Go ahead, Feinstein, MAKE MY DAY

[ZRT]

The NATO standard 5.56mm round was designed specifically to wound, not kill. Its' lethality was purposefully scaled back.

Never heard that one sourced definitively. From what I know, our prevalent usage of 5.56 comes from two reasons- ammo portability, you can lug around a lot more 5.56 than the 7.62s that were used for the M-14s. Then there was the whole fiasco behind adoption of the M-16, which is laid at the feet of Mr. Robert McNamara. Basically, the M-16 as originally designed was intended as a carbine in the vein of the M-1 Carbine and never intended as a battle arm. Originally designed for the Air Force for security usage, Bobby Mac took his auto industry know how and said 'Why are we going with an M-14 upgrade when we have a good rifle that the Air Force is using?'

Much like the Aardvark, we end up with something overpriced and undereffective.

Feel free to add the "Guns bought in the US and smuggled into Mexico" to that list. Yeah, Mexican cartel hitters want semi-auto rifles at $1000 a pop when they can get AK's for less than $100.

I Don't doubt that American guns are winding up in Mexico, but not the "vast majority" as has been claimed in more than one article.

Sure there are American guns down there. Take a look at all the 'cartel arsenal' pics they'll show. Nice selection of equipment- M-4s and M-16s with and without underslung grenade launchers, RPGs, army tac armor.

Just not stuff you get in American gun stores, though. They've been entirely selective about their release of data, as in they haven't actually released substantiated data showing that any real amount of importation is going on from the American side. What's happening is basically the situation with the Zetas- we give them military-grade gear, and it falls off the back of the truck and into cartel hands twenty seconds after it arrives.

Meant to include that, but after being so verbose about the whole 'assault rifle' issue, I forgot.

Given that similar arguments are made about teaching sex ed in schools, I can only assume that firearms education would likewise turn students gay.

Well, there is that Pink Pistol group we were talking about earlier. I bet they're gay and COMMUNIST, too.

 

[ZRT]

On the topic of selective civil rights: that's a pretty simple one. Freedom is ugly. Freedom is dangerous. Freedom means that things that one does not like or approve of are going to happen. Freedom means you'll see things that you really don't want to see.

Most people operate emotively. If they don't like it, or feel strongly negative about something, it's wrong. Simple as that. Therefore, they'll work their way around toward rationalizing opposition to the issue in question, regardless of the logical approach. It has nothing to do with freedom, which for most people isn't a concept they strongly appreciate anyway. They want to be free to do what they want to do, and be free from trespass and offense by those around them.

 

[Homburg]

Never heard that one sourced definitively. From what I know, our prevalent usage of 5.56 comes from two reasons- ammo portability, you can lug around a lot more 5.56 than the 7.62s that were used for the M-14s. Then there was the whole fiasco behind adoption of the M-16, which is laid at the feet of Mr. Robert McNamara. Basically, the M-16 as originally designed was intended as a carbine in the vein of the M-1 Carbine and never intended as a battle arm. Originally designed for the Air Force for security usage, Bobby Mac took his auto industry know how and said 'Why are we going with an M-14 upgrade when we have a good rifle that the Air Force is using?'

Much like the Aardvark, we end up with something overpriced and undereffective.

My info comes from articles in the Stars and Stripes from the 80's, and reading the PM comics that my dad brought home.

Wounded soldiers require more resources than dead ones. One wounded soldier will occupy two others carrying him out, extractions, doctors, etc, and generally requires immediate care, a solid distraction on the battlefield.

Well, there is that Pink Pistol group we were talking about earlier. I bet they're gay and COMMUNIST, too.

Pink = pinko = communist

Totally.

 

[ZRT]

My info comes from articles in the Stars and Stripes from the 80's, and reading the PM comics that my dad brought home.

Wounded soldiers require more resources than dead ones. One wounded soldier will occupy two others carrying him out, extractions, doctors, etc, and generally requires immediate care, a solid distraction on the battlefield.

Oh yeah, I know the ratio argument. There's a lot of ratio science in that line of work- dead medic equals four dead troops in a hot action, and what have you. In brutal logic, the notion of straining enemy infrastructure makes sense.

But I've never seen it sourced that somebody up the chain said 'We like the 5.56 because it produces more wounded than dead', or anything to that effect. They did tweak down the lethality with the M16A2 by going to the 1/12 twist, but that was more in the interests of accuracy by increased stabilization than in eliminating the spalling effect the old 1/14 twist could induce.

It's just that having never seen it sourced (and having seen it disclaimed by equally second-hand sources), it strikes me as one of those urban legends. Small arms fire has been down the line in terms of battlefield effect since around WWI anyway. I'm much more apt to believe the portability argument than anything.

 

[Keroin]

Not meaning any disrespect, but I can answer your story with the story of a woman who lived in a disadvantaged neighborhood and had to walk to college and back every day. She was a classmate of mine, and she once had a very large man (she was all of five foot nothing tall and about ninety pounds soaking wet) chase her all the way to her apartment. She got the door slammed in his face just in the nick of time for him to barrel straight into it. Whatever his intentions were, they obviously weren't good for her. After that, she got a gun for self defense.

This one always gets me. Do you buckle your seatbelt when you drive? I do, and I don't characterize it as letting fear rule my life. It's a prudent precaution.


Transfer of private property among citizens? What's the problem there?

I think it's possible you completely missed my point in the first bit.

In forty years, at times traveling through some nasty parts of the world, including, once, quite accidentally finding myself in the middle of a drug drop in the middle of nowhere in Mexico, I have never needed nor wanted a gun. I anticipate the next forty years will be the same. If not, well, such is life. That's what I mean about not letting fear rule my life. Conversely, a seat belt, especially given my past profession, is something I have frequently needed.

As for the last bit, that's all about my perspective. I recognize that.

In any case, it is another beautiful, sunny day on my blissfully gun-free island and I'm going out to enjoy it. Have a good Sunday everyone.

Peace out.

 

[JMohegan]

So. What we're down to is basically 'We don't want people shooting people'. Most pro-gunners are pretty heartily down with that sentiment. Come up with reasonable solutions and there's something to talk about. Continue to demonize weapons and gun owners with lies and obfuscations and it goes nowhere.

Personally, I favor mandatory firearms safety education in schools. It'll cut down what's already a pretty small accident rate, compared to other common items. But also it'll serve to demystify weaponry, especially if kids are allowed to handle them under safe, observed conditions.

Follow up on Exile and keep making the penalties harsh for misuse. It's reactive, but that's how most criminal justice works. Same as how the laws against murder have to be reactive.

Most of all, don't succumb to the notion that 'something must be done' and embrace every media sensation that comes along. There are some people making a lot of money and political hay on keeping this issue alive, which is of course the disease of advocacy groups of all stripes.

Have you spent time in an inner city? Lived there? Worked there? Volunteered there? Spoken to actual members of the community?

I'm guessing no.

We're not talking about kids mishandling firearms. We're talking about old ladies and young kids and innocent, law-abiding citizens caught in the crossfire of gang violence and drug wars. We're talking about places where even the cops are outgunned. We're talking about this.

God, it's disgusting to hear people complain about hysteria or "media sensation" on this issue.

If you don't want to see inner city poverty or the drug wars as your problem, fine. No one can take on all the suffering in the world, everyone chooses where they focus they're time and effort and empathy - no problem. And of course, a debate on the efficacy of gun control laws is legitimate.

But for god's sake, stop belittling a problem that is very real for so many people.

 

[Netzach]

Have you spent time in an inner city? Lived there? Worked there? Volunteered there? Spoken to actual members of the community?

I'm guessing no.

We're not talking about kids mishandling firearms. We're talking about old ladies and young kids and innocent, law-abiding citizens caught in the crossfire of gang violence and drug wars. We're talking about places where even the cops are outgunned. We're talking about this.

God, it's disgusting to hear people complain about hysteria or "media sensation" on this issue.

If you don't want to see inner city poverty or the drug wars as your problem, fine. No one can take on all the suffering in the world, everyone chooses where they focus they're time and effort and empathy - no problem. And of course, a debate on the efficacy of gun control laws is legitimate.

But for god's sake, stop belittling a problem that is very real for so many people.

Right. Mandatory gun safety? They're not even learning to read.

But pointing out that handgun bans have had no net effect on this issue is hardly belittling the problem. There's something else going on, and I don't think it's accidental that the guns are where the people no one with money cares about are...


Things that make you go hmmm....

how the "inner city culture" as someone else put it, got like that in the first place?

 

[Homburg]

Have you spent time in an inner city? Lived there? Worked there? Volunteered there? Spoken to actual members of the community?

I'm guessing no.

My answers to these: Yes. No. Yes. No. Yes.

Caveat: Small-metro inner-city. Not big-metro. Still has gangs, drugs, and violence though. And the "worked there" was as armed security, so my perspective, while far too involved on occasion, is from a different standpoint.

We're not talking about kids mishandling firearms. We're talking about old ladies and young kids and innocent, law-abiding citizens caught in the crossfire of gang violence and drug wars. We're talking about places where even the cops are outgunned. We're talking about this.

This thread is not about one facet of one topic alone, JM. The idea of education came up, and the topic of firearms mishandling was associated.

And, honestly, the cops aren't out-gunned. That's more hype. Take a gander at the weaponry being used by most modern police departments, and you are likely to find a handgun on every officer, a shotgun in every car, and, odds are, a carbine, SMG, or select-fire assault rifle in the trunk of most cruisers. The local PD issues a lot of M-16A3 rifles.

I know too many police officers, had too many conversations on the topic with them, and seen the contents of too many cruisers to accept the out-gunned comment.

God, it's disgusting to hear people complain about hysteria or "media sensation" on this issue.

Maintaining that cool objectivity, I see.

Reread the post. It contains serious, rational discussion on actual cases of hype. A little bit of googling will back up what he said. Well, googling with a critical eye. If you buy the hype, you aren't likely to accept the facts, no matter how they're offered.

If you don't want to see inner city poverty or the drug wars as your problem, fine. No one can take on all the suffering in the world, everyone chooses where they focus they're time and effort and empathy - no problem. And of course, a debate on the efficacy of gun control laws is legitimate.

But for god's sake, stop belittling a problem that is very real for so many people.

Appeal to emotion.

How is this discussion belittling the problem?

 

[JMohegan]

Right. Mandatory gun safety? They're not even learning to read.

But pointing out that handgun bans have had no net effect on this issue is hardly belittling the problem. There's something else going on, and I don't think it's accidental that the guns are where the people no one with money cares about are...


Things that make you go hmmm....

how the "inner city culture" as someone else put it, got like that in the first place?

As I've already clearly stated, a debate on the efficacy of gun control laws is legitimate. I agree.

My comment about belittling the problem made reference to people complaining about hysteria or media sensation on this issue. See, for example, the quotes in bold below.

Regarding things that make you go hmmm - They make *you* go hmmm, and *me* go hmmm, but some people are just not interested in that type of cognition.

Until you get to stupid and worthless pieces of legislation like the so-called Assault Weapons Ban, which was aimed at weapons that looked mean without being any more or less effective than dozens of other weapons in their class. It was aimed at weapons, and was driven by lies and hysteria.

Most of all, don't succumb to the notion that 'something must be done' and embrace every media sensation that comes along. There are some people making a lot of money and political hay on keeping this issue alive, which is of course the disease of advocacy groups of all stripes.

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

Why not have tougher laws for people who commit crimes with guns?
I'd be all over that. Twenty years without parole for just using a gun. The tack on extra years for the shooting or robbery. Or life without parole even.

Once Marquise,Ramarcus,Venustiano, and Billy Bob leave the hood for good you don't think that will have some effect?

They do. At least in my state. Any crime committed with a gun automatically gets bumped up to a felony and carries a harsher sentence.

The ironic thing is that when you hear about some idiot getting drunk and killing a couple of people because he was doing ninety down the wrong side of the freeway and had a head-on with them, you don't hear people saying 'We need to do something about cars!'

I think people care just as much about the act and the individual than about what was the weapon of choice.

Until you get to stupid and worthless pieces of legislation like the so-called Assault Weapons Ban, which was aimed at weapons that looked mean without being any more or less effective than dozens of other weapons in their class. It was aimed at weapons, and was driven by lies and hysteria.

lol I knew you were going to bring this up. That's why I said, "for the most part". I have no defense for the Assault Weapons Ban. It was bad and stupid legislation.

They usually don't object to this. As I said before, the NRA was backing the current instant check system for years, and after the useless waiting period from Brady sunsetted, we finally got it. Of course, in my opinion it's kind of useless because as noted before, the typical criminal isn't getting his weaponry from legal sources anyway.

The NRA has also been on record for years as supporting stricter mandatory minimums for gun crimes. There are regular PSAs for Project Exile, at least around here.

So what reasonable controls do you see that would reduce criminal acquisition of weapons while not impeding lawful purchase?

So again, how do you keep them from making the acquisition without impeding lawful purchases?

Apologies if I see brusque- I respect your argument, haven't had my morning coffee yet.

I understand we aren't talking about the typical criminals. This is all about the every now and then national headline shooting. (I believe Columbine and VT)

Its actually funny. I don't have a problem with gun rights or people who own guns. Heck, I love guns. They are some of the sexiest pieces of metal out there. My argument was more about the use of cars vs guns as a reason for not regulating guns more. I just had a problem with that comparison.

But since you asked I'll throw something out. I think the NRA needs to get more involved. Almost to the point of being a private consultant with the government to stop the illegal sales of guns. They've already got a working relationship with congress as we all know.

I think every person who wants to buy a gun (handgun or like, not so much hunting guns) should have to join the NRA. (I don't think that's in place now) Then the NRA should set up local training that everyone must take about gun safety/ownership/use. I don't really know how long that should be or anything. Once completed the NRA gives them a certificate which is sent to the state to finalize their gun license. A little education can't hurt, right?

All guns must registered with both the state and the NRA. Anytime your gun is lost/stolen/damaged/destroyed/sold/transferred the owner must provide verifiable documentation about where the gun is now or what happened. Also, ALL guns must given to NRA approved destruction sites/shops. The onus will be on the gun owner to show that his/her gun(s) are where they say.

The biggest thing is the gun shops. I think the NRA should be notified anytime a shop or person is found guilty of illegal sales of firearms. The NRA should issue a policy stating any person or shop found guilty of illegally selling firearms will be boycotted by ALL members of the NRA. (which is now every person who owns a gun) Hit them in the wallet and you might not have so many guns "fall off a truck."

It keeps government out of the gun ownership arena and puts it back into the gun owners hands along with the NRA.

I don't know if that makes any sense cause that was just off the top of my head but I tried. It will, of course, never happen and probably isn't plausible.

No need for apologies.

Actually, there are LOADS of laws on the books legislating the guns themselves. The Firearms Act of '68 is a stellar example. There are also all sorts of regs on the state and local level.

To give an example, imported guns, by federal law, have to pass a checklist of featuires before they are allowed in the country. It is on a point system, so they can mix and match features til they reach the threshold. Glocks are very good guns imported from Austria. They are safe, effective, reliable, and the sidearm of choice for many a police department. Yet they are not legal to import int he form that you see them in when you go to a gun store. They don't legally make the number of features the ATF looks for. So every Glock is (or was, it may have changed) imported with crappy, ineffective adjustable rear sights mounted. Then they are shipped to their clearinghouse where those sights are removed, and the much more effective and, (for the purpose of a duty pistol) safer fixed sights are mounted.

Yeah man, I know I feel safer that our gun laws require Gaston Glock to put a useless adj sight on his pistols that gets removed and tossed once they cross our borders.

Law enforcement glocks also have a larger clip size not available to the public.

Because these laws ONLY affect law-abiding citizens. The criminals get their guns from criminal sources. Even pawn shops do instant checks these days.

But where do the criminal sources get their guns?

Sort of. After a while, you get used to looking for concealed weapons. I got to the point where I could see them pretty easily (I don't pay as much attention these days). I've made plainsclothes FBI agents, and they're damned good. Secret Service is beyond me though. We used to see them on a semi-regular basis where I worked for a few years during college, and you could never tell that they were carrying.

I was more using it in comparison to policing traffic laws. A cop will very easily notice a car flying by at 90mph but not that the driver has a handgun under the driver's seat.

LEO's are also allowed to make "Terry stops". Basically it amounts to the legal right to stop anyone on the street and frisk them for weapons. Terry v. Ohio set the precedent.

I am very familiar with Terry stops. If I wasn't, my criminal justice professors would be very disappointed.

Most people on the other side of the argument aren't really concerned about not impeding legal purchases. Many approve of the idea.

I am against impeding legal purchases by law abiding citizens.

 

[ZRT]

Have you spent time in an inner city? Lived there? Worked there? Volunteered there? Spoken to actual members of the community?

I'm guessing no.

Bite me.

I grew up in a town that was murder capital of the country for three years running.

I lived in a slum that was bad enough that the owners of the various condos didn't maintain an apartment office. They'd draw straws and send in one of their number every so often to check the office answering machine. The police were regular visitors, and both the neighbors across the hall and the neighbors downstairs were arrested on more than one occasion. The guys downstairs would have large drug parties on Fridays and Saturdays and then go have brawls that rattled the stairway because they kept bouncing off of them.

As for spending time, I worked a delivery job that had me hand-unloading freight in the choicest slum neighborhoods in Houston, Dallas, Albuquerque, Kansas City, Oklahoma City, and other garden spots of the midwest. We had drivers get assaulted on more than one occasion, either during deliveries or pickups.

Volunteered? Worked at a charity kitchen, thanks.

That ghetto-conscious enough for you? Just because I don't run around showing off my street cred doesn't mean I haven't been there.

We're not talking about kids mishandling firearms. We're talking about old ladies and young kids and innocent, law-abiding citizens caught in the crossfire of gang violence and drug wars. We're talking about places where even the cops are outgunned.

Homburg answered the bit about the cops being outgunned nicely. It's a load of crap. I don't see a lot of reports about perps laying down seven hundred rounds of fire in an engagement, which seems to be the NYPD norm these days.

We're talking about this.

And yet around here as recently as thirty years ago students would still bring their rifles to school on Fridays so they could head straight out for hunting trips after class, and yet no school shootings. Points to a social issue, not a gun one.

God, it's disgusting to hear people complain about hysteria or "media sensation" on this issue.

I'm sure you feel the same way whenever the Bush administration discussed the 'War on Terror', despite the fact that people were indeed cutting people's heads off and blowing shit up around the world.

Hype doesn't mean things aren't really happening. It can mean that people are using an issue to further their own agenda.

If you don't want to see inner city poverty or the drug wars as your problem, fine. No one can take on all the suffering in the world, everyone chooses where they focus they're time and effort and empathy - no problem. And of course, a debate on the efficacy of gun control laws is legitimate.

But for god's sake, stop belittling a problem that is very real for so many people.

Yeah, because I just don't give a fuck. That's why I constantly frame this in terms of people being able to defend themselves, which is my first and foremost concern on the issue. I've pointed out that in the end, the police are ineffectual for the end of public protection and aren't legally required to do so in the first place, which is why it's important for people to be able to do so for themselves.

I outlined why the issues chosen by the Brady bunch are false and ineffective (while making them a goodly amount of money and keeping them publicly prominent.)

I offered what solutions have occurred to me in terms of enforcement and education. I expressed an interest in actual solutions instead of hysterical handwaving about issues that aren't really issues.

You in turn impugned my motives and stated that I don't give a fuck about those ghetto rats, when in my own way, I've been one of those ghetto rats.

So really, bite me.

Oh hey, while previewing this post I came across this:

Regarding things that make you go hmmm - They make *you* go hmmm, and *me* go hmmm, but some people are just not interested in that type of cognition.

Which tells me I wasted a lot of words explaining my position when I probably should've started with 'Fuck off, you obnoxious shit.'

Right. Mandatory gun safety? They're not even learning to read.

Yes, the educational system is broken. It's more beneficial to society to fix the failure there than to go about implementing restrictions that don't serve any purpose.

how the "inner city culture" as someone else put it, got like that in the first place?

That's a whole 'nother can of worms right there.

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

Oh god, those pieces of shit. I remember an anti-gun cop saying 'Well, they're useless junk, but I think we should ban them anyway.'

Why? Because they look nasty.

I essentially class AK-47s in that category. The full-auto version as distributed globally has basically two virtues: any untrained idiot can use one without doing any maintenance on it, and corollary to that, they can be dragged through the mud, stomped, and thrown off of buildings and still crank a 7.62 downrange vaguely toward whatever you were aiming at. Just don't expect it to hit shit.

They're basically designed for Soviet-style armies and mass infantry attacks, but because they look nasty and are the poster child for 'assault weapon' hysteria, people think they're good for much more than a really rugged doorstop. The semi-auto civvy version is basically a toy, and at today's rates, it's an overpriced toy.

lol My friend is a police officer and got an AK-47 and converted it to fully automatic.

I think he found out how to do it on the internet and all it took was bending a pin or piece of metal or something.

Haven't shot it yet but I was at the range one time when someone there was shooting the semi-automatic version. Freaking shells were ejecting and hitting my table a couple feet away while I was trying to shoot. It was annoying as hell.

They're lucky I didn't shoot them. Or hit them with my car.

 

[ZRT]

I think people care just as much about the act and the individual than about what was the weapon of choice.

I'd argue that vociferously. Take a look at the coverage of the big shoots. VT was a bit different, but Purdy and Wesbecker, who kicked off the whole 'assault weapons' controversy, the focus was far more focused on the weapon than the individual. Purdy himself was news for a week or two, but the controversy he created still lives on.

lol I knew you were going to bring this up. That's why I said, "for the most part". I have no defense for the Assault Weapons Ban. It was bad and stupid legislation.

I like you.

Its actually funny. I don't have a problem with gun rights or people who own guns. Heck, I love guns. They are some of the sexiest pieces of metal out there. My argument was more about the use of cars vs guns as a reason for not regulating guns more. I just had a problem with that comparison.

Alrighty. But really, it's just my argument with the whole 'we license drivers, why not shooters' that brings it up.

But since you asked I'll throw something out. I think the NRA needs to get more involved. Almost to the point of being a private consultant with the government to stop the illegal sales of guns. They've already got a working relationship with congress as we all know.

I think every person who wants to buy a gun (handgun or like, not so much hunting guns) should have to join the NRA. (I don't think that's in place now) Then the NRA should set up local training that everyone must take about gun safety/ownership/use. I don't really know how long that should be or anything. Once completed the NRA gives them a certificate which is sent to the state to finalize their gun license. A little education can't hurt, right?

All guns must registered with both the state and the NRA. Anytime your gun is lost/stolen/damaged/destroyed/sold/transferred the owner must provide verifiable documentation about where the gun is now or what happened. Also, ALL guns must given to NRA approved destruction sites/shops. The onus will be on the gun owner to show that his/her gun(s) are where they say.

Good god, you have so much more confidence in the NRA than I do. When I talk about the disease of advocacy groups, I include the NRA in that. At a time when we're doing better on the issue, what with having a Democratic party that's too scared to seriously move on the issue (and dependent on pro-gun westerners for their majority), the NRA still sends out monthly alerts to the effect that they're gonna come for our guns in the night ANY DAY NOW.

As for the licensing issue, that comes back to my argument that Constitutional rights should not be subject to this kind of government-controlled licensing scheme. At the risk of opening another cars/guns can of worms, let's take voting.

American voters, as a body, possess indirect control over the mightiest military machine in the world. By their selection, they could put in place a President who can bring about the end of civilization as we know it in the space of a few hours. We can bring war and destruction on the majority of nations of the world and kill hundreds of thousands or even millions with this power.

Should this not be subject to rigorous testing and training? Do we dare allow any schmuck over the age of eighteen possess a portion of this power simply by virtue of achieving an arbitrary age?

Would a justly and well-administered program make things better in either case? Probably so. Would you trust the government with that kind of power? I'm not keen on trusting my government, regardless of who's in charge.

The biggest thing is the gun shops. I think the NRA should be notified anytime a shop or person is found guilty of illegal sales of firearms. The NRA should issue a policy stating any person or shop found guilty of illegally selling firearms will be boycotted by ALL members of the NRA. (which is now every person who owns a gun) Hit them in the wallet and you might not have so many guns "fall off a truck."

How would arbitrary membership in the NRA by all gun owners suddenly make every gun owner a good citizen in this circumstance, or even the most of them?

It keeps government out of the gun ownership arena and puts it back into the gun owners hands along with the NRA.

It makes the NRA an arm of the Federal government, albeit a self-financed one. (Though I guarantee that in this scheme the NRA would be screaming for Federal subsidy in under a nanosecond, if nothing else to support the humongous infrastructure you're proposing.)

I don't know if that makes any sense cause that was just off the top of my head but I tried. It will, of course, never happen and probably isn't plausible.

I agree it isn't plausible, but as I said before I'm always willing to wrestle an issue to produce the best answer.

Law enforcement glocks also have a larger clip size not available to the public.

Magazine size restrictions sunsetted with the Assault Weapons Ban.

lol My friend is a police officer and got an AK-47 and converted it to fully automatic.

I think he found out how to do it on the internet and all it took was bending a pin or piece of metal or something.

Haven't shot it yet but I was at the range one time when someone there was shooting the semi-automatic version. Freaking shells were ejecting and hitting my table a couple feet away while I was trying to shoot. It was annoying as hell.

They're lucky I didn't shoot them. Or hit them with my car.

Jesus don't talk about that stuff, that's a potential visit from the ATF and some serious trouble. Unless he's squared it with them (and I doubt it), he's in possession of a seriously illegal piece. If I were you, I'd tell him to strip that thing to parts and scatter them to the four winds.

The ATF has issue policy letters that state that shoelaces and rubber bands are illegal in usage for converting semi-autos to bump-fire guns. Bump-fire is useless for anything other than burning a lot of ammo in a hurry at a shooting range, but it's serious business to those guys.

 

[Netzach]

Good god, you have so much more confidence in the NRA than I do. When I talk about the disease of advocacy groups, I include the NRA in that. At a time when we're doing better on the issue, what with having a Democratic party that's too scared to seriously move on the issue (and dependent on pro-gun westerners for their majority), the NRA still sends out monthly alerts to the effect that they're gonna come for our guns in the night ANY DAY NOW.

How cool would it be if things like this were not politicized?

People like me could hear NRA membership and not go laughing all the way home.

FWIW, my understanding of your "lies and hysteria" comment was mobilizing a lot of people outside the inner cities with fear of THOSE PEOPLE being armed to the teeth. Worry for all the wrong reasons, none of the right ones.

 

[JMohegan]

I grew up in a town that was murder capital of the country for three years running.

I lived in a slum that was bad enough that the owners of the various condos didn't maintain an apartment office. They'd draw straws and send in one of their number every so often to check the office answering machine. The police were regular visitors, and both the neighbors across the hall and the neighbors downstairs were arrested on more than one occasion. The guys downstairs would have large drug parties on Fridays and Saturdays and then go have brawls that rattled the stairway because they kept bouncing off of them.

As for spending time, I worked a delivery job that had me hand-unloading freight in the choicest slum neighborhoods in Houston, Dallas, Albuquerque, Kansas City, Oklahoma City, and other garden spots of the midwest. We had drivers get assaulted on more than one occasion, either during deliveries or pickups.

Volunteered? Worked at a charity kitchen, thanks.

That ghetto-conscious enough for you? Just because I don't run around showing off my street cred doesn't mean I haven't been there.

And yet you suggest mandatory firearms education in the schools, as a solution to inner city gun violence, 2009?

I'll take you at your word with regard to your bio. But you really do seem to be suggesting application of non-inner city solutions to an environment that's just totally different.

Which tells me I wasted a lot of words explaining my position when I probably should've started with 'Fuck off, you obnoxious shit.'

I guess you missed the part where I said: "If you don't want to see inner city poverty or the drug wars as your problem, fine. No one can take on all the suffering in the world, everyone chooses where they focus they're time and effort and empathy - no problem."

That was straight up.




I interpreted your use of the terms "hysteria" and "media sensation" as implying that concerns over the level of gun violence are ill-founded or exaggerated. You now seem to be saying that the concerns are valid, it's just that people trying to address those concerns are doing so for nefarious purposes.

Thank you for clarifying. Though this is somewhat less objectionable, I still disagree.

 

[Netzach]

We've raised 30 years of poor children telling them they're a drain on the system and nothing but a problem. Not a potential, not a citizen, not a resource.

And then we're shocked that the want to belong to any organization they can find and don't care if they don't live to 22.

 

[ZRT]

And yet you suggest mandatory firearms education in the schools, as a solution to inner city gun violence, 2009?

Actually, no, but the problems of the inner city aren't a product of guns, they're a product of a larger cultural issue, and all the gun bans in the world aren't going to solve the problem.

Firearms education is something that we implement in conjunction with other issues, but fixing the inner city is a topic for a whole 'nother thread with a much broader scope than this one.

I'll take you at your word with regard to your bio.

Very gracious of you.

But you really do seem to be suggesting application of non-inner city solutions to an environment that's just totally different.

Miss my references to the Koreans who had to defend themselves during the Rodney King riots? It's very much a concern for me, but on the gun aspect of what's wrong with our inner cities, the only help I can offer is that I'd like to see a lot more women and store owners packing heat in order to be able to protect themselves, because there's nothing that's keeping the fuckers who'll prey on them from being armed.

I guess you missed the part where I said: "If you don't want to see inner city poverty or the drug wars as your problem, fine. No one can take on all the suffering in the world, everyone chooses where they focus they're time and effort and empathy - no problem."

That was straight up.

And you based that condescending statement on a complete ignorance of my life and circumstances.

Every murder in this country represents a failure, somewhere down the line. Every rape is a failure. Every child abused is a failure. Do I lose sleep over it? No, because you're right that we can't bleed heart for the entire world and we can't catch every sparrow that falls. But that doesn't mean that I don't care about the issue.

I interpreted your use of the terms "hysteria" and "media sensation" as implying that concerns over the level of gun violence are ill-founded or exaggerated. You now seem to be saying that the concerns are valid, it's just that people trying to address those concerns are doing so for nefarious purposes.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

I'm saying that in every instance I listed, which essentially is a list of anti-gun public crusades, the issue they chose was ill-founded and built on lies. I'm saying that they've largely ignored potential solutions such as Exile for their own gain.

I'm saying that they descend like vultures on every tragedy, because it makes them money and gains them power.

I'm saying they're despicable examples of the human race, basically.

But the only way -you- can state that to be my position is to ignore what I've said about self defense in this thread. Obviously if there wasn't a violence issue here, there wouldn't be a need for self defense. Shooters could bring home meat and drill holes in paper and nobody would care.

If you want to distill a point out of that, the point is that 'gun' violence isn't the problem, people violence is. It's a wordier version of 'guns don't kill, people do'. Look at the UK and their new thing about 'knife culture'. They attacked one aspect of a problem- shooting people is something we prefer to avoid, yeah, we all agree on that, without addressing the issue of 'why they're attacking each other and how we can fix that.' So the only thing that changed was the tool, not the overall problem.

 

[ZRT]

We've raised 30 years of poor children telling them they're a drain on the system and nothing but a problem. Not a potential, not a citizen, not a resource.

And then we're shocked that the want to belong to any organization they can find and don't care if they don't live to 22.

I'll disagree here. It's a product of the social environment, but it isn't that there's a feeling of being a drain on the system.

It's that if you live in a place where the guys who make the money are the drug dealers, you think that's the ideal path to a good living. Getting caught and going to jail? That's just the nature of the business.

The consciousness where I grew up is that everybody's a crook in some form or fashion. The respectable people? They just hide their crookedness better. Cops? Institutional crooks, a gang that has enough power to somewhat enforce their will on the neighborhood.

It's an 'every man has to be for himself' kind of environment.

And that's the last I'll talk about the 'my hood' shit, because that place just pisses me the fuck off.

 

[Homburg]

I think every person who wants to buy a gun (handgun or like, not so much hunting guns) should have to join the NRA. (I don't think that's in place now) Then the NRA should set up local training that everyone must take about gun safety/ownership/use. I don't really know how long that should be or anything. Once completed the NRA gives them a certificate which is sent to the state to finalize their gun license. A little education can't hurt, right?

I won't go into a screed on how fucked up the NRA is. That's already been covered. In my younger years, I bought a life membership. Nowadays, I kind of regret it, as they've gone even further downhill.

That said, the NRA was originally intended to be an educational organisation, or at least to maintain that as one of its' major purviews. The whole point to it, in fact, was bettering the marksmanship abilities of American shooters, as it was founded by a former Army general who was roundly dismayed at the lack of skill shown by his recruits in the Civil War era. As time went on, the focus shifted away from skill development, and into political lobbying and grubbing for money from its' members.

And, wow, talk about a hype machine.

The biggest thing is the gun shops. I think the NRA should be notified anytime a shop or person is found guilty of illegal sales of firearms. The NRA should issue a policy stating any person or shop found guilty of illegally selling firearms will be boycotted by ALL members of the NRA. (which is now every person who owns a gun) Hit them in the wallet and you might not have so many guns "fall off a truck."

There is actually a trend involving the ATF, various local and regional LE orgs, and even the NRA to identify bad actors in the gun shop field. The idea is that a certain small percentage of gun shops are consistently showing up in the transfer chain of firearms used in crime. The implication is that these shops are more lax than others in regards to straw purchases, shady record keeping, etc.

If it works, and these bad actors are put out of business, it could have a material affect on the supply side of guns used in crimes in those regions. The problem is keeping them out of business. A friend of mine is a retired Coast Guard officer, and he spent many years on Florida shutting down boat manufacturers that were building boats that weren't up to code. And were not talking minor infractions. Serious, dangerous shit that would cause the boat to explode, catch fire, break in half, etc. These guys were building cheap, shoddy cigarette boat hulls, slapping huge engines in them, and making absurd profits from under-educated buyers. He'd go in, cite the dozens of code violations, and shut the business down. Two months later, he'd see more of the same cigarette hulls in the water, and find that the same crews had moved to a new town, set up a business under a new name, and were operating business as usual. As the code violations weren't criminal themselves, and the jokers were sharp enough to evade the civil lawsuits (by shutting down, liquidating, etc), they weren't getting caught. It wasn't until he got the go ahead to seize their moulds and tooling that he got them finally shut down.

The bad actor shops are the same way. Shut them down, and they have their wives get an FFA, open a new shop, etc. Hell, I know people myself that have done this exact thing. Ugly business, but not precisely criminal. And the LEO's can't specifically nail these shops for criminal behaviour, as they aren't explicitly criminal, just shoddy.

But where do the criminal sources get their guns?

See above about bad actor shops, also look into straw purchases, stolen guns, smuggled pieces on the black/grey market, etc. The smuggled stuff isn't talked about much, but it does happen.

--

As for the licensing issue, that comes back to my argument that Constitutional rights should not be subject to this kind of government-controlled licensing scheme. At the risk of opening another cars/guns can of worms, let's take voting.

I'm sort of with you, sort of not. The idea that one must have a license to buy a gun is valid law in many localities. The reasoning is that it does not hamper one's ability to purchase, it merely sets a "reasonable" regulation controlling it. Two local cities required those for a while. You didn't have to state what you were purchasing, or where, but to buy in those cities, you paid $10, and got a 30-day purchase license. It was a pretty roundly hated piece of city code, and both of them did away with it, but it was there. And it did survive VASC challenges (from other cities).

There are some restrictions on the right to keep and bear, and those have survived challenges ere now. There is nothing in the 2nd that specifies what sort of arms you can keep and bear. The govt says that unrestricted ownership and transfer of Class II stuff is illegal. Can't say that I disagree. The idea that you could order a fully automatic Thompson SMG out of a Sears catalogue in the 20's while kinda sexy, is worrisome. I really don't mind the govt telling Joe Average that he can't buy casually buy select-fire hardware, and I don't feel like it is a Constitutional challenge.

The ATF has issue policy letters that state that shoelaces and rubber bands are illegal in usage for converting semi-autos to bump-fire guns. Bump-fire is useless for anything other than burning a lot of ammo in a hurry at a shooting range, but it's serious business to those guys.

I had a bump-fire ass'y before the ATF cracked down on them. Did not work worth a crap. I do remember a friend who was shooting at a local PD range when the sear on his crappy handgun went. Whole magazine suddenly rattles downrange (to his great surprise). It rather excited the officers who were using the range at the time. Took them a while to calm down, get him out of the cuffs, and even longer to decide that his gun should be returned (after it was *ahem* disabled by one of their armourers).

 

[Keroin]

Everyone likes to portray the US as a bunch of dangerous gun-toting lunatics...

Where do people get these crazy ideas about Americans?

I lived in a slum that was bad enough that the owners of the various condos didn't maintain an apartment office. They'd draw straws and send in one of their number every so often to check the office answering machine. The police were regular visitors, and both the neighbors across the hall and the neighbors downstairs were arrested on more than one occasion. The guys downstairs would have large drug parties on Fridays and Saturdays and then go have brawls that rattled the stairway because they kept bouncing off of them.

As for spending time, I worked a delivery job that had me hand-unloading freight in the choicest slum neighborhoods in Houston, Dallas, Albuquerque, Kansas City, Oklahoma City, and other garden spots of the midwest. We had drivers get assaulted on more than one occasion, either during deliveries or pickups.

lol My friend is a police officer and got an AK-47 and converted it to fully automatic.

I think he found out how to do it on the internet and all it took was bending a pin or piece of metal or something.

Heck, I love guns. They are some of the sexiest pieces of metal out there.

Sorry but I couldn't resist.

 

[Homburg]

If you want to distill a point out of that, the point is that 'gun' violence isn't the problem, people violence is. It's a wordier version of 'guns don't kill, people do'. Look at the UK and their new thing about 'knife culture'. They attacked one aspect of a problem- shooting people is something we prefer to avoid, yeah, we all agree on that, without addressing the issue of 'why they're attacking each other and how we can fix that.' So the only thing that changed was the tool, not the overall problem.

One of my best friends in the world is a Londoner. Well, was. He moved here in no small part because he wanted to get away from violence. Yeah, I know, crazy, someone moving here to avoid violent crime. Anyway, he personally knows way more people that have been murdered, maimed by violence, raped, etc than I do, and has personally experienced far more crime and violence than I've seen.

He is a staunch believer in the worth of the second amendment.

 

[Homburg]

Where do people get these crazy ideas about Americans?

Because we deserve it. We earned that reputation.

 

[ZRT]

I'm sort of with you, sort of not. The idea that one must have a license to buy a gun is valid law in many localities. The reasoning is that it does not hamper one's ability to purchase, it merely sets a "reasonable" regulation controlling it. Two local cities required those for a while. You didn't have to state what you were purchasing, or where, but to buy in those cities, you paid $10, and got a 30-day purchase license. It was a pretty roundly hated piece of city code, and both of them did away with it, but it was there. And it did survive VASC challenges (from other cities).

There are some restrictions on the right to keep and bear, and those have survived challenges ere now. There is nothing in the 2nd that specifies what sort of arms you can keep and bear. The govt says that unrestricted ownership and transfer of Class II stuff is illegal. Can't say that I disagree. The idea that you could order a fully automatic Thompson SMG out of a Sears catalogue in the 20's while kinda sexy, is worrisome. I really don't mind the govt telling Joe Average that he can't buy casually buy select-fire hardware, and I don't feel like it is a Constitutional challenge.

I agree with some regulation in the sense that one can't shout fire in a crowded theater.

However, I see issues with licensing precisely the same way that literacy tests at polls are objectionable, because they discriminate against those most likely to have a pressing need for defensive armament.

Hence why I'd rather see mandatory firearms education than a licensing test scheme.

I had a bump-fire ass'y before the ATF cracked down on them. Did not work worth a crap. I do remember a friend who was shooting at a local PD range when the sear on his crappy handgun went. Whole magazine suddenly rattles downrange (to his great surprise). It rather excited the officers who were using the range at the time. Took them a while to calm down, get him out of the cuffs, and even longer to decide that his gun should be returned (after it was *ahem* disabled by one of their armourers).

Heh. They can be fun. One of these days I'll have to see if I can dig up the scan of the letter where the ATF opinion was that, in light of using one to set up a bump-fire weapon, a shoelace was indeed a destructive device subject to Class II regulation.

Where do people get these crazy ideas about Americans?

Sorry but I couldn't resist.

We could look at the crime statistics of the UK and tell similar stories, albeit with less firearms.

Canada has a different culture and vastly different demographics than we do. Furthermore, Mexico is dangerous as fuck these days, but I don't think that the Mexican people are inherently crazy or a bunch of crazy drug-dealing lunatics.

Personally, you won't see me romanticizing weapons. They're tools to be used with great care. I'm entirely content with the notion that the only thing I'll do with any of mine for the rest of my life is drill holes in paper and blow up soda bottles.

 

[Netzach]

Where do people get these crazy ideas about Americans?







Sorry but I couldn't resist.

I grew up in the Bronx and lived in NYC my whole life prior to higher ed. Blue collar neighborhoods, albeit quiet old-people-filled ones.

The first time I heard urban gunfire was when I moved to Chicago. I got a good solid dose of the kind of "chaotic knife fight outside my window, hit the deck, could get weird kind" of thing. I don't have the energy to live like that at this point, but I can if I must, it's good to know.

I never met anyone who had guns for sport till I moved here.

I was held up with a box cutter in NYC. M was held up with a gun here, most definitely not by a gentleman who had a license.

 

[Netzach]

I agree with some regulation in the sense that one can't shout fire in a crowded theater.

However, I see issues with licensing precisely the same way that literacy tests at polls are objectionable, because they discriminate against those most likely to have a pressing need for defensive armament.

Hence why I'd rather see mandatory firearms education than a licensing test scheme.




Heh. They can be fun. One of these days I'll have to see if I can dig up the scan of the letter where the ATF opinion was that, in light of using one to set up a bump-fire weapon, a shoelace was indeed a destructive device subject to Class II regulation.



We could look at the crime statistics of the UK and tell similar stories, albeit with less firearms.

Canada has a different culture and vastly different demographics than we do. Furthermore, Mexico is dangerous as fuck these days, but I don't think that the Mexican people are inherently crazy or a bunch of crazy drug-dealing lunatics.

Personally, you won't see me romanticizing weapons. They're tools to be used with great care. I'm entirely content with the notion that the only thing I'll do with any of mine for the rest of my life is drill holes in paper and blow up soda bottles.

New Yorkers I know go on about the dangerousness of London.

And nothing but nothing could you pay me to get me into certain parts of Rio or Brasilia. We don't know how good we have it. The third-world-idyllic idea seems as mistaken to me as the third-world-always-dangerous one.