EntropySink
Nothing & Everything => Open Discussion => Topic started by: micah on December 14, 2012, 12:04:49 PM
-
instead of starting a new thread every time there is a random shooting of innocent people in public, I just figured I'd start a new topic.
To get things started: Newtown Connecticut elementary school, about 45 minutes from me. http://www.ctnow.com/news/hc-police-responding-to-incident-in-newtown-20121214,0,455352.story The newpaper just tweeted that a source confirmed "children among the dead" God this is just awful
-
This really has me upset. At an elementary school. Keep thinking about former students and coworkers lying on the floor dead and I know others in education are dealing with that reality right now...
-
So sad...
I really wish the media wouldn't go crazy reporting this, but they will... and the next twisted lunatic out there will know he can go out in a blaze of media glory by killing a bunch of innocent people.
-
20 fucking kids, 8 adults...fucking horrific.
Two of the adults are legally license to carry a concealed pistol but prevented from doing so by stupid stupid gun zone laws. Just one of them could have saved a lot of lives.
-
Agreed Perspective.
It's okay though - the solution is for everyone to have guns...in schools...One of the stupidest fucking things I've ever read.
-
Don't bother to respond Steve on this. I won't agree with you. Period.
In near tears here over this one. Keep seeing flashes of my own classroom and students.
-
20 fucking kids, 8 adults...fucking horrific.
Two of the adults are legally license to carry a concealed pistol but prevented from doing so by stupid stupid gun zone laws. Just one of them could have saved a lot of lives.
Stop it. Seriously.
I know a LOT of people are quick to make this about gun control, but I don't think the political issue is the one we need to talk about right now. Whoever did this is mentally NOT well, and these sort of people need help.
-
Yea - I'm not even mad at the gunman. Not at all. Felt the same way about the linebacker in KC a few weeks ago. Just feel its a huge tragedy. You know the man was not well....A failure of our mental health system - which has been losing funding steadily for decades - but still a failure.
Same goes for Aurora, Congressman Giffner (sp), Oregon, Wisconsin...I could go on...
-
I've had a pit in my stomach all afternoon trying not to cry at work. I don't think I've felt this way after hearing something in the news since 9/11.
-
I've had a pit in my stomach all afternoon trying not to cry at work.
Agreed. Been busy with an urgent task but now it's done and there's not much I can do without coming back to thinking about this. So sad.
-
beyond words.
so very, very sad. all those poor kids. :(
-
^^^^ to everyone...so fucking sad.....
-
agreed.
-
I have been in meetings and stuff most of the day and my wife was texting me details. I literally had to stop her. I wanted to puke. I can't imagine what those families are going through.
-
Elsewhere in the world... http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/12/14/china-knife-attack-school.html
:(
-
Still sick to my stomach. Tragedy.
-
Yea - none of those kids died jkim (thank god). He only had a knife.
-
Found myself agreeing a lot with this today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=PezlFNTGWv4#t=93s
-
A terrible terrible tragedy for all concerned.
-
An interesting article from a mother of a mentally ill child: http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html
-
Thanks mike. A powerful and good read and perspective.
-
As many i was brought to tears. Horrific story.
Nice article Mike, Thanks.
Mental illness seems to be overlooked in this country by many. I think we need to have a bigger discussion as a society about mental illness.
-
Who knew I'd ever get choked up listening to an Obama speech
-
I heard the back half and cried. Need to go watch the first part too. School will be interesting tomorrow. I'm expecting a lock down drill sometime after break. I need to rehearse those procedures ASAP...
-
Another blog, this time from a woman who was a student at a school shooting: http://www.blogher.com/media-covering-newtown?from=nethed
-
I had to pull my car over when a teacher was saying that she was telling her children to be very quiet because the bad guys were out there, and they couldn't make any noises until the good guys came. I am so tired of this. Children. Little children.
Merry fucking Christmas.
-
The story that really got me is the teacher that was able to hide all of her kids in closets and under desks and then she didn't have a hiding spot for herself. She told the gunman when he came in that the kids were in the gym and he killed her but didn't search the room to find any of the kids. How incredibly horrifying. :(
-
Oh my lord Ober that's terrifying. I use to game plan in my head all the time about what I would do in case of that sort of lockdown. I knew how the kids would fit in the closet, and if there might be time to put some of them in my office etc...but I never thought about what I might do if there wasn't a place for me....
God Bless that young lady....
-
An interesting article from a mother of a mentally ill child: http://anarchistsoccermom.blogspot.com/2012/12/thinking-unthinkable.html
another good read...
http://www.xojane.com/issues/a-response-to-i-am-adam-lanzas-mother-from-a-doctor-in-the-trenches-i-am-adam-lanzas-psychiatrist
-
Another shooting...
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-4-dead-3-troopers-injured-in-shooting-pennsylvania-20121221,0,5095651.story
How will the NRA respond to this one? "We should have armed guards in every vehicle in America!"
-
Pretty much, although I think they'd frame it as "we should let ordinary citizens be armed so they can protect themselves".
-
I live in Arizona... we can carry all the guns we want... all the time. It would be pretty impractical though. I have a hard enough time remembering my phone, my wallet, and my keys. I don't need a side arm and a concealed ankle holster every where I go. 38 years old... and I have never been in a situation that *required* a weapon. Doesn't mean I don't think I should have the right to own them.... but people go a little over the top with all the damn drama. (on both sides)
-
I've been shooting a few times. Loved it each one. Including shooting military issue M-16's (thank you week with the Israeli military)...it's fun...but I can see absolutely no reason a person should nee to own one of those. None. Makes no fucking sense to me....They're not for hunting...they're not for defense...they're ASSAULT weapons. They're used to attack people and target shoot....
...if you want to own one and it stays locked up at a range (or at least the bullets do) - then fine...but I can no longer comprehend why someone would need to have a loaded AR-15 at home....
-
I've been shooting a few times. Loved it each one. Including shooting military issue M-16's (thank you week with the Israeli military)...it's fun...but I can see absolutely no reason a person should nee to own one of those. None. Makes no fucking sense to me....They're not for hunting...they're not for defense...they're ASSAULT weapons. They're used to attack people and target shoot....
...if you want to own one and it stays locked up at a range (or at least the bullets do) - then fine...but I can no longer comprehend why someone would need to have a loaded AR-15 at home....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_movement
-
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Those people are crazies...Ask steve, if he didn't think EVERYONE was trying to fuck him over, he'd be one of them....
-
I went to a gun show over the weekend and it was totally insane. I've never been to a show that was this busy! Pretty ridiculous...prices have been jacked up and I mean way up, and people were still buying everything out. For example, AR15 30 round magazines that a couple weeks ago retailed for about $20 were selling for $80+. All the new AR15's (the rifles themselves) were sold out - there were a few used ones and those were selling for about $2K!!!! holy shit. The really crappy AK47s (century arms made) that you could get new for about $450 two weeks ago were welling for $700-$800. Used Romanian Wassers AK47s (like the one I have which I bought for $350 a few years back) were selling for $950+ - FUCKING INSANE.
.223 caliber brass (empty shells for refilling) that normally sell for about $.07/each were at $.25/each.
AK47 ammo - 7.62x39 - was selling for $6.99+ for 20. I got some two weeks ago for $4.29 for 20.
Let me tell you - gun dealers - legit and the dirty ones - are having a very Merry Christmas this year thanks to talks about this ban on "assault weapons" and large mags.
Discuss.
-
I can no longer comprehend why someone would need to have a loaded AR-15 at home....
I know! The M-4 makes a much better home defense weapon
-
I can no longer comprehend why someone would need to have a loaded AR-15 at home....
I know! The M-4 makes a much better home defense weapon
I prefer the AK - my $.02 ;)
-
Do have to wonder what took the NRA so long to respond - you know their membership and dues have sky rocketed in the past few weeks...abnd there are a lot of people who stand to make a whole lot of short term profit via fear mongering over this...and who profit by making people fear government/other groups in the community...
-
I can no longer comprehend why someone would need to have a loaded AR-15 at home....
I know! The M-4 makes a much better home defense weapon
I prefer the AK - my $.02 ;)
Which AK? There are quite a few models. For home defense you are talking confined areas so a smaller and more movable weapon is better than a larger weapon. The range you get with a rifle is meaningless when the max distance traveled is less than 100ft.
-
(http://grenadelauncher.com/0AK-47-M203PI.JPG)
-
The gernade launcher has too much collateral damage. The computer might get hurt!
-
I wonder why this (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Two-wounded-in-theater-shooting-4122668.php) didn't make national news. I can it doesn't play into the current reactionary agenda...and I do understand that the hero was an off duty cop, who had training and all that jazz...but I think we should encorporate something like that into our conceal carry laws.
I think all states should permit conceal carry, under provisions like:
1. extensive background check
2. psych evaluation
3. xx many hours of training
4. $xxx cost
5. reevaluation and reexamination every two years to keep permit
I think at that point you would eliminate 98% of dipshits who want to use it for evil.
admin edit: fixed bbc tag
-
I wonder why this (http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/Two-wounded-in-theater-shooting-4122668.php) didn't make national news.
Stuff like that happens a lot, so it's not really national news worthy. No reason to think this was going to be a mass shooting, so it's not specifically relevant. All the kids getting shot in high crime neighborhoods and all the people using readily available guns to kill themselves don't make national news either. I don't think it's because they show one side of the gun debate or the other in a better light.
-
As a non-criminal, non-crazy (I checked the box on the application that says I'm sane) permit holder in my states, I off course agree with you Jake that there should be well trained and citizens allowed to carry in public to protect themselves, their families and anyone in dire need. To your points...
>>1. extensive background check
fine by me, i was finger printed and the state sends them to the feds for an OK before they issued my permit. Not sure how much more extensive it needs to be, if I'm not a known criminal, what more should the government be allowed to check on? What if I don't pay my taxes, can I still get a permit?
>>2. psych evaluation
in principle, I don't disagree with this, but how to do you implement this in a reasonable and standardized way? I'm pretty sure plenty of crazys would slipp through the cracks if it was just a formulized interview. I'm not a psychiatrist but I assume it takes many sessions with a willing, honest, and cooperative subject to determine thier mental state. And where do you draw the line? only fully sane people can get permits? what if you daddy issues or think you're santa clause but have no violent tendecies or depression?
>>3. xx many hours of training
Fine with this as long as its reasonable. I took an 8 hour state-approved NRA safety course that was about 6 hours in the classroom, a written test and and hour of hands on range time. I could see extending this to include more hands on time with the instructor and more discussion of the legality of when and where it is safe and legal to use a firearm.
>>4. $xxx cost
It was pretty expensive. The NRA class, the fingerprint/background-check fee, the local temporary permit (which is required to get the state permit) and the state permit. All cost me several hundred dollars.
>>5. reevaluation and reexamination every two years to keep permit
Hmm, probably smart. Two years might be extreme, but at least a basic proficiency demonstration might not be a bad idea when you renew (in Connecticut thats every 5 years.)
>>I think at that point you would eliminate 98% of dipshits who want to use it for evil.
yes, but the current hoops already eliminate the 99.99% of those dipshits -- those people don't go through the processes already in place; they aquire weapons through illiciet means and have no regard for the law. The Sandy Hook shooter tried to buy a gun in Connecticut but was denied because he didn't have a permit. So instead he killed his mom and took her guns.
I agree some reform is in order and these are good places to start but I'm concerned about the cost hurdle that it creates. While I don't have a problem with shifting the administrative costs on to the applicant, those costs could be very restrictive (which it looks like you're in favor of in #3) but I feel that such restrictiveness is beyond the scope of power the government should have. In effect, you're saying that poor people don't have the same rights as people who can afford to pay the tribute.
-
Completely agree with Jake. And yes, would be really expensive....but so is getting a permit for lots of things (pilots liscence)....
-
good thing she had one, knew how to use it, and was afraid not to
http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news/local/woman-hiding-kids-shoots-intruder/nTm7s/
-
Don't care....Still standing strongly for MUCH tighter gun control....I'm really glad that one helped here in that situation...but what about these people:
http://readersupportednews.org/off-site-news-section/428-foreclosure/15298-focus-how-many-people-have-been-killed-by-guns-since-newtown
-
that's an excellent website Kermi, thanks.
Even though I like to bitch about IL gun laws, they are pretty spot on. I really had no idea some states don't even require a back ground check - that's just fucked.
-
that's an excellent website Kermi, thanks.
Even though I like to bitch about IL gun laws, they are pretty spot on. I really had no idea some states don't even require a back ground check - that's just fucked.
I think the problem is that not everyone's on the same page with common sense laws. I think CT has a pretty reasonable process (i've outlined it here before) -- I think in states with lesser regulations there IS a need for better control. The problem is when talking at the national level about stricter laws, its ambiguous of whom we're talking about making stricter laws? Stricter for states with crappy laws now? sure. for states that are already draconian? not so much.
-
http://youtu.be/Rj1odguoMBM
-
Kermi, I like the idea behind that website, but I checked into just one of them, which happened to be in my county, and it wasn't even a killing (yet). The guy shot at cops after a short car chase and the cops shot back but the guy is still alive. So I guess I wonder how accurate that map is.
-
Well that's disappointing. Thanks Obes.
-
http://youtu.be/Rj1odguoMBM
ROFL! Their only worry is about the cost to the gun industry (and they coincidentally own a gun shop)... and didn't anyone tell them there was an armed guard at Columbine?
-
http://youtu.be/Rj1odguoMBM
ROFL! Their only worry is about the cost to the gun industry (and they coincidentally own a gun shop)... and didn't anyone tell them there was an armed guard at Columbine?
I don't think that is their only worry by a long shot. They don't own a gun store, they work at one.
-
Either way, the video made me laugh a couple of times. And working in vs. owning is the same conflict of interest.
Anyway, I don't mean to start up the gun debate again so I won't go into details.
-
*sigh*
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/01/10/shooting-reported-at-high-school-in-california
-
Yeah.. but that one doesn't seem like as big of a deal. Shootings like that happen frequently. (Which of course is a big deal itself, but there isn't much of a connection to the type of "shootings" we usually think of when we think of things like Newtown or Columbine.)
I guess it fits with Micah's OP but I don't know if we really need a thread to rehash all the gun violence that occurs in the U.S.
-
Yeah.. but that one doesn't seem like as big of a deal. Shootings like that happen frequently. (Which of course is a big deal itself, but there isn't much of a connection to the type of "shootings" we usually think of when we think of things like Newtown or Columbine.)
I guess it fits with Micah's OP but I don't know if we really need a thread to rehash all the gun violence that occurs in the U.S.
This kid had a hit list of bullies he was planning to kill, but was talked down by a good teacher he had a positive relationship with. I guess it isn't the same as the Columbine or Sandyhook in the sense that he wasn't a psychopath trying to cause as much damage as he could to anyone and everyone, but it was planned as a mass shooting. Fortunately it didn't turn out that way.
-
as an aside, from that article:
"An armed police officer is normally assigned to Taft Union High School but was not able to make it to work on Thursday because of snow on the roads"
why was school in session if the roads were apparently impassable by law enforcement? and why doesn't the police department assign another officer to the post when the regular cop calls out sick? I'm not saying that the cop there would have stopped or diffused the situations - heck, it could have made it worse - but WTF? Way to drop the ball on your job there
-
Wow.
http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/unhinged-tactical-response-ceo-threatens-sta
If you ever wanted a better reason for gun control, it's that guy right there.
-
Yeah.. but that one doesn't seem like as big of a deal. Shootings like that happen frequently. (Which of course is a big deal itself, but there isn't much of a connection to the type of "shootings" we usually think of when we think of things like Newtown or Columbine.)
I guess it fits with Micah's OP but I don't know if we really need a thread to rehash all the gun violence that occurs in the U.S.
This kid had a hit list of bullies he was planning to kill, but was talked down by a good teacher he had a positive relationship with. I guess it isn't the same as the Columbine or Sandyhook in the sense that he wasn't a psychopath trying to cause as much damage as he could to anyone and everyone, but it was planned as a mass shooting. Fortunately it didn't turn out that way.
Of course it was the same...it just was it rich white kids. Hispanic kids shooting each other isn't as big of a deal. (There, I said it - you were thinking it too)
-
as an aside, from that article:
"An armed police officer is normally assigned to Taft Union High School but was not able to make it to work on Thursday because of snow on the roads"
why was school in session if the roads were apparently impassable by law enforcement? and why doesn't the police department assign another officer to the post when the regular cop calls out sick? I'm not saying that the cop there would have stopped or diffused the situations - heck, it could have made it worse - but WTF? Way to drop the ball on your job there
Should have been closed due to roads. I will say - I would be scared of a school emergency without one of our 2 regular security/police officers (unarmed). Those guys know every kid, every staff member, and even most of the parents who belong in the building. Plus they're super friendly with everyone. If someone has to make a quick judgement call or calm someone down - I want it to be them.
-
This kid had a hit list of bullies he was planning to kill, but was talked down by a good teacher he had a positive relationship with. I guess it isn't the same as the Columbine or Sandyhook in the sense that he wasn't a psychopath trying to cause as much damage as he could to anyone and everyone, but it was planned as a mass shooting. Fortunately it didn't turn out that way.
Ahh, didn't know about the hit list yet. In that case I'd say it qualifies.
-
hahahaha :)
Kuba
Dear WBEZ staff,
I love you to pieces, but please, please, pleeeeeaaaase, learn the difference between a CLIP and a MAGAZINE; they are not the same thing and more often than not you guys say CLIP when you should say MAGAZINE. Please pass this along to your staff and colleagues at The Morning Edition and All Things Considered.
Best,
Jake
Today
3:22pm
WBEZ
Thanks for the note, Kuba.
We'll send out a clarification to all our folks so we avoid making this mistake in the future.
Thanks for listening,
Tricia - WBEZ web producer
I will be listening if they make that mistake again :)
-
LOL! that has been driving me nuts too.
-
Jake the amazing anal man....
-
Jake the amazing anal man....
:wtf:
Says the guy who just meet up with him in real life....
-
I stand by the statement
-
Err... What exactly did you guys do at this meetup?
-
Just had some really tasty mexican
-
Just had some really tasty mexican
Oh, I thought there were only two of you there?
alt:
Oh, I didn't realize Drak showed up too.
-
Just had some really tasty mexican
Dig that hole deeper
-
i'm staying out of this :p
-
Sounds like you were in it earlier
-
LOL!
On the clip/mag comment, you realize that only gun nuts give a shit, right? The general public doesn't care that there is a difference and using the word 'magazine' would likely actually confuse the average person.
-
Wait... What does People magazine have to do with this? :)
-
:applause:
-
LOL!
On the clip/mag comment, you realize that only gun nuts give a shit, right? The general public doesn't care that there is a difference and using the word 'magazine' would likely actually confuse the average person.
I don't agree Ober. NPR (or any other respectable media outlet) should be using the correct terminology...so what that it is about guns?
-
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/ny-agrees-1st-state-gun-control-laws-since-075124579.html
-
>ban of all magazines that hold more than seven rounds
my handgun holds 17 rounds. Some states, like NY, MA and CA already have capacity laws so in those states mine would come with a 10-round magazine. Even that would now be illegal in NY. 7 rounds is a little extreme and all-but outlaws almost every pistol on the market.
-
>ban of all magazines that hold more than seven rounds
my handgun holds 17 rounds. Some states, like NY, MA and CA already have capacity laws so in those states mine would come with a 10-round magazine. Even that would now be illegal in NY. 7 rounds is a little extreme and all-but outlaws almost every pistol on the market.
Duh. This is not control it is anther step to eradication. We are the last generation to own guns fairly freely.
-
Yeah. Right. They're gonna take away our guns and our freedoms and we won't be able to fight back. That's where this is going, right? :rolleyes:
-
Once they get your guns they're gonna force you to switch to the metric system, bwuahahahaha!
-
Once they get your guns they're gonna force you to switch to the metric system, bwuahahahaha!
Thank god
-
Once they get your guns they're gonna force you to switch to the metric system, bwuahahahaha!
Thank god
+1
-
Hahaha. +2
-
So Obama laid out his gun control plan:
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-obama-gun-policy-proposals-20130116,0,6710113.story
President Obama on Wednesday unveiled a broad array of executive actions and legislative proposals to curb gun violence, including a new push to ban assault weapons, impose a 10-round limit on ammunition magazines, and expand background checks for gun purchasers.
...
Basically boils down to:* Require criminal background checks for all gun sales.
* Take four executive actions to ensure information on dangerous individuals is available to the background check system.
* Reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban.
* Restore the 10-round limit on ammunition magazines.
* Protect police by finishing the job of getting rid of armor-piercing bullets.
* Give law enforcement additional tools to prevent and prosecute gun crime.
* End the freeze on gun violence research.
* Make our schools safer with more school resource officers and school counselors, safer climates, and better emergency response plans.
* Help ensure that young people get the mental health treatment they need.
* Ensure health insurance plans cover mental health benefits.
Do you all think that's excessive? Not far enough?
-
Personally, I do not have a problem with any of the above; the way I use my guns would not get influenced by any of it.
However, this point "* Reinstate and strengthen the assault weapons ban." is very vague - I would like to know more about it - and what strengthen means - this is a loaded statement and could mean anything.
And there is also some silliness - like the 10-round limit. A trained individual can change magazines or load in ammunition clips really fast - having 3 ten round magazines instead of 1 thrirty round magazine would hardly slow a person like that down. And like micah mentioned, a lot of the hand guns on the market now would be affected. Almost all standard size 9mm guns hold more than 10 rounds...
-
I also like that he went after the other side of this issue - which is mental health.
And what is the "freeze on gun violence research?" - I never heard of it.
And to reiterate, before you guys jump all over me, I would tend to agree with Obama's proposal. On a personal level it would not influence anything I do in any major way. I mean all it would do is make me load my magazines more frequently at the range :p
broadly though, I don't think that the proposal, other than better background checks and mental health issues, will lessen gun violence in the USA.
-
lol...got this email from ctd at the same time Charlie posted the above
-
The requirement to limit magazines to 10 rounds makes perfect sense to me. What's the harm? Inconvenience for people who use 30 round magazines? What's the benefit? Maybe one or two lives saved. Every second that a shooter has to spend changing magazines is a second where they can fumble it or a person can escape or they can be tackled or whatever. I don't think it will make a big difference but I definitely think it could make a difference and I don't see what high capacity magazines are really needed for anyway.
The think the "strengthen assault weapons ban" means that not only does he want to reinstate the one that expired, but close some of the loopholes that presumably made it less effective. If you just bring it back as it was I don't think it would help much.
-
And what is the "freeze on gun violence research?" - I never heard of it.
This references it:
http://crimelab.uchicago.edu/sites/crimelab.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/Biden%20Commission%20letter_20130110_final.pdf
The tragedy of gun violence is compounded by the fact that the usual methods for addressing a public health and safety threat of this magnitude—collection of basic data, scientific inquiry, policy formation, policy analysis and rigorous evaluation—are, because of politically-motivated constraints, extremely difficult in the area of firearm research. A blue-ribbon commission appointed by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that very little is currently known about effective ways to reduce gun violence. One consequence is that our current approach of muddling through” has led to little long-term progress in addressing this problem: While mortality rates from almost every major cause of death declined dramatically over the past half century, the homicide rate in America today is almost exactly the same as it was in 1950.
I'm guessing pressure from the NRA reduces funding for this kind of research, but it's hard to say for sure.
-
The requirement to limit magazines to 10 rounds makes perfect sense to me. What's the harm? Inconvenience for people who use 30 round magazines? What's the benefit? Maybe one or two lives saved. Every second that a shooter has to spend changing magazines is a second where they can fumble it or a person can escape or they can be tackled or whatever. I don't think it will make a big difference but I definitely think it could make a difference and I don't see what high capacity magazines are really needed for anyway.
it doesn't just inconvenience people who use 30 round magazine. It penalizes everyone with guns that hold more than 10 rounds. The number "30" keeps getting thrown around as if we're only talking about machine guns.
But either way, I disagree that restricting law abiding people in the hopes that the same inconveniences would slow a madman in a mass shooting. The Sandy Hook shooter changed out magazines that were only half used (ie, he often fired as little as 15 shots and then reloaded) and in the end, apparently fired less than 100 rounds in total. Limiting him to 10-round magazine would not have solved anything. He would have brought just as much preloaded ammo -- it would have just been a bit more inconvenient.
also...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvTO-y-B2YM
-
The requirement to limit magazines to 10 rounds makes perfect sense to me. What's the harm? Inconvenience for people who use 30 round magazines? What's the benefit? Maybe one or two lives saved. Every second that a shooter has to spend changing magazines is a second where they can fumble it or a person can escape or they can be tackled or whatever. I don't think it will make a big difference but I definitely think it could make a difference and I don't see what high capacity magazines are really needed for anyway.
it doesn't just inconvenience people who use 30 round magazine. It penalizes everyone with guns that hold more than 10 rounds. The number "30" keeps getting thrown around as if we're only talking about machine guns.
But either way, I disagree that restricting law abiding people in the hopes that the same inconveniences would slow a madman in a mass shooting. The Sandy Hook shooter changed out magazines that were only half used (ie, he often fired as little as 15 shots and then reloaded) and in the end, apparently fired less than 100 rounds in total. Limiting him to 10-round magazine would not have solved anything. He would have brought just as much preloaded ammo -- it would have just been a bit more inconvenient.
I think you made my case. It would have been a bit more inconvenient for him and the cost is a bit more inconvenience for people who use magazines that hold more than ten bullets. (I know it's not specifically 30 round magazines, that was just an example, obviously it's anybody using more than 10 right now.) Is that not worth it? People claim you can change clips or magazines in seconds as if it always would be done in seconds by all mass shooters. The reason to restrict it is because the more you make a person do something other than shoot the weapon, the more opportunity there is to limit the casualties. It won't help in many cases, probably even most. But I don't see any evidence that the inconvenience is high for law-abiding citizens so that is outweighed by the potential to prevent even a few deaths.
-
I don't see any evidence that the inconvenience is high for law-abiding citizens so that is outweighed by the potential to prevent even a few deaths.
The "inconvenience" is very high for law abiding citizens, I've been purposly not making that case though because the argument has been unfairly set up. If I defend the "convenience" aspect, it implies I'm putting that above the lives of little children being gunned down.
* Range time is expensive; reloading in small batches takes a lot of down time.
* Reloading is not fun. If you are a sportsman who enjoys target shooting (which the 2nd amendment also protects) it is inhibitive to your sport to stop every minute and reload.
* If you're going to make anecdotal and "what-if" arguments about the value of limiting ammo to criminals, a similar argument could be made for "what-if" situations for people defending their homes and families.... what if I want to fire off warning shots? what if I miss the with the first couple shots? what if there are multiple people breaking into my home and they're on drugs and one or two poorly placed shots aren't enough to stop them in their tracts? What if I'm being attacked by a herd of wild pigs in the forrest?
-
The madman is law abiding until he pulls the trigger...way I understand the research is that the NRA has gotten laws passed that make it hard to research gun violence and forbid the ATF from releasing findings if research it does.
-
Btw - would have zero problem with larger magazines being used at ranges - as long as they have to be stored there - bowling shoes style.
-
* Range time is expensive; reloading in small batches takes a lot of down time.
* Reloading is not fun. If you are a sportsman who enjoys target shooting (which the 2nd amendment also protects) it is inhibitive to your sport to stop every minute and reload.
those are all :rolleyes: type of arguments micah. How much time will you save by having to load 5 extra rounds? 10 seconds? I recommend purchasing an uplula (http://www.amazon.com/Butler-Creek-9mm--45-Universal-Unloader/dp/B001HBHNHE/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358374628&sr=8-1&keywords=uplula) to save you $$$ at the range and your thumbs :D
-
The "inconvenience" is very high for law abiding citizens, I've been purposly not making that case though because the argument has been unfairly set up. If I defend the "convenience" aspect, it implies I'm putting that above the lives of little children being gunned down.
I can't speak for others but I don't think it's wrong to make that kind of cost-benefit analysis because that's really what it's about.
But your inconveniences reinforce my opinion that the cost is not very high at all. Especially in this case where the limit is 10, not 4 or 6. So it still seems like no-brainer to me.
-
way I understand the research is that the NRA has gotten laws passed that make it hard to research gun violence and forbid the ATF from releasing findings if research it does.
I just read something today that said a law was passed that prevented research that would promote gun usage. But it was too vague and so almost no research has been done at all in the area. So if that's the case it sounds like a gun control idea that screwed it up.
-
way I understand the research is that the NRA has gotten laws passed that make it hard to research gun violence and forbid the ATF from releasing findings if research it does.
I just read something today that said a law was passed that prevented research that would promote gun usage. But it was too vague and so almost no research has been done at all in the area. So if that's the case it sounds like a gun control idea that screwed it up.
Apparently there was legislation passed that disallowed government funding to the CDC to be used for any research that would promote gun control.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/01/17/obama-opens-way-for-research-on-gun-violence/
The directive allows federal funding for research into the causes and prevention of gun violence, something that was believed to be banned by Congress since the mid-1990s. At that time, Congress inserted language into the appropriations bill of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stipulating that funds could not be used “to advocate or promote gun control.”
-
The "inconvenience" is very high for law abiding citizens, I've been purposly not making that case though because the argument has been unfairly set up. If I defend the "convenience" aspect, it implies I'm putting that above the lives of little children being gunned down.
I can't speak for others but I don't think it's wrong to make that kind of cost-benefit analysis because that's really what it's about.
Thats what it would be about if the basis for all these laws were as stated - to keep people safe. But if you're looking at from the perspective of 2nd amendment supporters who see this whole situation as an exploitation of a tragedy to push a long standing political agenda then it has nothing to do with conveniences. It has to do with rights and freedoms being chipped away at. Each restriction and law seems reasonable and minor until, like the preverbial last straw, the accumulation of "inconveniences" has accomplished the goal. My point was that this is not about how minor the sacrifice is for gun owners, it is that these infringements are not addressing the problem (crazy people doing violent things) but instead are blaming guns and vilifying gun owners.
It would be like if there were some sort of sudden and public outcry over the death rate from automobile accidents. Should the government step in and regulate that cars be mechanically limited from going faster than 65mph? should there be a searchable public records list of known speeders? Should gas stations be required to see your valid drivers license before selling you gas (and reporting large fuel purchases to the authorities?) Should certain types of cars that look fast but are just civilian models of real race cars be banned?
Why is it that when the topic is flipped to something like, abortion, that people care about civil liberties in relation to completely reasonable and minor inconveniences (like requiring minors to get their parents permission) but when its a topic they're on the opposite side of, all of the sudden they (and groups like the ACLU) are silent.
Again, I'm just trying to make the point that arguing against regulations like magazine limitations is not about cost/benefit. Its about protecting civil liberties from the slippery slope that has recently become very steep.
-
The directive allows federal funding for research into the causes and prevention of gun violence, something that was believed to be banned by Congress since the mid-1990s. At that time, Congress inserted language into the appropriations bill of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stipulating that funds could not be used “to advocate or promote gun control.”
Oops... I guess I read that wrong. That's the quote I saw but I read it as gun usage or something.
-
Thats what it would be about if the basis for all these laws were as stated - to keep people safe. But if you're looking at from the perspective of 2nd amendment supporters who see this whole situation as an exploitation of a tragedy to push a long standing political agenda then it has nothing to do with conveniences.
Be careful looking at things this way. It makes you see the other side as villains trying to manipulate and connive their way to political victory. That is (a) wrong 99% of the time and (b) bad for your agenda because it offends people and prevents them from listening to your position.
Again, I'm just trying to make the point that arguing against regulations like magazine limitations is not about cost/benefit. Its about protecting civil liberties from the slippery slope that has recently become very steep.
That's fine. Make that argument. All I was saying is that I don't see the cost.
But if that's your argument, I hope you're not surprised that most people aren't on board. I think there are many people who'd just as soon ban all guns. There is another large group, probably a plurality, who want guns to be allowed but want restrictions and regulations. Then there is a group who is afraid of the slippery slope and so they even reject proposals that make sense from a cost/benefit analysis to avoid losing the tug of war on the issue. The first two groups will look at the proposals and try to find a reason not to do them.
Personally I think the fear that guns are going to be banned entirely is silly, and especially the idea that restrictions like these will make that noticeably more likely. I honestly think that adding restrictions like these will make it less likely if anything, because if they reduce gun violence at all they will reduce the incidents that keep these things on people's minds.
And even if you have a goal of defending the 2nd amendment, it's still a cost benefit analysis. Do you really think these types of restrictions will have a significant negative effect on that goal? Is that effect worth preventing measures that might help reduce gun violence?
-
is there any research out there about the Clinton gun ban? what did it impact? change in gun violence? has anyone come across anything like that?
-
is there any research out there about the Clinton gun ban? what did it impact? change in gun violence? has anyone come across anything like that?
What I've read indicates it didn't do as much as they hoped, but also that gun control advocates think that there were specific loopholes that prevented it from working well. That's why Obama mentioned "strengthening" the assault weapons ban so that it might actually do better. There was a more stringent ban in Australia that apparently did lead to significant decrease in certain gun crimes, which is touted as a reason to try again.
-
....so Micah's argument raised an interesting point in my head for the civil liberties argument....
The way I see it a gun has 2 potential uses - recreational shooting and to hurt someone one
A using a car has 3 basic outcomes/uses - recreational driving, be transported somewhere, damage to persons or property.....
To drive a car - one needs 40 odd hours of specific training, 8 hours of professional instruction, a year of supervised driving, a government tracked liscence, liability insurrance, a state registered car that can be instantly pulled up by law enforcement, the car to annually pass a state inspection, a federal government serial number on your car, and all car sales much be registered with the state.
To get a gun currently - one needs much less, if any training (apparently here in Texas they're trying to make cut training time down to 4 hours), and you don't have to register the thing anywhere, the gun is only loosely tracked by the manufacturer, and you don't even need a background check at a gun show...and when you do need a check, it doesn't even do a thorough search
How does it make sense that its so much harder to get a car than a gun?
-
Valid point, though most states have stricter gun control than Texas and less auto regulations than you listed. Also, there is no constitutional amendment to guarantee your right to drive a car.
-
Really? What's too much in CT? I was walking through what some students/kids I know are going through in my head...and what I have to do for upkeep in LA. Curious what's different.
I guess if you're old enough, you can skip the training (drivers Ed) - but I also left some things off like having to pass a written and practical state test to get a license and at least in Louisiana - every 8 years or so you have to take a vision test to renew your license...plus a doctor can revoke your license with a phone call...just seems like a ridiculous contrast to me...
-
here come the conspiracy theories....
over 10mil views...wow
http://youtu.be/Wx9GxXYKx_8
-
Disgusting but inevitable. In sure Steve helped him produce it.
-
Not even gonna watch that shit.
-
I got 2 min in before it wasn't even worth my time for laughs
-
The directive allows federal funding for research into the causes and prevention of gun violence, something that was believed to be banned by Congress since the mid-1990s. At that time, Congress inserted language into the appropriations bill of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention stipulating that funds could not be used “to advocate or promote gun control.”
Oops... I guess I read that wrong. That's the quote I saw but I read it as gun usage or something.
"research" is a euphemism for propaganda..
Mr. Obama is trying to steamroll the Democratic and Republican majorities that kept the ban intact by labeling the advocacy as research.
...
Under the terms of the memo, CDC may "sponsor" another entity to conduct the research, which is a handy way of funneling taxpayer cash to sympathetic gun-control groups.
...
By calling gun violence a "public health crisis" on Wednesday, Mr. Obama echoed Mr. Clinton's model. It's a move that could cost lives, as shifting funding away from fighting disease creates severely misplaced priorities. In 2010, 780,213 Americans died from cardiovascular disease and 574,743 from cancer, compared with 11,078 firearm homicides.
Under the Bush administration, the CDC already conducted a two-year independent study of the laws, including bans on specified firearms or ammunition; gun registration; concealed-weapon carry; and zero-tolerance for firearms in schools. The scientists concluded in 2003 that there was "insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence."
-
"research" is a euphemism for propaganda..
:rolleyes: Seriously?
From that article:
Millions in taxpayer funds were blown on junk science, such as $2.6 million used to determine if teenagers who are shot are more likely to have been drinking and carrying a gun. An additional $2 million went to figure out whether moving bars and liquor stores would prevent gun violence in communities.
Uhh... What's so bad about those things? How is that propaganda?
And:
Under the Bush administration, the CDC already conducted a two-year independent study of the laws, including bans on specified firearms or ammunition; gun registration; concealed-weapon carry; and zero-tolerance for firearms in schools. The scientists concluded in 2003 that there was “insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws reviewed for preventing violence.”
There was "insufficient evidence"! What do you do when there's insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of something? Gather more evidence!
I mean, seriously? That article (and the claim that research means propaganda) is only relevant if you are someone who doesn't care about gun violence nearly as much as you care about protecting 2nd amendment rights *and* you want to vilify people who don't agree with you. So I guess my response to this is the same as reply #104 (http://www.entropysink.com/forums/index.php?topic=12406.msg144917#msg144917). Stop villifying people who disagree and don't be surprised if your position is part of a significant minority.
-
BTW - In case anyone missed it, I owned Jake on Facebook...
Fuck. That.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fGaDAThOHhA
Note: above from 1996
This is a bit extreme...but it was also apparently very successful...something to consider...
http://daringfireball.net/linked/2013/01/18/australia
Kuba Bomba Take your liberal agenda off of my facebook!!! Hehehehehe,
It's important to note that not only did I own Jake...but more importantly, I think it's an interesting link...a country that is similarly (and rightfully IMO) stubborn about their individual rights that had a harsher change to their gun laws than we can (and IMO probably should) expect....Seems to have had some pretty big benefits though...
Oh - and I owned you Jake. In front of all of facebook.
-
banned!!!!
-
this "panic" is stupid. Go into Cabelas just to see if they have a magazine to one of my pistols...I couldn't find any magazines, so I thought they moved them. ask one of the employees and he almost laughed at me. He finally took me to what was left of their magazine section. Basically they went from about 16 feet of mags to about 8 peg hooks...seriously. WTF people are buying EVERYTHING.
So I check ebay and a 10 round mag for that same gun is selling for about $100!!!!! unreal. the 15 rounders I was able to buy for $45 before this whole thing started.
On top of that, I was looking for a box of cheap 22LR ammo. Usually around $20 for 500. Walmart was sold out. So were some of the gun stores I've been at. Cabelas had three boxes left. a month and half ago I bought the same exact brand for $17, today for $24. WTF? unfortunately, I bought all three. kind of bought into the hype I guess....but geez, if I'm having a hard time buying the cheapest round there is, what next?? 1500 should last me for about a year at the range so I'm happy. :)
-
on top of that, my friend walks into cableas two weeks ago and they just got a few ARs in. He buys one, just shy of $1100 out the door. Turns around and sells the thing for $1800. WTF?
25 round ruger magazines for the 1022 (again, for the real small 22LR rounds aka plinkers) are selling for over $80 online. I wish I had a pallet of them right about now - I could probably pay of my house with the profits....but I only have one :(
-
yeah, a couple weeks ago I thought about buying a 100-round box of 9mm practice ammo. The cheapest WWB was over $30 retail. I didn't feel like waiting in line for 20 minutes to pay $30. It was bad enough it took 10 minutes to find a parking spot.
-
yeah, cheapest 9mm was 15.99 for a box of 50.
I'm glad one of my guys reloads. We went to a gun store with a range today and he bought 5000 empties from them. Even so, there are hardly any reloading supplies left on the shelves.
BTW - got 500 rounds of 9mm for Christmas from him :D
-
Shifting a topic for a minute, but I just had a thought and would love reaction...so many people who are super pro gun feel that a gunless society would essentially disenfranchise them....put them at others' ("the government's") mercy....make them lose control....etc.
In reality, guns rarely, if ever, are actually used a way that protects their rights or helps decide issues of government - I suppose the last major time they were used that way was about 150 years ago (civil war) - but then it was state government issued guns, and before that it was about 235 years ago (revolutionary)...
Thus my real questions become - why do these people feel disenfranchised, and how would things have to change for them to not feel that way?
-
More recently than that...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Blair_Mountain
-
I think every two years, the government should pretend that we are going to have dramatically stringent gun control... but then back down at the last minute. It really bolsters the economy. :)
edit: here is an old article.... I guess my thought isn't original: http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/16/gun-control-as-economic-stimulus/
-
Fair enough JaW....but still, it's an exceedingly rare occurance...and it's something that many other western "free" countries don't have to deal with....people don't feel disenfranchised in Europe because they aren't armed.....Why do people feel that way? What would it take to make them feel more enfranchised?
-
western "free" countries
exactly.
But yes, if someone could guarantee a gun free society I would give mine up in a heart beat. Also, I posed a very similar question to some people I work with and one answer I heard more than once was they would not give up their hunting rifles...
-
What are you going to do? Rebel against the most powerful military in the history of the world? You can't honestly tell me that people in the UK are less free than you are....Same goes for Australia, Germany, I could go on...
Sidenote - giving up hunting rifles is nuts. Not in the US....But - you ignored my real question Jake.
-
What are you going to do? Rebel against the most powerful military in the history of the world? You can't honestly tell me that people in the UK are less free than you are....Same goes for Australia, Germany, I could go on...
sorry, I should have been less vague. I said exactly as to agree with your comment about "western free countries" to append your original question. Without that addition I would have more arguments. And as to your question, I feel people making that argument are making that argument for the sake of making it! if that makes any sense. Whenevr someone gives me an argument like that I say exactly what you said in your last post...
-
Okay...then what's their real motive - we live in a pretty safe world...I can't believe that this many people fear being attacked walking down the street...it just doesn't happen that often for middle and upper class America - and most of lower class too (compared to rest of the world).
To me, the basic argument boils down to "guns give them power." Why do they feel they need power? Do they need to be more powerful than people who different from them? Do they feel like their voice doesn't count? Is it a callback to the wild west/frontier days? Does the complexity of government make them feel that their vote is useless?
I'm really trying to figure this one. out....
-
I can't speak for others, but I will speak for my family.
1. I LIKE guns. And knives too. It is like a hobby. Some people collect coins, some dirty panties, I collect guns and knives.
2. in the words of a D12 track I don't remember the name off - "I rather pack heat and not need it, than need it and not have it"
3. I like shooting for sport
4. I would love to go hunting one day
5. My wife's ability and knowledge to use a gun gives her a sort of piece of mind which in turns gives me piece of mind as well :D
-
Is it a callback to the wild west/frontier days?
I haven't thought about it before, but I could see this as an argument with some merit.
-
I mean - then why not just permit guns at shooting ranges?
-
I mean - then why not just permit guns at shooting ranges?
I think that until someone can guarantee that 99.9% of the guns are eliminated from the street, that is not going to happen. And I understand that it is all connected and that one thing will not happen without the other :)
But Kermi, an all out gun ban, or even very strict gun control, will NEVER work in the states. You have way too many rural areas where guns are a part of life. And there is Texas too! haha
-
Kermi, I'm a gun owner, but I don't think I'm a gun lover. I own a shotgun and a pistol, both purchased for home defense. I think I fall under Jake's point #2.
I can't believe that this many people fear being attacked walking down the street...it just doesn't happen that often for middle and upper class America - and most of lower class too (compared to rest of the world).
I actually think fear of attack is a big factor. People's perceptions are very narrow, and it's difficult for them to understand that they are statistically safe. One email from the neighborhood watch group about a home invasion, and all reason goes out the window. I think I'm prone to this.
I agree with your other hypothesis as well. There are certainly people who probably feel powerful when possessing guns, and without them they are more aware of their personal insignificance.
-
hahaha.....yea yea yea....I don't care about that right now....forget the gun part...maybe it's just in my stereotypical head - but it seems to me that there are significant groups of people who passionately fear for themselves in the country. That makes no sense. The data from other similar countries is SUPER clear that if we had zero guns...Therefore, I have to assume that the fear is somewhat irrational.
So - I come back to my question - why are they afraid? Are they afraid of change? Of other groups gaining some/more power? Is it a sign of divisiveness? Do they feel powerless in/hopeless about the political process?
How do you help them to feel (and be) more included and therefore less afraid (whether they have guns or don't)?
-
hmmm - that's webwhy....
and without them they are more aware of their personal insignificance.
I hadn't thought of that....interesting angle.....leads to what would it take to increase their feeling of significance.....
-
I hadn't thought of that....interesting angle.....leads to what would it take to increase their feeling of significance.....
That's the million dollar question ;)
Speaking from a relatively rural American perspective, I see this almost daily in my neck of the woods where there is a very outspoken base of gun owners.
I think MANY Americans are completely detached from their work (where they're supposed to spend a majority of their time). It's not meaningful so it leads to depression and alienation. They see the fruits of others successes without understanding the amount of work involved to succeed. (Media exposure skews this); they expect the same for them and are envious. They ultimately fail and stop progressing, which leads them to rely on social programs for subsistance. This continues to hurt their perception of self worth since they now understand they are not even necessary to feed their children. They have no reason to be. They are powerless.
I think this is a reason religion is so deeply rooted in these parts of the country as well. Many of these people find their purpose in religion.
In a weird way, I think this is a side effect of life being "too easy" compared to the majority of human history. I feel like meaningful work is important for a healthy sense of self particularly for males.
-
Hmmm....interesting idea...almost calls back to an economic argument that we need to find ways to better develop those areas and provide opportunities for jobs....also to provide more opportunities for local ownership (or at least management)....
-
Hmmm....interesting idea...almost calls back to an economic argument that we need to find ways to better develop those areas and provide opportunities for jobs....also to provide more opportunities for local ownership (or at least management)....
yes, and it starts with an overhaul of early education, which is tough since there's no local funding in tese areas and family support is weak. Nevertheless, education is terrible in the rural South. I think people would migrate to the jobs if they were qualified to do them. I think I read something recently that reported the migration to urban areas is accelerating already.
-
yes, and it starts with an overhaul of early education
I don't think I'll read a sentence I agree with more this month.
Would love more thoughts along this vein....
-
Anyone else receive this in their e-mail?
Excerpt from Muad'Dib's January 7th, 2013 Critical Mass Radio interview:
...They used a poster child for this to get everybody's sympathy and to get everybody's emotions up so that they could hopefully bring in a gun ban. They used a little poster child, a little blonde-haired blue-eyed six year old girl. She was the face, the poster child. She was supposedly killed along with the other 19 six year olds and seven year olds at Sandy Hook. Three days later Obama was there doing a photo op and she's sitting on his knee. She's supposed to be dead, used as a poster child, this little girl died - she's sitting on Obama's knee three days later. The same little girl.
And then they have her parents interviewed. It shows that they're all actors. It never really happened, because the guy that was supposedly her dad, is shown in the video where he's to the side and he's laughing and joking with other people and then he's called up in front of the camera. He's off to the left. Then he's called to the center, to the focus of the camera to be interviewed and to give his speech about Sandy Hook and about his daughter. And he goes from on the side from laughing and joking with everybody, he comes up to the center and ... he takes the joking, smiling face off and you can see him physically trying to force his face to look sad and then he starts talking about how his daughter's been killed. They're actors. There were no bodies.
It was a made for TV drama to try to ram through the gun control laws, because they want to kill the American people and they can't kill armed people. That's why Hitler disarmed the Germans, it's why Stalin disarmed the Russians, it's why chairman Mao disarmed the Chinese and they killed between them something like 120 million of their own people. And that's what they want to do in America and they can't do it because the people have the Second Amendment and they have guns. So they have to do all of this, and they'll keep doing it. There will be more incidents like this, which are made for television, until they manage to persuade the American people to give up their guns. And then they'll start killing the Americans. Because the Americans are the only people stopping them from doing what they want to do already. They know they can't put their next phase, which is reducing the world's population, they can't put that phase into operation whilst the Americans have got millions of guns.
***
This message has no links to help it get through spam blockers. If you are interested in the subjects being discussed, please search the Web for more information.
I mean, really? Does anyone believe this shit?
-
Many, many people, unfortunately.
-
Pretty sure it is about 48%... plus or minus 4%.
-
Forget opinions on gun control. That's disgusting. Btw - I read somewhere that the similar looking girl sutton with Obama was the victims sister...
-
guys survives four tours and then gets shot at a gun range
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/04/us/chris-kyle-american-sniper-author-reported-killed.html?_r=0
-
So sad....it was a guy he was trying to help too right?
-
I don't know if this made news outside CT but last night there was an amber alert for these two babies. A few hours later they were found dead at the hand of their grandmother (http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-stonington-amber-alert-0227-20130226,0,4373521.story); a murder suicide. Its just so sickening that anyone could do such a thing.
I hate to politicize a tragedy, but since that is how theses things work, I want to sarcastically wonder what violent video games the grandmother had been playing and how many rounds her gun held.
UPDATE: other news sources have confirmed she shot the kids and used a revolver. I just can't imagine how anyone could do something like this. How can someone's mind be so broken that they could do something like this and yet function adequately enough that the person blends into society as if their moral compas were intact? Its nearly inconceivable to me.
-
Wow....Yea - that's horrendous....
Similar note - anyone else hear the This American Life episodes from the past 2 weeks. They did deep emmbeded in a violent Chicago high school. Was really - wow, gave me some new perspective. Perpetuation of a cycle that no one likes and no one gains from - especially, as strange as this is to say, since hte gangleaders have been taken down.
-
Wow....Yea - that's horrendous....
Similar note - anyone else hear the This American Life episodes from the past 2 weeks. They did deep emmbeded in a violent Chicago high school. Was really - wow, gave me some new perspective. Perpetuation of a cycle that no one likes and no one gains from - especially, as strange as this is to say, since hte gangleaders have been taken down.
I didn't listen to the whole thing but a lot of it. Some crazy stuff
-
not that most of you care, but I will still give you an update on the gun supply - generally, looks like things are very slowly returning to normal. High cap magazines are being stocked again and at normal prices $25-30 for a 30 rounder ar-15 mag. I hope people who bought them at $80+ feel like real idiots right now...but I guess they caused this, so fuck em. Ammo is coming back too and so are it's prices. Plenty of .223 to be had, and even more AK ammo -still not at reg prices of about $5 a box, but not at the peak of about $10 a box. Still no .22 style ammo - and if you can find it, it is soooo expensive. I used to buy a brick of 500 bullets for less than $20, they are no selling on the internets for $60-80 - ad people are buying it too. Last time I saw a brick of 500 (and the cheap stuff too) at a store it was $66 - FUCK THAT. Same goes for 9MM, 357, and the like. I was by cabelas yesterday and stopped in just as they were working their shipment from the night before. They had about a 100 boxes of 9mm and at a very decent price - $15. I got two boxes. called a buddy who wanted some, he was in there within an hour and it was all gone.
AR style weapons are coming back to stores, but they are still hella expensive. Not too many AKs on the market though - but the few I saw are about $200 cheaper than at the peak.
As for the gun ban, looks like it lost all of its steam - if anything passes, it will be the universal background checks - which I whole heartily support.
I think this was all a brilliant Obama move to stimulate the economy ;)
Edit:kermi caught a spelling error!
-
in other, much sadder, news - 6 month old baby dies from gun shot wounds
http://www.nbcchicago.com/news/local/6500-maryland-avenue-shooting-197082281.html
I was praying she pulls through yesterday morning.
-
not that most of you care, but I will still give you an update on the gun supply - generally, looks like things are very slowly returning to normal. High cap magazines are being stocked again and at normal prices $25-30 for a 30 rounder ar-15 mag....
on that topic: http://www.americanrifleman.org/blogs/where-has-the-ammo-gone/
I'm glad to hear things are returning to normal in your neck of the woods. Not so much here. Wanna pick me up an extra 17-rnd magazine for my 9mm S&W M&P?
General concenses is that they're mostly likely going to pass the mag limit law to 10 rounds (http://www.courant.com/news/politics/hc-gun-hrgs-0315-20130314,0,4402284.story). At some point I'll probably have to get one of those to be compliant when I carry. I bet there'll be a price-gouging run on those too as people try to obey the law. Most models sold in CT came with larger capacity magazines so everyone in the state which a modern pistol is going to need to buy new magazines.
-
Wanna pick me up an extra 17-rnd magazine for my 9mm S&W M&P?
if you're serious I can definitely do that for you. I'll check if they have one next time I'm at the store and tell you how much it is.
-
PM sent
-
So the consensus is that the proposed new legislation will pass on Wednesday and "would allow owners of large-capacity magazines to keep them if they make an official declaration by Jan. 1 of how many they own and submit to restrictions on their use. The magazines could only be loaded with 10 or fewer rounds, except in their owners' homes or at a shooting range, where they can be fully loaded." (quoted from local newspaper)
I just can't get over how stupid this is. So I have to, in effect, "register" with the state that I own 2 magazines that hold 17 rounds and then unload 7 of those rounds any time I carry outside the house.
-
It is retarded.
-
Indeed, but gotta start somewhere...It's not like there's not precedent for not being able to use things we own to their fullest....I'm not allowed to drive my Civic at 120...cause you know - it can go that fast!
-
Indeed, but gotta start somewhere...It's not like there's not precedent for not being able to use things we own to their fullest....I'm not allowed to drive my Civic at 120...cause you know - it can go that fast!
I like the car analogy to an extent. The thing is, they're not banning the sale or transfer of cars that can go 120mph; they just tell you you can't drive them that fast on public roads. This law is outright prohibiting the sale or transfer of magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. So while I get the analogy, its not the same. Even the premise is flawed though; a law prohibiting you from going 120mph is in place for public safety. Limiting my 17 round magazine to 10 rounds does not protect the public from anything.
-
You see - that's where you and I disagree. I do think the magazine limit is a public safety thing. Don't get me wrong - I think it's totally stupid not to allow the magazines in a range or even in competition (assuming some sort of major training course or something) - but a bad guy with a gun with more bullets can do more damage than one with fewer.
And they do prohibit selling (or at least the unrestricted use of) cars that are overly dangerous....There's a reason some cars aren't "street legal...."
And again - I still don't understand why the fuck there is a ton more legally required training for a car than a gun...makes zero sense to me.
-
"would allow owners of large-capacity magazines to keep them if they make an official declaration by Jan. 1 of how many they own and submit to restrictions on their use. The magazines could only be loaded with 10 or fewer rounds, except in their owners' homes or at a shooting range, where they can be fully loaded." (quoted from local newspaper)
I could live with this as long as they still allow the purchase of these "high" capacity magazines - and it doesn't look like they will.
-
I still don't understand why the fuck there is a ton more legally required training for a car than a gun...makes zero sense to me.
because there are lot of things you need to know about cars to keep you from killing yourself or other people. The highways are jam packed with thousands of cars that all need to follow a large bevy of precise and complex rules at the same time to keep from crashing into each other. Plus, a car can be a deceivingly complex machine to operate in all conditions. Before someone is allowed to drive it is in the public's best interest to insure they know all the laws and have enough behind the wheel training to understand the nuances of the road.
contrast that with owning a firearm. There are only 3 rules:
1) keep the gun pointed in a safe direction
2) keep your finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot
3) keep the gun unloaded until in use.
Its not that hard. Like with the license to drive a car, it is in the publics best interest to make sure someone who carries a gun in public knows the rules too. Thats why you need a permit in most states which, in addition to a background check includes the requirement that you've take a gun safety course. Sure the course is only a day but its not really that hard to fully understand the basic principles of a firearm and how not to accidentally kill people.
-
Well sure, but it's also not hard to understand the basic principals of driving a car...Especially for people who have been in them their whole lives. I can't believe that it's that simple to carry a gun in public and be prepared to properly and safely use it. If it was, then law enforcement and military wouldn't continue training as long and hard as they do.
I'm with you that the basic rules are simple, and I can understand why one wouldn't need a ton of training for a "range liscence." I don't believe that following the rules in a high stress situation is - and any situation that involves drawing a firearm and aiming it at a person is high stress. That's what boggles my mind....If people are irrational enough to get stressed out in over pretzel dip (http://www.loweringthebar.net/2013/04/good-reason-to-kill-31-pretzel-dip.html), then how can a day training course prepare them to carry lethal force? Honest question - how often do you have to renew the training?
-
I hate to oversimplify my response but, millions of people carry firearms every day. How often do they accidentally shoot someone or escalate a situation unnecessarily? Of course it happens but proportional to the number of people carrying, it is minimal. Contrast that with the thousands of car accidents that happen daily.
Also, I would argue that most firearm enthusiasts do "train" frequently. People who carry guns tend to go to the range a lot. Probably more than law enforcement officers.
-
I hate to oversimplify my response but, millions of people carry firearms every day. How often do they accidentally shoot someone or escalate a situation unnecessarily? Of course it happens but proportional to the number of people carrying, it is minimal. Contrast that with the thousands of car accidents that happen daily.
Many many many more people drive cars than guns....of course the raw number of accidents is higher...then again, what are the odds that a car accident will be fatal as compared to a gun accident.
Also, I would argue that most firearm enthusiasts do "train" frequently. People who carry guns tend to go to the range a lot. Probably more than law enforcement officers.
Shooting at a range isn't training to me...Training involves some how simulating the stressful environment that might occur if someone has to draw their weapon.
-
There's a reason that almost law enforcement is in favor of increased restrictions are firearms...
-
There's a reason that almost law enforcement is in favor of increased restrictions are firearms...
so that people can't fight back against tyranny? :tinfoil: :dunno: :lol:
or more likely pride, because only they should be allowed to "protect" people - even though, in Connecticut, the police have a goal of responding to at least 50% of calls within 15 minutes. Its a lofty goal. Especially when you live in a remote town like mine that has 5 assigned police officers (who are not all on duty at the same time.) Oh and also this. (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/28scotus.html?_r=0)
don't get me wrong, I'm not one of those people who have a problem with cops. I appreciate what they do and wish we had more and that they were better trained and equipped. But I don't rely on the police for my personal protection or to defend my family at a moments notice. That is my responsibility.
-
hahaha. :tinfoil:
-
>or more likely pride
or even more likely they are the ones that have to deal with the few bad apples, and they don't want those apples to be armed. :armedapple:
We need an :armedapple: emoticon.
-
Make it.
-
Becoming familiar with a weapon (of any type) is training. Period. When stress is involved it can only help to have had time and effort behind learning the weapon.
That said adding some stress to training is not uncommon. Even a firing range adds serious percussion to the regime.
Martial arts classes often add under stress training.
-
You know what I mean, actual in depth situation training....
-
So the consensus is that the proposed new legislation will pass on Wednesday and "would allow owners of large-capacity magazines to keep them if they make an official declaration by Jan. 1 of how many they own and submit to restrictions on their use. The magazines could only be loaded with 10 or fewer rounds, except in their owners' homes or at a shooting range, where they can be fully loaded." (quoted from local newspaper)
I just can't get over how stupid this is. So I have to, in effect, "register" with the state that I own 2 magazines that hold 17 rounds and then unload 7 of those rounds any time I carry outside the house.
This is just for Connecticut, right?
-
So the consensus is that the proposed new legislation will pass on Wednesday and "would allow owners of large-capacity magazines to keep them if they make an official declaration by Jan. 1 of how many they own and submit to restrictions on their use. The magazines could only be loaded with 10 or fewer rounds, except in their owners' homes or at a shooting range, where they can be fully loaded." (quoted from local newspaper)
I just can't get over how stupid this is. So I have to, in effect, "register" with the state that I own 2 magazines that hold 17 rounds and then unload 7 of those rounds any time I carry outside the house.
This is just for Connecticut, right?
yes
-
So the state that just went through Newtown is about to pass legislation that makes you register your higher capacity magazines and only load fully them at the range. Even *if* that's a useless law, how is this not a win for gun control opponents and something to be happy about?
-
There's a reason that almost law enforcement is in favor of increased restrictions are firearms...
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/news-from-nra-ila/2013/4/survey-finds-law-enforcement-united-against-gun-control.aspx?s&st&ps
-
Huh...I want to look at that methodology...cause that is the first out of many many things that I've seen that represents that way...
-
yeah, I'd be interested in the methodology too because I've often heard the opposite. But just now, googling for such statistics, I can't actually find much about police officers wanting new, stricter gun laws. I'd like to see some research into those methodologies as well.
-
Here you go micah - After the NRA started running an ad with this survey, slate did the reading you and I were too lazy to do...The problem with this survey is that it wasn't a survey. There was no random sampling. It was a "promoted poll" on PoliceOne's website - which means there was no random sampling...so all it took was certain advocacy groups telling all of their members to go there and....voila...
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/frame_game/2013/04/_80_percent_of_police_oppose_background_checks_no_the_nra_is_lying.html
-
ah, so there you go. makes sense.
-
IT IS A DAMN SHAME THE BACKGROUND BILL GOT SHOT DOWN. no pun intended, sorry for caps.
-
I'm in shock...I shouldn't be, but I am. Damn NRA....really? We can't even have background checks? I mean - I realize that it polls ridiculously well, and I don't blame gun manufacturers for not wanting it - why limit your market but nevertheless....really?
-
I'm in shock...I shouldn't be, but I am. Damn NRA....really? We can't even have background checks? I mean - I realize that it polls ridiculously well, and I don't blame fun manufacturers for not wanting it - why limit your market but nevertheless....really?
Its not like there aren't already background checks for ever firearm purchased at retail, including at gun shows. But that is the spin on this that seems to be outraging people - like there's this big loop hole where people are buying machine guns under the table. This law would not have effected the black market sales, just private sales and transfers, often among friends and family. Don't get me wrong, I don't have a problem with it and would have been fine if it passed. I'm just saying the outrage over it is a bit over the top.
-
My understanding (and I'm the first to admit that I may be wrong) was that the problem is that it varies greatly by state and that there aren't central background checks - and that since gun shows are "private sales" there aren't checks at a lot of those...That's different to me than family and friends...
-
If you're a licensed dealer, it's a federal license to sell firearms (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Firearms_License) and you are required to do a background checks on all sales regardless of the state you are in. If you are selling a gun or guns to a non-FFL holder to make a profit and you do not have an FFL yourself, you are breaking the law.
So basically the only sales that don't currently require a background check are transfers or private sales for no profit. And even that is difficult and laws exist like, you can't ship a firearm across state lines unless its going to an FFL holder.
Every booth at a gun show requires a background check. The "loophole" is people selling their guns in the parking lot which is probably already illegal but honestly doesn't happen. Why would vendors pay to set up a booth at the gun show if everyone just buys black-market guns in the parking lot.
edit: just saw this on facebook after I posted the above...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=dpcjp5QagII
-
This law would not have effected the black market sales, just private sales and transfers, often among friends and family.
I haven't been following this much but I thought I read that they exempted sales between family and friends in the amendment that went to the cloture vote.
I think the outrage is more about the system, and the perception that a lobbying group was able to convince enough Senators to vote against something innocuous despite apparent overwhelming support from the public. I don't know how many people are thinking that the lack of the extra background check legislation will lead to lots and lots of gun deaths that would have been prevented.
-
finally found an AKMS (basically a slightly modified AK47) I've been looking for for a long time - an underfolder. And for a damn good price, $599! But hey, can't fucking purchase it because of a store's fucked up policy. I will never shop at this store again. I'm pissed.
This Chicago cop had the same experience: http://secondcitycop.blogspot.com/2013/03/megasports-blows.html
I also challenged the snot nose clerk about the "law" and then he said it was a store policy. :disbelief:
My search continues.
-
What's the policy?
-
they will not sell to cook county residents.
-
Lol
-
:lol: