The Oregon shooting

[Wolf Hagen]

By this point I just see a discussion going in circles, so let's take a diffrent stance:

What would the people, who are NOT in Favor of Changing the gun laws, do to reduce shootings (and no, not just school shootings, since the shootings are by the time on plazas, cinemas and such as well).

 

[BytByte]

We get that you like guns, but don't paint yourself like some martyr defending our noble past. Times change and paradigms shift. If you think protecting more lives with more rigorous standards is just too much a hassle for you, you are too far gone.

My rigorous standards differ from your rigorous standards.
The US continues to have firearms in the hands of The People and we want to keep it that way. Nothing has changed in that regard.[/quote]

Lots has changed and your inability to recognize that does not mean the change hasn't happened. And you are not "we", so don't paint it in that way. It is disingenuous and misleading.

 

[Leg End]

By this point I just see a discussion going in circles, so let's take a diffrent stance:

What would the people, who are NOT in Favor of Changing the gun laws, do to reduce shootings (and no, not just school shootings, since the shootings are by the time on plazas, cinemas and such as well).

Depends. Better mental health care can work and not using the term "the mentally ill" would be a good start because in the cases where the shooters weren't in the best mental health, that kind of language doesn't help things at all. All sides of the debate are guilty of it and it makes people feel like second class citizens.

Lots has changed and your inability to recognize that does not mean the change hasn't happened. And you are not "we", so don't paint it in that way. It is disingenuous and misleading.

A lot has changed. A lot has gotten far worse.

I'll rephrase. The People have uttered a collective "fuck no" to getting rid of guns and restrictions.

 

[TechNoFear]

Using the strict legal definition of of the Assault Weapons Ban, then a civilian purchased AR-15 is NOT an 'assault rifle'.

The AR-15 is a 'rifle' listed by name as an 'assault weapon' in the AWB and AWCB, so it can be referred to legally as an 'assault rifle' (just as a pistol banned under the AWB can be referred to as an 'assault pistol').

See the 2 studies into the AWB by Koper.

What is the AWCA?

The Californian equivalent of the federal AWB. (Why is it that an Australian knows more about US firearm regulation than you do?)

I linked to it in my previous posts, the one with all the Guns & Ammo covers calling semi-auto military pattern rifles 'assault rifles' (ie calling an AR-180 an 'assault rifles')

 

[Leg End]

The AR-15 is a 'rifle' listed by name as an 'assault weapon' in the AWB and AWCB, so it can be referred to legally as an 'assault rifle' (just as a pistol banned under the AWB can be referred to as an 'assault pistol').

Closest you'd get would be calling it an "assault weapon" because assault rifle has a bit more of a specific definition. The AWB expired in 2004 so the terms and classifications do as well.
As for the AWCA, the less it is mentioned, the better.

The Californian equivalent of the federal AWB. (Why is it that an Australian knows more about US firearm regulation than you do?)

Because the US is quite a big place and what applies in California likely does not apply and may even be unheard of in other states(particularly considering how batshit stupid the AWCA actually is)? He's still got one up on you so I'd say it's about even. Actually, considering you didn't even know the AWB expired, I'd say you do not know more than him.

I linked to it in my previous posts, the one with all the Guns & Ammo covers calling semi-auto military pattern rifles 'assault rifles' (ie calling an AR-180 an 'assault rifles')

That's called marketing and using the stupid term to catch the eyes of people who don't really know guns too well and want the money of people wishing to live out their mall-ninja fantasies. Like how TVs and Cars are sold, only with more pew-pew.

 

[TechNoFear]

I'll rephrase. The People have uttered a collective "fuck no" to getting rid of guns and restrictions.

I suggest you read the detail of the latest firearm survey results.

About 50% of Americans want to preserve the right to own a firearm but even they are are overwhelmingly in favor of increased firearm regulations;

Currently, 85% of Americans ? including large majorities of Democrats (88%) and Republicans (79%) ? favor expanded background checks

70% back the creation of a federal database to track all gun sales, while a smaller majority (57%) supports a ban on assault-style weapons.

Pew
http://www.people-press.org/2015/08/13/continued-bipartisan-support-for-expanded-background-checks-on-gun-sales/

 

[TechNoFear]

He's still got one up on you so I'd say it's about even. Actually, considering you didn't even know the AWB expired, I'd say you do not know more than him.

Where did I say the AWB was still in effect?

That's called marketing and using the stupid term to catch the eyes of people who don't really know guns too well

Sure, but you missed the point again..

It clearly shows that 'assault' was not a term created by the government for the AWB.

'Assault' was a a term already in use by firearm manufactures, advertisers and publications to refer to semi-auto firearms.

So the NRA / posters here criticizing people for using 'assault' to refer to non selective fire capable firearms is disingenuous at best.

 

[Leg End]

I suggest you read the detail of the latest firearm survey results.

About 50% of Americans want to preserve the right to own a firearm but even they are are overwhelmingly in favor of increased firearm regulations;

Currently, 85% of Americans ? including large majorities of Democrats (88%) and Republicans (79%) ? favor expanded background checks

70% back the creation of a federal database to track all gun sales, while a smaller majority (57%) supports a ban on assault-style weapons.

Pew
http://www.people-press.org/2015/08/13/continued-bipartisan-support-for-expanded-background-checks-on-gun-sales/

I amend my statement. No confiscation, split to favor checks encompassing all sales.
No comment on tracking, "assault-style" brought up in a moment.

Where did I say the AWB was still in effect?

You stated it is defined under the AWB as an "assault weapon" but the AWB is no longer in place, so it is not defined as an "assault weapon". So, lead me to assume you did not know it expired.

Sure, but you missed the point again..

It clearly shows that 'assault' was not a term created by the government for the AWB.

'Assault' was a a term already in use by firearm manufactures, advertisers and publications to refer to semi-auto firearms.

So the NRA / posters here criticizing people for using 'assault' to refer to non selective fire capable firearms is disingenuous at best.

We're attacking the term being used because there is no proper definition to it other than apparently something looking "military". It's a buzzword for idiots who thinks it looks cool, and now it's a buzzword for people who think things look scary. It's mildly like calling a magazine a clip, though people tend not to go as nuts about it but it usually exposes the person immediately as someone who is either ignorant, picked up a bad verbal habit or has absolutely no idea what they are talking about, usually a combination of the three.

Spoiler: I take someone's idea of an assault weapon basically like this for that very reason.

And consider the whole thing to be similar to people wanting to ban Dihydrogen monoxide because of how spooky you can make it sound.

Or that time The Man Show got people to sign a petition to end women's suffrage.

 

[TechNoFear]

We're attacking the term being used because there is no proper definition to it other than apparently something looking "military".

No proper definition?

You mean apart from all those comprehensive definitions in various US state and federal acts?

It's a buzzword for idiots who thinks it looks cool, and now it's a buzzword for people who think things look scary.

So you are saying the features banned under the AWB do not in any way improve the 'performance' of the firearm?

If these features were not of benefit why are those features common on military firearms?

Are the armed forces just a bunch of 'idiots who thinks it looks cool' to put those features on their firearms?

 

[Thaluikhain]

So you are saying the features banned under the AWB do not in any way improve the 'performance' of the firearm?

If these features were not of benefit why are those features common on military firearms?

Are the armed forces just a bunch of 'idiots who thinks it looks cool' to put those features on their firearms?

Some of them do not substantially improve their performance as tools of murder, no. I can't remember any mass shootings in which bayonet lugs were a factor.

 

[stroopwafel]

My issue with your argument is that it presupposes that arms are not an integral aspect of American civil liberties and the security of both the individual and the nation as a whole. It has been proven time and time again that a government that isn't checked will endlessly expand and will tread upon individual rights. We see crimes countless times in history, and in countless places today that are committed by governments upon unarmed and vulnerable people. Why should we sell out liberty for a temporary false sense of security? Thats exactly what a consent to register is. It allows arms to be taken quite quickly by state action. Whether by act of law or due to emergency situations like Katrina that saw countless confiscations.

That always sounds like a bogus excuse to me. How the hell are you going to defend against tanks/jets/drones/attack choppers/weapons from outer space with a pistol and a shotgun? That whole Waco incident from years back kind of dispels that whole myth that small arms serve as a deterrent against the government. Those fruitbags were armed to the teeth and they didn't stand a chance against a chopper and a tank.

Sure, it might have made some sense centuries ago when it was civilians against musqueteers on horses but nowadays such logic is more than a little ridiculous. In modern society guns in the hands of civilians are just accidents waiting to happen again and again and again.

 

[Politrukk]

The debate will continue to rage on because of this horrible event.

But when people say how "easy" it is to get firearms in the US, I would swear those people are ridiculously underinformed of how much a person has to go through to legally own a firearm, let alone carry one in public (depending on the state things may even be harder). Now registered, lawful firearm owners are the least likely people to carry out violent crimes involving firearms. There are incidents of people being harmed with legally owned firearms, sometimes children. Those incidents are varied from accidental discharges to incompetence, and sometimes yes crimes are committed.

However the people most likely to commit a violent crime with a firearm, involving a discharge and injury or death are people who do not own them legally. How is more regulation of legally owned firearms going to stop criminals from being criminals?

And yeah you could just take everyone's right to firearms away, punish folks who have done and more than likely will never do a thing wrong/unlawful with those firearms. It won't stop criminals from illegally obtaining guns. Not in a country this size, with as many unsecured access points. It will only harm the folks who follow the laws as is.

Education is the best way of preventing crimes, and a better mental health system that doesn't stigmatize the people who need the help and actively seek it. I'm one to readily admit to being bipolar, and having other unresolved mental health issues but dammit if I don't get a lot of fucked up looks from people like I'm going to go on a shooting spree.

I wouldn't. I'm a diplomat and pacifist up to a point, until all other avenues of conflict resolution have failed and I'm backed up against a wall or in a corner. I'd never resort to violence as an answer or solution, only a last ditch effort to prevent the loss of life.

There's no clear answer on how to prevent mass killings, but I could guarantee it wouldn't be taking everyone's right to bear arms away.

You know I've been talked into agreeing with this sort of stance by people online but I am completely abandoning it, there is no place like the U.S for people suddenly deciding to shoot their neighbourhood up.

Either the gun laws are at fault or the people, and the population simply doesn't compare to the rate of violent crime that's being dealt out.

That would mean there's something fundamentally wrong with American society, especially within the school system.

Trust me the school system is all different types of messed up.

Well that reiterates my point then I suppose!

You're the second person to second that opinion and I can't say I've personally experienced it only what it all looks like to an outsider so to speak.

 

[Erttheking]

I'm just going to throw something out here. Apparently only 4% of violence in America is committed by the mentally ill, and the mentally ill are actually more likely to be the victims of violent crime than perpetrators. So I don't think this is really a mentally ill thing.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/

 

[Dalisclock]

My issue with your argument is that it presupposes that arms are not an integral aspect of American civil liberties and the security of both the individual and the nation as a whole. It has been proven time and time again that a government that isn't checked will endlessly expand and will tread upon individual rights. We see crimes countless times in history, and in countless places today that are committed by governments upon unarmed and vulnerable people. Why should we sell out liberty for a temporary false sense of security? Thats exactly what a consent to register is. It allows arms to be taken quite quickly by state action. Whether by act of law or due to emergency situations like Katrina that saw countless confiscations.

That always sounds like a bogus excuse to me. How the hell are you going to defend against tanks/jets/drones/attack choppers/weapons from outer space with a pistol and a shotgun? That whole Waco incident from years back kind of dispels that whole myth that small arms serve as a deterrent against the government. Those fruitbags were armed to the teeth and they didn't stand a chance against a chopper and a tank.

Sure, it might have made some sense centuries ago when it was civilians against musqueteers on horses but nowadays such logic is more than a little ridiculous. In modern society guns in the hands of civilians are just accidents waiting to happen again and again and again.

Hell, the US military, due to certain shitty political decisions over the past 15 years, now has about a decade of experience in fighting a counter-insurgency in urban areas against people who generally don't like or support them. Not to mention the military is sworn to uphold the orders of those appointed over them, not the guys who living in the backwoods who see the ACA and gay marriage as evidence of government tyranny(as opposed to holding people indefinitely as enemy combatants and using torture tactics on them because they might be terrorists).

 

[Politrukk]

To be perfectly honest, I just googled if an assault weapon has ever been used in a shooting and it said sandy hook had a bushmaster.

Wasn't obfuscating anything, it's not like I was listening to American news, heard it was never removed from the trunk but thought I would lie to try and make a point, that wont actually mean shit in the grand scheme of things.

Look at your continued verbiage and tell me you didn't want to believe it was true because it supported your bias. I live in "crazy land", I own guns, I own an "assault weapon" (not an AK or AR so good luck guessing what it is), and somehow I have no intentions of shooting up a school. How about you take your holier art thou attitude and stow it. Europe has plenty of gun violence too ya know. Why do we want them? They're fun to shoot. Why do you need anything more than food and water? Perhaps because you enjoy it?

Fun fact: Gold can be kept in a vault, without air, without food, without being let out to play, without schooling or museums or malls or parks. You can keep all of the gold that's ever been mined in human history in one place if you wanted to.

Now, tell me how that is in any way similar to humans.

They're both high value targets for unscrupulous folks. Except we care enough about the gold to provide armed security, and we tell kids to hide under desks. If deasks are so safe why not just leave gold lying under them, cut a lot of manpower costs. I mean, desks are an amazing thing, they protect from gunmen AND nuclear explosion.

Europe actually has next to no gun violence, especially compared to the U.S

And when there is gun crime it's almost never because someone went crazy and wanted to shoot up something it's instead because criminals intended harm with their weaponry.


Honestly in Europe if someone says they really really want a gun that will make people very suspicious of them, you'd be considered either a criminal or crazy, possibly both.

 

[Politrukk]

I'm just going to throw something out here. Apparently only 4% of violence in America is committed by the mentally ill, and the mentally ill are actually more likely to be the victims of violent crime than perpetrators. So I don't think this is really a mentally ill thing.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4318286/

people call it a "mentally ill" thing because they consider people who have suffered abuse for countless of years who then decide to shoot everything that moves because they're so sick of it "mentally sick"

as I stated before it's more of a societal/educational thing for the U.S there's a factor in the U.S that leads to so many people having breakdowns and going/wanting to go on murder sprees, the guns are just the tools they utilize to live out their frustrations.


There's a percentage of Americans who think that owning guns is normal, that gun crime is normal, that the rest of the world is just like the U.S or otherwise should be shaped in their image, they can't fathom the fact that they might be wrong, very wrong indeed.

 

[mecegirl]

My issue with your argument is that it presupposes that arms are not an integral aspect of American civil liberties and the security of both the individual and the nation as a whole. It has been proven time and time again that a government that isn't checked will endlessly expand and will tread upon individual rights. We see crimes countless times in history, and in countless places today that are committed by governments upon unarmed and vulnerable people. Why should we sell out liberty for a temporary false sense of security? Thats exactly what a consent to register is. It allows arms to be taken quite quickly by state action. Whether by act of law or due to emergency situations like Katrina that saw countless confiscations.

That always sounds like a bogus excuse to me. How the hell are you going to defend against tanks/jets/drones/attack choppers/weapons from outer space with a pistol and a shotgun? That whole Waco incident from years back kind of dispels that whole myth that small arms serve as a deterrent against the government. Those fruitbags were armed to the teeth and they didn't stand a chance against a chopper and a tank.

Sure, it might have made some sense centuries ago when it was civilians against musqueteers on horses but nowadays such logic is more than a little ridiculous. In modern society guns in the hands of civilians are just accidents waiting to happen again and again and again.

The Black Panthers did it for me, or rather how they are viewed unfavorably. Not trying to spark a violent verses non violent protest debate. But it shouldn't be hard to at least admit that they had enough reason to want to arm themselves. Would they be able to fight off the government? Nope. Were they right? I'd go on the record saying that they got as much right as they did wrong. But they weren't being paranoid when they thought the government was against them when there were laws on the books supporting discrimination against Black people. And with the continuation of burnings, lynchings and the like that's just added incentive. But when that effectively ended. When those laws were struck down, the mentality behind them continued on for a while.

People talk about how Black communities don't trust the cops now but relations were even worse back then. And those relations were why the Black Panther party started. Especially since it was easier for a member of the KKK(or people who shared their views) to be within the police force. Or even be a judge or lawyer. There were communities that had to both deal with not being properly protected by the police,and with being abused by the police. In the end it makes me wonder if people really believe what they say when they go on about standing up against the tyranny of the government, but fall for the propaganda that the Black Panther party was all criminal.

 

[Lightspeaker]

I wasn't going to come back here but I ran into a very good BBC article about this exact thing:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34429918

Choice quotes for those who don't want to read it:

Mr Obama cited polls that find "the majority of Americans understand we should be changing these laws".

A mid-July survey by the Pew Research Center seems to support his claim. Almost 80% of respondents backed laws preventing the mentally ill from purchasing firearms, and 70% were in favour of a national gun-sale database.

This disposition of Congress is a reflection of the disproportionate power of less-populated states in the Senate, the conservative-leaning composition of the current House congressional map and a Republican primary process that makes officeholders more sensitive to vehemently pro-gun-rights voters within their party.

Congress doesn't have to represent the views of the majority of Americans, at least as expressed in opinion surveys.

The large majorities backing gun control in Illinois, for instance, are more than outweighed by pro-gun states like Alaska, Nebraska and Alabama, with a fraction of its population.

During the 2014 mid-term elections, just 36% of eligible voters went to the polls. And more of them, at least in states and congressional districts where it counts, voted for Republican candidates picked in primaries by just 9.5% of US registered voters.

In the US today, it's the gun-control views of that 9.5% that make the difference.

And I'm out again. See you.

 

[Petromir]

The UK often comes up in these discussions as having strict firearm regulations (often mistakenly suggesting a complete ban).

Yet still the use of a firearm or shotgun (often seperated in UK law, certainly in licensing terms) in self defence is legal if it is reasonable for you to be in fear of your life. Restriction of firearms legally does not by any means remove the ability to defend oneself entirely.

It is true self defence is not a reason to own a firearm here, (hunting, pest control and target shooting are pretty much it), but that does not preclude their use where life is in danger. The rules aren't the clearest on what constitutes sufficient reason, but if you shoot someone,brandishing a weapon, advancing up the stairs towards you, in the front, assuming your weapon is legally owned and stored, then you're likely fine.

We also have no lower age limit of shotgun licences.... (Though those under 18 require other licensees for usage, storage, etc).


Also that the right to bear arms is an amendment should be a clue that the US constitution is not a document set in stone.