Gun Owner's Rights Advocates: This is exactly what we are afraid of...

[thom]

Late to the party, what'd I miss? A bunch of school kids got shot AGAIN, and the gun lovers get bent out of shape over some law that tries to prevent {censored} like this in the future?

If it's a proven fact that: Less guns = less murders...Shouldn't we maybe consider selling our assault weapons to the army or whatever and look for another hobby? Sorry if I sound like a god damn hippie, but impo this isnt all that complicated or controversial...

[Ron Burgandy]

 

Originally Posted by thom

Late to the party, what'd I miss? A bunch of school kids got shot AGAIN, and the gun lovers get bent out of shape over some law that tries to prevent {censored} like this in the future?

If it's a proven fact that: Less guns = less murders...Shouldn't we maybe consider selling our assault weapons to the army or whatever and look for another hobby? Sorry if I sound like a god damn hippie, but impo this isnt all that complicated or controversial...

 

Don't give MarshallNoise another easy target to divert his attention to. We are trying to help him realize he needs mental treatment.

[nightflameauto]

 

Originally Posted by Ron Burgandy

Don't give MarshallNoise another easy target to divert his attention to. We are trying to help him realize he needs mental treatment.

 

I think at the very least he needs to accept it's OK to go talk to someone. There definitely is something off-kilter in his processes.

[Ron Burgandy]

This thread is how he started his Christmas morning. How can that not be an obvious sign??

[marshallnoise]

 

Originally Posted by la0tsu

No. Tyrants are not elected, and can not be voted out.

 

As if an elected official can't gerrymander effectively making themselves unable to be voted out. On top of that, once elected, a tyrant a congressman can be until he needs to be elected again.

 

When the people decided to elect politicians who would dismantle the gold standard.

 

They didn't expect that to happen, now did they?

 

When they decided to elect congressmen who refuse to compromise to get the job done.

 

The same compromise of registering & banning firearms but you get to still keep your 2nd Amendment? Maybe it isn't an issue of compromise, but an issue of continuing the destructive spending habits vs scaling back like a rational person would when the pocket book gets a dent.

 

They aren't.

 

They don't?

 

Who said it did? That certainly wasn't the intent of the founders - they feared full democracy just as much as they feared totalitarianism. The point is that we have checks and balances. If the executive branch starts confiscating guns without authorization from congress, the judicial branch will stop it because it would be acting without legal basis. If congress authorizes the executive to confiscate guns (which is NEVER going to happen), the judicial branch will stop it based on the 2nd amendment.

 

See above. The three branches of government function as one. In their own interest. Was not designed that way, but when a bunch of lawyers decide to make careers out of public service, this is what we expect to see.

 

Only pure paranoia would make one think that a registry is going to lead to the confiscation of firearms.

 

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2608785/posts

[marshallnoise]

 

Originally Posted by Ron Burgandy

Get help. I know you don't see it now, but something is not right with you. Part of the problem is you see your behavior as correct and proper while everyone else is the problem.

 

Because someone like me, who is mentally ill (says you), never says he is wrong, just like the quote you posted.

[Ron Burgandy]

 

Originally Posted by marshallnoise

Because someone like me, who is mentally ill (says you), never says he is wrong, just like the quote you posted.

 

You are my closing statement against mental health care stopping gun violence.

[almightycrunch]

 

Originally Posted by Marshredder

"Good people with guns stop bad people with guns" is not a solution.

Removing the bad peoples access to firearms is.

Don't see whats so hard to comprehend with that?

 

Whats so hard to comprehend is that, the problem is not "bad people with access to firearms" the problem is "bad people"

[Ron Burgandy]

 

Originally Posted by almightycrunch

Whats so hard to comprehend is that, the problem is not "bad people with access to firearms" the problem is "bad people"

 

The only person you can respond to is an overpriviledged twat kid from London?

[guitarbilly74]

 

Originally Posted by almightycrunch

Whats so hard to comprehend is that, the problem is not "bad people with access to firearms" the problem is "bad people"

 

ehh.. if a "bad" person decides to fist fight a crowd of 30 he will cause a lot less damage than if he decides to unload an AK47 into the same crowd.

Your post is everything that is wrong with this {censored}.

First, we need to determine whether they are "bad"people or if they are just mentally ill people who went undiagnosed until they exploded.

So we need to do a better job to study and diagnose mental illness and remove the stigma society puts on mental patients. I think A LOT of these guys who have done better in life if their mental condition was properly diagnosed and treated.

Then we also need to restrict, restrict,restrict access to firearms to people with mental illnesses. We need to improve early diagnosis so we can restrict the right to firearms and give them treatment.

I am 100% absolutely against restricting firearms access to healthy, law abiding individuals.

But people with mental illnesses HAVE to be identified and restricted from it. We restrict blind people from driving, epileptics from flying planes, how is that different? Certain conditions will restrict you from doing/having certain things. That's just the way it is.

[KCTigerChief]

 

Originally Posted by guitarbilly74

ehh.. if a "bad" person decides to fist fight a crowd of 30 he will cause a lot less damage than if he decides to unload an AK47 into the same crowd.

Your post is everything that is wrong with this {censored}.

First, we need to determine whether they are "bad"people or if they are just mentally ill people who went undiagnosed until they exploded.

So we need to do a better job to study and diagnose mental illness and remove the stigma society puts on mental patients. I think A LOT of these guys who have done better in life if their mental condition was properly diagnosed and treated.

Then we also need to restrict, restrict,restrict access to firearms to people with mental illnesses. We need to improve early diagnosis so we can restrict the right follows and give them treatment.

I am 100% absolutely against restricting firearms access to healthy, law abiding individuals.

But people with mental illnesses HAVE to be identified and restricted from it. We restrict blind people from driving, epileptics from flying plane, how is that different? Certain conditions will restrict you from doing/having certain things. That's just the way it is.

 

This right here is the absolute BEST way to fix this whole issue. Getting rid of guns just flat out will not happen. Sorry if you think it will, but there's no way. There's too many out there.

Identifying people who are mentally ill and unstable is what needs to happen. Get them the help they need, and restrict them from owning a gun.

Good post Billy

[Ron Burgandy]

 

Originally Posted by guitarbilly74

ehh.. if a "bad" person decides to fist fight a crowd of 30 he will cause a lot less damage than if he decides to unload an AK47 into the same crowd.

Your post is everything that is wrong with this {censored}.

First, we need to determine whether they are "bad"people or if they are just mentally ill people who went undiagnosed until they exploded.

So we need to do a better job to study and diagnose mental illness and remove the stigma society puts on mental patients. I think A LOT of these guys who have done better in life if their mental condition was properly diagnosed and treated.

Then we also need to restrict, restrict,restrict access to firearms to people with mental illnesses. We need to improve early diagnosis so we can restrict the right follows and give them treatment.

I am 100% absolutely against restricting firearms access to healthy, law abiding individuals.

But people with mental illnesses HAVE to be identified and restricted from it. We restrict blind people from driving, epileptics from flying plane, how is that different? Certain conditions will restrict you from doing/having certain things. That's just the way it is.

 

You're responding to a guy that wants to shoot thieves, vandals and anyone else that breaks any law. I guess I misjudged him because that just ain't how a civilized society rolls.

[theAntihero]

 

Originally Posted by thom

Late to the party, what'd I miss? A bunch of school kids got shot AGAIN, and the gun lovers get bent out of shape over some law that tries to prevent {censored} like this in the future?

If it's a proven fact that: Less guns = less murders...Shouldn't we maybe consider selling our assault weapons to the army or whatever and look for another hobby? Sorry if I sound like a god damn hippie, but impo this isnt all that complicated or controversial...

 

The problem is it isnt a proven fact. I live in Idaho and there are probably a higher concentration of gun owners than almost anywhere and we have very few murders. Plus the army wouldnt want our AR's as they would make poor military rifles with their lack of selective fire.

[madrigal77]

I don't think a map of ALL gun owners like that is right, but if I lived in the US, I would certainly appreciate a map of the people that carry guns. Those people scare me more than the criminals themselves. When your paranoia/fear level has reached such a point that you feel the need to have a gun on you at all times, you've reached tinfoil hat/pants on head territory. A map like that basically isn't even a gun map. It's a nutjob map.

[theAntihero]

 

Originally Posted by madrigal77

I don't think a map of ALL gun owners like that is right, but if I lived in the US, I would certainly appreciate a map of the people that carry guns. Those people scare me more than the criminals themselves. When your paranoia/fear level has reached such a point that you feel the need to have a gun on you at all times, you've reached tinfoil hat/pants on head territory. A map like that basically isn't even a gun map. It's a nutjob map.

 

Part of the reason to have a CCW is so you dont have to fear.

Also its sort of funny that you feel people carry weapons are giving into fear and paranoia yet you personally seem to feel basically the exact same, its an odd leap of logic.

[Stevetemp]

 

Originally Posted by KCTigerChief

This right here is the absolute BEST way to fix this whole issue. Getting rid of guns just flat out will not happen. Sorry if you think it will, but there's no way. There's too many out there.

Identifying people who are mentally ill and unstable is what needs to happen. Get them the help they need, and restrict them from owning a gun.

Good post Billy

 

Billy's point is good. I said essentially the same thing VERY early in the original shooting thread. But, Billy's post doesn't address gun owner responsibility. Stolen weapons are a problem. People buying weapons for other people are a problem (see firemen shooting). We need a huge campaign for education and awareness not just about mental illness, but how to keep your weapons safe and secure.

How about THIS quiet statistic?:

 

The number of accidental shooting deaths in the United States has been slowly declining for many years, although there was a slight jump in the number of deaths in 2008, the last year for which we have statistics. In 2008 there were 680 accidental shooting deaths in the United States, with more than 15,500 shooting injuries.

 

[LynchProtoge]

For those of you who advocate for mental health screening - how do we decide a fair measure of who is consider fit to own a firearm? I know you might have an idea in mind or at least trust certain other to decide that. However, I do not presume to trust anyone else to conjure up some subjective standard by which all people will be measured. last thing I want is anyone with even the remote chance of approaching this with an anti gun attitude to start handing out "unfit" results to anyone applying for some kind of clearance or permit. Also, on the flip side - just like with people wanting medicines - we could also end up with a market for certain Dr's to give clearances.

IMO, mental health & gun ownership need to be as far away from eachoether as the east is from the west, so as to avoid any conflict of interest.

[TheRymanChu]

 

Originally Posted by DoubleBarrel

I'm a Marine, so...........

but seriously, the M-16/AR-15 was designed to wound, not kill. that is the point

 

 

Originally Posted by DoubleBarrel

Ron, lemme try this one more time

The weapon itself was designed to wound, not kill.

It has nothing to do with tactics, or being a civilian. The weapon itself was designed to wound. Everything from the rifling in the barrel to the size of the round, and amount of powder in the "nato" round.

 

So I was hanging out with some of my friends the other day, some ex-Army, some ex-Marines and I thought I'd bring up what you said. After they finished laughing, some called you misinformed and some called you a dumbass. This is what I learned:

The 5.56 cartridge is the same size as the 7.62 (aka the Winchester .308), but projects the smaller M885 bullet at a faster velocity. E=mv squared/2. Thus, an object traveling twice as fast, hits it's target with four times as much kinetic energy. This U.S. military chose the 5.56 with M885, due to increased lethality due to kinetic energy, amongst other factors. A faster bullet is also more accurate. A rifle cartridge was chosen for lethality, if they'd wanted to wound, they could have chosen a .22 cal or .38 cal. The .38 was seen as an innefective man-stopper in the Phillipines, and a retool created the .45ACP. However the desire to go to a semi-automatic magazine-fed pistol was also part of the decision to adopt the .45ACP and Colt handgun.

Lt. Colonel Santose had this to say on the subject, "The Army determined before WW2 that 60 foot-pounds of energy was needed to inflict a disabling wound (shoot to wound) and that 108 foot-pounds was necessary to inflict a lethal wound (shoot to kill). 5.56mm Ball meets the "lethal wound" criteria at 1000 yards and the "disabling wound" criteria beyond 1300 yards where my ballistic tables finally give up. If the cartridge was "designed" to wound or maim the design criteria of the day would allow much less kinetic energy (KE) on the bullet, trying to keep it below 108 foot-pounds at combat ranges."

In his book Assault Rifle: the Development of the Modern Military Rifle and its Ammunition, author Max Popenker had this to say:

"It is worth at the start dealing with one common myth; that military bullets are designed to wound but not kill, the theory being that a wounded man will also take out of the fight a couple of his comrades while they help him to safety. Apart from the fact that soldiers are generally instructed to leave the wounded to the medics and press on, this defies logic. It takes relatively little power to inflict a lethal wound

[TheRymanChu]

The 5.56's tendency to fragment makes it a better stopper than the 7.62. At velocities over 2400fps and at a range up to 200 yards, the M885 begins to break apart at the cannelure (the crimping groove around the cylinder of the bullet). This can create several large high velocity fragments, similar to small shotgun pellets. These fragments can disperse through flesh and bone, inflicting additional internal injuries. Fragmentation, if and when it occurs, imparts much greater damage to human tissue than bullet dimensions and velocities would suggest. This creates very bloody, very messy wounds, and may cause vital damage. The rapid transfer of energy also results in wounding effects beyond the tissue directly crushed and torn by the bullet and fragments. These remote wounding effects are known as hydrostatic shock. The resultant multiple wound channels cause increased bleeding, and a greater chance of hitting a major vein, artery or organ, thus making the 5.56 at moderate range quite effective at actually "killing" IF you shoot someone where it counts, say center of mass.

With a 20" barrel, the standard NATO loads stay above 2500fps well past 200 yards, and will fragment on penetrating a body; but below 2500fps, this doesn't happen, and the 5.56 has about the same wounding capability as a sharp pencil. This is why the 5.56 round is a very good killer, but a poor stopper (the enemy dies, but they may be able to shoot back at you for several minutes before they do).

Army and Marines marksmanship training teaches to shoot center of mass. The Army has a saying, "shoot to kill," and the Marines have a saying, "one shot, one kill." If you aim to wound, you're more likely to miss. If the U.S. military wanted to reduce the lethality of a shot and mobility of an opponent, they'd teach soldiers to shoot for the legs. Nobody designs an infantry weapon to kill and not wound, because the less lethal your bullet it, the more enemy combatants who end up only lightly wounded and still shooting back. Not a good design parameter.

There are landmines that are designed to maim, such as the M14 anti-personnel mine aka the "toe popper."

The U.S. military has never published any documents, requirements or doctrines stating a desire to adopt a rifle cartridge designed to only wound the enemy. They have never built a doctrine around the concept of wounding being the desired result of a gunshot wound. The 5.56mm cartridge was designed to kill not wound or maim. Here is a direct quote from Small Caliber Lethality: 5.56mm Performance in Close Quarters Battle:

"In the end,