The Big Gun Control Thread

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Hey, if it's OK to do racial profiling on Latinos or Muslims, why the holy @#$!! can we not start doing racial profiling on white males when it comes to buying guns?

Yes, I'm making an assumption it's a white male. Because it pretty much always is.

Within the borders of the US the chances of a white male going on a killing spree is much much higher than any other demographic. That should be looked into.

Also, I'll bet someone $1000 that "liberals" will give in on tighter media restrictions (better game ratings and enforcement) long before "conservatives" ever give in on the idea that most people don't need a semi-automatic handgun with 20 rounds in a clip.

Or that we should provide more funding for mental health services. I wonder what funding for mental health services looks like on the other side of the "Fiscal Cliff".

Trophy Husband wrote:
edosan wrote:

Question: has a citizen with a gun ever stopped one of these shootings from happening? Like, ever?

Four examples from this year.
http://www.guns.com/2012/08/01/texas...
http://www.abc4.com/content/about_4/...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_Yqk...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wWoLG...

Case #1: Violence was started by a lunatic with a perfectly legal AR-15. The lunatic also wasn't going on an indiscriminate killing spree; he specifically targetted the people (and their dogs) against whom he had a long-standing grudge.
Status: Irrelevant to Edosan's question; this was not a mass shooting.

Case #2: The attacker wasn't even carrying a firearm.
Status: Irrelevant to Edosan's question.

Case #3: Two armed men attempt to rob a business. Concealed-carry customer stops them.
Status: Irrelevant to Edosan's question; historically, armed robberies very rarely devolve into mass shootings.

Case #4: Two armed men attempt to rob a business. Customer initiates a gunfight and stops them.
Status: Again, irrelevant to Edosan's question. Same reason as Case #3.

In response to Edosan's question, no, an armed citizen has not stopped a mass shooting from happening from what I have been able to research so far.

DSGamer wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Hey, if it's OK to do racial profiling on Latinos or Muslims, why the holy @#$!! can we not start doing racial profiling on white males when it comes to buying guns?

Yes, I'm making an assumption it's a white male. Because it pretty much always is.

Within the borders of the US the chances of a white male going on a killing spree is much much higher than any other demographic. That should be looked into.

Also, I'll bet someone $1000 that "liberals" will give in on tighter media restrictions (better game ratings and enforcement) long before "conservatives" ever give in on the idea that most people don't need a semi-automatic handgun with 20 rounds in a clip.

Or that we should provide more funding for mental health services. I wonder what funding for mental health services looks like on the other side of the "Fiscal Cliff".

1. I don't care about game ratings and enforcement all that much; it's much ado about nothing. It's also completely pointless to this discussion, yet you've brought it up twice.

2. I cannot think of a single reason to own a large-capacity magazine other than "I want to shoot lots of people". Well, that, and the joy of collecting, but buy some @#$!! stamps instead. The next time somebody is able to do fire 100 rounds in a mass shooting with a six-shot revolver, I'll start believing the magazine size isn't a serious problem.

3. Mental health services are necessary, and nobody will spend money on it. We prefer to pretend the mentally ill don't exist, and that people should just "get over it". We need better mental health services, but we're not going to get them.

4. This is not really the time for inflammatory "liberal" vs. "conservative" posts.

Finally found one: what was shaping up to be a mass shooting at New Life Church in Colorado Springs in 2007 was stopped by an armed citizen.

Wiki article

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
DSGamer wrote:
MilkmanDanimal wrote:

Hey, if it's OK to do racial profiling on Latinos or Muslims, why the holy @#$!! can we not start doing racial profiling on white males when it comes to buying guns?

Yes, I'm making an assumption it's a white male. Because it pretty much always is.

Within the borders of the US the chances of a white male going on a killing spree is much much higher than any other demographic. That should be looked into.

Also, I'll bet someone $1000 that "liberals" will give in on tighter media restrictions (better game ratings and enforcement) long before "conservatives" ever give in on the idea that most people don't need a semi-automatic handgun with 20 rounds in a clip.

Or that we should provide more funding for mental health services. I wonder what funding for mental health services looks like on the other side of the "Fiscal Cliff".

1. I don't care about game ratings and enforcement all that much; it's much ado about nothing. It's also completely pointless to this discussion, yet you've brought it up twice.

I only brought it up because the media has already brought it up. And it's going to get blamed. So it's not pointless to this discussion to question why any reform is on the table BUT gun control.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

2. I cannot think of a single reason to own a large-capacity magazine other than "I want to shoot lots of people". Well, that, and the joy of collecting, but buy some @#$!! stamps instead. The next time somebody is able to do fire 100 rounds in a mass shooting with a six-shot revolver, I'll start believing the magazine size isn't a serious problem.

Yes. Make a six-shot the end point and I think this happens far less frequently.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

3. Mental health services are necessary, and nobody will spend money on it. We prefer to pretend the mentally ill don't exist, and that people should just "get over it". We need better mental health services, but we're not going to get them.

That was my earlier point. We'll get neither gun control nor mental health services, but we'll surely get all kinds of other boogeymen.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

4. This is not really the time for inflammatory "liberal" vs. "conservative" posts.

This is the gun control thread. I removed a similar post from the thread on the actual shooting, but I don't think it's crazy to talk about remedies and what people will and won't agree to.

Farscry wrote:

Finally found one: what was shaping up to be a mass shooting at New Life Church in Colorado Springs in 2007 was stopped by an armed citizen.

Wiki article

I'm not sure if that's a good example. The "armed citizen" was an ex-cop who was doing security for the church at the time.

Since all these concealed carry laws are designed to get weapons in the hands of the average yahoo, I'd want to see some examples of how some idiot who took an hour-long safety course and went to the range once or twice saved the day by putting one between the bad guy's eyes.

IIRC, the guy who wrestled the gun away from Gifford's shooter came a hairs width from getting shot by someone who was carrying at the time.

Reposting this from a private conversation with Fyedaddy, it's too relevant not to share:

A land without guns

Bold emphasis in the quote is mine:

Friday's horrific shooting at an Aurora, Colorado, movie theater has been a reminder that America's gun control laws are the loosest in the developed world and its rate of gun-related homicide is the highest. Of the world's 23 "rich" countries, the U.S. gun-related murder rate is almost 20 times that of the other 22. With almost one privately owned firearm per person, America's ownership rate is the highest in the world; tribal-conflict-torn Yemen is ranked second, with a rate about half of America's.

But what about the country at the other end of the spectrum? What is the role of guns in Japan, the developed world's least firearm-filled nation and perhaps its strictest controller? In 2008, the U.S. had over 12 thousand firearm-related homicides. All of Japan experienced only 11, fewer than were killed at the Aurora shooting alone. And that was a big year: 2006 saw an astounding two, and when that number jumped to 22 in 2007, it became a national scandal. By comparison, also in 2008, 587 Americans were killed just by guns that had discharged accidentally.

OG_slinger wrote:
Farscry wrote:

Finally found one: what was shaping up to be a mass shooting at New Life Church in Colorado Springs in 2007 was stopped by an armed citizen.

Wiki article

I'm not sure if that's a good example. The "armed citizen" was an ex-cop who was doing security for the church at the time.

You beat me to it. Since that was just up the road, I remember it well.

I always think of the Amadou Diallo shooting, the one that inspired the Springsteen song "41 Shots". Four police officers standing near the guy overreacted and fired 41 times at an unarmed man, and managed to hit him 19 times. Police officers who are trained in crisis situations and are certified and trained in firearm usage managed to have less than a 50% hit rate. I'm supposed to believe that some pudgy dork who wants to feel manly is going to be able to calmly and rationally pick out the actual bad guy and then hit them? Handguns are incredibly inaccurate weapons, and I've read effective range is 50 yards if you're very good, and more realistically 25 yards, and that's without screaming people running around you and dealing with the adrenaline of a life-threatening crisis situation.

There is no vaguely logical reason to believe we would be "safer" with handguns in everybody's hands.

OG_slinger wrote:
Farscry wrote:

Finally found one: what was shaping up to be a mass shooting at New Life Church in Colorado Springs in 2007 was stopped by an armed citizen.

Wiki article

I'm not sure if that's a good example. The "armed citizen" was an ex-cop who was doing security for the church at the time.

Since all these concealed carry laws are designed to get weapons in the hands of the average yahoo, I'd want to see some examples of how some idiot who took an hour-long safety course and went to the range once or twice saved the day by putting one between the bad guy's eyes.

IIRC, the guy who wrestled the gun away from Gifford's shooter came a hairs width from getting shot by someone who was carrying at the time.

Edit - Nevermind. I agree with the President. Now's not the time to talk about it. I'll catch back up with you guys next week.

Ah, yes, the Congressional Cop-out approach.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

I always think of the Amadou Diallo shooting, the one that inspired the Springsteen song "41 Shots". Four police officers standing near the guy overreacted and fired 41 times at an unarmed man, and managed to hit him 19 times. Police officers who are trained in crisis situations and are certified and trained in firearm usage managed to have less than a 50% hit rate. I'm supposed to believe that some pudgy dork who wants to feel manly is going to be able to calmly and rationally pick out the actual bad guy and then hit them? Handguns are incredibly inaccurate weapons, and I've read effective range is 50 yards if you're very good, and more realistically 25 yards, and that's without screaming people running around you and dealing with the adrenaline of a life-threatening crisis situation.

There is no vaguely logical reason to believe we would be "safer" with handguns in everybody's hands.

Agreed. I don't really think the Aurora shooting (for example) would have been helped if it had developed into a crossfire in a crowded, darkened movie theater. That idea that armed citizens are going to be crack shots seems hard to swallow.

Maybe it's time to start having a discussion on an outright repeal of the 2nd amendment.

With great privilege comes great responsibility. We're all about the privilege and suck at the responsibility part.

Bear wrote:

Maybe it's time to start having a discussion on an outright repeal of the 2nd amendment.

I've been gradually moving in the direction of gun control, and I have to say that a USA with Japan's gun control and resulting gun-related homicide rate would be a worthwhile trade-off.

edosan wrote:

Agreed. I don't really think the Aurora shooting (for example) would have been helped if it had developed into a crossfire in a crowded, darkened movie theater. That idea that armed citizens are going to be crack shots seems hard to swallow.

Imagine a scenario where a shooting starts in a movie theater or mall where everyone is armed. Every wannabee hero is going to want to react so you have a situation where you could easily have multiple people shooting at each other because none of them are sure who the original shooter is.

We might as well just carry guns to shoot ourselves with if that's the path we're going down.

Apparently a parallel event occurred in China today; a lunatic with a knife attacked an elementary school.

22 injured, no deaths.

Bear wrote:

Maybe it's time to start having a discussion on an outright repeal of the 2nd amendment.

With great privilege comes great responsibility. We're all about the privilege and suck at the responsibility part.

Maybe it's time people actually read the 2nd amendment, rather than just skipping that inconvenient first part of the sentence that most people seem to not know:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Supreme Court asserted that the first part of the sentence didn't particularly matter, and only the "keep and bear arms" portion was important, when it seems pretty clear to me that a well-regulated (generally understood to mean "well-organized" based on the usage at the time) militia meant private weapon ownership was considered critical by the Founding Fathers because you could, in fact, form a reasonably effective fighting force based on private citizens owning firearms, because the weapons they were likely to own would be pretty darn similar to those of actual standing armies. Nowadays, the idea that a bunch of suburbanites with Glocks forms an effective fighting force is utterly hilarious, as technology has changed so much.

The 2nd amendment does not say "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That's only half of it, and it's the first half of it that seems to give actual important historical context.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
Bear wrote:

Maybe it's time to start having a discussion on an outright repeal of the 2nd amendment.

With great privilege comes great responsibility. We're all about the privilege and suck at the responsibility part.

Maybe it's time people actually read the 2nd amendment, rather than just skipping that inconvenient first part of the sentence that most people seem to not know:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Supreme Court asserted that the first part of the sentence didn't particularly matter, and only the "keep and bear arms" portion was important, when it seems pretty clear to me that a well-regulated (generally understood to mean "well-organized" based on the usage at the time) militia meant private weapon ownership was considered critical by the Founding Fathers because you could, in fact, form a reasonably effective fighting force based on private citizens owning firearms, because the weapons they were likely to own would be pretty darn similar to those of actual standing armies. Nowadays, the idea that a bunch of suburbanites with Glocks forms an effective fighting force is utterly hilarious, as technology has changed so much.

The 2nd amendment does not say "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That's only half of it, and it's the first half of it that seems to give actual important historical context.

Where's the 'Like" button!?

I agree...today is not the day to start political arguing. Tomorrow they can start the bickering, but today...today is for something else.

MilkmanDanimal wrote:
Bear wrote:

Maybe it's time to start having a discussion on an outright repeal of the 2nd amendment.

With great privilege comes great responsibility. We're all about the privilege and suck at the responsibility part.

Maybe it's time people actually read the 2nd amendment, rather than just skipping that inconvenient first part of the sentence that most people seem to not know:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

The Supreme Court asserted that the first part of the sentence didn't particularly matter, and only the "keep and bear arms" portion was important, when it seems pretty clear to me that a well-regulated (generally understood to mean "well-organized" based on the usage at the time) militia meant private weapon ownership was considered critical by the Founding Fathers because you could, in fact, form a reasonably effective fighting force based on private citizens owning firearms, because the weapons they were likely to own would be pretty darn similar to those of actual standing armies. Nowadays, the idea that a bunch of suburbanites with Glocks forms an effective fighting force is utterly hilarious, as technology has changed so much.

The 2nd amendment does not say "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". That's only half of it, and it's the first half of it that seems to give actual important historical context.

It's almost like the wedding in the Princess Bride. The Constitution's Second Amendment has this whole long thing, and the Supreme Court was like Humperdink saying "'Man and Wife', say 'Man and Wife'". I am really feeling like a clarification of that amendment is overdue.

IMAGE(http://www.austinchronicle.com/binary/c28c/scaled.reddawn1984.jpg)

MilkmanDanimal wrote:

*good stuff*

Ashamedly, I have to admit that years ago, debating this very topic on GWJ, I staunchly maintained that the reason we had the 2nd amendment was not just for militia use, but for the citizenry to have the wherewithal to overthrow the government if it failed. It was even named as a duty of ours.

I actually still hold that this was the primary reasoning behind the 2nd amendment, because at the time an armed citizen militia was the main way to resist the government if necessary.

However, I finally agree (in no small part due to the Arab Spring too) with people I recall disagreeing with me such as Robear (he's the primary one I remember who tried to convince me) that this is an anachronism that is causing our nation more harm than good.

I'm just ashamed that it's taken me so long to shift my opinion to the support of gun controls.

I am anti gun control although I do not own a gun.

Today, I feel like most people are too stupid to own a gun.

MisterStatic wrote:

Found the sick bastard on FB: search for 'rlanza'.

Oops.

Farscry, you Uncle Tom of gun control, you!! How could you!!

Greg: the trouble is, I think, that most people who own a gun consider themselves pretty smart.

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

Farscry, you Uncle Tom of gun control, you!! How could you!!

Greg: the trouble is, I think, that most people who own a gun consider themselves pretty smart.

I know. That is the fundamental problem.

Initial reports is that the gunman had a Glock, a Sig and a Bushmaster .223. A reporter for CNN said he had talked to a law enforcement official who said the number of spent rounds in the building was "unimaginable".

I feel so heartbroken for the slain children and their families but I can't imagine what the kids who survived may have witnessed.

I hate myself for drawing this parallel but a lot of these guys seem to be living some kind of Call of Duty reality. Black outfits, tactical gear, assault rifles... You can't deny the parallels.

If you want to know what the gun lobby thinks about this incident.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/f...

goman wrote:

If you want to know what the gun lobby thinks about this incident.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/f...

i read about 3 minutes of that and had to stop. Who the hell is proud to own a semi-automatic anything besides a hair dryer?

goman wrote:

If you want to know what the gun lobby thinks about this incident.

http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/f...

Yeah there's pretty much no way I'm clicking that link. I'm gonna take some guesses though:
1. There will be several uses of "Guns don't kill people"
2. There will be several uses of "if you take away guns, only criminals will have guns"
3. There's be some dissertations that might as well come directly from Rush Limbaugh

Frankly, i'm tired of the NRA talking points and the idiots who want to cite Charlton Heston. I'm tired of hearing about how we'll be overrun with criminals with guns.

There are 20 dead children and eight adults lying in a school in CT because a small subset of the population insists that have to have guns. Not just guns, but guns designed with the purpose of killing as many people as possible.