Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Navy Yard shooting in D.C.; 13 dead so far

Navy Yard shooting in D.C.; 13 dead so far
Thread Tools
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2013, 09:57 PM
 
At least 13 dead in Navy Yard shooting; possible suspect at large - The Washington Post

Quick! Someone complain that if he was brown it'd be terrorism!!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: God's Country
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 16, 2013, 10:30 PM
 
Well, glad we have guns. If he comes in this house he's not getting out alive.

Also, this is pretty horrific. The motive is still unknown, one suspect is at large and it's unconfirmed if he was involved or not, and people are still being let out of the base.
( Last edited by shifuimam; Sep 16, 2013 at 10:45 PM. )
     
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2013, 10:59 AM
 
they are saying he was mentally imbalanced, but not officially enough to have his access revoked.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2013, 11:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by andi*pandi View Post
they are saying he was mentally imbalanced, but not officially enough to have his access revoked.*
*from Texas
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: God's Country
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2013, 11:17 AM
 
I also heard mention this morning that the person who did his background check for his security clearance didn't do what they were supposed to do.

There are already pretty stringent processes in place to ensure that the wrong people don't get security clearances. Of course, if those processes are flagrantly disregarded by the people expected to follow them...

I'm already seeing some media outlets turning this into another reason for gun-grabbing. Instead, we should be using this as another example for why states need to take measures to prevent people suffering from psychotic mental disorders from purchasing firearms.

Also, sauce for his mental illness: Aaron Alexis: Navy Yard gunman treated for paranoia and hearing voices in his head - Washington Times
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2013, 12:29 PM
 
Piers Morgan on CNN once again standing on graves and using a tragedy to push his anti-gun agenda. Absolutely disgraceful.

Morgan loves to cite England as an example where banning guns works. What he fails to comprehend is that England did not have the same history as the U.S. when it comes to guns. It's easy to confiscate all guns when practically no one in your population has them. It's quite another to attempt that when there is an average of 89 guns per 100 people.

When will people understand that the insane, criminal acts of a few should not and cannot dictate the rights of the many.

Kick rocks Piers.
27" 2.8 GHz Intel Core i7 iMac
15" Late-2013 2.3GHz i7 Retina Macbook Pro
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2013, 01:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
*from Texas
Actually he's from NYC, just did a stint in Texas in the military. What's your point, anyways?
     
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2013, 01:55 PM
 
My initial suspicion was that this guy was going to be a vet with problems under the care of the VA. Confirmed today.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2013, 02:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Actually he's from NYC, just did a stint in Texas in the military. What's your point, anyways?
I was talking about his CCP, but a google search doesn't back that up. He apparently picked up the weapons in Virginia.

---

So, those Buddhists are dangerous, eh?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2013, 03:26 PM
 
Piers Morgan dislikes the UK, moves to the USA, then tries to turn the USA into the UK.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2013, 04:52 PM
 
Here's the thought process I went thru:

Oh God, another shooting on a base? I hope the shooter's not Muslim, I couldn't stand to hear another round of Islamophobia.

Oh, the shooter's black? Well sh!t.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2013, 06:15 PM
 
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2013, 06:49 PM
 
I'll bet all of them liked pizza too, damned pizza.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2013, 08:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
Piers Morgan on CNN once again standing on graves and using a tragedy to push his anti-gun agenda. Absolutely disgraceful.

Morgan loves to cite England as an example where banning guns works. What he fails to comprehend is that England did not have the same history as the U.S. when it comes to guns. It's easy to confiscate all guns when practically no one in your population has them. It's quite another to attempt that when there is an average of 89 guns per 100 people.

When will people understand that the insane, criminal acts of a few should not and cannot dictate the rights of the many.

Kick rocks Piers.

Why is the murder rate per capita significantly lower in Canada too, where there are plenty of guns?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2013, 08:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post

The video game argument has to be absolutely the most idiotic argument ever. The same video games are played all over the world.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Garden of Paradise Motel, Suite 3D
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2013, 08:13 PM
 
The other thing (besides pizza) that they all had in common: they committed their crimes in "gun free zones." Except for Loughner I guess, but then I don't know if they have open carry in AZ.
He can be fixed -- you can't.
     
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2013, 08:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
So, those Buddhists are dangerous, eh?
No. DC will make you nuts.
ebuddy
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2013, 08:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
The other thing (besides pizza) that they all had in common: they committed their crimes in "gun free zones." Except for Loughner I guess, but then I don't know if they have open carry in AZ.
America will be so safe once there are guns everywhere you go. Your taxi driver will have one. Your kindergarden teacher will have one. The guy performing your colonoscopy will have one. Everyone living in a trailer, a housing project, and a retirement community will have one. Everyone at the bar will have one. Everyone moshing at the Insane Clown Posse concert will have one. All 20 thousand people watching the game in a tightly packed sports center will have one. Not a single person in these circumstances will ever pull their gun rashly because "they were afraid for their lives," because there will never be a reason to be afraid or angry ever again.

You must feel safer just thinking about it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 17, 2013, 09:16 PM
 
Weird opening gambit there.

That guy you trust behind a ton of steel, who has to deal with shady characters, and carries big wads of cash?

Yeah. That guy would get a gun.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2013, 12:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
All of them were off their meds.
¬°Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: The Valley of the Sun
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2013, 12:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by finboy View Post
The other thing (besides pizza) that they all had in common: they committed their crimes in "gun free zones." Except for Loughner I guess, but then I don't know if they have open carry in AZ.
Arizona has open and concealed carry.
¬°Viva Cristo Rey!
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2013, 01:27 AM
 
This whole debate is very much like the health care debate in explaining why health care costs are so high. Many people insist on pointing to one or two things (video games, etc.), when in actual reality there are a myriad of factors at play.

The question of gun control should not be framed as "is this a complete solution in and of itself?", but "can it help?" Personally, I don't see how banning the most deadly weapons (i.e. weapons like the AR-15 and all automatic weapons) can hurt. I really don't understand all of these "gotta protect myself from government tyranny", or "need these weapons for self defense" arguments with some constitutional stuff thrown in.

With regards to the former, we are long past the days of guns being the deciding factor in self defense against available weaponry. It really comes down to which way the military goes. If the military cooperates with the government, there is no weapon we can own that will defend us against drone strikes. With regards to the latter, I don't understand why another weapon wouldn't suffice? With regards to the constitution, there is no specification of weapon class, and we are already accepting of assault weapons being pretty difficult to obtain (although that ban no longer exists). Why is this?

To be clear, if these weapons were banned I don't think this is a sufficient solution. Chicago has strict gun control laws and it hasn't helped them much. However, again, can it hurt? I don't see how it can... However, it would have to be a piece of a larger, more robust piece of legislation/cultural shift/etc.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: God's Country
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 18, 2013, 06:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
America will be so safe once there are guns everywhere you go. Your taxi driver will have one. Your kindergarden teacher will have one. The guy performing your colonoscopy will have one. Everyone living in a trailer, a housing project, and a retirement community will have one. Everyone at the bar will have one. Everyone moshing at the Insane Clown Posse concert will have one. All 20 thousand people watching the game in a tightly packed sports center will have one. Not a single person in these circumstances will ever pull their gun rashly because "they were afraid for their lives," because there will never be a reason to be afraid or angry ever again.

You must feel safer just thinking about it.
This is really taking it to an extreme, don't you think? Virginia has open and concealed carry, and the state has even stepped in to ensure that certain cities and counties (Roanoke, Fairfax, etc.) can't make it impossible for eligible citizens to get their CCL.

There are lots of situations where a civilian legally carrying a firearm was able to stop what would have been a violent crime. You don't hear about those situations, because they do nothing to further the left's agenda with regards to gun control. You're also pretty naive if you believe that your local law enforcement will be able to respond instantaneously in the event that you're eating at a TGI Friday's and someone decides to shoot up the place.

As the saying goes, when second matter, the cops are minutes away.

There are also a lot of environments that people carry firearms today, legally, with concealed-carry permits, and you have no idea idea they're doing it. That's because normal civilians who own firearms are responsible about it.

Gun-free zones create fish-in-a-barrel situations. James Holmes deliberately went to a theater he knew for a fact was gun-free. All a "gun-free zone" sign does is alert crazy people and criminals that they can take a gun in there and shoot up the place, and not a single person will be able to stop them.

Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
All of them were off their meds.
I don't think Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold were suffering from psychotic mental diseases (like schizophrenia). They were viciously bullied by their peers to the point that they snapped. You'll notice that since then there hasn't been another bully-related school shooting incident since then.

I do believe we need to take measures to prevent people suffering from psychotic mental diseases from acquiring weapons. I don't know the best way to do that, but in every single case in the last 5+ years, a mass shooting that made national or international news has been the result of a mentally unstable person not being properly cared for, diagnosed, or restrained.
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2013, 10:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Personally, I don't see how banning the most deadly weapons (i.e. weapons like the AR-15 and all automatic weapons) can hurt.
What does "most deadly weapons" even mean? ANY gun can kill just as easily as any other gun. Case in point: the Navy Yard Shooter did not use an AR15. He used a SHOTGUN. Want to ban shotguns?

Automatic weapons are already banned by NFA.

The real problem is that people who shouldn't have guns are getting them. Why is that and how can we stop THAT.

To be clear, if these weapons were banned I don't think this is a sufficient solution. Chicago has strict gun control laws and it hasn't helped them much. However, again, can it hurt? I don't see how it can... However, it would have to be a piece of a larger, more robust piece of legislation/cultural shift/etc.
Yes it can hurt because it sets a precedent. Ban firearms like AR15s first and then what's next? What are you going to do when these insane people start using shotguns? Ban them? OK, then they start using handguns. Now what? Ban them too?

Logistically, if you ban AR15s are you going to confiscate those already legally owned? How do you propose to accomplish that? If not, what's to stop them from continuing to be used for already illegal purposes? Do you realize how many AR15s are legally owned in the U.S.? MILLIONS.

The insane, criminal acts of a few should not and cannot dictate the rights of the many.
27" 2.8 GHz Intel Core i7 iMac
15" Late-2013 2.3GHz i7 Retina Macbook Pro
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: God's Country
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2013, 01:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Personally, I don't see how banning the most deadly weapons (i.e. weapons like the AR-15 and all automatic weapons) can hurt
The problem is, an AR-15 isn't any more dangerous than a hunting rifle. It's just a rifle that looks cool, and because people think it looks scary, they want to ban it.

The federal assault weapons ban from the 90s didn't ban weapons that were inherently more dangerous than weapons not classified as assault weapons. It simply banned the gun equivalent of painted-on flames. For instance, on a semi-automatic rifle (that is, a rifle that holds multiple rounds, ejects spent rounds automatically, and fires one round per pull of the trigger), a pistol grip and a telescoping stock combined would classify it as an assault weapon.

All a telescoping stock does is make a rifle more compact for storage. All a pistol grip does is give the person holding the rifle a little more control in how they hold it, by adding a vertical grip behind the trigger (rather than just the standard place-against-the-shoulder rear of a rifle or shotgun).

However, these accessories make the gun look scarier, so they classified the gun as an "assault weapon". The fact is, a weapon with or without these accessories fires at the exact same rate. It is no more or less deadly. A person intent on committing murder or going on a shooting spree is not going to be swayed by whether or not their weapon of choice has such accessories attached to it.

The same attitude is behind attempted bans on hollow-point bullets. Hollow-point rounds are actually safer than full metal jacket rounds. Why? Because a hollow-point round is designed to expand immediately upon impact, which causes it to lose all its energy. It can cause more damage to the target, but it also stops moving once it it hits its target. Full metal jacket rounds do not lose all their energy upon impact, meaning that they can exit the target and end up going into and even through innocent people behind or around the target.

Hollow point rounds also don't ricochet the way full metal jacket rounds do, so if you miss your target and hit a wall, the bullet will disintegrate, rather than bounce off that wall into an innocent bystander.

Fully automatic weapons are not federally banned in the United States. However, they are heavily taxed and regulated, and that prevents the wide majority of law-abiding citizens from owning them. Illegally-owned fully automatic firearms are not obtained from law-abiding citizens. They are obtained on the black market, originating outside the United States, stolen from law enforcement armories, or distributed via corrupt law enforcement officers.

The National Firearms Act makes it illegal to manufacture or import fully automatic firearms, and:

For civilian possession, all machineguns must have been manufactured and registered with the ATF prior to May 19, 1986 to be transferable between citizens.
Fully automatic weapons legally in civilian possession today are very valuable collector items. Nobody's using them to hold up a liquor store or shoot up an elementary school.

In fact, a study cited in this Wikipedia article states the following:

Approximately 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime.
What happened this week at Navy Yard was tragic to be sure. It shouldn't be used to start yet another conversation on further banning and restricting firearm ownership by law-abiding citizens. Instead, we should be openly talking about how to prevent mentally ill citizens (those suffering from psychotic mental disorders such as dementia and schizophrenia) from obtaining firearms, and the serious ramifications of allowing people suffering from such psychotic disorders to be treated as normal citizens (protip: they aren't. repeatedly and frequently suffering from aural and visual hallucinations makes you a threat to yourself and others and you should be treated as such, but it's politically incorrect to put dangerous people in residential mental facilities where they can protected from themselves and others).

ETA:

Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Chicago has strict gun control laws and it hasn't helped them much. However, again, can it hurt? I don't see how it can...
Seriously? Chicago suffers from an epidemic of gang violence. Gang members do NOT acquire their firearms legally, and it's clear that the firearms bans enacted in Chicago have done nothing to stop violent gangs from obtaining firearms.

If a gang member busts into your house to rape your wife and steal everything they can find, you're an idiot if you believe the police are going to get there in time. It's up to you to ensure your own safety, and the most reliable way to do that is to keep a firearm in your home for protection. Some teenage thug waving around a Glock is more than likely to run like hell if you point your own right between his eyes and tell him to drop his weapon or you'll kill him.

Chicago's firearms bans accomplish nothing. Such bans hurt law-abiding civilians because it effectively prevents them from protecting their own lives from criminal violence.

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
What does "most deadly weapons" even mean? ANY gun can kill just as easily as any other gun. Case in point: the Navy Yard Shooter did not use an AR15. He used a SHOTGUN. Want to ban shotguns?
And our very own Joe Biden is the one who said this:

"Kate, if you want to protect yourself, get a double barreled shotgun," Biden responded. "I promise you, as I told my wife, we live in an area that's wooded and somewhat secluded. I said, Jill, if there's ever a problem, just walk out on the balcony here, walk out, put [up] that double barreled shotgun and fire two blasts outside the house."
And, for the record, shooting blindly into the woods outside your house is a REALLY ****ING STUPID AND IRRESPONSIBLE WAY TO HANDLE A FIREARM. FFS.
( Last edited by shifuimam; Sep 19, 2013 at 01:27 PM. )
     
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Why do you care?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2013, 01:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
Fully automatic weapons are not federally banned in the United States.
Not to nit-pick (well maybe to nit-pick) but the new manufacture or import of fully automatic weapons is federally banned by the NFA. Fully automatic weapons that can be purchased, tax paid, and transferred to another owner that is not military or law enforcement have to have been manufactured or registered prior to May 19, 1986.

That's why a pre-1986 M16, which is essentially a $1,000 weapon sells for more than $25,000. There is a limited supply of such firearms in the U.S. that cannot increase by any legal means.

Very few people are willing to pay >$25,000 for a firearm. And you can't just walk into any gun store and buy one even if you had $25,000. Then, even if you do find and buy one, it's going to take another 9-12 months for the BATF paperwork to be approved before you can take possession of the weapon.

For all intents and purposes, in my opinion this equates to a "ban".

All that said, this further enforces your point - gang bangers are not going to legally acquire a $25,000 machine gun.
27" 2.8 GHz Intel Core i7 iMac
15" Late-2013 2.3GHz i7 Retina Macbook Pro
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: God's Country
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2013, 01:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
Not to nit-pick (well maybe to nit-pick) but the new manufacture or import of fully automatic weapons is federally banned by the NFA. Fully automatic weapons that can be purchased, tax paid, and transferred to another owner that is not military or law enforcement have to have been manufactured or registered prior to May 19, 1986.
Yeah - I revised my post after talking to the BF and reading up on the NFA some more. He pointed out that people who legally own fully automatic firearms view them as valuable collectibles and as such aren't ever going to use them.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2013, 01:46 PM
 
I guess this needs to be the first post in every gun thread.



Much deadlier than an M16 or any of the variants.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: God's Country
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2013, 02:09 PM
 
This looks scarier, so it must be deadlier, right?



Of course, this is more my style:



     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2013, 02:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa View Post
What does "most deadly weapons" even mean? ANY gun can kill just as easily as any other gun. Case in point: the Navy Yard Shooter did not use an AR15. He used a SHOTGUN. Want to ban shotguns?
Again, the point of my post was to help a little, not to solve any problems. Can one do more damage in crowded public places with an AR-15 than they can with a shotgun? Of course.

Automatic weapons are already banned by NFA.
No they aren't, they are just regulated.

The real problem is that people who shouldn't have guns are getting them. Why is that and how can we stop THAT.
There is no way to stop that, just minimize that, just as I'm thinking we ought to do with my approach.

Yes it can hurt because it sets a precedent. Ban firearms like AR15s first and then what's next? What are you going to do when these insane people start using shotguns? Ban them? OK, then they start using handguns. Now what? Ban them too?
This is the slippery slope argument, but it is also based on paranoia. If there will be no data to support the notion that banning AR-15s had a positive impact, than what cause is there to worry?

Logistically, if you ban AR15s are you going to confiscate those already legally owned? How do you propose to accomplish that? If not, what's to stop them from continuing to be used for already illegal purposes? Do you realize how many AR15s are legally owned in the U.S.? MILLIONS.
Do gun permits expire? If so, start upping the tax on these weapons to encourage people to downgrade.

The insane, criminal acts of a few should not and cannot dictate the rights of the many.
Should we be allowed to drive without seat belts? While intoxicated? The acts of others affect us all, this is how our society works.
     
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2013, 02:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Should we be allowed to drive without seat belts?
You just stepped in it.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2013, 03:07 PM
 
What about motorcycle helmets? Fast food? Cigs? Coffee? As long as it's a "silent killer" (and we can use it to pay for entitlements) our gentle society will accept, if not endorse, it. Dead people are still dead people, some deaths are simply deemed less horrific than others.


(*Coffee? Yeah, that shit from Starbucks and Borders is some mutant, caffeine-impregnated, crazy coffee. I've seen folks lined up at the place at 5am, waiting for them to open, and clamoring for it like it's crack.)
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2013, 03:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
The problem is, an AR-15 isn't any more dangerous than a hunting rifle. It's just a rifle that looks cool, and because people think it looks scary, they want to ban it.
Are you certain of this? What do you base this statement off of?

What happened this week at Navy Yard was tragic to be sure. It shouldn't be used to start yet another conversation on further banning and restricting firearm ownership by law-abiding citizens. Instead, we should be openly talking about how to prevent mentally ill citizens (those suffering from psychotic mental disorders such as dementia and schizophrenia) from obtaining firearms, and the serious ramifications of allowing people suffering from such psychotic disorders to be treated as normal citizens (protip: they aren't. repeatedly and frequently suffering from aural and visual hallucinations makes you a threat to yourself and others and you should be treated as such, but it's politically incorrect to put dangerous people in residential mental facilities where they can protected from themselves and others).
That is part of our health care debate, but sadly that debate seems mired in the single question of whether Obamacare should or shouldn't be repealed. I say we should take an "all of the above" approach here. Mental health: sure, banning weapons that people don't really need: sure, revamped background checks: sure, gun show loophole closing: sure, etc.

Chicago's firearms bans accomplish nothing. Such bans hurt law-abiding civilians because it effectively prevents them from protecting their own lives from criminal violence.
Does it hurt? While it clearly doesn't solve anything, does it improve matters? Is there evidence against this? Is there evidence to support the idea that people cannot sufficiently defend themselves with lesser weapons?


And, for the record, shooting blindly into the woods outside your house is a REALLY ****ING STUPID AND IRRESPONSIBLE WAY TO HANDLE A FIREARM. FFS.
No disagreement, but the problem is there are stupid people everywhere. You can't stop stupid, and they infringe upon us all. However, perhaps you can deter stupid? You'd have to agree, in theory it's only logical that if weapons like the AR-15 were a little harder to come by you'd have less stupid people doing random, heat-of-the-moment stupid sorts of things that kill more than they would have if they were restricted to a lesser weapon.

Yes, the restriction for responsible gun owners to own the weapons they want is unfair, but perhaps we also have some right to make it a little tougher for stupid people to go on stupid rampages? I mean, some people were talking about having school teachers gun up. Don't parents have the right for their kids to not be shot by some deranged teacher or staff? You might respond by saying that schools should screen for deranged teachers (and substitute teachers, janitors, staff, etc.), but even if they did, how often should this screening process take place and what do we do about schools that cannot afford a thorough enough screening process?

Again, what I'm proposing won't solve diddily squat, but maybe it can help a little.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2013, 03:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
What about motorcycle helmets? Fast food? Cigs? Coffee? As long as it's a "silent killer" (and we can use it to pay for entitlements) our gentle society will accept, if not endorse, it. Dead people are still dead people, some deaths are simply deemed less horrific than others.


(*Coffee? Yeah, that necromancy from Starbucks and Borders is some mutant, caffeine-impregnated, crazy coffee. I've seen folks lined up at the place at 5am, waiting for them to open, and clamoring for it like it's crack.)

These are all good questions, we'll all want to draw lines in different places, but I think it is also good to remember that people that want to draw lines differently than you aren't necessarily anti-constitution commies or gun nut cowboys, they just think that line should be drawn differently.

I say the lines should be drawn purely based on data, not on our emotional sense of what is or isn't fair, or by trying to frame vague or at least non-clear cut constitutional passages one way or another.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: God's Country
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2013, 03:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Again, the point of my post was to help a little, not to solve any problems. Can one do more damage in crowded public places with an AR-15 than they can with a shotgun? Of course.
An AR-15 is a semi-automatic rifle. A semi-automatic shotgun can do just as much damage in a crowded public place as an AR-15. The fire rate is the same between a semi-automatic rifle, shotgun, or AR-15. An AR-15 looks scarier. Just like how painting flames on a Dodge Neon won't make it go faster, putting a pistol grip on a rifle won't make it shoot faster.

You cannot take an AR-15 into a mall, pull the trigger, and start spraying people with bullets like you see in the movies. You can't just pull on the trigger and start ejecting bullets very quickly.

And, contrary to what the liberal media spin tries to tell you, the theoretical fire speed of a weapon (rounds per minute or seconds) does not account for the side effects of firing a gun, like recoil and getting hit in the eye with a hot shell as it's ejected from the gun. Which has happened to me. It hurts like a bitch, and you have to stop and make sure it's not trapped under your glasses before you can keep shooting.

No they aren't, they are just regulated.
As already stated by myself and mrjingle, it is illegal to import or manufacture fully-automatic firearms and it has been illegal since the mid-80s. The only way to legally obtain a fully automatic firearm is to acquire one from an existing owner, and the gun itself must be manufactured prior to 1986.

Fully automatic firearms eligible for legal civilian possession are extremely valuable collector items. They are not run-of-the-mill guns being used by Scarface wannabes.

There is no way to stop that, just minimize that, just as I'm thinking we ought to do with my approach.
This is completely naive. Preventing sane, stable, law-abiding citizens from owning firearms is not going to stop a guy who hears voices in his head telling him to kill to give in to those voices, find a gun, and shoot up a military base.

Let me reiterate - taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens does nothing to take guns out of the hands of people who should not have had them in the first place. Those people are not law-abiding citizens and will not take into account what the law says when they make the decision to go on a shooting spree.

This is the slippery slope argument, but it is also based on paranoia. If there will be no data to support the notion that banning AR-15s had a positive impact, than what cause is there to worry?
The worry is the infringement on constitutional rights at a federal level. The federal government is not in existence so that it can ban things "just in case" without any real cause for the ban.

The Navy Yard shooter didn't have an AR-15. That's very clear from the police and media reports. He used a shotgun. By your logic, we SHOULD ban shotguns because one paranoid schizophrenic heard voices in his head telling him to go buy a shotgun and kill people with it.

Do gun permits expire? If so, start upping the tax on these weapons to encourage people to downgrade.
Besson, I very strongly urge you to educate yourself on federal and state firearms laws. Learn more about how guns work and what sort of things can change how a gun works.

An AR-15 is no different from a hunting rifle. This is critical in understanding the ineffectiveness of banning civilian ownership of firearms based on appearance and name alone.

There are no "gun permits" at a federal level. There are states that require a permit to own a firearm, but that's only a handful of states and the number continues to dwindle. There is also no national gun registry, nor should there be one. It's a lot easier to subjugate your citizens when you know right away who can protect themselves against tyranny and who can't.

Most states only require a permit or license to carry concealed weapons. In Virginia, the background check process is extensive (sometimes longer than a month), and there are fees and time required that discourage people from just getting a permit willy-nilly.

Should we be allowed to drive without seat belts? While intoxicated? The acts of others affect us all, this is how our society works.
You're using that as total slippery slope argument, though. Should people be allowed to drive? A car is a two-ton weapon. You can run your car over someone and kill them. It can be an accident, or it can be premeditated vehicular homicide (or even first degree murder).

Because there is statistical data available to us, we can safely assume that the majority of drivers on the road are responsible vehicle operators who aren't going to drive up on a sidewalk and run over the stroller carrying your baby, or aren't going to blow through red lights regularly and plow into the side of your car at high speed. Therefore, we allow any eligible citizen to have a driver's license, which entitles them to operate a car. That eligibility is only impacted when the citizen proves that they are not responsible enough to operate a vehicle, which is why repeated DUIs win you a license suspension, and why reckless driving resulting in a death or serious injury can also bring with it a license suspension.

And, just like people who illegally own guns (like a convicted felon, which immediately eliminates your constitutional right to bear arms), there are still people who drive vehicles when they have been legally prohibited from doing so. Driving on a suspended license will get you locked up (even if it's just overnight), and repeated offenses will bring with them harsher penalties.

There is statistical data available to us that shows that the majority of law-abiding citizens who own firearms are responsible gun owners who don't use their weapons to threaten, injure, or kill people. Therefore, we allow any eligible citizen to own a firearm, which entitles them to exercise their second amendment Constitutional rights as an American citizen. That eligibility is only impacted when the citizen proves that they are not responsible enough to be entrusted with the ownership of a firearm, which is why a felony conviction will immediately supersede that second amendment right, and why other behavior can also render you ineligible for firearm ownership. For an example, here's what Virginia's state law says about the matter.

Owning a firearm doesn't make you a criminal. Driving a car doesn't make you a drunk driver. In both cases, being a sensible, responsible citizen contributes enormously to preventing unnecessary death and injury to yourself and others.
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: God's Country
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2013, 03:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I say the lines should be drawn purely based on data, not on our emotional sense of what is or isn't fair...
Yes, and that's why banning firearms based on appearance or public perception is dangerous and unethical.

We need to deal with the members of our society who suffer from psychotic, delusional mental disorders. Right now, it's not PC to point out that they are effectively disabled people and need to be treated as such.

The majority of people suffering from untreated paranoid schizophrenia don't live past about 40. When they do, they almost always end up homeless, because their delusions prevent them from keeping a job, holding onto their money, or even making friends who can take care of them and realize they're suffering from a debilitating mental disease.

This shouldn't be a conversation about gun control at all. It absolutely needs to be a conversation about mental disease and what needs to be done, regardless of political incorrectness, to protect those suffering from mental diseases from themselves and others.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2013, 03:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
These are all good questions, we'll all want to draw lines in different places, but I think it is also good to remember that people that want to draw lines differently than you aren't necessarily anti-constitution commies or gun nut cowboys, they just think that line should be drawn differently.

I say the lines should be drawn purely based on data, not on our emotional sense of what is or isn't fair, or by trying to frame vague or at least non-clear cut constitutional passages one way or another.
Data? Then we'd start with cigs and fast food, and work backwards from there. If we addressed 2 death-inducing agents /year, based on bodycount, we'd reach firearms some time around 2050. Long before then, however, 95% of folks would have killed themselves from sheer boredom and a lack of a will to live.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2013, 04:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Data? Then we'd start with cigs and fast food, and work backwards from there. If we addressed 2 death-inducing agents /year, based on bodycount, we'd reach firearms some time around 2050. Long before then, however, 95% of folks would have killed themselves from sheer boredom and a lack of a will to live.

If this is true I'd be in favor of restricting these things. Seriously. I know you'll probably think of me as a Nazi for saying this or *insert whatever here*, but I think we have rights to not pay for these downwards spirals the same way that many would say that these people have rights to put themselves in downwards spirals. I think the latter argument gets more attention than the former. By "restricting" I simply mean providing more and more deterrence, including taxes that we demand are put towards the health care of the collective (i.e. currently Medicare/Medicaid).

However, I also realize that this is pretty impractical because we have no way of controlling what our tax dollars are spent on, but in principal I'm comfortable with the premise (and I say "premise" meaning "not any particular specific implementation") providing deterrents against anything that infringes upon me negatively.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2013, 04:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Are you certain of this? What do you base this statement off of?
Not to put too fine of a point on it, but I'm basing the statement on knowing what I'm talking about. I'll come to you for Linux advice, you come to me for gun advice. Fair?

When it comes to specifics, unless your hunting varmints or birds, chances are what you're trying to bag is much harder to kill than a human. Hunting rifles fire bigger bullets than assault rifles, and they go a lot faster.

Armies use smaller rounds for many reasons. First, they're lighter, which means you can carry more of them. Second, less recoil, so more practical to use for automatic or burst fire. Third, the objective in an engagement with infantry is not to kill, but to wound. A wounded soldier means three soldiers out of commission. One wounded and two to carry him away.

That said, the military does use hunting calibre rounds, and anyone who has used one in combat will tell you people who get hit with them do not get back up. Not necessarily the case with an assault rifle round.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2013, 05:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Not to put too fine of a point on it, but I'm basing the statement on knowing what I'm talking about. I'll come to you for Linux advice, you come to me for gun advice. Fair?
Sure, but we all respond based on what we know, or think we know right now. It's all about how we respond to the information that is shared with us. If I were to pull some stuff out of my ass in response to the arguments I was asking for you could say this is arrogance or insecurity, and you might also say that it would be possible for an information sharer to demonstrate a lack of humility, but I don't see the harm in asking for this information. I like learning things, and I'm not afraid of being wrong.

When it comes to specifics, unless your hunting varmints or birds, chances are what you're trying to bag is much harder to kill than a human. Hunting rifles fire bigger bullets than assault rifles, and they go a lot faster.

Armies use smaller rounds for many reasons. First, they're lighter, which means you can carry more of them. Second, less recoil, so more practical to use for automatic or burst fire. Third, the objective in an engagement with infantry is not to kill, but to wound. A wounded soldier means three soldiers out of commission. One wounded and two to carry him away.

That said, the military does use hunting calibre rounds, and anyone who has used one in combat will tell you people who get hit with them do not get back up. Not necessarily the case with an assault rifle round.

So it comes down to our beliefs on rounds per minute and reloading speed?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2013, 05:16 PM
 


It comes down to kinetic energy. One has a shitload more. Was I not clear?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2013, 05:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Sure, but we all respond based on what we know, or think we know right now. It's all about how we respond to the information that is shared with us. If I were to pull some stuff out of my ass in response to the arguments I was asking for you could say this is arrogance or insecurity, and you might also say that it would be possible for an information sharer to demonstrate a lack of humility, but I don't see the harm in asking for this information. I like learning things, and I'm not afraid of being wrong.
No harm in asking. Slight harm in forming conclusions before you've asked. Maybe you should be afraid of being wrong.
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2013, 05:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post


It comes down to kinetic energy. One has a shitload more. Was I not clear?
I thought that hunting rifles have slow reload times and fewer rounds/minute?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2013, 05:39 PM
 
If this is true I'd be in favor of restricting these things. Seriously. I know you'll probably think of me as a Nazi for saying this or *insert whatever here*, but I think we have rights to not pay for these downwards spirals the same way that many would say that these people have rights to put themselves in downwards spirals. I think the latter argument gets more attention than the former. By "restricting" I simply mean providing more and more deterrence, including taxes that we demand are put towards the health care of the collective (i.e. currently Medicare/Medicaid).

However, I also realize that this is pretty impractical because we have no way of controlling what our tax dollars are spent on, but in principal I'm comfortable with the premise (and I say "premise" meaning "not any particular specific implementation") providing deterrents against anything that infringes upon me negatively.
At one time the Catholic Church sold Indulgences, now we call them Sin Taxes. We start out by saying the money goes to help these poor souls and pay for their treatment or healthcare down the road, then it goes to pay for anyone's medical care, and eventually just gets lumped into usual and expected tax receipts. You can't build your railroad with slave labor without endorsing what enslaves them, no matter how lofty you feel your goals are.

If governments could find an effective way of taxing simple gun ownership, the nanny state would embrace the idea of owning as many firearms as a person wants. Say, an ownership tax of $500 /gun each year and a sales tax of $2 for each round of ammo? "That would make guns less plentiful!" Only at the price of 1 or 2 Waco-like confrontations each day. Eventually, however, you'd kill off the people who wanted to keep guns, and the ones who smoke, gamble, consume alcohol, eat junk food, screw hookers, and drink sodas, would prop things up until they finally die off. The beautiful people who are left would be stunning, however, a real credit to their race.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2013, 06:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I thought that hunting rifles have slow reload times and fewer rounds/minute?
If they have comparable actions (i.e. both semi-auto). They will take the same amount of time to reload. How much ammo either carries is a question of the size of the magazine, which is detachable, so it can be any size you want (barring laws against them). The rounds per minute of either is "how fast can I pull the trigger?"

All semi-automatic weapons are in fact fully-automatic weapons with a limiter designed in. Even your garden variety pistol. With the pistol example, after each shot, the hammer gets recocked by the slide. If the hammer wasn't designed to lock even while the trigger is pulled, the hammer would swing back once the slide had cleared and fire another round, and keep doing it until you let go or ran out of ammo.
     
Laminar  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Iowa, how long can this be? Does it really ruin the left column spacing?
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2013, 06:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I thought that hunting rifles have slow reload times and fewer rounds/minute?
Shif already covered that.

Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
And, contrary to what the liberal media spin tries to tell you, the theoretical fire speed of a weapon (rounds per minute or seconds) does not account for the side effects of firing a gun, like recoil and getting hit in the eye with a hot shell as it's ejected from the gun. Which has happened to me. It hurts like a bitch, and you have to stop and make sure it's not trapped under your glasses before you can keep shooting.
How do you get a shell behind safety glasses?
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2013, 06:13 PM
 
     
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2013, 06:27 PM
 
As an aside. I doubt you'll get many 3D printed guns. You will however get lots of 3D printed magazines with 30+ round capacities.
     
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 19, 2013, 11:25 PM
 
What it comes down to is that a guy with OBVIOUSLY psychotic symptoms didn't get the help he needed, got worse, and because it appears that some folks "didn't want to stigmatize the guy," they let someone who told people about the voices in his head and that he thought microwaves were being directed at him to control his thoughts just keep on getting worse.

The real link in all the cases Fox wants to blame on video games is mental illness. Until the whole world, but most importantly the US, starts to take mental illness seriously and actually TREAT it, there will be people doing violent things because the voices tell them to. It's not funny, it's not a hackneyed punch line, it's the way schizophrenia works. MOST schizophrenics just sort of curl up at home, so to speak, and wind up getting sick, but a few find that the voices tell them to do very bad things. If they don't have access to guns, they can be less dangerous, but there are documented cases of such unfortunates using machetes, knives, motor vehicles, and other devices with deadly consequences.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: God's Country
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Sep 20, 2013, 01:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I thought that hunting rifles have slow reload times and fewer rounds/minute?
Originally Posted by shifuimam View Post
Besson, I very strongly urge you to educate yourself on federal and state firearms laws. Learn more about how guns work and what sort of things can change how a gun works.

An AR-15 is no different from a hunting rifle. This is critical in understanding the ineffectiveness of banning civilian ownership of firearms based on appearance and name alone.
At this point you appear to be drawing all your conclusions and assumptions about firearms based on what the media has told you. You need to do some serious research and learn about how guns work, what changes how a gun works, and what the real, effective differences are between different types of guns.

James Homes used a Smith & Wesson AR-15 to commit his crime. Alex Alexis used a Remington pump-action shotgun. Both men killed twelve people.

No, an AR-15 is not inherently or objectively deadlier or more dangerous than a shotgun or another type of rifle. The person using the gun is the danger, not the gun itself.

Originally Posted by Laminar View Post
How do you get a shell behind safety glasses?
Lucky shot - it flipped over the top of the glasses and got between the side of my head and the earpiece of the glasses. It didn't stay up in my face, fortunately, so it just burned for a second or so.

Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
...some folks "didn't want to stigmatize the guy,"...
The mental institutions of decades past were not exactly good places - they were understaffed, underfunded, and tended to treat the mentally ill like criminals. That is stopping us from taking the very important step to keep psychotic people from injuring themselves and others. It's a huge problem.

Every single spree shooting that I can think of in the past decade has been the result of someone with a severe mental illness being allowed to have the same freedoms as a mentally stable adult.

The real link in all the cases Fox wants to blame on video games is mental illness.
And the liberal media wants to blame it on law-abiding civilian access to firearms. Doesn't change the real cause of these incidents.

Until the whole world, but most importantly the US, starts to take mental illness seriously and actually TREAT it, there will be people doing violent things because the voices tell them to. It's not funny, it's not a hackneyed punch line, it's the way schizophrenia works. MOST schizophrenics just sort of curl up at home, so to speak, and wind up getting sick, but a few find that the voices tell them to do very bad things. If they don't have access to guns, they can be less dangerous, but there are documented cases of such unfortunates using machetes, knives, motor vehicles, and other devices with deadly consequences.
This times a billion, seriously.
     
 
Thread Tools
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:16 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2014 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2