Gun Laws

[Golfingdad]

19 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

Really depends on their motivation. The idiot that shoots up Planned Parenthood is different than the disgruntled employee that kills his co-workers and is different than a terrorist.

Which makes this latest incident so perplexing, as it seems like some odd combination of "employee that shoots up his co-workers" and "terrorist."

[Lihu]

Interesting article: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-that-were-stopped-by-someone-wit#.joYe6wX82r

 

21 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

Really depends on their motivation. The idiot that shoots up Planned Parenthood is different than the disgruntled employee that kills his co-workers and is different than a terrorist.

The motivation for the SB shooting is still under investigation.

It's clear that the perpetrators were prepared for a much larger scale assault than they executed. Are we all sure that they were not potentially part of a bigger plot?

[Dave2512]

24 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Which makes this latest incident so perplexing, as it seems like some odd combination of "employee that shoots up his co-workers" and "terrorist."

Personally I am not buying what the media is selling on this one. Talking heads are trying really hard to make it more terrorist, specifically tying it to ISIL, than anything and it may be but some of the dots are tough to connect.

Like the FB  post under an alias. Not saying it didn't happen but as much as ISIL and their followers clamor for attention why do something that makes it unclear, like posting under an alias? They typically don't make things so vague it needs to be decoded. They boast about it immediately.

I think it's a combo of both. Some of the dead certainly could have had conflicting ideas from what I've read and it does appear the guy had recently become more radical in his own beliefs. But I think beyond that people are stretching pretty far to make connections.

[Golfingdad]

31 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Interesting article: http://www.buzzfeed.com/ryanhatesthis/10-potential-mass-shootings-that-were-stopped-by-someone-wit#.joYe6wX82r

In that same time frame, there were 51 "successful" mass shootings (which this website appears to qualify as 4 or more dead) with a total of 418 casualties.

Even if those 9 people averaged the same amount as the others, then they would have tallied somewhere around 80.  The cost of continuing to do nothing is a net loss of a large percentage.  Perhaps doing something will bring those numbers down.

Further, why is it always assumed that making it harder for people like Dylan Klebold, Adam Lanza, or James Holmes (etc) to acquire weapons automatically means that "good guys" will lose theirs?  I don't get that argument.

[Gunther]

15 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

Personally I am not buying what the media is selling on this one. Talking heads are trying really hard to make it more terrorist, specifically tying it to ISIL, than anything and it may be but some of the dots are tough to connect.

Like the FB  post under an alias. Not saying it didn't happen but as much as ISIL and their followers clamor for attention why do something that makes it unclear, like posting under an alias? They typically don't make things so vague it needs to be decoded. They boast about it immediately.

I think it's a combo of both. Some of the dead certainly could have had conflicting ideas from what I've read and it does appear the guy had recently become more radical in his own beliefs. But I think beyond that people are stretching pretty far to make connections.

It's no longer the talking heads, the FBI has now deemed it so.  

We gotta wake up folks and stop wishing and hoping this doesn't exist.  They are here to kill you.  Too many are so afraid of the PC stigma; ISIS knows it and uses it against us.

My fear is that it's going to take a major, major event, perhaps thousands dead, before you guys and consequently, our cowardly government are willing to drop the PC charade that has been perpetrated on us and stand up to this insidious enemy.

[Lihu]

10 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

In that same time frame, there were 51 "successful" mass shootings (which this website appears to qualify as 4 or more dead) with a total of 418 casualties.

Even if those 9 people averaged the same amount as the others, then they would have tallied somewhere around 80.  The cost of continuing to do nothing is a net loss of a large percentage.  Perhaps doing something will bring those numbers down.

Further, why is it always assumed that making it harder for people like Dylan Klebold, Adam Lanza, or James Holmes (etc) to acquire weapons automatically means that "good guys" will lose theirs?  I don't get that argument.

Sure the statistics are slim, but given that these people were not prepared to use their weapons as the shooters themselves were, I'd say that's a high success rate.

You don't go to dinner prepared to take out a gunman to save the others in the restaurant.

Plus, I'm sure all the people who are alive because of their brave actions are appreciative of their efforts.

[Golfingdad]

6 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Sure the statistics are slim, but given that these people were not prepared to use their weapons as the shooters themselves were, I'd say that's a high success rate.

You don't go to dinner prepared to take out a gunman to save the others in the restaurant.

Plus, I'm sure all the people who are alive because of their brave actions are appreciative of their efforts.

That's not a rebuttal.  I don't dispute any of what you just said but it didn't address any of what I said.

[Dave2512]

4 minutes ago, Gunther said:

It's no longer the talking heads, the FBI has now deemed it so.  

They've deemed the shooters were radicalized but haven't really made a connection. The FB alias post isn't exactly a hotline to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi it's totally one sided on the part of the shooters. No doubt some of that is ISIL's intent, motivate people to do terrorist acts but I don't think what happened in SB changes how governments deal with ISIL. Short of blowing them to bits not much can be done to stop people from using the net. And when that happens a new ISIL will pop up, there is always another one. Nothing to do with being PC.

That said none of this really has anything to do with gun laws. When terrorists do kills thousands it will be with significantly more powerful weapons. Regardless of their motivation the shooters in SB are more Klebold and Harris. They could have chosen another target besides his co-workers. They are nuts first and everything else after.

[Lihu]

21 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

That's not a rebuttal.  I don't dispute any of what you just said but it didn't address any of what I said.

Well, the 80 lives that could have been saved versus 498 dead (add the 80 that you estimated were saved by the 9 good citizens to the 418). That's 16% lives saved. Not a bad statistic considering the conditions under which the good citizens needed to respond.

It could be argued that if more people are trained to use weapons and carry them, then that could possibly increase the number from 16% to something higher. Furthermore, that the number killed could rise by 16% if less people are allowed to have concealed carry.

Concealed carry is a good deterrent as well. If you go into a room full of people you know do not have guns with the intent of killing everyone in it, it's logically easier to do so. If half of the people carried guns and you knew that for a fact, then you might not take the chance to attempt to kill anybody.

13 minutes ago, Dave2512 said:

They've deemed the shooters were radicalized but haven't really made a connection. The FB alias post isn't exactly a hotline to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi it's totally one sided on the part of the shooters. No doubt some of that is ISIL's intent, motivate people to do terrorist acts but I don't think what happened in SB changes how governments deal with ISIL. Short of blowing them to bits not much can be done to stop people from using the net. And when that happens a new ISIL will pop up, there is always another one. Nothing to do with being PC.

That said none of this really has anything to do with gun laws. When terrorists do kills thousands it will be with significantly more powerful weapons. Regardless of their motivation the shooters in SB are more Klebold and Harris. They could have chosen another target besides his co-workers. They are nuts first and everything else after.

So, it could be also argued that the public should be allowed to carry more powerful weapons. . .

It really doesn't make a difference if the mass shootings in the Stanford study were performed with a 9mm or a 5.7×28mm. If more people carried P90 weapons, terrorists would think twice about attacking a crowd of unknown targets.

[Golfingdad]

22 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Well, the 80 lives that could have been saved versus 498 dead (add the 80 that you estimated were saved by the 9 good citizens to the 418). That's 16% lives saved. Not a bad statistic considering the conditions under which the good citizens needed to respond.

It could be argued that if more people are trained to use weapons and carry them, then that could possibly increase the number from 16% to something higher. Furthermore, that the number killed could rise by 16% if less people are allowed to have concealed carry.

Concealed carry is a good deterrent as well. If you go into a room full of people you know do not have guns with the intent of killing everyone in it, it's logically easier to do so. If half of the people carried guns and you knew that for a fact, then you might not take the chance to attempt to kill anybody.

Who says less people would be allowed to concealed carry?

Further, more guns could also lead to more situations like this one: http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/264755/carjacking-gone-wrong-houston-texas/

[Lihu]

4 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

Further, more guns could also lead to more situations like this one: http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/264755/carjacking-gone-wrong-houston-texas/

This is where more training comes into play.

Yeah, the carjack victim was probably not that appreciative. . .

[JonMA1]

5 hours ago, saevel25 said:

Will a person with an 8 round handgun be able to kill as many people as effectively as a semi-automatic?

All things being equal, I think the rifle with specific ammunition would potentially do more damage in a crowd, even though the pistol would be easier to conceal. Sadly, with enough loaded magazines and a skilled assailant, either would take a lot of lives.

If you want to get right down to it, I would imagine a self-loading shotgun with buckshot would inflict as much carnage into a crowd as anything, but would be limited by a lesser capacity magazine (i don't know how many rounds they hold). 

5 hours ago, iacas said:

Most handguns are semi-automatic. Use more precise terminology, please.

I think the significant difference between a semi-auto rifle vs a semi-auto handgun is the ability of a full jacketed rifle round to better penetrate vests worn by law-enforcement officers, as well as walls or other objects that might stop a pistol round.

---

Backed by experience, my opinion is that a FMJ rifle round is a terrible round for hunting. Even a well-placed shot with one will not always drop a white-tailed deer immediately. While it is inexpensive ammo to shoot at the range, I believe it's main purpose is for the military.

Does anyone have an opinion regarding the restriction of that type of ammo? (I've probably heard them all, but I thought it would be an appropriate question for this thread.)

[Dave2512]

2 hours ago, Lihu said:

Well, the 80 lives that could have been saved versus 498 dead (add the 80 that you estimated were saved by the 9 good citizens to the 418). That's 16% lives saved. Not a bad statistic considering the conditions under which the good citizens needed to respond.

It could be argued that if more people are trained to use weapons and carry them, then that could possibly increase the number from 16% to something higher. Furthermore, that the number killed could rise by 16% if less people are allowed to have concealed carry.

Concealed carry is a good deterrent as well. If you go into a room full of people you know do not have guns with the intent of killing everyone in it, it's logically easier to do so. If half of the people carried guns and you knew that for a fact, then you might not take the chance to attempt to kill anybody.

So, it could be also argued that the public should be allowed to carry more powerful weapons. . .

It really doesn't make a difference if the mass shootings in the Stanford study were performed with a 9mm or a 5.7×28mm. If more people carried P90 weapons, terrorists would think twice about attacking a crowd of unknown targets.

I don't think so lunatics are rarely rational. And again cops and military are killed despite being armed and trained because of surprise attacks. It could lead to shooters being stopped earlier could also lead to innocent being caught in a crossfire. 

I know it seems like mass shooting are an every day thing now but it's likely not something most will ever face. Guns aren't the cause of mass shootings and I don't think more armed civilians are prevention. 

[Lihu]

1 hour ago, JonMA1 said:

Backed by experience, my opinion is that a FMJ rifle round is a terrible round for hunting. Even a well-placed shot with one will not always drop a white-tailed deer immediately. While it is inexpensive ammo to shoot at the range, I believe it's main purpose is for the military.

Does anyone have an opinion regarding the restriction of that type of ammo? (I've probably heard them all, but I thought it would be an appropriate question for this thread.)

Agree, and I was actually pondering a little about disintegrating rounds to prevent accidental killings, while thinking about this thread.

Silver tips are preferred for home defense, and they even have polymer ones.

[JonMA1]

10 minutes ago, Lihu said:

Agree, and I was actually pondering a little about disintegrating rounds to prevent accidental killings, while thinking about this thread.

Silver tips are preferred for home defense, and they even have polymer ones.

If you're talking about polymer-tipped bullets, I hand-load and use those as hunting rounds (because of the expansion) and they are very accurate at the range as well. Perhaps you're talking about another type of round I'm unfamiliar with?

In any case, I think the best way to prevent accidental killings is education. Parents should take that responsibility seriously if they're going to have firearms in the home. In our area, Hunter (firearm) Safety certification - for the most part - is mandatory in order to purchase a hunting license.

[newtogolf]

4 hours ago, Golfingdad said:

In that same time frame, there were 51 "successful" mass shootings (which this website appears to qualify as 4 or more dead) with a total of 418 casualties.

Even if those 9 people averaged the same amount as the others, then they would have tallied somewhere around 80.  The cost of continuing to do nothing is a net loss of a large percentage.  Perhaps doing something will bring those numbers down.

Further, why is it always assumed that making it harder for people like Dylan Klebold, Adam Lanza, or James Holmes (etc) to acquire weapons automatically means that "good guys" will lose theirs?  I don't get that argument.

My understanding is Lanza used weapons his mother purchased under her own name, it's almost impossible to prevent.

As for the others, what's the method you want to use to make it harder for them to get guns?

• If there's a history of mental illness you have to change HIPAA laws so that mental illness gets reported and patients lose the right to doctor / patient confidentiality.  Who or what determines whether someone with a history of mental illness can own a hunting rifle?
• Longer waiting times to avoid crimes of passion, I'd be okay with a 7 day waiting period on all weapons, but most of these terrorists (domestic and international) typically plan out these attacks so waiting 7 days isn't going to discourage them from executing their plan.
• Make it illegal to sell guns at gun shows?  I'd be okay with not allowing the delivery of the gun to occur at the show.
• Black Market, no law abiding citizen wants there to be a black market for handguns.

The fear of adding additional laws to the already numerous laws on the books is that any additional laws will add subjectivity into the equation.  Once the government has the ability to subjectively interpret the law, the potential to expand the law beyond its intent is too great a threat.

For those against guns, why is the solution always to make guns harder to get rather than change the behavior of those that use them in the commission of crimes.  Would you be willing to support mandatory death penalties for anyone killing someone with a gun (outside of self defense)?

 

[Golfingdad]

47 minutes ago, newtogolf said:

My understanding is Lanza used weapons his mother purchased under her own name, it's almost impossible to prevent.

As for the others, what's the method you want to use to make it harder for them to get guns?

• If there's a history of mental illness you have to change HIPAA laws so that mental illness gets reported and patients lose the right to doctor / patient confidentiality.  Who or what determines whether someone with a history of mental illness can own a hunting rifle?
• Longer waiting times to avoid crimes of passion, I'd be okay with a 7 day waiting period on all weapons, but most of these terrorists (domestic and international) typically plan out these attacks so waiting 7 days isn't going to discourage them from executing their plan.
• Make it illegal to sell guns at gun shows?  I'd be okay with not allowing the delivery of the gun to occur at the show.
• Black Market, no law abiding citizen wants there to be a black market for handguns.

The fear of adding additional laws to the already numerous laws on the books is that any additional laws will add subjectivity into the equation.  Once the government has the ability to subjectively interpret the law, the potential to expand the law beyond its intent is too great a threat.

For those against guns, why is the solution always to make guns harder to get rather than change the behavior of those that use them in the commission of crimes.  Would you be willing to support mandatory death penalties for anyone killing someone with a gun (outside of self defense)?

 

I don't know.  I don't have any answers other than I believe doing nothing - which we've been doing for awhile now -is the wrong solution.

And I say "solution" because I strongly believe that this is a problem.  Others do not and that flabbergasted me.  Try something - anything - and if it works, great, but if it doesn't, try something else.

[newtogolf]

41 minutes ago, Golfingdad said:

I don't know.  I don't have any answers other than I believe doing nothing - which we've been doing for awhile now -is the wrong solution.

And I say "solution" because I strongly believe that this is a problem.  Others do not and that flabbergasted me.  Try something - anything - and if it works, great, but if it doesn't, try something else.

The larger problem is some individuals in this world wish to do harm to others, whether it be using a gun, bomb, knife, car, axe, etc.  Focusing only on guns doesn't solve the bigger problem which is some individuals are unfit to live in our society and those that kill others (outside of self defense and military) need to be dealt with more severely than they are today, they need to be executed.

Outlawing alcohol consumption to those under 21 hasn't prevented kids under 21 from drinking or driving while intoxicated. Our solution for DWI isn't to ban alcohol it's to be more vigilant and penal to those who break the law.  The same logic needs to be applied for those who commit crimes with guns.