[subego]

The only reason you're lost is because I'm an idiot.

Carry on.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Not by anyone in the government with the power to draft a law is what I meant.

Underneath it all they all flow from the same pool of ideas. The whole point of legislators is to represent people like the people who post here (opinionated people )

Agree 100% with this. But "color" was not one of the things they used to codify that thing they all recognized was my point. Because such a criteria would clearly be easy to get around and does nothing to affect the performance of the weapon.

Consider for a moment that color is just a place-holder representing most of these criteria, that most of them contribute to the image of the scary military gun (bayonet mount is a great example), and most of them are easy to get around.

We have discussed why AR-15s are used in these mass murders. Is it intimidation? Is it ease of acquisition? Is it because they have foldable/collapsing stocks, pistol grips, flash suppressors, detachable 30-round magazines, etc.?

Lots of different guns are used in spree shootings. I think it's patently stupid to try to figure out what makes AR-15s special if there's a good chance they're not actually special.

Meanwhile, it's promising to try to analyze why bystanders like ourselves lend special attention to assault rifles, even though the facts show they are not the only way to wreak havoc. That attention in and of itself might be worth preempting, even if it doesn't directly hamper spree shooters (terror fuels terrorism). But we can't do that unless we know what causes it, otherwise we'll just displace that to the AR-16 or whatever comes up to work around the restrictions.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Civilians can purchase grenade launchers for attachment to AR-15s. All you need is the proper paperwork and the $200 tax stamp. I'm surprised you didn't know this as someone who has said he owns lots of full auto weapons and clearly must be familiar with NFA.

I've not seen one in 15 years, at least not one that is functional. I checked your link, they don't have any either. As I said, it's about availability. Oh, and another thing, if you can't show some basic civility, then you don't need to be involved in these discussions.

You can keep parroting NRA propoganda all you want but these modifications are NOT purely cosmetic, whether they are for military use or the general public.

What you're saying is that the SAME gun in the hands of someone in the military has functional modifications that help with carry over distance and ease of function for extended use, but once he hands it to someone in the general public those functional modifications miraculously become purely cosmetic.

OK then.

From a functional standpoint, for the average person, they are cosmetic. Getting angry doesn't change that.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

I've not seen one in 15 years, at least not one that is functional. I checked your link, they don't have any either. As I said, it's about availability. Oh, and another thing, if you can't show some basic civility, then you don't need to be involved in these discussions.

Nothing uncivil about anything I said. Based on your previous acknowledgement that you own multiple full auto weapons, you should know that grenade launchers are regulated as an NFA destructive device and thus can be legally acquired by the public.

Whether they are readily available or not is beside the point - it is LEGAL to own one if you can find one to purchase and are willing to fill out the paperwork and pay for the tax stamp.

AUTOWEAPONS.COM

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

From a functional standpoint, for the average person, they are cosmetic. Getting angry doesn't change that.

I'm not the least bit angry. I just find your rationale patently absurd, i.e., that who is holding a firearm somehow miraculously changes something from a functional modification to a purely cosmetic modification.

[raleur]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

I'm not the least bit angry. I just find your rationale patently absurd, i.e., that who is holding a firearm somehow miraculously changes something from a functional modification to a purely cosmetic modification.

It doesn't: there's no logic behind the argument.

But don't get caught up in the whole "X isn't really an assault weapon because Y and therefore your legislation is pointless" nonsense, unless you want to be distracted from your main point.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

Nothing uncivil about anything I said. Based on your previous acknowledgement that you own multiple full auto weapons, you should know that grenade launchers are regulated as an NFA destructive device and thus can be legally acquired by the public.

Again, I never said they wouldn't be legal to acquire, as I mentioned, my point is availability. So, when you talk with people in real life you roll your eyes and tell them they're parroting someone else's views? I can't imagine that they want to talk with you for very long, if that's the case.

Whether they are readily available or not is beside the point - it is LEGAL to own one if you can find one to purchase and are willing to fill out the paperwork and pay for the tax stamp.

We've been saying the same thing on this, just talking past each other.

I'm not the least bit angry. I just find your rationale patently absurd, i.e., that who is holding a firearm somehow miraculously changes something from a functional modification to a purely cosmetic modification.

No, I'm saying that for the average person those changes don't make a difference, because they're not toting them all day or using them for extended periods of time. In fact, a flash suppressor lessens muzzle velocity making the weapon less lethal, in most cases.

[screener]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

We're predominantly former and active military (national guard), but others have been formally trained in law enforcement and first response (rescue squad, EMTs, and fire fighters). There are set proficiency and fitness requirements, and professional training is provided. Authorization is granted by the state constitution, and our lawful Commander-In-Chief is the state governor.

Got a web site?
Guess not.
Why not?

[raleur]

Originally Posted by screener 

Got a web site?
Guess not.
Why not?

Because it's imaginary?

But this one seems to be about the right level, intellectually: The East Tennessee Militia.

[screener]

The disclaimer is nice.

We take no responsibility for any conspiracy to overthrow any government establishment; local, state, or federal.

We just sow the seed for,

We exist in our communities to see that no tyrannical government force seeks residence anywhere in east Tennessee.

Nice.

[gradient]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

Actually the color was proposed for a gun ban, in this thread:
http://forums.macnn.com/95/political...2/#post4212687

My suggestion, absolutely. If anyone can explain to me why making guns more visible and less cool looking to the young folk would be a bad thing, I'm all ears. If somebody's walking down the street with a loaded gun, being able to notice it easily from a block away is nothing but a benefit to the public at large in my opinion. For that matter, make them fluorescent green that glows in the dark. We put running lights on cars so that they can be seen in the dark - why not guns?

[Cold Warrior]

Originally Posted by raleur 

Because it's imaginary?

Let's avoid mixing personal stuff with the thread. It's off topic and sets it up for derail.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by gradient 

My suggestion, absolutely. If anyone can explain to me why making guns more visible and less cool looking to the young folk would be a bad thing, I'm all ears. If somebody's walking down the street with a loaded gun, being able to notice it easily from a block away is nothing but a benefit to the public at large in my opinion. For that matter, make them fluorescent green that glows in the dark. We put running lights on cars so that they can be seen in the dark - why not guns?

I agree, color and other "image" changes are a perfectly valid avenue. The problem with them is that the media (incl. news, games, etc) will mimic the new uncool appearance, eventually adopting it as cool, and we might have to change the appearance requirements again in response.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by gradient 

My suggestion, absolutely. If anyone can explain to me why making guns more visible and less cool looking to the young folk would be a bad thing, I'm all ears. If somebody's walking down the street with a loaded gun, being able to notice it easily from a block away is nothing but a benefit to the public at large in my opinion. For that matter, make them fluorescent green that glows in the dark. We put running lights on cars so that they can be seen in the dark - why not guns?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I agree, color and other "image" changes are a perfectly valid avenue. The problem with them is that the media (incl. news, games, etc) will mimic the new uncool appearance, eventually adopting it as cool, and we might have to change the appearance requirements again in response.

You both realize that all one would have to do to make their gun black again is....buy a can of black spray paint.

[subego]

Precision mechanical devices and spray paint are not friends.

[subego]

And... It's illegal to sell spray paint where I live.

Which, in the context of this discussion, is hi-lar-ious.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

You both realize that all one would have to do to make their gun black again is....buy a can of black spray paint.

One can add back most of the "assault rifle" superpowers too, so I'm sure I don't have to convince you that it's a probabilities game. I'm not opposed to cosmetic measures like these "kit" features (or like warning labels and marketing bans for cigarettes), what I'm opposed to is the denial that they are cosmetic in nature.

[gradient]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

You both realize that all one would have to do to make their gun black again is....buy a can of black spray paint.

To which my response would be no problem, just put in place strict and automatic penalties for being caught with such a modified weapon.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by gradient 

To which my response would be no problem, just put in place strict and automatic penalties for being caught with such a modified weapon.

So after he's died in a shoot out with cops after killing a dozen people you're going to penalize him for spray painting his guns black?

[gradient]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

So after he's died in a shoot out with cops after killing a dozen people you're going to penalize him for spray painting his guns black?

Oh, c'mon. That scenario is totally irrelevant - NO law applies to someone who's willing to go out in a hail of bullets.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

So after he's died in a shoot out with cops after killing a dozen people you're going to penalize him for spray painting his guns black?

It's been pointed out that the spree shooters tend to have had photos posted where they pose with their cool pimped-out weapons. Presumably that would be a chance for the MySpace PD to catch them in time.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by gradient 

Oh, c'mon. That scenario is totally irrelevant - NO law applies to someone who's willing to go out in a hail of bullets.

Bingo.

[gradient]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Bingo.

I guess I should have expected that type of response. Laws like what we're discussing are put in place largely as deterrents, with the rationale being that if it saves even one life it's worth it. Are you suggesting that no laws should be implemented at all because someone will always be there to break them? That, sir, is ridiculous.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

I'm saying that putting restrictions / penalties on the purchase or appearance off firearms will only be a deterrent for buying and decorating guns. Not shooting people with them. Ergo a waste of time an resources..

[gradient]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

I'm saying that putting restrictions / penalties on the purchase or appearance off firearms will only be a deterrent for buying and decorating guns. Not shooting people with them. Ergo a waste of time an resources..

Again, though, explain to me why making firearms more visible would be a bad thing. If it allows one person to see a gunman coming more quickly and get themselves out of the line of fire, it's a success. No?

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by gradient 

Again, though, explain to me why making firearms more visible would be a bad thing. If it allows one person to see a gunman coming more quickly and get themselves out of the line of fire, it's a success. No?

So your saying it matters who the first person he shoots is.

[gradient]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

So your saying it matters who the first person he shoots is.

What? That's absurd. How about answering the question - why is making firearms more visible a bad thing.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by gradient 

What? That's absurd. How about answering the question - why is making firearms more visible a bad thing.

Because all it does is add another charge the police can hit you with when they get you on something else. Their never going to explicitly enforce it. Its a waste of paper. It does nothing to address any issue. Requiring all guns to be bright orange just means you'll get shot by a bright orange gun. Flash is a fictional super hero. Real people can't dodge bullets.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally Posted by gradient 

What? That's absurd. How about answering the question - why is making firearms more visible a bad thing.

It's not that it's a "bad thing", it's just that it's another one of these ideas that won't have any effect whatsoever on reducing these mass shootings. A gun is a gun and people know what a freakin' gun looks like. It's not like people didn't see the gun used in these mass shootings because it was black. It's because the shooter surprised people in places they expected to be safe.

Further, do you really think a person who is intent on carrying out a mass shooting (or any other murder) is going to care about a law that requires his gun be painted glow in the dark fluorescent green? Can of black spray paint and his gun is black again. What's breaking one more law to a person intent on murdering people?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by Mrjinglesusa 

It's not that it's a "bad thing", it's just that it's another one of these ideas that won't have any effect whatsoever on reducing these mass shootings. A gun is a gun and people know what a freakin' gun looks like. It's not like people didn't see the gun used in these mass shootings because it was black. It's because the shooter surprised people in places they expected to be safe.

I maintain that another contributing factor to a spree shooter deciding to go for it in the first place is that it will make him feel cool doing it. Efforts to sabotage the "coolness" of the gun are to address this motivation.

Further, do you really think a person who is intent on carrying out a mass shooting (or any other murder) is going to care about a law that requires his gun be painted glow in the dark fluorescent green? Can of black spray paint and his gun is black again. What's breaking one more law to a person intent on murdering people?

Again I say, it does provide authorities an opportunity to capture him before D-day if they see his painted gun on his flickr page. That is, if the authorities are even inclined to try to stop these events before the day-of.

The fundamental problem with infringing illegal use is that it also infringes legal use. "Looking cool" is one of the only aspects of a gun that doesn't suffer from that problem, because even with all the various (arguably) tenuous justifications for legal gun ownership, "looking cool" still isn't one of them.

[gradient]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Because all it does is add another charge the police can hit you with when they get you on something else. Their never going to explicitly enforce it. Its a waste of paper. It does nothing to address any issue. Requiring all guns to be bright orange just means you'll get shot by a bright orange gun. Flash is a fictional super hero. Real people can't dodge bullets.

Incorrect, here's an easy and plausible scenario:

Currently - anonymous tip comes in that someone might be planning a shooting. Police interview suspect and determine that all weapons are properly registered. Nothing they can do.

OR

Anonymous tip comes in. Police interview suspect and discover modified weapon(s). Instant jail time. Future crisis averted.

Or, as I suggested previously, a gunman approaches a crowd and draws an easily visible weapon. One person sees it quickly and ducks for cover before the shooting starts and their life is spared.

That's a potential win on both counts. Over-simplified examples, perhaps, but the point is that we should be getting creative and coming up with anything we can that could potentially save lives.

Besides all that, this isn't just about mass shootings. If your home is invaded, wouldn't it be a benefit to you to see a glowing weapon in the dark? That gives you an instant defensive advantage.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by gradient 

Incorrect, here's an easy and plausible scenario:

Currently - anonymous tip comes in that someone might be planning a shooting. Police interview suspect and determine that all weapons are properly registered. Nothing they can do.

OR

Anonymous tip comes in. Police interview suspect and discover modified weapon(s). Instant jail time. Future crisis averted.

Except all the weapons used in these mass shootings were legal so no.

Or, as I suggested previously, a gunman approaches a crowd and draws an easily visible weapon. One person sees it quickly and ducks for cover before the shooting starts and their life is spared.

And the guy standing behind him gets shot in his place.
Assuming the gunman isn't skilled with masking tape and a can of paint. Because it only takes the paint a few minutes to dry.

Originally Posted by gradient 

the point is that we should be getting creative and coming up with anything we can that could potentially save lives.

You want to save lives? Go for the low hanging fruit that kills thousands of people a year like drunk driving or diabetes.

Originally Posted by gradient 

If your home is invaded, wouldn't it be a benefit to you to see a glowing weapon in the dark? That gives you an instant defensive advantage.

No, because while everyone can see my glowing weapon, I can't see his non-glowing weapon. It gives the intruder and easy target to shoot at.

[gradient]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

Except all the weapons used in these mass shootings were legal so no.

By 'modified', I mean having the legal colour obscured which is what we're talking about. If someone is preparing for shooting by painting their gun(s) black (or whatever other colour), it's not unreasonable to expect that we might catch some of them with what would otherwise have been legal firearms before they can do any damage.

And the guy standing behind him gets shot in his place.

A silly argument, if you ask me. There's guaranteed to be someone behind him? Would no-one else be alerted by this person seeing the gun? What if a security guard is the one that sees it and is able to call for backup/take other action quicker? Etc. So many good things could come out of someone getting an early glimpse of a weapon and this early glimpse does by no means mean that a someone else will end up dying. This is no per-ordained body count in these situations.

Assuming the gunman isn't skilled with masking tape and a can of paint. Because it only takes the paint a few minutes to dry.

Of course, you can't catch everyone - all you can do is try to catch some of them.

You want to save lives? Go for the low hanging fruit that kills thousands of people a year like drunk driving or diabetes.

Irrelevant, as solving those issues are in no way mutually exclusive with curbing gun violence.

No, because while everyone can see my glowing weapon, I can't see his non-glowing weapon. It gives the intruder and easy target to shoot at.

Yes, this is a valid point. That being said - why does it have to come down to a gun fight? If someone's breaking into my house with a gun, I gtfo and call 911. No way am I risking my own life, or the lives of my loved ones, for the sake of possessions. Sure, sometimes it may be necessary but in those cases I expect the situation will have escalated to the point where the colour of the weapons in question don't make a difference.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Originally Posted by gradient 

By 'modified', I mean having the legal colour obscured which is what we're talking about. If someone is preparing for shooting by painting their gun(s) black (or whatever other colour), it's not unreasonable to expect that we might catch some of them with what would otherwise have been legal firearms before they can do any damage.

It's completely and totally unreasonable to expect that. Unless you want to search everyone every time they travel anywhere.

A silly argument, if you ask me. There's guaranteed to be someone behind him? Would no-one else be alerted by this person seeing the gun? What if a security guard is the one that sees it and is able to call for backup/take other action quicker? Etc. So many good things could come out of someone getting an early glimpse of a weapon and this early glimpse does by no means mean that a someone else will end up dying. This is no per-ordained body count in these situations.

The use of the term mass dictates there will be more than one person shot. People running and screaming after the first person is shot doesn't appear to reduce fatalities. The extra milliseconds gained by screaming before the first person is shot won't be particularly effective in reducing the total number of deaths per occurrence.

Irrelevant, as solving those issues are in no way mutually exclusive with curbing gun violence.

Guns vs Butter

Yes, this is a valid point. That being said - why does it have to come down to a gun fight? If someone's breaking into my house with a gun, I gtfo and call 911. No way am I risking my own life, or the lives of my loved ones, for the sake of possessions.

Then the color of his gun is irrelevant since you leave your house whenever someone breaks in.

those cases I expect the situation will have escalated to the point where the color of the weapons in question don't make a difference.

There is no situation where the color of the gun does make a difference. No wait I'm wrong. There's those kids who got shot while holding toy guns and now toy guns are all bright colors. If we make guns bright colors can we make toy guns black again?

[gradient]

Originally Posted by BLAZE_MkIV 

It's completely and totally unreasonable to expect that. Unless you want to search everyone every time they travel anywhere.

So anonymous tips don't happen? As has been pointed out, people don't post pics on the internet? Police checks and speeding tickets don't happen? Any of these, and more, are scenarios that allow for a random handful of these people to get caught. Again, it's about trying, not being a complete solution all of itself.

The use of the term mass dictates there will be more than one person shot. People running and screaming after the first person is shot doesn't appear to reduce fatalities. The extra milliseconds gained by screaming before the first person is shot won't be particularly effective in reducing the total number of deaths per occurrence.

Again, something is better than nothing. More warning is always better than less warning.

Guns vs Butter

What?

Then the color of his gun is irrelevant since you leave your house whenever someone breaks in.

Yes it is of relevance, because it gives me more time to gather my loved ones and gtfo if I so chose.

There is no situation where the color of the gun does make a difference.

Totally untrue. If it never mattered what colour the gun was, great lengths wouldn't be gone to to camouflage them for different terrains. Clearly, visibility is a factor in a gunman's efficiency to one degree or another.

[olePigeon]

Calibre and velocity are less important to me than overal rounds per minute. I'm even fine with people owning 50 mm rifles, sport shooting some armor plates and having fun (so long as they're responsible.)

The problem I have is with automatic anything. Be it a pistol, rifle, or even modern shotguns. Firing off 10 to 20 .22 rounds a second is not useful for anything except killing lots and lots of people very quickly. That's what it was designed for. The example of the defense against a bear attack is ridiculous. Of course it will be effective against a bear. It's effective against an elephant, that's how poachers kill them. It's designed to kill things by sheer numbers.

However, you can provide just the same amount (if not more) safety against a possible bear attacks with a high calibre hunting rifle.

I'm not against people owning guns within the spirit of the law, and I don't believe that it extends to military grade weaponry designed to kill lots and lots of people. Fully automatic anything has no place as a tool except in the military where it belongs. Normal hunting rifles, pistols, shotguns, etc. are just fine, provided people go through proper training (and none of this limited bullsh*t that we have in most states), and fines should be increased 10x for violations.

If running a red light was a $1500 ticket instead of a $150 ticket, most people would probably stop running red lights pretty quick. Do the same with guns. If you want to own one, you better know gun safety forwards and backwards, or it will cost you.

[subego]

An unlicensed automatic weapon is a pretty speedy route to a Federal weapons violation.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by subego 

An unlicensed automatic weapon is a pretty speedy route to a Federal weapons violation.

and a long-term residency at club Fed.

[BLAZE_MkIV]

Guns vs Butter is the classic economics analogy. You have a finite amount of capital in your economy how much do you spend making butter and how much making guns. It's usually used to compare economic strategies like capitalism vs communism. But in this case there is a finite amount of money to spend on law enforcement. Do you want to spend it on preventing drunk driving or mass shootings?