General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[Kaijo]

The UK, Canada, and Australia, all banned guns after a horrific shooting. Their rate of gun deaths and gun crime has dropped into the toilet.

HOWEVER!

The US has a different culture. I'm not entirely convinced banning guns would solve our problem. A lot of what makes the US different, is our culture, so rather than be on one side or the other, I am going middle of the road. And here is my thought process, and my "out of the box" ideas that may, at the very least, serve as sort of a template to get people thinking differently.

First off, there are some bills going through congress that would limit the number of bullets a gun/magazine could carry, to 10. That is still plenty for self-defense, hunting, and sports activities. All mass shooters who were stopped by other people, were stopped when they were forced to pause and reload. I am also in favor, like 80% of gun owners in the US, of closing the gun show loophole.

However, those two things aren't really addressing the problem here: mental health. The UK, Canada, and Australia have strong public health care systems, where anyone who is feeling off, can simply walk in and get treatment. So their mentally ill people are taken care of. This opens up another can of worms, because gun rights supporters tend to be people who are also against socialized health care, and yet, getting some socialized health care would treat would-be shooters before they go nuts, thus getting the populace off your back about gun regulation.

So, I have a simple proposal:

1. Require every gun owner to retake a training course and exam every 3 years.

2. The 2nd amendment refers to a "well regulated militia" so I'd require every gun owner to be a part of a local gun group. The group would be responsible for policing its members' weapons, and assessing their mental stability (and that of their families). Make sure the gun owners are storing their weapons safely and correctly, and if someone looks like they might be going a bit unstable or depressed, make sure they get the treatment they need. Work with law enforcement and health care officials to identify people

You'd take keys out of the hands of someone too drunk to drive. Take a gun out of someone too depressed or unstable to properly use them. The vast majority of legal gun owners in this country are upstanding individuals. Let's let them step up to help protect us all, because preventing a shooter from committing a massacre, is also self-defense. Even long before it gets to the part we see on the news.

The NRA has about 4 million members. There are about 30+ million gun owners in the US. So I'd like to see a grass roots gun owner lobby form, to take power away from the NRA, which greatly represents gun manufacturers these days. Anything to sell more guns, is what they go for (witness their latest statement... their answer? More guns of course!)

The right for an individual to carry a gun, is a fairly recent development (the NRA won a Supreme Court ruling in 1976 or 77). Before that, everyone knew that the 2nd amendment referred to a "well-regulated militia." I'm all for someone owning a gun, but let's take the amendment as a whole, and require a gun owner to be part of a local gun group, the modern equivalent of a militia. They'd be required to make sure their members were trained and prepared and taking proper care of their guns, just like any citizen militia group of the 1700-1800's.

Last note: If we don't get something like this, or increased socialized health care, worked out in the US, then these massacres will continue to happen. If they do, expect the populace to get so angry, that they demand a near-total banning of all guns. If you don't want it to get to that point, then support rational, reasonable "well-regulated" gun laws.

[Vexx]

The wiki has a time line of gun laws in Germany:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Germany
It looks like the post-WWI Treaty of Versailles imposed by the Allies and then the 1938 Nazi administration imposed the 1938 Weapons Act.
After WW2, the Allies again disarmed the general population, not even the police were permitted firearms until 1956.

After that, there were some modifications after the Red Army Faction terrorism, and then several school shootings in the early 2000s (which also gave Germany its strange rules on violence in video games, rock music, etc.

@Kaijo: yeah, I've also advocated that the Civil Defense Corp. (Cold War artifact) be used as, imagine, civil defense. Participation should be a part of the deal, training, legal education, first aid, action plans for natural disasters, etc.

[ZGoten]

Maybe the different viewpoints are rooted in history. I am an idiot when it comes to history, but what I do know is that there have been European gouvernments long before the USA was created. They were pretty much created by force, when big conquerors longed for power and the expansion of their influence. Obviously, they needed to keep the 'petty folk' at bay and would have never dreamt of putting themselves on equal footing by granting everyone the right to be armed. The founding of the United States had a much more liberal intention and approach, however, perhaps partly because it took place fairly late in history, but that is beside the point. Both types of regulations might have simply been internalized over the decades and centuries. I can very well imagine that the right to own simple firearms was as much surprising to the American general public in the late 18th century as it is natural to the one of today.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by kyp275

While I don't have too much problem with your proposal in general, that one will never fly in the court, it'd get thrown out in a heartbeat. It's one thing if you have very specific provisions which outlines possible cases of criminal negligence (for example, open and unsupervised access to weapons and ammo to children), it's quite another to have what you're suggesting here, which is carte blanche vicarious liability on the gun owner's part. Even if you pass something like this, it'll never survive it's first legal challenge.

And on what ground would that be? Other western civilizations already do this - in Germany, for example, if you "lose" an assault rifle during your army time, you immediately gain a criminal record. It's merely a matter of drafting the law accordingly.

But hey, I'm willing to compromise, it needn't be THAT much. However, at the moment, you generally don't even get a slap on the wrist in the US if someone commits crimes with your weapons and you then say "oh yea, has been stolen, tehee". That must change IMHO, and handling firearms must become something serious with the appropriate responsibility.

Yup, that's working out really well for Mexico isn't it? And as long as you continue to view the US as carbon copies of other countries with zero difference other than gun availability, you're never going to grasp the real issues.

Pitiful straw man. Comparing the US to Mexico, in which even the Mexican army is fighting drug cartels in the drug wars on a regular basis, is ridiculous. When was the last time the US army was fighting someone on US soil, huh?

If you want to gauge effects, why don't you take culturally close countries like the UK or Australia? Because then, you would see that serious Gun Control DID work there when it was rigorously enacted after local massacres. Nowadays, firearms killings per capita are around 9 times more prevalent in the US than in Australia and 40 times more prevalent in the US than in the UK.

But hey, don't let me disturb your obfuscation attempts with facts.

I have no ideal how you possibly arrived at this conclusion. First you say that the number of guns directly contributes to more violent crimes and deaths, and then turns around and says the lack of similar reductions of violent crime levels in strict gun control nations is because it makes criminals in the US too effective? Huh?

You're really bad at quoting and summarizing, aren't you? What I said is that easy availability of guns leads to a higher rate of killing, with America 9 times above the average of most other western civilizations. If your implied theory was correct that gun availability had no real impact on this, it would logically mean that the amount of violent crime LEADING to these deaths should be around 9 times as much either. But that's not the case.

Any student who's taken Statistic 101 can tell you that you can pretty much slice and dice data to make it correlate to whatever it is you want.

Sure, and it's widely used. You for example just did for your side, with the Mexico caper.

Which is why the specific qualifiers are so important, as they allow you to read the data without bias.

And so, what is your theory, in an attempt to deflect the obvious and logical correlation between availability of guns and lethal outcomes? Just for the record, Mexico was an attempt to _inject_ bias, so forgive me my scepticism that you are arguing in good faith.

This is one more thing which amazes me about the US: The media-supported idea that "fair and balanced" reporting would mean that reporters would be stenographing the official statements of both opposing sides and then report them 1:1 without any kind of weighing and fact-checking. Which leads to the absurd result that when Global Warming is discussed, the small fact that only 24 of 13,950 scientific peer-reviewed articles (0.17%) contest Global Warming is ignored, and the media is all-too-often presenting it as an "open question" or worse.

And yes, please continue to sling mud, I guess someone has to right?

I find it comforting that you would consider this "slinging mud", because it implies that you concede that it's tarnishing for the image to reject Global Warming, Cancer as result of smoking and so on. A true Believer would stick to his guns here (pun intended). I could list poll numbers and their correlation here, but that might be overdoing it.

Yea, because there was no one there capable of stopping them, which is the whole point of having police/security guard there - to have someone on site that is capable of doing so.

As for the specific cases I was talking about, no, the "deed" wasn't already done. In the case of the church shooter, he killed himself right after he was wounded by a guard while attempting to carry out his mass shooting.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/12/10/col...ngs/index.html

and in the case of the principal, he was able to stop the shooter from further attack and detain him until the police arrived.

You didn't get my point. Either an attacker was successfully foiled prior to harming people, then it was no massacre in the first place. Or he was stopped after he killed people, then the attack wasn't successfully prevented. You can't have it both ways.

Before we waste more time: I'll readily concede that an armed guard does improve the security situation and under very fortunate circumstances might be able to reduce or even prevent the loss of life in case of an attack. I'm pointing out though that such an outcome is by no means conclusive for a multitude of reasons (e.g. security not at right location, security targeted first, etc). Posting an armed guard does not reliably prevent attacks like these, they can still succeed very easily. It's a band-aid, not a cure.

You're showing your bias and lack of knowledge in the relevant field again(nor did you pay attention to what I wrote apparently).

*lol* Now let's listen to the expert ... okay, let's tackle your "knowledge" bit by bit. I'll admit that I have my informations only from my training during my Army days and the sources I've read due to interest. What is your background constituting your expertise?

Escape is not always an option, depending on the design of the building and you (and the shooter's) position, or as it was in Virginia Tech, literally impossible due to preemptive measures by the shooter.

Correct. However, in general it is the safest option and should be preferred if available. Why do you think that e.g. in hostage situations, professionals pretty much NEVER encourage hostages to try to attack if they are able to communicate with them, but rather to try to escape?

But then, what do they know...

As for rushing, these shootings are not taking place on a wide open field where you're starting from 500 yards downrange. These are extremely close quarter affairs where the shooter are in the same room as his victims, it doesn't take much time to cover even the maximum distance - back of the room to the door, this leaves the shooter with only a few seconds at the most to deal with a rush.

Yes. Unfortunately, usually the attacker already has the weapon drawn and leveled when he enters the scene, and particularly after he first fired on his target(s), indicating to other persons in the room that they are in mortal danger.

Rushing someone with leveled automatic or even semi-automatic weapons is madness unless it is absolutely clear that

1) there is no reason to hope that the attacker will not fire on others than his primary target
2) there is no chance to escape

because the likelihood is extreme that you will be shot and killed.

Also, real life is not like the movies, you don't get flung back 20 feet and insta-gibbed because you got hit with a bullet in you arm or your shoulder. With the typical classroom size of 20-30, the shooter would have to be a real life version of a headshot aimbot to do what you think would happen. In the real world? Not even Carlos Hathcock can do what you think would happen.

You really have no f*cking clue at all. Let's take the massacre at hand, where the attacker used an AR-15 with 30-shot magazines of .223 ammo which tumbles and fragments inside the target's body, meaning that it delivers almost all of its kinetic energy to the target while ripping terrible wounds. If you receive torso shots of this you will NOT run on and grapple with the shooter, you will halt and go down. And while you do that, you will obstruct the path for other people following you even if you find 10 trained lemmings who really try to get the shooter and don't care that they're about to die. And when they go down and everyone is frozen in mortal fear, the gunman can reload a new magazine or switch to his pistols and continue the carnage.

Against normal 9mm parabellum pistols, maybe. The first heroic-suicidal attacker will probably be shot too, but due to the pistol's lower stopping power, the tackler's momentum might carry him far enough to reach the shooter. Also, depending on the weapon, the number of shots might be lower. Still a crazy risk, but maybe the best option.

Basically, don't try to talk tactics when you obviously have no clue about them.

You should consume fewer movies and games and educate yourself on the issue some. I still can't believe that you babbled about headshots...

Lastly, and I'm getting real sick of this, if you're not willing to put in even the smallest of efforts to know what an automatic weapon or an assault rifle is, then I see no point in carrying on this conversation - it's like trying to talk modern astronomy with someone who still believes in the geocentric model.

More stupid gun-nut posturing. Stop pretending and give a direct quote of mine where you demonstrate where I was allegedly wrong. Put up or shut up. After your talk up there, I doubt that you have any more knowledge on this topic than a chickenhawk range-shooter gun nut who never got any combat training in the first place.

No, what gun lowers is the capability threshold for killing, by the time someone has reached for a gun to kill another, they've long since passed their "inhibition". FFS, guns are not the One Ring, it doesn't whisper in their owner's ears and make them go "My Preciousssssss!"

Both. We're talking about essentially the same thing. Reaching for a gun and leveling it at someone is not the same as having a killing intent. All too often under influence of drugs or alcohol, when arguments get heated, it does make a difference if you are wielding fists, a knife, or a pistol. In my world at least.

To really kill someone with fists, you generally need to put in enormous conscious effort. Even with knives, it usually takes multiple stabs or purposely aimed hits to kill someone, the human body is surprisingly resilient. With a gun, all it takes is a reflex reaction and some finger pulls to potentially kill someone, you don't even have to "really mean it".

And no, guns don't do Gollum hissing, the effect is more sublime. Advertisements like "Man Card Renewed" do. Pointing a firearm at someone you hate tends to give the bearer a boost in confidence and a rush of power. Particularly for people who would otherwise be inferior, this is a major factor and lowering inhibitions, especially under the influence of drugs or alcohol. But I'm sure you know that.

Expert that you are.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Jaieni

http://www.law.harvard.edu/students/...useronline.pdf

I'll leave this here and let you draw your own conclusions from this study.

Just got home from work, I'm dead tired.
I will post in length tomorrow since Legem gave me a juicy retort to pick over (it's why I like you, Legem, you never disappoint ).

Anyhoo.
With regard to the Harvard study.
That is the one that "shocked" the Brady Campaign a few years back due to its conclusion.

This Article has reviewed a significant amount of evidence
from a wide variety of international sources. Each individual
portion of evidence is subject to cavil—at the very least the
general objection that the persuasiveness of social scientific
evidence cannot remotely approach the persuasiveness of
conclusions in the physical sciences. Nevertheless, the burden
of proof rests on the proponents of the more guns equal
more death and fewer guns equal less death mantra, especially
since they argue public policy ought to be based on
that mantra.149 To bear that burden would at the very least
require showing that a large number of nations with more
guns have more death and that nations that have imposed
stringent gun controls have achieved substantial reductions
in criminal violence (or suicide). But those correlations are
not observed when a large number of nations are compared
across the world.

In other words, gun control doesn't work.

[Sugetsu]

Friday's NRA statement has to be the epitome of American stupidity and delusional thinking. Seriously, I don't think anyone with a shred of logic in his brain would agree to having armed people at all schools.

In a nutshell, NRA wants to fight guns with guns. Of course, this is great for them because more guns for everybody means more money in their pockets. After all, arms trade is the 2nd most profitable business in the world. I am sure they got plenty of incentive to come up with such a load of BS.

Honestly, the solution to preventing mass murdering in the US is to limit the availability of guns and the amount of shots that can be fired per round. In that way, victims of an attack have time to react and possibly save themselves. This is just very logical thinking that I believe no one in this forum can disagree with? Right?.... Right?....

So If I can think of something so elementary I am sure the rest of the American people have thought of similar ideas. All they need to do now is act and stop beating around the bush.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Just got home from work, I'm dead tired.
I will post in length tomorrow since Legem gave me a juicy retort to pick over (it's why I like you, Legem, you never disappoint ).

Anyhoo.
With regard to the Harvard study.

Excuse me. What you listed is no Harvard Study. It is merely a non-peer-reviewed article that appeared in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, which happens to be a publication of right-leaning Harvard Law students.

If you want to know what the peer-reviewed Harvard findings are, you should look at the official page here.

Unsurprisingly, they come to different conclusions.

[kyp275]

This is just getting too long, so I'm just going to counter some of your most egregious claims.

Originally Posted by Mentar

And on what ground would that be? Other western civilizations already do this - in Germany, for example, if you "lose" an assault rifle during your army time, you immediately gain a criminal record. It's merely a matter of drafting the law accordingly.

Christ, on what ground? how about basic common law? go look up what vicarious liability is and why it's almost never used for criminal offense where intent is required.

Pitiful straw man.

sigh, naturally, any country that doesn't fit your assertion are automatically straw man Obviously only you can cherry pick when to ignore the fact that every country have their specific set of circumstances and can't be directly compared.

And so, what is your theory, in an attempt to deflect the obvious and logical correlation between availability of guns and lethal outcomes? Just for the record, Mexico was an attempt to _inject_ bias, so forgive me my scepticism that you are arguing in good faith.

I really couldn't give two shits whether you think I'm arguing in good faith at this point, if you want to see some logical and reasonable debates on the statistics, go back and read the posts between me and Ledgem.

I find it comforting that you would consider this "slinging mud", because it implies that you concede that it's tarnishing for the image to reject Global Warming, Cancer as result of smoking and so on. A true Believer would stick to his guns here (pun intended). I could list poll numbers and their correlation here, but that might be overdoing it.

No, I was referring to the fact that you just categorically labeled over 300 million people as ignorant, if you can't see what's wrong with that, then there really is no hope for you.

You didn't get my point. Either an attacker was successfully foiled prior to harming people, then it was no massacre in the first place. Or he was stopped after he killed people, then the attack wasn't successfully prevented. You can't have it both ways.

Yes, because cutting 20, 30, 40 deaths or more down to two is a complete and utter failure, and should totally not be attempted

*lol* Now let's listen to the expert ... okay, let's tackle your "knowledge" bit by bit. I'll admit that I have my informations only from my training during my Army days and the sources I've read due to interest. What is your background constituting your expertise?

My opinion of the German Army just went down a few notches, and of you even more, because you should know better. My background? just 10 years in the U.S. Marine Corps and a few combat tours in the desert.

Correct. However, in general it is the safest option and should be preferred if available.

No kidding, why did you think I put the "if can't deny shooter access" bit in there?

Why do you think that e.g. in hostage situations, professionals pretty much NEVER encourage hostages to try to attack if they are able to communicate with them, but rather to try to escape?

Two completely separate scenario. In a hostage situations, the criminal is trying to negotiate for something/seeking help, and the hostage is his/her leverage. In this case there's much more to be gained by negotiating for a non-hostile end to the situation, as oppose to risking lives and injury.

In a mass shooting scenario, there IS no hostage, the killer has no intention whatsoever at keeping people alive, if escape is not possible, and you cannot deny the shooter access to your location, then you either fight, or you die, it's simple.

Rushing someone with leveled automatic or even semi-automatic weapons is madness unless it is absolutely clear that

1) there is no reason to hope that the attacker will not fire on others than his primary target
2) there is no chance to escape

because the likelihood is extreme that you will be shot and killed.

Really? your solution to the problem of "If I don't do anything and just sit here I'm going to die" is to sit there and hope the crazy guy with the gun shooting at everyone won't shoot you for some reason?

You really have no f*cking clue at all. Let's take the massacre at hand, where the attacker used an AR-15 with 30-shot magazines of .223 ammo which tumbles and fragments inside the target's body, meaning that it delivers almost all of its kinetic energy to the target while ripping terrible wounds. If you receive torso shots of this you will NOT run on and grapple with the shooter, you will halt and go down.

I don't need you to give me a lecture on ballistics, ballistic jelly is one thing, actual human body in motion is quite another. Let's just say I've seen how ineffective the 5.56 can be on a real person, which btw is not an uncommon complain from troops on the field.

You should consume fewer movies and games and educate yourself on the issue some. I still can't believe that you babbled about headshots...

I would also go back and work on that sarcasm meter if I were you, 'cause apparently you seem to have miss the part where the headshot statement to show how ridiculous your assertion was.

More stupid gun-nut posturing. Stop pretending and give a direct quote of mine where you demonstrate where I was allegedly wrong. Put up or shut up. After your talk up there, I doubt that you have any more knowledge on this topic than a chickenhawk range-shooter gun nut who never got any combat training in the first place.

Here you go:

Originally Posted by Mentar

And it is sheer madness against automatic weapons under pretty much all circumstances, particularly assault rifles.

Neither of which was used in any school shooting, even though that's the scenario we were discussing.

As for the rest of your vitriol, I think I'll refrain from sinking down to your level.

Particularly for people who would otherwise be inferior, this is a major factor and lowering inhibitions, especially under the influence of drugs or alcohol. But I'm sure you know that.

Expert that you are.

Stay classy Mentar.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Mentar

Excuse me. What you listed is no Harvard Study. It is merely a non-peer-reviewed article that appeared in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, which happens to be a publication of right-leaning Harvard Law students.

If you want to know what the peer-reviewed Harvard findings are, you should look at the official page here.

Unsurprisingly, they come to different conclusions.

That "study" was paid for by the Joyce Foundation, which is a gun-control group.

You may as well post a study by Glenn Beck on whether or not Obama is a citizen of the US.
I'll bet the study would "prove" he was Kenyan.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Sugetsu

Friday's NRA statement has to be the epitome of American stupidity and delusional thinking. Seriously, I don't think anyone with a shred of logic in his brain would agree to having armed people at all schools.

In a nutshell, NRA wants to fight guns with guns. Of course, this is great for them because more guns for everybody means more money in their pockets. After all, arms trade is the 2nd most profitable business in the world. I am sure they got plenty of incentive to come up with such a load of BS.

Honestly, the solution to preventing mass murdering in the US is to limit the availability of guns and the amount of shots that can be fired per round. In that way, victims of an attack have time to react and possibly save themselves. This is just very logical thinking that I believe no one in this forum can disagree with? Right?.... Right?....

So If I can think of something so elementary I am sure the rest of the American people have thought of similar ideas. All they need to do now is act and stop beating around the bush.

Not that I don't think the NRA is off the rails (and many gun owners are reaching that conclusion) but they suggested armed officers, i.e., trained personnel, most likely off-duty law enforcement. Some school districts are able to afford that now and do it. We have armed officers that patrol malls and many other locations considered 'gun free zones'.

Most districts can't afford full time security at every school. They'll have a few security personnel who have to cover several schools but often mostly to mitigate vandalism. That's where I get amused at conservatives who advocate security without realizing they're signing up for additional taxes.

I don't disagree with regulation (though we may disagree on where the line is on those items). But so far laws proposed or implemented in the recent past were so poorly written they often just made things worse (unintended consequences).

There are problems of "grandfathering" (banning new sales doesn't do a thing for reducing numbers of existing devices). Requiring to people to turn in certain kinds of guns in hasn't been done since full automatics (machine guns) were restricted in the mid-20th century). I'm assuming you meant number of shots per magazine rather than shots/round since 1 shot = 1 round.

Limiting the magazine capacity just means that a shooter carries lots of magazines and it doesn't take a lot of practice to get fast at swapping them out.

[Mentar]

Originally Posted by kyp275

This is just getting too long, so I'm just going to counter some of your most egregious claims.

Yea, sure. Ignore 75% of the content, cherrypick 25% out of context and run. That's cool.

Christ, on what ground? how about basic common law? go look up what vicarious liability is and why it's almost never used for criminal offense where intent is required.

For the love of god, please don't embarrass yourself by pretending to be a legal expert too. Intent is not required for criminal offenses, negligence is sufficient.

sigh, naturally, any country that doesn't fit your assertion are automatically straw man Obviously only you can cherry pick when to ignore the fact that every country have their specific set of circumstances and can't be directly compared.

It was YOUR obviously silly comparison between the US and Mexico, not mine. You have a strange tendency of trying to project YOUR failures on me and then blame me for it. Peculiar.

No, I was referring to the fact that you just categorically labeled over 300 million people as ignorant, if you can't see what's wrong with that, then there really is no hope for you.

Which I naturally didn't. When I write about the "American national character", obviously I'm not talking about traits which are existent in every citizen, but which show up in so many citizens above the average that they can be considered relevant. Seriously, why can't you limit your arguments to what I actually say? Do you consider your own positions so weak that you need to resort to omissions and distortions like these? Bah.

Yes, because cutting 20, 30, 40 deaths or more down to two is a complete and utter failure, and should totally not be attempted

Another distortion. I only quote myself:

Originally Posted by Mentar

Before we waste more time: I'll readily concede that an armed guard does improve the security situation and under very fortunate circumstances might be able to reduce or even prevent the loss of life in case of an attack.

Makes you look silly, doesn't it?

My opinion of the German Army just went down a few notches, and of you even more, because you should know better. My background? just 10 years in the U.S. Marine Corps and a few combat tours in the desert.

So you claim, but I'm sorry - I find it very hard to believe you. See your "headshots" and rushing nonsense.

In a mass shooting scenario, there IS no hostage, the killer has no intention whatsoever at keeping people alive, if escape is not possible, and you cannot deny the shooter access to your location, then you either fight, or you die, it's simple.

Only in some of them. There are scenarios in which the attacker doesn't try to gun everybody down indiscriminately, but only select people.

But like I said: If there's truly the narrow scenario that it's clear that the attacker wants to kill everybody AND there is no chance to hide or escape, THEN trying to attack the shooter is better than sitting down and waiting for him to kill you, right. However - and that is exactly what I wrote - if you have a chance to run and hide, you should definitely prioritize this over suicide rushes (which are irresponsibly floated as the default action by some gun nuts).

Really? your solution to the problem of "If I don't do anything and just sit here I'm going to die" is to sit there and hope the crazy guy with the gun shooting at everyone won't shoot you for some reason?

No. And I never wrote that, no matter how much you're trying to distort my position yet again.

I don't need you to give me a lecture on ballistics, ballistic jelly is one thing, actual human body in motion is quite another. Let's just say I've seen how ineffective the 5.56 can be on a real person, which btw is not an uncommon complain from troops on the field.

First of all, it was the 0.223 version, a minor difference. And then, even the 5.56 NATO ammo has gone through changes - recent versions tend to tumble and frag much better, leading to bigger wounds and fewer soldier complaints. Based on the reports I read the shooter used an ammo version which tends not to pass through the target body at all, it just deforms into horrible wounds and sticks. Guess where the kinetic energy ends up with this type.

I would also go back and work on that sarcasm meter if I were you, 'cause apparently you seem to have miss the part where the headshot statement to show how ridiculous your assertion was.

The ridiculousness was in YOUR words, not mine. I never talked about head shots in the first place. You were making some silly case about a whole classroom rushing a shooter, who then would have to kill each one with one bullet, hence headshot. The little detail that the people shot in the front would obstruct the path to the shooter for those behind was something you combat specialist forgot to recognize.

Seriously man, please restrict yourself to criticizing what your debate partner says, not what you make up on your own.

Here you go:

Neither of which was used in any school shooting, even though that's the scenario we were discussing.

No, we were discussing the general case when a shooter should be rushed, and I differentiated between the three cases 1) knives and bludgeons, 2) pistols, 3) automatic/semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles. In cases 1) trying a rush may make sense, in case 2) it is very risky but might be an option under special circumstances, and 3) is madness unless the situation is totally hopeless.

But where was I allegedly wrong about automatic/semi-automatic or whatever, on which you made your tirade? Nowhere. The AR-15 military version fires 3-round bursts, the commercial version is "merely" semi-automatic, but both can easily be modified to full auto. Even as semi-automatic you can still easily fire 4-5 shots per second, which is deadly enough to fend off a rush. And that the AR-15 is an assault rifle should be known even to you?

Stay classy Mentar.

I try to, but god knows you're making it difficult.

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

That "study" was paid for by the Joyce Foundation, which is a gun-control group.

Hey, YOU were claiming that it was a "Harvard study". It isn't. Just setting the facts straight.

The real peer-reviewed studies from Harvard can be found on the link I gave.

[synaesthetic]

I'll reiterate: I'll support a unilateral ban on firearms when people can instead be provided with a personal defense shield that renders them impervious to bullets.

Until then, some of us would like to be able to defend ourselves if necessary. I don't care if you'd rather just lay down and die when confronted with an armed attacker, but I'm rather fond of living, thanks.

Alternatively I'd also accept a nonlethal weapon that won't kill anyone but has the same range, speed, reliability and effectiveness as an autopistol. You may think I'm just being smarmy, but that's completely false. I'm actually quite serious. The reason I carried a gun for as long as I did in Oklahoma was because there was a shootout between gang members and police in my apartment complex's parking lot. I didn't feel safe walking around, especially after dark, and I didn't own a car.

There just isn't anything that isn't a gun that can stand up against a gun in terms of effectiveness. A taser is bulky and failure-prone and they're also not legal for civilian use. Stun guns require you to make physical contact with the attacker. Mace/OC spray is not always effective, especially if the attacker is enraged or intoxicated. Martial arts is a joke--that only works in the movies. Knives aren't a good option either--useless against someone armed with a gun, and you'll inevitably be cut if you fight someone else with a knife. An airgun with soporific darts is like mace--it may not be effective if the attacker is enraged or chemically enhanced, and if the dose of whatever knockout drug in the dart is too high, you could accidentally kill someone.

I live in a poor neighborhood and I can barely afford it as it is. I hear gunshots at night at least once a week, and loud arguments/scuffles between local thugs more often than that. I can't live somewhere safer; I'm too poor to afford anything else. I'm barely scraping by as it is trying to make it through college. I worry every time I have to come back home after dark, is this going to be the night I get held up at gunpoint and they take everything of value on me? I can't replace that stuff easily, and if I don't have what they want, they might just shoot me for the fun of it, or accuse me of lying about not having anything and then shoot me anyway.

I've been attacked twice in my life. Once I was armed, and the attacker was unable to hurt me or take anything as a result. The other time I wasn't, and he got away with it. It put tremendous strain on me to replace that stuff. I can't afford to buy a new phone, buy a new laptop, both of which I need for school and work, every time some junkie who needs his fix waves a Saturday night special at me.

I'd feel a lot better--at least I'd have some measure of control over the situation--if I could carry again like I did when I lived in Tulsa. But I can't, because California laws pretty much restrict anyone but senators and rich people from getting concealed carry permits. Clearly a girl in her late twenties trying to scrape by on crumbs to get her engineering degree is not important enough to protect, right?

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Mentar

But hey, I'm willing to compromise, it needn't be THAT much. However, at the moment, you generally don't even get a slap on the wrist in the US if someone commits crimes with your weapons and you then say "oh yea, has been stolen, tehee". That must change IMHO, and handling firearms must become something serious with the appropriate responsibility.

That's because we don't punish anyone other than the criminal in our country.
Persecution of one group for the actions of another is not something we Americans try to do.

Pitiful straw man. Comparing the US to Mexico, in which even the Mexican army is fighting drug cartels in the drug wars on a regular basis, is ridiculous. When was the last time the US army was fighting someone on US soil, huh?

No actually he's spot on, but if you MUST have a country that actually does compare to the US in population and culture, then you must look to Russia.
Russia was the equal of the US throughout the cold war, both in miltiary strength, and political influence. Both countries indoctrinated their socieities into strong nationalistic mindsets, and both excercise the concept of the citizens militia (albeit differently).
Russia has a population of 141,000,000, about half the US, yet it has 5 times the violent crime rate.
Russia has 12,000,000 legal gun owners, or about 15% what the US has.
They have very strict licensing, registration, and storage laws, yet it does nothing to curb the violence in that country.
As Dmitry Vinogradov proved on November 6th of this year.
There is far more to US violence than guns and this is why policies which infringe upon the rights of its citizens should not be tolerated in the US.

As a side note, Russia is changing its attitude towards gun ownership with the intent of becoming more like the US.
http://indrus.in/articles/2012/12/17...ous_21065.html

If you want to gauge effects, why don't you take culturally close countries like the UK or Australia? Because then, you would see that serious Gun Control DID work there when it was rigorously enacted after local massacres. Nowadays, firearms killings per capita are around 9 times more prevalent in the US than in Australia and 40 times more prevalent in the US than in the UK.

But hey, don't let me disturb your obfuscation attempts with facts.

You've done your fair share of obfuscation here as well.
The idea that the US should be compared to the UK, Australia, or Canada as a whole is ludicrious, and disingenuous.
The UK only has a population of 63,000,000 people.
The US has 312,000,000, nearly five times more than the UK.
We have more gun owners than they do citizenry at 80,000,000+.
Canada's popluation is 34,000,000.
Autralia's is only 23,000,000.
California alone has 37,000,000 people in it, and even it's gun control laws are less strict than in those nations.
California had 161,133 violent crimes last year according to the FBI.
WhileCanada had 437,000 violent incidents last year.
Guess which place is safer?
Yes, California, even friggin gang-infested, California.

The population of Texas is only 25,000,000 people, which makes it comparable to Australia.
In Texas, they have virtually NO gun laws compared to Australia,
Yet the total number of violent crimes in Texas was 113,231.
In Australia their total number of violent crimes were 117,873 in 2011.
Oh gee, look at that, the gun control laws didn't do didley to stop violent crime.
You can stake the claim that gun ownership didn't do anything either, and that is what many (if not most) peer-review studies (like JAMA's) have concluded over the years.
Therefore, depriving US citizens of their right to keep and bear arms for laws that do nothing either way, is clearly an infringement of their inalienable rights.

Before we waste more time: I'll readily concede that an armed guard does improve the security situation...

Then stop arguing with yourself about it and quit with the ridiculously flawed country comparisons, and ad hominem attacks.
You haven't proved anything beyond the simple fact that you do not understand or even fathom this subject.

Hey, YOU were claiming that it was a "Harvard study". It isn't. Just setting the facts straight.

The real peer-reviewed studies from Harvard can be found on the link I gave.

David Hemenway (the author of that study) is an economist, not a criminologist. He is also quite bias and has made this known publically.
He reminds me of Michael Bellesiles, only a bit wiser due to the exposed fraud of the latter.
However, even this pro-gun-control economist knows that "assault weapons" are not the problem as stated in this Harvard article about him.
He places blame on pistols, and I will give him the fact that pistols are the most commonly used firearm in crime (revolvers mostly), however, without the statistics to know how often pistols are used for defense, no conclusion can be reached and Hemenway openly states that in his critique of Gleck's work on this subject.
Thus the study is worthless without a measurable comparison set of data to falisfy it by.
Put another way, it becomes a "god of the gaps" argument on the part of Hemenway since he is assuming that self-defense situations are rare, problem is, mass shootings are even rarer still if he were right.
I do agree with him on Lott's 2.5 million figure being off (and stated that earlier to Legem) but I also view Hemenway's figures as completely off as well (far too low to account for the number of guns in society).
Gleck is probably the closest to the mark with his 40,000-400,000 times a year a firearm is used in self defense.


__________________________________________________ _______________________________
Interesting article on this subject.

Disrming the Myths of the Gun Control Lobby
http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybel...control-lobby/

[kyp275]

Why don't we try this with less insults?

Originally Posted by Mentar

For the love of god, please don't embarrass yourself by pretending to be a legal expert too. Intent is not required for criminal offenses, negligence is sufficient.

I introduce to you actus reus and mens rea, two terms that every criminal justice student learn in their first week of class.

Which I naturally didn't. When I write about the "American national character", obviously I'm not talking about traits which are existent in every citizen, but which show up in so many citizens above the average that they can be considered relevant. Seriously, why can't you limit your arguments to what I actually say?

So you're just stereotyping 150 million instead of 300 million?

So you claim, but I'm sorry - I find it very hard to believe you. See your "headshots" and rushing nonsense.

8th ESB, A Co. in '05, primarily operated out of Al Asad and Haditha (never knew the Euphrates is so... green ) though also spent considerable time in other FOBs.

Seriously, were you really in the army? what was your job? because whatever it was, it must be one where marksmanship or hand-to-hand combat was not required. Frankly, none of the German troops I had the pleasure of meeting in Djibouti displayed the lack of tactical understanding that you're showing. Do you know what a T box is? or a failure drill?

First of all, it was the 0.223 version, a minor difference. And then, even the 5.56 NATO ammo has gone through changes - recent versions tend to tumble and frag much better, leading to bigger wounds and fewer soldier complaints. Based on the reports I read the shooter used an ammo version which tends not to pass through the target body at all, it just deforms into horrible wounds and sticks. Guess where the kinetic energy ends up with this type.

The primary difference between .223 and 5.56 is in the rifle, there are extremely minor difference in the round itself, but the performance difference is negligible.

The "improved" round you're thinking of is the M855A1, the "improved" part being in somewhat of a debate. TBH, the Mk318 is a better performer, and it's what our unit was still using in Afghan this past year.

The ridiculousness was in YOUR words, not mine. I never talked about head shots in the first place.

You were making some silly case about a whole classroom rushing a shooter, who then would have to kill each one with one bullet, hence headshot. The little detail that the people shot in the front would obstruct the path to the shooter for those behind was something you combat specialist forgot to recognize.

This would greatly depend on the classroom setup. I'm not sure what kind of classrooms you guys have in Germany, but there are some quite spacious ones here in the US.

Take the Virginia Tech shooting, in the classroom where the shooter had wiped out the class, almost everyone had tried to "hide", except for one air force cadet. He alone rushed the shooter, and made actually made it all the way to the door where the shooter was when he finally fell after sustaining 8 shots, including one to the head.

That was one man, now imagine if there were four, or three, or maybe even just one more, the outcome of the VT shooting may have been very different. Now is rushing always the best choice? no, but right now it's simply not even considered a choice by many, as illustrated in the VT case. In some ways I liken this to the mentality regarding plane hijackings. Before 9/11 the default response is for everyone to stay put and do no resist, and let the authorities handle the situations. Post 9/11? Not a chance, because people now recognize that sometimes you simply cannot stay back and not do anything.

No, we were discussing the general case when a shooter should be rushed, and I differentiated between the three cases 1) knives and bludgeons, 2) pistols, 3) automatic/semi-automatic weapons and assault rifles. In cases 1) trying a rush may make sense, in case 2) it is very risky but might be an option under special circumstances, and 3) is madness unless the situation is totally hopeless.

Actually no, just go back and read the posts again. You started with a blanket derision of the concept, then slowly added extra "qualifiers" as you went along.

But where was I allegedly wrong about automatic/semi-automatic or whatever, on which you made your tirade? Nowhere. The AR-15 military version fires 3-round bursts, the commercial version is "merely" semi-automatic, but both can easily be modified to full auto. Even as semi-automatic you can still easily fire 4-5 shots per second, which is deadly enough to fend off a rush. And that the AR-15 is an assault rifle should be known even to you?

Given the context of our discussion and the way you framed your words "...And it is sheer madness against automatic weapons under pretty much all circumstances, particularly assault rifles.", it appeared to me that you were implying that the shooting were carried out with automatic weapons and assault rifles, neither of which was true.

First off, while it's pretty easy to change the M16 to full auto from 3 round bursts, the same is not true for AR15s. Second, when was the last time you tried to shoot 5 rounds per second from a semiauto rifle, accurately, at different moving targets, under stress? Third, no, a semiauto AR15 is not an "assault rifle", as assault rifle means those that are capable of fully automatic or burst fire.

The term you're looking for is assault weapons, which is really a meaningless term made up by politicians.

[synaesthetic]

You actually have to replace (and likely fabricate from scratch) a bunch of parts in an AR-15 variant to make it a pseudo-M16. The only part that's really common between the two is the main body of the lower receiver, which is still different on the AR-15 (doesn't have a fire-select switch, for one).

So yeah, you could "convert" a civilian AR-15 to fully-automatic... if you were a rather competent gunsmith with the tools and the time and the willingness to flagrantly break the law in a really obvious way. And by "convert" I mean basically rebuild almost from scratch, because while they look the same, their internal workings are not the same.

Your average murderer is not likely to have these skills.

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

I'll reiterate: I'll support a unilateral ban on firearms when people can instead be provided with a personal defense shield that renders them impervious to bullets.

I'm playing devil's advocate here mostly, so forgive me, but...

You're suggesting we put guns into the hands of kids, too? After all, they need to be able to defend themselves, right? Obviously, you're not, but we need to protect our kids, soo... how about mandating that all kids stepping outside of the home, wear a kevlar vest and helmet?

And you may not like tasers, but actually, there are other non-lethal weapons that are just about as good. My favorite?

Dazzlers, ie, blinding lasers. When he's blinded, he's easy to take down. And I won't care if I blind him for life; just be glad I spared his life, something I couldn't do with a gun. So why don't we just give everyone Dazzlers? Why do we ban those, and yet leave guns untouched as a constitutional right so we can defend ourselves? And no, shades won't help much; they might prevent permanent blindness, but a bright enough flash will still leave them disoriented and blinded for short periods of time.

And you can make a laser pulse gun at home, or how about just a standard laser, powerful enough to cut through a plastic bottle? The only missing ingredient here is enough power, but battery technology is rapidly progressing.

Or how about sonic weapons? Can be made small and portable enough, able to incapacitate or even kill (and no, ear plugs won't help).

Although, I'm waiting for my Lightning Gun!

So... shouldn't we have access to these weapons, too? To defend ourselves, of course. Oh, and RPG's, too. I'd like to be able to defend myself if someone comes at me with heavy weaponry.

And who would you rather face? A guy with a standard gun who may kill you? Or the guy like me, who probably won't... just leave you possibly permanently blinded and deaf yet very much alive?

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

And who would you rather face? A guy with a standard gun who may kill you? Or the guy like me, who probably won't... just leave you possibly permanently blinded and deaf yet very much alive?

That totally begs for this:

YouTube

https://youtu.be/IoSHmVkjmuA

Sorry; dynamic content not loaded. Reload?

[Dhomochevsky]

I think it's a bit too easy to only focus on the weapons and wether to ban, what models to ban, and so on...
Both sides of this discussion can provide examples that support their argument. On one hand countries with a high distribution of weapon but low homicide rate do exist.
On the other hand there are some examples of homicide rates dropping after enforcing weapon control.

What this tells me, is that there must be more to it, than just the single variable "number of weapons per capita".

Here is one factor I think may be important:
The culture and society of the USA, as opposed to many other western nations, actively promotes (deadly) violence as a valid method for solving problems.

On the 'official' side we have:
- routinely starting wars, participating in armed conflict and using military force on the international level
- huge military expenses
- assassination of enemies of the state ('terrorists') by use of weapon force
- legal torture of enemies
- death penalty
- a variety of 'stand your ground'-like laws (ie quite liberal use, not only ownership of weapons, written into law)

This is important because to many people the world is quite simple: legal == good.
If it is legal to kill somone (ie the person trespassed on your yard) then it is also good and rightful.
It's their main moral compass.
The 'authorites' are a role model for what is proper behavior, because of their high status in society.

On the cultural side there is the general acceptance of violence in media as opposed to other socially unwanted behavior, such as obscenity, swearing, or political incorrectness.
This is apparent for example when looking at what gets you a high PG rating and what does not.
I wont go on about all the countless movies and games, in which you achieve Happy End, by killing off the bad guys. This is a dead horse by now and I wont beat it any further.

This is not meant to be a USA rant btw. This is a honest view from an outside observant. All these points are grossly different to place I live, so it might help you understand why there may be a different mindset towards weapons in general in another population of a western country.

I do believe, that this has a great impact on the actual use of the weapons, no matter the distribution levels.

However I do not think, that this is very much relevant to special cases, like the school shootings. These seem to be a very different problem.
It's more about the overall homicide rate involving firearms.

[Ascaloth]

You know, I can't believe I haven't thought of bringing this one up earlier.

How would rubber bullets factor into the equation? Now, I'll be the last to say that I have any clue on how they actually work, but on first glance, making them available to the public while heavily restricting the supply of 'real' ammo may seem to be a good compromise between 'non-lethal' and 'defensive power' needs.

Please feel free to point out any potential issues with this idea, because like I said, I don't have the first clue on the track record of rubber bullets.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Dhomochevsky

What this tells me, is that there must be more to it, than just the single variable "number of weapons per capita".

That's what many of us have been arguing for.

The culture and society of the USA, as opposed to many other western nations, actively promotes (deadly) violence as a valid method for solving problems.

This I have an issue with. Does pop culture these days glorify violence? yes, is that something unique to the US? not really, though by virtue of being one of the largest producer of said type of entertainment, the US certain produces more of it, it's what sells, and not just in the US.

My biggest issue is with the implication that in the US deadly force is somehow actively encouraged as a method to solve problems. It's not as if we teach our kids that if someone pisses them off, it's ok to stab them in the eye. The use of deadly force by civilians is restricted to situations where imminent thread of death or serious bodily harm is present, it's not a free-for-all that you seem to be implying.

On the 'official' side we have:
- routinely starting wars, participating in armed conflict and using military force on the international level
- huge military expenses
- assassination of enemies of the state ('terrorists') by use of weapon force
- legal torture of enemies
- death penalty
- a variety of 'stand your ground'-like laws (ie quite liberal use, not only ownership of weapons, written into law)

This is veering more into international politics rather than gun control, but:

- Not going to claim everything the US do is just, but that's the reality when you're the superpower, you're going to have your hands in most things. This goes for just about every nation in position of power. Frankly, it's somewhat amusing to hear complains about wars from Europeans, whom pretty much have one of the worst record when it comes to starting wars in recent human history.

- Again, this is what happens when you're the lone superpower, and are in effect subsidizing the defense budget of basically every one of your allies. While I don't subscribe to the isolationist's views, sometimes I do wonder what kind of tunes some would sing if the US withdraws all of its overseas presence and let everyone handle their own problems on their own.

- What's the problem with this? are we supposed to ask the terrorists nicely to come out to fight us on the open with water guns?

- Legal torture? where? Not saying it hasn't been done, but it's certainly not legal (nor all that effective). That said, I'd say it's probably naive for anyone whose country has an active intelligence agency to think that no questionable methods were used by their people.

- I also don't understand the bit about the death penalty. Is the system perfect? no, and more improvements needs to be made. But are there criminals that deserves nothing less, and for whom guilt is beyond doubt? hell yes. I don't understand the fascination with giving them free food, housing etc. for the rest of their life on the dime of the society that they have so egregiously wronged, with money that can be much better used elsewhere.

If the Sandy Hook shooter did not commit suicide, you'd "punish" him by guaranteeing him food and a roof, and better living standard than most homeless living on the street for the next 40, 50+ years?

I wont go on about all the countless movies and games, in which you achieve Happy End, by killing off the bad guys. This is a dead horse by now and I wont beat it any further.

This is a honest view from an outside observant. All these points are grossly different to place I live, so it might help you understand why there may be a different mindset towards weapons in general in another population of a western country.

German gamers don't play CoD or Battlefield, or watch Hollywood movies?

I do believe, that this has a great impact on the actual use of the weapons, no matter the distribution levels.

However I do not think, that this is very much relevant to special cases, like the school shootings. These seem to be a very different problem.
It's more about the overall homicide rate involving firearms.[/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Ascaloth

You know, I can't believe I haven't thought of bringing this one up earlier.

How would rubber bullets factor into the equation? Now, I'll be the last to say that I have any clue on how they actually work, but on first glance, making them available to the public while heavily restricting the supply of 'real' ammo may seem to be a good compromise between 'non-lethal' and 'defensive power' needs.

Please feel free to point out any potential issues with this idea, because like I said, I don't have the first clue on the track record of rubber bullets.

I would have no issue with them being an option to those would who rather use them, but there are a few caveats:

- The more correct term for rubber bullets (and taser really) would be "less-lethal" instead of non-lethal, as both have shown they can still kill. It's rare, but it does happen from time to time.

- Rubber bullets is mainly intended to achieve compliance through pain - it's called the baton round for a reason. However, it's not something that's really capable of quickly incapacitating the target, which in a home/self defense scenario becomes a big issue, especially when you're dealing with multiple assailants. Think of it as a remote controlled mini-Mike Tyson punch, it's going to hurt if you hit your target, but ultimately it's still just a punch - a very bad idea esp. if the other guy is armed.