The Big Gun Control Thread

Stengah wrote:

The first screen shot I saw just had circular targets, and I was all ready to make a joke about how much restraint they showed by not having human-shaped targets...then I went to the itunes store itself and there they were.

Well at least they didn't use actual human silhouettes cause that might be violent.

Either the NRA is completely tone deaf or they're just mocking the people calling for tighter regulation.

Bear wrote:
Stengah wrote:

The first screen shot I saw just had circular targets, and I was all ready to make a joke about how much restraint they showed by not having human-shaped targets...then I went to the itunes store itself and there they were.

Well at least they didn't use actual human silhouettes cause that might be violent.

Either the NRA is completely tone deaf or they're just mocking the people calling for tighter regulation.

A little from column A, a little from column B.

For me, the strongest signifier of their gutless hypocrisy is that they cited obscurities like Bulletstorm and Splatterhouse instead of super-popular gun-laden juggernaut CoD or Medal of Honor, which had that bizarre Partnered But Not thing with the gun manufacturers. This is piss icing on that sh*t cake.

Splatterhouse is always a nice go-to.

Nothing like a 25 year old side-scrolling beat-em-up to help make your point about gun violence in video games.

McIrishJihad wrote:

Splatterhouse is always a nice go-to.

Nothing like a 25 year old side-scrolling beat-em-up to help make your point about gun violence in video games.

Honestly, I had to Google "Splatterhouse" because I'd never heard of it before.

Apparently he missed the infamous airport scene in the last CoD.

Bear wrote:

Did I say that? Nope, looked at what I wrote and it doesn't say that. Thanks for making that up though.

You can't complain about "violence" in video games then release an app aimed at CHILDREN. ...

The way my brain parsed your words you did say that and, you said it again in the last sentence I just quoted.

Bear wrote:

Ok, uh....err...uh....I thought violent video games were part of the problem? So the NRA releases a "shooting app" with a suggested age of 4+

If you think the app or the sport(s) it depicts aren't violent then, why the outrage over them releasing it (other than the low age)?

Would hockey, football, MMA and, boxing games be out too; as those are all fairly "violent" sports.

That second bolded bit? That's Bear mocking the NRA's stance, not stating his own.

TigerBill wrote:
Bear wrote:

Did I say that? Nope, looked at what I wrote and it doesn't say that. Thanks for making that up though.

You can't complain about "violence" in video games then release an app aimed at CHILDREN. ...

The way my brain parsed your words you did say that and, you said it again in the last sentence I just quoted.

Bear wrote:

Ok, uh....err...uh....I thought violent video games were part of the problem? So the NRA releases a "shooting app" with a suggested age of 4+

If you think the app or the sport(s) it depicts aren't violent then, why the outrage over them releasing it (other than the low age)?

Would hockey, football, MMA and, boxing games be out too; as those are all fairly "violent" sports.

You might be missing the information that the NRA is blaming violent video games for school shootings. The "you" in the first quote is directed at the NRA, not anyone here specifically.

Stengah wrote:

You might be missing the information that the NRA is blaming violent video games for school shootings. The "you" in the first quote is directed at the NRA, not anyone here specifically.

No, I got that. The way I read his rant is, he is upset that they are speaking out against violent video games AND then release one of their own that involves shooting sports. To me that rant makes no sense as the sports depicted aren't considered violent activities.

TigerBill wrote:

No, I got that. The way I read his rant is, he is upset that they are speaking out against violent video games AND then release one of their own that involves shooting sports. To me that rant makes no sense as the sports depicted aren't considered violent activities.

You don't find it a bit odd that a few weeks after complaining about violence in the media that they'd release an app that involves shooting at human silhouettes? Especially considering that they stated age recommendation is 4+?

OG_slinger wrote:
Dimmerswitch wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:
Edwin wrote:

Two burglars broke into a guy's home who was on the map and went after his gun safe. [New York Newsday] We won't know for 100%, but the gun safe is the only thing the article wrote about them touching.

Why are you even bringing this up as proof that criminals are targeting gun owners via the database if you don't know for sure, Edwin?

I think Edwin was pretty clear with his caveat that we don't actually know whether the gun permit map played a role in that crime, but I am curious to hear the outcome of the police investigation about whether that was a factor in their targeting. Either way, publishing that map strikes me as a well-intentioned but emotionally-driven response by the paper, and one which was not unlikely to have unintended consequences.

Edwin has also been consistently calm and clear in this thread about the fact that, even as a gun owner, he is in favor of strong regulation of firearms.

I'm not buying that. Edwin has made other posts about the gun owner map and cited several articles that claimed that it was being/would be used for nefarious ends. Saying "we won't know 100%" wasn't really a caveat given his previous posts. The only reason he linked to the article was to provide supporting proof for his argument.

Had he actually caveated things, he would have acknowledged that the theory that the crime was driven by the map didn't come from the police who were still investigating what, if any role, it had in the crime. But that would have negated his argument.

All we have right now is an attempted burglary at a house that just so happened to be one of 44,000 households on the gun owner map that was published. Given that the map isn't even searchable nor does it contain any information about the number or types of firearms owned, it is unlikely that there's any actual link between it and the crime.

Dimmer has the right read of it. It's not proof till the investigation is done and the police say so, like I wrote.

Jayhawker wrote:
The Conformist wrote:
Jayhawker wrote:

But I am frustrated by the lack of real discussion about what will really happen. Too often I find gun control advocates falling for the bait of side topics that do more to diffuse the issue than move it forward.

Farscry wrote:

Frankly, I am starting to just not give a sh*t. Most of my participation in the whole discussion is because it saddens me to see people die needlessly. As far as myself, I'm hard-pressed to care sometimes. I'm not in this debate for my benefit, I'm in it to benefit the safety of others. I can take care of myself, and if someone shoots me dead, well... I won't care, because I'll be dead.

I think most of us here are in this discussion simply for the sake of debating. I mean let's be realistic here, what issue are we exactly moving forward on here? Like every single controversial topic on this board, it's only a reason to go out, hear the opinions of others, and have a good time discussing. But we aren't exactly changing the world one post at a time. So unless one of us here is a high ranking government official, we're just here for the theories and good times ;-)

That is so true. Good post.

Speak for yourselves but I for one am doing something. I took a lot of the feedback from here and other places and wrote to my Congresscritters telling them I support better gun control, with actual proposals. I already have ongoing dialog with Andy Hill my Senator in 45th Legislative District of Washington on things that can be done to help curb deaths by firearms.

When I read that Rep. Sherry Appleton of the 23rd Legislative District in Washington started getting angry, vaguely threatening message I wrote to her to apologize for all the assholes who happen to be gun owners like me, and to let her know that while I may not support that specific legislation, I do support other gun control measures. I may be responsible and go well above the minimum standards for safety, but not all of us do.

So no, this isn't some self mastubatory internet debate. I am doing something about it. There is no god damned reason why there is a 46x more risk of having a firearm accidents when we can prevent it with better training and best practices. I'm not even a hard core gun owner. I have one (9mm) and have only had it for a month. That's it. It's my first and only non-.22lr. I don't even like the AR-15. But just because I don't like it doesn't mean that I don't think people should have the option to have one proven they are cleared and demonstrate being responsible.

NY legislature passes tougher gun features and sales restriction, and adds more mental health controls.

Yahoo

Under current state law, assault weapons are defined by having two "military rifle" features. The proposal would reduce that to one feature and include the popular pistol grip.

Private sales of assault weapons to someone other than an immediate family would be subject to a background check through a dealer. Also Internet sales of assault weapons would be banned, and failing to safely store a weapon could be subject to a misdemeanor charge.

Ammunition magazines would be restricted to seven bullets, from the current 10, and current owners of higher-capacity magazines would have a year to sell them out of state. An owner caught at home with eight or more bullets in a magazine could face a misdemeanor charge.

In another provision, a therapist who believes a mental health patient made a credible threat to use a gun illegally would be required to report it to a mental health director who would have to notify the state. A patient's gun could be taken from him or her.

Need to read the whole bill, of course... But here is the initial impression: while these restrictions will undoubtedly be decried as draconian in certain circles, I am actually surprised at how little things will effectively change with regard to the current gun ownership picture, which is primarily upstate. The market of pinned magazines and AR thumbhole stocks is now going to take really off in NY, and that's it.

I'm curious to see how the magazine situation plays out. It sounds like this is just a slightly tougher version of the easy to evade 1994 ban. If you can just switch out a different magazine, meh. Also I wonder if the magazine limits will apply to handguns as well.

The silliest provision is the "Webster" rule mandating life sentences for anyone who shoots a first responder, a rule that would have made absolutely no difference in the case the rule was named for, since the shooter in that case never intended to survive his shooting spree. The idea that there are all these people going on shooting sprees and NOT getting life sentences seems farfetched.

The provisions of the NY law seemed to be the usual mix of the practical and the purely symbolic.

A side note on the map: some of the data is out of date. There were at least two names/addresses listed where the people moved years ago.

Edwin wrote:

Dimmer has the right read of it. It's not proof till the investigation is done and the police say so, like I wrote.

If there's no proof, you really shouldn't be trying to claim there's a connection...

And, according to White Plains' police, any reports of a link between the burglary and the gun map is "pure speculation," not "we won't know 100%".

As police investigate a burglary over the weekend on Davis Avenue, Public Safety Commissioner David Chong said it’s premature to suggest that the house was targeted because a resident there is listed on a map of pistol permit holders published last month by The Journal News.

“It would be premature at this stage in the investigation, to connect this one burglary to The Journal News gun map,” Chong said. Asked about media reports on the possible link, he called it “pure speculation, at this point.”

“We see no pattern of people breaking into homes based on the map, but we’re certainly paying attention and monitoring that.”

The burglary was one of four recent burglaries in the city. The other three residences burglarized do not appear on The Journal News pistol permit holders map.

In the Davis Avenue break-in, a man reported at 9 p.m. Saturday that he returned to his home to find a rear second-floor window had been entered by someone who used a ladder. Jewelry was taken and pry marks were found on what the homeowner described as his gun locker. No weapons were stolen.

“We’re investigating this as we would investigate any burglary,” he said. “It is my experience that any burglar who finds a safe, whether it be a gun safe or any kind of safe, would attempt to enter it.”

This burglary was one of a series of break-ins in the neighborhood and the police have arrested one homeless guy for one of the break-ins and they like him for the others since the MO is the same.

Funkenpants wrote:

I'm curious to see how the magazine situation plays out. It sounds like this is just a slightly tougher version of the easy to evade 1994 ban. If you can just switch out a different magazine, meh. Also I wonder if the magazine limits will apply to handguns as well.

The silliest provision was the "Webster" rule mandating life sentences for anyone who shoots a first responder, a rule that would have made absolutely no difference in the case the rule was named for, since the shooter in that case never intended to survive his shooting spree.

The existing handgun magazines can be pinned by a gunsmith, or blocked at home -- by taking a nailset to a proper spot on its side. This creates a dimple that won't let the follower to go down and create room for the 8th round.

The sourcing of the new compliant magazines becomes a problem. Since now manufacturers have to decide whether they want to produce odd-ball magazines for an effectively limited market, the supply is going to be naturally constrained. This is similar to how things go on in my NJ, with the existing 15 rounds limit.. Except more severe of course. 20 and 30 round magazines are readily available from Pennsylvania, but are not legal. Same goes for "evil features" of the semi-automatic rifles. The beast is being starved, so to say, on the supply side. The buyers still can purchase guns and magazines, and the merchants are still willing to sell them... But the manufacturers are disinclined to produce them because given the niche nature of such market. Why bother creating a one-off SKU for NY when there are 40 states in the union that will lap up everything guns-related faster than it can be produced?

Montpelier school board approves carrying of handguns by custodial staff

MONTPELIER, Ohio - The Montpelier Exempted Village Schools Board of Education has approved the carrying of handguns by its custodial staff.

The 5-0 vote of the board Wednesday night to allow handgun training for four custodians to be able to tote weapons at the K-12 campus at the Williams County school came after last month's deadly shooting rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut.

School officials say that having armed personnel - believed to be the first for any school system in Ohio - is designed to thwart incidents of violence and prevent what happened in Newtown, Conn., from occurring here.

"Sitting back and doing nothing and hoping it doesn't happen to you is just not good policy anymore. There is a need for schools to beef up their security measures," Supertendent Jamie Grime told The Blade today. "Having guns in the hands of the right people are not a hindrance. They are a means to protect."

The school district will pay for the employees to undergo a two-day training class in mid March, when instructors with the Tactical Defense Institute of West Union, Ohio, will give them a defense class on handgun use in Montpelier.

A two-day class seems like a reasonable amount of training prior to giving a gun to a f*cking janitor in a school. Totally reasonable.

What an elegant solution. Janitors! No extra headcount. Let's deputize janitors everywhere -- government buildings, movie theaters, malls etc...

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

What an elegant solution. Janitors! No extra headcount. Let's deputize janitors everywhere -- government buildings, movie theaters, malls etc...

Quis custodiet ipsos custodians?

It really is brilliant. I'm sure janitors that don't want a gun in their life will appreciate working with armed co-workers. It's not like workplace violence is ever an issue in our culture.

Let's arm postal workers, too!

I am so glad I have no kids, and will not have kids.

SallyNasty wrote:

A two-day class seems like a reasonable amount of training prior to giving a gun to a f*cking janitor in a school. Totally reasonable.

I must admit, this made me laugh hysterically even thought it shouldn't have.

I think the thinking went like this:
1. Janitors use brooms and mops
2. Brooms and mops have handles that look like staffs
3. Staff are martial arts weapons
4. Janitors might be ninjas
5. Let's give them guns.

I'm waiting for the day we install pillboxes in the hallways!

I think back to some of the "janitors" we had when I was in school and I can't help but think "HOLY f*ck"!

SallyNasty wrote:

A two-day class seems like a reasonable amount of training prior to giving a gun to a f*cking janitor in a school. Totally reasonable.

OBAMA'S ARMING THE MEXICANS!

Mark my words.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
SallyNasty wrote:

A two-day class seems like a reasonable amount of training prior to giving a gun to a f*cking janitor in a school. Totally reasonable.

OBAMA'S ARMING THE MEXICANS!

IMAGE(http://scistarter.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/laughter-project-scistarter.jpg)

Gorilla.800.lbs wrote:

The existing handgun magazines can be pinned by a gunsmith, or blocked at home -- by taking a nailset to a proper spot on its side. This creates a dimple that won't let the follower to go down and create room for the 8th round.

As I read the bill, you can still own stock 10-round magazines, you just can't load more than seven rounds into them. It's an odd number for them to choose, but they might have selected seven rounds for rifles to match the rule allowing semi-auto shotguns to have fixed magazines up to seven rounds.

I was on a NY gun owners forum where people were going ballistic about the law. While I understand people want to own what they want to own, as a practical matter it's still possible to be pretty well tooled up even under the new rules.

Bear wrote:

I think back to some of the "janitors" we had when I was in school and I can't help but think "HOLY f*ck"!

That was my thought too. I worked with them over one summer for my summer job. A couple of them were really good people, the rest... I wouldn't trust them to drive a car safely, much less be able to safely carry and use a firearm.

I never thought I'd see the day when Suicide-by-Janitor was an option available to our troubled citizens. Truly the greatest nation.

Funkenpants wrote:

As I read the bill, you can still own stock 10-round magazines, you just can't load more than seven rounds into them.

If this is the case, how does this bill actually solve anything. Is someone whom is already going to consciously kill people going limit his magazines to only 7 rounds each, when they are capable of holding more?