Why the ___ is this news?

[sgrizzle]

http://www.newson6.com/story/21995519/former-tulsan

A man buys a domain name and it's a story? He singlehandedly fended off all conspiracies by registering a domain name?

[heironymouspasparagus]

Sure....why not....?

There will be conspiracy sites regardless, so he probably just accomplished nothing.

[TheArtist]

  It was a nice gesture.  Rather that be on the news than a lot of other more negative things you hear about.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Interesting contrast going on in the "lamestream" media the last two days - the reports on the Boston marathon...

Bombs go off - bomber blamed.

School shooting - guns blamed.

[Conan71]

Interesting contrast going on in the "lamestream" media the last two days - the reports on the Boston marathon...

Bombs go off - bomber blamed.

School shooting - guns blamed.

No one wants pressure cooker control.

[JCnOwasso]

Interesting contrast going on in the "lamestream" media the last two days - the reports on the Boston marathon...

Bombs go off - bomber blamed.

School shooting - guns blamed.

Intended use of the item.  Guns- Kill animals and other living things.  Pressure cooker- cooking the previously living things that were killed by the guns.  I don't understand why this is a hard concept to understand.  Furthermore BOMBS are illegal...

[Gaspar]

No one wants pressure cooker control.

I am willing to bet some knucklehead in congress will push legislation to somehow regulate the sale of pressure cookers.   It's just too easy to focus on the tool instead of the technician. Makes for easy campaigning.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Intended use of the item.  Guns- Kill animals and other living things.  Pressure cooker- cooking the previously living things that were killed by the guns.  I don't understand why this is a hard concept to understand.  Furthermore BOMBS are illegal...

I don't understand either - perhaps you could explain it - why DON'T you understand that simple concept??

Using guns to kill people is also illegal...or did you not realize that??

[TulsaRufnex]

I don't understand either - perhaps you could explain it - why DON'T you understand that simple concept??

Using guns to kill people is also illegal...or did you not realize that??

We should outlaw all pre-made, military-style, shrapnel-enhanced "pressure cooker bombs" specifically manufactured by the gun industry that cannot be used for cooking purposes.
Just like we should outlaw all military-style assault weapons that cannot be used for hunting purposes.  Simple concept, eh?  
Of course, Wayne LaPierre and the NRA have far more important things to do... like morphing their organization into a rigidly dogmatic ACLU for gun nuts.
Why don't you understand THAT simple concept?

[heironymouspasparagus]

We should outlaw all pre-made, military-style, shrapnel-enhanced "pressure cooker bombs" specifically manufactured by the gun industry that cannot be used for cooking purposes.
Just like we should outlaw all military-style assault weapons that cannot be used for hunting purposes.  

And still, you have no clue about the shooting sports.  An AR style rifle, as well as AK's and SKS's are excellent hunting rifles with very good shooting characteristics making them all extremely suitable and desirable for a wide range of game - flat shooting, good range, accurate (different size game ranges between the 5.56 and the 7.62's).  Plus the light weight, easy handling characteristics, the durable construction, the low recoil giving good gun control, and tolerance for a wide range of shooting environments.  It is what the industry as a whole was working toward starting in the 50's as material science progressed.  A wide variety of composite (plastic) materials were tested for lighter weight and better resistance to the elements.  But those kind of technical details are just stuff no one would expect a soccer fan to understand....

So, what you are really saying with that last sentence is that the status quo is fine and working well - no change needed - since they are all well suited to hunting purposes.  And even the US Senate, to it's credit finally realized that nothing they were talking would make a difference to the situations we are talking about.  As was conclusively proven for a decade by the previous ignorance of the Billy-Bob era.  Except to harass law abiding fans of the shooting sports....

[JCnOwasso]

And still, you have no clue about the shooting sports.  An AR style rifle, as well as AK's and SKS's are excellent hunting rifles with very good shooting characteristics making them all extremely suitable and desirable for a wide range of game - flat shooting, good range, accurate (different size game ranges between the 5.56 and the 7.62's).  Plus the light weight, easy handling characteristics, the durable construction, the low recoil giving good gun control, and tolerance for a wide range of shooting environments.  It is what the industry as a whole was working toward starting in the 50's as material science progressed.  A wide variety of composite (plastic) materials were tested for lighter weight and better resistance to the elements.  But those kind of technical details are just stuff no one would expect a soccer fan to understand....

Listen, I have no issues with guns and really don't necessarily support gun control at the level they are speaking of.  I do, however, have issues with the 2nd amendment folks comparing an item used outside of its intended use as a method to downplay those who believe that guns should be banned (oh outlaw a pressure cooker, ban the spoon!).  The intended use of a gun has been to take the life of what you are aiming at.  Yes, they have been used for sport shooting, but that appears to have been created because the militia, during the civil war, couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.  I will agree that it is the person holding the gun is the person with sole responsibility over their actions with the weapon and the gun is merely their tool.  But taking that into consideration, if a certain measure of gun control can reduce gun related deaths by 1, is it not worth it?     

[RecycleMichael]

Listen, I have no issues with guns and really don't necessarily support gun control at the level they are speaking of.  I do, however, have issues with the 2nd amendment folks comparing an item used outside of its intended use as a method to downplay those who believe that guns should be banned (oh outlaw a pressure cooker, ban the spoon!).  The intended use of a gun has been to take the life of what you are aiming at.  Yes, they have been used for sport shooting, but that appears to have been created because the militia, during the civil war, couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.  I will agree that it is the person holding the gun is the person with sole responsibility over their actions with the weapon and the gun is merely their tool.  But taking that into consideration, if a certain measure of gun control can reduce gun related deaths by 1, is it not worth it?     

I am 100% in agreement with you. Thank you for writing it so.

[TeeDub]

if a certain measure of gun control can reduce gun related deaths by 1, is it not worth it?     

Personally?    No.

I am tired of being made safer by giving up freedoms.   Somehow it never works.

[heironymouspasparagus]

Listen, I have no issues with guns and really don't necessarily support gun control at the level they are speaking of.  I do, however, have issues with the 2nd amendment folks comparing an item used outside of its intended use as a method to downplay those who believe that guns should be banned (oh outlaw a pressure cooker, ban the spoon!).  The intended use of a gun has been to take the life of what you are aiming at.  Yes, they have been used for sport shooting, but that appears to have been created because the militia, during the civil war, couldn't hit the broad side of a barn.  I will agree that it is the person holding the gun is the person with sole responsibility over their actions with the weapon and the gun is merely their tool.  But taking that into consideration, if a certain measure of gun control can reduce gun related deaths by 1, is it not worth it?      

Which leads to the question; what is a "certain measure" that will do something to reduce deaths?  Don't forget, ALL the same old lame BS was trotted out in 1994 for the "assault weapon" ban and accompanying tripe!  Which made no visible difference.  Wouldn't you expect to actually SEE some visible evidence of gun deaths being reduced?

And the last question posed is the wrong question...it is the lame plaintive bleat of the anti-gun Brady Bunch organization to try to make people think there is some possible meaning to that nonsense!  Just ask the people of Norway - NOT an example of pressure cookers! - who have massively overdone gun laws, and yet.... what was it used to kill those people at camp?  Oh, yeah, a gun.  So the whole premise that if there are just enough laws against this, that or the other are stupid premises and related questions are stupid questions.  

And since that has been shown to be useless, how about trying something else?  There are many things that have been talked about, and blithely dismissed by the Brady Bunch, since none of those things would lead to their ultimate goal of taking guns away from every law abiding gun owner in this country.


As for spoons - well they are arguably the instrument of death for many more in this country than all the gun deaths.  Along with their co-conspirators the knife and fork.  A gun is used by some for that purpose... not by all.  Certainly by all the hunters I have known - including myself - the idea is to kill a game animal and bring it home for the table.  And yet, somehow, no hunter or any other law abiding gun owner/shooting sports enthusiast I have known has ever.... EVER...killed someone illegally, with malice or in anger or while committing a crime.  Go figure!  There have been several of them defend themselves legally and effectively with a variety of different firearms!  Imagine that...!!  What chaos is this where law abiding citizens use the single most effective tool (pistol) ever created for self-defense exactly for it's intended use!


As for the Civil War, there were two issues - first, the guns most carried were muskets - inherently inaccurate.  The second, and even bigger effect was the fact that so many were "city boys" who didn't engage in shooting sports growing up.  That has been an ongoing issue for the US military for many, many decades.  The number of people learning how to shoot and safely handle firearms has left the military in a position where they need the massive spray of lead to keep the heads of the enemy down, and try to kill a few in the meantime.  The kill to shots fired ratio has been estimated, and every estimate has gone up for every successive war.  Lt Col Dave Grossman probably knows as much as anyone about that.  (He wrote a book...)

From other sources;

Civil War - .50 caliber mini ball weighs approximately 350 grains or 3/4 once.  One of the 'urban myths' at the time said it took a man's weight in lead for each kill.  That would be maybe 3500 rounds per kill.  Common load was 60 rounds per soldier, so took about 60 soldiers firing per kill...using all they had for that kill.  Given the casualty rates of many of the battles, I'm betting it didn't take that many rounds per kill.  

So, we go from 3500 per kill, to maybe 30,000 per kill in WWII.  (The US 8th Air Force shot down 6,098 fighter planes, 1 for every 12,700 shots fired.)  And then 85,000 in Viet Nam.  And the latest adventures, estimates are going to 250,000 to 300,000 shots per kill.  Getting progressively worse.  How do you fight a war when your soldiers can't hit the broad side of a barn?  Video game world we live in...

[JCnOwasso]

So, we go from 3500 per kill, to maybe 30,000 per kill in WWII.  (The US 8th Air Force shot down 6,098 fighter planes, 1 for every 12,700 shots fired.)  And then 85,000 in Viet Nam.  And the latest adventures, estimates are going to 250,000 to 300,000 shots per kill.  Getting progressively worse.  How do you fight a war when your soldiers can't hit the broad side of a barn?  Video game world we live in...

I want to address this part first.  HUGE difference in the way wars are fought since the civil war when the infantry lined up on either side of the battlefield and fought face to face and on ground both parties were familiar with.  WWII was fought somewhat in the same manner, but there was a more urban combat utilized and both parties were not necessarily familiar with the areas they were fighting in, but they were both familiar with the type of terrain.  Viet Nam was fought against a group who was heavily familiar with the land and EVERYTHING was to their advantage.  In the current wars, you are fighting against an enemy who is not defined, they are hiding in caves in the mountains or in with the people of the cities.  Plus you have to take into consideration the advances in medical care since the Civil war where troops may have died because they had an infection.  Today, the front line has care that rivals most hospitals.  Injuries that may have been a death sentence in the civil war can be fixed in the matter of moments today.

Okay... now to counter your claim about Norways tragedy.  Norway has a gun death rate of 1.78 per 100,000 where the US has 10.20.  But lets take that a bit further.  Norway has a homicide rate of .04 per 100,000 (40) to the US rate of 3.2 (3200).  So please explain to me how that is "Useless", unless you definition of useless is that it doesn't create a full reduction to 0. 

I am glad to hear that every hunter or any other law abiding gun owner/shooting sports enthusiast you know has never killed someone illegally.  This means you surround yourself with good people, as do I.  But there are people out there who seem to be perfectly fine people who end up commiting murder because of a mental illness that may have been diagnosed had it been a required check to own a gun.

Can you please expand upon your definition of "shooting sports"?  Are you speaking of hunting for food?  If so I wouldn't necessarily consider that "sports" and more "survival".