Is it time for a serious conversation about Gun Control?

[homersapien 11,393]

15 hours ago, RunInRed said:

Let's just look at the infamous AR-15 which is the weapon of choice, time and time again in these situations:

The AR-15 was designed to inflict maximum damage as quickly as possible.  And just about any one in American can get their hands on one, not too mention, magazine after magazine.  It isn’t a hunting weapon; it’s not a self-defense measure.  Let's start by just admitting that.

Truth.  Every design element in the AR-15 was determined for combat efficiency, including the caliber.

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

I don't think the NRA can make or break a Democratic candidate like they can a Republican candidate.  That should tell you something.

Personally I wish the assault type of weapon were not on the market but that is neither here nor there. My only thing is that once again we start the same old song and effective immediately after a tragedy. We have got to blame Republicans for not legislating the problem and thus preventing these events.   

[homersapien 11,393]

7 hours ago, Brad_ATX said:

This is going to sound morbid to some, but I don't think any real change will happen until a police agency goes out of its way to show the carnage.  Images are powerful.

For example, according to scholars, it was the imagery of the Holocaust that made what happened in Europe real to Americans.  You can't unsee that.

What would America's reaction be had it seen the aftermath images from Sandy Hook, Vegas, Pulse, or this week in Florida?  Its easy to talk about gun rights when you aren't confronted with the harsh reality of these massacres.  I've actually seen some of student's social media video posts from inside the school. It's disturbing to see kids laying in a pool of blood, dead, while their classmates scream in horror.  If anyone can watch that and then argue that status quo is fine, then I seriously question their morality and capability for basic human decency.

That's a very perceptive point.  I

Show the details.

 

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

5 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Truth.  Every design element in the AR-15 was determined for combat efficiency, including the caliber.

Truth. Evil people in the world and they will get them regardless of legislation. I would guess most people that buying these thing are doing so for defense purposes (ie don't bring a knife to a gunfight).  

I don't have the answer and not going to pretend that I do. Obviously the answer to a lot of people is that it is the Republicans and NRA's fault.

[homersapien 11,393]

6 hours ago, aubearcat said:

Red, the described destruction in that post seem to be overblown and false. While I suppose an AR could inflict that kind of damage, I don’t think a .223 round could blow a head or arm off.

We use a .223 red-tip round on patrol because it won’t over penetrate. The damage described in your post sounds more like an AK or SKS.  I do think a reasonable solution has to be made about firearms in America. There are several weapon platforms that are sold to the public that shouldn’t be. 

At 30 yards, considering velocity of a 5.56 mm round, it wouldn't be surprising to blow off a head or an arm, at least partially. 

Penetration capablities of the round would be irrelevant in such a close range wound from that cartrige (IMO).  

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 hour ago, NolaAuTiger said:

Lost* not cost

Oh, I see. Still wildly, completely, utterly wrong.

Quote

Huh? Who said now isn't the time to politicize? 

You did, with lots of stage make-up and crocodile tears. "Standing on the graves of dead children"? Good gravy. 

Quote

You're starting to tread water. 

Negative, Ghostrider. Dry as a bone. 

[rhughes 59]

I had a conversation with my dad a couple of years ago before he passed of brain cancer.  We were talking about old times and how much things have changed.  I have been teaching in the Texas public school system for 17 years and I have 2 daughters (10 and 14).  We were talking about how scary society is compared to when we were both growing up and what it was going to be like for his grandkids.  I made the comment that kids have changed so much.  He said something that has stuck with me and really made me a better parent.  He told me kids haven't changed, parents have changed. In my opinion the way we raise our kids as a society is the single most important factor in how this country will progress.  I am in a profession where I get to the results of poor parenting.  Fortunately for me (and it is the reason I got into the profession) I have the opportunity to make a difference in some these kids lives.     

[McLoofus 35,182]

7 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

Truth. Evil people in the world and they will get them regardless of legislation. I would guess most people that buying these thing are doing so for defense purposes (ie don't bring a knife to a gunfight).  

I don't have the answer and not going to pretend that I do. Obviously the answer to a lot of people is that it is the Republicans and NRA's fault.

Yes, the lobby whose primary function is to make sure that the gun industry maintains a high profit margin is complicit in the unnecessary and dangerous proliferation of guns. 

This issue isn't a partisan one for me, as Obama failed almost as miserably as Trump has. (Obama did not make it legal for the mentally ill to purchase firearms as Trump has, and he was trying to work with a GOP congress whose stated goal was to oppose every single initiative he put on the table no matter what, but he still failed.) But, unlike the GOP, Democrats don't go around feigning moral superiority with the wildly misleading "pro-life" tag. So that, combined with the current GOP-dominated Federal government to whom the NRA gives 90% of its campaign contributions, is what leads to comments like the one shared earlier in this thread. 

 

[homersapien 11,393]

5 hours ago, McLoofus said:

Asinine descriptors aside, you make a good point. Our country is fundamentally flawed in its guiding sense of morality. Janet Jackson's nipple- symbolically and literally the fountain of life for human beings- was more offensive than graphic depictions of murder. One time I watched the beginning of one of those uber-popular courtroom procedurals- we're talking prime time, when most kids are still very much awake- and the opening shot was of a murdered little girl's ankles with her underwear around them. That was okay to show at 9:00 PM but a nipple wasn't?

Not sure how much the two can be associated, but I'd love it if someone were to look into it. I know that my childhood kill-the-Russians fantasies were a lot more vivid after watching Red Dawn.

One of the big cultural influences that contribute to this problem is the internet.

[McLoofus 35,182]

3 minutes ago, rhughes said:

I had a conversation with my dad a couple of years ago before he passed of brain cancer.  We were talking about old times and how much things have changed.  I have been teaching in the Texas public school system for 17 years and I have 2 daughters (10 and 14).  We were talking about how scary society is compared to when we were both growing up and what it was going to be like for his grandkids.  I made the comment that kids have changed so much.  He said something that has stuck with me and really made me a better parent.  He told me kids haven't changed, parents have changed. In my opinion the way we raise our kids as a society is the single most important factor in how this country will progress.  I am in a profession where I get to the results of poor parenting.  Fortunately for me (and it is the reason I got into the profession) I have the opportunity to make a difference in some these kids lives.     

Totally agree.

Education, sex education, birth control and better nutrition all contribute to children growing into adults more capable of being good parents. 

[McLoofus 35,182]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

One of the big cultural influences that contribute to this problem is the internet.

Agreed. The whole "swatting" thing comes to mind, although I don't know if there's been any serious psychological research of that. 

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

25 minutes ago, rhughes said:

I had a conversation with my dad a couple of years ago before he passed of brain cancer.  We were talking about old times and how much things have changed.  I have been teaching in the Texas public school system for 17 years and I have 2 daughters (10 and 14).  We were talking about how scary society is compared to when we were both growing up and what it was going to be like for his grandkids.  I made the comment that kids have changed so much.  He said something that has stuck with me and really made me a better parent.  He told me kids haven't changed, parents have changed. In my opinion the way we raise our kids as a society is the single most important factor in how this country will progress.  I am in a profession where I get to the results of poor parenting.  Fortunately for me (and it is the reason I got into the profession) I have the opportunity to make a difference in some these kids lives.     

South Carolina's head basketball coach said the same thing last year before the Final Four.  Both he and your dad are 100% correct.  As an example, kids didn't ask for participation trophies.  Parents demanded them.

[homersapien 11,393]

3 hours ago, Proud Tiger said:

Lots of good points made in this thread but I guess one missing is that so many of our kids aren't being taught values like I was, especially the value of human life. I read this little thing and it brought home the point:

Student...."God why do you allow so much violence in our schools?"

God......"I'm not allowed in schools."

It's not within the purvey of schools to promote religions.  Values maybe, but not religion.

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

30 minutes ago, McLoofus said:

Yes, the lobby whose primary function is to make sure that the gun industry maintains a high profit margin is complicit in the unnecessary and dangerous proliferation of guns. 

This issue isn't a partisan one for me, as Obama failed almost as miserably as Trump has. (Obama did not make it legal for the mentally ill to purchase firearms as Trump has, and he was trying to work with a GOP congress whose stated goal was to oppose every single initiative he put on the table no matter what, but he still failed.) But, unlike the GOP, Democrats don't go around feigning moral superiority with the wildly misleading "pro-life" tag. So that, combined with the current GOP-dominated Federal government to whom the NRA gives 90% of its campaign contributions, is what leads to comments like the one shared earlier in this thread. 

 

No, Trump Did Not Make It Easier for Mentally Ill People to Buy Guns

Shooting revives deliberately misleading talking points about a bad regulation both the NRA and the ACLU opposed.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/02/15/no-trump-did-not-make-it-easier-for-ment

[homersapien 11,393]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

Truth. Evil people in the world and they will get them regardless of legislation. I would guess most people that buying these thing are doing so for defense purposes (ie don't bring a knife to a gunfight).  

I don't have the answer and not going to pretend that I do. Obviously the answer to a lot of people is that it is the Republicans and NRA's fault.

It is illogical to suggest that is reason to reject the value of reducing their mass availability. 

People who rationalize purchasing these guns for self defense are kidding themselves.  There are far better self-defense options than an assault rifle which is ideally suited for attacking and killing masses of people. 

I would guess most people who are buying these weapons are doing it for emotional reasons. Self defense is a rationalization.

[homersapien 11,393]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

Personally I wish the assault type of weapon were not on the market but that is neither here nor there. My only thing is that once again we start the same old song and effective immediately after a tragedy. We have got to blame Republicans for not legislating the problem and thus preventing these events.   

"We have got to blame....."     

Its more like simply stating the obvious as revealed by history.

[McLoofus 35,182]

11 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

No, Trump Did Not Make It Easier for Mentally Ill People to Buy Guns

Shooting revives deliberately misleading talking points about a bad regulation both the NRA and the ACLU opposed.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/02/15/no-trump-did-not-make-it-easier-for-ment

From the article:

Quote

None of this is a remotely accurate description of what happened. A year ago, Congress and Trump eliminated a proposed rule that would have included in the federal government gun background database people who received disability payments from Social Security and received assistance to manage their benefits due to mental impairments.

Does "mentally impaired" offend you any less, Salty?

Quote

This is a regulation that potentially deprived between 75,000 to 80,000 people of a right based not on what they had done but on the basis of being classified by the government in a certain way. The fact that these people may have these impairments did not inherently mean that they were dangerous to themselves or others and needed to be kept away from guns.

As I noted when the regulation was repealed last March, this rule violated not just the Second Amendment but the Fourth, because it deprived the affected people of a right without due process. The government does have the power to restrict and even deny gun ownership to people, but it has to show that these people have engaged in behavior that makes weapons dangerous in their hands.

Well, it is certainly in keeping with our nation's approach to gun violence that we're all going to have to get shot dead before we can prove that guns are a big part of the problem. AND THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT NEEDS TO CHANGE. Jesus.

[alexava 6,973]

You can go to Walmart and purchase an unlimited amount of assault rifles, mags and ammo. You are only allowed ONE PACK of Sudafed cold medicine. Where are the people fighting for the right to buy a whole sack of cold medication? 

[aubearcat 2,137]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

At 30 yards, considering velocity of a 5.56 mm round, it wouldn't be surprising to blow off a head or an arm, at least partially. 

Penetration capablities of the round would be irrelevant in such a close range wound from that cartrige (IMO).  

I suppose it may be splitting hairs but I envision a head blown off or arm blown of as gone not just a big hole. An AK or SKS will definitely blow limbs completely off. In my experience, which we qualify (@ 50 yards)on and carry .223, entry is about the size of an ink pen and exit, if it does so, at somewhere between a golf ball and baseball.  

The penetration is important because the argument for the AR platform is it’s versatility for sport and self defense. The self defense argument is that you can shoot at an attacker and it won’t over penetrate and hit an innocent. There are even theories that it won’t over penetrate through drywall. As far as sport or hunting, the .223/5.56 rounds are not that great for hunting.  As a side note, our firearms instructors are considering changing our platforms from the.223 AR to a 300 blackout round. All that requires is a change of the upper. 

[homersapien 11,393]

21 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

No, Trump Did Not Make It Easier for Mentally Ill People to Buy Guns

Shooting revives deliberately misleading talking points about a bad regulation both the NRA and the ACLU opposed.

https://reason.com/blog/2018/02/15/no-trump-did-not-make-it-easier-for-ment

That is a disingenuous headline based on the difference between all mentally ill people and those mentally ill people who receive disability benefits by SS for mental impairment.  

Ironically, the article makes the exact same error in it's own title.

So while Trump it's true that Trump didn't literally make it easier for (all) mentally ill patients to buy guns, he certainly made it easier for mentally ill people in that category to buy them. 

 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

2 minutes ago, homersapien said:

That is a disingenuous headline based on the difference between all mentally ill people and those mentally ill people who receive disability benefits by SS for mental impairment.  

Ironically, the article makes the exact same error in it's own title.

So while Trump it's true that Trump didn't literally make it easier for (all) mentally ill patients to buy guns, he certainly made it easier for mentally ill people in that category to buy them.

But when mental health groups and ACLU are siding with the NRA over it, it's a bit hard to fault Trump for blocking the implementation of the rule.  It sounds like a rule with good intentions but a bad mechanism for carrying that intention out.

[homersapien 11,393]

9 minutes ago, aubearcat said:

I suppose it may be splitting hairs but I envision a head blown off or arm blown of as gone not just a big hole. An AK or SKS will definitely blow limbs completely off. In my experience, which we qualify (@ 50 yards)on and carry .223, entry is about the size of an ink pen and exit, if it does so, at somewhere between a golf ball and baseball.  

The penetration is important because the argument for the AR platform is it’s versatility for sport and self defense. The self defense argument is that you can shoot at an attacker and it won’t over penetrate and hit an innocent. There are even theories that it won’t over penetrate through drywall. As far as sport or hunting, the .223/5.56 rounds are not that great for hunting.  As a side note, our firearms instructors are considering changing our platforms from the.223 AR to a 300 blackout round. All that requires is a change of the upper. 

Have you read the military specifications for the M-16?  I think the idea that this cartridge is suitable for self defense based on it's lack of penetration doesn't hold water. 

Likewise it is not really very good for hunting. 

Bottom line, I would argue this class of weapons has no little "versatility" if talking about self defense or hunting.

 

[McLoofus 35,182]

4 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

But when mental health groups and ACLU are siding with the NRA over it, it's a bit hard to fault Trump for blocking the implementation of the rule.  It sounds like a rule with good intentions but a bad mechanism for carrying that intention out.

I would love to hear if those mental health groups or the ACLU offered any alternatives that they would support. I would also love to hear what Trump or any legislator would offer up as an alternative. Doubt that was ever considered, though. It would run highly counter if the civil rights of the mentally impaired had anything to do with Trump's decision to repeal. 

[homersapien 11,393]

36 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

But when mental health groups and ACLU are siding with the NRA over it, it's a bit hard to fault Trump for blocking the implementation of the rule.  It sounds like a rule with good intentions but a bad mechanism for carrying that intention out.

Well, it certainly gives him an excuse. 

But keep in mind that the ACLU and the mental health groups have a single priority in mind - protecting the civil rights of the mentally ill. 

Considering the actual intent of the proposed law,  those rights should be balanced with society's right to to keep guns from the hands of the mentally ill who are potentially dangerous.   That seems like a legitimate balance of interests to me.  It's hard to believe there's not a legislative compromise that would address both needs in a way that reflected the honest tension between interests.  Did the Trump administration make such an effort?

Merit aside,  what I said was factually true. Rejecting the law did potentially help potentially dangerous mentally ill people to obtain guns. 

But I agree,  it's not fair to use this as an example of Trump is 'deliberately trying to make it easier for the mentally ill to purchase guns' even though that is certainly a side effect. 

 

[aubearcat 2,137]

7 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Have you read the military specifications for the M-16?  I think the idea that this cartridge is suitable for self defense based on it's lack of penetration doesn't hold water. 

Likewise it is not really very good for hunting. 

Bottom line, I would argue this class of weapons has no little "versatility" if talking about self defense or hunting.

 

I’m not being adversarial. I’m saying that I don’t think it should necessarily be made available to civilians. I’m aware of the weapon’s specs. We had to take an extensive training class to get qualified to carry one. The AR is used because of the ease of use, relatively low recoil (to me it’s not much worse than a .22), and accuracy. Yes it can be used for home defense because of the lack of penetration. It’s less dangerous to use in a close quarters situation (that’s why you see SWAT/TAC teams use short barrel ARs on entry)than a 12 gauge, which many on this site have stated as their go to for home defense. Also, I know people that hunt feral hogs with ARs. All that being said, I probably wouldn’t have one if it weren’t for Work.