is that highly motivated, mentally unstable individuals have always, and will always find ways to injure and kill large numbers of innocents in a variety of ways no matter the restrictions we do or do not have in place on any of the implements they might use, whether it be dynamite, fertilizer, gasoline or guns). Columbine happened while the Assault Weapons Ban was in effect, after all.
This horrific and tragic killing is high-profile and steers the conversation towards “assault weapons,” but the reality of the situation is that only about 3%-4% of firearm deaths in this country are carried out with ANY sort of rifle or shotgun, “assault” style or otherwise. The vast, overwhelming majority of firearms deaths in this country (homicide and suicide) are carried out with handguns.
Any way you cut it, assault rifles are simply not the public health threat that handguns are.
Prayer.
I’m sure the fact that his targets were kindergarteners trapped in a classroom had absolutely nothing to do with his effectiveness.
You are wrong. Any parent can tell you how hard it is to keep up with a single child, let alone dozens of panic stricken six year olds. Would he have been able to kill one or two? Probably. One or two dozen, not a frigging chance. Gun rights jerkwads are pointing to the recent in ident in China were a deranged nut took a knife to a bunch of school kids and got twenty odd of them. None died. Guns are a whole different level of lethal – the term “bringing a knife to a gunfight” explains itself.
We have very strict regulations on Class 3 firearms and those weapons are practically never used in the commission of a crime. In fact, you’d have a tough time finding an instance of one being used criminally.
Oh, but regulations don’t work, silly me.
Good thing Nancy Lanza had all those guns in the house to protect herself.
Guns are a whole different level of lethal
ER doctors have a saying:
“Knife victims go to the emergency room. Gun victims go to the morgue.”
My position is that highly motivated, mentally unstable individuals have always, and will always find ways to injure and kill large numbers of innocents in a variety of ways no matter the restrictions we do or do not have in place on any of the implements they might use, whether it be dynamite, fertilizer, gasoline or guns). Columbine happened while the Assault Weapons Ban was in effect, after all.
What do you know about mentally unstable people? I am guessing somewhere between bupkes and squiddly fucking doo. These aren’t super villains toiling away at some scheme for world domination. Their motives and thinking processes are fucked up – definitionally. You assume that, of course they could dream up some alternate method of wreaking mass havoc – and point to two incidents in a century as your back up. There were two mass murder shootings IN THREE FUCKING DAYS.
In closing, you are wrong. You may not be a complete moron[1], but you are nowhere near as smart as you think you are.
[1]. I lie. You are a complete moron.
Dragon-King Wangchuck said; “You are wrong. Any parent can tell you how hard it is to keep up with a single child.”
Hey, guess what—I’m a parent.
“Gun rights jerkwads are pointing to the recent in ident in China were a deranged nut took a knife to a bunch of school kids and got twenty odd of them. None died.”
On the other hand, in 2001 a deranged nut in Japan took a knife to a bunch of school kids and got twenty odd of them. Eight died. Not every similar crime has the same results.
How to pronounce chook and lose whatever sanity you may have
Rhymes with Hook but has a Ch as in chocolate sound.
Eight’s bad but still a heck of a lot less than 26.
I mean really, if a knife’s just as lethal why bother with guns?
You can’t have it both ways.
Yeah, it’s way less than 26. It’s also way more than “none.”
I didn’t say knives were “just as lethal” … I didn’t bring up spree stabbing, you did. I’m just pointing out that just because the Chinese spree stabber didn’t manage to kill anyone doesn’t mean that a lone lunatic cannot wreak deadly havoc with a knife.
Bingo.
The ammo for knives is a lot cheaper.
.
Hey, guess what—I’m a parent.
So you’re disregarding personal knowledge so that you can comfort yourself with you erroneous beliefs? Good on you. I think if you dig through for every school knifing incident that has ever happened, you still don’t get to Sandy Hook’s fatality count. Or Virginia Tech’s. What does that tell you? Well apparently it is – zomg, banning guns does nothing!
What do I know about mentally unstable people? More than I want to, that’s for sure. But not as much as this woman: http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html
A lone lunatic can create deadly havoc with just about anything. Especially if he or she is specially trained and/or lucky (for lunatic values of luck). Easy, virtually uncontrolled access to guns and ammo makes it easier, and removes some of the necessity for training.
“zomg, banning guns does nothing!”
It certainly didn’t prevent Columbine.
Even if Congress were to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban tomorrow, it would not do anything to remove the millions and millions of “assault weapons” already in circulation in the US.
From Major Kong at LGM:
” Why can’t we get this kind of thing to go viral on facebook like all the stupid right-wing stuff does?”
Consider it started.
That Osaka massacre was conducted by a janitor, someone who was intimately familiar with the facility. That makes a difference. Probably prevented a lot of escapees and extended the time he had to murder kids. He was still less effective than the Sandy Hook asswipe. Or Breivik.
Guns are much more deadly and dangerous than anything a normal person can get access to. That is just what they are.
Here is another way to look at it – in the US, where gun control is lol-bullets build character, you get all sorts of crazy shootings and gun fueled mass murders. In other developed nations where you there is gun control, you don’t. I’m a Canoodlian. Our deadly mass murders were with guns, despite our having gun control. No spate of knife wielding, hockey stick slashing, baby seal cudgel swinging mass murderers. as it turns out, the general case is that people denied access to guns do not find alternate ways to kill. Possibly related to the threshold of crazy required to shoot a bunch of people to death and the threshold for knifing a bunch of people to death.
Even if Congress were to reinstate the Assault Weapons Ban tomorrow, it would not do anything to remove the millions and millions of “assault weapons” already in circulation in the US.
So mass shootings in schools is okay then. You can’t change it so let’s not bother.
How many mass shootings were carried out with bolt action rifles? They are still around, you can even still get them now. The point isn’t to make all guns instantly disappear. And yes, even if all guns vanished, people would still get murdered. Including kids. But it is plainly obvious that the experiment of making guns readily available and widespread in distribution leads to lots of people dying with bullet holes in them. Quelle fucking surprise. Maybe it is now time to do something different.
Also note that as technology marches forward, gun technology does too. Your hunting rifle from the sixties is a deadly piece of equipment, but the stuff they are making now is more powerful and accurate. And can be operated and maintained by a mouth breathing idiot.
You know why no cops carry .38 revolvers like they did back in the good old hard boiled days? Because those guns suck compared to the new ones. And there is no reason why the guns potentially available in twenty years time won’t make today’s Glocks look like crude ancient toys
Once again, I never stated that knives are just as deadly as guns. You’ll get no argument from me that guns are inherently deadlier than knives. You were just implying that a spree killing involving a knife would result in no deaths. That’s not necessarily the case, obviously.
The reason I don’t believe in renewing the Assault Weapons Ban every time there is a mass shooting like this is because although they are very high profile and get a lot of attention, they really are statistically rare. I have no more chance of being shot in a mass shooting than of getting struck by lightning.
Keep in mind, 40%-50% of American households have a firearm, and there are 240 million guns here. So no, I don’t think it makes sense to make criminals out of the 10 million “assault rifle” owners who are not—and will never be—out there murdering people in the face. Handguns are responsible for the lion’s share of firearms homicides and suicides in this country, not assault rifles. That’s just a plain fact.
http://www.waff.com/story/20353221/no-rise-in-mass-killings-but-their-impact-is-huge:
Those who study mass shootings say they are not becoming more common.
“There is no pattern, there is no increase,” says criminologist James Allen Fox of Boston’s Northeastern University, who has been studying the subject since the 1980s, spurred by a rash of mass shootings in post offices.
The random mass shootings that get the most media attention are the rarest, Fox says.
“So mass shootings in schools is okay then. You can’t change it so let’s not bother.”
No, mass shootings in schools is not OK. That doesn’t mean that “banning assault weapons” will prevent them.
“But it is plainly obvious that the experiment of making guns readily available and widespread in distribution leads to lots of people dying with bullet holes in them.”
Actually, we have far more guns in circulation than any time in history, and starting in 1987, most of our states now allow concealed carry of firearms. And in the past 20 years, the murder rate in the US has dropped by almost half. I’m not claiming that more guns is the reason for our dropping crime rate, but it’s apparent that it has not increased it, despite your claims to the opposite.
Oh, and just so that you can scale it – my hometown of LEAFS SUCK had a bad year for gun violence in 2005. We call it “The Year of the Gun” and it still resonates. LEAFS SUCK and environs has a population of around five million, but that year we had 52 gun murders and 80 murders in total.
“Your hunting rifle from the sixties is a deadly piece of equipment, but the stuff they are making now is more powerful and accurate.”
The M-16—the military rifle upon which the Bushmaster AR-15 is based—is from 1959, and was first extensively used in the sixties. They are not “more powerful.” A .223 round fired from an M-16, and AR-15 or a standard wooden stock “varmint” or ranch rifle has the same power.
Most hunting rifles (from the sixties or any other era) are far more powerful than an AR-15. A .223 is not suitable for deer hunting because it’s an underpowered round. If I had to choose, I’d rather get shot with an AR-15 than a “sixties hunting rifle” or a 30-30 lever action cowboy rifle. Even worse would be a civil war era musket.
Historically, the violent crime rate in Canada is lower than that of the US, whether firearm-related or otherwise. Comparing Canada to the US is not very useful, you have lower rates of almost every type of crime than us. And that despite the fact that you guys actually have one of the higher firearm ownership rates in the world. Different culture.
…unless it’s loaded with jacketed hollowpoints, dum-dums, wadcutters…
Yeah,…nothin’s changed.
BTW,…my .270 Win chambered Tikka T3 has no problem dropping a fat neck 12 point on his face with a light load, neither did Gramps’ 22.
Your argument falls just as flat.
The only real reason for a heavy load is shooting in heavy cover.
Period.
Now,…I want an explanation for rapid fire of twenty rounds in a hunting situation.
Your move.
A hearty welcome to our new(?) trolls!
Isn’t it just precious how they nearly always put the exact same “Y U NO T3ACH TEH C0NTROVERSY, LIBT@RD SHEEPL3?” bait on their rusty old hook – whether the topic is gun control, science curricula or Anthropogenic Global Warming? Guess when you dance with the Corporatist Kulturkampf pimps what bought & sold ya, you don’t get to call the tune much.
But oh dear, what spunky little scamps.
Keep chasing that rainbow!
PS: Whatsoever that thou shalt ever do, asketh not the WRONG QUESTION, lest thou loseth thy plot.
I am a peaceful man, as are all law abiding gunowners. I am merely concerned with self-defense, defense of my property, and liberty. But if anyone attempts to seize or confiscate my guns, they will end up with a .223 implanted in their skull.
…nevermind that “what you’d rather get shot with” is fucking irrelevant.
That .223 was apparently more than deadly enough Friday.
Do you fuckers even bother to…
Nevermind.
Oh God, JR, I’m so very, very impressed. How brave. You’re like John McClane, John Galt, and John Holmes all rolled into one big ball of manliness.
.270 Win is significantly more powerful than .223 Rem, so I’m not sure what your point is.
My argument does not “fall flat”—the most popular deer hunting cartridge by far is the 30-06, not the .223 and CERTAINLY not the .22.
CAN you kill a deer (or person) with a puny .22? Of course you can—But it’s far less likely. My argument is that the average hunting rifle “from the sixties” fires a more powerful round than an AR-15. Are you denying that?
Btw, “St. Jim” your blog is fucking gay. Go take your leftwing gibberish and shove it Ahoy!
Hi Fenwick. I am with you. I am devastated beyond belief about those babies. I cannot get what the carnage in that classroom must have looked like.
Just saw your answer to me on the other thread and wanted to answer you here. I was apparently not clear. It was not an accident. Alex was murdered. The person who murdered him thought Alex did something that it turns out he did not do. So he talked Alex into going hunting so he could get him alone in the woods and to a place where he thought Alex’s body would never be found.
He shot him 4 times in the back, and while Alex was writhing on the ground, twice more in the head to make him stop.
We know this because the police pulled a full confession out of him 4 days later. And Alex lay in the woods the whole time. And to those assholes who think more guns are the answer please understand what I am saying. Alex was hunting. HE HAD A GUN IN HIS HAND when he was shot.
I bet you’ve had hundreds of girlfriends.
Mayor of Upper Astroboffin, the person I was talking to claimed that today’s firearms are significantly more powerful than a “hunting rifle from the sixties.” This is certainly not the case in regards to the rifle used in the school shooting.
Obviously I don’t want to get shot with any firearm (or arrow, or even a dart).
“I bet you’ve had hundreds of girlfriends.”
Spare me your pathetic attempt at an insult artist boy. Besides, you leftist scum have done enough with your destruction of American culture as is evidenced by the November elections. An attempt to insult my character, as you don’t even know me, does not offend me in the least. What is offensive is the fact that the majority of Americans have drank the coolaid and bought into your leftist rhetoric and whole heartedly embraced your destructive, athiestic, effeminate, metropolitan culture. Those of us of a traditionally minded perspective are regretably few and far between in 21st Century America. But we will not go silently into the night, I can assure you and your marxist ilk of that.
There’s nothing in the Second Amendment that guarantees private citizens the right of parity in firepower.
Private citizens aren’t allowed to own hand grenades, or nuclear or conventional missiles, which are also “arms.” There’s no reason why they should be allowed to own semi- or automatic weapons – these armaments are designed for one purpose only – killing people. And since murder is illegal, it’s insane to insist that we have a “right” to own a product designed for that purpose alone.
You can Second Amendment the argument all you like, but the fact is, at the time the Second Amendment was drafted, the most lethal weapons available were muzzle-loaders, capable of firing a single round once every couple of minutes, or perhaps one per minute if the guy handling it was particularly adept at reloading. The drafters of the Second Amendment could not have anticipated the killing power of today’s weapons, and if they had, it’s very doubtful they would have been down with the idea of every Joe Blow Citizen walking around with them.
You can make the excuse that “it would take years to round up all the semi-automatic weapons already out there” and that would be true if you took no affirmative steps to round them up, for example by passing law that says “after such and such a date, possession of these types of weapons is illegal for private citizens; private citizens who currently possess these weapons can turn them in to local law enforcement agencies before this date and be paid the fair market value for surrendering the weapon; if they are not turned in by this date and are later found in a private citizen’s possession, the fine will be not less than $10,000; if they are not turned in and are used in commission of a crime, the registered owner will be subject to a fine of not less than $10,000 and a prison sentence of not less than 2 years.” That would get 90% of them out of circulation.
I’m pretty fucking sick of this argument that we have to let the people with the psychoses/neuroses determine gun policy – the arguments you’ve presented amount to no more than that. Your right to bear arms is trampling all the fuck over MY right to not live in an armed camp in the fear that anytime I go to a public place, I might get shot by a lunatic or some self-styled Rambo with a concealed weapon trying to play hero. I’ve no quibble with hunters or sportsmen, but then again, they aren’t the ones running around with semi- or automatic weapons or handguns, because that’s not what’s used for shooting critters. Those are designed for the sole purpose of shooting people, which is an illegal activity.
Btw, “St. Jim” your blog is fucking gay. Go take your leftwing gibberish and shove it Ahoy!
Needs more QED.
No insult, you amazing hunk of pure testosterone, I’m sure the ladies all faint in your presence out of sheer arousal. I’d bet dollars to doughnuts there are no lesbians in your town. How could there be? They all know what a real man looks like.
“You can make the excuse that “it would take years to round up all the semi-automatic weapons already out there” and that would be true if you took no affirmative steps to round them up”
And yet you liberals use the same arguement to oppose mass deportation of illegal aliens. Interesting how you leftists support mass cattle round ups when it serves your radical agenda now doesn’t it?
I agree, Mexicans have far less inherent worth than semi-automatic weapons. It’s not like Mexicans are human beings or anything. Preach it, my white brother.
And yet you liberals use the same arguement to oppose mass deportation of illegal aliens.
You aren’t very bright, obviously; otherwise it would have occured to you what a stupid analogy you’ve attempted to make.
Rounding up people requires people to go out and round them up, arrange holding areas, transportation & etc.
Passing a law that says “turn ’em in or face these consequences” requires no such effort.
For the two situations to be even roughly equivalent would require illegal immigrants to voluntarily turn themselves in. But even then, there’s no equivalency because 1) you can’t really impose a fine on people who can’t pay it because 2) you don’t have a place to lock them up if they don’t pay it. There are no doubt more illegal immigrants in the country than there are semi-automatic weapons.
Like I said, a really stupid analogy on your part. But about what I’d expect from an apologist for mass murdering children.
http://samuel-warde.com/2012/12/concealed-carry-permit-holders-live-in-a-dream-world-video/
“I’d bet dollars to doughnuts there are no lesbians in your town. How could there be? They all know what a real man looks like.”
Actually, I live in a very liberal state where real men such as myself are not considered to be attractive. Women in my state (regretably) prefer the weak, soft, effeminate pretty boys. In fact, most women in 21st Century America don’t like masculine men who are armed and can hold their own, they prefer metro sissies like Brad Pitt and George Clooney.
As a liberal, I oppose banning guns for the same reason I oppose banning abortion: as our experiment with Prohibition showed us, and has played out likewise with the War On Drugs, bans don’t work. They do, however, create dangerous black markets for these items/services.
No Jennifer my dear, that is where you are wrong. My heartfelt sympathy goes out to all of the victims of Friday’s tragedy and to their families. In fact, more lenient gun laws may very well have prevented Friday’s tragedy. Things may have turned out quite differently if one or a few of the teachers had been armed. But Conneticut has some of the most draconian gun control laws in the country so go figure.
I find it hard to believe that women would prefer noted weak sissy and preening metrosexual Brad Pitt over a premium specimin of manhood like yourself.
Things may have turned out quite differently if one or a few of the teachers had been armed.
Yes, having loaded firearms all over schools is a brilliant idea. But why stop with the teachers? Let’s arm all the kindergarten tots with semi-automatic weapons; that way, the next time an insane gunman starts shooting up a classroom they can protect themselves.
But Conneticut has some of the most draconian gun control laws in the country so go figure.
Those “draconian gun control laws” extend all the way to prohibiting fixed bayonet rings on semi-automatic weapons, though not the semi-automatic weapons themselves, such as the one that killed all those kids.
Also, since now we’re going to expect teachers to be paramilitaries with sharpshooting skills, maybe now we can pay them decent salaries.
I find it hard to believe that women would prefer noted weak sissy and preening metrosexual Brad Pitt over a premium specimin of manhood like yourself.
Yeah, then it could have been like Die Hard but in an elementary school instead of an office building! How awesome would that have been?!
No one on this thread has called for banning guns.
I note you chose not to address the fact that the Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee private citizens parity of firepower with organized militaries.
They do, however, create dangerous black markets for these items/services.
There’s a thriving black market for firearms, both domestically and internationally, already. We export the bulk of the misery caused by the American gun fetish.
“Yes, having loaded firearms all over schools is a brilliant idea. But why stop with the teachers? Let’s arm all the kindergarten tots with semi-automatic weapons; that way, the next time an insane gunman starts shooting up a classroom they can protect themselves.”
You have completely missed the point my dear. If lawabiding citizens are armed, than the bad guys will be far less likely to commit violent crime. Ever wonder why school shootings happen in left-leaning states with strict gun laws? Easy pickings, that’s why.
On the other hand the bad guys know better than to try such a thing in say rural Idaho or Wyoming where most people are armed.
The Bath school bombing is new to me. Yikes.
The Dems should open up some rhetorical space by, say, proposing that in the event of a Zombie Apocalypse/Alien Invasion/Red Dawn situation, the government will distribute vouchers good for $1k of guns to each citizen.
Condescendingly addressing women as “my dear” really turns them on. It lets her know who’s boss. They love that.
Learn from the master, people.
18th Century terminology was quite a bit different from what we are used to today. The term “well regulated” simply meant well disicplined or well organized. In those days all male citizens were recognized as being members of the militia. Therefore the right to bear arms was recognized as being both an individual and a collective right.
Ever wonder why school shootings happen in left-leaning states with strict gun laws? Easy pickings, that’s why.
I had no idea that Arkansas, scene of the Westside Middle School massacre, was “left-leaning.” And that’s after living here and having been poltically active for 30 plus years. You learn something wrong every day, I guess.
Ditto for Colorado, which wasn’t exactly Massachusetts at the time of the Columbine massacre.
Insane motherfuckers aren’t “deterred” by the notion that someone else might have a gun. But more to the point, I have a fucking right not to be required to go around with a gun on my person all the time to protect myself because some tiny-dicked neurotic believes that if he isn’t allowed a military weapon, he’s being oppressed.
Jennifer my dear, you have every right not to carry a firearm, just as I have every right to carry a firearm. The Second Amendment is my guarantee, I don’t need any leftist judge or politician telling me otherwise.
Things may have turned out quite differently if one or a few of the teachers had been armed.
Yes, either the gun would have been loaded and accessible and we would have heard of a student accidentally shooting himself or another kid, or the gun would have been unloaded in a gun safe in the principal’s office, maybe with a trigger lock, and would not have been gotten to in time. Of course things probably would have turned out exactly the same because like the video I linked above shows, people just aren’t as good as they think they are in crises.
1) I’m not your “dear.”
2) You don’t have an unrestricted “right” to carry a firearm at all times.
3) A “firearm” could be defined as a muzzle-loader. There’s no right to own an automatic or semi-automatic, hand grenades, nuclear or conventional missiles, tanks, or any number of other “arms” which are recognized as military implements.
Jennifer is totally creaming herself right now. Don’t let her tell you otherwise. Keep talking like that to women – there’s not a one who doesn’t secretly love it.
Okay, I’m going to drop the character now. I’m creeping myself out.
Crickets….
Note there’s been no substantive response to any of the points I’ve raised, just the same “change the subject” tactic always used by the dull ones who show up here from time to time.
Heh, while reading the thread just now I briefly thought that Jeffraham Prestonian was spoof-trolling it. Apparently, many Sadlynaughts still haven’t overcome their itchy trigger fingers when obtuse provocations arise.
1) I’m not your “dear.”
Huh, apparently being armed doesn’t automatically make a person polite.
Jennifer, the original post itself says “This case is exactly why we should ban semi-automatic assault rifles.” That is a call for banning guns. Or did you miss that.
Many abortion opponents do not call for an outright ban on abortion, they instead push for “personhood” and put up all sorts of blocks and barriers to abortion, closing clinics, trying to force women to get ultrasounds, banning abortion procedures that are almost never used, etc. We all know, however, what their ultimate goal is. All of those incremental steps are merely steps toward that goal. It’s not like they were satisfied with the “partial birth” abortion ban.
I choose not to address the 2nd amendment aspect because it’s largely an exercise in futility—unless the Supreme Court rules definitively on your side of the argument, I can own an AR-15. There’s no reason for me to debate you about it. I’m not the person you need to convince that the 2A only covers flintlock muskets.
Of course there is already a black market for firearms. Likewise, there was bootlegging and rum-running long prior to Prohibition. The Eighteenth Amendment did not create the black market on alcohol, it just put it on steroids.
The point is, there is a demand for firearms in this country, and banning things that there is a great demand for has not, to my knowledge, ever been particularly effective, and is generally counterproductive. Ending the War On Drugs, for example, would do more overnight to cut firearm homicide in this country than decades of gun control ever could.
Ending the “war on drugs” would be a helluvalot more effective in cutting firearm homicides in Mexico than in El Norte.
Unfortunately, I can’t continue the discussion. It’s 1am and I have a toddler that wakes up at 6, so I must go to sleep now.
Lest you think I’m avoiding your points, click on my name to continue the discussion with me if you there’s anything you think I haven’t replied to sufficiently.
Good night.
Just wanting to add that if my teachers had been armed during my primary and secondary-school years, odds are that I’d be long-dead. Everyone, including sainted teachers, has a breaking point.
I choose not to address the 2nd amendment aspect because it’s largely an exercise in futility—unless the Supreme Court rules definitively on your side of the argument, I can own an AR-15.
Funny, the Court never bothered to weigh in on the unconstitutionality of the assault weapons ban put in place when Clinton was in office. Which would seem to suggest a recognition that “arms” doesn’t extend to whatever device of murder and mayhem a private individual might wish to possess.
As to the black market for semi- or automatic weapons, a law making their possession or manufacture illegal (for anything other than military use, which could pretty easily be monitored) would pretty much take care of the issue. Most of the guns in the world are made right here in the good ol’ USA – one of the few things still made here. If there isn’t a legal market for them, and there are criminal penalties for manufacturing them, no one in this country will be making them. And since most countries aren’t insane like this one, we’re pretty much the only place where it’s legal for a private citizen to own one of these murder devices. If we outlaw them, there’s no longer a legal private market for them.
Timothy McVeigh killed ~ two dozen children, IIRC — and he did not use a gun to do it.
As an engineer, I think whatever resources we put toward “gun control” would be better used on discovering why America does such a great job of spawning maladjusted young men, who somehow see mass murder as the ‘solution’ to whatever problem bedevils them.
Switzerland has universal ownership of firearms. Why are we not reading stories like this from that country all of the time?
(I have never owned a firearm, and I would never allow such a thing in my residence — that’s what I pay my local police force to handle for me. And the Second Amendment clearly refers to the “well-regulated militia” of a state — not to individuals.)
Yep, tensor. Unfortunately, this festering sociopolitical cesspool is probably far beyond any reasonable attempts at repair, given the inevitable epochal challenges we’ll confront locally and globally over the next generation or three. There just ain’t enough breathing space.
Unfortunately, this festering sociopolitical cesspool is probably far beyond any reasonable attempts at repair…
As was mentioned up-thread, the murder rate in this country has been falling for over twenty years. According to chapter five of “Freakonomics”, legal abortion is the main reason. Why should we liberals now lose faith in our principles? Again, we need to focus our resources on the proper questions.
re: ‘Banning guns will fail just like Prohibition!’
Yes, because it’s totally just as easy to manufacture modern firearms surreptitiously as it is to distill bootleg rum (or grow weed).
I think Garry Willis said it very well. We worship some pretty terrible gods here.
Yes, because it’s totally just as easy to manufacture modern firearms surreptitiously as it is to distill bootleg rum (or grow weed).
You are correct, although you were being sarcastic. I’ve seen enough garage machine-shops which could create rifled barrels, if need be.
Incidentally, two of the states which I’ve called home have now legalized the recreational use of marijuana — both by popular vote. Rationality has come slowly, but it is coming.
Granted, ya gotta make an effort. I was completely pessimistic about our collective prospects from my teens through mid-twenties, but after that a gradual increase of *faith in humanity* set in for the next couple of decades.
Unfortunately, in this 21st Century the pendulum has swung mostly toward the pits again. Perhaps if I’d had, or ever even wanted children this later-life cynicism would be leavened.
I can’t respond to “Guav” because there’s nothing to debate. Civilians don’t need military-grade murder machines like the AR-15. May I remind this fuckwit that every soldier, cop, and other armed civil servant, before they are trained, swears an oath to uphold the law, follow the orders of leaders, and abide by a uniform code of conduct to be an armed civil servant who uses lethal force. But any idiot in our lax gun-fucking-fetishized culture can easily purchase a murder machine like an AR-15, which was designed to kill as many human targets as possible by soldiers in warfare. No training, no oaths to uphold laws and codes of conduct, just a silly fucking goober armed like a Marine rifle company infantryman. And we’re not supposed to question the insanity of this? Go fuck yourself, Guav, but first pull your cock out of your gun and your head out of your sophistry-laden ass.
I think Garry Willis said it very well. We worship some pretty terrible gods here.
Pfft. If you want to worship a truly terrible god, Mr. Wills, I offer you YHWH, god of Christians and Jews:
1 And Israel abode in Shittim, and the people began to commit whoredom with the daughters of Moab.
2 And they called the people unto the sacrifices of their gods: and the people did eat, and bowed down to their gods.
3 And Israel joined himself unto Baalpeor: and the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel.
4 And the LORD said unto Moses, Take all the heads of the people, and hang them up before the LORD against the sun, that the fierce anger of the LORD may be turned away from Israel.
5 And Moses said unto the judges of Israel, Slay ye every one his men that were joined unto Baalpeor.
6 And, behold, one of the children of Israel came and brought unto his brethren a Midianitish woman in the sight of Moses, and in the sight of all the congregation of the children of Israel, who were weeping before the door of the tabernacle of the congregation.
7 And when Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, saw it, he rose up from among the congregation, and took a javelin in his hand;
8 And he went after the man of Israel into the tent, and thrust both of them through, the man of Israel, and the woman through her belly. So the plague was stayed from the children of Israel.
9 And those that died in the plague were twenty and four thousand.
10 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
11 Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, hath turned my wrath away from the children of Israel, while he was zealous for my sake among them, that I consumed not the children of Israel in my jealousy.
12 Wherefore say, Behold, I give unto him my covenant of peace:
13 And he shall have it, and his seed after him, even the covenant of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, and made an atonement for the children of Israel.
14 Now the name of the Israelite that was slain, even that was slain with the Midianitish woman, was Zimri, the son of Salu, a prince of a chief house among the Simeonites.
15 And the name of the Midianitish woman that was slain was Cozbi, the daughter of Zur; he was head over a people, and of a chief house in Midian.
16 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,
17 Vex the Midianites, and smite them:
18 For they vex you with their wiles, wherewith they have beguiled you in the matter of Peor, and in the matter of Cozbi, the daughter of a prince of Midian, their sister, which was slain in the day of the plague for Peor’s sake.
How’s that for some Biblical family values concerning marriage, Mr. Wills?
This ‘alibut’s good enough for Jehovah, but you’re sure to be smitten with the scallops!
May I remind this fuckwit that every soldier, cop, and other armed civil servant, before they are trained, swears an oath to uphold the law, follow the orders of leaders, and abide by a uniform code of conduct to be an armed civil servant who uses lethal force.
And here we thought they swore (or affirmed) to uphold our Constitution:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Haven’t been seen much around here lately, and I promise that any further short-term sightings will evince a return to the gay, feckless frivolity of auld.
I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.
So, Tensor, what the fuck are you babbling about?
You seem to be splitting hairs you are plucking out of your ass.
So, Tensor, what the fuck are you babbling about?
I refuted your claim, “that every soldier, cop, and other armed civil servant, before they are trained, swears an oath to uphold the law, follow the orders of leaders, and abide by a uniform code of conduct to be an armed civil servant who uses lethal force” by citing our Constitution on that very point. If you don’t like what our Constitution says on this point, that’s too bad, but it is not any problem but yours.
So, according to you, military and law enforcement members don’t swear oaths of office?
As a former soldier, I seem to recall raising my hand and repeating the above oath I cited.
I’m not exactly sure what you “refuted.”
Well, wait. I have no idea what you’re babbling, to be honest.
Again, if you do not recognize the words of our Constitution on this point, I cannot help you.
I have linked to my source; you have yet to link to yours.
I am not clear what point you are trying to make. Are you saying US military and law enforcement personnel do not swear oaths of office?
Please answer that.
Secondly, I am not asking your “help” for anything, you silly twit. Please, get over yourself. I
I think tensor is referring to the 2nd amendment:
specifically to the last bit, conveniently forgetting about the first bit about the “well regulated Militia.” Since we’ve had a standing army for generations, and so no longer have a need for a Militia, well regulated or otherwise, I think a prohibition against manufacture and ownership of weapons designed to kill large numbers of people in a short time with little or no training makes sense. Also strict licensing, with regular retesting in skill, safety, and eyesight.
You argue like the Church Lady: “Isn’t that special, hmmmm?” Smug certainty to the point of pointlessness.
There are way too many consonants in this thread.
Actually, I was referring to Article VI, paragraph three, of our Constitution:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
As I mentioned, above, the Second Amendment clearly refers to “a well-regulated militia” of a state, not to disorganized individuals.
My point remains, as always, that we need to focus our efforts on the main problem: why does America create such imbalanced individuals? The machinery they use to create their mayhem is not the main issue.
The machinery they use to create their mayhem is not the main issue.
Yes it is. Because certain machines inflict a higher magnitude of damage, especially machines specifically designed to do so in warfare. Every nation has deranged individuals. But we have millions carrying lethal, military-grade murder machines.
Also, your citing of the Constitution does not “refute” the fact military and LE swear oaths of office, which they do. And these oaths, more or less, in fairly similar language, agree with what my original point stated.
Requiring gun safes and locks would have prevented this tragedy.
So, no, there are ideas for laws out there which would have prevented this tragedy.
Also, your citing of the Constitution does not “refute” the fact military and LE swear oaths of office, which they do. And these oaths, more or less, in fairly similar language, agree with what my original point stated.
And yet, despite all your chest-beating certitude, you have yet to cite a source for your claims. I have already repeatedly cited the relevant portions of our Constitution; perhaps you still remain unfamiliar?
Every nation has deranged individuals.
The Swiss would like to speak with you about that, How many mass-murders has that highly-armed nation suffered of late?
I think some of the reasons America creates such imbalanced individuals are lack of access to decent healthcare, including mental health; a culture that worships the making of huge amounts of money no matter the costs to others and/or our environment; the hijacking of our legislatures by corporations; absolute thumbsucking terror on the part of some men at the thought that they might eventually lose their unearned privilege; for starters.
But until we can stop creating these individuals, maybe we could make it a little more difficult for them to kill large numbers of people?
And the more the unregulated gun people equate people who want gun control like that used in civilized countries with people who want to get rid of all guns, the better that idea sounds.
Crissa,
Requiring gun safes and locks would have prevented this tragedy.
So, no, there are ideas for laws out there which would have prevented this tragedy.
How would gun-locks have prevented Timothy McVeigh from killing those children?
And yet, despite all your chest-beating certitude, you have yet to cite a source for your claims. I have already repeatedly cited the relevant portions of our Constitution; perhaps you still remain unfamiliar?
US Military
As you can see, it DOES in part conform to the precedent of Article VI, but it also includes further wording not in Article VI as I have stated three times to which you seem to be oblivious, such as the part swearing to abide to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the “code of conduct” to which I was referring.
I could waste valuable time grabbing hundreds of federal, state, and local LE oaths of office, but as I stated, you are splitting hairs you have pulled out of your ass to refute what I stated originally, which is basically correct.
I could waste valuable time grabbing hundreds of federal, state, and local LE oaths of office, but as I stated, you are splitting hairs you have pulled out of your ass to refute what I stated originally, which is basically correct.
And yet, not show how any of that supercedes our Constitution, upon which those “oaths” (no “affirmations”?) completely depend.
(Citing the relevant portions of our Constitution, with links, does not in any way involve pulling anything out of my rectum. You might want to speak with Dr. Freud about your fixation on that matter.)
McVeigh used a bomb, not a gun, so, no, gun locks would not have saved those kids in Oklahoma City. I’ll take “straw man” for $100.
Purchase of nitrate fertilizers has been under stricter control as a result, and there are more people depending on them for their livelihood than guns, so why can’t we tighten those controls?
<The Swiss would like to speak with you about that, How many mass-murders has that highly-armed nation suffered of late?
What a phony comparison. Switzerland is a nation of about 8 million people, fairly wealthy, isolated, homogenous, and with little poverty and deprivation. Yet if only one Swiss kid walks into a classroom and greases a few children with an assault rifle, that would be enough to make it comparable to the US.
Do you always argue using such lousy logic?
McVeigh used a bomb, not a gun, so, no, gun locks would not have saved those kids in Oklahoma City.
Crissa has yet to speak on this point.
I’ll take “straw man” for $100.
And yet, those American children remain dead. Not so much a straw man for them, eh?
Timothy McVeigh was an honorably-discharged member of our armed forces, who did not use a firearm to kill his victims. Until we learn how he decided to commit mass murder, we’re wasting our time and effort.
(Citing the relevant portions of our Constitution, with links, does not in any way involve pulling anything out of my rectum. You might want to speak with Dr. Freud about your fixation on that matter.)
Right, Church Lady. Mmmmm, isn’t that special?
Timothy McVeigh was an honorably-discharged member of our armed forces, who did not use a firearm to kill his victims. Until we learn how he decided to commit mass murder, we’re wasting our time and effort.
Ummm, well, there is the fact that, today, if an individual tries to purchase the amounts of ingredients McVeigh used to construct his fuel-oil-nitrate bomb, this individual cannot, by law, do so, and certainly not without the ATF and other LE on his ass immediately.
That avenue is blocked, which may not stop future bombings, but it does lessen the odds considerably an individual can do what McVeigh did.
Switzerland is a nation of about 8 million people, fairly wealthy, isolated, homogenous,
Switzerland has four official languages. The United States has one. If you want to argue that the US is not “fairly wealthy” and “Isolated,” go right ahead. (How many land frontiers does Switzerland have? The US has two.)
Yet if only one Swiss kid walks into a classroom and greases a few children with an assault rifle, that would be enough to make it comparable to the US.
I’m sorry, I clicked on your link and it did not work. How many mass murders has Switzerland had of late?
Switzerland has universal ownership of firearms.
As part of a well-regulated militia. And the ammunition for those rifles is only issued when the reservist is activated or for annual training.
Otherwise Swiss gun laws are more strict than most US states.
Wow, tensor, you certainly arm yourself with a heap o’logical fallacies. I thank you for that lesson in knee-jerk sophistry.
But further feeding your trollitude really has no more interest for me. You are amusing, but utterly useless for any sort of substantive discussion.
Curious too, tensor, is how you omitted “…with little poverty and deprivation.”
I like your style. Obfuscate. Cherry pick. Erect straw men.
Feed the troll so he can impress us all with his wily cleverness and brilliant…whatever it is.
You win! I cannot play this game. It’s exhausting and boring.
As part of a well-regulated militia. And the ammunition for those rifles is only issued when the reservist is activated or for annual training.
So. you’re saying that Switzerland has a more rational approach to gun ownership than does the US? I could not agree more. That still leaves us with the question of why the US produces more homocidial nut-cases than pretty much anywhere else.
Wow, tensor, you certainly arm yourself with a heap o’logical fallacies. I thank you for that lesson in knee-jerk sophistry.
This from someone who has yet to cite the US Constitution on this point.
To distract you from this well-written and relevant post about the recent tragedy, please enjoy this post in which I utterly fail to do so and instead talk about Drudge going ape shit with the N-word.
In short:
New post.
That still leaves us with the question of why the US produces more homocidial nut-cases than pretty much anywhere else.
I suspect the answer is complicated and has multiple causes.
And, until we address those causes, we will resign ourselves to such pointless, avoidable tragedies as we have just seen.
Cerb, thanks for the notice.
This from someone who has yet to cite the US Constitution on this point.
Ok, this is it. I stated, a LONG time ago, that the military and LE swear oaths of office stating, basically, they swear to uphold the law (ie.,which means the constitution of the US or state to which they are serving, you fucking lunkhead), obey the orders of their appointed leaders, and abide by their code of conduct.
Your claim I’m wrong, somehow, and you repeated cite Article VI of the Constitution.
Although, as I have repeated, and know from personal knowledge as a soldier, we do, in fact, swear (or affirm–that’s you splitting ass hairs again) to the wording I basically paraphrased.
I keep asking you, are you saying they DON’T swear (or affirm) these oaths?
To which you don’t answer, you just repeat Article VI. Is that a no?
Your arguments are confusing, silly, and utterly meaningless. And I have no fucking idea what your point is.
So, as I said, no more feeding your trollitude.
Switzerland is […] isolated
Say what why when?
I used to lay over in Basel. Nice place but expensive.
So, as I said, no more feeding your trollitude.
And yet. you come back here, again and again, doing just that.
Your claim I’m wrong, somehow, and you repeated cite [sic] Article VI of the Constitution.
Yes, citing our Constitution has that effect. Go figure.
… swear (or affirm–that’s you splitting ass hairs again)…
Actually, that’s from the positive text of our Constitution. No splitting hairs required. (Although you might want to consult with Dr. Freud on your anal fixation.)
You guys gonna keep this up all morning? This is why I don’t hang out at Huffingtonpost any more.
Switzerland is […] isolated
Say what why when?
Thus sayeth the almighty BBC and its sources…
I glommed it from the following:
Switzerland is one of the world’s richest countries, but has remained relatively isolated.
It has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation.
Despite the lack of rigid gun laws, firearms are strictly connected to a sense of collective responsibility.
From an early age Swiss men and women associate weaponry with being called to defend their country.
It has none of the social problems associated with gun crime seen in other industrialised countries like drugs or urban deprivation.
Any source stating so blithely that Switzerland has no “social problems […] like drugs” comes to you from a world of total fantasy.
Any source describing Switzerland as “relatively isolated” is somehow unaware that 25% of the workforce consists of migrant labour from outside Switzerland.
That BBC article is not just bullshit, its extent of wrongness reaches an aggressively Bizarro-world level.
I don’t recall the streets of Basel being full of people packing heat.
I haven’t been to Switzerland since the late 80s, but back then the country’s largest cities were, including Zurich (ah, Needle Park; Swiss junkies were fairly tame unless one vomited on you), incredibly pristine compared to Paris, Berlin, Amsterdam, London, Madrid, et al. And it’s not like these other cities were then, and are now, hellholes. So, to give that BBC piece some credence, I hardly think Swiss cities are teeming hellholes by any accord. Then again, I guess my perspective is skewed–I’m from Philly, which is fraught with the kind of “urban deprivation” few Europeans can even imagine.
I haven’t had a Philly trip in a while, but we stay right by City Hall. I’m pretty sure it’s at the Marriott.
I remember going to the Terminal Market and getting a cheesesteak sandwich roughly the size of my head.
Historically, the violent crime rate in Canada is lower than that of the US, whether firearm-related or otherwise. Comparing Canada to the US is not very useful, you have lower rates of almost every type of crime than us. And that despite the fact that you guys actually have one of the higher firearm ownership rates in the world. Different culture.
Apparently you can’t compare the US and Canada because shut up that’s why. Violent crime rates are higher south if the border, but our property crime rates are marginally higher. Even looking at just murder rates – American murder rates are three times higher than Canadian ones, but that’s probably highly influenced by the fact that the rates of murder by firearms is ten times higher.
Anyways, completely missed the point. The US has a much higher rate of ciolent crime because the cultures are different. THAT WAS WHAT I WAS SAYING! Canada and the US are so fundamentally different that you can’t compare them? Is that also true for, every other developed nation in the world? There is even a study looking at violent crime, firearms, and firearms regulation from state to state – one that shows that where you have guns, you get people who shoot each other.
Oh and the point about being shot with a musket instead of an AR15, again missing the point. I would much rather be shot AT with a musket, especially if the range was greater than three feet. Also, if the shooter had to get 19 people before getting to me.
Even the M16 you cite. Given that the shooter is going to be a lunatic off his meds or something, there is a chance that the M16 isn’t even going to fire. They are temperamental ornery pieces of ordnance that, if not properly maintained, will jam if you look at them funny. You ever wonder why no one uses M16s anymore but AR15s are widespread?
But anyways, do go on. It is amazing to see how wrong you are all the time.
New thread
I used to lay over in Basel.
Reclining on a couch, eating grapes, being fanned with a palm frond? Because there’s something about that sentence that creates that mental image…
As part of a well-regulated militia. And the ammunition for those rifles is only issued when the reservist is activated or for annual training.
Speaking from Switzerland right now – this. Swiss people have guns, after they’ve done their years in the military, been certified and trained to use the guns and, among other things, been certified as not mentally insane. It’s a “well regulated militia,” exactly what the actual text of the Second Amendment calls for, and exactly what the NRA is determined not to let us have.
Mind you, the “well regulated militia” bit serves no purpose whatsoever in either country in this day and age. Relevant two hundred years ago when invasions were still around the corner, still relevant in Israel – another country where most people have guns – but completely obsolete now. In an age when an American or even a Swiss citizen is far more likely to be gunned down by a psychotic neighbor than by a British or Austrian invader, yeah, there’s good grounds to wonder why gun ownership is still allowed even under the “well regulated militia” model. But yes, the U.S. does turn out more homicidal nutjobs… for whatever reason. Generally reluctant to go for cultural explanations, but the near-pornographic obsession this society has with guns as instruments of freedom and righteous justice has no equivalent in Switzerland or any other gun-filled culture, and I’ll be damned if that doesn’t at least contribute to the problem.
Something I’ve missed in all this discussion of the law-abiding Swiss: what type of guns are they required to keep? Is every Swiss citizen armed with a sub-machine gun? Or are they all armed with single-action rifles?
May not matter due to the point above regarding ammo – if you don’t have ammo for your gun, it ceases to be a danger to others – but I’d still like to know if the Swiss model calls for arming everyone with automatic weapons because…I kind of doubt that.
“Guns don’t kill people[1]”
Atrios shared a story. CDC reports the annual death toll from unintended discharge of firearms to be around five to seven hundred annually (and another two to three hundred as “intent unknown”). Since September 10, 2001 twice as many Americans have died due to negligent discharge of firearms than in domestic terrorist attacks.
Which is incidental. The prevalence of guns throughout the US means that criminals have easy access to them. The rate of violent crime in the US is a staggering outlier when compared to all other developed nations because the ever-present guns make it so easy. Consider the other stupid thing gun rights supporters say – “if you outlaw guns only criminals will have guns”. IOW, the law is beside the point for criminals and they will commit their acts regardless of what laws are passed. Let’s consider what this actually means – if they are going to commit armed robbery for example, then it’s going to be decided[3] based on their “need” for the loot, their assessment of the risks involved and their odds of success. And having a gun vastly increases their self-perceived likelihood of getting away with it.
This is borne out in the statistics. The argument that since criminals break the law, gun control does not reduce violent crime is not only stupid[2] but also contrary to all available data.
So really it comes down to this – having lots of guns everywhere means that you get more gun-related violent crime. Significantly more. When you argue for having your “right to bear arms” protected you are also arguing for higher rates of violent crime. No matter how safe and cautious and by-the-book you personally are. Because those rights are being applied to everyone including people with undiagnosed mental illness, people one traumatic event away from snapping completely, people living with their psychotic kids that have it in for six year olds, people who got their guns before losing their jobs and then their homes in foreclosure-a-palooza.
[1] A dumb argument, but a good song.
[2] Maybe not, some people are criminally insane and do it for other inscrutable reasons. Does not change the argument that having easy access to firearms makes violent crime much more likely.
[3] Here’s an analogous argument – people buy some product, let’s say “Royales avec Fromage”. Increasing their cost by a factor of a million does not make them less accessible and therefore you will still sell as many “Royales avec Fromage”.
Jennifer, the “assault weapons ban” put in place when Clinton was in office did not prevent me from owning an AR-15 either. All pre-ban weapons were perfectly legal to own and transfer, and new weapons without any of the banned features were widely available. I suspect that what you’ve suggested
“As to the black market for semi- or automatic weapons, a law making their possession or manufacture illegal for anything other than military use”
Semi-automatic rifles are not made for use by the military. The military uses true assault rifles, selective fire weapons capable of firing single shots, 3 round bursts, or fully automatic. These are not available to civilians.
“If there isn’t a legal market for them, and there are criminal penalties for manufacturing them, no one in this country will be making them.”
Right, just like the lack of a legal market and criminal penalties for manufacturing narcotics has ensured that such substances are unavailable.
In regards to your question about Swiss firearms, the weapons issued and kept at home are true assault rifles, select-fire weapons capable of fully automatic fire (specifically, this firearm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SIG_SG_550). After their period of service has ended, they have the option of keeping their personal weapon, in which case the rifle is sent to the weapons factory where the fully automatic function is removed before being returned to the household as a semi-automatic rifle.
Dragon-King Wangchuck, “Even the M16 you cite … there is a chance that the M16 isn’t even going to fire. They are temperamental ornery pieces of ordnance that, if not properly maintained, will jam if you look at them funny. You ever wonder why no one uses M16s anymore but AR15s are widespread?”
Incorrect. The AR15 is just a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle, and it’s also a rifle of the sixties—it’s been available to civilians since 1963. The military does not use AR-15s, it continues to use a variety of M16 variants.
Guess what your military uses? M16s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colt_Canada_C7_rifle
It is amazing to see how wrong you are all the time.
Requiring gun safes and locks would have prevented this tragedy.
Maybe. It’s at least as likely that a 20-yr old whose mother took him shooting would have the ability to open it.
zomg.
You were talking abour 60s era M-16s – the gun that US soldiers were throwing away whenever they could get their hands on an AK-47. Are current AR-15’s from the same family as those ancient M-16’s? Yes they are – big fucking deal.
FFS, we are arguing about how newer guns are better than the old ones! About how technology causes massive improvements to firearms making them more powerful, accurate, easier to use and maintain. THAT IS THE BASIC POINT. And you’re all “omg muskets are wayyyy more damaging!”. Maybe for the shooter.
Here’s EZ Money’s collection of other people’s studies.
Here are my arguments:
1. More guns mean more violent crime. Here’s some links from Ezra’s column:
http://newsfeed.time.com/2012/07/20/the-worst-mass-shootings-of-the-past-50-years/
http://www.kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2012/07/20/america-is-a-violent-country/
http://www.kieranhealy.org/blog/archives/2012/07/21/assault-deaths-within-the-united-states/
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/research/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/index.html
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/01/the-geography-of-gun-deaths/69354/
2. Technology means that guns are getting more deadly over time. Guess what?
The stupid arguments made by gun supporters after these mass murder shooting incidents are stupid and wrong. At best they are totally irrelevant.
The facts are that in the US where gun control is lax, violent crime is astonishingly high. There’s a correlation between violent gun crimes and lax gun laws from state to state. Even on an individual basis, having a gun in your home leads to more gun violence. These are not surprising nor counter-intutitve findings. They are obvious and only the willfully blind continue to ignore them. At the cost of ongoing gun violence throughout the United States.
No, you said today’s rifles are “more powerful” than a hunting rifle from the 60’s. I pointed out that today’s rifles were invented in the 60’s, and also that generally speaking, almost any deer rifle is “more powerful” than a .223 rifle. What makes M16s more suitable for warfare is not that they are more powerful than hunting rifles; a .223 round fired from a 2012 M16 is not more powerful than a .223 round fired from a 1963 M16.
Then you tried to tell me that the military uses AR15s and “no one uses M16s anymore.” This is also incorrect.
Yes, the modern versions are “easier to maintain,” but that does not make it more powerful or more deadly. Most of the kinks of the original M16 were worked out by the mid-70’s, and most of the improvements since then have been minor—heavier barrels, adjustable sights, adjustable stocks, etc.
No one uses M-16’s anymore. Especially not 60’s era M-16’s.
Let’s cut all the bullshit and get down to the basic question.
Are you arguing that guns made today are not deadlier than guns made fifty years ago?
Points ignored which are telling-
Newer projectiles (of whatever caliber or chambering) designed to create maximum tissue damage on impact do not serve any hunting purpose. (Who really wants their venison pre-burgered?)
Their purpose is to kill people.
Weapons designed to toss out 20 (40? 100?) rounds as fast as one can pull the trigger serve no hunting purpose.
They are designed to kill people.
Please defend private ownership of the above without sounding as if you’re ready to go to war against your fellow citizens.
I have to say that I am not surprised that you are fixating on this one tiny pedantic point about rifle designations, which is totally irrelevant to the actual argument, and about which you are still incorrect. You make it sound like the different AR-15 variants don’t actually vary from each other at all. Hell you didn’t even point out that M-16’s are capable of selective fire and thus way deadlier than their civilian AR-15 counterparts.
I don’t fucking care. Here is my point – technology moves things forward – including for firearms. You’re avoiding the gun control debate about limiting SIGs and Glocks today, but ten, twenty, fifty years from now the guns will be deadlier and more dangerous in ways we can’t even predict. Here’s some more context – twenty years ago, cops were still carrying .38 Specials.
“No one uses M-16?s anymore.”
Except for the armed forces of my country and yours.
“I have to say that I am not surprised that you are fixating on this one tiny pedantic point about rifle designations”
I’m not fixating on it any more than you are. You said something I believe to be wrong, so I corrected you. It could have ended there if you wanted it to.
“Are you arguing that guns made today are not deadlier than guns made fifty years ago?”
Basically, if someone is shooting a 1963 M16 or a 2012 M16A2 at you, you’re equally fucked. The newer ones are more durable, easier to clean, lighter, more customizable, but they’re not more powerful, and they don’t shoot faster or anything like that.
“Hell you didn’t even point out that M-16?s are capable of selective fire and thus way deadlier than their civilian AR-15 counterparts.”
Except where I said to you “The AR15 is just a semi-automatic version of the M16 rifle,” and directly above it, in response to Jennifer, “The military uses true assault rifles, selective fire weapons capable of firing single shots, 3 round bursts, or fully automatic. These are not available to civilians.”
“Weapons designed to toss out 20 (40? 100?) rounds as fast as one can pull the trigger serve no hunting purpose. They are designed to kill people.”
Well they must not have been designed very well, or they are all malfunctioning, because there are millions of them in civilian hands right now that are not killing people.
“Please defend private ownership of the above without sounding as if you’re ready to go to war against your fellow citizens.”
Like I mentioned elsewhere, rifles of ANY kind (“assault,” hunting, bolt action, black powder, etc) are only used in about 4-5% of firearm deaths in this country. If removing an entire class of weapons from civilian hands could reduce firearm deaths, it would be handguns, not “assault rifles.”
I would like to own an AR15 because they are fun and enjoyable to shoot, but I cannot afford one.
I’m fully on board with your suggestion to also ban handguns. As noted previously, these are also not designed for hunting, but for shooting at people which is in almost all circumstances illegal.
There’s no reasonable argument for almost unrestricted access to products designed for killing people, which is an illegal activity. As has been noted several times now, “the right to bear arms” does not stipulate that you have a right to own any armament ever invented. Restrict ownership to those weapons that have a purpose in hunting, since the Second Amendment also doesn’t guarantee you the right of access to weapons you find “fun and enjoyable to shoot.”
I wish you the best of luck in your endeavor, Jennifer.
Hunting is not referenced in the 2nd Amendment either, why make that exception?
Well now. If Canadians manage to own lots of guns without shooting each other very much, and the Swiss have lots of guns without shooting each other much either, then the only conclusion to draw is that Americans are barbaric bloodthirsty monsters who probably shouldn’t even be allowed metal tableware, let alone firearms.
Disagree with that conclusion? well you had better abandon the bullshit arguments about Switzerland then.
Whatever dude.
Vintage firearms are vintage firearms, modern firearms are modern firearms. You were the one that brought up M-16’s in the context of 1960’s weapons being more deadly than current arms. And again, you are avoiding the issue – I would not want to be shot at with any gun, that says nothing about their lethality in terms of mass murder shootings.
Lighter, more durable, easier to use. That is the trend. So basically you are crowing about your pedantic fixation on naming terminology for rifles while conceding the point. New guns are more deadly than old guns and there is no reason to believe that the trend will not continue.
But apparently it’s moar important to you that the C7 (not an M-16) was based off the original ArmaLite AR-15 (not an M-16) just like the M-16 was and therefore they are all M-16’s despite parallel development cycles, different designations and multiple design differences. Tell you what – even though you are wrong, I will concede the point. I should have specifically noted that I was referring to 60’s M-16’s as being shitty crappy pieces of garbage that impair a psychopaths ability to mass murder when compared to modern rifles. Happy?
The newer ones are more durable, easier to clean, lighter, more customizable, but they’re not more powerful, and they don’t shoot faster or anything like that.
EXCEPT: Because newer models jam less, they thus deliver a higher rate of sustained fire, even in semi-auto. In the 60s, 70s, and 80s, even a trained marine or soldier employing the SPORTS method to clear jams was less effective sustaining a high rate of fire because of such frequent jamming. Nowadays, with newer models, rounds jamming is not as much a problem. Being capable of sustaining a high rate of fire makes them much deadlier, hence more powerful than older versions, if one measures power in terms of the the number of targets engaged and hit in a block of time.
ALSO: Auto or 3-round burst modes don’t make an M16A4/M4A1 more dangerous than a semi-auto version. Ask any soldier or Marine, the most lethal and effective way to engage multiple targets and get more kills is in semi mode. Because, in semi, even delivering one round per trigger pull, the AR-15/M16A4/M4A1 rifle STILL delivers a lethal rate of fire, plus one can aim more effectively, and use proper trigger pull and breathing, much more effectively in semi than while firing in 3-round bursts or fully auto. The object is to maximize kills after all. That is the power of any weapon.
The only downside to the M16A4/M4A1 rifle is that it best used from medium back to close quarter engagements. In longer range contact they are less lethal, and hence less powerful in delivering death.
20 kids dead? okay, its time for the “gun debate” again.
How do we debate how best to get murder weapons out of the hands of murderers?
Let’s quote military serial numbers and talk breathlessly about rifle specifications whilst touching ourselves.. oh god yes, that’s good stuff.
And they say Americans fetishize guns?
Wow.
Just wow.
I knew you couldn’t do it,
The deflection and obfuscation isn’t startling anymore, just sad.
Wow.
I need to take a long walk in the rain.
I sure wish it would snow.
I’m with Jennifer: these weapons are clearly designed to murder human beings with appalling efficacy, and therefore MUST be banned.
Splitting hairs over the minute differences between the military and civilian versions of these horrible murder machines is fucking pointless.
Well now. If Canadians manage to own lots of guns without shooting each other very much, and the Swiss have lots of guns without shooting each other much either, then the only conclusion to draw is that Americans are barbaric bloodthirsty monsters who probably shouldn’t even be allowed metal tableware, let alone firearms.
Disagree with that conclusion? well you had better abandon the bullshit arguments about Switzerland then.
Except that compared to the US, we don’t. The number of guns owned per 100 people in the US is higher than that for Canada and Switzerland added together. Despite the fact that in Switzerland males from age 20 to 30 are legally required to keep a service rifle (or pistol for officers) at home.
Wow Mat, that’s the first comment you’ve left here that is largely correct, and not steeped in juvenile insults and other bullshit. You must not have written it.
Exactly my point. It IS mostly about the sheer number and easy availability of guns.
Which is why America needs more gun control.
Well, Guav, you are flailing around here trying to split hairs about the differences between military and civilian models of the AR-15/M16/M4, but, of course, and you fucking know it, these rifles are basically the same in the end.
I was soldier who worked in forensic pathology, and I doubt even I, with my training and knowledge, could differentiate between human tissue struck by rounds fired from the above-mentioned rifles without slow, careful examination. In all cases the dead killed by these murder machines are dead and fucked up horribly.
Your continual attempts diminish, in any way, the power and lethality of the civilian versions is pure horseshit.
Astroboffin, I didn’t deflect anything—I answered your question. I defend the civilian ownership of semi-automatic rifles because on the list of Things That Kill A Lot Of Americans And Are A Public Safety Concern, these rifles are not even in the top 10. For the same reason, I cannot for the life of me understand why if cigarettes and alcohol are legal, marijuana is not. Why ban the thing that doesn’t kill people and allow the real public health threats?
What about the statement “this particular class of arms does not make up a significant percent of firearms deaths” makes me sound like I’m ready to go to war against my fellow citizens? I think there’s a case to be made for restrictions on handguns, but focusing on “assault rifles” just seems like misplaced priorities to me. For me it’s not CAN these weapons be misused, but ARE they misused. In general, they are not, so I don’t see a reason to ban them.
Yes Mat, the only difference between the civilian AR15 and the military M16 is the select fire option. I’ve never said anything different.
Here I recommend the NRO’s David French:
Jennifer asked
Is every Swiss citizen armed with a sub-machine gun? Or are they all armed with single-action rifles?
May not matter due to the point above regarding ammo
If you hang on to your service weapon, you do not have any ammunition for it.
Sounds like the Swiss have done a good job of making firearms incredibly boring, uncool, and unfetishised… tools associated with the boring responsibilities of civic duty.
Part of that non-fetishism might be not selling them like lottery tickets for instant gratification, in a gun-lobbyist-stoked atmosphere of insecurity and resentment and inadequacies that can only be assuaged by shooting people.
So how would you like your dead children? If you like them in attention grabbing batches of up to 20, you need assault rifles.
If you prefer them one at a time, so depressingly often that it doesn’t even make the news, then you need handguns.
So urm… lets talk about banning the ones that have “this machine was specifically designed for slaughtering human beings” engraved right on the barrel.
Too extreme? oh sorry, how about.. registrat- no. how abou-. sorry.
Okay mister NRA, we will just shut up until this happens again.
So, see you in 3 months or so?
That is correct Jennifer. Ammunition for the rifles can be bought at ranges, and must be used there. But that’s a relatively recent development—until 2007, ammunition was kept at home. Now it is not.
They certainly don’t fetishize guns the way we do in America, but recreational shooting is widespread in Switzerland, and target shooting in the national sport. They also hold the largest rifle shooting competition in the world, which 200,000 people attend annually, and children are taught to shoot from a young age.
This despite the fact that these weapons are “specifically designed for slaughtering human beings.” Go figure.
Sorry, I was responding to Smut Clyde, not Jennifer.
I defend the civilian ownership of semi-automatic rifles because on the list of Things That Kill A Lot Of Americans And Are A Public Safety Concern, these rifles are not even in the top 10.
Like the Bushmaster used (zomg an M-16!) at Sandy Hook Elementary? Or the Bushmaster (zomg an M-16!) used by Malvo and Muhammad of Beltway fame? Or the S&W M&P 15 (zomg an M-16!) used at the movie theatre in Aurora? Or the AR-15 (zomg an M-16!) used at the mall in Portland a week ago?
Here I recommend the NRO’s David French:
French informs us that
(a) every gun owner he has ever met is motivated by infantile wish-fulfillment fantasies of
saving grateful girlskilling people with society’s approval (“they aspire to defend innocent life at the risk of their own”); and(b) Embryos and fetuses are innocent people who need defending.
From (a) + (b) together, we deduce that gun-owners universally aspire to defend innocent embryos and fetuses, and hope to die in a crossfire outside an abortion clinic surrounded by the bodies of doctors and nurses.
every gun owner he has ever met is motivated by infantile wish-fulfillment fantasies of saving grateful girls killing people with society’s approval (“they aspire to defend innocent life at the risk of their own”)
Wow, most of the ones I know want to eat game, get rid of skunks or othr varmints from a distance, and/or kill innocent cans. If I ever get around to it it will be because I want to ski and shoot at circles. And maybe the varmint thing because GODDAMN GROUNDHOG ATE MAH GARDEN.
Count me in for the battle against the orbs.
Wikipedia provides useful lists.
A modified AK was used for the Nevada IHOP killings, a Bushmaster for the Geneva County massacre, an AR-15 in Crandon, Wisconsin. A modified AK at Westroads Mall, and a Saiga during the hunting incident near Meteor. Plus the batch I remembered off the top of my head, that averages once a year for the past ten years. Just like Christmas, but they’re mostly clustered at the near end of the decade span. Also Wiki gives us this important note:
The Skagit County shooting provides case in point. Guy goes crazy and steals some guns, killing six and wounding others. At one point he told one of his victims that it was his day to die – but the lever action rifle jammed, so instead crazy dude stabs the victim in the chest twice. That guy survived – and most likely would not have had the killer stolen an AR-15.
On Saturday a man with a gun opened fire in a Birmingham hospital when accosted by police. He injured three before being killed by the cops. I suspect it was a handgun, but that information is not available. Meanwhile
back at the farm120 km away, triple homicide-police shoot out with a dude carrying an AK-47. One officer in critical condition – if he dies that would make it the third official mass murder shooting for the week.Oh wait. Oregon was only three killed – so not an official mass murder. I guess Guav can use that point out how I’m totally wrong all the time.
Incidentally, all three with assault rifles.
Also, can I please call bullshit on the claim that because *only* some 5% of gun murders are committed with semi-automatic weapons, it indicates that they aren’t really a problem? 5% of a shitload is a lot of people, plus you’ve got to consider the relative rarity of semi-automatic weapons in comparison to handguns, hunting rifles, and shotguns. If they account for *only* 5% of the murders but comprise only .5% or 1% of all the guns out there, it indicates that their lethality is out of proportion with their ubiquity.
Also, too: they are an offensive military weapon, not a hunting or self-defense weapon. That alone should make them illegal for possession by private citizens.
Please point out where I said “semi-automatic rifles are never used to commit homicides.” What I said was that in relation to handguns, their use in homicides is exceptionally small. In 2009, there were nine states that did not have a single murder committed with ANY rifle.
I am well aware that they have been used in several high profile shootings. But between AR variants, AK variants, and all other semi-automatic rifles that accept detachable magazines, there are tens of millions of these weapons in civilian hands in this country, so it’s inevitable that some small number of them at least would end up being used for nefarious purposes, but by and large, they are not. Relatively speaking, they are not the weapons that are used in most homicides. Is this an actual point of contention?
Okay, so restrict them and other guns too. Easy!
Sorta replying to Fenwick from another thread, sorta just ranting about guns.
I own lots of guns. Only one of them was actually purchased — a Ruger 10/22 semi-auto rifle my wife bought me when we lived on a farm.
A bunch more — 7? 8? Can’t even recall off hand — I inherited. 12 and 16 gauge pump shotguns, .30-06 bolt action winchester, 30/30 carbine, some handguns. I know I’m forgetting a few.
I know how to use them, have decent aim, understand proper firearm safety, etc. Other than once trying, and failing, to shoot a pesky gopher from my front porch, these have been used exclusively to brutally murder cans, skeet, and other various and sundry target materials.
I like them. They’re fun to shoot. They’re all locked away in a gun safe.
But y’know what — they’re not important. I don’t need them, they don’t make my penis larger or make me feel “manlier” somehow. I have no fantasies that they’ll protected me from the roving bands of blahs that will soon be coming to steal all the white wimmens.
I like the .22, it’s fun and cheap to shoot. The other stuff is loud and expensive. The shotguns are probably my next favorites — skeet is fun! — but really, if teh ebil gubmit were decide to make them illegal?
Oh. Fucking. Well.
We live in a massively violent society. A society where it is ridiculously easy to get a gun. There is no, I repeat no reason that people need to be able to buy guns designed to do nothing but kill people in as efficient a manner as possible. And there is especially not any reason they need to be able to buy such ridiculous items RIGHT FUCKING NOW — I MEAN HURRY UP WALMART THE ANGER MIGHT SUBSIDE!
My wife went to work (teaching at a grade school) today, and was greeted by a cop guarding the front entrance. The day was wasted — more waste piled upon wasted lives — trying to explain to the kids why the same thing wasn’t going to happen again, and maybe to them. It would be nice to think that maybe, just fucking maybe, there was the slightest bit of truth to that.
If this thread is any indication though? Sadly, no.
Jennifer, historically speaking, most rifle designs begin life as “offensive military weapons.” The lever-action first saw use during the last months of the Civil War and the single-shot, bolt-action and semi-auto all started life as military guns, too. The point is, they all went on to become popular civilian hunting and sporting guns, and this has happened with the AR15 platform as well.
The AR platform is increasingly being used for hunting in larger caliber configurations. They are becoming popular with hunters because of the modularity and because they are much lighter—from what I understand, trudging through the woods all day with a heavy, wood-stocked rifle is somewhat tiring (I’m vegan, so I don’t really give a crap about the comfort of hunters, I’m just saying).
Claiming that they are only suitable for murdering human beings is false by virtue of the fact that millions of Americans own them and use them for a variety of purposes, most of which do not involve killing human being beings. They DO use them for hunting, they DO use them for self defense, they DO use them for target shooting and other shooting sports. That is the reality of the situation, and claiming over and over again that they are only suited for murder is not going to change the fact that most semiautomatic rifle owners do not murder people with them.
Bullshit. Shotguns, sure, but there is no other application for a fucking assault rifle than killing.
And I say — as an owner of semi-auto rifles mind you — So. Fucking. What.
Nobody needs them. Easy access to them proves fatal far too fucking often. How hard is this to understand?
Great, you “can” use them for other than murder. You could use them as a fucking hammer for all I care.
Hunting? Great, use a normal fucking bolt-action rifle. If your gun is too fucking heavy what the fuck are you going to do with the gawdamn heavy deer or elk carcass once you shoot it, huh Manly McManlypants?
Self defense? Double barrel shotgun would be just fucking fine if you really think you need such a thing (which I think is fucking dubious at best).
The gun and entertainment industries have done a wonderful job convincing ‘Merkins that we need to be our own self-contained private militias capable of fending off the zombies and blahs when the time comes. It’s a con. A deadly fucking con and it’s about fucking time we start thinking about ways to do something about it.
Also:
Fuck fuckity fuck. Fuck. FUCK!
Just ’cause that comment didn’t give enough fucks.
Fuckerin fuckotash.
Studies show, as I linked earlier, having a gun makes you 4.5 times moar likely to be injured in an assault. That’s some impressive “self-defense”.
You want to keep you assault rifle because it is “fun to shoot”? Keep it at the range, under lock and well armed guard. There is no legitimate reason for anyone to have a functional firearm in their homes or on their person outside of very specific highly regulated activities.
“Self-defense” is bullshit. Just so that some delusional fuckwads can entertain their ultra violent wet dreams of vigilantism. Fucking bullshit. Your ability to access death machines for “self-defense” means that the people you are “defending” yourself from have the same fucking access. Four point five times more likely to be injured.
But that’s a relatively recent development—until 2007, ammunition was kept at home [in Switzerland]. Now it is not.
50 rounds were issued. Kept in a sealed box, to be opened only if the militia is called up. Audited by the gubblement to ensure against unauthorised use. This strikes me as germane.
Switzerland has four official languages.
Swiss German dialects are not a language. They are a cruel joke designed to piss off Hochdeutsch purists. Also to make Swabians sound slightly less rustic.
“Having a gun makes you 4.5 times moar likely to be injured in an assault …. Four point five times more likely to be injured.”
Sadly, no.
I am familiar with the study you’re referring to. First of all, the study only encompassed one city. They reviewed police records on 3000+ Philadelphia shootings from 2003-2006. They then focused on 677 of the 3000+ as the case group.
From the study: “shooting case participants were significantly more often Hispanic, more frequently working in high-risk occupations, less educated, and had a greater frequency of prior arrest. At the time of shooting, case participants were also significantly more often involved with alcohol and drugs, outdoors, and closer to areas where more Blacks, Hispanics, and unemployed individuals resided. Case participants were also more likely to be located in areas with less income and more illicit drug trafficking”
The study’s author also admits that they “did not account for the potential of reverse causation between gun possession and gun assault”—that is, the possibility that a high risk of being shot “causes” gun ownership, as opposed to the other way around. It’s like noting that possessing a parachute is strongly associated with being injured while jumping from a plane, then concluding that skydivers would be better off without parachutes.?
Seventy five percent of homicide victims in Philly have criminal records, so it’s highly likely that any given shooting victim is involved in illegal activity. It seems fair to assume that criminals in Philadelphia are A) more likely than noncriminals to be armed, and B) more likely than noncriminals to be shot. That is to say, it’s very inaccurate to extrapolate that data to draw a conclusion about how likely it is for your average legal firearm carrier or someone NOT involved in illegal activity to be shot—the conclusion of the “study” does not hold up at all.?
The study tells us nothing about whether or not people who have concealed carry permits—people who follow the law and are generally not engaged in criminal activity—are more likely to be be shot than similar people who don’t carry a firearm. The fact that a drug dealer in Philly who carries a stolen gun and engages in criminal activity has a high likelihood of being shot in no way can be used to say that I have a similar risk of being shot just because I have a CCW and carry a firearm (I don’t, I just mean this hypothetically).
Also, the study “excluded individuals younger than 21 years because it was not legal for them to possess a firearm in Philadelphia,” but for some reason didn’t control for whether or not the person carrying the gun was legally carrying, or whether the firearm itself was legally owned. That’s sort of kind of important if you’re going to be using this study to tell legal gun owners and carriers what THEIR actual risks of assault are.
Lololol. Why am I not surprised that Guav has “issues” with the cited study. They only studied one city! Therefore totally not relevant outside of Philadelphia! They excluded people who could not legally possess firearms but they didn’t chase down everyone who did and interrogate them about the guns provenance and licensing status! They probably didn’t even publish it in Trajan!
An epidemiological study has zero value because of these “complaints” and therefore of less informative value than the reams of data from either the NRA or “stories my buddies shared with me when we go drinking”.
Further, that very complaint – about the “good” gun owners, who do everything right yadda yadda. Bullshit. And I am not saying that you aren’t one although the combination of your ignorance (willful and otherwise) and smug self-entitlement are big hints. I’m calling bullshit because we aren’t talking about the “good” gun owners – we are talking about the most marginal of gun owner, the ones that just scrape past the minimum requirements to acquire an assault rifle (ie have a pulse and enough dollars).
Everyone makes mistakes. A “good” gun owner recognizes that. Even trained instructors whose jobs are about gun safety have negligent discharges. The gun you got to protect your home can get burgled while you are out.
Not only that, playing by the rules and “doing everything right” is no magic talisman. It doesn’t send guardian angels down to protect you or fill you with some sort of “tight and proper” superpowers. FFS, you just argued that law abiding by the books legitimate CCW holders are better at shooting people than hardened criminals. That doesn’t even fucking make sense in crazy bizarro world.
The military doesn’t really use the M-16 anymore, its out of date. We use the M-4 carbine by and large. Reservists and folks from units that aren’t expected to see any actual combat still have M-16s, but the long-barreled M-16 is being phased out.
I’m in the Army, and this guy Guav is a douche.
We should just adopt Australia’s gun buy-back and gun policy and be done with it. Worked for them.
Also, nobody hunts with M-4’s – that’s stupid. The military carbine is designed to lay down suppressive fire. Lots of ammo being sprayed downrange, in 3-round bursts, in order to keep bad guys’ heads down. They aren’t terribly accurate. The M-16, with its longer barrel, is actually somewhat more accurate than the M-4. Now, we have fancy electronic sighting apparatus that gives us greater accuracy, but, still, most of us aren’t great marksmen.
If you are hunting game, you get one shot. If you get two you are lucky. If you flush your game the vast majority of hunters can’t hit a moving target at 400+ yards anyway.
Its noteworthy at this point that the M-4 is designed to engage targets at less than 200 meters. You’re not typically getting that close to a deer or elk in the wild.
Dragon-King Wangchuck, nothing you said in your second comment has anything to do with your original statement that “Having a gun makes you 4.5 times moar likely to be injured in an assault,” or my response to it. I actually agree with much of what you said, but it’s got nothing to do with anything I said.
“you just argued that law abiding by the books legitimate CCW holders are better at shooting people than hardened criminals.”
I said absolutely nothing of the sort.
Orgeon Guy, I didn’t say people hunted with M4s specifically, I said the AR platform is increasingly used for hunting, especially when chambered in .308. For examples, see http://www.ar15hunter.com
Kinda wish I’d made the announcement that I shot and killed two nutria in our very backyard today here, instead of at that tepidly mawkish Eschatonian site.
–Oops, not current thread, whew. Mildly expressed regrets hereby retracted.
I said absolutely nothing of the sort.
Then you think the study is a conservative estimate of the effect of having a gun then. You think it must be more than 4.5 times. Because your problem is that the shooting victims who were carrying may have had criminal records. That some of the people carrying at time of assault may have been carrying illegally.
I said I wasn’t surprised that you had issues with the study. Your attitude thus far clearly indicate that you refuse to accept anything that doesn’t align 100% with your preconceived notions. You are obviously filled with ridiculous misconceptions and have made efforts at avoiding any facts that you don’t like.
Having a lot of guns leads to having a lot of gun violence. It’s true on a national level and on a state level. An epidemiological study suggests it’s true on the level of individuals so you automatically take issue with it. Fake issues at that. And instead of providing any studies showing he contrary, you just say “your link proves nothing”.
Here’s another way of looking at it, if guns really are so great for self-defense why is the violent crime rate extraordinarily high in the one nation with an extraordinarily high rate if gun ownership? All those guns in all those hands, and yet violent crime is not deterred not prevented relative to saner less gun filled populations.
More guns = more gun violence. It is not an extraordinary claim and all available evidence supports it.
Anyways, that second comment wasn’t about the study but your reaction to it. All the “law abiding” do everything right gun owners? Not relevant. Bad gun owners abound. People with atrocious trigger discipline, who keep their guns unsecure locations – possibly even close at hand when they sleep, just in case they feel the need to discharge their weapons before they are fully awake and alert. And people who do everything right, obey all laws and are a day or two shy of some traumatic event or biological cause of severe mental illness.
The guys at Harvard School of Public Health have yet another data point refuting self-defense use of guns:
I like to argue and debate, so this is very hard for me to do, but I’m walking away from this. Our discussion is truly pointless, neither one of us is getting through to the other, nobody’s gaining ground, and I just don’t have the time for this anymore. I wish you a lovely holiday.
You sure you want turn your back? One of us might have a gun.