The White House Releases New Gun Control Agenda

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

Here's the full plan on Scribd.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/120649409/White-House-gun-proposals
.
I love Business Insider. They're on top of everything I care about.
http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-gun-control-2013-1
(Emphasis is mine)

Here are the key points in the plan, which President Barack Obama announced at the White House today:

*Background checks on all gun sales
*Reinstatement of the expired assault weapons ban

*A 10-round limit on ammunition magazines

*Reinstatement of CDC research into the causes and prevention of gun violence
*Protecting police officers by banning armor-piercing bullets through a manufacture and import ban
*Providing resources to allow schools to hire 1,000 "school resource officers"
*Providing mental health coverage in health insurance plans

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/white-house-gun-control-proposal-obama-executive-orders-2013-1#ixzz2IA8zFRIw

Article from the NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/us/politics/obama-to-ask-congress-to-toughen-gun-laws.html?_r=0

"This is our first task as a society," Mr. Obama said. "Keeping our children safe. This is how we will be judged. And their voices should compel us to change."
-
The N.R.A. appears ready for the fight. On Tuesday, it posted a video mocking Mr. Obama for having Secret Service protection for his children while opposing armed guards at the nation's schools. The video calls the president an "elitist hypocrite."

The White House issued an angry response to the ad. "Most Americans agree that a president's children should not be used as pawns in a political fight," said Jay Carney, the White House press secretary. "But to go so far as to make the safety of the president's children the subject of an attack ad is repugnant and cowardly."

.

On msn they, one of the items was:

•banning "military-style" assault weapons

At least they are coming right out and saying they are trying to banning gun just because they look "scary" now.

It's interesting how the White House wants background checks done on even private sales. Am I reading this right?

REQUIRE BACKGROUND CHECKS ON ALL GUN SALES:
Felons, fugitives,and others who are legally prohibited from having a gun should not be able to use loopholes to get one. Right now, federally licensed firearms dealers are required to run background checks on those buying guns, but studies estimate that nearly 40 percent of all gun sales are made by private sellers who are exempt from this requirement. As the President said following the Newtown tragedy,keeping guns out of the wrong hands starts with legislation to require background checks for all gun sales, with limited, common-sense exceptions forcases like certain transfers among family members and temporary transfers for hunting and sporting purposes. In addition, the Administration will provide licensed dealers with guidance on how they can run background checks on private sales today.

I suspect that there will be legislation requiring notification of a private sale and some sort of a background check will probably have to be paid for, possibly using something like a gun store to run the background check and register the new owner.

The NRA go from one stupid to another, comparing the way schools are gun free zones to the Presidents kids getting secret service protection is bonkers. Ignoring the fact that Obama has no choice about having the secret service follow himself and his family around (no president does) and also ignoring the fact that it wasn't his idea to get his own kids protected like that the really important thing is the body guards are the secret service. They are some of the best trained personal protection teams in the world and held to the highest of standards.

They are not the same as a teacher or something that attended an evening class and fired some bullets on a range. Do NRA supporters really believe in the stuff they come out with?

*Protecting police officers by banning armor-piercing bullets through a manufacture and import ban

Doesn't that go directly against the 2nd amendment? The whole preventing tyranny thing?

FreedomofInformation:

*Protecting police officers by banning armor-piercing bullets through a manufacture and import ban

Doesn't that go directly against the 2nd amendment? The whole preventing tyranny thing?

I'm not entirely sure you understand the second amendment. I'll give you a free pass if you're not from the United States. If you are, however... well, suffice to say you might want to take another glance at the constitution the next time you have the opportunity.

Within the limits of existing US law, it's a pretty good package. I just question the useage of armed policemen at school. Chances are the rate of them going postal and starting their own school shooting, end up being higher than the amount of shootings they can prevent from happening. Besides, exposing small children to weapons isn't something that should be done, same like you don't expose small children to drugs. Bringing those into schools is a wrong message.

Then again, the situation with gun ownership in the US is desperate, so I suppose it justifies desperate measures.


The NRA shows once again the gun lobby has no class again by blaming Obama for not leaving his children unprotected while various groups have plenty reason to wish them harm, while the NRA itself is a fanatical supporter of school shootings happening and opposes any measures that would limit their number or impact.

Yeah NRA, more dead children good, protection against terrorism bad, amirite? I'll never understand pro-gun logic.

lulz, protect police by getting rid of armor piercing bullets. I wonder if they realize any riffle round would penetrate armor...

And once again with the jackass AWB. Lets go after the catagory of firearms that kills the least amount of people and doesn't even do anything as the tens of millions of "assault weapons" and magazines are grandfathered in. Brilliant just make things more of a PITA for law abiding citizens.

*Background checks on all gun sales
Thought we already had those, still a good idea
*Reinstatement of the expired assault weapons ban
The old "They look scary so ban them" Also take a look at the following


You see that dude? With those handguns he killed 33 people (himself included) and wounded 23 others. That is far more damage than has been done by people with "assault weapons". Let's also look at this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

The massacre is the deadliest shooting incident by a single gunman in U.S. history. It was the worst act of mass murder of college students since Syracuse University lost 35 students in the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103, and the second-deadliest act of mass murder at a US school campus, behind the Bath School disaster of 1927.

What does this tell us? Well for one that assault weapons are only being banned because they're scary and the second thing is that explosives were used in the 2 biggest attacks on school students which were already illegal.

*A 10-round limit on ammunition magazines
This is gonna cost a lot since so many weapons use magazines holding more than 10 bullets, a huge expense.

*Reinstatement of CDC research into the causes and prevention of gun violence
Here's a better idea
"*Reinstatement of CDC research into the causes and prevention of violence"

*Protecting police officers by banning armor-piercing bullets through a manufacture and import ban
So then how do you protect yourself against a police officer?
*Providing resources to allow schools to hire 1,000 "school resource officers"
They've tasered students so no, I'd be against this
*Providing mental health coverage in health insurance plans
I love that idea

Also all this considered I'd heard this plan was gonna cost $500 million. I thought we were trying to cut spending, not increase it.

Xan Krieger:


You see that dude? With those handguns he killed 33 people (himself included) and wounded 23 others. That is far more damage than has been done by people with "assault weapons". Let's also look at this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

It really needed to include a ban on semi-automatic handguns, true. But the gun lobby is already screaming bloody murder over this, imagine the drama they'd kick up if you actually banned the nr 1 most convenient killing weapon....

Also, one of the weapons the shooter used was a 15 round clip. This ban would ensure he needed to reload that weapons one third more often, and the guy will have fired a lot of shots. Also Cho would've failed a background check, if only the state had bothered to invest in a decent reporting system. But they didn't, because that's big government and costs tax money, and Cho got all he needed to 'defend himself'. If only they'd be tough on the states this time and not tolerate any conservative 'let's do half work and keep it cheap' work, the upgraded background checks could really work.

Then again, the second shooting at Virginia Tech in 2011 killed such an armed school officer. Somebody walked up to the guy and second amended him on the spot. If he wanted he could've gone on a rampage like the first shooter after that, but fortunately he didn't. It showed bringing guns into schools doesn't make a difference though. All that changes is who the first victim is.


So I think it's a list of mostly good ideas and a few bad ideas. Then again, in the background of the US, what more could Biden possibly have done? All the real solutions are politically impossible.

Xan Krieger:

Also all this considered I'd heard this plan was gonna cost $500 million. I thought we were trying to cut spending, not increase it.

It's not outrageous to imagine that with less gunshot wounds around the spending in the healthcare sector could be reduced. And well, you know, "this costs money"...EVERYTHING DOES, especially in the short term. Even abolishing a policy that costs money costs money. Oh and half a billion? I'm pretty sure that could be scrounged up with cutting some corners on the military spending.

Meanwhile, the NRA stays classy by attacking Obama's kids in a new ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RB4lDYSv_KY

Xan Krieger:

So then how do you protect yourself against a police officer?

Really? This is a thing that worries you, protecting yourself from a trained officer? This isn't 1861. We aren't instigating an uprising against our government. If you're being robbed or assaulted by somebody in full body armor then you have bigger problems than gun restriction laws, and in that situation, unless you're a professionally trained killer, like a member of the armed forces or something similar, then you'll be too busy shitting yourself to jump for a gun and shoot your way out.

I believe this is a good start. We will see how the nation takes it. I think that Mati Teo scandal might take some heat off it. Speaking of which, what a total jack ass. Inventing a girlfriend and saying she died to get positive press, terrible.

Blablahb:

Xan Krieger:


You see that dude? With those handguns he killed 33 people (himself included) and wounded 23 others. That is far more damage than has been done by people with "assault weapons". Let's also look at this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

It really needed to include a ban on semi-automatic handguns, true.

I would say that there is nothing 'lesser' than a semi-automatic handgun, so banning them would be banning all guns. But you probably already knew that, which is why you suggested it. (Even my little Derringer has two shots, so it's semi-auto.)

i don't usually do gun control topics but i was reading the comments on that NRA youtube video and was struck by the percentage of people keen to directly compare the UK and US crime rates.

i suppose we have f'ing peirs morgan to thank for that...

so im gonna deal with that before it comes up and at the same time equip you with the facts for future reference.

let me say one thing from the start tho: the truth is the crime rates in both our countries are at some of the lowest levels ever recorded while the fear of crime is at some the highest.

imo that situation is a result of "the politics of fear", the sensationalist 24hr news media and to a lesser extent the prevalence of law enforcement and medical procedural dramas in the media and while that's perhaps a discussion for another time try and bear it in mind and take in that we are all probably safer from crime now than we have been at any time in living memory.

Kopikatsu:

Blablahb:

Xan Krieger:


You see that dude? With those handguns he killed 33 people (himself included) and wounded 23 others. That is far more damage than has been done by people with "assault weapons". Let's also look at this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

It really needed to include a ban on semi-automatic handguns, true.

I would say that there is nothing 'lesser' than a semi-automatic handgun, so banning them would be banning all guns. But you probably already knew that, which is why you suggested it. (Even my little Derringer has two shots, so it's semi-auto.)

single-action revolvers I think would be "lesser". You can still off someone with it and the colt single-action army revolver is a classic.

Remus:

Xan Krieger:

So then how do you protect yourself against a police officer?

Really? This is a thing that worries you, protecting yourself from a trained officer? This isn't 1861. We aren't instigating an uprising against our government. If you're being robbed or assaulted by somebody in full body armor then you have bigger problems than gun restriction laws, and in that situation, unless you're a professionally trained killer, like a member of the armed forces or something similar, then you'll be too busy shitting yourself to jump for a gun and shoot your way out.

Yes it is a thing that worries me, do you have a solution to dealing with an armored cop?

Assassin Xaero:
On msn they, one of the items was:

•banning "military-style" assault weapons

At least they are coming right out and saying they are trying to banning gun just because they look "scary" now.

Your right I'm still waiting for gun owners to admit they buy the military style weapons because they look cool. At least Obama is being honest.

OP the only thing on that agenda that should be remotely controversial is the assault weapon ban. Though I wonder were the clause saying the mentally ill can't buy weapons went to.

dmase:
Though I wonder were the clause saying the mentally ill can't buy weapons went to.

as was mentioned in a topic the other day some large percentage like 60% of Americans are "officially" mentally ill nowadays because of all the conditions we've invent...that have been identified and that the drug manufacturers now sell their wonderful products to treat...

so maybe that wouldn't go down so great...

also it occurs to me you'd likely have gun enthusiast mentally ill people getting "signed off" and coming off their medication so they could keep their guns...which sounds like a totally awesome idea...

Q. How does this address the 500+ gun killings a year in places like Chicago that have the strictest gun laws on the books now. A: They won't . These laws do little to stop the criminals who use guns and "assault rifles" are already banned. Democrats selling smoke and mirrors.

admittedly though I don't really care about adding background checks

Xan Krieger:
Yes it is a thing that worries me, do you have a solution to dealing with an armored cop?

I'd not break the law to such an extent that a special unit with heavy body armor and weapons are sent after me, for starters.

Sleekit:

dmase:
Though I wonder were the clause saying the mentally ill can't buy weapons went to.

as was mentioned in a topic the other day some large percentage like 60% of Americans are "officially" mentally ill nowadays because of all the conditions we've invent...that have been identified and that the drug manufacturers now sell their wonderful products to treat...

so maybe that wouldn't go down so great...

also it occurs to me you'd likely have gun enthusiast mentally ill people getting "signed off" and coming off their medication so they could keep their guns...which sounds like a totally awesome idea...

One, no I don't recall saying that and I know for a fact it wasn't in recent days or I would definitely remember it, maybe a months ago but I still feel like that's something I wouldn't say. Two assuming that every person with a mental illness is suicidal or homicidal is not what I'm saying there are levels of mental illness. I don't expect someone suffering from intermittent depression to go do something dangerous with a gun but a mental health professional should be able to check a box that says if you have indicated self harm or indicate your troubled enough to cause harm to others you shouldn't have a weapon. Honestly wouldn't you agree that someone that fits in the above definition buying a weapon alone constitutes severe reason that they might do one or the other? If you're diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic that has shown violent tendencies(and haven't been convicted of a felony) why the fuck do you need a weapon except to possibly cause damage with it.

Also you seem to think I'm some pro-NRA guy buy your last sentence to which I have to wonder.... wtf? Where did you get that at all in any statement I have regarding gun control, if anything people can be worse on medication sometimes. If you where to ever get on the list that says you can't buy a gun I don't think you should be able to get off without a doctors permission of course you can change doctors to get away from any possible malpractice on the first person to diagnose you.

Now to make a judgement on what I believe is a severe fear of putting legislation that affects people with mental illness, call it bigotry if you want but if gun owners can be prevented from owning a certain type of weapon then I think it fair to place a restriction on someone more likely to use a gun to harm people. This is of course where you throw out the statistic that says people with mental illness have a hand in less gun violence. To that I say, I'm not talking about people with mental illness in general i'm talking about those deemed by mental health professionals to be dangerous, big difference.

1. CDC (Centers for Disease Control) reserching on how to prevent gun violence.

im sorry, isnt their job disease control? shouldnt the ATF be commisioned for this (for the viewers at home, ATF is Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms). Im usre the CDC could do a fine job but....are they bored or something?

2. ATF getting a director position

yea, having more upper level management in the bereaucracy is a good thing. We need more worker bees, not people who treat the department like their own personal kingdom.

most of the executive orders are pretty mild in all honesty, my quibbles are more of a headscratcher than a legitmate gripe. I will actually give Obama a thumbs up overall on the executive orders for not abusing his position in a horrible fashion.

As for the legistlative package and the exploitation of children to further a political agenda, yea acting on emotion is a REALLY GOOD IDEA. Let us disregard that the last time we did that we got engaged in two wars...

There are some good ideas, and some idiotic batshit crazy ideas. Which unfortunately is quite typical.

dmase:
*snip*

:(

my apologies.

i didn't mean to infer you said it.

i said it.

in this topic http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/528.398137-Stop-using-us-as-scapegoats which was about blaming "the mentally ill" for gun violence and treating them as "others" and/or "nutters".

it was meant to be a mainly humorous post.

the final line is magenta because that's "the sarcasm font" in R&P.

Assassin Xaero:
On msn they, one of the items was:

•banning "military-style" assault weapons

At least they are coming right out and saying they are trying to banning gun just because they look "scary" now.

Actually, I think it has a lot more to do with ergonomics and ease of use in a stress situation. It is far easier to maintain a consistent field of fire in a stress situation using a 'military' style weapon than it is with a 'hunting style weapon'.

And before you go on with that standard line of how ultra-leet your weapon cycling skills are, try doing it in the middle of a mental breakdown after a long period of either depression or a psychotic break, with people screaming in pain all around you, the firm knowledge that you will likely not live out the next six hours and the stress inherent in breaking a strong societal taboo. In this sort of situation, the ergonomics and ease of use would be a great aid to a spree shooter.

In addition, the psychological connotation of a weapon designed to kill a person would do quite a bit to break own the psychological barriers against killing a person. The availability and approval that weapons designed to kill humans lends a tactic approval to the notion that killing a human is acceptable.

the clockmaker:

Assassin Xaero:
On msn they, one of the items was:

•banning "military-style" assault weapons

At least they are coming right out and saying they are trying to banning gun just because they look "scary" now.

Actually, I think it has a lot more to do with ergonomics and ease of use in a stress situation. It is far easier to maintain a consistent field of fire in a stress situation using a 'military' style weapon than it is with a 'hunting style weapon'.

And before you go on with that standard line of how ultra-leet your weapon cycling skills are, try doing it in the middle of a mental breakdown after a long period of either depression or a psychotic break, with people screaming in pain all around you, the firm knowledge that you will likely not live out the next six hours and the stress inherent in breaking a strong societal taboo. In this sort of situation, the ergonomics and ease of use would be a great aid to a spree shooter.

In addition, the psychological connotation of a weapon designed to kill a person would do quite a bit to break own the psychological barriers against killing a person. The availability and approval that weapons designed to kill humans lends a tactic approval to the notion that killing a human is acceptable.

Potentially they could shoot better. Maybe a person breaks down into pay and spray under such stress, not bothering to aim or even use the sights, while a bolt action or pump action would force them to concentrate what they are doing. Do you have any evidence to suggest under mental stress a person is better at shooting with an AR-15 than an Lee-Enfield?

The second part relies on A. "military style" rifles" are designed to kill people, and it in any way contributes to breaking down "psychological barriers" to the aversion to kill people. It seems to make sense right? You see M16's and AK-47s being used to kill people in films and video games all the time, and they are the ones most often labelled "assault rifles" by the media and society at large. Yet, most crimes are not committed with the gun you saw Arnold spray hundreds of guys in "Commando", it is handguns, by a WIDE margin: http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Report_10.pdf

Handguns, most of the time when predicted in fiction, do only superficial damage, "flesh wounds" that don't even phase 80's action heroes or take a lot of shots to kill in video games. If "military style rifles" has such a great psychological effect on people, why are they only used in the tiniest of tiny percentage of crimes? They are not even used in all school shootings, Virginia Tech was done with handguns. The worst school massacre in US history was committed with BOMBS not guns ( http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/worst-school-massacre-in-us-history-did-not-involve-guns/ ). More people in the US are killed with knives than by all guns fashioned after any rifle used by a modern military you could name. Do you have any evidence to support your theory that it makes people more likely to be killers?

Not G. Ivingname:

the clockmaker:

Assassin Xaero:
On msn they, one of the items was:

At least they are coming right out and saying they are trying to banning gun just because they look "scary" now.

Actually, I think it has a lot more to do with ergonomics and ease of use in a stress situation. It is far easier to maintain a consistent field of fire in a stress situation using a 'military' style weapon than it is with a 'hunting style weapon'.

And before you go on with that standard line of how ultra-leet your weapon cycling skills are, try doing it in the middle of a mental breakdown after a long period of either depression or a psychotic break, with people screaming in pain all around you, the firm knowledge that you will likely not live out the next six hours and the stress inherent in breaking a strong societal taboo. In this sort of situation, the ergonomics and ease of use would be a great aid to a spree shooter.

In addition, the psychological connotation of a weapon designed to kill a person would do quite a bit to break own the psychological barriers against killing a person. The availability and approval that weapons designed to kill humans lends a tactic approval to the notion that killing a human is acceptable.

Potentially they could shoot better. Maybe a person breaks down into pay and spray under such stress, not bothering to aim or even use the sights, while a bolt action or pump action would force them to concentrate what they are doing. Do you have any evidence to suggest under mental stress a person is better at shooting with an AR-15 than an Lee-Enfield?

The second part relies on A. "military style" rifles" are designed to kill people, and it in any way contributes to breaking down "psychological barriers" to the aversion to kill people. It seems to make sense right? You see M16's and AK-47s being used to kill people in films and video games all the time, and they are the ones most often labelled "assault rifles" by the media and society at large. Yet, most crimes are not committed with the gun you saw Arnold spray hundreds of guys in "Commando", it is handguns, by a WIDE margin: http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Report_10.pdf

Handguns, most of the time when predicted in fiction, do only superficial damage, "flesh wounds" that don't even phase 80's action heroes or take a lot of shots to kill in video games. If "military style rifles" has such a great psychological effect on people, why are they only used in the tiniest of tiny percentage of crimes? They are not even used in all school shootings, Virginia Tech was done with handguns. The worst school massacre in US history was committed with BOMBS not guns ( http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/worst-school-massacre-in-us-history-did-not-involve-guns/ ). More people in the US are killed with knives than by all guns fashioned after any rifle used by a modern military you could name. Do you have any evidence to support your theory that it makes people more likely to be killers?

The important facet of the ergonomics of a 'military style weapon' is that it allows for follow up shots without moving off the point of aim, which, in a target rich and low resistance environment is actually far more important than advanced marksmanship. Consider the size of a playground or a classroom, most of the shots will be targeted at under 25 meters, which in turn means that volume of fire becomes a greater concern than the potential for aimed shots.

In addition to this, manually cycling a weapon is something that is highly dependent on fine motor skills, something which noticeably degrades in the face of stress, distraction and physical exertion. As a personal test of this, I recommend conducting fire and movement for a few hundred meters and then conducting an skills shoot. Even this will not demonstrate the magnitude of motor skill loss in a true stress situation, but it is a useful image nonetheless.

It is important to remember that a large part of military training, (a good yardstick for operating a weapon under stress conditions), is not just developing skills, but being able to use those skills in stress conditions.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

For the second section, I would ask that you read my post again, the second section makes no mention of rifles or pistols, only 'weapons designed to kill people'. I am against private ownership of semi-automatic handguns for broadly the same reasons. It is also useful to note, that if one reads through the incidences of spree killings (which are the issue currently at hand btw, people's current concern is the prevention of spree killings) one notes that the vast majority of weapons used are weapons designed with the intent of killing human beings.

But no, I do not have proof that the glamorised, condoned and normalised image of weapons designed to kill people help de-stigmatise killing people, but I think that it is a fair theory, and one that should bear testing.

That is not to say that just buying a weapon on handling a weapon does psychological harm to the user, but for a person already in danger of becoming a danger, that tactic societal approval for a private individual's capacity for violence can't be good for them.

And I love it when people bring up explosives in this context, because due to the danger that they pose, explosives are highly regulated and monitored in order to prevent situations like the scenario that you linked. Indeed, acquiring or attempting to acquire explosives without a permit is one of the best ways to get yourself on all sorts of watch lists. You seem to have no objection to those regulations.

Furthermore, it must be remembered that in most cases, knives are used for either financial crimes (robbery burglary etc) or ad hoc crimes of passion (lashing out in a domestic disturbance for example) whereas spree killers don't normally tend to conform to those motivations.

Blablahb:

Xan Krieger:


You see that dude? With those handguns he killed 33 people (himself included) and wounded 23 others. That is far more damage than has been done by people with "assault weapons". Let's also look at this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_Tech_massacre

It really needed to include a ban on semi-automatic handguns, true. But the gun lobby is already screaming bloody murder over this, imagine the drama they'd kick up if you actually banned the nr 1 most convenient killing weapon....

Also, one of the weapons the shooter used was a 15 round clip. This ban would ensure he needed to reload that weapons one third more often, and the guy will have fired a lot of shots. Also Cho would've failed a background check, if only the state had bothered to invest in a decent reporting system. But they didn't, because that's big government and costs tax money, and Cho got all he needed to 'defend himself'. If only they'd be tough on the states this time and not tolerate any conservative 'let's do half work and keep it cheap' work, the upgraded background checks could really work.

Then again, the second shooting at Virginia Tech in 2011 killed such an armed school officer. Somebody walked up to the guy and second amended him on the spot. If he wanted he could've gone on a rampage like the first shooter after that, but fortunately he didn't. It showed bringing guns into schools doesn't make a difference though. All that changes is who the first victim is.


So I think it's a list of mostly good ideas and a few bad ideas. Then again, in the background of the US, what more could Biden possibly have done? All the real solutions are politically impossible.

The solution is not now nor will it ever be to ban guns. We've discussed that so many times in the past few weeks so we're not touching on it again. The solution is more about why people feel the need to kill in the first place. What are the issues that leave a person thinking their best option is to end the lives of others?

Also I'm thankful this isn't retroactive so my neighbor gets to keep his AK-47, I love that thing. Bayonet for it has a wooden handle, very different from all the normal synthetic knife handles.

Not G. Ivingname:
More people in the US are killed with knives than by all guns fashioned after any rifle used by a modern military you could name.

Please link me to your source.

Studies show firearms are much more deadly than cutting weapons.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1993/10/05/knives-00000/

According to the FBI UCR you are much more likely to be killed, robbed or assaulted in the US with a firearm than a cutting weapon.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

Koper's studies looking at firearms / LCMs banned in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (also know as the AWB) found;

2-8% of firearms used in crime were those banned under the AWB.
14-26% of firearms used in crime had LCMs banned under the AWB.
'Assault weapons' and LCMs are used more often in spree shootings and police murders.

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/publications.htm

Not G. Ivingname:
Do you have any evidence to suggest under mental stress a person is better at shooting with an AR-15 than an Lee-Enfield?

I have a WW2 Lee-Enfield (my father's army issue), they are not easy to operate at speed.

The world record for a bolt action rifle is 38 rnd / minute into a 300mm target at 300m. WW2 Australian diggers were expected to fire ~20 rounds / minute.

Compare that to the Aurora shooting, where an untrained civillian shot 70 people in less than 2.5 minutes, despite his semi-auto rifle jamming after ~30 shots.

the clockmaker:

Not G. Ivingname:

the clockmaker:

Actually, I think it has a lot more to do with ergonomics and ease of use in a stress situation. It is far easier to maintain a consistent field of fire in a stress situation using a 'military' style weapon than it is with a 'hunting style weapon'.

And before you go on with that standard line of how ultra-leet your weapon cycling skills are, try doing it in the middle of a mental breakdown after a long period of either depression or a psychotic break, with people screaming in pain all around you, the firm knowledge that you will likely not live out the next six hours and the stress inherent in breaking a strong societal taboo. In this sort of situation, the ergonomics and ease of use would be a great aid to a spree shooter.

In addition, the psychological connotation of a weapon designed to kill a person would do quite a bit to break own the psychological barriers against killing a person. The availability and approval that weapons designed to kill humans lends a tactic approval to the notion that killing a human is acceptable.

Potentially they could shoot better. Maybe a person breaks down into pay and spray under such stress, not bothering to aim or even use the sights, while a bolt action or pump action would force them to concentrate what they are doing. Do you have any evidence to suggest under mental stress a person is better at shooting with an AR-15 than an Lee-Enfield?

The second part relies on A. "military style" rifles" are designed to kill people, and it in any way contributes to breaking down "psychological barriers" to the aversion to kill people. It seems to make sense right? You see M16's and AK-47s being used to kill people in films and video games all the time, and they are the ones most often labelled "assault rifles" by the media and society at large. Yet, most crimes are not committed with the gun you saw Arnold spray hundreds of guys in "Commando", it is handguns, by a WIDE margin: http://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/pdfs/publications/Firearms_Report_10.pdf

Handguns, most of the time when predicted in fiction, do only superficial damage, "flesh wounds" that don't even phase 80's action heroes or take a lot of shots to kill in video games. If "military style rifles" has such a great psychological effect on people, why are they only used in the tiniest of tiny percentage of crimes? They are not even used in all school shootings, Virginia Tech was done with handguns. The worst school massacre in US history was committed with BOMBS not guns ( http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/worst-school-massacre-in-us-history-did-not-involve-guns/ ). More people in the US are killed with knives than by all guns fashioned after any rifle used by a modern military you could name. Do you have any evidence to support your theory that it makes people more likely to be killers?

The important facet of the ergonomics of a 'military style weapon' is that it allows for follow up shots without moving off the point of aim, which, in a target rich and low resistance environment is actually far more important than advanced marksmanship. Consider the size of a playground or a classroom, most of the shots will be targeted at under 25 meters, which in turn means that volume of fire becomes a greater concern than the potential for aimed shots.

In addition to this, manually cycling a weapon is something that is highly dependent on fine motor skills, something which noticeably degrades in the face of stress, distraction and physical exertion. As a personal test of this, I recommend conducting fire and movement for a few hundred meters and then conducting an skills shoot. Even this will not demonstrate the magnitude of motor skill loss in a true stress situation, but it is a useful image nonetheless.

It is important to remember that a large part of military training, (a good yardstick for operating a weapon under stress conditions), is not just developing skills, but being able to use those skills in stress conditions.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________

For the second section, I would ask that you read my post again, the second section makes no mention of rifles or pistols, only 'weapons designed to kill people'. I am against private ownership of semi-automatic handguns for broadly the same reasons. It is also useful to note, that if one reads through the incidences of spree killings (which are the issue currently at hand btw, people's current concern is the prevention of spree killings) one notes that the vast majority of weapons used are weapons designed with the intent of killing human beings.

But no, I do not have proof that the glamorised, condoned and normalised image of weapons designed to kill people help de-stigmatise killing people, but I think that it is a fair theory, and one that should bear testing.

That is not to say that just buying a weapon on handling a weapon does psychological harm to the user, but for a person already in danger of becoming a danger, that tactic societal approval for a private individual's capacity for violence can't be good for them.

And I love it when people bring up explosives in this context, because due to the danger that they pose, explosives are highly regulated and monitored in order to prevent situations like the scenario that you linked. Indeed, acquiring or attempting to acquire explosives without a permit is one of the best ways to get yourself on all sorts of watch lists. You seem to have no objection to those regulations.

Furthermore, it must be remembered that in most cases, knives are used for either financial crimes (robbery burglary etc) or ad hoc crimes of passion (lashing out in a domestic disturbance for example) whereas spree killers don't normally tend to conform to those motivations.

"Weapon's designed to kill?" Let's break that down, shall we? Are guns designed to kill people?

Well, the first records of gun powder from China show it was an attempted elixir for immortality. First mass use in China was Fire works. The first semi-automatic rifle was the Mannlicher model 85, didn't see wide adoption in any market, and more of a proof of concept than anything else. The first successful one in any meaningful way was the "Remington Auto-loading Repeating Rifle in 1906. It was mostly sold and marketed to hunters, with no police or military adopting the Rifle do to lack of reliability. A similar tale befell the Browning Auto-5, the first semi-automatic shotgun, used mainly by hunters and skeet shooters, not by any army. Semi-automatic pistols, such as the C-93 (possibly the oddest looking gun in history) and the C96, mostly sold to civilians for self defense (although the latter did become the iconic "Luger" service weapon for the German army, later abandoned because it kind of sucked). First Semi-Automatic pistol to be made to have better killing power was the Colt 1911, and that was to just better take down Philippine Natives. They wrapped tight ropes around their bodies, decreasing blood flow, so Natives didn't bleed out to the revolvers used at the time.

Since then, guns have been made for all kinds of reasons. The AR-15 wasn't picked as the basis for the M16 not because it was the best at killing, but because it could shoot a small, CHEAP round, and continues to be used since the gun can be quickly changed on the fly, to accept different ammunition types, different weapons. The Colt Python had precision sights on it (seen here: http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/13481/13751220_1.jpg?v=8CF478AFC256F60 ), far beyond what anyone would need to shoot a person in a chest in normal pistol ranges, since the gun was designed to be a target shooting weapon. Most modern military Sniper Rifles are still bolt action, since a bolt action puts maximum amount of power per bullet. Yes, Semi-automatics generally are not deadly enough for most sniper situations.

Many guns are made just for defensive uses on the home, a compact versions, cheaper versions to be concealable and can be used on defense where ever you go, guns that are only usable on the range and would be basically useless if you shot someone with it (such as this thing: http://www.carlwalther.com/images/kk300_2675897_black.jpg ). There are semi-automatic shotguns designed for hunting birds and shooting down clay pigeons (you do know why it is called "Bird Shot," right?) semi-auto rifles designed to take down big game, pistol rounds designed to kill rats, shotguns that fire tasers, join recoilless rifles being used to trigger avalanches by skii resorts, I have even seen guns used to fire cables to other boats.

The point is, most guns are not designed "too kill," not in how the designers STATED their intentions were, nor in how they are used. Even fully automatic fire is used just to keep the enemy down in cover. For every one bullet fired in the Iraq war that scored a hit, 250,000 were fired that hit SQUAT. Most deaths were from explosives, not gunfire.

TechNoFear:

Not G. Ivingname:
More people in the US are killed with knives than by all guns fashioned after any rifle used by a modern military you could name.

Please link me to your source.

Studies show firearms are much more deadly than cutting weapons.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/1993/10/05/knives-00000/

According to the FBI UCR you are much more likely to be killed, robbed or assaulted in the US with a firearm than a cutting weapon.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-11

Koper's studies looking at firearms / LCMs banned in the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 (also know as the AWB) found;

2-8% of firearms used in crime were those banned under the AWB.
14-26% of firearms used in crime had LCMs banned under the AWB.
'Assault weapons' and LCMs are used more often in spree shootings and police murders.

http://www.sas.upenn.edu/jerrylee/publications.htm

http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/gun-violence/welcome.htm

Look at the graph, it lists knives, which on average is about equal to the line of "other guns." Since not all "other guns" are "military style rifles," than it only is logical conclusion that knives kill more "military style rifles."

Not G. Ivingname:
Do you have any evidence to suggest under mental stress a person is better at shooting with an AR-15 than an Lee-Enfield?

I have a WW2 Lee-Enfield (my father's army issue), they are not easy to operate at speed.

The world record for a bolt action rifle is 38 rnd / minute into a 300mm target at 300m. WW2 Australian diggers were expected to fire ~20 rounds / minute.

Compare that to the Aurora shooting, where an untrained civillian shot 70 people in less than 2.5 minutes, despite his semi-auto rifle jamming after ~30 shots.

Fair enough.

FreedomofInformation:

*Protecting police officers by banning armor-piercing bullets through a manufacture and import ban

Doesn't that go directly against the 2nd amendment? The whole preventing tyranny thing?

At least these laws can prevent this from every happening again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Oh, wait. No it wouldn't.

"The Bath School disaster is the historical name of the violent attacks perpetrated by Andrew Kehoe on May 18, 1927 in Bath Township, Michigan that killed 38 elementary school children and six adults, and injured at least 58 other people.[Note 1] Kehoe first killed his wife, fire-bombed his farm and set off a major explosion in the Bath Consolidated School, before committing suicide by detonating a final explosion in his truck. It is the deadliest mass murder in a school in United States history.[1]"

Not G. Ivingname:

"Weapon's designed to kill?" Let's break that down, shall we? Are guns designed to kill people?

Well, the first records of gun powder from China show it was an attempted elixir for immortality. First mass use in China was Fire works. The first semi-automatic rifle was the Mannlicher model 85, didn't see wide adoption in any market, and more of a proof of concept than anything else. The first successful one in any meaningful way was the "Remington Auto-loading Repeating Rifle in 1906. It was mostly sold and marketed to hunters, with no police or military adopting the Rifle do to lack of reliability. A similar tale befell the Browning Auto-5, the first semi-automatic shotgun, used mainly by hunters and skeet shooters, not by any army. Semi-automatic pistols, such as the C-93 (possibly the oddest looking gun in history) and the C96, mostly sold to civilians for self defense (although the latter did become the iconic "Luger" service weapon for the German army, later abandoned because it kind of sucked). First Semi-Automatic pistol to be made to have better killing power was the Colt 1911, and that was to just better take down Philippine Natives. They wrapped tight ropes around their bodies, decreasing blood flow, so Natives didn't bleed out to the revolvers used at the time.

Since then, guns have been made for all kinds of reasons. The AR-15 wasn't picked as the basis for the M16 not because it was the best at killing, but because it could shoot a small, CHEAP round, and continues to be used since the gun can be quickly changed on the fly, to accept different ammunition types, different weapons. The Colt Python had precision sights on it (seen here: http://media.liveauctiongroup.net/i/13481/13751220_1.jpg?v=8CF478AFC256F60 ), far beyond what anyone would need to shoot a person in a chest in normal pistol ranges, since the gun was designed to be a target shooting weapon. Most modern military Sniper Rifles are still bolt action, since a bolt action puts maximum amount of power per bullet. Yes, Semi-automatics generally are not deadly enough for most sniper situations.

Many guns are made just for defensive uses on the home, a compact versions, cheaper versions to be concealable and can be used on defense where ever you go, guns that are only usable on the range and would be basically useless if you shot someone with it (such as this thing: http://www.carlwalther.com/images/kk300_2675897_black.jpg ). There are semi-automatic shotguns designed for hunting birds and shooting down clay pigeons (you do know why it is called "Bird Shot," right?) semi-auto rifles designed to take down big game, pistol rounds designed to kill rats, shotguns that fire tasers, join recoilless rifles being used to trigger avalanches by skii resorts, I have even seen guns used to fire cables to other boats.

The point is, most guns are not designed "too kill," not in how the designers STATED their intentions were, nor in how they are used. Even fully automatic fire is used just to keep the enemy down in cover. For every one bullet fired in the Iraq war that scored a hit, 250,000 were fired that hit SQUAT. Most deaths were from explosives, not gunfire.

Okay, really not sure what you think your point is here, it is irrelevant what the intent behind ancient chinese weapons are as that is not what we are talking about regulating. What we are talking about regulating is 'military style firearms' which for the sake of this thread and this discussion, I have contested to be weapons that were designed to be kill people. That is why, in my first post in this thread I made sure to differentiate them from 'hunting style weapons.'
Now, I may have failed to mention 'competition style weapons' and firearm patterned tools, but I thought they were pretty clearly implied.

In my experience with weapons, I fire them for three reasons only, 1-To end or attempt to end a human life, 2-to provide suppressive fire or otherwise shape the battlespace and 3- In training for either of the above. Now, point 2 is where your 250,000 to 1 statistic comes into play, suppressive fire to shape the enemies response and either fix them in place for friendly battlespace assets to take care of them (as you said, explosives) or allow parts of your element to maneuver to allow a killing shot. Therefore, the intent behind the use of a 'military style weapon' is, directly or no, to end a human life. That is its purpose, that is what it is for.

I fear that you may have misunderstood me in my previous posts, the tacit approval granted by the sale of weapons designed to end a life obviously does not extend to weapons designed for hunting or target shooting. You don't, by way of example, see Anders Brevik posing with
image
As it does not fit into the glorification myth of the 'badass' who solves his issue by killing people. The image is very important to spree killers as all too often they wish to be seen as the fighter against the 'unjust' things that drove them over the edge.

So, in answer to your actual question, no, not all guns are designed to kill, that is why we are not talking about banning all guns, only those designed to kill.
_________________________________________________________________________________________

Also, your comment on semi-automatic weapons lacking the stopping power to be used as a sniping weapon is somewhat puzzling. Consider this, if I were to fire the same round down the same length barrel, it would have the same point lethality, regardless of the mechanics of the weapon. Honestly, your comment makes about as much sense as claiming that a round fired as a single shot has more point lethality than one fired in a burst, it shows a deep misunderstanding of the mechanics of a firearm.

In reality, according to the snipers/marksmen that I have worked with the reason that the bolt action rifle is still so popular is less what is going on with the round as what happens as the round is leaving the chamber. In a semi-automatic weapon, the firing of the round automatically cycles the weapon, hence the name. Now as this happens, the moving parts of the weapon move backwards in order to pick up a new round and deposit it in the chamber. The effect of this movement inside the weapon, with regards to the requirements of a sniper are twofold,
1-an increase in movement of the barrel as the round is leaving, resulting in an alteration to the point of impact. This is subtle, and not much of a concern for your average soldier, but becomes a greater issue for snipers who work at smaller tolerances.
2-An increase in the movement of the sight picture, resulting in a decrease in the situational awareness of effect on target. Again, not so much an issue for your average bloke on the ground, but a concern for a sniper.

A bolt action rifle allows the weapon to lie inactive until the round has left the barrel and the shooter is content of the effect on target, at which point they cycle the weapon manually.

I hope that clears that up for you.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

I take it you are conceding your points RE: the ergonomics and ease of use of the weapon being important concerns in a spree shooting and that silly point regarding the use of explosives in mass casualty events? I mean, you just seem to have ignored their existence.

Gorfias:

FreedomofInformation:

*Protecting police officers by banning armor-piercing bullets through a manufacture and import ban

Doesn't that go directly against the 2nd amendment? The whole preventing tyranny thing?

At least these laws can prevent this from every happening again:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bath_School_disaster

Oh, wait. No it wouldn't.

"The Bath School disaster is the historical name of the violent attacks perpetrated by Andrew Kehoe on May 18, 1927 in Bath Township, Michigan that killed 38 elementary school children and six adults, and injured at least 58 other people.[Note 1] Kehoe first killed his wife, fire-bombed his farm and set off a major explosion in the Bath Consolidated School, before committing suicide by detonating a final explosion in his truck. It is the deadliest mass murder in a school in United States history.[1]"

Note that explosives are regulated in the united states for exactly that reason, something which I think goes a long way to preventing ease of access to explosives for people in danger of becoming a danger. These new sets of laws do not need to regulate explosives as explosives are already strictly regulated, a fact which, funnily enough no one seems to complain of.

Also note that attempting to obtain explosives without a reasonable cause is a good way to get yourself on all sorts of watch lists.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked