The Trouble with Killing Life

[Hoss]

I really don't see the issue with the high capacity weapons.  Where we see many of these shootings happen are places where it is expected the people inside will be un-armed like schools, public buildings, theaters, night clubs, etc.  Places where it is either illegal to carry on premises (I'm assuming it was illegal to carry in a bar in Florida like it is in Oklahoma) or are posted as no weapon areas.  We would have better luck creating deterrents in public places with an armed guard or loosening restrictions on where people can conceal carry.

If there is no armed resistance inside it matters very little what gun the killer is using.  With no armed resistance he/she is free to reload and shoot all they want unless the gun jams.  Granted, a single shot Derringer would be very impractical, but you could get away with using a wheel gun or single stack semi auto like a 1911.

The other issue is, gun restrictions have not proven to prevent mass killings.  Sawed-off shotguns are illegal, yet they were used at Columbine along with a TEK 9 and another long gun.  I'm not sure if the TEK 9 was even legal at the time under the Clinton gun ban.  The semi-auto rifle used in Sandy Hook was illegal to own or possess there. 

What I'm getting at is you can pass all the bans you want, that doesn't clean out all the gun safes and closets where these weapons already exist.

This is true..however I despise the mentality of 'well, it won't work so let's not even try'.  Why?  The majority of Americans favor some sort of restrictions.  It's not a huge majority, but one nonetheless.  I just don't see the need for civilians to own weapons made for the military.  Almost all my military friends (retired and current) tell me the same thing.

[Conan71]

This is true..however I despise the mentality of 'well, it won't work so let's not even try'.  Why?  The majority of Americans favor some sort of restrictions.  It's not a huge majority, but one nonetheless.  I just don't see the need for civilians to own weapons made for the military.  Almost all my military friends (retired and current) tell me the same thing.

That becomes a sticky wicket since the revolver was used by the military so were five shot bolt action carbines.

That said, an AR-15 or AK-47 isn't really a practical home defense tool and could be downright dangerous firing through walls if you have a house full of kids or guests.  It would not affect my life one way or the other if they were no longer available to civilians or were limited to 10 round magazines.  A shotgun or pistol is far more practical for home defense.  Personally, I think a double stack semi-auto pistol is the ideal self defense weapon, that is something which could be legislated out of reach of people who would use it for sport shooting or self-defense if we applied it as no military type weapons in the hands of civilians.

The biggest problem you have with the term "gun control" is the image it invokes.  There are people who have a natural negative reaction to its connotation like hard-line 2nd Amendment types.  Others who have never owned a firearm have the mistaken impression that laws like that would suddenly render them free from gun crime and nothing could be further from the truth.

The issue I have with gun restrictions is this: they don't affect the people we want them to affect.  They only end up affecting honest people who want to defend themselves.  

[Hoss]

That becomes a sticky wicket since the revolver was used by the military so were five shot bolt action carbines.

That said, an AR-15 or AK-47 isn't really a practical home defense tool and could be downright dangerous firing through walls if you have a house full of kids or guests.  It would not affect my life one way or the other if they were no longer available to civilians or were limited to 10 round magazines.  A shotgun or pistol is far more practical for home defense.  Personally, I think a double stack semi-auto pistol is the ideal self defense weapon, that is something which could be legislated out of reach of people who would use it for sport shooting or self-defense if we applied it as no military type weapons in the hands of civilians.

The biggest problem you have with the term "gun control" is the image it invokes.  There are people who have a natural negative reaction to its connotation like hard-line 2nd Amendment types.  Others who have never owned a firearm have the mistaken impression that laws like that would suddenly render them free from gun crime and nothing could be further from the truth.

The issue I have with gun restrictions is this: they don't affect the people we want them to affect.  They only end up affecting honest people who want to defend themselves.  

I just find it funny that most people don't realize that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights and its Amendments were meant to be a 'living' and dynamic set of documents.  Why do you think we have the ability to add amendments and to repeal them?  I'm absolutely not saying repeal the 2A as some sort of apocalypse might come forth (that's sarcasm by the way), but we need to do something.  Imagine if that were your sons or daughters that happened to.  I'm sick of seeing it happen and then all the political theater that happens for about 2.65 weeks after and then nobody gives a smile anymore.

Something needs to be done.  Nothing isn't it.

[cannon_fodder]

Sorry to break your balls Conan, but you brought up all the most common arguments. So...

I really don't see the issue with the high capacity weapons.

Lets start with the fact that weapons like the AR-15, and variants thereof, were developed with a single purpose in mind: the ability to shoot at people rapidly, accurately, with little recoil and minimal need to stop and reload. If you had to pick a weapon to hand to someone to shoot as many people as possible as quickly as possible you would pick an AR or an AK. That's why all the militaries of the world and many most armed police forces use them.

These weapons were developed, and are the pinnacle of design for the purpose of having one person shoot others.

Where we see many of these shootings happen are places where it is expected the people inside will be un-armed like schools, public buildings, theaters, night clubs, etc.  Places where it is either illegal to carry on premises (I'm assuming it was illegal to carry in a bar in Florida like it is in Oklahoma) or are posted as no weapon areas.

So the solution is to encourage drunk people to carry weapons? To encourage people to carry weapons at schools? To encourage people to bring firearms to stadiums, political rallies, and hospitals? Because the US military over a couple hundred years of experience has determined that the average solider cannot be trusted with a weapon on base, but we are going to trust Joe Citizen with a weapon in a stadium after a few beers?

  We would have better luck creating deterrents in public places with an armed guard or loosening restrictions on where people can conceal carry.

If there is no armed resistance inside it matters very little what gun the killer is using.  With no armed resistance he/she is free to reload and shoot all they want unless the gun jams.  Granted, a single shot Derringer would be very impractical, but you could get away with using a wheel gun or single stack semi auto like a 1911.

In several of the mass shooting incidents there were armed guards present or quickly on the scene. They were not effective. (Ft. Hood, Gabby Giffords. At Columbine police where there in 2-3 minutes. Etc.). If I can fire 100 rounds in 1 minutes, certainly I can spare one to shoot the guard first. Also - you can't deter a suicide mission by threat of return violence.  So not only is requiring armed guards likely to be ineffective, but it is also economically disastrous. An extra employee for every business, whose job doesn't involve contributing economically to the business. Ouch.

Here's the cold hard facts: the United States of America has more firearms anywhere else. We have more people carrying firearms than anywhere else. The number of firearms being sold & carried has been increasing. Yet all of these facts are strongly correlated with mass shootings... if more firearms made us safer, wouldn't we be the safest country in the world?

Rather we are an outlier for gun violence. If guns made us safer...

The other issue is, gun restrictions have not proven to prevent mass killings.  Sawed-off shotguns are illegal, yet they were used at Columbine along with a TEK 9 and another long gun.  I'm not sure if the TEK 9 was even legal at the time under the Clinton gun ban.  The semi-auto rifle used in Sandy Hook was illegal to own or possess there. 

What I'm getting at is you can pass all the bans you want, that doesn't clean out all the gun safes and closets where these weapons already exist.

First, I need to point out that the gun lobby is so afraid that data doesn't support their position that they have very effectively lobbied for a ban on anyone studying the topic. So while "there is no evidence..." may be a somewhat true statement, its also rigged. When you ban funding for anyone to look for evidence or a solution to a problem, it makes sense that you are not going to find evidence or a solution to a problem.

Second, at Columbine, 2 murders with careful planning and an arsenal of weapons killed 12 people before police got there 2 or 3 minutes later. Most of the damages was done with a TEC-9 with clips of various sizes, all about 25 rounds (including a 52 round clip). The murders used an 18 year old girlfriend to buy the weapons for them,  but it appears they would have all been legal gun-show purchases in Colorado anyway. While they had other weapons, the spray and pray shooting in the cafeteria with the Tech 9 high capacity magazine was the most deadly. Second to that was the Highpoint 9mm "carbine" with 10 round clips.  

Finally, we can keep saying "there is nothing we can do, there's too many guns!" Then we go back to encouraging everyone to buy more guns. We've done that for decades and decades. We've made carrying firearms easier. We've made assault weapons easier to get. And it certainly has not had the desired effect. Everywhere else that has enacted gun control has seen the desired result... but we pretend it just won't work.

I mean, other than the fact it HAS worked when we've done it in the USA. In the 1920s we had a problem with mass shootings in the USA. The mafia and bandits would buy a Thompson from Sears Roebuck and do as they please. The Federal Government saw fit to require citizens to take extra steps if they wanted a machine gun. Now, even though there were plenty  of them around at the time - eventually the number of shootings involving machine guns started to drop. Within a generation they became rare. Now, they are unheard of in the United States. (1934 put the first restrictions in place, a 1986 law stopped new sales to citizens).

Now you're thinking I've gone off the rocker and need to turn in my weapons.  But wait, there's more! I don't want to take your gun away any more than I want the government to take my firearms away. But lets start with two acknowledgments from both sides:

1. There IS a problem with firearm violence.
2. We DO have an individual right to have firearms.

Then I have one proposal:

3. Lets start with removing funding restrictions on trying to find solutions to the problem.

Then we can try to balance my right to own a firearm with my friend's right to not be shot at school/church/nightclub/work. We did a really good job with machine guns. We do a pretty good job with conceal carry holders right now (few murders are accomplished by license carry holders).

Will we solve the problem in a month, or even a presidential term? Nope. Will we stop all gun violence? Hell no. But within a generation I'm sure we can come up with solutions that allow law abiding, competent, and sane citizens to own assault rifles, but do a better job of preventing people with a desire to connect with terrorists, mental instability, or who want to murder people from owning a weapon that makes mass shootings into something just about any moron can do.

But in the current climate, we can't even have that conversation. This isn't a call for gun control. While I can respect the commitment of the Democrats sitting on the floor right now, legislating in a climate of "crisis" is almost always a bad idea. Both sides need to calm down, have a conversation without regard for the NRA or for the parents of victims, and realize that we can do better.

[Red Arrow]

This is true..however I despise the mentality of 'well, it won't work so let's not even try'.  Why? 

Resources would be better spent looking for something that would work.

[Hoss]

Resources would be better spent looking for something that would work.

Nice try.

Anything (and I do mean anything) that has been put out there has been flat out rejected.  There are things that have been proven to work using data.  Problem is that the NRA and their beholden legislators ignore it.

[Conan71]

As it has been carefully pointed out, the total number of victims of high capacity "assault" weapons is relatively small.  The statistics do bear this out.

One reason security guards have failed is a lack of training or not being posted in a conspicuous enough place to be an obvious deterrent.  The era of mass shootings in schools, malls, clubs, etc. is a relatively new issue in our history.  If memory serves me correctly the first notable school yard shooting happened in California in the late 1980's.  When was the last time a courthouse or airport- places where armed guards are very present were shot up other than someone trying to commit suicide by cop?  Why is that?  There is known resistance.

No one advocates for people drinking in a public place to carry a gun.  However, if news stories are to be believed, there's a much heavier police patrol as well as armed guards around gay bars all over the country right now.  Why?  Because it is seen as a deterrent.  Obvious police or security presence sends shooters and general criminal activity elsewhere.

Let's assume the killer in Orlando could not have gotten his hands on an AR-15, if he would have showed up with a bomb belt and blown up 49 other people and wounded 50 more, what conversation would we be having right now?  Banning certain types of weapons does not keep a sicko from carrying out their plan.  They can still use a car, a bus, a dirty bomb.  You can make bombs out of many perfectly legal components to purchase (Murrah Building anyone?).  The Murrah bombing killed 169 victims and maimed many more, yet there's never been a crackdown on racing fuel, 55 gallon drums, Ryder trucks, or ammonium nitrate.

I'll expand a bit on what I said about it wouldn't really bother me if I could no longer own an AR, SKS, Mini 14, or AK.  Gun owners survived the automatic weapon crackdown, they would survive a crackdown or very limited ownership of the rifles mentioned above.  However...when gun violence does not die down, what happens when the government says: "No more repeatable shot firearms...period."?  Who is to say they would not with all the handgun violence.

Our handgun violence issue is killing far more innocent and not-so-innocent Americans than semi-auto long guns by a huge margin.  The handgun is a citizen's best possible method of self defense...period.  Odd dichotomy, what do we do there?  Worry about self defense or continue to allow the manufacture and sale of easily concealed deadly weapons which can still hold up to 14 rounds.

We are chasing rabbits getting worked up about "assault weapon" bans. Some politicians deem it expedient to either get on board as some sort of solution to a relatively small percentage of all gun deaths or to fiercely claim they are against such government overreach into the God given right to carry any weapon a man so chooses.  It's total BS.  More people are dying from hand guns, that is an immutable fact which appears quite well researched.

[rebound]

...If memory serves me correctly the first notable school yard shooting happened in California in the late 1980's.

Sorry,  drift here...  One of my favorite songs from back in the day...

"I Don't Like Mondays" - Boomtown Rats,  1979

"According to Geldof, he wrote the song after reading a telex report at Georgia State University's campus radio station, WRAS, on the shooting spree of 16-year-old Brenda Ann Spencer, who fired at children in a school playground at Grover Cleveland Elementary School in San Diego, California, US on 29 January 1979, killing two adults and injuring eight children and one police officer. Spencer showed no remorse for her crime and her full explanation for her actions was "I don't like Mondays. This livens up the day".[3] The song was first performed less than a month later."

The Murrah bombing killed 169 victims and maimed many more, yet there's never been a crackdown on racing fuel, 55 gallon drums, Ryder trucks, or ammonium nitrate.

Small quibble.  Don't know if they still do, but immediately after the bombing for while after they actually did checks on who was buying all Ammonia based fertilizers.  I remember farmers in our area griping that they had made it hard to get.

[MyDogHunts]

...First, I need to point out that the gun lobby is so afraid that data doesn't support their position that they have very effectively lobbied for a ban on anyone studying the topic. So...

...3. Lets start with removing funding restrictions on trying to find solutions to the problem...

...But in the current climate, we can't even have that conversation. This isn't a call for gun control. While I can respect the commitment of the Democrats sitting on the floor right now, legislating in a climate of "crisis" is almost always a bad idea. Both sides need to calm down, have a conversation without regard for the NRA...

I agree.  The NRA & other lobbies have too much say, thanks to money & the fearmongering from the Right.  My newsfeed on Facebook is filled with Right attitude attacks on Obama, gun control, & other fears/blames/steriotypes.  My family!  Thank god I traveled & grew.

So, the Republicans shut-down CSPAN cameras & refuse to have a conversation.  No ban for gun ownership if you are on a terror watch list?  That is crazy.

Nothing is going to change or make much difference.  If I was a terrorist I could drive from across the West with a box of matches and do a heck of a lot of damage.  Bombs are so easy too.  i just hate that so many people are afraid and hateful.

[erfalf]

So, the Republicans shut-down CSPAN cameras & refuse to have a conversation.  No ban for gun ownership if you are on a terror watch list?  That is crazy.

You do realize the Dem's voted down a measure that would have done just that. Perspective is everything.

Again at what point are we willing to just forget the 5th Amendment exists? At least Cornyn's bill played lip service to it.

Again, I am not necessarily for doing nothing. However I am DEFINITELY not for trouncing all over the very bill of rights that in my opinion has been the platform to make this country the greatest the earth has ever seen. The Bill of Rights has been "used" to do some terrible things, but it has done far FAR more good and is worth preserving at least the last vestiges of it.

[Conan71]

You do realize the Dem's voted down a measure that would have done just that. Perspective is everything.

Again at what point are we willing to just forget the 5th Amendment exists? At least Cornyn's bill played lip service to it.

Again, I am not necessarily for doing nothing. However I am DEFINITELY not for trouncing all over the very bill of rights that in my opinion has been the platform to make this country the greatest the earth has ever seen. The Bill of Rights has been "used" to do some terrible things, but it has done far FAR more good and is worth preserving at least the last vestiges of it.

The current kerfluffle over "assault weapons" is political attention whoring at its very worst.  If you aren't on board you are for the slaughter of our children and brothers and sisters or you just hate teh gheys. 

The NRA types hype it as being a broad over-reach and the gubmint is coming for all your guns.  For the more paranoid who believe in things like chem-trails, this is tyranny at it's worst.

I'm not an NRA member and never will be.  I really don't like the amount of hyperbole the NRA uses to whip the less educated amongst us into a frenzy that 2A is going to be overturned.   With all the hysteria they created about semi-auto rifles and the government supposedly buying up all the ammo, they drove up the prices on certain types of guns and virtually all ammo the first few years of Obama's presidency.

I rather liked CF's comment about legislating in a climate of crisis being a bad idea.  Spot on actually.

[Hoss]

I rather liked CF's comment about legislating in a climate of crisis being a bad idea.  Spot on actually.

While I agree with that in principle, usually the only time legislation like this will work is when the incident is still fresh.  In our self-absorbed society, incidents like this happen, and then, as is typical, in 2.65 weeks the American public conveniently forgets it and moves on.

[cannon_fodder]

Other firearms kill far more people, but assault weapons are the firearm of choice for terrorists and mass shooters. Other than going to the range and throwing lead down range while yelling YEEEHAW, the only other use for such weapons is to kill people. So the focus is on those weapons.

Below is a list of weapons used in mass shootings, it cuts out in 2013, but the most reliable source I could find. We could update it by saying Sandy Hook elementary used an AR style rifle, Colorado movie theater used an AR style weapon, San Bernadino used AR style weapons, Orlando used an AR style weapon... so while the numbers are small. That's the nature of terror attack, they don't pose an existential threat, but the impact is huge.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0057.htm  

More importantly, the Supreme Court has ruled individuals have a personal right to firearms. That is not an unlimited right, and the more utilitarian the weapon the stronger the right is. Shotguns and hunting rifles are sacrosanct. Pistols for home protection have been repeatedly upheld by the Courts. So while semi auto handguns certainly kill more people, that's a tougher problem to solve while protecting the rights of law abiding citizens.

And yes, if we try to solve the problem by looking at assault rifles, terrorists and murderers will use something else. But it will likely be something LESS EFFECTIVE. The reason they are using the assault rifles is because it is the most effective readily available tool for the job. When we banned automatic weapons, criminals went to assault weapons. So should we un-ban automatic weapons? Of course not.

I stand by the fact that we need to actually examine the problem and have a dialogue. Sitting on the floor chanting isn't helping. Then again, neither is refusing to discuss the issue.  Maybe we need grown-ups in Washington.

[Conan71]

Other firearms kill far more people, but assault weapons are the firearm of choice for terrorists and mass shooters. Other than going to the range and throwing lead down range while yelling YEEEHAW, the only other use for such weapons is to kill people. So the focus is on those weapons.

Below is a list of weapons used in mass shootings, it cuts out in 2013, but the most reliable source I could find. We could update it by saying Sandy Hook elementary used an AR style rifle, Colorado movie theater used an AR style weapon, San Bernadino used AR style weapons, Orlando used an AR style weapon... so while the numbers are small. That's the nature of terror attack, they don't pose an existential threat, but the impact is huge.

https://www.cga.ct.gov/2013/rpt/2013-R-0057.htm  

More importantly, the Supreme Court has ruled individuals have a personal right to firearms. That is not an unlimited right, and the more utilitarian the weapon the stronger the right is. Shotguns and hunting rifles are sacrosanct. Pistols for home protection have been repeatedly upheld by the Courts. So while semi auto handguns certainly kill more people, that's a tougher problem to solve while protecting the rights of law abiding citizens.

And yes, if we try to solve the problem by looking at assault rifles, terrorists and murderers will use something else. But it will likely be something LESS EFFECTIVE. The reason they are using the assault rifles is because it is the most effective readily available tool for the job. When we banned automatic weapons, criminals went to assault weapons. So should we un-ban automatic weapons? Of course not.

I stand by the fact that we need to actually examine the problem and have a dialogue. Sitting on the floor chanting isn't helping. Then again, neither is refusing to discuss the issue.  Maybe we need grown-ups in Washington.

No one has an answer or no one wants to examine a little closer why mass killings happen in the first place other than a piecemeal group grope by the news talk shows when this happens.  JMO, it is lazy logic to try and legislate a cap on mass killings by taking away the most commonly chosen method in the US.  The root of the reason people want to do a mass killing don't exist because of AR type rifles.  It's due to mental illness or abject hatred of others based on a flawed religious or idealogical belief.

People stay elected in high paying positions in government by pandering to their constituents greatest fears.  Dims are pandering to their follower's fear of guns.  Rethugs are pandering to their follower's fear of having their guns taken away.  I really believe it is that simple.  Few of them really care about the problem, they just want to stay on the gravy train as long as possible by acting as if they really do care about the well-being of their constituents.

Here's our options as I see it:

1) Do an outright ban and citizen hand-over or buy-back on AR style rifles and hope you get back maybe 1/2 of the guns.  Even after a few decades, that doesn't take away the danger one falls into the wrong hands.  There have been careless gun owners who don't lock their guns in safes since there have been guns.  It also doesn't keep people from smuggling in AR or AK type weapons from other countries, now does it?

A truck load of fertilizer and racing fuel was pretty damn effective in Oklahoma City.  If the perpetrator of the Orlando killings had chosen to detonate multiple explosive devices, he may have ended up killing more people.  Poisoning water supplies, gas attacks, etc. can be quite effective at killing many people at once.  The AR isn't the only efficient way to kill many people, CF.


2) Get over the fear of profiling and detaining or deporting likely terrorist suspects and do a better job of containing the most mentally ill amongst us who have yet to commit a crime.  What do we know about most of these shooters after the fact?  They were known to someone in their family or circle of friends as deeply disturbed and had exhibited troubling behavior but no one is allowed to do anything about it.  Naturally, we don't do this because we are concerned about impinging upon an individual's rights.

Regardless of how we go about it, there will be a perceived erosion of liberty and basic rights granted in the Constitution.  Our musket-carrying Founding Fathers could never have imagined a weapon which could fire 30 rounds in 15 to 20 seconds and they also probably could not have imagined a society which has fomented a complete lack of concern for the well-being of others in some of our citizens and immigrants.

That is the most difficult part:  How do you change the mindset of someone so full of hatred or who feels so disaffected by society that they want to go out and kill as many people as possible?  Whomever can come up with a solution for that wins the internet for a day.  Your turn 

[Ed W]

The terrorist watch list may include more than 1.5 million people by now. The no fly list  - a subset of the larger one - has about 50,000. Many of those on the lists have not committed a crime yet this proposed legislation treats them the same as criminals. The have no recourse, no due process, and no easy way to challenge their inclusion.

And if we want to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill people, we will have to give government access to our medical records. The possibilities for abuse are frightening.