General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Not to mention the idea that one shot = instant kill is such a Hollywood myth it's not even funny. There's a reason why the failure drill is used in both military/LE training - in close quarter fighting, you don't have the time to wait for incapacitation from hits even to vital areas. You can shoot someone through the heart and they'd be able to shoot back just fine for quite awhile.

Yea, I happen to play those FPS games too much.

And if you ask me, I hope such shooters only GET 1-shot per person, presuming that said person survives getting hit once. Nevertheless, you cannot change the fact that TWENTY-SEVEN people DIED last Friday. And that's just for one incident.

And TWELVE more died just five months ago. Do you want the incident similar to Norway to happen here? That guy had everything planned out and killed SEVENTY+.

Yea, I'm throwing numbers. Numbers of people. Dead people.

Originally Posted by kyp275

The sad fact is, in elementary schools, the adults will be the first to go down, making this a moot point. In high school or colleges, the sad fact there is that if everyone would rush the shooter, he wouldn't have a chance.

I hope to become someone who would do something like that -- if placed in that position.

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

And how about we treat mental illness as not as stigma, and help the people who need it without derision?

Then determine a set criteria for finding individuals, who are at risk of acting violently. If there's one thing that cannot be done -- a broad assuming that every person with such mental illnesses are potential risks.

Might as well imprison every Muslim in America, because they're at risk of becoming terrorists.

Most of the people committing these shooting sprees manage to move about society like normal people. That's because they WERE normal people UNTIL they committed the shootings. By then, you're too late.

Originally Posted by kyp

Because obviously one would only ever be attacked by one person, as all criminals work alone

Screw the criminals.

I'm talking about these shootings. Columbine has been the ONLY incident that involved multiple shooters. All others since then have been solo.

===

As for crime in general, we have POLICE for that. For self-defense, all you need is incapacitation. Last I heard, bullet shots are painful. That's all you need for this purpose; let the cops do the rest.

Take it from me. If some crazy bastard is after to kill me, I will do whatever it takes to come out of said situation alive.

Anyways, I'm done here. I'll come back after the next shooting.

[Ithekro]

What was it, 20 minutes until the police arrived?

You can shoot several boxes of ammunition in 20 minutes even without a lot of clips.

If you have to reload a clip while on a rampage I suppose you would have one gun left loaded, start loading your clips. if someone pops their head up, you shoot at them once or twice to keep them down until you finish.

I don't imagine this guy reloaded his clips, but if it was 20 minutes, he would have had time.

Also was the AR-15 used in the shooting? I recall it was in the car. The two pistols were used. Some report said they found three other guns, but they didn't say were they got those (they were not used in the shooting, nor does it claim the perp had them).

[synaesthetic]

It took me on average about two or three minutes to leisurely refill the magazine of my ex-pistol, an FNP9 with the expanded 16-round mags when I was at the range. I'm sure I could have done it faster if I was under a time constraint.

If the pistol in question was a 1911, it'd take less than a minute.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

And if you ask me, I hope such shooters only GET 1-shot per person, presuming that said person survives getting hit once. Nevertheless, you cannot change the fact that TWENTY-SEVEN people DIED last Friday. And that's just for one incident.

And TWELVE more died just five months ago. Do you want the incident similar to Norway to happen here? That guy had everything planned out and killed SEVENTY+.

Yea, I'm throwing numbers. Numbers of people. Dead people.

Not sure what point you're trying to make here, are you asking for ways to actively prevent mass shootings once they're underway?

Screw the criminals.

I'm talking about these shootings. Columbine has been the ONLY incident that involved multiple shooters. All others since then have been solo.

This is a discussion of gun control in general, you can't just throw out everything and focuses only on a specific subset of scenarios, the only thing will come from that is ineffective policy.

As for crime in general, we have POLICE for that. For self-defense, all you need is incapacitation. Last I heard, bullet shots are painful. That's all you need for this purpose; let the cops do the rest.

Police is there for deterrence and to draw chalk-lines around you if the deterrence didn't work, and maybe eventually figure out who put you in the chalk-line queue. They can only try to protect you if they happen to be there already, and the vast majority of times they're not.

Your point about incapacitation is also, well, I'm not sure what it is. If you're trying to imply that pain from non-vital gunshots are enough for incapacitation, then I can only say you have no idea what you're talking about. Again, this is not a video game, often times people in stressful situations (or hopped up on drugs) won't even notice they've been shot due to the adrenaline, it's how our nervous system is designed to work.

Also, maybe you're just such an expert marksman that you can just casually hit a non-vital area that's guaranteed to cause so much pain that the individual is guaranteed to become immediately incapacitated.

The rest of us however, aren't that good

Take it from me. If some crazy bastard is after to kill me, I will do whatever it takes to come out of said situation alive.

.../clap?

[justsomeguy]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Also was the AR-15 used in the shooting? I recall it was in the car. The two pistols were used. Some report said they found three other guns, but they didn't say were they got those (they were not used in the shooting, nor does it claim the perp had them).

Nope, those were the old reports. The current story is that Lanza used the AR-15.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

That was over 20 rounds from four different guns in 15 seconds. It would have been faster if he'd counted the number of shotgun shells he needed correctly.

And he hit every time.

Pretty amazing.

Originally Posted by Archon_Wing

^ Well written, Gundamfan.

This is just speculation on my part, but this is what I believe.

The US is no doubt a very violent country. We seem to tolerate violence in fiction but not sex, and we also have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world. To me, this must be linked somehow.

Our country can only think in terms of punishment when it comes to crime. Jail them for this and that. But what happens when a nonviolent offender (say someone gets tossed in jail for weed) gets forced into the prison system which actively enforces a culture of violence? I've always joked that the government would rather spend money on throwing people in jail than on education and well...

Why is the government so obsessed with how people live? Gay marriage or whatever. Abortion or whatever.

At the same time, we are eroding personal liberties left and right because the government knows best with its politicians hiding behind "moral" causes and ultimately take responsibility out of our own hands. You have parents not wanting to raise their kids but turn to Big Brother to protect their children from "evil" media.

With the solution to everything being one of a blunt and violent one, and the concept of personal responsibility eroding, is it only natural that there would be more people that are unable to be responsible with weapons such as firearms. But the answer isn't to take away the rights from people that DID take responsibility, is it?

And how about we treat mental illness as not as stigma, and help the people who need it without derision?

So yes, people kill people. I don't need a gun to kill people. Check out traffic in Southern California and see weapons of mass destruction with potentially insane sociopaths cruising down at 80 MPH.

100% Agree.
We need to bring back the funding for mental health treatment, and I don't mean locking people up, I mean helping them.

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Now, show me a video of an amateur performing the same task. I'll bet you -- the reload rate would be considerably lower. An average person deemed as "crazy" would not be able to pull off the same stunt -- unless said crazy person is just as well-trained.

With a shotgun that's easy.
Here' s a detailed explanation of what a pump-action 12-gauge can do.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Then determine a set criteria for finding individuals, who are at risk of acting violently. If there's one thing that cannot be done -- a broad assuming that every person with such mental illnesses are potential risks.

Not every person with a mental illness is a potential risk. But untreated illness can aggravate the situation.

My point is that there's a stigma against seeking help and thus problems go untreated. If people treated mental illnesses like the common cold, there wouldn't be such a problem.

Might as well imprison every Muslim in America, because they're at risk of becoming terrorists.

Now when did I say to imprison or apprehend everyone with a potential for mental illness? Oh and while mental illness is correlated with higher incarceration rates, I'd really like to hear your logic on why being Muslim in and of itself can make you a terrorist, as opposed to living in a place that encourages violence.

Hyperbole in a legitimate argument has no place unless you're trying to make a joke. You neither are funny or making a legitimate argument, so I'm not sure what's the point

Most of the people committing these shooting sprees manage to move about society like normal people. That's because they WERE normal people UNTIL they committed the shootings. By then, you're too late.

"Normal"? And how did you know this? Maybe outwardly, yes. But really, your average person doesn't shoot up schools by any definition of normal, average, or conformist for some random, unpredictable reason. They're not going to be like some day "Hey I think I'm gonna kill someone for no reason"

As for crime in general, we have POLICE for that. For self-defense, all you need is incapacitation. Last I heard, bullet shots are painful. That's all you need for this purpose; let the cops do the rest.

And I've noted that police aren't always available. It takes a very short amount of time to do damage. And you need to be pretty trained to incapacitate someone. It's not always possible.

[DawnEmperor]

The gun issue has always been difficult for me to gauge. I think the problem for me is this idea that issue always turns into "responsible gun owners" vs "murderous gunmen". From a freedom standpoint, you'd want people to be freely own guns for whatever; recreation, hunting, general safety, etc. But this also potentially infringes on other people's sense of safety. Do you need to kill every potential threat? Or just scare them away?

I just see it as potential for escalation. Pragmatically speaking, gun control is still quite flawed, but I'm not in favor of the mentality of "if this person had a gun, they could have saved lives".

[synaesthetic]

Consider it like this: one person with a gun may have killed over 20 children in a school in CT, but eighty million people with a gun did not.

[ArchmageXin]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Consider it like this: one person with a gun may have killed over 20 children in a school in CT, but eighty million people with a gun did not.

Eh, if someone hit a school bus full of kids and killed them all, politicians on both end of the spectrum would be recommending new laws toward car-ownership.

But if it is done with a gun...naaa

Also, gunowners stress if guns are banned, whats next, knives? Actually, there are a lot of knives in the U.S that are banned, often in "Gun Rights" states.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by ArchmageXin

Eh, if someone hit a school bus full of kids and killed them all, politicians on both end of the spectrum would be recommending new laws toward car-ownership.

But if it is done with a gun...naaa

Also, gunowners stress if guns are banned, whats next, knives? Actually, there are a lot of knives in the U.S that are banned, often in "Gun Rights" states.

This argument is fallacious. The purpose of both items are not the same. A car is used to get to places faster. A gun is merely used to kill things.

[synaesthetic]

Target shooting is an Olympic sport, you know...

Should computers all be outlawed because the first powerful computers were created to develop the atomic bomb? Not to mention that the average gaming desktop in 2012 could perform the same calculations that took room-filling computers during the Manhattan Project in much less time.

Just because something was originally designed for one purpose doesn't mean it can't be re-purposed for another use. Swords were originally developed to kill people, too, but I don't see anyone calling for fencing to be outlawed.

[GundamFan0083]

Terror at Southwest Side Movie Theater, as Gunman, Patron Shot in Lobby

Read more: http://radio.woai.com/cc-common/main...#ixzz2FNRvbyuh

Remember the Oregon shooting?
Here's how it was stopped from being a massacre.

[GundamFan0083]

Here is a man who understands what an "assault rifle" really is:

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by synaesthetic

Target shooting is an Olympic sport, you know...

Should computers all be outlawed because the first powerful computers were created to develop the atomic bomb? Not to mention that the average gaming desktop in 2012 could perform the same calculations that took room-filling computers during the Manhattan Project in much less time.

Just because something was originally designed for one purpose doesn't mean it can't be re-purposed for another use. Swords were originally developed to kill people, too, but I don't see anyone calling for fencing to be outlawed.

If the single purpose of a gun other than for killing things is sport, I do not see how you can equivocate this to computers/cars which have far more productive uses for society in the hands of civilians. It would be intellectually dishonest to assert that guns somehow provide much more utility than being a lethal tool.

[GundamFan0083]

Really, can a car or a computer feed you?
No, it can't, but a firearm can.
I should know, I've hunted deer for decades with an FN-FAL in 7.62 caliber (.308 Winchester).

So yes, firearms can be useful for more than just killing.
They can also be used for self-defense, i.e. prevent yourself from being killed.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Really, can a car or a computer feed you?
No, it can't, but a firearm can.
I should know, I've hunted deer for decades with an FN-FAL in 7.62 caliber (.308 Winchester).

Are you living in 1800?

This is the United States. As far as I am aware, you are not going to be hunting to obtain your subsistence.

[GundamFan0083]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Are you living in 1800?

This is the United States. As far as I am aware, you are not going to be hunting to obtain your subsistence.

Are you living in Feudal Europe where only the King's men are afforded the right to keep and bear arms?

Guess you need to get out of Santa Barbara more often.
There are many people in rural America that suplement their grocery bill by hunting game on their property.
Also, Ranchers use AR-15s and M14s to protect livestock from coyotes, wolves, and other predators so that you have food in the grocery store.

[synaesthetic]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

If the single purpose of a gun other than for killing things is sport, I do not see how you can equivocate this to computers/cars which have far more productive uses for society in the hands of civilians. It would be intellectually dishonest to assert that guns somehow provide much more utility than being a lethal tool.

Oh, just grow up already. A gun is a tool. It is a piece of mechanical technology developed by humans that utilizes the kinetic energy of a "slow" oxidation reaction to accelerate a small projectile at high velocity.

It is an inanimate object. It is not sentient nor does it have an inherent "evil" property.

I swear, the media has so poisoned people's minds that they think a useful tool is somehow possessed by a demonic force and must be destroyed.

[totoum]

Originally Posted by GundamFan0083

Really, can a car or a computer feed you?
No, it can't, but a firearm can.
I should know, I've hunted deer for decades with an FN-FAL in 7.62 caliber (.308 Winchester).

So yes, firearms can be useful for more than just killing.
They can also be used for self-defense, i.e. prevent yourself from being killed.

-You have to kill an animal to eat it.
-Self defense involves killing or hurting a person that is trying to hurt you.

If you're using a firearm correctly someone or something is going to end up hurt , the same can't be said of cars or computers.

Of course in the case of self defense and hunting that's quite useful but the comparison with cars and computers just isn't valid.