The congressional hearings this week about gun control in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook Massacre were a spectacle. There were grieving parents, "experts" offering up their own insight on guns and public safety, and a litany of Republican spokespeople (bought and paid for by the NRA) trying to suggest that video games are a bigger problem than guns in American society, and that gun violence is not a public health issue (but maybe it is a "black people problem"...who knows?)
As with other critical issues of public concern, it is apparent that sensible gun control is likely not to be put in place because there is a disagreement about basic facts. Moreover, the symbolism of the gun, the power of lobbying groups, the Right-wing media's myth making machine, and how some folks are actually possessed by magical thinking which suggests that they are contemporary "minutemen" who are going to fight "tyranny" and State power with their guns is both absurd and laughable.
Nevertheless, the mindset is still very compelling for a particular political personality type. Who wouldn't want to pretend to be G.I. Joe or Captain America?
In their efforts to derail sensible public policy about gun violence, one of the canards offered by the Gun Right is a fixation on what constitutes an "assault rifle." The amount of energy expended on this issue has become the equivalent of the TV show King of the Nerds where fine points about esoteric knowledge (of what is ultimately questionable value) are fought over until exhaustion.
Public policy-making is intentionally prevented and mucked up because these fixations about how to label and name a thing--in this case a rifle capable of delivering a high volume of fire in a short amount of time--are chaff used to distract "We the People" from basic questions about health and safety.
In her testimony this week about how the AR-15 is the perfect weapon for women (it is also a "modern day musket" and "self-defense" weapon), Gayle Trotter unintentionally revealed her hand by letting slip a few basic facts about her beloved rifle--facts which undercut the Gun Right's claims about the seemingly "benign" nature of the favorite weapon used by Adam Lanza and other such mass shooters.
Gayle Trotter extolled the virtues of her AR-15:
"Young women are speaking out as to why AR-15 weapons are their weapon of choice," Trotter explained. "The guns are accurate. They have good handling. They're light. They're easy for women to hold."
She added: "And most importantly, their appearance. An assault weapon in the hands of a young woman defending her babies in her home becomes a defense weapon, and the peace of mind that a woman has as she's facing three, four, five violent attackers, intruders in her home, with her children screaming in the background, the peace of mind that she has knowing that she has a scary-looking gun gives her more courage when she's fighting hardened, violent criminals."
The AR-15 is fundamentally the same gun as the M-16 family of weapons. Save for some cosmetic differences, the ability to affix a bayonet for example, and the lack of a 3 fire burst selector (or full auto feature in the M4 and pre-M16A2 versions), the civilian versions of the M-16 (which are marketed under any number of names) also fire the same type of ammunition, and are just as lethal as their military counterparts.
And for all of the obsession with the differences between a "fully automatic" rifle vs. a "semi-automatic rifle," until the widespread use of the M-4 during the Iraq debacle, most infantry was instructed to use the semi-automatic setting as the preferred way of firing the weapon.
As Gayle Trotter lets slip, the AR-15 "looks scary" precisely because it is a military weapon. Moreover, the AR-15 (as with other semi-automatic rifles) is popular with the Gun Right precisely because it is for all intents and purposes a very effective military armament.
The AR-15 is the civilian marketed version of the M-16 rifle. Both are "assault rifles," or if one prefers, "assault weapons." This class of weapon was developed because the military experiences of the post-World One and post-World War 2 eras revealed that most infantry in an age of mass mobilization and industrial war are going to lack any experience with shooting guns and rifles prior to their being drafted or otherwise joining the military. This was especially true in the United States, as the country became more urbanized in the early part of the 20th century.
During World War 2, the German military was the first to field an assault rifle, the MP43/44. This weapon would prove an inspiration for the legendary AK-47. In total, the genesis of the assault rifle was an acknowledgement of some basic facts about small unit combat in the modern era.
The individual soldier needed to be able to deliver a high amount of fire in an intermediate to close range of 50 to 300 yards. The ideal of long engagement ranges by master shooters was not supported by the data gathered after the two world wars. The individual infantryman needed to be able to have a light, reliable weapon, with a high capacity magazine. The soldier also needed a weapon that would allow for mass fire, closing with the enemy, and would support the battlefield reality that it often takes many thousands of rounds to result in one enemy killed. This weapon would also use a "lighter" round which meant that a given soldier could carry more ammo into battle.
These criteria drove the creation of the modern assault rifle. Gayle Trotter's explanation of why she needs an assault rifle to defend her home (in a fantastic scenario not supported by data about guns and women's safety) echoes these battlefield realities. Light, lethal, able to fight off multiple attackers because of ammo capacity, and ease of use, are the traits of the modern assault rifle. Gayle Trotter's beloved "defense weapon" has all of those attributes.
I wonder how the public discourse about gun policy would be transformed if we could be honest with one another, and remove all of the Orwellian new speak from the conversation? The Gun Right--as defenders of "liberty"--cling to the private ownership of assault rifles precisely because of how efficient those weapons are at killing people. Why are they afraid to admit that basic fact?
And for all of the obsession with the differences between a "fully automatic" rifle vs. a "semi-automatic rifle," until the widespread use of the M-4 during the Iraq debacle, most infantry was instructed to use the semi-automatic setting as the preferred way of firing the weapon.
As Gayle Trotter lets slip, the AR-15 "looks scary" precisely because it is a military weapon. Moreover, the AR-15 (as with other semi-automatic rifles) is popular with the Gun Right precisely because it is for all intents and purposes a very effective military armament.
The AR-15 is the civilian marketed version of the M-16 rifle. Both are "assault rifles," or if one prefers, "assault weapons." This class of weapon was developed because the military experiences of the post-World One and post-World War 2 eras revealed that most infantry in an age of mass mobilization and industrial war are going to lack any experience with shooting guns and rifles prior to their being drafted or otherwise joining the military. This was especially true in the United States, as the country became more urbanized in the early part of the 20th century.
During World War 2, the German military was the first to field an assault rifle, the MP43/44. This weapon would prove an inspiration for the legendary AK-47. In total, the genesis of the assault rifle was an acknowledgement of some basic facts about small unit combat in the modern era.
The individual soldier needed to be able to deliver a high amount of fire in an intermediate to close range of 50 to 300 yards. The ideal of long engagement ranges by master shooters was not supported by the data gathered after the two world wars. The individual infantryman needed to be able to have a light, reliable weapon, with a high capacity magazine. The soldier also needed a weapon that would allow for mass fire, closing with the enemy, and would support the battlefield reality that it often takes many thousands of rounds to result in one enemy killed. This weapon would also use a "lighter" round which meant that a given soldier could carry more ammo into battle.
These criteria drove the creation of the modern assault rifle. Gayle Trotter's explanation of why she needs an assault rifle to defend her home (in a fantastic scenario not supported by data about guns and women's safety) echoes these battlefield realities. Light, lethal, able to fight off multiple attackers because of ammo capacity, and ease of use, are the traits of the modern assault rifle. Gayle Trotter's beloved "defense weapon" has all of those attributes.
I wonder how the public discourse about gun policy would be transformed if we could be honest with one another, and remove all of the Orwellian new speak from the conversation? The Gun Right--as defenders of "liberty"--cling to the private ownership of assault rifles precisely because of how efficient those weapons are at killing people. Why are they afraid to admit that basic fact?
30 comments:
I had the same experience discussing gun control with a friend of mine. When I noted my support for an assault weapons ban, he was quite adamant that a pistol was just as effective for mass shootings. Based on that conclusion, I asked him to identify the harm to law-abiding citizens from an assault weapons ban, given that citizens can defend themselves just as effectively with a handgun. He answered that an AR-15 is more effective against an armed intruder. Apparently, the AR-15 is JUST deadly enough not to restrict. (He then ducked and weaved when I asked why we should make AR-15's available to outgun police and security guards armed with handguns in public.)
There is so much chaff out there. The argument against tyranny which so many try to use naturally leads to them procuring military type weapons...or how else are they going to fight the gov't and a militarized police force?
The belief that the 2nd amendment entitles people to have private arms is a con job that the NRA and a few conservative judges worked on the American people. If you want to be part of a well-regulated militia join the national guard.
I say that as someone who believes in the practical reality that America is a gun culture, supports citizens having a pistol or long rifle for hunting, and that there is a broad range of reasonable policies that could be put in place to save lives and which still allow those of us--so inclined and qualified--to have a firearm.
By this argument you would be limiting or eliminating any semi-automatic weapon, which is exactly the sort of slippery slope fear that animates people opposed to any new Federal AWB.
Any rifle is lethal. That's what they're designed to do. That's what any gun is designed to do. It is worth pointing out however, that the number of people killed with rifles is infinitesimally smaller than the number of people killed with handguns. In fact the number of people killed with rifles is lower than the number of people killed with bare hands.
So this fixation on rifles for both sides has little to do with empirical data and everything to do with symbolism. That's it. My grandfather's M-1 is just as lethal as an AR type weapon, perhaps more so b/c it's firing a heavier round.
But it doesn't look like an AR-15 so it doesn't scare Senators. Saying that soldiers fire M4's or M-16's in semi-automatic mode and so the semi-automatic AR-15 is also a military weapon seems like a leap. But even if that were the case, so what? I can purchase an M9 equivalent pistol that works just like the real thing. Does that mean all semi-automatic pistols should be outlawed. Not seeing your logic here..
You know my position on this matter. Reasonable sensible gun laws. I have no problem w. people owning a pistol. You can have 20 of them for all I care...if you get the insurance.
As you know some weapons are much more lethal than others. The assault rifle is working as designed as we see in these mass shootings--killing large number of people at one time. That is a public policy matter than can be addressed.
I do not think that people, civilians, should have access to military weaponry. My point on semi-auto fire from the ar-15 is one of canards thrown out by the Gun Right. It isn't full auto so it isn't a military weapon. Such claims are silliness when the very weapons being issued to the military were semi-auto and soldiers were instructed to fire on semi-auto as a matter of doctrine using what is fundamentally the same weapon.
I am all for transparency in the discourse. The Gun Right should be honest about why they are defending assault rifles and why they are so attracted to them. Just own it. Then we can actually have a real conversation.
"By this argument you would be limiting or eliminating any semi-automatic weapon, which is exactly the sort of slippery slope fear that animates people opposed to any new Federal AWB."
Not my position. I know better than to get caught up in that silly canard and distraction. I would ban any magazine over 5 rounds or 10--some reasonably low number. keep your revolvers and pistols. I would make sure that gun companies can be sued just like cigarette companies. I would mandate gun insurance. If you want to have the ferrari of guns and have kids in the house you pay a bunch more to protect the rest of us from the reasonably foreseeable consequences of your actions if they go amok. if you think you need 10 guns in the house to fight off zombies then you pay the cost to be the boss. i would also make sure that straw purchasers rot in jail and that gun shows are more heavily regulated if not shut down.
I also support making sure that you have to get a certificate of mental sanity, and attend a gun safety and training course of reasonable length and difficulty...no 1 hour show up to get the certificate mess.
will that happen? no.
Based on the research post world war 2 I am unsure, very actually, if the m-1 is as "lethal" in practice. both are deadly of course. the m-1 is a longer ranged weapon as you know. but, there was actual data gathered about lethality of the m-14 vs the ar-15 in the 1960s in tests by the dept. of the army. perhaps, someone can look it up.
as a matter of consistency I do not think that private parties should have access to m1 or m14 series weapons either unless they are properly trained and evaluated, even given the former's lower bullet capacity.
mass hysteria.
the problem is they want to ban a rifle that is a subset of all rifles. Now all the crime data I've seen, checked has crimes involving rifles (any type) at less than 3% so banning rifles is pointless. Why, criminals rarely use rifles AR15 or any.
Obviously the goal is not to ban rifles but create other bands that spring from that.
Eck!
mass hysteria. yes and no. reasonable concern yes.
assault rifles may be used in a small percentage of crimes, but they have been used quite effectively for mass shootings. let's say that a reasonable gun public safety policy eliminates one tenth of that 3 percent of murders. those folks are still alive. no law is perfect. to seek one is a straw man.
as i said here, if someone can demonstrate a legitimate need--beyond 'cause I want one!--for why civilians can own military weaponry in this case an assault rifle save for fantastic beliefs about fighting the gov't and zombies--I am all for the conversation.
If the claim is that so I can protect the people against tyranny then how can a person expect the State to then protect your "right" to compete with its authority
I would go further and say that hollow point ammo and other types of rounds that go beyond what is the minimal necessary for 1) hunting and 2) stopping a person.
Moreover, body armor should also be highly regulated as well. Unless you are gonna fight the SWAT team or play local militia there is no good reason for a civilian to have such gear.
If you want to play soldier in the "well regulated militia" folks can go to the recruiter and sign up.
Citizen Soldier:
It seems that - in the event of a national dilemma - you and others like to stake out a point of fissure with your "Right Wing Adversaries" and then demand that THEY convince YOU that THEIR position is just before you agree to cease YOUR latest legislative move.
With all due respect the proper response is: "SCREW YOU!!"
It is quite ironic that the same ideological basin that says "The NRA has blood on its hands, all over America because of its defense of weapons that are outside of the mainstream circle that YOU DEFINE" are the people who's ideological bigotry prevents them from enumerating the MOST FREQUENT VECTOR OF HOMICIDE all without being called to the carpet about your diversion.
The truth is that YOU CAN'T address (neither) the WEAPONS that are most frequently used and the HUMAN CONSCIOUSNESS that chooses to execute the murder that you claim to be so forlorn about.
The truth is - political operatives (on both sides) are only competent at making political volleys on the matter of what the GOVERNMENT AGENTS can do to regulate the "tools" that are available "in the pool".
When it comes to showing competency regarding how to actually imprint upon the MINDS AND CONSCIOUSNESS of the PEOPLE WITHIN "the pool" your preference is to PUNT, instead seeking out a right wing debate adversary to engage in a verbal lip lock with.
In my view your (collective) incompetence at addressing the ecosystem that produces the consciousness of violence has a greater negative force than the NRA's focus on "the tools".
It seems that the HUMAN variable is the most INFERIOR and unimporant element in YOUR discussion.
All the reasons why my dear friend Mr Devega gave you a "Like" in response to your analysis.
My Dear Friend Chauncey DeVega Of Chicago:
Do you see how you are?
You, sir, prefer to engage in verbal duels in the face of Lil Jo Jo, JayLoud, Youg Teddy (Atlanta) and many others.
You receive self-chummed satisfaction that YOU are not the problem - based on your ability to seek out and stand up a "Right Wing Target" for shooting practice against.
Yet - when we look on the ground at the "The Least Of These People" who you say are VICTIMS of the hallowed ghosts of Right-wing/Racist/Oppressive/Frontier/Slavery-era policies - it is YOU SIR, who is unable address the key forces that BEAR DOWN upon them, WITH YOUR ARGUMENTS bound by the facts AT THE CRIME SCENE, rather than YOUR WANTS and IMAGINATION - that were present - prior to the latest shooting that rings out.
My dear friend - if the "All White Jury" member's sin was that he could not overcome the assumptions that he was laced with BEFORE stepping a foot into the jury box - how are you any different per your afflictions?
At the crime scene of Hidya Pendelton there was:
* Another dead young girl from Chicago
* A Street pirate
* A hand gun
* Shell casings
* Terrorized residents who will be permanently scarred
* A Black woman crying on the television news
* AND a battery of political operatives lending their VOICES about how they can take this latest bloodstain on the pavement of Chicago as a means of bashing the NRA and other right wing forces THAT HAVE NO STANDING within this - the most "Mission Accomplished Zone" of them all.
The only cruelty of the NRA - is that they are agents of exposure of progressive fundamentalism. LEAVE THE PROGRESSIVE ALL ALONE, encamped with the tools of his own SELF DESTRUCTION - return in a short time and open the door of the vault and the STENCH OF DEATH will hit your nose before your eyes adjust to the scene that has all of the lights shot out.
The truth is - Mr DeVega you have a fatal intellectual interdependence WITH your RIGHT WING ENEMY. Your arguments are YOUR evidence of CARE AND CONCERN - that YOU are the solution IF you could just get these irrational enemies to control themselves.
Yet as we look at the places where your views "rue the day" - instead of success on the ground - we merely see a congregation willing to run with you on an EXTERNAL ESCAPADE after tracking down a rightwinger with your laser guide.
Learn from Chauncey DeVega by WATCHING Chauncey DeVega
Most modern pistols and revolvers already have more than 5 round capacity. I have weapons with magazine capacities of greater than 10 rounds. I am not going to willingly give them up. Period. And there are thousands, maybe millions of people like me. Unless you wish to support a national Bloomberg type stop-n-frisk/search-n-take policy which would make mincemeat out of the already tattered 4th Amendment, things would seem to be at an impasse.
Basically you just want to raise costs on gun owners, even though the overwhelming majority of gun owners will live and die without ever having shot at another human being. That's certainly a legitimate pov though I don't agree with your reasoning. I don't think it would make a blessed bit of difference in crime nor would it appease those people whose true goal is to remove weaponry from private owners. Raise the costs, ok. We still have guns. Now what?
I am not as confident as you are at telling people how many bullets they need in a magazine. I grew up with numerous guns in the house. Somehow I never touched them. There was a reason for that. We've discussed before there is no "certificate of mental sanity" that's worth a damn. No doctor can see the future. A man could buy a gun in 2013 and in 2018 use it to kill his unfaithful wife and lover.
In Michigan anyway, you already have to go through state background checks and training/safety classes in order to legally carry concealed. People opposed to this screamed and warned of dire consequences, shootouts at PTA meeting, etc. It didn't happen.
In terms of legal liability, I would like to see a law that says that a gun owner is negligent in securing their weapons is liable for another party using that weapon illegally. I would also have that liability extend to the estate of that gun owner in the event that the gun is used against them and others.
Your point seems to be that no incremental safety measure is 100% effective, and is therefore not worth pursuing. The underlying point in your position is that confiscating all weapons is the most effective solution. As a gun-owner, I'd prefer the conversation not go in that direction.
I would go further and say that hollow point ammo and other types of
rounds that go beyond what is the minimal necessary for 1) hunting and
2) stopping a person.
Exhibiting precisely the type of ignorance central to questioning Slotkin's "authority" the other day. The reason both law enforcement and seasoned private citizens prefer hollow point ammunition is because it doesn't ricochet and it doesn't pass through multiple bodies yielding the unintended consequence of collateral damage to non-targets.
Personally, I insist on high-capacity magazines because when there's killing to be done, the last thing in the world you want to experience is loss of continuity of fire. But then, I always wonder why in these mass-killing incidents the body count is so low. Hell, I'm quite certain I could do as much damage with edged weapons and comparatively quietly before I'd even have to begin to resort to gunfire.
I'm not a fan of the AR-15 because I don't like that tiny .223 round, give me a good old Kalashnikov with the larger, heavier, engine-block shattering .762 round every single time. (don't have to pack hundreds of rounds out into the boonies either, and the weight differential between the .223 and the .762 is negligible for a big, strapping fellow)
Cnu, I know that...which is why police use those rounds too. I may not have your survivalist training, but I do know more than the average bear about this topic...or else I wouldn't write about it.
As we said earlier, I will put Slotkin and other's knowledge about the social history of guns up against a competition shooter, devgru member, delta, etc. etc. Totally different competencies. I am going to explore that next week btw.
I am also open to listening and learning from folks who know more than I do. And yes, I do not think civilians should have access to hollow point rounds. The police. Perhaps? As there is a interesting problem here. "Dum dum" rounds are "illegal" in warfare, but they can be used by police? Not sure that is Kosher on my end.
What do you think of people who claim the AR15 is a great "hunting rifle" given its comparatively small round (but one with lots of kinetic energy)?
To your point on the M16, I always thought the U.S. should have simply purchased AKs during Vietnam and developed the AR-15 as it was so troubled a design. Not possible politically.
Have you read some of the coroner's reports on the Newtown shooting--at least what has been released? He did lots of killing-in fact most shots were overkills.
So on that point, however morbid, you are correct.
Are you snake eyes from GI Joe? You could take out 20 plus people with a katana? If so you need to hook up with the Stick Brothers (if they are still around)} and put out some DVDs.
I am not interested nor would I advocate "confiscating guns." That would be impractical and silly. But, we can do some reasonable things moving forward. The logic of extreme gun rights advocates is perilous. "I don't break the law and only good guys would follow the law anyway! So this is unfair and useless!" By that logic we should not have any laws in society because by definition "criminals" break them.
"Rights" can be regulated by definition. I find it hard to believe that your essential "liberties" are significantly limited by not be allowed to have a magazine that holds 30 or 40 bullets. People can't drive Indy Cars on the street either. Your freedom to, in this case have lots of guns and all sorts of bullets, has the direct capacity to infringe on the freedom of other others to be safe and healthy. In society we must find a balance.
I think you need to print up handbills and hand them out on the corner. You have a great carnival barker appeal to your various internet projects which I find very entertaining! Could be a money maker for you. Alternatively, you could do late night infomercials. Have you ever though of doing a blogtalk radio show or Youtube show? You and Pastor Manning would be a great two-fer.
You SHOULD have your costs driven up as a gun owner. Using your line of reasoning, most people with cars don't get into deadly accidents or run people over and kill them. Yet, everyone is forced to have insurance. If you own a gun, you should be forced to purchase insurance. A car isn't designed to kill, but a gun sure is.
lol, so what is it then CDV, civilians only get to use full-metal jackets and inflict lots of unintended collateral damage? Of course you realize that genuine enthusiasts reload their own ammo, and can make whatever kind of ammo we desire, as hot as we want it - up to the limits of the receiver/barrel gun metal, and bearing a bead of mercury in the round so that it explodes on impact.
As for the other, As for the other, if little scrawny knifemen in China can put in journeyman work with small blades, you've really gotta wonder what a strapping, skilled, and athletic assailant could do with a pair of cheap, disposable jungle masters....,
Outlaw SSRI antidepressants and 95% of the mass shootings go away.
The only authoritarians we have to fear in all of this hand wavy faux hysteria, are the same soft-headed imbeciles who banned corporal punishment in public schools and lost good order and student safety in the same, and have instituted zero-tolerance policies that get kids kicked out forever for forgetting the can of mace in their backpacks or for disrespecting the mean smelly lunch lady with rotten teeth who serves green runny cheese.....,
How many folks are gunsmiths? Not many. If they want to make hollow points then they are going to do it. That doesn't mean that they should be sold over the counter.
Attacks by knives vs. mass shootings with guns. Outliers are interesting but not very illustrative here. I can find an example of someone killing 3 people with a hammer; that does not mean that a hammer is a more efficient killer than an assault rifle.
rotflmbao..., reloaders do-not-equal gunsmiths. Reloaders are folks who want to save some bucks on ammunition and plunk down a few bucks for a kit https://www.google.com/#hl=en&tbo=d&sclient=psy-ab&q=ammunition+reloading+kits&oq=ammunition+relo&gs_l=hp.1.1.0l4.2208.4276.0.6635.15.7.0.8.8.0.196.1010.0j7.7.0.les%3B..0.0...1c.1.2.hp.olxMEJGOlVc&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&bvm=bv.41867550,d.b2I&fp=849608469ca976cd&biw=1600&bih=773
People talking feverishly about guns who don't know the barest minimum detail about guns would be funny, if those same people weren't hysterically crying for a federal clampdown on guns because they're both ignorant and afraid...,
"genuine enthusiasts reload their own ammo, and can make whatever kind of ammo we desire, as hot as we want it - up to the limits of the receiver/barrel gun metal,"
Again, how many folks on average are doing that? We are mired in minutia again, I read your comment as talking about customization and reconfiguring barrels etc. You understand my point.
Again, and off to other things tonight, our to and fro is exactly a demonstration of the type of distractions about definitions and the like that are keeping us from addressing a basic public health question in this country.
All sorts tired energy is expended talking about what constitutes an assault rifle when the bigger issue is public health.
To examples, again, someone can be a master surgeon. That does not make him/her qualified to work on public health policy. They can be on a panel but he or she is not a public health expert or epidemiologist, etc.
Not complicated.
1-2% mostly competitors. This isn't minutia, it illustrates the fact that you're painfully uninformed about guns and ammunition, though you feel perfectly qualified to spout extremely partisan opinions about the same.
What percentage of murders in the U.S. fall under the rubric of assault weapon facilitated mass shootings? There are exponentially more reloaders than there are mass shooters.
The main public health topic has to do with hood rats killing one another like flies with pistols. That too dwarfs the number of assault weapon facilitated mass shootings. In fact, mass shootings are most often accomplished with multiple pistols.
So, to sum up, none of the partisans spouting authoritarian hysteria toward federal implementation of an unfunded and unachievable mandate (hell the ATF hasn't even had a director in years and it's the least computerized, most short-staffed, and least capable operation within the entire treasury department) - can make an internally consistent case for the implementation of stricter gun controls based on what's actually happening in the world, and, nobody who owns guns is going to willingly surrender any of them to the pro-bankster NDAA loving Stephen Obama, sooo......,
You anti-gun partisans can work your jaws and your keyboards to your hearts' content, but it isn't going to change a thing, particularly because what you're calling for is both stupid and uninformed and will not effect the incidence of mass shootings (though banning SSRI's for adolescent males will take a significant bite out of these further possible black swan events)
If you want hoodrats to stop murdering hoodrats and collateral innocents, then implement Brazilian style clampdowns on the hood just like the Brazilians have done on the favelas.
Everything else is silly conversation....,
"This isn't minutia, it illustrates the fact that you're painfully uninformed about guns and ammunition, though you feel perfectly qualified to spout extremely partisan opinions about the same. "
It is minutia. Chaff. Do you need to be an Indy driver to work on mass transit issues? An expert shooter to talk about guns as a public health issue? No. Should folks be able to field strip a gun blindfolded in order to talk about reasonable gun control policies? Of course not. It is only die hard gun fetishists and other gun right types who want to impose such barriers in order to avoid basic discussions about guns and the Common Good.
I know more than enough about this issue as a public policy matter to offer an informed comment. I do not think that expertise in basket weaving 101 means expertise in glass blowing 200 so do educate me if I do not understand the macro-level variables at play.
If I have said something so off base about how the AR-15 is fundamentally the same weapons for all intents and purposes as the M16 series please do so. If I am wrong about how that shill for the Gun Right--she is a shill, a woman with one employee, herself at her "think tank" making up fictions--then please educate me--slipped and offered up the very rational behind assault rifles, do share.
You are always good fun but lots of your comments about an armed society is a good society or polite society do not hold up to empirical rigor. There are war zones awash with guns where there is no "civility." There are societies like Japan and Sweden which by most measures are much more safe, civil, and the like and have far fewer guns. Chicago neighborhoods are awash with guns and see what is going on.
You cannot assume simple monocausal claims--Chicago has "banned guns" and look at the violence!
Too many variables. It is also assuming that if guns were more readily available for the "good guys" that you would not see a corresponding increase suicides by gun, accidental shootings, murder, etc. All use of legals guns are not going to be defensive in nature.
The U.S. has the highest per capita gun ownership in the world (from memory, depending on how you cut the data I believe) and is one of the most violent with some of the highest rates of gun violence. It ain't complicated.
You confuse the realpolitik of the NRA and the Gun Right's power with the virtue of their position. Gun control is an overwhelmingly popular issue with the American people, the Right-wing media and gun right have distorted reality on that fact (again).
Back to UFC.
You are always good fun but lots of your comments about an armed society is a good society or polite society do not hold up to empirical rigor. There are war zones awash with guns where there is no "civility." There are societies like Japan and Sweden which by most measures are much more safe, civil, and the like and have far fewer guns. Chicago neighborhoods are awash with guns and see what is going on.
lol, back to this tired old saw. Russia is three times more homicidal and has gun controls that would be the envy of Chicago, the gun control capital of the U.S.
As I noted earlier, hoodrats exterminating hoodrats is the actual subtext of this whole discussion, not the occasional mass shooting still more occasionally facilitated by an assault rifle.
You cannot assume simple monocausal claims--Chicago has "banned guns" and look at the violence!
Precisely, which is why I'm content to leave guns strictly alone and instead clamp down on or outright ban ni nis Brazilian style...., out-of-pocket, uncivil and irredeemable ni nis with pistols are quite obviously the source of the problem, here, there, everywhere else one cares to look, oh, them and the occasional white or asian adolescent male wilding off an SSRI wiithdrawal psychotic break.
Too many variables. It is also assuming that if guns were more readily available for the "good guys" that you would not see a corresponding increase suicides by gun, accidental shootings, murder, etc. All use of legals guns are not going to be defensive in nature.
There will always be a Darwinian threshing floor where Gawd's work will be done...., like Shady Grady said elsewhere on this thread, house full of guns, never, nary not a single problem with any of them.
You confuse the realpolitik of the NRA and the Gun Right's power with the virtue of their position.
You confuse nervous bankster errand boy, NDAA and drone-loving Stephen Obama's authoritarian overtures toward folks guns as virtuous policy.
It is not.
Gun control is an overwhelmingly popular issue with the American people, the Right-wing media and gun right have distorted reality on that fact (again).
Gun control an overwhelmingly popular issue with America's human livestock managers and possibly a popular issue with their uncritical urban feminist flocks. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/23/gun-owners-vs-the-nra-what-the-polling-shows/#
It's not a popular issue with the 84 million or so Americans who own guns. http://extranosalley.com/?p=36704
"It's not a popular issue with the 84 million or so Americans who own guns."
We should make laws based on their popularity among those to be regulated? Given your/our elitist bonafides I would think you would the first to reject such criteria. What would those you idolize in the Edo period say?
By that rubric we would likely have a relatively lawless society. If so that is okay, just own it and be transparent as I say.
I do not care if such reasonable laws are "popular." Are they in the service of the Common Good? I would gladly take away the equivalent of military weapons from many thousands or millions if need be if it saved the lives of even a few dozen people. I am direct: there is no legitimate reason for civilians to own assault rifles. Period. I would also go so far as to say, as I have here repeatedly, there are few reasons that I can think of for someone to have more than one or two weapons per household.
Will that ever happen? No. The reality of the NRA Gun Right crowd's choke hold on reasonable public policy does not invalidate the wisdom or truth of a reasonable gun safety position.
We should make laws based on their popularity among those to be regulated?
When it comes to prohibitions, those being regulated certainly have a say. As we've seen with the prohibition on alcohol and the prohibition on drugs, the consequences of unenforceable prohibitions are very draconian indeed.
Hysterical overreaction by the CBC in the 80's paved the way for the sentencing disparity between powder and crack cocaine. Said sentencing disparity has been a boon to the prison industrial congressional complex and a further means for hiding the long-term contraction in the american economy.
Men for whom there are no job prospects can more easily be warehoused in the privately owned work house. I wonder if any of the CBC members (who pretty much have to die and be carried out of their 2nd/3rd line inheritor incumbent seats in congress) have any regrets concerning the foolish "enhancement" they supported to the existing drug prohibition and the devastating results that their overreaction yielded?
I would gladly take away the equivalent of military weapons from many thousands or millions if need be if it saved the lives of even a few
dozen people.
As the right is fond of saying, it's the collectivist left which has no compunction about abolishing individual rights and instituting the most draconian and authoritarian constructs imaginable in order to impose their will and their way.
I don't know if that is any more true of the left or the right...just what they want to restrict. the social contract and coming together in society requires that some "rights" and "freedoms" be compromised if not restricted. how we go about doing that is the issue. allowing someone to have guns, but not assault weapons is not a great imposition on "freedom." you can't have manpads or nukes either to use an extreme issue. you can't drive cars that aren't "street legal" on most public roads. same difference.
Thanks for putting an effort to publish this information and for sharing this with us.
Cindy
www.gofastek.com
I'm impressed. You're truly well informed and very intelligent. You wrote something that people could understand and made the subject intriguing for everyone. I'm saving this for future use.
Vivian
Marks Web
www.imarksweb.org
I’m impressed. Very informative and trustworthy blog does exactly what it sets out to do. I’ll bookmark your weblog for future use.
Pebbles
www.joeydavila.net
Post a Comment